Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Jersey Dean Who Exonerated him?

Senator Philip Bailhache has published a Press Release claiming that the Dame Heather Steel Report has exonerated the Dean of Jersey and the Jersey Clergy. Yet in the same Press Release he criticises Bishop Tim Dakin for not publishing the (unfinished) Steel Report.

This begs the question how does Philip Bailhache know the Steel Report exonerates (or otherwise) ANYBODY when it is unfinished and he's complaining it is unpublished? Nobody is supposed to have seen this Report yet Philip Bailhache claims to know what's in it?

Naturally parts of the local State Media have given Senator Bailhache the platform he was looking for in order to peddle his Press Release totally unchallenged and not least by ITV Channel Television where the Senator was interviewed on last night's 6pm "news" programme and was not asked the most obvious question(s) (surprise surprise) WHERE DOES THE STEEL REPORT SAY ANYBODY HAS BEEN "EXONERATED"/HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I e-mailed ITV Channel Television and asked them;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.

Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."(END)

Below is Senator Bailhache's Press Release that makes no mention of the alleged Abuse Victim "HG", who he has, in a previous letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, labelled this Abuse Victim as the Abuser, the letter can be read HERE.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache


24 November 2013

"I am delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report but appalled by the Bishop of Winchester’s expressed intention to suppress its publication on what appear to be very specious grounds. The Bishop agreed with the Bailiff and the Dean that he would pass copies of the report to them, and he should honour that promise.

He asserts that he has given an undertaking not to release the report after representations from an interested person. As it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey, the only people who might be concerned about criticism in the report are those in or near the entourage of the Bishop. The unidentified interested party is either the person who made the original report which wrongly impugned the Dean, or a member of the Bishop’s staff. As Ms Korris’s report was published without its even being shown to the Dean, there can be no justification for acceding to any representation from her. As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding, and a full explanation of why the Dean has been exonerated. The Dean and the clergy are entitled to the publication of the complete Steel report so that their reputations can be fully restored in the eyes of the public.

The Bishop asserts that “questions remain about safeguarding best practice …”. Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were. The Bishop should act in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Terms of Reference that he issued, and deliver a copy of the final report to the Bailiff and Dean as soon as he has received it."(END)

How does Senator Bailhache know  "it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey?" How can he be "delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report?" when in the same Press Release he complains "Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were." The Senator seems to know that everybody in Jersey has been exonerated, how-come he doesn't know the conclusion the safeguarding issue?

This Press Release, in my opinion, was a (not so) carefully orchestrated piece of spin to artificially restore the reputation of the Dean/Clergy and Jersey. Published with the full knowledge that the State Media will not question/challenge him or it......As seen on ITV Cannel Television last night.

If the Dean has been "exonerated" then why did he APOLOGISE and why wasn't that question asked of Philip Bailhache on State Media last night?

Yet possibly one of the most "laughable?" sentence's in the Press Release has got to be this: "As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding" JERSEY'S REPUTATION FOR SAFEGUARDING? IS HE FOR REAL? Yet he wasn't questioned on this either.

If only we had a mainstream media who realised that it's a journalist's job to challenge/scrutinise power rather than be a part of it. If only we had a mainstream media who spoke up for those who had no power/voice then ITV Channel Television might have had "HG" sat on their couch last night and not Philip Bailhache. If only we had a mainstream media who scared authority rather than could be relied upon to scare the powerless and voiceless....................If only.


  1. If only indeed VFC. The media's handling of this has bothered me inasmuch as I feel their 'take' on this has been very misleading to the general public who do not read blogs and are unaware of the full facts of this case. You are correct that it is not possible to know if the Dean has been 'exonerated'. We have been told he will 'not face disciplinary action' which is completely different.

    This whole thing stinks - again the ugly heads of PB and the Dean rear themselves as non-apologists of abuse towards the vulnerable.

  2. Bailhache: "it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding"

    PMSL what reputation for safeguarding ?

    specious CR@P from the man who unlawfully unplugged the health minister's microphone when he expressed regret and sympathy for "decade after decade after decade - the vulnerable and messed-up children of Jersey ... failed, neglected, savagely beaten, sexually assaulted, raped, and, through the coercive use of long-term solitary confinement, tortured to the point of mental breakdown by the States of Jersey - even into the 21st century"


    "Like Trying to swim in a Lake of Vomit"

    Why does abuse and corruption follow Bailhache around like a bad smell, yet he is fawned over by Jersey's captive media and rudderless sycophants?

