Monday, 2 March 2015

Francis Oldham QC Letter to Treasury Minister.

As we reported PREVIOUSLY there are some concerns over the costs of the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and five months after VFC voiced these concerns the Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, got concerned and asked (as VFC had) for a breakdown of the costs in a letter to Francis Oldham QC which can be read on page 22 of the PROPOSITION lodged by alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, to request the States to agree to additional funding for the Inquiry.

Senator Maclean's letter started off with this sentence;

"Further to the Council of Ministers meeting on Wednesday 28th January and your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations and Constitutional Affairs........."(END)

Wait a minute! "your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations?" What on earth has the conflicted Senator Philip Bailhache's Department got to do with the finances of the Child Abuse Inquiry? What is Francis Oldham QC doing meeting with representatives of the conflicted Philip Bailhache's Department on ANY issue?  These questions need to be asked at a political, and indeed at a journalistic level, by the State Media.

Back to Francis Oldham QC's letter/reply to the Treasury Minister (below) which can also be found at page 24 of the alleged Chief Minister's PROPOSITION. Although I don't agree with the letter's contents entirely I believe it is worth a Blog Post of its own and broadly support it and will make comments below.

"9 February 2015-02-26

Dear Senator Maclean

Report on Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Expenditure

Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2015 seeking information as to the ongoing work and costs of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. I have responded to your questions in the attached appendices, which I hope will be of assistance to States Members in considering the way forward.

I understand the financial pressures the Council of Ministers is having to address across budgets. It is clear to the panel however that there are extremely serious matters regarding the history of care for children in Jersey which must be fully explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years Importantly we must make a judgement whether current services for children are fit for purpose and provide protection from the failures of care in the past. We ca only do that if we are able to complete our Inquiry in full.

The scope of the Inquiry in terms of witnesses and documentation far exceeds the assumptions in the budget. In May 2014 I raised concerns about the potential cost of the Inquiry.

To date we have heard evidence of the experiences of 150 people who were within the care system from the 1940’s. Whilst there have been accounts of positive experiences, most of what we have hear has related to painful and damaging experiences. The first phase of the Inquiry has been slow and painstaking, not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public. Given the history of these matters in the island our first challenge has been to gain the trust and confidence of the victims. The fact that in recent weeks more than 20 new witnesses have come forward is, I believe, a good indicator that we have made significant progress in that regard. Many witnesses have been prepared to give evidence in public of the most intimate forms of abuse and in doing so have demonstrated enormous emotional courage.

The feedback we have had from them as to how they have been treated by the Inquiry has been universally positive. Indeed, I understand that some have made this known to the Chief Minister. If we do not now fully address the question of why their care was so often lacking in the system over many decades we will be letting down not only the victims, but the people of Jersey.

This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond.

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings. It should not be thought that those parts of the Inquiry are severable.  We cannot evaluate and/or make recommendations in relation to any one part without considering the whole.

We have constantly kept under review the running costs of the Inquiry. Public inquiries are, as you will, inevitably expensive if matters are to be fully addressed. This is even more so the case given the very extensive Terms of Reference set for us by the States Assembly. Indeed, we have resisted pressure to add to the Terms of Reference. The nature of this Inquiry is such that the publicity it has been given and the confidence we have engendered  in victims has led to them coming forward in greater numbers than envisaged at the outset.

We remain fully committed to examining how costs can be contained whilst not compromising our duty to act independently and to give you a full report in accordance with our Terms of Reference. Our purpose is to establish the truth; the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes, how mistreatment of children remained hidden for so long and what was done when concerns were raised.

Yours Sincerely

Frances Oldham QC

Chair" (END)

Firstly Judge Oldham's letter has given me some much needed confidence in her and her Inquiry. Regular readers will be aware that we have (rightly) challenged a number of decisions made by the Inquiry and in the interest of fairness and balance should also give credit where it is due. Judge Oldham appears to be standing up to the Establishment and refusing to be bullied by them.

