Monday, 22 October 2012

Jimmy Savile, Jersey, BBC and suspects. (Part 1)

Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, Lenny Harper, speaks to VFC about Jimmy Savile, the Jersey government, judicial system, Police Force and perhaps most importantly suspects in the Child Abuse Investigation STILL employed by the States of Jersey who have never faced justice. Not only are these suspects employed by the States but their position allegedly allows them alarming access to children and vulnerable adults.

Yesterday Mr. Harper was permitted a short interview on BBC State Radio which left a number of listeners with the belief that Mr. Harper was levelling criticism towards the States of Jersey Police by suggesting an independent Police Force should be recruited to investigate the Jimmy Savile case in Jersey.

Not for the first time the BBC had given those listeners the complete wrong impression, as Mr. Harper explains in part one of this in-depth interview, he has nothing but the upmost respect for the SOJP, as a force, and believes the problems lay with the island's "political masters" so we are happy to undo any damage that might have been caused to the reputation of the SOJP by the BBC.

Mr. Harper, in this interview, gives us a chilling account of an alleged suspect in the Child Abuse Inquiry where around a dozen  victims have given a statement against the person, who Mr. Harper tells us, just the mention of his name causes "Absolute Fear"  amongst victims but still remains in a position to harm others.

The Former Senior Investigating Officer goes on to tell us that, in his opinion, "The Victims are the ones who are being targeted by the Jersey Government and the abusers are the ones who are being protected."

What is the real BIG story here, is it that Jimmy Savile abused children in Jersey, or is it that the government allowed, and possibly still allows paedophilia to go unpunished if one has the right connections? Will Jimmy Savile's victims ever get justice? Let's hope so, but what about those who have been abused by the alleged "protected" in Jersey who are still alive and a danger to children, shouldn't our attention be turned to them before it's too late, and those accused never see the inside of a court room?

The BBC appear's to believe the BIG story is that Mr. Harper has suggested an outside Police Force be called in to investigate the Savile allegations but more about that, the BBC's agenda, misinformation and much, much more in part two.

For those who want to listen to the short interview with Mr. Harper on State Radio yesterday it can be found HERE.

To get some much needed factual and impartial journalism reported in Jersey, other than the Blogs, could we firstly thank those who have signed and shared the petition to restore the visa of banned US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, and secondly ask to keep spreading the word and it can be signed HERE








51 comments:

  1. Is anyone else having problems seeing the video? I just get black box with red arrow no video

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can see it. But what can the BBC see? Can anyone explain why they report on Harper talking about the independence of the police force in Jersey but neglect to mention his statements re the suspected child abuser who continues to work in Social Services!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone must be getting wherry worried

    ReplyDelete
  4. The BBC don’t think it is worth highlighting the possibility of an alleged paedophile working in the “care” system but as mentioned - more about that in part two.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i heard the original interview with Mr. Harper.made it clear that he was NOT criticising the local police. Unfortunately that important point was left out in all further extracts of his interview.

    xJHB

    ReplyDelete
  6. xJHB.

    To be clear you are talking about the interview Mr. Harper gave BBC State Radio?

    ReplyDelete
  7. VFC

    Is there a reply/excuse from Jersey BBC, as to why they have not taken GP's Afidavid seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No. Any time I’ve asked why they keep it buried I don’t get a reply to the e-mail. But as we are learning through the Jimmy Savile scandal and the huge amount of material on the Blogs, this just looks to be the “culture” of the BBC.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can we just be clear, did the jersey police force, under mr harper and mr power, not pursue charges against jimmy savile because of insufficient evidence,following a complaint in 2008 ?

    No spin, nothing to hide, please publish this question and the answer.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/10/mr-harper-interviewed-on-bbc-state-radio.html

    original Mr Harper interview given to BBC

    ReplyDelete
  11. One line of enquiry for the blogs to follow up is "Who allowed Jimmy Savile to bring a motorhome ( in which he abused girls) to Jersey?

    Why is this important? Because until very recently, tourists were NOT ALLOWED to bring a caravan or motorhome to Jersey, to protect the hotel and guest house trade, and discourage people pitching camp anywhere in the countryside.

    So, WHO allowed Jimmy Savile to bring a motorhome onto the island?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous at 19.17. There was no statement of evidence accusing Saville of an assault. If there had been we would have gone for him like we did the others. No evidence - no prosecution. It was difficult enough getting a prosecution when there was stone wall evidence. Several abusers still working for the States of Jersey, courtesy of the Law Officers in the AG's office will testify to that. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  13. I listened to the Harper interview with the BBC on the JerseyWay website, and I felt that it was clear that he was not criticising the Jersey Police.

