The Senator who also told us "for me the proposition I brought last year to request the Council Of Ministers to reconsider their decision NOT to have a COI was probably the most important proposition I'll ever bring as a States Member." Clearly demonstrates his unwavering commitment, if not passion, to have a "fit for purpose" COI that will help to bring some kind of closure to this very dark chapter in Jersey's murky History.
From the interview (below) the Senator appears to favour the "Verita" Terms Of reference as a starting block as opposed to whatever it is that Williamson came up with.
We ask Senator Le Gresley that $1m question "just why was Williamson brought in?" A question which only the Chief Minister Gorst can really answer but the "answer" the Chief Minister has given doesn't stack up as the interview reveals.
We await the suggested Terms Of Reference for the Child Abuse COI from the Chief Minister with bated breath. They will be HIS Legacy.
In the meantime we would like to thank Senator Le Gresley for not backing down to any pressure he might be under to sweep this all under the carpet. For standing by his commitment for a Committee Of Inquiry that will actually serve a purpose. For giving the Abuse Victims/Survivors and the "good" people of Jersey some hope.
.jpg)
voiceforchildren
ReplyDeleteFantastic interview. This is the type of interview our State media should have been chasing since the terms of reference from Verita became public.
You made every second of the time you had with Mr Le Gresley count with important straight forward pertinent questions. No spin or fluff.
Do you have interviews with any of the other members on the council of minsters lined up?
ReplyDeleteWill you inform the public if any of the following have declined to be interviewed.
Ozouf, MacLean, Le Marquand, Pryke, Ryan, Green, Lewis, and Duhamel
Haven't asked any of them but will keep readers informed of any requests for interviews.
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff!
ReplyDeleteI have always had a lot of time for Francis Le Gresley and this interview demonstrates clearly that he is a man of principle and courage. These qualities are coupled with a measured, realistic and firm approach.
Whatever next - principles and integrity within the COM? Astonishing.
A very well done on this interview.The pressure mounts on Chief Minister Gorst. They now know how to get rid of Le Gresley. Can't wait to see what the CM lodges.
ReplyDeleteVery good, your style of interviewing continues to improve, best one to date.
ReplyDeleteIts very important we remember what Senator Le Gresley said in the debate regarding a Committee of Enquiry into the resignation and stitch up of the Comptroller and Auditor General
ReplyDeleteA7.3.9 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:
I would like to start by commending the proposer of this proposition for the very measured way that he put his proposition to this Assembly, in particular reminding us that what he was asking was for an inquiry into the resignation of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He was not seeking, as other Members perhaps who have spoken have chosen to do, to reopen the Lime Grove debate and discussions and the matters concerning the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It is a great shame that we have already gone down that route in the number of speeches. I rise to speak because I have to distance myself from the comments of the Council of Ministers. I did dissent to these comments and it is recorded in the Council of Ministers’ minutes that I did so. I am standing to tell you why I dissented because I think it is important that I do so. I dissented because I believe that the only way we will deal with this issue is to have a Committee of Inquiry. Now people who know me will be aware that I am a great fan of committees of inquiry. In fact the last time that this Assembly discussed a Committee of Inquiry it was a result of a proposition I brought and much against the expectation that I would lose, I won that debate and I hope that the proposer of this proposition, despite, shall we say, the forces being directed against him, will also prevail today.