Some interesting paragraphs here;

"This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond." 

And this paragraph in particular;

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings.

So Philip Bailhache is running around SCARE MONGERING quoting (un-evidenced) costs of the Inquiry at £50m just at the time when the alleged abusers, and those working within the services, are going to be called in front of the Inquiry? Does he want the plug pulled before the Inquiry starts to look at the abuse cases that never went to court and starts "to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level?"

Regular readers will be aware that we were asking why No managers, Senior Civil Servants, high ranking officials have been charged with any kind of neglect, dereliction of duty or Abuse……coincidence?………..or “The Jersey way?” back in November 2011. Now in 2015 it's about time we got those answers.

A word of advice for Judge Oldham would be to make sure every "I" is dotted and every "T" is crossed when it comes to expenses because the Establishment has form when it comes to trashing abuse investigations over moneys.

This inquiry is about DECADES of covered up Child Abuse, destroyed childhoods and lives and how it was able to happen for so long, indeed if it is able to happen still.


Let's not let the Establishment, and State Media, turn this into a story about money as they did with Operation Rectangle or to quote the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM;

The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

History should NOT be allowed to repeat itself and the Establishment be allowed to get away with it a second time round. Let's get to the bottom of what went on because until then the Island, its reputation, and Victims/Survivors will not be able to move forward.

Perhaps the most important sentence of Judge Oldham's letter is this;

"not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public."(END)

Victims/Survivors have shown immense courage in coming forward to this Inquiry and reliving the most horrific memories conceivable. They have been put through enough, notwithstanding the horrors they were subjected to as children, but we must remember they were promised in 2008 by Frank Walker that there would be an Independent Inquiry with no stone left unturned. They were then told by Terry Le Sueur that there wouldn't be an Inquiry. They were then told by Ian Gorst that there would be an Inquiry. Is our government now going to tell the victims/survivors that they can have an inquiry but a few stones will have to be left unturned because despite being one of the richest places on earth Jersey doesn't have enough money to put its past right?

Don't you think it's time to give the Victims/Survivors what they were originally promised? Don't you think they have been through enough? They need closure and so does Jersey.

For those wishing to give evidence to the Inquiry they can do so from HERE.





51 comments:

  1. Does anybody else find it perverse or dodgy that the people who are being investigated I.e the government are able to take the funding away from the investigators when things start to get hot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do, for obvious reasons!

      Delete
    2. Philip Bailhache's External Relations Department meeting with Judge Oldham is as dodgy as anything else been said. Is there anybody more conflicted than Phil Bailhache?

      Delete
    3. NO! Well, his brother - almost...

      Delete
  2. If the Inquiry is looking for political interference and establishment efforts to suppress the truth they need look no further than the attempt by Philip Bailhache to cut funding for their investigations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Next we'll be hearing that Bailhache or someone else standing accused of dubious goings on will want to be the ones to 'scrutinise' the Inquiry' costs! As you or someone said in your previous post come back ex-Deputy Pitman and hold this out of control mad man to account. And while you're at it Mr P better bring Stuart back with you as well. Poor Mike Higgins must need some support amongst all of these zombies masquerading as live politicians?

      Delete
  3. Any comment from Phil (the real scandal) Bailhache regarding costs should be treated with the utmost caution and not a little mirth. He was one of the chief proponents of the myth that we spent £20million on the original investigation into the allegations his circle covered up. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete

  4. After reading Francis Oldhams QC letter where she writes,

    The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” .
    Is this what is upsetting some of those in power today ? Forced to stand on the sidelines as the enquiry slowly heads towards the actions of those in power at the time and before.

    This includes the judiciary, the heads of states department’s and their manager’s, the politicians involved with Operation Rectangle. Also those involved at the highest level of suspending the Chief of Police who was working at unravelling child abuse on the island and at haute de le Garenne

    Francis Oldham and her panel appear to be getting stronger in their focus and resolve, possibly influenced by the UK home secretary Theresa May’s intention to get the UK investigation right, by compelling witnesses to attend by law, and finding a non conflicted panel, who would have the confidence of the victim’s.