    Are you referring to later news broadcasts?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Isn’t it amazing? Here we have an interview with the former SIO of the Child Abuse Inquiry telling us he gave around a dozen statements against an alleged paedophile and as much evidence as you could shake a sh1tty stick at and the AG refused to prosecute him and the said person is still in a position to harm vulnerable people.

    Then somebody comes on asking about Savile, who’s dead, and no longer, a threat to children………Jersey……….don’t ya just love it?

    Rob.

    It was the later broadcasts being talked about.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a first class interview. It is undoubtedly a much better nomination for the RTS award than that spinned reel of lies that won CTV a gold award.
    The RTS or Royal Television Society, how prestigious they sound! But, who are these people who fail to check for criteria like impartiality and accuracy when giving out their awards? Were they bribed? Was it somehow convenient for both parties?
    Incidentally, I did enjoy LH's line
    'just look at the Jersey authorities, they tend to forn over anybody with connections to royalty and they seem to like that sort of thing."

    ReplyDelete
  16. What I want to know is how come Jimmy Soviles Mother ended up at the Little Sisters of the Poor? There must have been loads of decent care homes in England, so why here?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It was confirmed, in the JEP that Jimmy Saviles mum stayed at St Augustines little Sisters of the Poor although the UK media do not appear to have picked up on that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The dissection of a criminal system PART 2

    Great interview you guys....And 12 plus different complaints against the same guy and no prosecution? That has to be a record, even in Jersey!

    Your viewers might like to access the comments section of THIS POSTING

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jimmy Savile must have been here very regularly and for long periods of time to warrant a room fr his Mother at the little sisters.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Savile's Mum- Marjorie.

    (from the Mirror 20.10.12)
    The article was essentially about how Savile threatened IRA 'connections' on victims & witnesses. Her Jersey 'home' at Little Sisters of the Poor was omitted from the list of her residencies.

    According to Caroline,(Savile was her great-uncle and he abused her)
    “Uncle Jimmy gave Marjorie everything she wanted. She was interested in Egyptology so he bought her a house on the Nile. He paid for the best lawyer for her divorce. He paid for her to live in a smart BUPA care home near his flat in Roundhay Park in Leeds before she died in 2006.
    “She had private medical insurance and a cottage in Llandudno, courtesy of Jimmy.
    “He bought her a caravan on the coast there. If Marjorie had blabbed, Jimmy would have had nothing. No fame, no money. In fact, he’d have been in jail. And Marjorie would have had nothing too.
    “What Jimmy did to me was terrible. But the most unsettling thing of all is that Grandmama, whom I loved dearly, knew exactly what was going on and she kept her mouth shut because Jimmy paid for her ­silence."


    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-and-the-ira-predator-boasted-1389710

    ReplyDelete
  21. VFC,

    You say: "Isn’t it amazing? Here we have an interview with the former SIO of the Child Abuse Inquiry telling us he gave around a dozen statements against an alleged paedophile and as much evidence as you could shake a sh1tty stick at and the AG refused to prosecute him and the said person is still in a position to harm vulnerable people.

    Then somebody comes on asking about Savile, who’s dead, and no longer, a threat to children………Jersey……….don’t ya just love it?"

    I left one of the Savile comments, but you are right to highlight (scream, even...) about the craziness of nothing being done about the living alleged perpetrators in Jersey. Those allegations are so bad that they almost defy belief, and people (me included) tend to focus on the Savile issue alone. Savile can't be ignored though - the NSPCC called him Britain's biggest ever sex offender and some of his accomplices may still be alive.

    When listening to Chris Stone's interview, it was absolutely shocking how Lenny Harper presented him with an open goal, yet Chris Stone completely ignored the magnitude of what Lenny had just said. It is shocking.

    Sorry to focus on Savile, but the magnitude of all the latest revelations is so bad, sometimes one forgets to comment on the horror of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. VFC - to be fair, your blog post is entitled "Jimmy Savile, Jersey, BBC and suspects. (Part 1)" ... hence the comments about Savile.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you for this ,for some time the Mccanns have been making out that Mr Grimes dogs were mistaken in Jersey citing the now famous coconut shell,in your opinion were the dogs accurate and value for money?

    The Mccanns are clearly worried that the dogs being correct here will impact upon their lies and cover up

    ReplyDelete
  24. thank you do you think this cover up could be linked to Mark Dlays apparent cover up of the Hollie Greig abuse case

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453441651372604&set=o.146301575413262&type=1&theater

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Artist Taxi Driver CHUNKY MARK addresses abuse everywhere, and not even a swear word.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The commentor 22 October 2012 19:28
    raises a good point>

    Who authorised the permit for the camper van, or who was in the position to authorise it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Perhaps Mr Harper could respond to this question.