There are some things that when you join a group, whether it is a club, society, a group of friends perhaps, or even the Council of Ministers, where principles have to be more important perhaps than toeing the party line. On this matter I do believe that the Council of Ministers have failed this Assembly. Why have they failed? Because they are not taking into consideration the public importance of this issue of the resignation of the Comptroller and Auditor General being resolved by people not directly involved in the dispute. Now this is where I have a problem with the proposition because - and I have spoken to the Deputy about this - I do not believe that he was advised to include 2 States Members in the proposed Committee of Inquiry. He tells me that that should not be a problem because we should be able to find 2 States Members who have an independent view. Well, I suspect we have all seen so much paper and heard so much over the last 6 months that that is going to be very difficult to achieve. Having said that, I do believe a Committee of Inquiry is the way forward. I think if the former Comptroller and Auditor General is listening to this debate today he would be quite appalled at the speech of Senator Bailhache. This was a speech of a judge summing up the verdict. He had heard all the evidence, setting out his summary of the trial and “this is my verdict”. Now that is exactly why we need a Committee of Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteWe do not want to have a summary by a senior Senator of the position and that is the end of the matter. No, it is not the end of the matter. We do need a Committee of Inquiry. What I would stress, and I think a number of speakers have made this point, this is an opportunity for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to put his case. He has said in his speech today: “I have not had the chance like everybody else to put my case.” Well, here is the golden opportunity. It could be completely cathartic for him. He could get all of this off his chest, put it behind him as he wishes to do quite rightly, and we can get on with the running of business. But in summary, matters of principle I will always go with my heart and my head and on this one we do and should have a Committee of Inquiry. I am sorry that I disagree with my fellow Ministers on this but that is my position.End
ReplyDeleteA very good insight as to what is going on inside the COM. The weak get eaten and pulled into line. That is why on Sunday I will be showing you the voting pattern of the few who hold the power..
rs
Forgive me, but didn't the 'Fruitcake' Le Marquand say exactly the same thing about 'Weirdcop'?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/
ReplyDeleteDavid Minty suspended.
Ian
ReplyDeleteThere is a world of difference between ILM and FLG.
ILM thinks he is a man of principle and would like others to think of him this way too. But his record says something else.
FLG clearly is a man of principle and his record supports this.
These two are most certainly not birds of a feather.
I agree with Neil, money is not the issue. Why cant the TOR from Verita that the COM say they had concerns about, simply be removed.
ReplyDeleteIs this not possible as public who have read Verita would know where the real problem lays.
An excellent interview and thanks to both yourself VFC and Francis for this which is particularly important at this moment in time.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness Francis is sticking to his guns, and it may be a wake-up call for other ministers who do not share his morals and principles to sit up and take notice that these are the qualities lacking in so many of them, but are the qualities that the public want.
It now remains with the Chief Minister to see if he can stand up and be counted and deliver what he knows full well is required.
Now we know that it is his decision alone, a lot will hinge on this for him.
Francis talks a good talk, lets see if he walks the walk
ReplyDeleteDavid Minty suspended
ReplyDeletelets see how his golf buddies try to save him,or have they instigated this,another lamb to slaughter!!
well done Francis have regained my vote.
Mr. Williamson experienced in his field, put forward TOR and facts which are not correct and lacking in substance.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder what instructions and concerns Mr. Williamson had received from Chief Minister Gorst, in the first place which results in the review provided to him.
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=501712
ReplyDeleteThe earlier posted link to the news story on the suspension of a Jersey police suspension has been changed. The above link works
Well done Senator for giving VFC a real exclusive. You come across as a man with integrity that is sadly lacking in our Council of Ministers.
ReplyDelete"There are some things that when you join a group, whether it is a club, society, a group of friends perhaps, or even the Council of Ministers, where principles have to be more important perhaps than toeing the party line."
ReplyDeleteNever a truer word spoken. Stand strong Senator. Don't let the cover-up merchants drag you down into their toxic pit.
Bowron V,s MINTY BOY
ReplyDeleteHave you tried asking Philip Ozouf for an interview? He is not usually slow in coming forward.
ReplyDeleteHi VFC.
ReplyDeleteJust like to say Well Done in making this Interview & Thank you Senator Le Gresley for a good & for what I can see honest Interview.
But will say this,It will not be forgotten & you will be held to account. This is your Proposition make shore that it does what it was ment to do or not at all, Its not to be Cherry Picked. In to somthing that will do nothing, but put this Island back 50 years.
TJW.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120918/debtext/120918-0003.htm
ReplyDeletescroll to
18 Sep 2012 : Column 859
The named person in the super-injunction is the police man who has been suspended in Jersey
http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3467.msg55889.html#msg55889
ReplyDeleteWas the Senator saying that the COM would form their own TOR'S if they couldn't agree on Verita or Williamson.
ReplyDeleteThat seems about the crux of it!
ReplyDeleteLets not beat about the bush.
ReplyDeleteThe council of ministers know exactly where they want to prevent a Committee of inquiry going want to vetoe the terms not acceptable to them.
