Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Open Letter To All States Members.




Today the Island's Parliament debate/vote on Chief Minister Gorst's PROPOSITION  asking the States to agree to extra funding for the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry so that it is able to complete its vital work. Deputy Tadier has also submitted AMENDMENTS to which Chief Minister Gorst has submitted COMMENTS.

The Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) has sent an Open Letter to all States Members which we reproduce (and support)  below.

"To All States Members 

Today you will make a decision on the extra funding for the Jersey Care Inquiry. It is to be hoped that this decision is taken wisely and with great consideration for the bigger picture that any failure to agree to this Proposition would have in several instances. 

1. The impact on the very courageous victims who have come forward with their evidence to the Inquiry. This has been extremely harrowing for some who have had to re-visit the abuse suffered whilst in the ‘care’ of the States of Jersey. To reject the extra funding would, to all intents and purposes, be yet another rejection for the victims. This they do not deserve. What they do deserve is answers and closure. 

2. To reject the Proposition would be unprecedented, particularly at a time when Historic Child Abuse is a very high profile issue in the UK at the moment. Does Jersey also want to be seen to still ‘covering-up’ its failures in this very sad and sorry saga? 

3. The ‘reputation’ that Jersey’s Establishment are so keen to preserve will be well and truly damaged even further. The repercussions will be far reaching and the matter will never go away, or move on if the Inquiry is thwarted in any, way, shape or form from undertaking what they have been tasked with in its fullest format. 

We would also ask you to support Deputy Tadier’s amendments, particularly the removal of paragraph (c) (ii) which we feel does potentially restrict the Inquiry in terms of scope and its independence. Whilst no-one would argue that prudence in financial matters is very important the ‘capping’ aspect sits uncomfortably and begs the question, can the Inquiry operate as they would wish without having to make allowances due to the restraints put on it? Nobody with an interest in this Inquiry would like to think that this could be the case. The Inquiry must be allowed to continue as they think best, whilst exercising regard for expenditure. Likewise, and perhaps more so, States agents, lawyers et al should be exercising the same caution. 

One matter that does rather stick in the craw, whilst not directly related to the Inquiry or proposition, is the amount States Lawyers have received in relation to the Compensation Scheme versus the compensation actually paid to Claimants. 

Paragraph (c) (v) is bizarre as the Committee of Inquiry have already been making use of various ‘reports’ etc. In fact, it is States departments which have, on occasion, held up this process by not always being co-operative in the provision of requested documents. It is such actions that undermine the Inquiry and add unnecessary cost to the tax payer. As such, this paragraph is unnecessary and its removal should be supported.

Whilst we appreciate the motives of the Chief Minister in bringing this proposition, and seeking to bring on board those who are concerned about costs, we have been disappointed by the machinations that have taken place with certain Members of the Council of Ministers. 

It is sad that this document has been lodged by the Chief Minister solely and not by the Council of Ministers as a collective. Furthermore, we were disappointed to find out that certain Ministers were asking to meet us to discuss ending the Committee of Inquiry altogether. As such, we have experienced renewed mistrust for the Government and what appears to be their divided stance on matters of child abuse, exposing the cover-ups that allowed it and potential political interference. 

The Northern Ireland Inquiry encountered problems in that their estimated costs also rose quite considerably . Below is a quote from the Belfast Telegraph that would indicate that the money did not have to be ‘fought’ for. 

'Costs for an inquiry into historical institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland could reach £19m, the Assembly has been told.Ulster Unionist MLA Mike Nesbitt, who chairs Stormont's OFMDFM committee, said MLAs had been informed in September that predicted costs had doubled from initial estimates. 

The Strangford MLA added: “On the estimated costs of the inquiry the committee sought clarification from the department whether the figures in the financial and explanatory memorandum of between £7.5m and £9m remained accurate. 

“Officials advised the committee that the estimated costs had been revised upwards — doubled in fact to £15-19m to take into account the complexities of the inquiry and the associated legal costs.” 

Mr Nesbitt said he was assured the necessary funds would be made available from the OFMDFM budget'.

It would appear that the reasons highlighted in red equally apply here. 

Finally a final figure of £50m has been mooted by Senator Bailhache. Interestingly there has been no indication as to how this figure was arrived at, no break-down of costs, or who actually provided this information. Scare-mongering is easy, but as with anything facts are required as proof. 

We sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to this Proposition and that there will be wide support for the amendments put forward by Deputy Tadier. 

Please think of the human tragedies involved here. Do we really want, or need to go here ever again?" 


55 comments:

  1. The debate has begun and Philip Bailhache hasn't recused himself - neither has Andrew Lewis - who both are hopelessly conflicted. Yet another farce courtesy of Jersey States.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Conveniently for some now a fire alarm has gone off and the debate might continue in the town hall where it won't be transmitted by state media.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's very convenient, isn't it?

    That means those of us listening in internationally will not now be able to hear what, no doubt, will be some disgraceful speeches attacking the public inquiry and opposing the funding with a load of fictitious assertions.

    We can tell already it's going to be a corrupt farce in that majorly conflicted individuals like Philip Bailhache and Andrew Lewis haven't recused.

    The Jersey Establishment shames itself even further.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a set up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to confirm we were able to arrange to broadcast the continuation of the States sitting from the Town Hall on radio and online.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan.

      Full credit to the States Greffe and BBC for facilitating the move from States Building to the Town Hall on such short notice. Credit where it is due.

      Delete
  6. Sir Phoolish Ball-ache was dead against it carrying on.
    The truth is starting to make him tetchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amazing that he was allowed to take part in the debate and nobody objected because of his obvious conflicts. Disgraced former Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS voted AGAINST Montfort Tadier's amendments, will no doubt vote against Ian Gorst's proposition and nobody will object because of his obvious conflicts either.



      Delete
    2. Bailhache sounded like a very desperate man today which makes me think the committee of enquiry is doing a proper job. The end of the Bailhache fiefdom looms.

      Delete
  7. Phil Bailhache today sounded stupid, just stupid to me, and I’m an average Joe. Does he seriously think people will be distracted by his 'wish to defend' himself over ‘prosecution decisions’ and so fail to remember all of the serious conflicts of interests he was saddled with (which he basically admitted today) whilst then carrying on as Bailiff with those conflicts and doing stuff like obstructing Stuart Syvret when Syvret was trying to expose the child-protection failures?

    And if Bailhache is conflicted now, well then he was conflicted when abusing his status as Bailiff to hi-jack Liberation Day and give that disgraceful speech attacking the abuse investigation.

    And if Bailhache has his own interests in this subject, like he admitted today, then he was conflicted when doing sick things like stopping Syvret’s Christmas speech in December 2007.

    And if Bailhache was conflicted, like he’s conceded by saying so today and saying he isn’t going to vote in spite of speaking, well, then he was conflicted when abusing the position of Bailiff to directly attack Syvret whilst swearing-in to Office the conflicted magistrate Bridget Shaw who he and his brother then used to do a ‘Stalin trial’ against Syvret.

    And I’m sure there must be loads of other examples. Like I said, he must think we’re idiots. Do you think he has any idea at all of how stupid he seems?

    ReplyDelete

  8. Sorry Ryan at 16.51 you are wrong we are in the UK ( yes really ) and internet coverage works fine for BBC Jersey radio, but the link to the States Assembly debate does not and has not all day.We have top quality lap tops and good broadband streaming.

    Is the BBC up to its old tricks of making sure what happens in the States of Jersey and who says what is not broadcast live ?

    Let us hope the UK takes over, then at least the enquiry would be independent and Wimberlys questions would be dealt with, and Syvret given legal representation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jersey page is part of the main BBC News website - editorial control for this is actually based in the UK not Jersey. I tested the stream myself several times and it worked throughout. It went down when the States stopped sitting after the fire alarm and was back within minutes of the sitting resuming from the Town Hall.

      Which link were you using? We've recently upgraded to a new system that makes it available on mobile as well as laptop and allows people to scroll back through the audio for the day.

      The only link you should use to the States stream is one on the BBC News page for Jersey

      Delete
  9. They are worried about cost, and may need to dig into the strategic reserve. There is only £700 million sitting in there. If they are worried about wasting money why not stop flying Ozouf off island each and every week and paying for his board and upmarket lodgings all coming out of peoples taxes.