    Tel us again what the "real scandal" is Phil.


    At his hijack of the 2008 Liberation Day service "Sir Philip Bailhache said the real scandal was what had been written and said about Jersey since the investigation was made public."

    NO the "real scandal" remains the decades of sickening abuse of the vulnerable of this island - a lot of which has happened under you Mr. Bellyache.


    1. True. True. The real scandal for this woud-be monarch is always in the reputational harm. We should all weep in shame for him.

  3. Life is Precious - even for abuse victims!26 November 2013 at 10:04

    What's the point of a report if it's hushed up and no-one can read it?! Has the world gone even more mad?!

  4. Odd how Philip Bailhache's press release contains no facts or revelations of any sort gets such high media prominence.

    It is basically a poorly concocted whinge.

    Dame Heather Steel's Report should be published when it is completed. Partly in the spirit of openness which is fundamental to safeguarding (not that Jersey would know anything about safeguarding or openness). But also so we can laugh at the waste of £300,000 on a non-independent report (which Jersey would know all about)

    UK / CoE has caught the jersey-disease and is being played like a fiddle !

  5. This wouldn't be the same Philip Bailhache who knowingly allowed a convicted paedophile to become an honorary police officer, who then went on to use that office to sexually abuse a child with learning difficulties, would it? Surely it can't be the same Philip Bailhache who presumes to lecture others about an investigation into a matter involving sexual abuse? I mean, he really would have to be a brazen hypocrite.

  6. If he wants it in the public domain, why doesn't Pip just release the report in his usual fashion - leave it lying around in the airport departure lounge while on his next tax-payer funded jolly to the Caribbean?

  7. Ballache has just invented the "Uncover-up".

    This is where a vulnerable person claims to have been abused by a church warden. Unknown to the victim, the said warden already has a checkered history of inappropriate behaviour around women, (possibly genetic?), to the extent that he has to be chaperoned. Rather than do the right thing by the victim, the clergy & "Fellow Christian" friends concoct a way to have the victim become the criminal. Church Safeguarding policies go out the window to a classic Jersey Way formula.

    The victim then falls foul to another Medusa's head, the Jersey judiciary and Lo ! Jailed before being deported to the UK & left on the streets. Stay with it.

    When concerned bloggers, Bob Hill, some of the very few caring politicians take up the case, the Korris report sheds a very bad light on the Dean, his wife & other "Fellow Christians". The Dean is suspended until a bit of skullduggery gets that reversed & twisted into a constitutional matter, where the victim can be brushed aside.

    First, the cover-up.

    A conflicted friend of the "Fellow Christians" comes forward to offer her services to "independently" review the case. No terms of reference are published & the inquisitor doesn't speak to the victim. Despite the world & his wife knowing any report by this appointee being a whitewash, she carries on the with farce as though it's a serious piece of work.

    Then just before the results of the investigation are to be published, a legal intervention by unnamed person(s) is announced. The report must stay secret even from the victim herself.

    Here's where the "Uncover-up" comes in.

    Plebs, sit up and admire the newest champion of openess, transparency above us, why it's Mr Ballache himself. Up he pops on yet another Medusa's head, CTV "News" - Claiming the unseen (unpublished) report clears the Dean absolutely & by implication sees no reason for it not to be published. Appearing for all the gullible to be fighting against the Jersey cover-up culture, wanting a confidential report released to the masses?

    There we have it. The Uncover-up. The act of exposing a covered up whitewash, that says exactly what you want it to say, even though it's bollox.

    You nearly had me fooled there with that one Phil.

    You'll be wanting the Sharp report to be the front page of the JEP next!

    1. Neatly put Anon 13;58! What a film this would make. ' Snakes on a Plane II' Men of Steel Where' the righteous' are protected at any cost , by obFuSCation, a magical metaphorical Sharps box for safety reasons , and never forget the 1980's Market for sausages. Then object that its all a traversty (apologies to Rico there).

    2. Yup, just about covers it.

    3. Brilliant summary, just what I needed as I'd fallen so far behind in following this and felt unable to catch up. There's so much waffle on some of the blogs it's hard to stay awake. Thanks for putting it in a convenient nutshell.

