Monday, 1 October 2012

Guest Posting From Abuse Survivor and JCLA Chair Carrie Modral.

What a week! 

I have been invited by VFC to submit a guest posting of this past week’s events to which I am grateful as the Blogs seem to be the only place to get the FULL TRUE story out.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) do not represent or indeed speak for all abuse survivors, our views may not necessarily be the views of others and indeed, we are acutely aware that some abuse survivors have different thoughts on how they would like to see the Committee Of Inquiry (COI) into the “Historic” Child Abuse in Jersey run and we respect that. 

On Monday 24th September, myself and two other members of JCLA along with our trusted JCLA Administrator Jill, attended a meeting with the Chief Minister (CM), Ian Gorst, Chief Executive Officer Mr Richardson and Mr Williamson. Copies of both the Verita and Williamson reports were handed to us at that meeting.  As it happens, I did get chance to read both reports ahead of the meeting and duly arrived armed with my trusty hand written notes.  It was clear from the outset that the CM is in favour of a full COI and that the problem lies with the Council Of Ministers (COM). To say that the meeting went smoothly would be an understatement. Did I lose it, I don’t think so but something snapped inside of me and I was fed up with “pussy footing” around the issue and after a heated discussion, I asked Mr Williamson to withdraw his report. When he declined to do so, I made it clear to the CM that I wanted it formerly noted that I had made that request. 

So we go onto this week’s mainstream media reporting. Both CTV and BBC seem to have turned over a new leaf and have produced some very fair reporting particularly with  VFC being allowed to air his thoughts on radio without interruption from Mathew Price, this has to be a good thing!  And so we go to the JEP.  Firstly, my letter in yesterday’s edition of the JEP was in fact an e-mail that I sent to Ben Queree on Wednesday 26th September following his article published in the JEP on the same day. To be fare to Mr Queree, he did come back to me and apologised if there was any misleading impression from the article and offered to write a clarification in the next edition. I could not trust him to do that and therefore asked him to publish my e-mail in full with an apology for the hurt that may have been caused to the abuse survivors. 

Now we turn to the editorial published on Thursday 27th September which can be read HERE giving a glowing reference to the Williamson report without a single reference to the Verita report and at the same time implying that the abuse survivors will never be satisfied no matter what!. JCLA sent a “right to reply” letter to the JEP on Friday 28th September and it remains to be seen whether or not it will be published.  VFC has kindly agreed to publish the JCLA letter on his Blog this coming Tuesday.

So finally we come to Saturday’s edition of the JEP.  You could have knocked me down with a feather when I read Mr Querees’ article. I must give credit where credit is due and thank him for his excellent piece of work which almost could have been written by any one of the Bloggers and is in total contradiction to Thursday’s EDITORIAL. I reproduce The full script of Mr Querees piece which I have typed up myself and apologise for any grammatical errors.

I end this guest posting with a quote from Mr Queree which just about sums all this up.

"Get it wrong, and the inquiry will clear up nothing, establish nothing, and achieve nothing"

By Ben Queree JEP 29th September 2012

“There are serious questions that merit a serious answer in relation to historical child abuse”

There will have been some people who read this week’s stories on the proposed new tack for the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse and not really understood the significance, turned the page, and read something else.

That’s Ok. Over the few weeks we’ve had a strange run of stories that seem at first glance quite complicated but essentially not that important – turning the ports from the States department to a States owned company the differences between economic forecasts and reality,  rows over the difference between shop prices and freight costs.

The story about the Committee of Inquiry terms of references is entirely different – in that it may not have seemed it but it’s actually very important.  It’s a simple and horrible truth that some children were physically or sexually abused in Jersey care homes, that they were abused by the people who were trusted to look after them, and that not enough was done by the people running various States departments to make sure that they were run properly and by decent people.

That’s not new information and it’s not in dispute.

It’s certainly not new to the victims of abuse, some of whom have been living in their abusers’ shadows for decades. But the significant work for the Committee of Inquiry is to go beyond those established facts and look at what went so badly wrong in the Management and policing of these homes that was allowed to happen and find out who was responsible. And it’s precisely this point that the established facts start to fade, and things start to get more insubstantial.

It’s certainly true to say that more should have been done to look after those in care and that it appears that complaints were ignored, hushed up, or concealed. And indeed, you don’t have to look too fare online to find a vast literature of those who say that they know exactly what happened, and exactly who was responsible.