    Should Jerseys' politicians and judiciary start to interfere, rather than support, then it would indeed be a good day for Jersey if the UK took over as part of a bigger investigation.

    Check how many Jersey politicians were not in favour of an abuse enquiry. Why did it take three years to begin ? Have we not seen Senator Bailhache take over an electoral commission before and now he ( for some strange reason ) is throwing invented figures in the air, and becoming involved, trying to destabilise this important investigation.

    Chief Minster Gorst, was not in power during the bad years and is fully supportive of the enquiry, much to his credit and leadership of the states assembly.


    ReplyDelete
  5. VFC, I'm afraid I don't share your optimistic assessment of the ability or intention of this Chair and this investigatory panel.

    As I've written in detail - to the CoI and the Chief Minister on the 21st October 2014, and as published on a blog here http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/resign-jerseys-child-abuse-public-inquiry/ -
    there are many deeply serious problems with this "public inquiry" - its conduct, its protocols and its methodology.

    I won't repeat all of those points here. All that is necessary for me say in respect of that pre-action legal letter is that none - not one - of the substantive points raised have been able to be answered by either the CoI or the Chief Minister. Therefore the issues raised are serious, well-founded and unanswerable. QED.

    A simpler way of explaining the plain ultra vires (absence of lawfulness) of this "public inquiry" is to quote what you say: -

    "Wait a minute! "your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations?" What on earth has the conflicted Senator Philip Bailhache's Department got to do with the finances of the Child Abuse Inquiry? What is Francis Oldham QC doing meeting with representatives of the conflicted Philip Bailhache's Department on ANY issue?"

    Indeed.

    Again, QED.

    The significance of that conduct - the "public authority" of the Inquiry - its actual Chair, no less - meeting with expressly and directly conflicted parties OUTSIDE of the context of its formal evidence-taking purpose, needs explaining to a lay-audience.

    The conduct in question - which you rightly focus on, and take issue with, and do not like - goes beyond the dimension of merely poor judgment and the 'politically undesirable'.

    It is ultra vires. That is, unlawful.

    The Committee of Inquiry is a "public authority" - established for the purpose of undertaking a statutorily empowered "public inquiry". As such, the binding nature of 'administrative law' upon the CoI as a "public authority" is even stronger than it is on all "public authorities" because the CoI is an actually quasi-judicial, even quasi-prosecutorial body. It possesses those type of dramatic and far-reaching powers; powers reinforced with coercive penalties - including up to two years in jail for any person not complying with its demands.

    Any "public authority" - in discharging is "discretionary powers" is bound by law to do so fairly and impartially - and in ways free of contaminations. That established legal standard applies even more strongly in the context of a body as seriously empowered - and with such a task - as this CoI.

    Judicial review is clear on this point:

    "A body must adopt a fair procedure, giving those affected a fair and informed say. The Basic Concept of Fairness: the common law imposes minimum standards of procedural fairness or due-process (natural justice). This scope, and its twin-pillar (the rule against bias) have been re-enforced by the procedural guarantees of the Human Rights Act."

    Can a "body" - a "public authority" - established for the purposes of conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry - meet that legal test if it has been granting privileged access to - contaminating itself with - and being influenced behind closed doors by - expressly conflicted parties?

    No.

    It can't - and it doesn't.

    Stuart





    ReplyDelete
  6. VFC.
    Do you, or anybody, know if The Sharp Report will be going towards this COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my understanding that the Sharp Report has been submitted to the COI by at least one person and possibly others.

      Delete
    2. What about the SIX appendices and the TWO drafts highlighting the full suppressed horror and cover up and failings by the likes of Baker, Le Breton, Hydes and the Board of Govs?