The public know, every one of the ministers know and the Chief Minister real or otherwise knows.
No presents for Ian this CHRISTMAS
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't already, please sign and share this vital PETITION/
ReplyDeleteHi VFC.
ReplyDeleteJust put up Audio & Links to last nights Question Time, with Janet Street-Porter saying it wasn't just Rumours.
But didn't say anything.
You & your readers can Listen HERE
Anonymous said, on 5 October 2012 17:55
ReplyDelete"Lets not beat about the bush.
The council of ministers know exactly where they want to prevent a Committee of inquiry going want to vetoe the terms not acceptable to them.
The public know, every one of the ministers know and the Chief Minister real or otherwise knows."
Really, isn't this the one accepted truth about the COI? There are certain recent events making it riskier for many, especially BBC, to continue this cover-up, and Jersey is viewed with more intense international suspicion than ever, but the comment above is still profoundly and simply true.
"Lets not beat about the bush.
ReplyDeleteThe council of ministers know exactly where they want to prevent a Committee of inquiry going want to vetoe the terms not acceptable to them.
The public know, every one of the ministers know and the Chief Minister real or otherwise knows."
It really is this simple. All the council of ministers are doing, is stalling for time playing a waiting game hoping, upon hope that the public will move on and this will all pass under the radar or some expensive pr will find a way to spin the new TOR favorably on behalf of these ministers.
I hope the national broadsheets are sitting ready to pounce on each of the ministers on the council of ministers because quite honestly they deserve it given the inactivity and silence so far.
They aren't thinking clearly if they think the public will move on or this will pass under the radar. It will very take little to push this far beyond the current tipping point since the evidence is already everywhere. They only made it worse for themselves by legally banning the fuller details of the story as well as banning the accomplished professional journalist.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me, as if the Andrew Williamson proposition has come about, as a result, of the COM concerns that were discussed upon seeing the verita report TOR.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative we are told was to have a reduced TOR produced by the COM, of which they could not agree TOR.
If anyone reads the Williamson report you could not get a more reduced TOR provided.
This, is the report the council of ministers want, this, is a reduction in Veritas TOR.
I personally believe it is irrelevant who offers to propose these terms. Its clear where they come from and who wants them.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/350134/BBC-axes-Top-Of-The-Pops-re-runs-starring-Jimmy-Saville
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
"A top human rights lawyer said that at least five women had told how they had been abused by Savile at the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey."
"Alan Collins, a partner at the Manchester law firm Pannone, said: 'I have been involved in litigation relating to Haut de la Garenne for several years and Jimmy Savile’s name came up several times."
“I think I can confidently say that up to five people told me separately they had been abused by him.”
----------------------------------------
Won't this help make a robust COI more likely? The outside interest this brings back to Jersey is needed for the cover up to end.
The BBC on Facebook appears to be defending the alleged perpetrator of Child Abuse and continuing to carry the party line of is it fair to "drag all this up?"
ReplyDeleteThe BBC is really beyond contempt and should be subject to a thorough investigation into their reporting, or in some cases NON reporting of Child Abuse and related issues.
FROM FACEBOOK.
"Morning, Chris here. Talking about Jimmy Savile today. More people are making allegations of child abuse against him. BUT is it right to drag all this up now that he's dead and can't defend himself - especially as there are claims it could damage the charities which his legacy benefits?" (END)
Bloggers have repeatedly called for Jersey's State Media to be investigated as part of the Committee Of Inquiry into the Decades of Child Abuse that went unchallenged for so long over here. This NEEDS to happen.
BBC beyond parody, beyond contempt.
AUDIO OF JIMMY SAVILE MOLESTING YOUNG GIRL
ReplyDeleteThat audio is really creepy.
ReplyDeleteAnd the best question the BBC could think to ask is.
ReplyDelete"BUT is it right to drag all this up now that he's dead and can't defend himself."
What about all the defenceless little children that have been abused for decades on this island and elsewhere? Why do the BBC feel it necessary to fight for the perpetrator and not the Victim(s)
Why won't they publish the 62,000 word document the former Police Chief submitted to the Wiltshire Constabulary?
The audio link above is "chilling" but just as chilling is the apparent culture in the BBC to either keep evidence buried or protect their staff and image rather than expose Child Abuse and protect the victims.