But that’s not enough.

No community – Jersey or anywhere else can afford to leave questions like this open, or to imagine (as former Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur appeared to do) that a formal apology in the States Chamber and a compensation scheme to victims would bring the matter to a close.  These are serious questions that merit a serious answer. And given the years of mistrust and suspicion over the legacy of abuse – some of it reasonable, and some of it not – they are answers that are going to have to be provided independently, by someone with no links to the Island, no history here, and no axe to grind.

A Committee of Inquiry, whatever its terms of reference, is the perfect mechanism for this – it has the power to demand the attendance of witnesses who don’t want to talk, and to demand the production of files and papers.
For the avoidance of doubt, those powers are incredibly unlikely to be used to summon victims of abuse to give evidence in public if they don’t want to – they are far more likely to be used to call the abusers or those responsible for the management of the homes.

And given the suspicion that exists, and given the depth of feeling, and given the importance of the subject, the suggestion of social work consultant Andrew Williamson that the work be divided up, and the Committee of Inquiry effectively limited to events before 1994, was just not right.

Any attempt to limit the timescale of the inquiry by the States – however well intentioned will leave its ultimate findings subject to being dismissed, most importantly by the victims and survivors of abuse, but also by those who seek to make political capital from the subject.

The proposal by Mr Williamson undermines the spirit of an independent inquiry by seeking to set out what evidence it should look at.

And it’s for that reason that getting the terms of reference – essentially, the questions that the committee will set out to answer – correct, is the key to the whole exercise.

The point of an independent committee is to hand over control, and the only way to truly do that is to not bind their hands.

Only then can everyone on all sides commit to the process, rather than waiting for the outcome and seeing if it matches their preconceptions.

Get the terms of reference right, and the committee could bring an independent, authoritative voice that will establish firmly what happened, and bring some measure of closure and justice to the victims of abuse.

Get them right and the committee will have the credibility to earn the trust of those who were so badly let down by the committees of the past, and will have the authority to release its findings, no matter what they are, and no matter what they say.

Get them right and the whole Island community can get clear answers to the questions that are simply too big to continue to leave hanging.

Get it wrong, and the inquiry will clear up nothing, establish nothing, and achieve nothing.  END


  1. You lot seem to be basing all your blogs on the reporting of the MSM when it's irrelevant. All that matters is what happens within this inquiry and opinion outside of that should not be taken seriously. Why you keep on going on about the BBC, JEP and CTV is getting stupid. It reads as if you want control over all the news and the suggestion by a States member of getting a media Ombudsman involved in nothing short of censorship in communist Russia. Hypocritical and ridiculous. Ignore the MSM.

  2. Which is a reminder that we need an independent journalist, who is not constrained by editors, with their own agenda, to get the truth told.

    Please sign, and share the PETITION

  3. You don't need any journalists, just get the people involved to write their own accounts and publish the darn thing.
    People know the story around the conspiracies already and bitter posts about what the JEP is writing yesterday, today, tomorrow won't change peoples' opinions on that. There will be scores of people who disagree with what's happening and vica versa, just accept it. Ignore the MSM, don't even talk about them.
    It is no longer a case of 'getting out there' anymore because it's out there already.
    Today it's more of a case of getting closure. By all means get some accounts together by real abuse victims with real stories and publish them if you want but ignore the frigging JEP because I bet they don't give a toss about the Blogs. They are only here to make money.

  4. The viewers outside the Island are as entitled as any to read or hear what is put out by the local media on issues surrounding the child abuse investigation, subsequent closure of the investigation and the attemps to get a flawed system changed.

    If this means publishing that which is in the public domain, what is the issue.

    It simply shows what bloggers here are dealing with.

  5. Real closure will only happen when there's proper rule of law operating in Jersey. Blogs and the MSM are largely irrelevant. However, until that happens, a critical eye on the local media is important for the records.

  6. Closure is the only objective and closure on a high.

    The arguments with the MSM can go on forever and they are if people keep on reflecting on stories that are years old or ridiculing newspapers like the JEP. I do not think a letter like this does any good, in fact it only shows the JCLA are at war with the MSM as well as the States and that is an impractical battle to get roped when to many victims it is not what they want.

    If people are victims, they need to show and behave like victims and that means not behaving unreasonable and coming across as angry 24/7. A comment elsewhere said that a number of bloggers were never at HDLG yet seem to think they know more about what went wrong there and use it for political means.

