Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and William Bailhache.





After a five week break the Jersey Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry recommences its Public Hearings a week today (Tuesday 26 May 2015) where it starts phase 1(b) of its investigation.

We would like to bring readers attention to where the Inquiry left off, and in particular, the testimony given by Witness “Mr.K” who is a suspected prolific paedophile. Also we look at the former Attorney General, and now Bailiff, William Bailhache and his (the latter’s) PRESS STATEMENT.

As we have reported previously (link above) there was public out-cry and suspicion over William Bailhache’s (then Attorney General) decision to drop somewhere in the region of a dozen abuse cases and only offer the public/victims/survivors a couple of SHOW TRIALS. It became apparent that out of 121 living abuse suspects only 8 were charged (93% were never charged) and there were seven, out of the eight, convicted.

Witness “Mr. K” was one of those suspects who weren’t brought before a Jersey Court, so just like so many others escaped (what passes for) justice. But what happens when some of the reasons for not prosecuting “Mr K” are looked at and lightly questioned? Do the reasons (of William Bailhache) stand up to scrutiny? We would argue NO they don’t and the conduct of the Attorney General’s Office needs a bright light shone into it.

Unfortunately we don’t have a mainstream media on the island to shine that bright light and it is left to Bloggers to inform the public of what is taking place and being omitted by the MSM, as we have all through the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up.

The transcripts below are taken from day 66 (April 15 2015) of the Inquiry and can be read in their entirety HERE. The local State Media was present at this Hearing, yet even after Yours Truly went into the Media Room (from which Bloggers are BANNED) and pointed out that William Bailhache looks to have been shown as a liar, or at the very least, been given false information which he published in his 2009 press release. NONE of the local State Media have reported the apparent discrepancies.

PATRICK SAAD is Counsel to the Inquiry and is questioning suspected prolific paedophile Witness "Mr. K" in the transcript below.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT.

Patrick Saad -Thank you.  You say at paragraph 118 of your statement {WS000544/23}:

"The Attorney General commented in his open letter that so many people had been willing to come to my defence and to stand up for me to say that I am a good person."

Can we go back again please to the Attorney General's letter, {WD005402} and can we go to page 3 {WD005402/3}, and, as of course I recognise, Mr K, these are very serious allegations made against you and you are setting out why you say these allegations are wrong and in support of that you take us to a paragraph in the Attorney General's letter and you say that "people stand up for me to say that I am a good person". What the Attorney General in fact says at the bottom of page 3 is: 

"Furthermore, the police investigation shows relevant defence material including the fact that a significant number of witnesses speak well of [witness 7] (Witness “Mr.K”) describing his popularity with the children and his good qualities in dealing with the children generally." Then it goes on to say:

"He received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance."

I think it is right to say that as far as your time at Haut de la Garenne is concerned, there were no such reports, there were no such monitoring, is that right?

MR. K - No.

Patrick Saad - Sorry, is that answer "no, you are not right", or "no, there weren't"?

Mr. K - I believe that -- there wasn't any formal reports. However, I have to be very careful here because it is impossible to answer without disclosing certain things which I don't want to disclose.

Patrick Saad - I understand that, Mr K.  So if you can limit your answer to my question, which I'm going to ask you again: was your performance at Haut de la Garenne, in the time that you were employed there, formally evaluated and recorded?

Mr. K - No.  However, it would have been verbally.

Patrick Saad - And how do you know that?

Mr. K - I can't answer that question again because it will be revealing, but I did move on to other employment where I would have been recommended from my record at Haut de la Garenne.(END TRANSCRIPT)

So there we have the first apparent discrepancy in William Bailhache’s “reason” for not prosecuting Witness “Mr K” who, incidentally, is rumoured to be a friend of Mr. Bailhache. William Bailhache claims, "He (witness “Mr. k”) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." But when “MR. K.” is questioned about this he says the reports, and, monitoring, didn’t exist. This alone raises serious doubts over the authenticity of the information contained in William Bailhache’s Press Release and “reason” for not prosecuting “Mr. K”

Secondly we look at (or Patrick Saad does) another “reason” Mr. Bailhache refused to prosecute “Mr. K.”