    I only recently saw that Mr Harper was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act after he retired. I see that the AG wanted to prosecute him in the Jersey Courts but that Mr Harper refused to return to Jersey (understandably) but said that he would be happy to appear in UK Courts to answer any charges.

    It seems to me that Mick Gradwell's leaks to Jersey media and to David Rose, which appear to have been accepted by the Home Affairs Minister, together with his carefully orchestrated appearances on CTV before leaving Jersey, amount to prima facie breaches of the Official Secrets Act.

    Could Mr Harper let us have his take on this?

    Does anyone know if any attempt was made by the Law Officers to take any action in this matter? I'd be particularly keen to know whether the AG considered this at all or whether he considered it but, as is usual when political embarrassment is at risk, decided that there was "insufficient evidence" ......

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'There was no statement of evidence accusing Saville of an assault. If there had been we would have gone for him like we did the others. No evidence - no prosecution.'

    Thanks Lenny, but for those of us not familiar with legal terms, what exactly does 'no statement of evidence' mean ?

    Does it mean that there was an accusation made but insufficient evidence to proceed with an enquiry?

    Or was there no formal accusation made ?

    Or was there an accusation made, but no evidence whatsoever was offered ?

    Could you also confirm whose decision it was not to proceed with an investigation, the police or the AG's ?

    Thanks again.



    ReplyDelete
  29. There are two entries below which I shall attempt to answer. First of all, Martin Grimes and his dogs. I am on record as saying that I am a great admirer of the work that Martin Grimes and his animals do. I am not alone in that. Some of the best law enforcement agencies in the world, including the FBI, agree. Frank Walker (and his wife), Andrew Lewis and a number of other Jersey politicians, along with Diane Simon and other journalists were given 'live' demonstrations of their work and all professed themselves suitably impressed. Funny how they seemed to forget all that! Many of them were in the cellars as well, but their memories failed them there also. As for the McCanns, I am not quite sure why they are reported to have been so determined to rubbish the dogs. (I have not actually read anything they said.) The dogs could never ever have "said" that the McCanns were guilty of anything. Martin Grimes often made this point, and the only journalist who seemed willing to pick it up was David James Smith of the Sunday Times. All the dogs did was to say, here is a question that needs answering - you (the police)now go and find the answers. In the McCanns case the dog was simply saying in that stunning video "the smell of dead human flesh has been in the hire car used by the McCanns. Now find out why." This would not have been a surprising fact given both were doctors and Mrs McCann had been to a number of sudden deaths immediately before her holiday. Whythey felt it so necessary to lash out at the dogs I do not know. In our case, the dogs merely said "there are human bones, teeth and/or blood here. Find out why." The dogs never alleged murder at HDLG and, contrary to what Gradwell and Warcup said, neither did we. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lenny, your insights are much appreciated. Keep them coming.

    It is interesting you raise the name of David James Smith. His article was one of the best. Eileen Fairweather was great too. Earlier this year I did ask Mr Smith, via his blog, why he had not followed up the story of you, Stuart Syvret and Graham Power. I got no reply. I am crossing my fingers that he is beavering away in the background, preparing to properly blow the roof on the numerous scandals. If you are in touch with Mr Smith, can you tell him that people in Jersey are desperate for him to finish his work. Well, either him or Leah McGrath Goodman. It is such a huge story, I am perplexed as to why DJS did not follow it up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have been asked about another couple of matters and am happy to try and clear them up. The case of the attempted prosecution of me (and Stuart Syvret) under the Official Secrets Act was bizarre and a perfect example of what can happen when a very powerful man throws a fit of pique and the dummy goes out of the pram. It all arose from the disgraceful about turn by the Law Officers in the case of the couple running the care home who beat children with cricket bats. I had been told by the independent lawyer (whose chambers had coincidentally previously benefited to the tune of millions of pounds working for the Jersey AG)to charge this couple with serious assault. At the last minute, the AG or someone very close to him instructed the lawyer to reverse that decision. Furious, I ignored it and brought the Centenier in anyway. He carefully studied the papers, declared that he agreed there was sufficient evidence to charge, but (understandably) said he could not defy the AG's office. I have to say here that I did not blame the Centenier in any way, although the JEP tried to divert attention away from the AG by giving that impression. Realising that this inexplicable action of releasing child abusers against whom there was evidence to charge would cause a huge loss of confidence among victims, I issued a press statement making it clear that we were releasing them under protest and that it had been the AG's office intructions. The AG, perhaps embarrassed at being caught out, threw a fit and demanded, through Graham Power, a report from me detailing the reasons I had released the press statement. I submitted the report but in it not only dealt with that case but all the other perverse actions and obstructions we had faced. Then I was asked to supply a copy of that report for the High Court in London, which I did. It subsequently appeared in the media following the court case and the AG obviously felt that I had leaked it to Mr Syvret. David Warcup (presumably on receipt of a complaint) instigated an investigation by Sussex Police but did not have the courtesy to inform me. Stuart Syvret was questioned several times and told me what was going on. I challenged the officer concerned in Sussex by e mail and asked him if he was investigating me. His e mail back simply said, "Should I be?" I never heard anything again. The investigation had confused me anyway as when we were investigating the corrupt activities of one ginger cop in the force (you may recall he allowed a foreign national to read police anti terror material among other stunts) we were told by the AG that he would not prosecute him as police officers were not subject to the OSA. That still puzzles me and I can find nothing anywhere to support that statement. Yes, Mr Gradwell's leaking of material certainly warranted a criminal investigation and the evidence was not hard to find. Indeed, some of it was published by the Scrutiny Panel. Mr Le Marquand knew about it for a couple of years but did or said nothing. It obviously did not suit the agenda of the Jersey government to prosecute the man who had done so much for them in giving a false impression of Operation Rectangle and who had successfully denied the existence of cellars which were there to be clearly seen on You Tube! This is a rather long response so I will address the other points separately. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  32. Great interview guys.