    Maybe there is some truth in that perception because it is easy to check.

  7. what I am reading here is carrie saying good things about the media and saying thank you. Is that so wrong?? Nothing nasty in this and the readers outside of Jersey get to read what was published which is a good thing.......Praise where praise is due

  8. Carries letter is simply holding the JEP to account for articles or comments published. War? Behave like victims?

    What would you like, survivors to sit in a corner saying nothing and let State media dictate terms.

  9. State Media?
    If I was that paranoid I would of left Jersey long ago and where does that leave Ben's article??? Get real, but if you prefer to hang onto every article, letter or comment within a newspaper that got an award only the other week for its distribution figures than good luck to you.
    Personally I think it's time the victims of abuse started to shun the MSM starting by not even talking about them. Otherwise you will remain in an ever ended loop of bitterness and resentment. Not healthy and certainly not helpful for any closure.

  10. For the record, and from the main posting. Carrie Modral when speaking of Ben Queree’s article in the JEP.

    “I must give credit where credit is due and thank him for his excellent piece of work”

    As for an award, Channel Television got one of them AS WELL

  11. I cannot understand some of the comments on this posting, still having a 'dig' at the JCLA and Carrie.

    Firstly the reason Carrie wrote to the JEP was because one of their reporters got his report factually wrong which quite rightly she asked to be corrected via an apology. That the JEP chose to publish this as a letter was entirely their decision. The bottom line is if the facts are incorrect and people do not know otherwise, how on earth are they supposed to?

    Furthermore Carrie went on to praise Ben Queree for his excellent article in the paper on Saturday, which I think a lot of people would endorse. Therefore this is NOT war - it is asking for our only local newspaper to get things right and not cherry pick on the bits that suit our current CoM.

    It may well be that in the future books will be written and more information will emerge. However hopefully with a CoI with Verita's terms of reference hopefully this will be the route to go down to find out exactly why the ever patient and dignified abuse survivors still push for justice. Is that so very wrong?

    Finally, for as long as I have known Carrie Modral she has been a stalwart for fighting for the closure we all wish for. She has to an extent put her own life on hold to make sure this happens and puts a lot of her own time and effort into this.

    She should be applauded. I don't think we can say that for the MSM.

  12. The tone of Mr Querrée's latest does seem to markedly conflict with other stuff he has previously had his name on.

    There are a few possibilities. Maybe he has seen the light and realised the errors and misrepresentations in his previous work.

    Maybe, just maybe, he is breaking free from an editorial line that is crumbling in the face of so much pressure from the accumulated analysis and evidence published on the Blogs and the "threat" from international journalistic exposure.

    Maybe the editorial line has changed overnight as the editorial staff, and those they listen to, realise that even Williams' report emphasises the need to look again at why so many cases were dropped and charges were not put forward because it would not be "in the public interest" etc. Why so many got away with so much without legal consequence.

    Williams' suggestions contains clear direction that the actions of those whose duty it is to prosecute - and make the decisions to prosecute - need investigating.

    That area is where corruption and criminality, or an all too eager wish to cover up cracks in the system so that people don't lose faith in the system, will lie.

  13. What most might not know, or indeed might forget, is that Carrie herself is a Survivor of horrific abuse, who’s “alleged” Abusers have not been brought to justice. She gives up a huge majority of her time helping other Abuse Survivors with either their emotional problems, filling out of forms, and trying to achieve justice for them, the justice denied Carrie.

    She is in a position she never asked to be in nor wants to be in. The media call on her to speak for others and for comments involving anything to do with the Jersey Child Abuse but the truth is it is not a role she enjoys and would far rather it was not necessary.

    Carrie is big enough and tough enough to stand up for herself and does not need me to do it for her but people do need to know, before they criticize, the sacrifices and crucial work Carrie endures for the sake of others with no thought for her own circumstances.

    The critical comments that were let through were let through in order to show the outside world the mentality that still exists in Jersey today………and it’s not a good look!

  14. VFC,

    Your thoughtful comments and those by Jill Gracia and Damocles go to the heart of why some believe the state media has moved a bit on this issue. People who have any real interest in factual evidence, and that includes Ben Queree and other salaried reporters, surely understand they have to turn to the blogs to find it. Even the conversations between commenters on the blogs are more fact-based and compelling than nearly anything seen in comments or opinion/editorial of state media in Jersey.

