Monday, 25 August 2014

Bloggers Excluded by Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.



Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have been excluded from reporting from the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry at 11-15 Seaton Place St Helier.

Regular readers will know that the Inquiry Team came up with the idea of "Media Accreditation" when it published its protocols earlier this year which can be read HERE. The Inquiry Team then decided to scrap the media accreditation after only receiving 5 applications. So rather than act in the positive and accredit the applicants which were three State Media and two Bloggers (VFC and BOB HILL) the team decided not to accredit anybody and give us all the same access to the media room at Seaton Place.

During this time the inquiry team were being made aware that the majority of the abuse survivors, and potential witnesses, to the inquiry, do not trust the local State Media who stand accused of  complicity in the Jersey cover-up. The team were also made aware that the latest local social survey showed that sixty per-cent, of those surveyed, do not trust the local State Media. In contrast the majority of Abuse Survivors DO trust this, and Bob Hill's Blog, as do a growing number of islanders. The inquiry team were also aware that VFC have not broken a single protocol or breached any Press Release Embargoes and the same can't be said for the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) who breached an embargo and the BBC who were, contrary to the protocols, filming inside the hearing's building, at the bottom of the stairs where any unsuspecting victim/witness would, and in one case was, confronted with a BBC camera, pointing at them when attempting to leave the building.

Tuesday 12 August 2014 was a usual public hearing where Bloggers, and State Media, were sharing the facilities in the media room as had been the case since the hearings begun back in July. It had become a little cramped in the media room due to the BBC having, at one point, five employees in the room, to include a camera man and a national BBC reporter, who was on holiday here, not reporting on the hearing.

The BBC Reporter was Robert Hall who, as part of his original application to the Inquiry Team for accreditation wrote;


"In closing I’d like to thank you once again for the way in which you are dealing with media interest, and close with one thought; I note from local web activity that some non-accredited interested parties are eager to gain accreditation.
Should space be as limited as you fear, I foresee difficulties on busy days if such accreditation goes beyond recognised media organisations......just my view...."(END)

All applications (including Mr. Hall's) can be viewed HERE. 

So the BBC crowds the room with five of its employees, at least two of which had no place being there, and the Inquiry Panel make a ruling to EXCLUDE the only two Bloggers who applied for media accreditation and have been using the facilities from the start without incident. All State media who applied for accreditation were granted it with the same ruling.

The ruling was made almost overnight with those being granted accreditation (State Media) being informed of their accreditation on Wednesday 13 August, the night before the next public hearing. The two Bloggers (VFC and Bob Hill) who had been refused accreditation were not informed of the ruling and had to suffer the humiliation of being turned away from the media room on the Thursday morning. (Humiliation is a subject I will come on to further in this posting.)


But the real reason for banning Bloggers overnight could have more to do with former Health Minister and anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Stuart Syvret, who was in the media room, for the first time, on Tuesday the 12 August. Stuart was tweeting from the room that was challenging the competency of the hearing and its questioning (or lack of) of the witnesses. The Inquiry Team would not have taken well to his criticisms, which in fairness could have been communicated a little less robust, but were perfectly valid observations that need addressing. This gave the Inquiry Team the excuse, we believe it has been looking for, to exclude Bloggers from the media room. It was a typical knee-jerk reaction from the Inquiry Team to ban Bloggers which will ensure the State Media (who don't question anything) have exclusive rights on reporting from the Inquiry building.

So we know the Panel can react with lightening speed in excluding Bloggers, in making a ruling overnight, yet when this Blogger attempts to appeal the decision, e-mails and questions are ignored. Since the day of the banning I have been attempting to find out how to appeal the decision and have all but been ignored.

Back to Thursday 14 August, at the hearing, after suffering the humiliation of being turned away from the media room, I was sat in the public hearing room. The public are not allowed to have any electronic appliances (Tablets/ipads/iphones/laptops phones etc) switched on in the room.

I have never mentioned my disability on this Blog as it is something I don't talk about but there comes a time when it has to be mentioned and this is the time.

Some years ago I suffered a horrific accident where my dominant right hand was wrenched from my arm and has left me an amputee and coming to terms with my disability is something I still struggle with on a daily basis. I can barely write with my left hand and I certainly can't write at any speed that would be legible, indeed when not writing at speed it is barely legible. 

So there I was sat in the public hearing room feeling absolutely useless and humiliated. I could not even pretend to be writing something down on a pad as I didn't have a pen, or pad, as I had no idea the ruling had been made to ban me (and Bob Hill) from the media room and indeed I don't even carry a pen and pad because of my inability to write (at speed anyway).

Sat next to me, in the public hearing room, was a member of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, (JCLA) and good friend of mine, Jill Garcia, who said that the JCLA have a room in the building where, just like the media room, it has a video/audio feed to the public hearing room and I am welcome to use the room, where I could type up any notes on my ipad, if the Inquiry Team agreed.

We asked, a very helpful Tina Wing, if it was OK and she saw no problem as I was a trusted associate of the JCLA and its members. This was a great relief as it got me out of the public hearing room where I was, as mentioned above, feeling humiliated and embarrassed. 

I spent the rest of the morning/hearing in the JCLA room where I was able to use my electronic devices and make notes. The hearings stopped for lunch and I popped out to get a sandwich, and can of pop, which I could take back and eat/drink in the JCLA room during the lunch-break.


Upon my return to the hearing building I had to ask to be let back into the JCLA room as the doors need a pass card held by the Inquiry Team. It was at this stage I was told, by a not so helpful member of the Inquiry Team, whom I believe to be, Ms. Natalie Minott  that I am NOT allowed in the JCLA room because it is for "interested parties" only. As spurious and unconvincing as the explanation was, of course I had to adhere to it. This is after being told that there was no problem being in the room only an hour or so before by Ms. Wing.

I was stood in the main reception with my sandwich in my one hand, and can of pop secured in the joint at my inside elbow and bicep on my right arm. I asked, as there was no-one around, in the rooms, could I just go in the JCLA room with JCLA member Jill Gracia, who was eating her lunch in there, and eat my lunch with her? To which Ms. Minott refused, so I asked, as it was lunchtime and no-one around, could I eat my lunch in the media room, or even the public hearing room? Again Ms. Minott refused. So I asked am I to be made to go and eat my sandwich in the street, (bearing in mind I can't physically enjoy my sandwich and drink at the same time unless I have somewhere to put one of them down) to which Ms Minott replied "there are plenty of establishments who have seating areas in town" (or words very similar.)

This was even more humiliating for me, than having to sit in the public hearing room, not being able to write up notes. Now this "care" inquiry team is forcing me to go on the street and eat my lunch rather than allow me ten minutes to do it in the building where others were eating their lunch.

It was at this point that I began to suspect the banning of Bloggers from the media room was not a decision made on any professional grounds, it was made on personal grounds. For reasons only known to Natalie Minott, or the Inquiry Panel, they want to make life for me, at the building, as difficult as they possibly can. Why would a team investigating "care" act so callously towards a disabled man?

Since attempting to come to terms with my disability this experience has got to be one of the most humiliating I've ever suffered.

If this is not a personal issue on behalf of the "care" inquiry team then one has to question the real motives behind excluding the only people (Bloggers) who have been a voice for victims and uncovered the truth that has been, and is being, buried by the State Media from media accreditation? Notwithstanding the Inquiry Team is aware that a number of witnesses have only come forward because of this Blog and that of RICO SORDA. Witnesses who WOULD NOT have come forward if VFC and Rico Sorda had not convinced them. Indeed there is a strong argument to suggest, if it wasn't for the Bloggers, there would be no Inquiry at all. We (unlike the State Media) HAVE questioned "The Party Line" and supplied official documents to the few brave politicians who speak out against the Child Abuse cover-up. We have strongly lobbied those former, and present, politicians to keep this subject in the political and public arena. We have been instrumental in the formation of the TOR's the Committee of Inquiry are now working to. It also seems ironic that Bob Hill should also be banned, because if it was not for Bob's amendments to P19/2011 it is almost certain that there would not be a Committee of Inquiry. P19/2011 and its amendments were covered, in-depth, by VFC HERE.  

The "care" inquiry know how trusted the Bloggers are and it knows how untrusted the State Media is yet it bans the trusted Bloggers.

We asked (although we knew the answer) back in March this year if the Bloggers were going to be marginalised by the Inquiry in a Blog posted HERE. The answer is a clear "yes" and if one looks at that link they will see why, if anybody should be excluded from media accreditation, it should be the State Media. The question readers should be asking is why has the State Media got exclusive rights and the Bloggers silenced if the "care" inquiry wants to get the truth out there?

In light of what appears to be an undisclosed, if not nonexistent, appeals process, this blog stands as a challenge to the Inquiry Team to stop banning those who seek to inform the public on the proceedings of what is meant to be a "public" Child Abuse inquiry.

Reasonable minds can certainly agree that to politicise access to key facilities needed to cover these landmark hearings harks back to some of the most concerning problems plaguing the island and, again, shows a terrible insensitivity to the victims, as the "accredited" news organisations approved by Inquiry Judge Oldham have repeatedly denied the extent of their abuse.

It also calls into question the direction of what the island has been repeatedly promised is supposed to be a neutral and independent inquiry. VFC awaits a response as to why it and other independent news sources have been banned and will publicise this matter until it is properly rectified. This inquiry has already struggled to get victims to trust it and to come forward. If it wants the island to truly believe it represents the public interest, it will stop playing politics with news coverage and focus on doing its job.


122 comments:

  1. VFC

    I can confirm to your readers the accuracy of what you write here - sadly.

    You know, I've been openly sceptical about this "public inquiry" from it's formation, but I wished to be proven wrong - I've been open-minded, and willing to see & recognise genuine. competent and sincere conduct by the CoI. But there hasn't been any.

    From the start, it decided to make the frankly astonishing - and ultra vires - decision to refuse to give me - a key witness - legal representation funding. That "ruling" by the CoI was and is, in flat contradiction to all relevant case-law, Article 6 of the ECHR, and the Salmon Principles.

    And its been down-hill from then.

    As the facts, evidence and history shows, my position is of relevance to the work of this "public inquiry" for two, parallel grounds: (a) I'm a centrally involved, key witness, (b) I - like you - am one of the small group of independent journalists who have exposed the corruptions and crimes of the Jersey authorities and their illegal concealments of child-abuse, whilst the heritage media in Jersey was colluding in the cover-ups.

    So far as my position as a key witness is concerned, I'm already intimidated, coerced, threatened and have many serious and evidenced grounds to fear further state reprisals against me if I gave testimony to the "public inquiry". One of the very - very - few assurances I had to counter-weight those concerns was a confidence that what may unfold in the CoI would be accurately and fully reported by Jersey's citizen media.

    That certain prospect - of full and unbiased coverage of events & the facts by independent journalists such as VFC and others, was one of the few things that might act as a restraint & deterrent to the well-documented extremist and oppressive conducts of power in Jersey.