    With Philip Bailhache conflicted ( Roger Holland affair, Victoria College and Liberation day speech ) and apposing the further work of a panel that he will shortly be sitting in front of, and ex politicians and civil servants sitting on several States quangos, outsiders must view Jersey as a real basket case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They will vote the money to continue the CoI, but for the wrong reason. They really fear that if it stopped Jersey would be swept up in the UK CSA Inquiry. Exposing the cross jurisdicational aspects would put certain VIPs in a very invidious position

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why is it officially called the child care enquiry when it should be called the child abuse enquiry,

    The authorities still in denial ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm very pleased to be able to report that the Chief Minister won his proposition resoundingly with 35 votes in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Name and shame the 7.

      Delete
    2. From memory.

      Susie Pinel

      Rod Bryans

      Eddie Noel

      Steve Luce

      Graham Truscott

      John Refault

      Philip Bailhache abstained.

      Delete
  13. It would be interesting to know who voted against, who abstained and who was absent as there are 49 voting members of Government and the total taking part amounts to 42. What happened to the other seven ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brilliant! Who were the 6?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It would be interesting to know who voted against, who abstained and who was absent as there are 49 voting members of Government and the total taking part amounts to 42. What happened to the other seven ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well baillache is obviously the '1'

    ReplyDelete
  17. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Len Norman who was presiding because William Bailhache is conflicted, interrupting Montfort Tadier and threatening him with standing orders. There was nothing wrong at all in Deputy Tadier's speech. He was just stating facts, facts about Philip Bailhache's conflicts and past behaviour, like letting the child abuser Rodger Holland become an Honorary Police Officer.

    I want my politicians to speak about these things, about all those kind of failures and cover ups and who was responsible in them. How dare establishment types like Len Norman try and intimidate and silence my elected voice in the States? How dare he? How dare these people behave like this? It's like they just don't know what democracy is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it does seem a little ironic/hypocritical considering Len Norman is the Chairman of PPC who basically ruled that politicians can say what they like in the States (even lie) because they (OR SOME) are protected by Parliamentary Privilege.

      Delete
  18. Did anyone else notice Philip Bailhache stating in his speech yesterday that the former Deputy Police Chief had submitted an 80 page statement to the COI which contained things he (the former Deputy Police Chief) wouldn't dare say outside the protection of an inquiry? I was very shocked when I heard that. Really shocked.

    How does Philip Bailhache know what Lenny Harper has submitted? How come Philip Bailhache has read, knows it's 80 pages, and knows what it says?

    Am I alone in thinking this is very, very serious?

    Has the inquiry leaked again? How did Philip Bailhache get hold of a copy of the former Deputy Police Chief's statement?

    Bailhache's words seemed to me to amount to a barley disguised threat to Lenny Harper, and by association other possible witnesses, a kind of attempted intimidation.

    Be interested to hear if anyone else was alarmed by Bailhache's words?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I was. I was listing in to Bailhache's speech very intensely anyway but even so that part grabbed my ears, you know? I was like.... 'what the......!!!!!!!!'

      Delete
    2. Yes it's very alarming if it turns out that Philip Bailhache has had sight of Lenny Harper's (or anybody's) statement. Is he being leaked information from those with Interested Party status? If so this is a huge breach of the COI protocols. That said, in fairness, just about ANYBODY could have read Mr. Harper's STATEMENT.

      Delete
  19. The report that deputy Tadier was referring to was a States Report and can be read in full HEREcode . What is the problem? Are states members not allowed to read from publicly available reports now?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Have I understood the situation correctly? One of your elected members when making his speech in your legislature, was threatened by the Chair for attempting to quote from one of the legislature's own official, public reports?

    I've misunderstood something, haven't I?

    Could someone explain what did happen?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even allowing for you being a little partisan in your interpretation (that isn't a criticism incidentally) of the events, that is remarkable.

      Every time I think Jersey activists must be exaggerating in their accounts of the dysfunctionality of your polity something comes along that throws it into stark relief. This is another of those occasions. Your 'establishment' people really are dangerous, aren't they?

      When attempting to explain Jersey to colleagues I'm thinking of adopting the phrase 'you couldn't make it up'. I'm having to concede It does seem to be the most succinctly accurate way of conveying the enormity of how things are on your island.

      Delete
  21. Like the commenter at 14:08 I'm going to ask am I alone in thinking something very very serious has emerged in all of this?

    Philip Bailhache has admitted his conflict of interest in these matters, he said it in his speech, but tried to placate people by saying he would abstain on the vote. William Bailhache his brother has also accepted he is conflicted too, and conceded as much by not Chairing this States debate.

    So we're now in a position when both Philip Bailhache and William Bailhache have publically acknowledged their direct conflicts of interest in these issues.