      Delete
    3. Can anyone - possibly Stuart - remind us who was the Deputy Bailiff I believe who advised the Vic College headmaster to just ignore the allegations about Jervis-Dykes? Like he and his vice-principles had already been doing for years I suppose?

      Delete
    4. It was Frances Hamon - commonly known in Jersey legal circles as Mad Frankie Hamon.

      Stuart

      Delete
    5. The Sharp report will be the least of Philip Bailhache's worries if the inquiry is doing its job properly which I think it is if only because of Bailhache's scare tactic of 50 mill.

      Delete
    6. The Sharp report will be the least of Bailhache's problems if Stuart has a change of heart and takes part in the enquiry!

      Delete
    7. I will definitely go down to the enquiry to watch Stuart bury Bailhache and I'll be going to watch Big Trev hopefully do the same.

      Delete
    8. Thank you Mr Syvret. Shocking stuff. Could you tell us if this horrifying incident is recorded in any document or report because I for one would love to read it? The same goes for what a friend told me were alleged comments by one of the Vic teachers involved in the cover up that child abuse was just 'teachers' perks'?

      Delete
    9. So when was this advice meant to come from a Deputy Bailiff then? All sounds far-fetched to me without some back up detail?Confess I had never even heard of Francis Hamon. Who was he and why was he involved?

      Delete
    10. The involvement of former Deputy Bailiff Francis Hamon in the child-abuse cover up is well-documented. Sadly, there's nothing far-fetched about it.

      It's factually recounted in The Sharp Report.

      The Sharp Report can be read here: -

      http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/the-sharp-report-jersey-abuse-download/

      Perhaps VFC or a reader could make a clickable link for ease of reference?

      The Headmaster was advised by Hamon to ignore the child-abuse complaints whilst they were playing a game of squash.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    11. Didn't Hamon have a bailhache moment ie saying that he couldn't remember but it may well have happened this way? True lawyer talk!

      Delete
    12. Almost as bad as Hydes and Le Breton breaching the old childrens law by instead taking a couple of victim pupils into Hyde's office and humiliating them into shutting up aboue Jarvis Dykes? What a bloody place!

      Delete
    13. And don't forget the Piers Baker sketch. Straight out of the Vic College scandal and in to a nice job down at harbours.

      Delete
  7. If Senator Bailhache doesn’t want the expense of another Child Abuse Inquiry he might consider bringing a proposition to the States adopting legislation along the lines of the UK.

    Readers might find THIS LINK of interest and ask what would happen if it was adopted in Jersey? Or even ask could it be adopted retrospectively?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It looks as though Phil Bailhache is winning the propaganda war. He's trotted out a figure of £50,000,000 and all of a sudden the gullible public believe it must be true because it was Philip Bailhache who said it. The gullible public should ask Philip Bailhache how he came to that figure because I haven't seen anything to back it up. Then the gullible public might want to look at Philip Bailhache and his brother's role in the cover up. Wake up people of Jersey and start throwing your weight behind the victims not the people who want them silenced.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Starting to feel a bit sorry for Warcup. He was misled by the powers that be. Gradwell is a bit different. He made his mark and there is no question to his corrupt ways....
    Makes you wonder if they will be volunteering to give evidence next month?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry but I have no sympathy with Warcup. He attempted to use (what's become known as) the MET Interim Report in his attempt to get rid of his boss when he would have known that the MET Report was NOT written for these purposes. He called a Press Conference for no other reason that I can see other than to trash the abuse investigation and prevent more Victims/Survivors coming forward. I believe he has as many questions to answer as Gradwell and hope both of them WILL come over and give evidence to the Inquiry......................But won't be holding my breath.