    Now - even that slight re-assurance is gone.

    In it's conduct - in its biased exclusions of independent journalists - this "public inquiry" has show itself to be determined to stop meaningful scrutiny of the conduct of Jersey's authorities - and to stop meaningful scrutiny of its own startling deficiencies and incompetences.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart.

      As if the revelations in this posting are not alarming enough, there are more revelations, concerning the apparent complicity of the Inquiry, that will be emerging, via another Blogsite soon.

      As much as it pains me to say it, all the emerging evidence, does appear to point towards a State controlled cover-up. I only hope I am wrong.

      Delete
  2. The problem as I see it is very simple. If the COI had a problem with Stuart Syvret being in the media room and what he was tweeting then they should have pulled him up on it. It's no coincidence that the bloggers have been using the media room with no problems up until this point. Someone should have just maned up, gone in their and challenged him on his opinions or his right to be there. But they didn't. They must have been thinking and narked that there was this man who say's he is, isn't or might be giving evidence to the COI sitting in our media room, drinking our tea, eating our biscuits and telling us how crap we are. The human reaction was to do what they did. What I would have liked them to have done was take a professional approach then none of this would have happened.

    How do they deal with the Syvret situation??

    Simple.

    Lets ban all the bloggers.

    It's childish.

    No problem for months then this.

    All very sad and avoidable

    Rico

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi VHC.

    Well there's a surprise.

    another £6m coverup!

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, what else would Bailhache allow after being unable to prevent an inquiry. It surprises me that Bob has faith in this inquiry.
    Neil I am sorry for what you have been through.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I hope Bob does still have faith, as he along with Neil are both trusted, honourable bloggers and people in their own right, hence the reason why I thought it would be useful for VFC to have use of the JCLA room after having been barred from the media room. Naturally as has been explained I did ask permission and was granted it, and I will hasten to add that so far I have had no qualms with any of the Inquiry Team. They have all been most polite, helpful, pleasant and professional.

    However, what happened that lunch-time, I found quite disturbing. Tina Wing who originally gave me the permission to let VFC use the JCLA room and her colleague who I had never met before came into the room where I was having my lunch and reading, at which stage VFC had gone out to get himself some lunch. It was explained to me why it was not now acceptable for him to use the room. The reasons were valid, but I did not expect that he would be unable to even join me for a relax before the afternoon session. The lady we understand to be Natalie Minott came out to the reception area and was totally inflexible and caused what I consider must have been a most humiliating exchange with VFC (in front of other I have to say). I actually was quite upset for you Neil, especially when you were told you had to eat your roll out on the street. Furthermore, when you questioned her on your media role, she was unable to give you a definition of 'accredited media' in any way, shape or form.

    Having confirmed Neil's story, and the impression it made on me, I would now question by the Bailiwick Express has been granted 'accredited media' status? The is a very recent concept of which a large amount of people know nothing about. A news outlet which is only accessed by joining to view it by e-mail or on Facebook. In other words, not dissimilar to the blogs. It has contributed nothing in any way, either good or bad to the Child Abuse Inquiry, which was closed down when it reared its head. Add to this 5 - yes 5 BBC heads in a small media room, one of whom was a cameraman, it does beg the question what criteria are being used that have suddenly changed since the Inquiry started? One thing I can say with 100% certainty is that in regard to truth, trusting and having no fear, Bob Hill and VFC stand head and shoulders above the local MSM in the eyes of not only abuse survivors but the general public as well.

    Indeed, the JEP have now been holding a response to a letter that appeared in the Rag for over a week now. There has been no reason not to publish, and there are some interesting that have been given to one of their journalists that confirms just how deep mistrust and fear featured in the feelings of abuse survivors towards anything 'local' throughout the Police Inquiry. It may well be Neil it will be left to you to publish this as well.

    Finally, I hope that this latest action towards bloggers does not now deter more victims or witnesses coming forward which could well be the case if they feel it may not be as open and transparent Inquiry as they want. For them it is a very, very fine line which I still hope we can convince them to cross over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Jill. As always, your voice offers insight.

      Elle

      Delete
  6. As you already know I was there when this scandalous turn of events was suggested as being imminent. I stated my case in support of the bloggers - in particular VFC and ex-Deputy Bob Hill forcibly then and it still makes me every bit as angry now as it did then.

    Indeed, this whole development can only be seen to have been engineered by the BBC - no doubt with ready support from their other chums in the Establishment 'bury the truth' brigade. The fact is tat were it not for a small group of Jersey's bloggers the truth about so much of the abuse scandal would still be under wraps where the local BBC, ITV and the JEP have helped keep it for years.

    In truth both yourself and Rico Sorda deserve credit beyond stating - you almost deserve as much recognition and thanks as do Mr Power and Mr Harper for breaking through the decades of Establishment concealment of all that went on. Yet the 'Independent' Care Inquiry Committee effectively try to silence you whilst letting the enables remain as if they had any credibility whatsoever.

    Frankly it is disgraceful. As I pointed out on the day - surely the Chairman needed have done no more than simply read through the Scrutiny investigation into the Operation Rectangle financial management to appreciate Jersey's State Media - BBC Jersey, ITV and JEP reported utter tripe that was blown out of the water in a matter of a few weeks by us.

    Without bloggers - Rico Sorda and VFC that Scrutiny review would never have begun. Okay, so I got it accepted politically but the true credit belongs to both of you. And yet now you must make way for 'journalists' who spend most of their time 'reporting' word for word whatever guff is spouted by former Bailiffs or enthralling their readers/viewers will gripping stories about leaves or cats stuck in trees!

    Honestly, despite having already given hours of evidence and exposed material hidden away to protect the guilty such actions really make one feel that those who claim this will be a white wash and a bit of PR are likely right.

    Sad and a true betrayal of those who have bared their souls at much pain to try and see justice finally done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bloggers are not journalists. they are not trained, vetted, insured or financially or professionally accountable for their words. They are diligent and interested members of the public and they can use the public gallery in order to maintain their vigilance of proceedings. it is right that they cannot record or film or live blog (to protect vulnerable witnesses). Once again the "bloggers" in this thread seem more intent on inserting themselves into the drama, than covering the actual proceedings.

      Delete
    2. Because all journalists are well known paragons of virtue, right? Come on, let's get some perspective here.

      There may well be some unprofessional and irresponsible bloggers out there who don't deserve to be given a platform.

      Neil and Bob are not like that. They are highly professional and responsible, plus they are trusted far more than the mainstream media by a huge number of victims.

      Their applications were for them as individuals, not for the entire blogging community.

      The committee of inquiry is completely wrong to exclude them.

      Fair enough to exclude someone who causes trouble and and mischief that distresses victims and leaks sensitive information. But not Bob or Neil, they don't fall into that category.

      Delete
    3. Sam...In your (not so) humble opinion you would vouch for some, but not others, or censorship as that is sometimes called. How is that any different from what the CoI has done? You might disagree with their choice but you don't seem to criticise their right to do so?
      A personal claim from you that Bob and Neil are "trusted far more than the mainstream media" is predictable (the loyalty is admirable) but it is also laughable and does you no credit
      Broadcast media in Jersey reaches between 40% and 50% of the population and the JEP around 80%. There are dozens of websites run by those you and your cohort refer to as the MSM with forums that attract thousands of unique users a day and serve millions of pages a month.
      Even if you apply the States research on attitudes to media trust and strip all of these out of the equation (they consume it, but don't trust it...seems odd, but who am I to argue with logic?) the numbers of trusted users of MSM far outstrip any figures Bob or Neil can muster and surely it must be the size of the audience (or vote) that best demonstrates who the people really trust.

      Delete
    4. In the latest Social Survey, of those surveyed, 60% did not trust the local MSM. There is a 60% plus voter abstention perhaps the two are linked?

      Delete
    5. According to the actual report that I found online it was 57% of those asked that stated they trusted the Jersey media (although there is no definition or split between MSM, new media or Blogs, which is a bit unhelpful)
      Maybe they'll ask the same question by media type next time?

      Delete
  7. The correct way to deal with this outrage must be for the abuse victms to withdraw from this sham in protest and show them up for the charlatans that they have proven themselves to be. They won't be able to cover up a stalled inquiry that easily.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'Sad and a true betrayal of those who have bared their souls at much pain to try and see justice finally done'.

    So very true Trevor (and apologies VFC for the many typos in my previous comment - anger and frustration took over)! I do not think anybody can conceive the courage and bravery that the victims of abuse display in coming forward to relive their experiences yet again in the quest to get answers and justice which has been denied them this far. It is far from easy for them.

    Let those who say they have had their compensation realise that a) this counts for very little to them and b) not all claimants have yet received compensation to date. This Inquiry has got to be seen as one which embraces all, and that includes our brave and competent bloggers.

    Also, one has to ask why Robert Hall seems to be able to laud it over the media room when his very employers, the BBC, have been complicit in withholding vital evidence handed to them, and the very sickening behaviour of Jon Gripton in regard to Shona. Just how does that give them any credibility at all I ask?

    ReplyDelete
  9. A Response to Jill – Part 1

    Jill, because of word restrictions, this is a two-part response to an issue you raise.

    All of Jersey's heritage media have played a culpable role in the decades of concealed child-abuse - and all of them should be regarded as entities that need enquiring into - and many of the individual "journalists" should be called as witnesses by the "public inquiry" - if it was seriously going to examine how all checks and balances failed vulnerable children .

    But let's just take the Bailiwick Express as an example.

    It's edited by former BBC Jersey hack James Filleul - who left the BBC to become one of Jersey's veritable army of paid spin-doctors. Those facts make him a potential witness.

    Amongst the hacks the Bailiwick Express has included in their accreditation application are Ben Queree and Guy Le Maistre.

    Guy Le Maistre used to be a States of Jersey Committee Clerk - precisely one of the very category of witnesses who need to be called and examined if any attempt is to be made to delve into the decades of failure by the States Committees.

    Ben Queree was for many years a core JEP hack - one of the worst - who week-in and week-out churned out reams and reams of Jersey establishment propaganda - and engaged strenuously in that old, customary power of the heritage media - the power of "omission".

    Let me give you an example - and this is the type of event that goes to the heart of the failures of child-protection in Jersey - and the core issues any respectable "public inquiry" would be examining. When I was subjected to the engineering of my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister following the illegal conspiracy witnessed and recorded by Police Chief Graham Power, I compiled a set of "Official Ministerial Comments" in response to the omissions, diversions, fabrications and out-right lies in the Chief Minister's Report against me; a report that was mainly authored by the directly and criminally conflicted Bill Ogley with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office and the Chief Minster's spin-doctors.

    My Official Ministerial Comments had a number of appendices - hard, documentary evidence.

    The directly conflicted Bailiff, Philip Bailhache - in taking a power to himself that he did not possess - illegally blocked my Official Comments from publication - by ordering the Greffier of the States not to print them.