    Then where does that leave the status, the validity, of those official decisions both men made in the past as Bailiff in Philip's case, and as Attorney General, then Deputy Bailiff, then Bailiff in William's case, concerning prosecution and judicial decisions in respect of Stuart Syvret?

    Am I alone in noticing and thinking that that question is very very serious? Really serious.

    It seems to me unavoidable that now we have a situation in which both of the Bailhaches have conceded their conflicted status in these matters, every official decision they took concerning Stuart Syvret, such as prosecution and judicial decisions, must now stand invalidated?

    I'd be interested to hear if any lawyer can advance an argument against my interpretation, by arguing that the now established and admitted conflicted nature of the two decision-makers does not invalidate their conflicted official decisions re Syvret?

    Perhaps a more important question is to ask what does the Jersey system, which is Crown authority basically, now do to rectify the situation? As Syvret has no resources and has been refused legal representation, is it not incumbent on the Crown system to correct itself? He's hardly capable of taking steps himself and isn't it the case he doesn't recognise the validity of the Jersey courts anyway? (which it now seems he can hardly be criticised for.)

    I suppose my questions are, does the situation seem very serious to others, am I right in thinking issues now arise because the two involved decision-makers have conceded direct conflict, and if so, does 'the system' itself take a pro-active step to rectify matters or does it intend to 'walk away' from the mess and hope nobody notices?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ran your theory past 2 Jersey lawyer friends separately this evening. Amusingly the first thing both said were words to the effect 'don't quote me on this, ok, this is unattributable?' After giving them that assurance on pain of damnation, the opinion of both amounted to, 'of course the decisions were & are invalid. It's not even open to dispute. Public officials can't make formal decisions as such official if they're personally conflicted.'

      So yes the prosecution or judicial decisions of Philip and William Bailhache involving Stuart Syvret have to be recognised as invalid.

      I asked my lawyer friends how serious then is the resultant situation? I think the moment of silence from each of them spoke more than their words. In a nut shell one said 'well it would be so serious I'm not aware of British case-law that could usefully be considered authority on the question'. The other said, 'if this happened in the England, it would not be so difficult for the system to extract itself because the wronged party's legal representatives would have access to higher/non-contaminated tribunals and the relevant conflicted decisions would be easily successfully appealed/overturned no doubt with strong criticism for the conflicted decision makers. But that wouldn't be a crises for the system in England because it's so much bigger than conflicted individuals.' I was interested in why he said that so asked 'are you implying that in Jersey it IS a crises for the system?' He said 'of course it is.'

      That's my research so far.

      Delete
  22. I don't think they could buy Syvret off. Isn't that their real problem now?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yep, now that it's out in the open re baillaches conflict of interest that he can't deny, watch them all come out and prop him up under the guise of some 'procedure', some forgotten Jersey 'clause' that exonerates him from his utterly transparent failures!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seriously.

    Why, how and by whom has Mr Bailhache read Mr. Harpers submission to the COI?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I scribed a short post on PJ indicating that one of the main - " anti child abuse inquiry " - Senators, that being Senator Bailhache, gave a speech in the funding debate, basically arguing against the proposition then he says he is conflicted so will not vote.

    Maybe I have got this completely wrong but if you are conflicted you should withdraw completely as did his brother, what on earth is going on, and as a lawyer and ex judge one would think Senator Bailhache would have understand the situation or had it pointed out to him by the chair and therefore not being allowed to address the states. Are there really any words to describe these goings on ?

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes BB there are three words to describe these goings on. "The Jersey Way."

      Delete
  26. The Bailhache Brothers, no doubt with others, will be working overtime over the next few weeks, desperately working out: How are we going to get out of this one!?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Has Mr. Bailhache been reading your blog Voice? How many pages were on Mr. Harper's statement? Is that identical to what Mr Harper provided to the COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I din't know how many pages are on Mr. Harper's statement. So Senator Bailhache knows more than I do.