    At least, that has been the case since the anti-trolling policy has kept the discussion topical and not derailed as it often was before.

    Since the anonymous commenter has questioned even the practicality and motive of factually evidenced media criticism from bloggers, and Carrie Modral and her organization, that only illustrates the opportunity Jersey has to shift to a more critical thinking Western democracy.

    The hard and sometimes messy, but essential work of those in any participatory democracy is that of critics, evidence analysts and those who bravely challenge their own personal mistreatment through the system.

    For thousands of years, it has been understood that history has lessons to teach. The role of media in the 20th, and first decade of the 21st centuries provides valuable case studies for those who desire a deeper understanding of how easily influenced "good" communities may be to behave unjustly against their fellow citizens. I think we can all agree that the role between media and government features very prominently in modern history textbooks. Countless books have documented the role of the underground reporting during 20th Century wartime, and are already being written about the Arab Spring. State media's role in shaping civil conflict has been, and continues to be, an area of significant academic emphasis.

    Outsiders may have an easier time seeing how odd it is that so much verbal venom and suspicion be routinely lobbed against child abuse survivors in Jersey, compared to the pressor the political and justice systems of Jersey.

    I wonder if this well documented state media marginalization of Jersey's victims and the public defensiveness of the institutions victimizing them, will be an area for historic study. It does have parallels to the previous era in Jersey's history, the Occupation.

    As to your dedication to publishing the factual narrative, I do not believe the anonymous commenter will be able to understand. The earnest pursuit of what is just is a difficult motive to explain to those who cannot identify that desire within their own hearts.


  15. I think it can be seen that a slight change of tack has taken place up at Five Oaks. However, the absence of even mentioning the name "Verita" speaks volumes.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  16. Does anyone know what's happened to Ben Queree since the infamous "I've seen the light" article in the JEP?

    If there is one, can someone put a link to his piece on This is Jersey?

    Or has he been erased completely from the online version. I may be wrong but he is no longer listed with the other Giants & Luminaries of the free press: JEP Opinion; Brian Masterman; Helier Clement; Lucy Mason; Paula Thelwell; Peter Body & Alan Le Breton.

    Has he been stamped on by the Management for getting an internal office wind-up published in error?

    Has he been deleted by Cybermen?

    Don't believe for a minute that the JEP has changed it's tune yet.

    If he still exists & has changed his opinion - he won't mind going on BlogTV to say why publicly.

  17. Does anyone see the parallels between BBC Jersey's handling of the child abuse cover-up and the BBC statements now being made about Jimmy Savile? If your anonymous commenter still questions the value of documenting all correspondence or complaints to BBC Jersey, the reason is contained in the BBC's own self-defense below, in the statement quoted from the Telegraph, below.
    "ChildLine founder Esther Rantzen, who worked for the BBC during the 1970s, told the programme that she now believes Sir Jimmy sexually abused under-age girls, after seeing the fresh evidence from their interviews.
    "We all blocked our ears to the gossip," she said.
    "We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable, who nobody could criticise. Jim'll Fix It was for children. He was a sort of God-like figure.
    "Everybody knew of the good that Jimmy did and what he did for children. And these children were powerless," she said.
    The programme makers said they will also air a 2009 recording of Sir Jimmy talking in support of Gary Glitter. Real name Paul Gadd, Glitter was jailed for four months in the UK in 1999 for downloading child porn and later jailed for child sex offences in Vietnam.
    The BBC responded to reports that inappropriate behaviour by Sir Jimmy was an "open secret" at the corporation by saying it found no evidence of any misconduct by the broadcaster.
    "The BBC has conducted extensive searches of its files to establish whether there is any record of misconduct or allegations of misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile during his time at the BBC. No such evidence has been found," it said in a statement.
    "Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made, it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action."
    The BBC also explained why an investigation into Sir Jimmy by BBC2's Newsnight was never broadcast.
    The Newsnight editor Peter Rippon said: "It is absolutely untrue that the Newsnight investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.
    "We have been very clear from the start that the piece was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated.
    "To say otherwise is false and very damaging to the BBC and individuals. The notion that internal pressure was applied appears to be a malicious rumour."

  18. This suggests we have created an evidence trail of complaints to BBC regarding the Jersey BBC team's ongoing concealment of important child abuse related evidence. It just goes to show how effective it may finally be for bloggers and others to maintain that record of honest media criticism. Personally, I think BBC are very frightened now of their Jersey abuse non-coverage blowing up in their faces right after the Jimmy Savile scandal - where they are also accused of serious complicity in the cover up. Bravo VFC, for your steady effort to keep the pressure on the state media.