    That episode too - is in and of itself - a core matter that the "public inquiry" is required to investigate - if it is to do its job.

    Continued……

    ReplyDelete
  10. A Response to Jill – Part 2

    The main reporter working on the controversy at that time - for the Jersey Evening Post - was Ben Queree.

    After my Official Comments had been illegally blocked from formal publication by the directly conflicted Philip Bailhache - I met Ben Queree outside the parliament building, in the Royal Square, spoke with him - and handed to him a photocopy of my un-published Official Comments - along with all of the appended evidence which related to a number of different aspects of child-abuse concealment in Jersey.

    How much of that evidence did Ben Queree and the Jersey Evening Post then use in reporting?

    None.

    Not one single one of the evidenced issues and examples - supported by the documentation I gave them - was used, to report and expose the failures, derelictions, cover-ups and crimes that had taken place to cause so much suffering, neglect and abuse towards vulnerable children in Jersey.

    That is a central - real - and fundamentally important example of the failure of the media - the startling collusions of the media - with a failed, dysfunctional, dangerous - and not infrequently criminal - edifice of public administration in Jersey.

    But yet - the "public inquiry" into that systemic and endemic collapse in child-protection is quite happy to give media "accreditation" to the PR-tool that now employs Ben Queree - rather than cite him and call him as a witness.

    And the same "public inquiry" now bans the bloggers - the only media and news sources that stepped into the breach - and filed the vacuum where the Fourth Estate should have been.

    Jersey's bloggers did - on behalf of victims, on behalf of whistle-blowers and on behalf of all vulnerable children - what the likes of Ben Queree and the Jersey Evening Post failed to do.

    But yet - this "public inquiry" into child-abuse in Jersey has now joined in with - endorsed - and become a pro-active part of - the very Culture-of-Concealment that has to be beaten if vulnerable children are to be protected into the future.

    There are a few people who are working for the Committee of Inquiry who - on the face of things - appear to be good people - a few individuals of who it could be said, they have a certain "credibility" - a good personal history of trying to oppose and expose child-abuse.

    I'll say this; if those individuals are, in fact, sincere - and value their good names, reputations and credibility - they must either make this CoI change its culture, approach and attitude - urgently - or failing that, those individuals must resign from it.

    It is plain - to any thinking person - with any familiarity with the documented evidence and history - that no individual's good reputation or credibility can survive if they continue to go along with the Committee of Inquiry on the path it has presently taken.

    The CoI must either be made to begin to do its job properly - or you must cleanse yourself of association with it.

    There is no hiding-place.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi VFC,

    From reading this, those in official positions aren't even bothering to hide their struggle to avoid transparency and fairness. So sure of themselves that no authority can compel them to be reasonable, they feel entitled to do as they have always done leading decades of abuse cover-up.

    Jersey should provide a profound teaching lesson to the promised National UK Inquiry, and not a moment too soon. From the start, the survivors and their trusted supporters and associated representatives must take initial control via organisation and social media presence, to demand their own input, checks and balances, and final oversight. There is a chance this could actually happen.

    What is left to do now in Jersey? Can the survivors, witnesses and their trusted allies still find a way to speak with one voice to challenge what is shaping up to be the usual Jersey state media and oligarchy-style whitewash?

    It has occurred to me that anyone following the evidenced bloggers could guess the results of the findings report from the COI. Could we write it for them and save them untold time and public expense with this charade? Of course, their findings will list some details of things which should never have happened to care children, such as being harshly and sometimes abusively treated by "untrained, under-supervised staff," refer to the "era" or "times" as being "different," highlight a few "regrettable" incidents of particular "severity," mostly repeat endless allegations of kids being punished with "overly harsh" outmoded ideas of "discipline" and then bury inside the list a few fleeting references to sexual abuse, probably with emphasis on that committed by older children, and a quick mention of those already convicted following Harper/Power's Operation Rectangle.

    In other words, we can expect the findings to be less than we Jersey blog readers already know, except for even more (filler) examples of lesser, more routine abuses, like children being whipped with a belt or slippers, and in summary there will be a harsh condemnation of the old fashioned discipline tactics of the era, some admission that mistakes were made, but without meaningfully attributing these mistakes to anyone accountable, without in any way shaking up the existing system of cover-ups. Oh, yes, with "lessons learnt," and some recommendations of changes which will be largely too late or irrelevant to be meaningful. Or, we could simply copy & paste most sections of most findings from national inquiries, as they are suitably generic and they equally avoid assigning real blame on living individuals in positions of effective authority.

    ..cont.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ..cont:

    We can bet the BBC & JEP state media will headline with what, on the surface, appear to be shocking new findings but are not even among the worst of the evidenced horrific abuses. At most, there may be speculation that additional, vaguely described prosecutions are possible, but that will amount to none in the end. The JEP editorial will proclaim the "historic" issue closed, and demand that while "no one doubts some terrible abuses took place," it is time to move forward because nothing is gained by covering this same old ground. The JEP will use the opportunity to take another stab at Harper and Power again, with the findings of the whitewash as justification. We could pre-write the state media coverage as easily as the report findings.

    There's always the chance the National #CSAInquiry will be robust enough to re-expose Jersey's more dire history of abuse and cover-ups, actually examining Savile and related types - invited VIP visitors who apparently abused their choice of vulnerable HDLG children. It's my hope that all involved in conducting this watered-down Jersey COI have in mind the fear of being caught out in a National inquiry, which could include evidence of children sent to Jersey to be abused by powerful people, although it's an easy guess that Jersey will simply blame low survivor participation for any inadequacy of official findings. That's the Jersey Inquiry's planned excuse for failure to obtain the full evidence, is it not?

    Or, a real inquiry of sorts could be conducted by the survivors and those they trust, not unlike the top level investigations and reports of yourself, Bob, Rico and Stuart with your far more honest and respected work. Blog commenters have raised this idea before. I'm betting on your long term success and admired place in history, however you report, in whatever form. The truth wants out and it has your continued help and a greater truth will have your help whether or not you are unjustly banned from witnessing this particular whitewash.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several problems - Will Jersey be included in the National Inquiry. Would anyone take any notice of a survivor inquiry or allow survivors access to any essential data?

      Delete
    2. There is a concerted effort by activists, highly respected whistleblower Liz Davies, and several MPs to include Jersey in the National overarching COI. The initial appointment of a conflicted member of the establishment did not bode well for the COI, but the mass opposition on social media points to a growing force for a complete exposure. Time will tell.

      Would anyone take notice of a survivor-led inquiry? I think they would. It could be the natural extension of what has already developed online, and the fullest disclosure seen so far without obstruction by authorities, and not so different from the various books and other media accounts of victims' stories. One challenge would be access to documents, since an unofficial inquiry would have no subpoena powers. Given the fact that documentation is so often 'missing,' the difference might be smaller than it should be.

      The best solution I can see is to have local survivor-led organisations networking under the umbrella of a wider national survivor group, with a combined affiliation large enough to be a high-pressure force for action. Social media can offer the platform for that voice now.

      Elle

      Delete
  13. Not sure if last comment went through, but here is what I said. Jill can't you get the Victim's together to say that they we not continue with out the inclusion of a VFC and Bob Hill in the media room. end of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be brave, stand up and be counted, but will the inquiry hold it against you?

      Delete
  14. Haven't seen anything yet from Robert "scoop" Hall can anyone inform as to how many hours/minutes/seconds he has been attending yet or is he investigating the latest WI meeting in outer suburbia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBC Reporter was Robert Hall who, as part of his original application to the Inquiry Team for accreditation wrote;
      "In closing I’d like to thank you once again for the way in which you are dealing with media interest, and close with one thought; I note from local web activity that some non-accredited interested parties are eager to gain accreditation.Should space be as limited as you fear, I foresee difficulties on busy days if such accreditation goes beyond recognised media organisations......just my view...."(END)

      It seems that Robert Hall provided the reason (or was it excuse) for excluding bloggers from reporting access?


      So lets have a look at Robert Hall's most recent (I believe) contribution to protecting Jersey children:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8211830.stm
      "Jersey carer convicted of abuse"

      [Gordon Wateridge] was described as "a persistent sexual bully"

      But the BBC's Robert Hall, in Jersey, said there were serious questions about the way the investigation had been carried out, not least the role played by the island's police Chief Officer Graham Power, who was suspended from duty last year for allegedly mishandling the inquiry.
      There had been suggestions of murders taking place at the home, and following extensive searches police initially claimed to have found traces of blood, a fragment of a child's skull and secret underground "dungeons".
      But in November 2008, these claims were discredited

      Robert Hall. A journalist or a churnalist?
      VFC have you personally sent Robert Hall a copy of Police Chief Graham Power's affidavit etc. for his errrrr.... "professional" research?

      Delete
  15. Robert Hall, first job with Channel TV says it all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senator Wilfred Krichefsky (OBE) was CTV's first managing director

      www.news.com.au/world/politicians-linked-to-horror-childrens-home/story-e6frfkyi-1111115704573

      "Wilfred Krichefski, a senator in Jersey's Government and chairman of several committees on the British Channel island [including those in control of the police], was said to have regularly visited Haut de la Garenne to abuse boys until his death in 1974.

      Living members of the island's establishment, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have also been identified as suspects.

      One former resident has claimed he was repeatedly raped at the children's home by Krichefski in 1962 and 1963.

      The man, now in his late 50s and living in the West Midlands of England, said that every month, he and another boy would be taken into a back room at the home and abused by two men.

      The former resident said he would be woken by a care worker with the words: "There is someone here to see you".

      The only person he told about the abuse was a [states?] psychiatrist who told him that he would be placed in a mental hospital if he repeated the allegations."

      ------------------------------------------------------------------

      So perhaps Channel Television has a corporate interest in non reporting or even for their trashing of the child abuse investigation?
      VFC; can you give us the links on CTV's "award wining" (sweet Jesus!) cover up please

      Senator Wilfred Krichefsky was a particularly large man (not unlike Cyril Smith) so being raped by him must have been a particularly unpleasant experience.

      Delete
    2. One of the Blogs published on the subject of CTV's "award" can be viewed HERE.

      If you click on the labels at the bottom of the main posting "CTV" and "ITV/CTV" you will be able to access all the Blog Postings published where they have been labeled.

      To include CTV's exoneration of Jersey's DISGRACED DEAN.

      Delete
  16. Hall Of Shame.

    I can't publish your comment because of the "guilt by association." If you remove the offending piece I would be happy to publish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you VFC; showing more professionalism than the 'professional' heritage media

      I had mentioned and tried to warn against 'guilt by association' in answering commenter 21:07 and I hope that I have now clarified this sufficiently in the slight rephrasing below:

      Further to commenter 26 August 2014 21:07

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hall_(journalist)
      He [Robert Hall] started his career as a reporter and presenter at Channel Television in 1977. [Guernsey based]

      Robert Hall is married to Mary Green

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Green
      Mary Green worked for ITV in the South of England for many years, having been employed previously by TVS and Channel Television.