BBC Jersey Facebook page.
ReplyDeleteBBC Jersey
6 hours ago.
Morning, Chris here. Talking about Jimmy Savile today. More people are making allegations of child abuse against him. BUT is it right to drag all this up now that he's dead and can't defend himself - especially as there are claims it could damage the charities which his legacy benefits?
Like · Comment · Share.
Silvia A. O. Severim and Robert Paterson like this..
Paul Bentley What about the victims?
Why are we worrying about the perpetrator?
Seems all too often the legal system gets it wrong.
It looks authorities turned a blind eye again, like they did over here for 30 years.
6 hours ago via mobile · 4..
Trevor Richomme There you lot go again push it under the carpet & let's forget it happened. You lot are unbelievable. I'll stop there Chris because you are just winding me up. Why don't you lot just for one minute thing of all those children he abused & the BBC covered UP. Sickening just Sickening.
6 hours ago via mobile · 4..
Retro Barber I don't no how to say this to you nicely,but I will try if you have kids at home look at them and say to them did someone abuse you yesterday well don't worry it was in the past,are you mad get this of your face book page it's the most insulting question you can think of and then go and look for a job as you have no idea
5 hours ago via mobile · 1..
Trevor Richomme The charities are as bad as the cover up merchants, because if it wasn't for them he wouldn't of got away with it. You are as bad as abuse deniers. Sick!!!!
5 hours ago via mobile..
Trevor Richomme Well you are wrong in setting this question & time tell that there is going to be more people with these thoughts then saying to push it under the carpet.
5 hours ago via mobile · 1..
Pam Col because it is said to have happened in the past,does this imply that War Criminals should not be brought to justice after 60 years have past since the war?
5 hours ago · 3..
Paul Bentley I think the BBC , in asking this question, have got it very wrong.
Especially as it looks like they were covering it up.
5 hours ago via mobile · 3..
Trevor Richomme Yes you are right there Paul, the good old BBC have got a lot wrong on child abuse. They have pushed the Government Line over here now for over 4 years that it wasn't as bad as a couple of silly cops were saying & now they are getting proved WRONG. Ware is this going to end. The BBC should start being truthful & not just saying what our Government want them to tell us.
4 hours ago via mobile · 1..
Jon S Haworth Surprised we haven't heard from Noel Edmonds. They used to share Top of the Pops.
4 hours ago..
BBC Jersey Our question was clumsy, and we are in no way dismissive of abuse victims. Radio Jersey interviewed one of Savile's alleged victims on air this week, and continues to investigate the aspects of the case pertaining to the island. Today on air we looked at the impact of the case on several charities. Jon Gripton, Editor.
4 hours ago..
.
Jon Gripton. "Our question was CLUMSY."
ReplyDeleteNo Jon your question was SICK and the fact that you can't see that makes it the more sick and further demonstrates the mind-set of the BBC.
The sooner that organisation gets investigated the better......for victims and potential victims.
BBC Jersey facebook cont.
ReplyDeleteTrevor Richomme Well you should not let questions like this be set. How do you think the family in Wales are feeling like this morning, would you say to them it is Historic even tho it was only last Monday. Thank you for the apology.
4 hours ago via mobile · 2..
Jon S Haworth There is a lot more to this story. Why are so many celebrities claiming to have known things yet did nothing? Why didn't the abuse victims made up of middle aged women not spoken sooner? Why do they blag this off by saying it was a different culture at the time? Another issue and this goes for Gary Glitter. Here was a man who was a loner, never settled down with a partner and had no family yet nobody ever looked at that closer? Thos Savile story raises more questions than ever.
3 hours ago · Edited..
Emma Hulme My concern is that everyone should have the right to respond to allegations made and he obviously can't do that. Having said that, I totally agree with the comments above- time is irrelevant and just because they are historical allegations, it doesn't make them any less important. X
2 hours ago via mobile · 1..
Trevor Richomme "why didn't the abuse victims made up of middle aged woman not spoken sooner" because the BBC with this kind of altitude didn't let the the Truth get out & so these young girls were not believed until now. Still the likes of people who come out with these statements as above are doing the same damage as the BBC in saying "we do not need a inquiry". If there was a time to have a COI into child Abuse in jersey is now & with Verita terms of reference, anything less will be point less & the Island of Jersey will have to hang is head in shame!!!!!!
about an hour ago via mobile..