  19. It was clear from the outset that the CM is in favour of a full COI and that the problem lies with the Council Of Ministers (COM).

    This is perhaps the most important thing that you have said here. Unless we admit the possibility that someone right outside the circle is effectively blackmailing members of the COM to oppose Verita, we can eliminate a lot of suspects and bring it down to about nine names.

    A look at the minutes of COM meetings shows that there are two categories of attender: the full members and invitees. Assistant ministers can sit in to represent their ministers, but the CM's two deputies do not attend other than as invitees. For once in his life, the immediate obstacle to Verita is not PB. I would also be surprised if the assistant ministers would of their own initiative attempt to block a proposal.

    So the full members of the COM are:
    CM Gorst - who has declared in favour of Verita and can be eliminated: Ozouf, MacLean, Le Marquand, Pryke, Le Gresley, Ryan, Green, Lewis, Duhamel

    Let's take a look at them in turn.

    Senator Le Gresley - having forced the States to keep promises about holding a COI in the first place, he is as unlikely a suspect as could be.

    Senator MacLean - is a serial non-attender at COM, and I rather think that rules him out.

    Deputy Duhamel - I can't see a motive. The only thing you might hold against him is that he is about the oldest hand here - 19 years in the States.

    Deputy Lewis - again, I can't see a motive.

    Deputy Green - not a long serving politician, but interesting that he returned to Jersey in 1981 to work as a caterer for Jersey Health and Social Services. Did this mean working at HdlG?

    Senator Ozouf - has track record in brushing unpleasant stuff under the carpet and moving on (Lime Grove, GST, etc). But he of all members has the least personal connection with events - he was barely even out of university at the 1994 cut-off.

    Deputy Pryke - if the rule of "corporation sole" is applied to her, she would have a lot of awkward questions to answer. Her voting record in the last States suggests very little capacity for independent thought, so it would depend who was pulling her strings: she could be part of the bloc, but not the initiator.

    Deputy Ryan - the same applies on "corporation sole". He is an older hand, having served in the States 2002-8, but the limited biography I have found suggests he had no particular interest at that point in children's welfare: again, possibly a bloc member, but I don't think the prime mover.

    Senator Le Marquand - prime suspect. Gorst wanted to move him out of Home Affairs but after he lost to Ozouf in the vote for Treasury minister, he hung onto it. If the COI reveals significant mismanagement, his use of the corporation sole rule would surely put him in jeopardy - either as incompetent, or dishonest, or both. It would also ruin his credibility with the church.

    Of course, you could have more information than I do...

  20. The comment at 09:01 is intriguing. It probably goes without saying that Le Marquand would desperately oppose any COI which could shed light on the most recent aspects of the cover-up.

  21. The COM voting behaviour needs looking at, on any previous proposals relating to a COI.

  22. Their voting behaviour, on the subject of COIs, stands out like a sore thumb!?

  23. Ian Gorst voted against a COI 2011

    Philip Ozouf voted against a COI 2011

    Alan Maclean voted against a COI in 2011

    Deputy Duhamel voted against a COI in 2011

    Ian Le Marquand against a COI 2011

    Anne Pryke voted against a COI 2011


    scroll down to Jimmy Saville video Persona of a saint. Blind women can see? Ex Priminister, Ted Heath conduction orchestra

  25. Another high profile ANIMAL too add to Jersey's shame.

  26. The JEP have published Carrie Modral, Jersey care leavers association Letter on page 11

  27. The following letter which was sent to the JEP in response to last Thursday’s editorial which you can read via the link on this main Blog has today been published in the JEP (almost) in full. I have placed in brackets the paragraph that has been redacted by the JEP, quite why they redacted this part I do not know!

    It is very important that we keep a history of how the MSM have continually misreported stories on the child abuse investigation, by not publishing the true facts or covering them up they are instrumental in the cover up of the true extent of what really happened in Jersey care homes and this must be recorded for the sake of history. I may sound like a broken record and if that is the case, so be it, but I will not sit back idly whilst watching the MSM further denigrate the abuse survivors’ and I will continue to challenge them especially when such blatant misinformation is being fed not only to the people of Jersey but beyond.