      Both husband and wife are linked to Channel Television while some of the worst physical and sexual abuse was still occurring, albeit after the demise of CTV's alleged child rapist W.Krichefsky.

      IT IS IMPORTANT TO AVOID 'guilt by association' and endeavour to fairly judge people on their own actions (and inactions)
      One must however be concerned and unimpressed by Robert Hall's unquestioning regurgitation of state paedophile misinformation, as re-quoted from above:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8211830.stm
      "Jersey carer convicted of abuse ......[Gordon Wateridge] was described as 'a persistent sexual bully'

      But the BBC's Robert Hall, in Jersey, said there were serious questions about the way the investigation had been carried out, not least the role played by the island's police Chief Officer Graham Power, who was suspended from duty last year for allegedly mishandling the inquiry.
      There had been suggestions of murders taking place at the home, and following extensive searches police initially claimed to have found traces of blood, a fragment of a child's skull and secret underground 'dungeons'.
      But in November 2008, these claims were discredited ..."

      Robert Hall's defence, prior to this he had been associated with some reasonable quality journalism:

      www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/03/31/hdlg_panorama_feature.shtml

      and

      www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/09/18/inside_out_abuse_feature.shtml

      I think that both of these are still available online or on youtube
      (links anyone please?)

      Robert Hall may not have had a major part in these or have had any positive editorial input to be able to take any real credit for these programmes.

      Robert Hall must be sent information including Police Chief Graham Power's affidavit
      and links/info like:

      http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html

      Then we will know PDQ if he reports on it or just "uses it in our journalism" like the ultra-savilesque BBC-Team-Jon-Gripton (hear a man totally out of his depth at the link below)

      http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/11/bbc-radio-jersey-interviews-blogers.html

      The bloggers interviewed did a great job, but perhaps were too concerned with being polite to really move in for the kill (except for Ex Health Minister Syvret, who has the experience and the accurately channeled anger)

      Perhaps Robert Hall would like to man up and do a live interview with Ex Health Minister Syvret as it is two years since the last such 'petrichor' in the desert of truth that is BBC Jersey.

      Association or assimilation with Team-BBC-Jersey would kill Robert Hall's career

      Has the BBC changed since Savile and.... Stuart Hall and.......
      ?

      Delete
  17. So much for this being all about the victims of abuse. It seems that some of your commenters are encouraging witnesses to disengage with the enquiry to attempt to register some sort of political protest.

    Honestly, do you think these poor people are not sick of being used as political pawns.

    Some of your commentators are sick sick individuals, and will stop at nothing, and nobody, to try and play politics. I hope they one day realise their interference in others lives for their own gains is below contempt.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary the commenters are trying to preserve the only voice victims/survivors have had (Bloggers). It is the COI who is attempting to silence the victims/survivors voice and playing politics.

      Your comment is answered as part of an e-mail exchange I have had with a national journalist only this morning where I wrote;

      “If we only had the local State media's version of Operation Rectangle to go by then it would be that Lenny Harper found a coconut, the tooth fairy stashed a few teeth in a cellar that doesn't exist, Harper spent a fortune on a prawn cocktail in a London Restaurant, Graham Power never told him off and hardly any abuse took place, nothing has been covered up and it's time to move on. It's the Bloggers who have been questioning the party line and exposing the cover-up and corruption, when the State Media has just been churning out Press Releases without questioning a thing.”

      Delete
  18. 'On the contrary the commenters are trying to preserve the only voice victims/survivors have had (Bloggers). It is the COI who is attempting to silence the victims/survivors voice and playing politics.'

    When are you going to understand this isn't about you, or bloggers, or Stuart, or anybody else other than the victims. Their evidence is for them to decide to give, not for you to try and decide whether or not they should give it, or for you to attempt to tamper with or hijack the process. It's about the victims you constantly claim to represent. Please explain how, if they are still asking for witnesses to come forward, and the daily transcripts are made public, how exactly the COI are attempting to silence the victims ?

    For God's sake, leave these poor people alone, and let them decide what they wish to do. The only people trying to silence them are the sick and twisted individuals telling them what they should think and do. If they want to tell their stories, they have their forum. If they don't, they won't. Nobody else's opinion matters other than theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please show me where, and I mean ANYWHERE, that I have tried to prevent victims from giving evidence to the COI. Your comment will be deleted in 15 minutes if you do not show where I have attempted to prevent any victim from giving evidence or you apologise for your misrepresentation of my motives.

      Delete
  19. You have decided to publish the following comments. You control this blog and the comments policy, and your contributors are quite blatantly telling the victims what to do.

    'The correct way to deal with this outrage must be for the abuse victms to withdraw from this sham in protest and show them up for the charlatans that they have proven themselves to be'

    'Jill can't you get the Victim's together to say that they we not continue with out the inclusion of a VFC and Bob Hill in the media room. end of'

    'The correct way to deal with this outrage must be for the abuse victms to withdraw from this sham in protest and show them up for the charlatans that they have proven themselves to be. They won't be able to cover up a stalled inquiry that easily.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what, in reality I have done, is to give people a voice by publishing their opinions just as I have for you. That is balance and I have NOT attempted to discourage victims/survivors from giving evidence. I accept your apology.

      For your information only this afternoon I have been able to convince a Victim/Survivor to give evidence to the COI.

      I believe it is imperative ALL victims/survivors and potential witnesses should give evidence to the COI and I have encouraged many to do so which is the part of this Blog Posting you chose to ignore in order to peddle your own agenda of attacking this Blog.

      Delete
  20. I unreservedly apologise for accusing you personally of encouraging victims to withdraw from the process. That was a misplaced accusation and I appreciate that this has not been your intention.

    I am, as you will appreciate, very angry about certain of your contributors who are attempting to use the victims in what I see is an attempt to further their own agendas.

    I am glad that you stand behind the inquiry process, and just wish that others would back off trying to tell some fragile and damaged people how they should think and act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your humility and rest assured I have, not only persuaded witnesses to give evidence to the COI, I have actually helped them give it. something that can be verified by the COI itself.

      Delete
  21. That is very encouraging and a great help for people who need assistance in re-living some terrible histories. Do you in that case disagree with, and condemn, those people on here who are encouraging the victims to withdraw from the process ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will reply a little later, a bit tied up at the mo.

      Delete
    2. Do I disagree with, and condemn, those people on here who are encouraging the victims to withdraw from the process?

      In a word “no” I don’t victims/survivors/witnesses will, or won’t, engage with this Inquiry for their own very varied reasons not because somebody on a Blog said so.

      They would have thought long and hard in coming to their decision, and in some cases, discussed it with family members/close friends etc.

      Nobody should be compelled to give evidence, just as they shouldn’t be compelled not to either. We are talking about a great number of individuals who have had their own life experiences, many extremely different from each other, and by “tarring all with the same brush” is not treating them as individuals or allowing them to make their own decision(s).

      What if this inquiry does turn out to be a white-wash, as so many others have to include, Hillsborough, Steven Lawrence/SY police/Rotherham to name but a few?

      My stance is that this Inquiry cannot be accused of a cover-up, or whitewash, if it receives no evidence and that’s why I believe it is important it receives evidence. I also understand the victims who think why the hell should I go back to that deep, dark place from my childhood, repeat all that trauma to yet another bunch of officials only to be walked over again?

      There is a strong argument for both sides and it is up to the Inquiry Team to gain the trust, and confidence, of those it wishes to share their most painful experiences with.
      It would be irresponsible, and unforgivable, of me if I were to convince any victim/survivor to trust this Inquiry if I don’t know whether it should be trusted, or not, myself.

      I have grave doubts over it, and that must be said. It is the media’s job to challenge, and scrutinize not just churn out Press Releases or repeat whatever is said. We don’t have that media in Jersey, other than the Blogs, so it is left to us, to do it.

      When the COI act the way it has in banning the only media who has been a voice for victims, and is trusted by the victims, in favour of the State Media who stands accused of complicity in the Jersey cover-up then this needs to be reported and addressed.

      The COI Team know how trusted this, and Bob Hill’s Blog is, and how mistrusted the State Media is, because the victims/Survivors, and others to include the former SIO Lenny Harper and the JCLA have told them.

      The COI has thanked me for the assistance I have given it and acknowledged the part I have played in bringing victims forward which makes their decision to ban me from reporting from the building at Seaton Place all that more suspicious.

      Myself, and Bob Hill, STILL haven’t been told the process of appeal for this latest decision/ruling and, as I’m sure the COI would agree, is harming its own credibility.

      Hope this answer clarifies my position, and thank you for keeping our disagreement civil. If only others, who disagree with me, on this Blog, could be so civil then their comments would get published and a good reasoned debate could be had.

      Delete
  22. I am the commenter who suggested withdrawing from the sham. I stand by my opinion because I don't believe this inquiry is going to be reported fairly in the mainstream media. It will be covered up and downplayed as usual, in support of the disgusting creatures who believe that exposing any wrongdoing is "wrecking" their cosy gravy train.

    I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I hope you support my right to have an opinion. Living in this unjust island is difficult for all of us with any conscience, even those of us who haven't directly suffered from abuse can still find it hard to sit by and watch the sickness that pervades society get swept under the carpet all the time.

    Unfortunately, the victors get to write history their way, and it's the mainstream press that dictates what the majority believe. Ultimately I'm not even convinced that blogs can put a dent in all that, but I applaud their efforts. Maybe things can get better if the readership numbers increase. But it's so unjust to ban dedicated reporters on a whim for no good reason, I can't have any faith in this inquiry. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  23. VFC
    I see you’ve had a number of comments attacking those who suggest survivors might want to consider whether they take part in this particular “public inquiry”.

    Those comments have all the hallmarks of the army of spin-doctors employed by the CoI / Chief Minister’s Department – oozing with desperation to maintain a few shreds of credibility upon a manifestly incredible process.

    It’s just another form of intimidation, is it not – like the recent well-documented exposure of the trolling and its attempts to shut-down debate and peddle the “message” that ‘there-are-certain-opinions-which are-not-permissible-in-public-debate’.

    Nevertheless - some of the points raised merit a response.

    Firstly – whoever made the comment has a profoundly patronising and contemptuous view of the survivors – “victims” – as they’re termed in the comment, and assumes they do not have minds and opinions of their own and their own capacities to follow discussions and make up their own minds.

    For the information of the commenter, of the survivors I know, only maybe one 35 – 40% of them plan to engage with this CoI - and those decisions have been entirely their own. Their reasons for that choice – of those who have explained them to me – are many and various, and do not consist of one particular factor. Of those who discussed it with me, a majority of those who have chosen to not engage with the inquiry made that decision a long time ago, before even this particular Committee was formed.