Jon S Haworth Its a shame people seem to get so over excited with child abuse claims still. I think this will hit a dead end because Savile is dead and cant be held to account in any manner or form.
about an hour ago..
Trevor Richomme Well Jon S Haworth I do not know you & glad I don't. With what you have just said "people seem to get so over excited with child abuse claims" says more about YOU then anything els...See More
22 minutes ago via mobile..
.
Activity
Recent
Some of the media appear to miss the point of investigating child abuse that has happened some time ago, especially when the perpetrator has died, but the bigger issue is to ensure it is not continued.
ReplyDeleteThose who knew of a perpetrator of child abuse and either allowed them to avoid being charged, or helped them conceal it (because they were also one!) or wanted it covered up for other reasons, they are just as guilty as the perpetrators for concealing, their silence does not give the abuse victim any closure and lets other abusers think its okay, if I get caught my mate will not let anything happen to me. Worse still, would be those who not only know and cover up, but then use that knowledge to blackmail someone into doing something they may not have wished to have done.
A full COI with the strongest TOR is what is required in Jersey and those guilty should be locked up as an example!!
From what I have heard a Jersey Victim of Jimmy Savile did make a complaint to the police in the HDLG investigation I assume Jimmy Savile was alive at the time of the complaint. Was he questioned by the Jersey police? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteCorrection to the above comment, I should of said from what I have read, rather than heard.
ReplyDeleteGiven the scrutiny the BBC organisation are under with regards the allegations made against Mr Savile, the question posed by Chris on BBC Jersey branch of the organisation is crass in my opinion.
ReplyDeletePlaying on the charity aspect, which I feel was used as a tool in the ability of the man to abuse his persona and for an organisation to endorse that persona.
From JEP article.
ReplyDeleteSavile accused of abuse at Haut de la Garenne
SIR Jimmy Savile was accused of an indecent assault at Haut de la Garenne in the 1970s, according to the States police.
Trevor Richomme Well Jon S Haworth I do not know you & glad I don't. With what you have just said "people seem to get so over excited with child abuse claims" says more about YOU then anything else. If the BBC entertain people like you on this Facebook of there's, it raises more questions about the BBC then anything that they can say to justify letting "clumsy" questions on it or people making offensive comments.
ReplyDeleteEnd of conversation.
about an hour ago via mobile · Like
Jon S Haworth Hey I am not saying this is right at all but there is always a lot of excitement when abuse claims appear. Just look at the Media. But think about this, why is there more excitement nowadays compared to Savile's heyday? Was this a cover up? You know it may just be. But can he be held to account? No, and anybody around trying to drag others in will possibly be fobbed off. It's a can of worms BBC but who will be held to account? Nobody I bet!!!!
"Was this a cover up? You know it may just be. But can he be held to account? No,"
ReplyDeleteOf course the writer ignores the fact that if it was a cover up, those who did the cover up may be alive and if so they should be prosecuted, maybe then some of those abused may get closure.
Anything less than the strong Verita Terms of reference for a COI will allow the doubt and stories to drag on for years and years - those willing to allow bygones to be bygones are the ones truly "shafting Jersey internationally", the sooner they wake up the better for everybody.
Meeting DEAN CLIFFORD Part 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteThis question should be asked of Gripton, and his ilk, "Should charities raise funds by auctioning off underage children to celebrity sexual predators?"
ReplyDeleteThink about it. Ethically, the same thing happened at Penn State University with Sandusky in my country. He raised tons of $ for charities which gave him access to the most vulnerable and least likely to be believed children. Sandusky and those who covered for him were worshipped for their great coaching success, and university jobs and alumni donations depended on keeping his heinous acts secret.
The Catholic Church deliberately overlooked the unspeakable levels of institutionalized pedophilia of priests, and considered the cover up to be for the greater good. They weighed child rape against their certainty that their "good works" were of greater moral value than protection of children entrusted to them.
Only by exposing the complicity of the Catholic Church can there be an end to this level of ongoing barbarianism. There is reluctant progress there.
