Fellow Blogger, and member of Team Voice, Rico Sorda published a Blog Posting two days ago revealing what almost certainly is a major security breach involving the statement, of former Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper, posted by the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry for him to check and sign off.
Parts of the Island's State Media picked up the story from Rico's Blog and ran with it (without crediting him) and it made headline news on State Radio.
The crux of the story is that the Child Abuse Inquiry Team sent Mr. Harper's statement to him by unregistered post and when he received the statement the envelope had been "damaged" (opened) meaning his statement containing the names of Abuse Victims/Survivors as well as corrupt Jersey officials and paedophiles could have been copied and now be in the hands of many. Rico's Posting can, and should, be read HERE.
VFC e-mailed the Inquiry Team asking for a copy of its posting policy and if they would keep me informed as to how its investigation, into the incident, would progress. In the meantime the Media Team, from the Inquiry, put out a statement which was dutifully regurgitated by BBC State Radio where the Inquiry stated;
"There has been NO (my emphasis) security breach over mail sent by the Inquiry." Well the obvious question is how the hell do they know there has been no security breach? A statement turns up, in the (unregistered) post already opened and the Inquiry team knows nobody else has read/copied it? How? But like I said, the BBC just regurgitates this nonsense totally unchallenged. The full statement can be read HERE.
While, on the other hand, (largely unsuccessfully) I HAVE been attempting to gain some answers from the Inquiry Team (through e-mail) and they did drop this little nugget;
"The envelope containing documents for Mr Harper was damaged in transit, but it is not possible to determine if there has been deliberate interference with the Inquiry’s post, which would be a criminal offence."
So the Inquiry Team put out a statement saying there has been NO security breach, dutifully regurgitated by the BBC, without any questioning. Then in an e-mail to me they (Inquiry Team) say;
"it is not possible to determine if there has been deliberate interference with the Inquiry’s post"
I have asked the Media Team how on earth they can marry the two contradictory statements? I received an uncharacteristically swift reply where the Inquiry has said;
"The Inquiry is in contact with the witness concerned and does not intended to release any further information on this matter."
My two questions remain unanswered (posting policy and investigation above) and now the Inquiry Team refuse to explain how it can marry the two contradictory statements and STILL the State Media question none of it.
This is how the decades of abuse over here was allowed to carry on, and unless the State Media starts challenging some of the nonsense put out by the Child Abuse Inquiry, then it will enable that abuse to carry on still.
The response from the inquiry team was bizarre.... A Pseudonym could have been agreed and there was no way the content could have been guessed at.... like sending a passport through the post - basic security is all that was required.... a huge concern....
ReplyDeleteStory has gone NATIONAL.
ReplyDeleteRico was raising concerns about the inquiry last week if I'm not mistaken. Looks like he was right again. Might be worth reposting a link so readers can revisit
ReplyDeleteThere is a link to Rico's publication on the main page of this, but for those who missed it CLICK HERE.
DeleteVFC - the security issue is simple. Why are they sending out such sensitive and confidential documents by 'ordinary' mail in any event. Not good practice by anybody's standards, moreso when this is supposedly one of the biggest legal firms in the world. Any fool would know better.
ReplyDeleteAccording to what they told the mail they were sending it hidden in plain view.
Delete"'The Inquiry has deliberately chosen not to draw attention to post, which is sent in plain, non branded envelopes or plastic document bags in the normal post."
And with Lenny Harper's name and address on the front.
Oh dear.
The subjects in which this inquiry is deficient mount by the day: respect, intelligence, administration, PR, support for witnesses, spycraft, and many more,
In some ways this incident is typical of the government's feudalist oligarchy mindset. They threaten people, violate numerous legal norms, punish the honest, ban journalists, tamper with mail, seemingly with no awareness of how these things play out on the outside world's stage. That they often do these things to 'protect' Jersey's reputation, is a "real tragedy," in terms Sir Philip might use. Another own goal?
ReplyDeleteElle
Massive double standards here methinks. The latest 'news' on the Inquiry website quite rightly condemns a breach of confidentiality by a 'journalist', but is still quite content it seems with its own shortcomings.
ReplyDelete'The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry takes very seriously the breach of a witness' private data by a journalist on Twitter earlier this evening. This was shared several times before being taken down.
We have been in touch with the witness concerned to advise them of this breach'.
The Inquiry Team has also tweeted this;
Delete"There has been no security breach over letters sent by the Inquiry. Reports suggesting otherwise are inaccurate."