    Not one of the survivors I know would – or would not – engage with this CoI merely because one these forums, or I, suggested that to them.

    To assume these people do not have minds of their own is to treat them with contempt.

    As you say, VFC, you have not suggested to survivors that it might be futile for them to engage with the CoI.

    But if some people do make that suggestion - so what?

    Even if it is an unhelpful suggestion, that option – of non-engagement – is a perfectly legitimate part of the debate – and efforts to stoke-up fake “outrage” against it – trying to exclude it from public discussion as though it were some kind of abominable idea – are just another example of the culture-of-concealment at work.

    There is also a strong degree of moral vacuity in the comments – which display the very absence of ethical reflection which enabled so many people to be silent, or even pro-actively complicit in the concealment of these atrocities for decades. For what it’s worth, I have not told anyone – not one single person – that they should not engage with this CoI.

    But – even now – I constantly wrestle with whether that position is ethical of me?

    Given all my many years of experience of what passes for public administration in Jersey – and all of the many failed “inquiries” into one thing or another – and given the number of “Ourchap” reports the Jersey polity is able to rig and engineer to prop-up its “credibility” – and having observed the numerous structural failings and actual startling examples of bias of this CoI – for example, banning bloggers and exhibiting disability discrimination – perhaps I’m being unethical?

    Perhaps I’m being a coward? Perhaps I’m flinching away from a hard public-interest duty – of simply advising people – recommending to them – that they don’t bother engaging?

    I doubt, if I did that, it would have much impact – as I said, the survivors I know make up their own minds.

    But – really – is it ethical of me – given the all-too-clear “signs” – to fail to warn witnesses?

    After all – this CoI could – very easily – turn out to have been worse than useless; it could turn out to just be another “Ourchap” report – used to cement the failed system, rather than cleaning it up.

    And if that happens – I know a number of survivors who would suffer yet another whole new layer of crushing despair, anger and frustration.

    These are all legitimate issues – legitimate questions – legitimate debates – legitimate dilemmas.

    Let no-one shut down the debate.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. St.S, I'm not so sure ....yet

      The "outraged" commenter was persistent and highly motivated and on these important threads many people share your suspicion that taxpayers money is being misappropriated via the "communications unit", and expensive lawyers, spin doctors and 'astroturfers'.

      It is a difficult one to call because the consciousness (and consciences) of many Jersey residents have been so taken in by years of blanket media media direction and misinformation that they find themselves regurgitating it by reflex and imagining that they are the ones in possession of the full or balanced facts. Some of these people aggressively re-quote the line they have completely swallowed WITHOUT PAY OR PROMPTING. The psychological reasons for this are very interesting and I believe are based on the human need for [perceived] security. this need to FEEL secure renders even reasonably intelligent individuals unable to challenge the status quo, face uncomfortable truths and "think the unthinkable". Jersey's establishment media has shown itself to be there only to reinforce that false security ...all to the detriment of the vulnerable children and adults alike.


      There is a darker side:

      For those unfamiliar with the trolling/stalking expose mentioned by Mr. Syvret more information can be found at:

      http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2014/08/jersey-cyber-stalker-part-4-our-story.html

      etc. etc. & others, apparently with more to follow in order to get to the bottom of the murky pit

      including the law offices / AG:
      http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2014/08/jerseys-attorney-general-now-issuing.html

      This dangerous individual was not exposed or openly reported in the Heritage Media it was (like so many others) broken on this (reconstructed) site:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jason-the-maverick/

      What is most chilling thing about the old recording still available at
      http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

      is the demonstrable truth in Jon Haworth's boast of his protection by elements of Jersey Police and Data protection.

      This man has long been in dire need of help. Now that Jon Haworth ...the long term asset of the establishment PR-thought-police, has proved himself to be a dangerous liability and an 'own goal machine' when left on too long a leash .....there is at last a chance that he will get that help. But how can the establishment backtrack and give that help without further exposing the the lie upon lie of Health Minister Syvret's publicly funded super-injunction and political imprisonments ?????


      The apparently "outraged" commenter seems to have disappeared for the moment and they may be a real person or it may just have been the end of their shift.
      Jersey's quality evidenced blogs have taken us all (myself included) on a journey. All those of reasonable intellect and open minds are at a different point are at a different point on that journey so it would be useful to ask the commenter to share their further thoughts on the abuse/cover up situation and particularly on this blog it they are new to it.

      If they are not new to this blog there is little excuse for not having recognised VFC's morality, commitment, intellect and knowledge base.

      I have never met Niel (VFC) but despite his disability he is clearly an asset to the island and to any meaningful CoI process.
      The fact that the CoI has seen fit to (de facto) ban him (& leave him banned) from using electronic devices (that the rest of the media use) and thus render Niel incapable in the process, as a right hand amputee, is deeply, deeply troubling IMO.

      Delete
  24. Why not leave the Inquiry to the experts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not leave the Inquiry to the experts?
      What a good idea!
      Knowledge and experience (ideally relevant and local) is so important. There must be few better qualified to form part of the panel than VFC and Ex Minister Syvret who blew the lid off the decades of hidden abuse through his investigations into ongoing maltreatment of children.

      Oh! sorry, you meant the proven "experts" at cover up. The lawyer types and shysters & MSM? The sort who would exclude and seek to disable those like VFC who are and should be resources to the CoI.

      Are you the anonymous "outraged" commenter changing tack?
      Have you an opinion on this VFC?


      Also "As if the revelations in this posting are not alarming enough, there are more revelations, concerning the apparent complicity of the Inquiry, that will be emerging, via another Blogsite soon."

      The odds are on that being the blog of Bob Hill BEM
      Oh look, another asset being sidelined by the errr.... "experts"

      Delete
  25. Neil,

    My wish is also that our discussions remain both civil and amicable.

    For that reason, I see little to be gained by my replying to accusations, over the course of one evening, of being in the employ of spin doctors, intimidation, trolling, patronising the abuse survivors, being contemptuous of the abuse survivors, assuming that the victims had no mind of their own, stoking fear and outrage, moral vacuity, displaying fake outrage, changing tack, and possibly not being a real person.

    That is quite a list of behavioural traits and motivations to draw from 4 blog postings, and ones that I sadly lack the ability or inclination to try and disprove. To those who have made the accusations, I am sorry that you feel that way. You are wrong, but I understand that this simple denial is unlikely to change your view of me.

    None of the accusations of course change my position that people assuming the right to tell abuse survivors that they should disengage from the enquiry (which despite attempts to re-interpret my comments, people have done) is disgusting and morally indefensible.

    I would absolutely defend anybody's right to discuss and question any aspect of the inquiry. I would not defend somebody's right to tell abused people how they should act in relation to their own participation or otherwise. And that is what a number of your commenters have done.

    I felt that needed to be clarified.

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi "outraged commenter"
      Please feel free to allocate yourself a different 'handle' if "outraged commenter" is inappropriate. That a more civil and meaningful discussion can be had because readers know which "Anonymous" you are.

      Thank you for replying,even though you declined to answer any of my enquiries other than the welcome denial that you were Anonymous "changing tack" @21:19

      Please feel free to answer my previous request
      "Jersey's quality evidenced blogs have taken us all (myself included) on a journey. All those of reasonable intellect and open minds are at a different point are at a different point on that journey so it would be useful to ask the commenter to share their further thoughts on the abuse/cover up situation and particularly on this blog it they are new to it."

      Is your outrage sincere or a passing whim or a flag of convenience? Genuine and credible outrage would be based on knowledge your concern for survivors of abuse could easily be demonstrated by past deeds campaigning for survivors and their rights.
      Please feel free to paste the links to these to demonstrate your understanding of the situation and support the veracity and validity of your outrage.

      Where have you been outraged by the abuse of children.....
      by the failure to protect tomorrow's children....
      etc.
      etc.

      Or did a very narrow and focused outage suddenly come upon you only yesterday?

      How many more indications that the CoI is acting like an instrument of cover-up would you require before even you would not wish to engage with the process?
      Some people might recommend disengagement before Hilsbourough, others might stay on board to the extreme of the Nazi show trials.
      Surely there comes a point where your "disgusting and morally indefensible" becomes indestinct and then flips.
      It would not be disgusting and morally indefensible to advise survivors to take part in a con?????

      Is this CoI genuinely looking for the truth and will it be a good investment in the safety of tomorrow's children ......Like VFC and Ex Health Minister Syvret I have major and growing concerns.

      Have you no outrage about the possibility/likelihood of this, and where have you voiced it?

      We look forward to your reply, or non-reply.

      Delete
    2. Sorry missed a sentence break. Section should read:
      "Is your outrage sincere or a passing whim or a flag of convenience? Genuine and credible outrage would be based on knowledge.
      FULL STOP
      Your [genuine] concern for survivors of abuse could easily be demonstrated by past deeds campaigning for survivors and their rights." etc.

      I hope that is clearer.
      Thanks

      Delete
    3. I apologise. I didn't realise that I had to earn my outrage for it to be genuine.

      I will continue to be outraged in private so as not to upset anybody.

      Delete
    4. Thank you Outraged Anonymous, apology accepted.
      I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt that your outrage is genuine but if you could link to any of outrage you have experienced on other matters it might convince that your "outrage" is actually based on knowledge and informed concern for survivors

      PLEASE don't go or sulk; this isn't a 'fight club' it is a battle for hearts and minds -and it will be fought robustly where necessary.

      Whatever your political colour this is an important battle
      -broadly between those who believe that systems must genuinely prevent child abuse
      -and those who are prepared to be diverted into accepting flawed systems, accepting non-prosecution of priority suspects, accepting heightened risks to future children.
      Except for a small proportion of deeply flawed individuals, this tacit acceptance is mostly the fault of the "owned" media on the island' the JEP & CTV [JEPro-paedo & Cover-upTV] with the hijacked local state broadcaster being little better.
      Most 'propaganda-victims' are basically good people (though the allies applied the concept of "collective guilt" to {the semi-elected!} Nazi Germany after the WW2)

      "Collective guilt" is only an analogy for consideration and self analysis rather than a useful concept for the Jersey situation, but the underlying point is that even a functioning democracy is only as strong as the honesty or balanced-diversity of it's media.
      Have we, or our children, got the government we deserve?

      Jersey (and the world in general) is currently at far greater risk from a resurgent right (including fundamentalism) than from the largely vanquished extreme left.

      Sorry about the minor diversification from the central issues of VFC's CoI/child-protection blog-thread, but it is helpful to glance occasionally at an overview (of sorts) IMO
      Returning to topic; have VFC and the discussions on his thread modified your view at all or do you still cling to your assertion that VFC should not publish (yes CENSOR) the other commenter who suggests disengagement from the CoI, at least in it's present form ?
      (given that it appears to be being secretly steered by the establishment and civil serpents)

      P.S.
      Click on my name for alternative opinions ........