      Delete
  10. Why has this letter to The Treasury Minister not been published in the JEP?, bear in mind a large proportion of the population get their news only from the JEP, this letter would without doubt have shown just where the PTB are coming from and just why they want this inquiry stopped (i.e they are next to answer to the CoI). This inquiry is supposed to be independent of political interference so why is this being allowed to go on, also who (legally) is advising the various states departments? please don't tell me it is the conflicted law officers department. Would one of our army of politicians put this question to those getting cold feet. "If as you say we in this wealthy Island do not have the funds to continue with the CoI will you agree to have the CoI continue under the UK investigation with no delay in proceedings?, please answer a simple YES or NO"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr Warcup was promised the Jersey top cop job if he was prepared to stab his boss in the back. He did this, along with breaking into his boss's work safe at his and his boss's place of work "States of Jersey Police Headquarters". He did this to take out and thread his boss's States of Jersey personal contract of employment.
    Easy peesy. Oh no it wasn't. Was it Mr Warcup?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. During the coup, the little gang (including "War-pup") broke into the legitimate Jersey Police Chief''s safe ......not only to steal Mr. Power's copy of his employment contract, but amongst other things to take Mr. Power's copy of a recorded telephone conversation with a leading Jersey politician.

      Unbelievably, Ian "Le Multiple-suspension" tried to turn the recording of this incriminating conversation into yet another disciplinary matter. Rather comically the shyster was trumped by laying a Jersey telephone directory on the table! LOL

      Those of any morals would be more concerned about the theft of documents and evidence and the contents of those recorded conversations than the political correctness with which it was obtained. A short phrase in the phone book showed that the good police chief was in fact playing strictly by the book while they took the Jersey Way to new (/previously unrecorded) depths.

      The suspension and breaking into Mr. Power's safe steal his copy of employment contract was only part of a very wide illegal conspiracy. The other copy of the Chief Officer of Police's employment contract was held by States Personnel Depts and miraculously also went missing.

      Regrettably this is the strength of the of abusive corruption on an otherwise beautiful island. Cut out the filthy parasites and hang them to dry. Let the world see Jersey make a clean and fresh start rather than let the wounds fester and the cancer grow.


      p.s. See you in Hell Mr. Le Marquand. You will be spending extra time in the flaying department. It will be crowded there but do not lose sleep; they have plenty of room.

      You do not actually have to have put your 'small part' in a child to have bought into a large part of the crime and the enablement of abuse and it's continuation. You are a fool to share the guilt and pay the price. Is it too late to put some of the wrongs right?

      Delete
    2. Mr Le Marquand is a Church of England Reader, and has been for a long time, and long ago, he called it a 'sad day' when a certain Churchwarden was sacked as Church secretary at his Church.
      So yeah, he doesn't get it right all the time.

      Delete
  12. It is unbelievable that Mario Lundy is named YET AGAIN today and it is ignored by the front page of the JEP!! Just who is protecting this man? I know from personal experience that this man is a bully who protects other bullies. When will he be held to account?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may be wrong but I think his daughter works or used to work for the JEP. So that may be the reason.

      Delete
  13. I'd also be stunned to see either Warcup or Gradwell return to Jersey to participate in the COI. Their behaviour associated with the Jersey Police Department could not withstand any sort of public scrutiny. Hope they do, though. Hope they do.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about Lenny Harper coming back, has a date been set yet?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The key to all of Bailhache's interfering is that he is desperate that none of the professional police officers we used have or a few politicians not out of the mould get the chance to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So good (& shocking) you said it twice.

    From:
    http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/senator-philip-bailhache-committee-of.html?showComment=1425421994091#c7369835265094049479


    Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...
    Rico, you say this: -

    "Senator Bailhache started showing his true colours in December 2007 when shutting down former Senator Stuart Syvret's Christmas speech."

    Philip Bailhache showed his true colours early than that.

    When Frank Walker - with the support and encouragement of people like the Blanche Pierre abuse-concealing Iris Le Feuvre & Marnie Baudains - and the Crown Officers & the senior civil servants of the Corporate Management Board - set about engineering my dismissal as Minister - I sought to lodge my Official Ministerial Comments in response.