    And in response to the following comment:

    “If people are victims, they need to show and behave like victims and that means not behaving unreasonable and coming across as angry 24/7”

    I am sorry if I don’t behave like a victim (not that I know how a victim should behave) and I don’t do angry I just stay focused! As Mark Twain once said “Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.”


    28th September 2012


    It is with regret that we feel the need to write to you yet again in regard to your editorial in last evening’s JEP headed ‘Planning a new way forward’.

    Firstly, nowhere in your editorial do you make mention once of the Verita Report which was an excellent piece of work and the 29 page report which was produced was well researched and thought through, indeed as has been suggested, you seemed to have airbrushed this report out of existence despite the Verita report being released by the Chief Minister on the same day as the Williamson report only his week!

    ( May we suggest you have not read the Verita report it in its fullest format as there is no comparison between that and the 3 pages that Mr Williamson presented and we would be happy to provide you with a full copy if this is the case.)

    We must not lose sight of the fact that Mr Williamson was brought in for reasons that at the time even he was unsure of, and in what can only be seen as an underhand manner 7 months after the Chief Minister had been in receipt of the Verita Report. Realistically we and others have asked ourselves why? Now, having now seen the Williamson report this has confirmed what we had suspected and that was to water down the Verita report. Again, why and who felt that a full, open and robust public inquiry was not in the best interests of the abuse survivors and the public at large certainly not as you so wrongly state The Jersey Careleavers Association.

    In your own words you say ‘it is difficult to imagine any initiative emerging from what they perceive to be authority fully and finally satisfying their demands for comprehensive justice’. If you would take time to read our open letter to the Chief Minister and other letters on the same subject you will note that we have always supported fully the Verita Report as a good starting block for the Committee of Enquiry (COI), and indeed the Truth and Reconciliation Service aspect of Mr Williamsons report we have stated would be a welcome addition to the COI.

    Therefore contrary to your assumption that the JCLA will never be satisfied, I think it is quite clear we are satisfied with the better report, offering the opportunity for a full and robust public Inquiry to finalise this sad episode, not just for the Island as you say, but for those who suffered abuse in the ‘care’ of the States of Jersey.

    With respect, it is not for you to sell Williamson to the general public, but for abuse survivors to make quite clear what it is they want and even more importantly, deserve.

    Ms C Modral
    Chair JCLA

  28. The abuse survivors should have come forward 25 years ago period. It's like comments on Jimmy Saville today on national blogs, his accusers' silence meant he went onto abuse others and the whole situation is no different here. All very well having an inquiry but what about the abused who could of stopped the abuse of others by just saying something?

  29. What is it with some people?

    “The abuse survivors should have come forward 25 years ago period”

    Don’t you keep up with what has been going on? The Abuse Survivors DID come forward 25 years ago but were, reportedly, ignored and threatened. The Abuse has been covered up for DECADES on this island.

    Alleged victims of Jimmy Savile DID come forward, both in Surrey and Jersey!

    How the hell you think it is all the victims fault is just mind-boggling and a stark reminder of the sick, twisted and dangerous people that are still around.

    It’s the victims fault that Jimmy Savile allegedly abused children………….Absolutely PRICELESS.

  30. Good shout VFC, same wacko that had a pop at me earlier :)

  31. Anonymous at 15:09

    The list you submitted of the current Ministers who voted against a Committee of Inquiry into the Child Abuse in 2011.

    Here is the list of current Ministers who voted against a public Committee of Inquiry into the (possibly illegal) suspension of Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

    The Proposition of Former deputy Bob Hill is P.9/2010

    Starting to see a pattern?

    Senator Paul Routier

    Senator Philip Ozouf

    Senator Alan Maclean

    Senator Ian Le Marquand

    Deputy Ian Gorst

  32. Interesting developments on the Jimmy Savile allegations.

    How much did the BBC KNOW?

  33. To anon. who wrote-

    “The abuse survivors should have come forward 25 years ago period.”

    Those that do, as VFC rightly said, were often they were ignored and threatened. Others do not come forward because they 'lock' it in a very dark corner of their minds. By shutting it away, they find some sort of mechanism to keep going. I know of one former HDLG resident who never mentioned that 'episode of his/her life' to any of his/her grown-up family. They later got to know of it after a third party revealed it.

    I suggest you watch Tom Perry's film

    because in this film, some abuse psychology is clearly revealed. This includes how abusers plot and operate. It also shows child victims denying it to the authorities and then not disclosing it until certain people have died.