      Delete
    5. Sorry that link from my name does not seem to be working properly

      Try clicking again on this comment or use:
      http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3434.msg59370.html#msg59370

      read that and page-up to parts including:

      "he took on a sour and sad cause and story, and blew the lid off, which would eventually help young abused girls.

      He took on the police, the council and disbelievers and beat them all, armed with his pen and of course the truth.The part article below shows why heads should roll as bosses became aware a storm was heading their way and tried desperately to cover their tracks rather than do the right thing."

      Andrew Norfolk would probably not be welcome or employable in any of Jersey's current heritage media. In fact if he persisted he would probably face Jersey imprisonment.

      Perhaps he could have Stuart Syvret's old cell (assuming that the Health Minister is not again being held 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'
      literally ;-)

      Delete
    6. or
      http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3434

      and read/page down

      Sign ....... third time lucky -hopefully?

      Delete
  26. Anonymous - a simple question for the moment, if you would?

    In your comment you state this: -

    "I would not defend somebody's right to tell abused people how they should act in relation to their own participation or otherwise. And that is what a number of your commenters have done."

    Could you point to where anyone has "told" abuse survivors what they should do in respect of their own engagement or non-engagement with the CoI?

    Certainly, it has been suggest in some comments and debate - here and elsewhere - that not engaging with this particular CoI might be a preferable choice - largely on the underlying ground that engaging with what could end up being merely another Jersey establishment "validation" exercise could be actually detriment to the cause of future child-protection standards.

    But I haven't read, seen - or ever heard - any person "telling" survivors what they should or should not do.

    There is a legitimate debate taking place.

    And for the information of anonymous - some of those who are strongly against engaging with this CoI - and who advocate for that position - are survivors themselves.

    I know this - because I've had various private debates and discussions with them - and advocated for engagement.

    Though - as I wrote previously - I continuously wonder whether I have been correct - intellectually or ethically to do so.

    Doubts of mine which are now massively amplified - given public announcement that this CoI is now "being assisted" - by "a team" - lead by one of the most expressly and directly conflicted senior civil servants from Health & Social Services - and the Chief Minister's department.

    One of the most directly conflicted civil servants in respect of the systemic and endemic child-protection failures - and two of most conflicted States of Jersey Departments - now, essentially, running the boiler-house of the actual public inquiry which is supposed to be inquiring into their conduct.

    And I'm expected to carry on defending this CoI?

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  27. H&SS Children Services Manger of many years is invited to leave quietly, and goes, and conflicted senior civil servant from H&SS is asked to side step, to assist Col?....

    Most odd!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Most odd?"

      There are many words which could be used to describe the spectacle.

      The most immediate and economical is "incompetent".

      This "public inquiry" seemingly never tires of cutting the throat of its own "credibility".

      The announcement of H & SS senior civil servants and the Chief Minister's Department being involved in "assisting" the CoI has now - predictably - lost it yet another cohort of witnesses.

      So wholly extraordinary is the step - almost certainly without precedent in the modern history of public inquires in Britain - that that may well have been the objective.

      Stuart

      Delete
  28. Channel 4 tv news seem to have got the bit between their teeth over Rotherham, might it be a good time to approach them to look at what is going on here, if they apply quickly enough they might get one of the "bloggers" seats at the enquiry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a consequence of the ruling to ban Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) due to, in part, limited space in the media room this will mean there will be no room for Channel 4 either. If the COI Team is to be consistent then one would expect Channel 4 to be refused accreditation if it were to apply.

      Delete
  29. Another local blog has just put up the link to the Rotherham abuse report and is it not interesting the different make up of committees. The chair and academic Professor Alexis Jay OBE opening remarks.

    I was assisted in the Inquiry by Kathy Somers, independent consultant and Associate of the Care Inspectorate in Scotland. Specialist expertise was provided by Sheila Taylor and her team at the National Working Group Network on Child Sexual Exploitation, who also carried out cross reading of a small number of files.

    Jersey COI has a Judge surrounded by lawyers and civil servants, thought it needed mentioning.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If the "media room" is too small for the journalistic interest expressed, why don't they find a bigger room? Coem to think of it, why didn't they plan for this when they chose the location to start with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have no reason for wanting to limit of restrict media interest ......do they?
      ............ ?????

      Delete
  31. They have been looking for a reason to get shot of bloggers for a while but tweeting abusive tweets during a live inquiry was hardly the brainiest thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's an outrage!!!29 August 2014 at 14:33

      Are you sure that it was the tweets ......or the Inqury itself which is abusive??

      see
      https://twitter.com/StuartSyvret

      Tweeting updates is appropriate to an open inquiry as long as it does not identify victims etc.
      What are they trying to hide or "opinion manage"?

      Not outraged or upset, are you?

      Delete
    2. The RAG has stated tonight (I read someone else BTW) that Stuart was Tweeting while the inquiry was in progress, WHY did he do this? I have been a staunch supporter of Stuarts for years and still am, but the COI made it quite clear as to the 'rules' and now it has taken the 'broad brush' not only to Stuart but to ALL the bloggers, this is in itself a very strange stance. If the BBC had failed to comply with the rules of the COI would CTV, JEP etc. suffered the same fate?. Lets be honest here why did this happen?

      Delete
    3. Although the JEP did quote from this Blog here is a bit it didn't quote;

      "The inquiry team were also aware that VFC have not broken a single protocol or breached any Press Release Embargoes and the same can't be said for the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) who breached an embargo and the BBC who were, contrary to the protocols, filming inside the hearing's building, at the bottom of the stairs where any unsuspecting victim/witness would, and in one case was, confronted with a BBC camera, pointing at them when attempting to leave the building."

      There you have it, the State Media breaking the rules, but no mention of it in the state Media and no sanctions for it.

      Delete
  32. "Broadcast media in Jersey reaches between 40% and 50% of the population and the JEP around 80%. There are dozens of websites run by those you and your cohort refer to as the MSM with forums that attract thousands of unique users a day and serve millions of pages a month."

    I would be interested to know who wrote this comment. It sounds very much like the sort of wording the JEP uses to sell advertising space. Some months ago, I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority and made a complaint against a JEP advert which made misleading and completely unverifiable claims regarding the number of adults who read the paper and / or visit its website.

    As a result of that complaint, the JEP agreed to withdraw the advert and stop making unverifiable claims about the number of hits and unique site visits to its website.

    The only independently verified statistics relating to the JEP are the Audit Bureau of Circulation figures. The latest ABC certificate shows an average daily circulation of 15,607 during the 6 months ended 29th June 2014. That represents a fall of 6.75% in just 6 months, which is catastrophically bad even by the JEP's recent history of long-term decline in circulation (for example in June 2008, its circulation was 21,098 copies).

    While declining sales are an issue for most newspapers, it's difficult not to contemplate why the JEP is faring so badly, given that it is the monopoly "national" newspaper in a small insular community with a rapidly rising population. Could it be that more and more readers are becoming disillusioned with the "State propaganda" editorial stance, and are simply not bothering to buy the paper?

    While some content in local political blogs may well be utter tripe, it's simply undeniable that the only place locals can find the evidence of systemic maladministration in this island is on independent blogs. To argue that such bloggers aren't real journalists because they aren't insured is utterly laughable.

    If the "real" journalists at the JEP stopped unquestioningly regurgitating government press releases, or writing incredibly banal articles about nothing, and actually started asking the questions real people are asking, perhaps circulation would start to rise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who actually cares about the distribution of the JEP, when everybody on here says its a rubbish newspaper so why worry about it?

      Delete
    2. A rising population is immaterial if that population isn't local or permanent why would they want to read a local newspaper, even assuming English was their first language? Surely this is just another indicator of the imbalance in the population.

      Delete
    3. Regardless of how many papers the JEP sells (or doesn’t) the fundamental point is that it, along with the rest of the island’s Stat Media, is not trusted by a vast majority of Abuse Survivors/Victims. Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media) are trusted. The Inquiry Panel knows this yet carpet bans the only trusted (by Victims/Survivors) media.

      One has to question the motives of the Inquiry Panel because this could very well damage its credibility.

      Delete
    4. "Who actually cares about the distribution of the JEP, when everybody on here says its a rubbish newspaper so why worry about it?"

      Well, I for one care. A press that actively investigates, exposes and challenges government wrong-doing and incompetence is a critical component of a functioning democracy. We don't have that in Jersey, in fact we have a newspaper that colludes with the establishment to cover-up serious criminality, rubbishes anybody who challenges the status quo and, in some cases, simply makes stuff-up (coconuts etc).

      If you can just see through the Stella-induced haze for a moment, you might be able to appreciate the point.

      Delete
    5. The JEP circulation is in a death spiral downward toward extinction within a few years. And good rid. The figures quoted are too high anyway. Insiders say heading for 12.000 rapidly.

      Delete
  33. Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret will be doing a live interview HERE at 6:pm this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Alarm bells have always been there but they are starting to ring very loud and clear now. I want more than anything for this inquiry to work, to be totally transparent, independent and robust and above all be fit for purpose. The more I read and the more I find out through my own connections the more disillusioned and sceptical I am becoming. The panel and the legal team must be seen to be acting completely independently and without influence from any parties whichever side of the fence they sit on whether wanting to expose the truth or to cover it up!

    Sadly, I no longer feel that this is the case, there is no question in my mind, I strongly believe that the panel were influenced in their decision to ban the bloggers from the media room, maybe by a well-known journalist such as Robert Hall who has very strong connections in Jersey or, perhaps a government body or their legal representatives had a helping hand to have them removed! Either way, this decision does not sit comfortably at all and the treatment of Neil was quite appalling! Question to the COI panel, you have been handed all, and I mean all JEP clippings as well as those of other news outlets of how this whole sorry episode in Jersey’s history has been reported since 2008 and I would hope by now that you will have read and seen for yourselves how badly the abuse survivors were portrayed and belittled! Knowing this, why on earth would you want to ban from the media room the very bloggers who have not only supported the abuse victims throughout but have also reported the truth backed up with evidence?

    There are many questions still unanswered and the credibility of the COI is rapidly dwindling! What happened to Daniel Wimberley’s thought provoking submission to the COI, has that been binned! As some commenters have mentioned, In Tuesday’s edition of the JEP, there was an article about children’s service “shakeup”. Head of children’s service Phil Dennett is leaving after 25 years of service “devoting his efforts to helping vulnerable children and young people across the island”. I sincerely hope that he will be called as a witness before he slips away to be questioned on among other things, the investigation he undertook at the request of Marnie Baudains, Mario Lundy and Tony Le Sueur into “The Grand Prix system” and other barbaric way’s children and young adults were treated in places like Greenfields. In that same article, it has been announced that Richard Jouault (RJ) has been made the head of a specialist team set up to support the COI which has been established by the Chief Minister’s department. Cont:

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cont: Why now, what is the reason for this, why were other interested parties not informed of this decision before it was announced in the JEP? The Chief Minister vowed not get involved with the COI and to leave it to be completely independent, indeed neither he nor his department had any involvement with the selection process of the COI panel so why now this U turn!! RJ should not be involved in the COI in any way, shape or form, he cannot be trusted and this I have told him in person. He has work colleagues accused of abusing vulnerable children and therefore he cannot possibly act impartially, he is therefore already biased and wholly conflicted! In fact, he too should be called as a witness to explain among other things the appalling way in which some of the victims are still being treated over the redress scheme. It has also been announce that RJ will be supported by Tony Le Sueur! Is that the same Tony Le Sueur involved with the investigation of the “Grand Prix System”! For more information on this, I strongly recommend you read Simon Bellwood’s blog postings from circa 2008 onwards!