    Could I ask Lenny a yes/no Question

    Were any of the local judiciary under suspicion during your teams investigations?

    Thanks

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have been asked about the Jimmy Saville "allegation" during our enquiry. The short answer is that there was no formal allegation made to me or presented to me. The Sun newspaper had a photo and told us that Saville was a regular visitor to HDLG. The photo, in all honesty, did not look like HDLG but could have been close by. The Sun said he was denying ever being at the home and was refusing to assist our enquiry. We had never asked him to do so. There was nothing there to investigate. I do not know if this is what the SOJP are referring to when they say there was an allegation. Eileen Fairweather mentions that a victim told an officer in 2008 that Saville had assaulted her but that there was not sufficient detail to put in a statement which would have found its way to me. I don't know about that. I have no way of knowing if that is true. I can't comment on how much detail there might have been. I know we had not a shred of evidence against Saville. If there had have been, I would have had his grubby collar felt. I can imagine the reaction of the Law Officers to that. I feel it is a shame that we didn't have enough because there is no way we would have hidden it and all this would have emerged earlier. I believe the victims totally and can understand, in the light of the way in which the Jersey government had treated them previously, why they did not come forward. Saville was a man with (albeit tenuous) Royal connections and how the Jersey establishment love all that in their unseemly scramble to stand alongside them. There is no way that victims would have felt they had a chance. However, unfortunately, there was nothing that I could question Saville on. In this case, I am happy to admit that it was my decision not to proceed further. In reality there was nothing to proceed with and we were up to our neck in evidence against members of Jersey's "caring" professions. We didn't do very well there either as some of them are still in position. As for David James Smith, i think he came across the same barrier that Eileen Fairweather did for so long, and that was to try and arouse the interest of editors who felt the Jesey story had been told and the British public had no interest in it. The fact that most of the story told was fiction does not seem to have figured very largly. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cyril, the answer is yes, not for child abuse, but for covering it up and in effect perverting the course of justice through the application of improper influence and pressure. However,although it was clear from the statements of victims that this had happened, again there was no direct evidence. Suspicion, no matter how well founded, cannot replace direct evidence. I should also add that as far as I recall, none of the incidents happened when the individual(s) were serving on the bench, but rather after or before. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thank you Lenny.

    In the same vein were there suspicions about other famous people?

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mr Harper

    Many thanks for your response about the Official Secrets Act.

    As you say, the background to this is, to use your word, "bizarre".

    The two matters which should give everyone cause for concern are -

    1. The AG's view that the OSA does not apply to police officers; and
    2. The complete lack of accountability of the AG.

    1. I find it odd, to say the least, that the AG says that the OSA does not apply to police officers. I wonder if this is something peculiar to Jersey police officers. I ask this because I read recently that a senior Met officer has been charged with offences under the OSA -
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/01/april-casburn-charged

    The nature of these charges seems to be similar to the case in point.

    2. It would appear that the AG is not answerable to anyone in either of his primary roles - i.e. as adviser to Ministers or as head of the prosecution service (on behalf of the Crown). As others have said, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that there is a clear conflict between these two roles. Information that you and others have supplied, primarily through these blogs, would indicate that successive AGs might well have abused their position simply because there is no effective way to challenge them in any way whatsoever. This cannot be right.