Oh really? So why did the same Inquiry write this?
"The envelope containing documents for Mr Harper was damaged in transit, but it is not possible to determine if there has been deliberate interference with the Inquiry’s post, which would be a criminal offence."
Mr. Harper's witness statement arrived in such a state that it could have been read and copied. Any tweets suggesting otherwise are inaccurate.
Their official communications about this incident have been contradictory or incoherent.
ReplyDeleteElle
Sadly the Inquiry is turning into a shambles.
DeleteIt never got a grip on its task from Day I.
This latest fiasco follows a string of blunders which showed it: did not appreciate the complexity of the environment it was working in; trusted the wrong people; allowed itself to be swayed by those it should have been investigating but who were paying the piper; had no conception of the bravery or vulnerability of survivor witnesses and their need for onsite support; made only half hearted attempts to contact survivors; had no idea how to preserve the confidentiality vitally necessary to the success of its task; has now completely undermined its own credibility by rushing to defend an obvious "blunder" with a raft of hasty. conflicting. statements which either suggest nobody is in charge or that whoever is is not up to the job or is simply malevolent.
Very difficult to see how Humpty Dumpty can be put together again after this.
I still just can't believe it.
So quite clearly, the COI are failing in their duties. If they were to have breached their TOC is their any liability placed upon them? Do we as taxpayers get a refund?
ReplyDeleteIf not then they can do what they so wish without fear of redress.
The Beano is not the Rag
This is off topic but so very relevant to 'The Jersey Way', the JEP tonight has stated that the family of the young lady who tragically died in the Green Island incident has asked for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of her death. What happened here was by all accounts a total and utter disgrace and so very typical of how things work in this Island, at the time I made comment that as a qualified (ex) driving instructor having seen the damage to the Lotus there was no way this car would have been traveling within the 30km speed limit for the road in question. Then we have the months of delay before the driver is named, unlike most other RTA's, the driver should have been charged with dangerous driving causing death, the fact this was not possible at the time is and was irrelevant, he was the driver and as such he was responsible for his passengers in so far as the young woman was not wearing her seat belt. That alone should have made the charge involuntary 'manslaughter' but what we saw was a paltry fine and an even more pathetic driving ban. This whole disgusting episode can only be described as so very typical of the way things are done here. The real question is this Who was the driver really?
ReplyDeleteDeputy Mike Higgins tells it how it is
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlHeIUMSsg#t=384
Tax burden lifted from corporations and dumped on middle jersey
partisan favour of economic monoculture
hijacked law and order systems
.......
Along with the predictable sales guff and avoidance of mention his central involvement in the multi-million pound illegal suspension of Chief of Police G.Power, hopeful candidate Andrew Lewis deposits a couple of hilarious nuggets in his manifesto at www.vote.je/portfolio/lewis-andrew/
ReplyDeleteI quote:
".... like many of you, I was appalled that the States failed to implement the results of the referendum on Government reform .......blah,blah,blah......... Any future commission must be independent unlike the last attempt."
END
SO Mr.Clueless recognises that the last electoral commission was hijacked but he was "appalled" that the States failed to implement the results of this hijacked process.
Is poor Andrew lacking intellectual rigour in the best of the thoughts he offers us?
Please vote for a traffic bollard instead. At least it knows where it stands!
At least traffic bollards don't lie or suspend Police Chiefs in the middle of an investigation into decades of institutionalised paedophilia.
DeleteIn fact traffic bollard are there, in part, to PROTECT children
Unlike Andrew
http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/andrew-lewis-a-liar-and-a-crook/
I note on researching this candidate we note that he then went on to be appointed a YOUTH COURT Lay-MAGISTRATE !!!!!
With the possible exception of disgraced paedophile-protecting Jurat John Le Breton it is difficult to imagine ANYONE LESS SUITABLE TO HAVE POWER AND INFLUENCE OVER VULNERABLE YOUNGSTERS.
LONDON EVENING STANDARD - Published: 15 October 2014
ReplyDeleteA man arrested on suspicion of child abuse as part of an investigation into claims of a paedophile ring with links to parliament has been released on bail.
The 67-year-old man was arrested in Dorset yesterday and questioned at a local police station before he was released yesterday evening, police said.
He was released on police bail until a date next month pending further inquiries, the statement added.
The arrest was part of an inquiry named Operation Brancaster, which was one strand that officers assessed after MP Tom Watson claimed there was a paedophile ring with links to Number 10.