    My last rant before I get taken away!! We were all assured that the hearing room was not a Court of Law but a semi relaxed environment in which victims will get the opportunity to tell their stories without cross examination or intimidation. The atmosphere and procedures in that room are everything like a Court of Law even to the point of having to raise your hand and swear an oath on the bible or make an affirmation if you are non-religious! This in itself I would say would be very daunting for most people and especially if you have never attended a Court of Law before. Sadly, I am unable to attend many hearings due to full time work commitments but having sat and watched some victims give their stories, I am astounded by some of the reactions of the state’s lawyers and states representatives with their snide faces and sniggering with an “I told you so” expression and yet, they are not pulled up for their disgraceful behaviour but are in clear view of Frances Oldham QC and her panel!! Just what kind of precedent does this set, would you want to go and give a harrowing account of your most painful experiences and darkest secrets of your child hood memories knowing that some of the most professional people in the room might react this way? Do I want to put myself through that? The victims need all the support they can get and if anyone can attend these hearings, I strongly recommend that you do, it can be a real eye opener and some situations will leave you quite speechless!!

    There is much more that I want to say but best leave it there for now

    Carrie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrie.

      Thank you for your comment, observations and support.

      You raise some very alarming issues which need to be addressed immediately by the Inquiry Panel if it is to gain trust or confidence in its methods and motives. Coming from yourself, the Chair of Jersey Care Leavers Association, the Panel would be wise to take heed.

      I, like yourself, want to give this Inquiry as much support as I possibly can but they are making that task increasingly difficult.

      Delete
    2. Carrie,

      Thank you for your comment.

      The minute I read about RJ's involvement, all of the Inquiry's credibility evaporated.

      The Inquiry is called "The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry". That's what it says at the top of the website http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org

      I guess this is Independence, Jersey style, eh?

      It stinks.

      Rotten to the core.

      Delete
  36. Very brave of you Carrie to come out and say it like it truly is. Yes, we have always had reservations, but were hopeful that this Inquiry would be truly the 'Independent' one that it has been named.

    Sadly recent events bring this into question and I feel you have done the right thing in exposing the issues sooner rather than when it is too late. From the JCLA point of view, and especially yours as Chair and a survivor, any deflection from the independent aspect will only send out the wrong signals, and sadly the last couple of weeks has done exactly that.

    There can be no valid reason for the inclusion of Jersey civil servants in any way shape or form, and the exclusion of bloggers in favour of the State media mouthpieces also beggars belief. Answers are needed and quickly.

    It particularly galls me that you, who have done so very much over the years for the abuse survivors have now got reservations and feel maybe we are not getting the Inquiry we deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly I do not think some bloggers have given this inquiry a chance and its a chance that's wasting away.

      Delete
    2. On the other hand some Bloggers have given this inquiry every chance, and continue to do so, sadly the Inquiry, thus far, has fallen at just about every hurdle. That’s not to say it is written off…………yet.

      Delete
  37. The jep were handing out free copies in town this afternoon, they must be desperate!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is there not a misunderstanding here? Surely RJ and others have been asked to work for HSS to provide information for the CoI they are not working for the CoI team surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point, I believe that is being made, is RJ, and others, should have nothing whatsoever to do with the COI. They could/should be getting called as witnesses with some uncomfortable questions to answer.

      Delete
  39. The JEP is bought by mostly, old people.

    The JEP's saving grace for now at least is that their faithful buyers are living longer.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Live interview with former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, recorded and on Youtube HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Have you seen the news out of the UK about thousands of child abuse cases?

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/rotherham-residents-search-for-answers-in-u-k-sex-abuse-scandal-1409272644

    ReplyDelete
  42. THE ONE THEY LEFT OUT,


    Comments for: "Abuse inquiry excludes citizen media "

    Tim South

    August 29, 2014 7:06 pm

    There are certainly dubious and irrelevant blogs, it is the same for some newspapers and TV also poor radio sketches, some good others bad.
    Bob Hill ( Bob Hill Jersey Blog ) and Neil McMurray blogs ( VFC ) are balanced, fair and researched. Ask the victims, or don't they have an opinion anymore ?

    The Committee of enquiry, if it is serious about being respected and gaining islanders confidence, should immediately lift the ban on these two respected blogs, and also answer in full Ex Deputy Wimberly's important questions, or have they been consigned to the can't answer, won't answer pile ?

    It is the Committee chaired by Francis Oldham QC that needs to be careful, both of these blogs have done nothing wrong, and in fact have fully supported the COI so far. The last thing Jersey needs is another expensive whitewash of a committee made up of a judge and lawyers.

    Tim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You commented on the JEP 'forum' and they censored it? What a surprise......not. Happens all the time, which is why the best thing to do with that scum filled website is to ignore it.

      The amount of comments being made there has shrunk a lot since they changed their policy to require a verified email address. That's a good point to stop even going there to read the rubbish from the same old small number of attention seekers and trolls.

      Delete
  43. Another lie in the JEP last night in the Shipley column about democracy in the island. He stated that serving politicians had been convicted of helping to fill in voting forms, when in fact (you'd think a journalist would like facts and prefer them to untruths, wouldn't you?) the 'offence' was for helping voters to APPLY to receive voting forms - which isn't objectionable to anyone with a functional brain. That fool simply can't get past his own bias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't read the JEP, so no idea what the article you mention is about, but presumably Mr Shipley didn't mention the serving States Members who broke the data protection law, but weren't convicted. Which, to use the expression you rightly employ, is objectionable to anyone with a functional brain. Jersey - where the law doesn't apply if you have the right connections.

      Delete
    2. Surely if what you say is true, then what Shipley wrote is libellous?

      A reader who follows Jersey politics woukld know who the serving States Members were and would think that they had helped voters to fill in voting forms,

      Delete
    3. Shipley is a dinosaur and that they have had to wheel him out of cold storage to write shows just how at the bottom of the barrel they are. Headed for extinction and already at 50% of former hay day sales.

      Delete
  44. in response to the posting by Carrie(29th) and Stuart (28th) the so called expert to the COI, TLS is a long time friend and workmate of one of the data protection four, and an Operation Rectangle suspec.t In fact they have adjacent offices,how can we take them seriously,they are all pals together.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I can remember back in 2007 being called to attend a briefing for HSS staff at the hospital when RJ told us that Stuart Syvret was not to be believed as he had mental illness,Conflicted or what!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Watching the news it seems to me that there is a united UK government view that the Police Commissioner for South Yorks should resign on the basis that he had political oversight of Children’s Services when abuse took place but was not acted upon. He is resisting on the basis that the abuse was not drawn to his attention but critics say that it was his business to know what was going on in his own department.

    Nevertheless both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition say he should go even though he has moved on from his previous post responsible for children’s services. So that seems to be the UK government view. Those with political responsibility when abuse occurred and was not acted upon should be held to account.

    I just wondered if the Jersey Government has the same view or if they feel differently about the matter from the UK. Has the Jersey Government identified who had political or for that matter professional responsibility at the time at which abuse occurred and will any of the said persons be named and asked to resign from any position of responsibility they now hold? As now appears to be the stated policy of the UK authorities.

    Or is the "Jersey Way" different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was interested in the above comments regarding the line taken by the UK government regarding the Police Commissioner and others who appear to have failed in their former duties during child abuse in Rotherham. The UK government thinks they should resign from their current posts because of their past failings, and it would be interesting to know whether the Jersey Government agrees with the UK governments approach, which presumably sets out the UK view of what constitutes "good governance." If they do then would the same principle apply, for example, to someone who had once been Chairman of Governors in a Jersey School when abuse was apparently covered up, and that same person had gone on to hold a prominent position in the Jersey Government? It may be that readers can think of someone locally who might fall into the same category as the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, I believe the person you are talking about is former Bailiff and now Senator Philip Bailhache, who has very serious questions to answer concerning convicted paedophile Roger Holland allowed to remain in the honorary police force.

      Questions were asked of, the now, Senator's suitability as a candidate in the 2011 elections. Readers can view this HERE.

      Delete
    3. Why beat around the bush? Philip Bailhache should have been sacked over his outrageous failings I allowing convicted paedophile Roger Holland to stay in the Hon Police. He WOULD have been sacked anywhere else given the importance of his role as Attorney General. Instead he allows the blame to go on Bob Le Brocq and actually gets promoted to Bailiff! Shows just how bent the UK Justice Ministry is too. A final point but people cannot pretend they do not know about all of this. To her credit ex-Deputy Shona Pitman brought a vote of no confidence in Bailhache over this and his stomach-churning Liberation Day speech when he insulted the abuse survivors. #SepticIsle

      Delete
    4. I'm not completely sure but I think it was Philip Bailhache who cut Stuart Syvret's microphone off when Syvret was attempting to offer support for the abuse victims in his Christmas speech.

      Delete
    5. Yes, that's correct - it was Philip Bailhache.

      Stuart

      Delete
  47. It was Philip Bailhache's brother William Bailhache who refused to prosecute 11 cases of abuse when he was the AG. The only prosecutions he brought were against a few dispensable numpties and the higher ranking officials have been let off the hook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there were a couple of "show trials" reported HERE and the worst offender named in the court as "the most violent and cruel" abuser and "when it came to dishing out violence he took the biscuit" This alleged perpetrator didn't even get charged let alone appear in front of a Jersey court.

      Delete
  48. VFC

    I thought the article I link to below might interest your readers, in light of the comments above concerning the circulation and conduct of Jersey's only "newspaper" - and the Channel Television / Jersey establishment background of the plainly conflicted Robert Hall, who the BBC have chosen to cover the Jersey "public inquiry" into decades of concealed child-abuse: -

    http://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/media-should-not-make-money/8/

    The profit model of the heritage media is clearly dying - so the bloated - massively expensive trad media operations are struggling - and losing - against the web-based reality of everyone being able to be a journalist.

    And be a journalist frequently - as the Jersey experience has shown - of greater endeavour, quality, courage, integrity and ability of the idle, passive, collusive paid hacks who are mere churnalists.