Only by exposing the complicity of Mr Gripton and those like him within BBC's other hierarchies can the entertainment industry's institutionalized concealment of sexual assaults on our children be eliminated.
We have far more power to eliminate this acceptance of evil complicity than we can ever have to prevent all such abuse directly. By accepting it as a "gray area" the enablers of this abuse tacitly promote its acceptability and the avoidance of consequences, and directly lead the perpetrator to continue to abuse more children. That much is absolutely clear.
There are still any number of people turning on the damaged survivors to demand more answers - as to why they came forward so late, didn't do more. Cruel suspicions are expressed about their motives, but these once-trusting children did not consent to being sexually "auctioned off" for their possible future financial compensation to satisfy the sleazy immediate motives of those protecting adult pedophiles, athletic programs, charities, Finance industry reputations, jobs, churches, political careers, former Governors of Haut de la Garenne or even popular BBC Entertainment programs.
Either we decide as a society to champion the institutional concealment of horrific crimes against children for the sake of some hypothetical greater good or we accept that sexual assault on children is always wrong, defense of it is wrong, covering up the crime is wrong, permitting it to continue when we could stop it is wrong and blaming the victims is especially wrong because it re-victimizes them, and keeps other victims from speaking out.
So, do we admit we auction our children's bodies off for some perceived benefits or do we decide to finally end that as an accepted practice? It really is a clear choice.
Elle
Question asked by BBC Jersey facebook page.
ReplyDeleteMorning, Chris here. Talking about Jimmy Savile today. More people are making allegations of child abuse against him. BUT is it right to drag all this up now that he's dead and can't defend himself - especially as there are claims it could damage the charities which his legacy benefits?
Read it carefully. The above question from the Jersey branch of the British broadcasting corporation.
The very corporation who themselves employed the person we are being asked to consider. This lobbying of the public, to now consider profit of charity versus serious allegations. The BBC themselves must not only consider but answer and put the blame where the blame lies.
Rather than turn to the public laying a guilt trip on them about charity donations drying up.
What is the above question hoping to achieve?
I actually agree with JH.....Must be going soft.
ReplyDeleteScots children's charity boss attacks Jimmy Savile sex abuse cover-up
ReplyDeleteThanks for the "private message" could come in handy.
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to investigate COMPLAINTS OF CORRUPTION here in sleepy sunny shady Jersey?
ReplyDeletehttp://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2012/10/savile-in-jersey-suspended-chief.html
ReplyDeleteAt 1;48 See update on Leah McGrath Goodman journalist situation
" BUT is it right to drag all this up now that he's dead and can't defend himself - especially as there are claims it could damage the charities which his legacy benefits?"
ReplyDeleteMissing the point again! The real question is - how many people who are still alive, helped cover up child abuse and are they still doing so - needs strong inquiry to ensure that those who have covered up are brought to justice and made an example of, only then will others realise how important it is to ensure any child abuse is reported otherwise they risk jail themselves for being part of a cover up.
There's an argument to be had that the BBC did NOT "miss the point" at all.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC could be an organisation that has turned a blind eye to paedophilia for decades. There could be some very high flyers in the BBC who have enabled Abuse to go on in their institution and the BBC's priority has been to protect their staff and image rather than hold those culpable to account.
Has the BBC "missed the point" or are they looking for a way to cover their a-sre?
Delibaret pr. BBC are trying to turn the the charities into the issue laying guilt on the public for them suffering at the same time they are taking attention away from the organisation themselves.
ReplyDelete"There's an argument to be had that the BBC did NOT "miss the point" at all."
ReplyDeleteI would say the point of investigating is for the reason I gave, it could be repeated each time someone attempts to divert attention away and in the case of the BBC you could very well be right.
It is important that the COI TOR are very strong to ensure that anyone who is guilty of covering up child abuse is dealt with by the Courts.
There may well be many abuse victims who may not have any recourse as the abuser may be dead, but they may get an element of closure if it was found that their earlier complaints were not dealt with correctly due to a cover up. A strong investigation, may find that the person who helped cover up had a hidden secret as well, and so on.