    Quote- For thirty years the boys, and the men they became, stayed silent, nursing the dark secret of the abuse they suffered. But in this film, Tom, Mark and Alastair break that silence with spellbinding articulacy and breathtaking honesty - telling their stories straight to camera.

    Other interesting aspects of abuse include suicide patterns in peopophile rings, how knowledge of abuse frequenstly falls on deaf ears and the revictimisation of abusers by the state.

    I hope you follow up this link, to give you some insight into the subject.

  34. If the police have investigated a complaint into JS at HDLG it shows the victim has not come forward since Savils death but came forward earlier.

  35. How long before one of the council of ministers responds to the report that Jimmy Saville was investigated in the HDLG investigation?

    Usually they are pretty quick to defend the establishment.

  36. Now we should expect to see BBC brought to task over their past complicity in covering up stories related to the Jersey abuse cases, and it may be sooner because of the BBC connection to Jimmy Savile, and his connection to HDLG.

    It would have eventually happened anyway. BBC Jersey was implicated too much, by too many, who have provided effective documentation of fact-based complaints. The John Gripton era is pretty much over. This steady drip,drip,drip of evidence and fact will triumph over any cover-up, and it is hard to believe he and his National bosses don't know by now why this is coming.

    It is too bad BBC chose the wrong ethical course in Jersey journalism. I like and respect so much about the BBC, but his is a huge disgrace of their own making.


  37. In response to the question at 20:53, about the Council of Ministers responding to the Jimmy Savile relationship to HDLG, what can they say? Now it is so much bigger than they are, and so much more beyond Jersey's state information control. They must realize what they now risk by saying a definitive word about the Jersey child abuse scandal. What would be the point of trotting out the old Data Protection excuse for a whitewash now?


  38. Just when they thought they were finally changing the stigma of a child Abuse centre to a happy friendly youth hostel.

    HDLG shows its self all over the National news again.

  39. I urge your readers to take a look at public and private personas It is excellent but could be faulted for not dealing with the role of the media in the fabrication and promulgation of the public personas, and equally the obfuscation of the flaws of the personal personas.

  40. Hi VFC.

    Just put up two Interviews from today on Jersey Radio of Mark Williams-Thomas & Esther Rantzen.

    You & your readers can Listen HERE


  41. VFC, these are some quotes about Savile and the Beeb from The Guardian yesterday that BBC Jersey should pay attention to. Those complicit in the cover-up might not feel protected now from the growing flood of allegations of BBC involvement. That "sea change" everyone noticed in the BBC all week must of been after the Jersey office knew this story was about to go nuclear.

    This is from the review of the ITV documentary, by Mark Lawson, in The Guardian, Thursday 4 October 2012 -

    "More alarmingly, Williams-Thomas' dossier suggested repeated assaults taking place on BBC premises – enabled by the fact that Savile specialised in broadcast formats involving the young. The documentary had been re-edited at the last minute to insert a firmer statement of regret and intention to investigate than the Corporation had initially given."

    "For BBC executives, the programme will have made mixed viewing. Impressively, it was shown that two BBC programmes, featuring Louis Theroux and Coleen Nolan, raised the allegations during Savile's lifetime."


  42. Yes person ( not a machine ) that posted at 07.01

    you said,

    If I was that paranoid I would of left Jersey long ago and where does that leave Ben's article??? Get real, but if you prefer to hang onto every article, letter or comment within a newspaper that got an award only the other week for its distribution figures than good luck to you.

    Now let me ask you this, who send the figures in to get an award, and more importantly are those figures verified and checked by an independent.

    Nope they are not.

    If we can't trust the JEP to tell the truth and nothing but how can we trust them to put the real figures to show they are not actually doing that well ? Exactly

    Think about it !


  43. as a victim who gave 3 years of staements and had the courage to stand up up in court and give evidence, I have hat not one single communication regarding a COI. Should not i be consulted in some way?

  44. Yes Steve you SHOULD have been contacted. If you want to ask Chief Minister Gorst why you weren't here is his e-mail address

    Will be happy to publish your e-mail on the Blog and any reply you MIGHT get.

  45. there will be some interesting days ahead now that saville is in the frame. The SoJ were quick to dismiss claima against him. Focus squarly back in the news and with such a high profile case, I wonder if this will finally force SoJ into having a transparet and fair COI. The eyes are once again on you ......