    In fact, the following is a useful app to help detect churnalism: -

    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/churnalism/igpjommbbpdncpcnjkombboimdclgdhm

    And here, from the Media Standards Trust: -

    http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/02/media-standards-trust-updates-its-churnalism-tools/

    Some things were very clear - startlingly so - when I was reporting the CoI from the press room - such as simply how little work - of any kind - the paid army of paid hacks were doing - the stark total absence of any critical analyses from any of them - and - the deep, real unspoken sub-text - namely just how "redundant" - obsolete - they all were.

    A very, very expensive collection of paid hacks - but all sat there doing nothing more than churnalism to "validate" what is the obvious incompetence, directionless and inquisitorial chaos of this failed "public inquiry" - whilst an unpaid, independent journalist like me asked the obvious and immediate questions - and reported facts that are of public importance.

    It's no surprise really that the heritage media hacks object to bloggers reporting this "public inquiry"; their churnalism is already literally incredible; how much more so when citizen media journalist humiliate them by just asking the damn questions?

    The following is a real journalistic examination - of the failures of journalism - especially in Jersey - and the cover-up of Savile - and the gross collusions of the BBC in Jersey with corrupt acts designed to conceal child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups: -

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/just-ask-the-damn-question/

    Always remember - it isn't only the corrupt Jersey power-establishment that is desperately seeking a fake "validation" from this "public inquiry" - the heritage media is also looking for a life-boat - something that will rescue them - from the stark, overt failures and collusions they engaged in.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Syvret, Self praise is no recommendation. Revelling in the demise of "heritage media" misses the point that society is moving away from mass forms of communication as it becomes more self centred and nihilistic as the Selfie becomes more important than the society we inhabit and our part in it. You have your axe to grind with the media, fair enough, but consider a future where people only expose themselves to people like them and only interact with those that share exactly the same opinions as they do. Studies in the USA are already suggesting that tolerance and acceptance of different views is decreasing as users herd together with their own tribes and disconnect with everyone else. A bleak future for any sort of real democracy?

      Delete
    2. As it happens - I agree that society will not benefit from the demise of major news and journalistic undertakings. The Guardian, for example, struggles commercially, and I most certainly would not want to see the demise of that fine newspaper. Nor would I wish to see the demise of the Times, the Telegraph - nor even, strangely enough, the BBC which in spite of its grotesque failures in Jersey, continues to do great work nationally and internationally (not without faults & biases, but broadly a great service.)

      When I wrote of the demise of heritage media, I was reporting a factual situation which challenges trad media world-wide - and - in particular - I was addressing the trad media of Jersey - which is truly appalling. Really - not one of the heritage media in Jersey has so much as one redeeming feature in this scandal.

      On the contrary - Jersey's heritage media - all of it - has been pro-actively collusive in assisting Jersey's power-establishment to further conceal decades of child-protection failures.

      And such is the arrogance and mutually self-aggrandising and validating vanity of the local hack scene, I don’t think even one of them sees that fact. The Jersey “journalistic” scene provides a case-study in Groupthink.

      We look in vain for one Jersey heritage hack to take a principled campaigning approach to the child-abuse cover-ups. In all of Jersey's bloated and expensive msm there is not one journalist who has taken a serious and investigative approach to the cover-ups and the multiple abuses of power which have enabled those cover-ups.

      Thank about that.

      Not one Jersey journalist could be identified as having met that duty of the Fourth Estate.

      In contrasts with the UK, where many traditional journalist do indeed do great and brave and important work.

      Think about it; in all of Jersey's vast body of traditional journalists, name one - so much as one - that we anti-child-abuse and anti-corruption campaigners could make a habit of speaking to with confidence that the issues we raised, and the evidenced stories would then be reported fully and fairly?

      There isn’t one.

      It says something - something not good - that there is not one traditional journalist in Jersey who has - in fact who has even tried to develop - that level of engagement and trust with campaigners.

      Any person wishing to publicly report any evidence-based, detailed and seriously critical analyses of the conduct and performance of Jersey's authorities in respect of the child-abuse disaster, simply has no choice - it's the bloggers - or nothing.

      We're the only journalists who'll report those issues fully and fairly.

      That's how it is.

      The Jersey heritage media "line" concerning me is that I'm "difficult" - "non-co-operative" - "won't engage" - etc, etc. Indeed, the trad media like the JEP simply lies to its readers in the most crude manner, for example in its belated report on the exclusion of bloggers from the CoI stating that "Mr Syvret could not be contacted". In fact the JEP - which has my mobile number and my e-mail address - made zero attempts to contact me. Not so much as one call, or text-message or e-mail.

      Jersey’s only “newspaper” – lying to its readers – again.

      As a person involved in the heart of the issue – as someone who discovered, and witnessed the child-abuse culture-of-concealment – as the first person to publicly expose it, and seek to combat it - as someone who was oppressed for doing so – as a central witness – it is a stark and grotesque corporate failure of Jersey’s heritage media – that none of it – and not so much as one trad hack – has a trusted and co-operative professional engagement with me.

      The only people interested in reporting my perspective on the scandal – the only people who will do so fully and frankly – are the bloggers.

      A state of affairs that represents nothing less than a stark and historic collective failure by all of Jersey’s heritage media.

      Stuart

      Delete
  49. A commenter above has written:

    "t has been announced that Richard Jouault (RJ) has been made the head of a specialist team set up to support the COI which has been established by the Chief Minister’s department. "

    I have looked at various websites where I would expect to see a report of this and can't find it.

    Please can you post a reference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have looked too but cannot find anything on line. This was reported in the JEP on Tuesday 26th August page 7. I am unable to attach a scanned copy on this blog.

      Delete
  50. Daniel - JEP. 26th August 2014, Page 7. Headline reads ' Children's Services Head replaced by Interim Directors'. Read the last 3 paragraphs of the aricle and it is referenced there.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  51. See today's JEP (Mon 1st September 2014) for some typical and excellent plain speaking from Deputy Roy Le Herissier, explaining why civil servants from Health and Social Services should have no involvement with the Inquiry, given that the department is expected to have to respond to criticism in due course. Get a copy if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Replies
    1. I am not at all clear, from what I have read, what exactly these people are doing and on whose behalf.

      Have they become part of the team or are they collating/filtering material from within government departments to the inquiry?

      Delete
    2. Put simply Polo - both are totally conflicted and would totally undermine the 'Independance' of this Inquiry. I think there will be a lot more said about this matter in the coming days.

      Delete
    3. Plain speaking from Deputy Roy Le Herissier? Are you kidding? this man is a part of the problem. A fence-sitter and a coward. All talk and no action. Hope he loses his seat to someone who will at least try to do something.

      Delete
    4. You clearly have a different experience to me. Roy is an excellent politician, and I've always been bemused by this fence-sitting bullshit. If he had represented you (as he has me) you would probably have a different opinion. I doubt he will "lose" his seat as he may be standing down which, at his age, he'd be well entitled to do. St Saviour and the island will be worse off without him though.

      Appropriately, the word verification for this comment is A1...that's Roy!

      Delete

  53. Good questions Polo I am also confused. I thought the judge was in charge, calling evidence and witnesses when it suited her and her panel.

    Three ideas come to mind, either she is proving to be a tough cookie doing it her way and using her own integrity and strength, therefore reinforcements are being brought in to put pressure on her and her panel.

    The second possibility is the same as the first but with a difference, heavy weights have been brought in to let everyone think this panel has been captured, and is conflicted ( even though they may not be ) but the outcome will be a discredited panel who have lost the publics and victims confidence, making the final report full of holes as witnesses withdraw or treat the panel with contemp.

    Another option is to drive a hard bargain for a super financial bonus, taken from the £6.5 million allocated fund, and dress it all up in a cheap skirt, to please her paymasters.

    The solution is for QC Francis Oldham and her panel to lay down the law, answer publicly Daniel Wimberly's questions in a reasoned and intelligent way, reinstate the bloggers, and finally make it clear who is the real chairman, of a real enquiry earning real respect and closure.


    ReplyDelete
  54. the previous poster has summed up the situation succinctly.we must not forget the Verita report into failings at the hospital and the attempt to blame Mr Day RJ was in the middle of that.
    large amounts of money have been spent on public relation exercises over the years to counteract the abuse uncovered are they in too deep to stop now.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Bloggers may also wish to add Exaro to their reading list:

    Exaro News

    What is Exaro?

    Exaro is an online service that investigates issues that are important to business in particular and to the public in general, but which are being inadequately covered – or ignored – by the mainstream media.

    Our specialisms are in-depth investigation and analysis. We investigate the decisions and actions of people in power. We root out material to provide insight, often using the increasing volume of data made available by public bodies, information that is rarely scrutinised.

    For each investigation, we are committed to:

    • searching for the facts;
    • finding out all the relevant information;
    • regularly updating what we uncover.

    Exaro is for people who want to be well informed about public governance, international affairs, and economic and commercial issues.

    “Exaro” is a Latin word; it is the first-person singular of the verb, “exarare”, which means to plough, to dig up, or to inscribe on a wax tablet. “Exaro” is pronounced with the emphasis on the first syllable, just like “excavate”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell us in confidence

      Do you have material that you think the Exaro editorial team should investigate?

      If so, please contact us:

      Phone: +44 (0)20 7183 9181
      E-mail: news@exaronews.net

      You can also send material to us by post:

      Editorial
      Exaro
      107 Fleet Street
      London
      EC4A 2AB

      Confidentiality

      We strictly observe the first rule of journalism: never to disclose anything that might help identify a confidential source. So, if you want us to press on with an investigation, please contact us by e-mail, telephone or post.

      Anonymity

      It is easier for us to investigate a story if you let us know who you are, but we understand that sometimes anonymity is essential. With the Exaro secure dropbox, you are able to submit source material securely online for investigation, which also provides the option of anonymity.

      The server for our secure dropbox is located in a specially selected legal jurisdiction where privacy and anonymity are legally protected. It is totally separate from the server for the Exaro website. All information is encrypted in transit, and we keep no server logs of visitors to the dropbox. Beyond these measures, it is left to you to take any necessary, additional steps to prevent your identity becoming known.

      As with any secure site, please check the secure dropbox site’s security certificate in your browser before proceeding.

      Our commitment to evidence-based journalism means that we must authenticate and verify any material or information that we receive.

      It is easier for us to investigate a story if you let us know who you are. We never disclose anything that might help identify a confidential source. However, you can submit material to the dropbox anonymously if necessary.

      Proceed to the dropbox to submit material securely, with the option to remain anonymous. Proceeding to the dropbox will direct you off this site to our secure dropbox server, which will display in a new window.

      Delete
  56. VFC. A brand new blog launched today with the help of two 'insider' friends. A leaked secret email revealing Jersey's new secret alliance - and where it is already setting itself up to fail? Find it at http://notthestatemedia.blogspot.com/:

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor.

      Problem with link but this should WORK.

      Have added you to Blog-list on main page.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for adding this to your most excellent blog's list. Grovel, grovel. Yes a bit of an opening glitch! Par for the course with anything new

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.