    I can only begin to imagine the frustration, and despair, that you, Mr Power, Mr Syvret and others have felt over the years. You have been at the sharp end in trying to do your duty whilst being stymied by the very person whose duty should be to support you. This begs the question as to why successive AGs should behave in this way. A simplistic answer could be that the very nature of the conflict of interest between the advisory and prosecution roles will inevitably cause such problems - in which case, our government should do something about removing the conflict of interests by separating these roles. A more worrying - and realistic - answer is that these successive AGs have become highly politicised and are using their lack of accountability in order to exercise vicarious control over issues that are properly within the realm of Ministers or operationally independent services such as the Police.

    Having just seen the DG of the BBC being totally, and justifiably, humiliated by the Commons Select Committee over the Savile fiasco, I can only hope that some people in positions of authority here in Jersey will finally see the writing on the wall and do the honourable thing ....... but I'm not holding my breath!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you Mr Harper ,re the dogs and MR Grime ,with respect to Mrs Mccann being near sudden deaths there is no evidence of this and the caderverine was on the childs toy ,unless it attended the fictitious deaths one has to draw another conclusion as to the reason for this

    This case is similar to yours ,cover up at the highest level

    ReplyDelete
  38. VFC.

    Today P Bailhache said that he was not the only one who could not find anything wrong with The Sharp Report.
    The Education Committee (of that time) also came to the same conclusion....

    Surely a good start to get to the bottom of this is to find out who the members of this committee were, or are?!

    Who were these "important" people?

    ReplyDelete
  39. If memory serves correct Philip Bailhache was on the Board Of Governors at Victoria College around the time that the abuse was taking place. If he was then some serious questions need to be asked of Senator Bailhache.

    Perhaps a reader could confirm whether the Senator was, or wasn't, on the Board of Governors?

    ReplyDelete
  40. the picture of Savile on the rocks at Bouley Bay (tonights JEP

    Someone should do a bit of detective work to find out if he was a resident at the Waters Edge Hotel whilst enjoying a private summer holiday in 1966,or was he a guest of one of the more swankier residences on the hill ie Allan Wicker,Edgar Bequet.

    I believe Princess Margaret was a frequent visitor in and out of Bouley bay (unofficially)

    ReplyDelete
  41. A parallel comment regarding Philip Bailhache's denial of access to the HDLG list of governors was just mentioned on Stuart's blog today. For some reason I suspect this is a pivotal bit of information we are missing, and this could be a starting point for a line of national media investigation. Whether or not P.B. was a governor at HDLG, he should have been compelled to answer questions about who the governors were, if he knew. Does Lenny Harper know who the board of governors at HDLG were, or was it kept from him, too?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I suspect P.B. was on the board of both Victoria College and HDLG. Would Lenny know?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think the "official line" is that there WASN'T a Board of Governors at HDLG and that it was overseen by the Education Committee.

    ReplyDelete
  44. According to the BBC the Home Affirs Minister is saying that the Jersey Police could reopen the abuse investigation if any new leads are uncovered whilst they are assisting the Met in the Savile investigation.
    Of course, he has dismissed Lenny Harper's call for an outside force to do his.
    The BBC piece has the tone of ILM reluctantly pursuing this line. Everyone in the UK has declared their horror about developments and have publicly stated that every effort will be made to pursue investigations vigorously.
    ILM needs to show some political courage now!

    ReplyDelete
  45. ILM......courage???????? Here's and example of Ian Le Marquands COURAGE!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bailhache isnt lying then.

    If he is saying he wasnt on the Board of Governors, because there wasnt one.

    But maybe he was on the Education Committee?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ian Le Marquand's courage!!!

    hahaha....love it VFC :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi VFC.

    Just put up Questions without Answers from today.

    You & your readers can Listen HERE


    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Another organisation that should be investigated is St John International head office in London. St John International in London are currently pulling out all the stops in order to present awards to two known members of the St John New Zealand paedophile gang. The awards are to be presented by the Queen’s representative in NZ, the Governor General.
    http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

    ReplyDelete
  50. More flashbacks and more memories. It keeps flooding in and its hard to cope with to be honest - although I am coping because I have to. I do remember being abused and taken around the country by my family and by many others including members of parliament and celebrities including that bastard Mr saville and many other "ordinary" people - always the same faces turning up again and again. I have ritual scars on my teeth from where I was abused. I have not forgotten and will not forget or forgive. I was not bought up in Haut de la Garenne but was taken there and hurt there. A - North England

    ReplyDelete