      Delete
  28. Boatyboy,
    Senator Bailhache addressing the States when he shouldn't have, probably did him even more damage than even he had imagined.
    Don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have spoken to nine people since the vote was taken this morning , and would you believe they all voted for Bailhache at the last elections, and they all agreed that the Senator has lost his way and has his fingers in too many pies, and cant be trusted anymore, although they didn't have a lot of time for his brother they did give him some credit for not taking part in the debate, unlike the Senator who again even though allegedly conflicted chose to put his five eggs in to the debate, and then had the audacity to abstain from voting, does he represent himself in these matters to cover his ass, or the people who voted for him? it sounds as if he will face a lot of questions in the near future, which should be most interesting, the general feeling was that his days in politics could be numbered. I did like the comparison between the Bailhache Brothers and The Barclay Brothers in the debate this am.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sir Phillip will be holding a walk in workshop Friday week at St. Pauls centre Dumaresq street. He will be there to hear your problems especially about lack of affordable housing, work opportunities or lack of, and how the creeping stealth taxes are affecting your quality of life.

    Only in your dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg59867#msg59867


    25/03/2015
    Reference: P.20/2015

    Proposition: Committee of Inquiry: Historical Child Abuse – additional funding.

    Connétable
    John Martin Refault Contre

    Deputy
    Edward James Noel Contre

    Deputy
    Susan Jane Pinel Contre

    Deputy
    Stephen George Luce Contre

    Deputy
    Roderick Gordon Bryans Contre

    Deputy
    Graham John Truscott Contre

    Senator
    Sir Philip Martin Bailhache Abstained

    Deputy
    Andrew David Lewis Not present for vote

    ...........................


    Andrew Lewis Not present for vote
    PMSL -Walker's rent boy had somewhere more important to be!

    'Sir' Phil played that trick in Le Gresley's original debate to set up the CoI

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bailhache isn't worried about the findings of this Inquiry, where is this nonsense coming from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Bailhache isn't worried ...."

      LOL, errrr....... The only way you could know that is if YOU were Bailhache

      Thank you for posting your astroturf here (& immediately below?) and what survivors and campaigners still have to endure.
      - I think we can guess which type of Bailhache mouthpiece you are:

      Readers can go to
      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html
      or click on my name and play the death threat recording.

      Very enlightening ......especially when it turns out that these individuals ACTUALLY WERE protected by the Police and Jersey Courts at massive expense to the taxpayer and to public safety and justice.

      ....another series of interesting non prosecution decisions don't you think?

      Oh and that super-injunction against Ex Health Minister Syvret -it remains IN PLACE ?

      Delete
    2. Thought he had 'super-injuncted' himself.

      Delete
    3. I see Stella - 'Perjury' - Pizza carries on finding this blog fascinating to the point of obsession whilst trying to tell everyone the blogs are not relevant and are 'over'.

      I guess triple doses of Stella are going to be needed now that VFC has secured an interview with the Chief Minister.

      Delete
  33. Sorry but until Stuart Syvret bucks up the courage to deliver his damning evidence, which we have been told so much about over the years, then what relevance are the Bailhache Bros?
    There seems to be a lot of excitement here but your main key player refuses to be involved. All very strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the Bailhache Bros plan all along was to presume Stuart would be foolish enough to go up against dozens of the world's most expensive lawyers and powerful financial movers and shakers without the kind of legal representation which even a third world dictatorship might have pretended to guarantee him.

      Do you not think he has been advised by numerous experts outside Jersey to abstain from testifying until he is provided the same legal representation other former ministers have been eagerly supplied?

      It is beyond ridiculous to presume Stuart avoids the truth, or fears the hard evidence, when he simply demands normal international human rights and legal standards of process for his testimony. Your use of the word 'courage' is rather hilarious in that context, Anonymous!

      Elle

      Delete
  34. Bryans on education in charge of our children!!!!
    was he mates with Lundy?

    ReplyDelete
  35. think bailanche entered politics to take control of things from the States side of things whilst baby brother was slipped into position with agreement from Birt to go at the given time. Seems to be going a bit wrong for them now then Gorst can take over the top job without any bailanche pressure!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. If Bailhache isn't worried about the findings of this inquiry then he must be every bit as stupid as others have suggested.

    Let's get real! Even taken at their lowest, the facts and issues which are now on the record so far would be seriously worrying to any public official who had been involved in them.

    Only a person possessed of hubris to a sociopathical and disabling degree would be 'not worried'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Anyone as complicit and just plain wrong-headed as Bailhache, if still not worried, must live in a bubble filled with comfortable self-deluded denialism. Doesn't he see what's happening in the UK? Doesn't he have some grasp of the way the internet is already changing history regarding the old pompous feudal spin?

      Elle

      Delete

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