    That was in September 2007.

    Philip Bailhache - with no legitimate legal or constitutional right or power whatsoever - prevented my Ministerial Comments from being lodged.

    He prevented - via claimed Crown power - the proper free and democratic functioning of the Jersey parliament.

    He did that - in direct all-out assault upon democracy - assault on the rights of child-abuse victims - assault on the interests of vulnerable children - and all the while failing to declare his own well-established conflicts of interest.

    That was on the 10th September 2007.

    I remember the date so well - because I had to telephone abuse-survivors and whistle-blowers that evening - to tell them they were not now going to get the expected publication in their parliament of a range of documentary evidence.

    It isn't easy - after so many months of work & of struggle on behalf of one's vulnerable constituents - to have to bare that news to them, and to try and comfort them as they wept tears of shock, rage, frustration and disbelief.

    Then that evening I e-mailed Philip Bailhache - and told him he had the ethics of a Bangkok pimp.

    It remains one of the most accurate things I ever said in politics.

    Stuart (Syvret)

    ReplyDelete
  17. The main reason retired police chief Power's documents were removed illegally and then the copy mislaid forever by the states human resources department was because of a powerful clause within.

    Should the Police Chief in his roll as head of the force to court over legal matters, then it was agreed that his defense costs would be met by the States of Jersey.

    He was unable to mount a full and funded legal defense when he appeared in the Royal Court, or deal other legal matters as the protection disappeared with his written contract. You don't need to be a genius to work out why his advocate who was supposed to be at the opening of his safe as a witness, was side stepped and the safe opened and the contract and other documents and belongings removed. Corruption at it's lowest.

    This is a matter of fact and record.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is what happened to Graham Power.

      I can in fact confirm the situation was even worse than that - in that when Graham Power made his self-represented judicial review application - the "judiciary" hearing the case - who predictably enough threw-out the unlawfully suspended Police Chief's application - was expressly, directly and personally conflicted.

      So - the question is - which public authorities are - by their own admission - ultimately responsible for such things as breakdowns in the proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies? Who is it that is supposed to safeguard us from judicial corruption? Indeed - who empowers our "judiciary"?

      And where are they?

      Where have they been?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  18. @Anonymous at 00:23

    Excellent comment. And the more people make it and the more it gets replies the greater the chance the Inquiry will have to face up to it.

    Illustrates the complete lack of the rule of law in Jersey and also the arrogance of those in power, ultra vires or no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why the inquiry has to be shut done ...and will be

      Delete
  19. There must be some way that Graham Power or his Lawyer can recover his personal SOJ contract of work documents. There will be at least one hard copy recorded safely with SOJ Human Resources Department....
    After all that's their job!?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think I read somewhere that HR lost it !

    ReplyDelete
  21. Would that be the same States of Jersey HR department that employed Jane Pollard as Deputy Chief Exec (maybe still does) - wife of then Health & Social Services Chief Executive Mike Pollard?

    You know? The same Mike Pollard who was unlawfully conspiring with other senior civil servants - such as Tom McKeon and Bill Ogley - to engineer my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister in an illegal attempt to cover-up the child-abuse I was exposing?

    The same Mike Pollard as noted in Graham Power's July 2007 file-note, when that corrupt grouping tried and failed to suborn Mr Power into their conspiracy?

    The same Jane Pollard who was instrumental in commissioning and guiding the corrupt pro-cover-up and anti-democratic Chapman Report - the document of "Ourchap" infamy?

    Yes. It was that HR Department - and that Jane Pollard.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon @ 19:29 HR lost it? That's impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly not in Jersey.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  23. States of Jersey HR department must be the only department in The World that can take its over populated under worked staff from HR Officers to HR Managers in less than 7 years!

    ReplyDelete
  24. see Rico Sorda blog 20 March 2012 for details of Graham Powers lost contract and how his copy was removed from his private safe

    ReplyDelete