    4. I agree with the essence of what you are saying about nutshelling. If someone could do that with the Jersey child abuse cover up, especially the Met Interim / Warcupp era. I would really appreciate it. thanks. Also a nutshell on what Operation Blast was all about would be helpful.

  8. The JEP Comment has some cleverly worded spin in tonight, also, about who trusts who ,and by how much! What a laugh.

  9. You have demonstrated how easy it is to "punch holes" in the official line yet none of the paid media appear to have the skills or inclination to do so. Yet again we have an example of a blog putting the alleged "professional" journalists to shame. You might want reassure Jill Gracia (above comment) that unlike most of the Jersey media the blog has a worldwide readership who have been once again reminded just how pointless it is to trust the Jersey authorities to resolve Jersey problems. They cannot solve problems that they do not even admit to exist.

  10. Philip Bailhache should be careful what he wishes for. The Dame Heather Steel Report has very little credibility as it is and, in light of the Korris Report, if the Steel Report was to come out and say the Dean, after his apology, has nothing to apologise for then this will look even more suspicious. If the Steel Report claims the Jersey Clergy has no questions to answer, again, this will look suspicious.

    If Senator Bailhache wants Reports published why doesn't he start demanding the publication of the 62,000 word interim defence case of the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM? Or the secret so-called "disciplinary" investigation of the Education Department involving the shooting "incident" at Le Rocquier school, or the South Yorkshire Police Investigation of Andre Bonjour? Perhaps the Sharp Report?

    The Steel Report could damage Philip Bailhache's credibility/reputation with its publication and one would advise quit while you're ahead Philip.

  11. The Bailaches, and Co. desperately needed the Dean reinstated for Liberation Day....

    And they got it!?

    1. Yes but at what cost to their/Jersey's reputation?

  12. This is such thoughtful and intelligent commentary. Where's your troll? He seems to be missing from the RAG comments today, too. Perhaps the oligarchs are out searching the pubs for him so he can get back to representing their best and brightest thinking.

  13. "I am delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report ''

    That's all right then Philip I will simply take your word for it.
    Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  14. Why did the paid media not ask how Senator Bailhache knew the Dean was exonerated? Undue deference, my friend. Undue deference. It drives the island into nearly as much madness as greed does.

  15. Sir seems to have confused his lions with lambs, wolves with sheep.

  16. can Bailhache break the injunction? Is Jersey immune to it? has Steel given him a copy? who took out the injunction? and what does it all mean?
    Wait for the next exciting episode.

  17. Will Winchester bow to Bailhache once more?

  18. You have got to love the * away with the fairies * statement from Mr Bailhache, he writes,

    As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding.

    This gentleman refused to support an in-depth inquiry of Government failings regarding decades of institutional child abuse, in fact was not in the chamber at a major debate.

    When the good politicians get the real in depth inquiry under way, remember Senator Bailhache, its people like you that are responsible for sliding standards in safeguarding children. Victoria college, and Holland plus your abstaining from the vote on an inquiry, says it all.

  19. What a remarkable coincidence that Stuart Syvret, Shona and Trevor Pitman , and now Philip Sinel are now all on the sticky end of establishment processes.
    Conspiracy theorist! Moi?

    1. Despite my admiration for Clever Trev, I still think they brought it on themselves. If they'd just laughed it off and carried on as normal, proving themselves by their good work, they wouldn't be facing ruin. Such a shame.

  20. Conspiracy theorist! Moi?

    So a man accused of assaulting a woman is an establishment ploy ?

    You are sick.

  21. He is “accused” of this which doesn’t mean he did it and the commenter has every right to be suspicious of Jersey’s "JUSTCE" SYSTEM

    1. Thanks Voice. One might comment that either way it's just not cricket , is it? Although that episode was before 2006 from memory.
      I do have reason to be suspicious as someone I know has had two sets of calls from SoJP on different issues in the past three weeks questioning their entirely legitimate actions when this has never happened in the past forty years! However, they are recorded as being a formal supporter. It would be interesting to know if others have had similar coincidences in similar circumstances.

  22. Advocate Danny Le Maistre from the JEP said, He said that Jurats were acutely aware of the need to be impartial and said the logical conclusion of the Pitmans' submissions was that every case Jurat Le Breton had heard in 14 years would have to come before the Court of Appeal. That, he said, must be rejected. He added that, in any event, it was for the Superior Number of the Royal Court and not the Court of Appeal to decide whether a Jurat was fit to serve in that role.