Anyone who says why bother with Savile, educate them. Cover ups are wrong and perhaps an AG could be complicit in such a cover up by claiming there was insufficient evidence or not in the public interest, whereas there may well have been sufficient evidence but was not in the interest of some people.
Anyone who says attitudes were different in the 1970's is either a child abuser or a child abuser cover up merchant.
ReplyDeleteI know of a person who was (16) charged for having under-age consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend and put on probation because her father did not like him. She was reluctant to admit anything.
The year was 1975.
So in 1975 when Savile was 49yrs old, interfering/raping girls non consensually, we are asked to believe it was okay, what planet are these people on!!!!
Repeated, fearless and undeterred acts of child rape nearly always require complicity. Logically, lone child abusers without enablers usually eventually arouse adult suspicion even if victimized children remain afraid to tell adults. The whispers of children and adults about known paedophiles can be referenced in Jersey going back to others besides Jimmy Savile. Blogs have mentioned the man who ran the clothing shop, the teacher many children knew to avoid being alone with, and others.
ReplyDeleteThe paedophilic impulse is not well understood but for decades, it has been accepted that child molesters do not stop until they are stopped by others.
Those who collude to enable the abuser to continue sexual predation on our young are participating in the perpetuation of crime. If we do not care about stopping child abuse, we ignore those who enable it. If we seriously know child rape is wrong, we have no choice but to see the crime in the cover up. Failure to examine the BBC's complicity is failure to examine the BBC's criminal philosophy of enabling Jimmy Savile to continue his acts on countless more children than would have been the case without the deliberate concealment of his crimes.
The man who was Jimmy Savile's producer for 21 years has NOT been contacted by the BBC
ReplyDeleteHow seriously are they taking the allegations? Surely he would have been one of the first people who should have been contacted when the news broke?
We have all been children, whether recently or decades ago. Did we think - back at any time - it was just fine for a paedophile to commit acts of degrading sexual molestation and then terrify us into silence? We did not think it was fine then, whether we were the victims or not, and I believe it takes a cruelly perverse effort to justify anyone not actively stopping it. If we don't look closely at how paedophiles are institutionally enabled, and study how to end that protection of abusers, we will continue to sacrifice far more children to this grave and sinister criminality.
ReplyDeleteHi VFC.
ReplyDeleteBeen having a few computer problems but hear you go, the Audio of Chris Stone on Jersey Radio Setting a Question that really should not of been up.
You & your readers can listen HERE
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/10/2200-week-for-sitting-in-jail-gizza-job.html#comment-form
ReplyDeleteI don't not have the JEP, can anyone confirm if the person who left the third comment on the above blog is correct.
BBC point of view: Careful, we might learn something.
ReplyDeleteHi VFC
ReplyDeleteI am in the magistrates court this Friday at 10am not 2:30 as I first said.
Sorry to interupt the thread again.
cyril
Did anyone ever here Warcup or Gradwell speaking like this
ReplyDelete["Cdr Spindler said that of the eight criminal allegations, six were alleged indecent assaults on young teenage girls.
He praised the alleged victims for "shining a light" on the abuse and said they would be looking for an "acknowledgement and a recognition of what happened to them".
"You really shouldn't underestimate the impact even after so many years of reliving these experiences and then to watch the public debate unfold and it has been quite significant," Cdr Spindler told reporters.]
above extract from here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019
Lenny Harper on BBC Radio 5 Live from 10.30 tonight talking about the Jersey Child-abuse Cover up
ReplyDeleteWOW. This could rattle some powerful people. "Lenny Harper on BBC Radio 5 Live from 10.30 tonight talking about the Jersey Child-abuse Cover up"
ReplyDeleteGood to hear Lenny again on Radio 5.
ReplyDelete"In Lenny We (still) Trust"
Hi VFC.
ReplyDeleteQuestions without Answers HERE
The most CRIMINAL PLACE in the British Empire
ReplyDeleteHi VFC.
ReplyDeleteAudio of Mr Harper talking on Radio 5 with Tony Livesey last night, very interesting. Don't think this is going to go away too soon.
You & your reader's can listen HERE
TJW.
Strangest question asked of me tpday: How many people outside the island know a whole lot more about the Jersey Super Injunction against Stuart Syvret than the Jersey Chief Minister claims to know?
ReplyDelete