    1. "Advocate Danny Le Maistre from the JEP said ... said the logical conclusion of the Pitmans' submissions was that every case Jurat Le Breton had heard in 14 years would have to come before the Court of Appeal. That, he said, had to be rejected."

      ...the logical conclusion of which argument is that it's better to have another miscarriage of justice than ensure that justice is served for every single case before the court, because doing otherwise would open a can of worms. What a morally bankrupt argument for an Advocate to make!

  23. Thank you @15:28 for recounting the "procedure" for deciding whether a Jurat was fit to serve in that role ;-)

    Unfortunately for the "procedure" even a schoolboy can tell that the procedure does not work and is not fit for purpose.

    In fact with Jurat Le Breton's proven interference in the Andrew Jervis-Dykes paedophile case at Victoria College and the years of cover up beforehand, I'd wager that many tens or even hundreds of schoolboys who KNOW that that Jurat Le Breton was not fit.

    This will not stop the government's goons on leashes from snatching the house and belongings of two opposition politicians and giving the proceeds to their pet newspaper company.

    They are that shameless and can choke on their karma.

    1. Your post that included the quote "This will not stop the government's goons on leashes from snatching the house and belongings of two opposition politicians and giving the proceeds to their pet newspaper company" seems a little deluded and possibly you are desperately attempting, a little too much, to fit what you believe into what really happened. If the Pitmans pay the costs of the "defendants"...the people that the Pitmans took to court... then they will keep all their worldly goods, employment and home. Their lawyers would have made it clear to them the potential costs of this case and the Pitmans would have only proceeded in the full knowledge of what they stood to gain or lose, by their self determined actions. The price of free will?

  24. Off topic but still relevant,I, think. A tv presenter in Jersey is locked up in a Russian cell for forgetting to carry her passport but after a few phone calls is released. A Jersey Deputy has his house searched and is then imprisoned for "forgetting to renew his driving license?.

    1. I suspect the driving license charge was to make something stick immediately from the outrageous fishing expedition. However, that charge especially, makes the Jersey oligarchy look insane. He wasn't even driving at the time the expiration was noted in the mass police raid. Most of us would see that offense as akin to overdue library books or some other minor infraction of forgetfulness. In fact, it is useful to mention the license charges when explaining the Jersey Way to disbelieving outsiders, in the same way the Russian passport affair illustrates capricious prosecution there. Reading comments on Planet Jersey, JEP or CH TV using this against Stuart, serve as a reminder of how bizarrely venomous and blindly biased some mainstream media consumers are against what should really matter in the larger picture. Recently, there has been another dredging up of the ignorant old allegations of voter fraud against
      the Pitmans by commenters happy to mislead readers into thinking that assisting someone in obtaining voter registration is ethically wrong, or in some way similar to fraudulently altering another person's vote. These examples go a long way in convincing readers the frothing establishment defenders are out of touch with reality.

  25. Have you had a reply from channel television or Mark McQuillan yet?

  26. Yes I've had a reply from Channel Television and will look to publish the e-mail exchange in a Blog Posting of its own.



    Ian's in-your-face "Shock Jock" style is not to everyone's taste but he has put a huge amount of time and effort into documenting travesties on this island.

    His archiving of selected "Jersey Evening Propaganda" articles is a public service in itself and is valuable to today's islanders and tomorrow's historians alike.

    Some of us would prefer if he put his works on "chemtrails" and global issues on a separate linked blog as this could detract from the value and impact of his local work.

    Anyways we were worried, and it is great to have the indomitable 'Rough Diamond' back :-)

  28. Here are the facts. While Dame Heather Steel is finalising her report, she has either spoken to the Bishop of Winchester, or shown him her findings to date. Based on these, the Bishop has declared that he sees no reason to take disciplinary action against any member of the clergy in relation to the handling of the safeguarding complaint, or the review process that followed. He then states that an 'interested party' has required him not to publish the report once he has received it. Who is this interested party? Clearly not anyone in Jersey, as the establishment is crying for it to be published. My guess is that it has to be someone who has either seen the unfinished report i.e. a senior member of the Bishop's staff. It may be that the Korris Report has been discredited by Dame Steel, or that she has been critical of someone close to the Bishop, or even the Bishop himself, thus putting reputations at stake. Whatever it is, it seems that somebody in Winchester doesn't like the Steel findings to date, and wants to stop the report being published.