From William Bailhache June 2009 statement

In another case, the complainant described sustaining 300 to 400 cigarette burn marks and a branding which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury”

Begin Transcript.

Patrick Saad - Paragraph 106 to 108, this resident says that he was burnt or branded and sexually assaulted by you {WS000544/21}.  The documentation that the Inquiry has been taken to in the course of the evidence in previous months shows that this resident was not there at the same time as you, or strictly, on one view of the documents, maybe overlapping by three to four days and you set out the reasons why the allegations should not be believed, apart from that issue. I just want to take up with you please, if I may, something you say at paragraph 108 {WS000544/22} and this is in relation to the burns:

"[This witness] also alleged that I had (Witness Mr. K”) burnt him 20 times or more with a cigarette and branded him. This allegation was disproved as he had been examined by a doctor who had been unable to find any marks or branding on his body." I just want to explore with you the issue of it being "disproved", you use that expression again. Can we have up on screen please {WD003510}. What we're going to look at, Mr K, is a medical report dated June 2014 which was commissioned for the Redress Scheme and which this witness exhibited to their evidence and it is evidence that has been before the Inquiry, and it is a medical report prepared by a Jason Payne-James. If we could go to page 2 please {WD003510/2}.We can see the credentials there of the doctor.  If we go to page 3 please {WD003510/3} and we see that he is a registered medical practitioner, he is a specialist in forensic and legal medicine and he says this at paragraph 4:

"For More than 20 years I have assessed several hundred assailants and/or victims (adult and child) in varying cases of assault or injury each year including sexual offence examination, torture and asylum cases ..."

He goes on to say at paragraph 5 "I am editor of the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine" and he goes on to set out the extent of his experience.

Could we go please to page 15 {WD003510/15} and a large block of black there, but paragraph 200:

"On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size.  They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns, insect bites, chickenpox (although other lesions were not noted elsewhere) ..."

I think that's said in relation to the chickenpox: " ... and infected acne (he was not aware that he acne)."

If we go to page 23 {WD003510/23} and we look at the top there, Mr K, paragraph 258: "The small pale scars to the back are consistent with cigarette burns but there are many other possible causes (although none I could elicit from the history)." Then on the same page, 268, the expert witness is addressing questions that he was posed in his instructions in relation to this witness and he repeats those instructions at 268:

"If I am of the opinion there are any inconsistencies between what [48] (alleged victim) tells me at the interview and the
documentation provided to me, which I consider relevant, set them out ..."
He says this: "I find the marks and scars on [witness 48] at the least consistent with his account ..."

You say that the allegation of burning has been disproved, to use that phrase. In the light of this evidence, which I know until you came to the Inquiry yesterday you had not seen, do you want to comment any further?  Is it again your view that it is the role of the police to disprove or prove an allegation?

Mr. K - I'm going to comment on this.  I note the words "at least consistent", right, but I think that we should bring the Attorney General's statement please.

Patrick Saad - Yes. If you bear with me a moment, I will just get the reference for that.  It is {WD005402} please.  On to page 3 {WD005402/3}, the main paragraph there, Mr K. What is it you would like the Inquiry's attention brought to?

Mr. K - It is somewhere here.

Patrick Saad – If you need more time, please ...

Mr. K - Oh, yes, it is -- actually instead of 20 cigarette burns he says I burnt him 300 to 400 times and branded him:
"... which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury nor do the records show that [whoever he was] was at Haut de la Garenne at the ... time."
So I wrote my statement with this knowledge from the Attorney General who had received that information from the police who I'm sure, as no expense was spared during the investigation, had an expert examine this person and reach that conclusion.
This would have been typical of any inquiry when you would have professional dispute about injuries.

Patrick Saad - My only issue with you, Mr K, in relation to this part of the evidence is again your choice of the word "disproved", but you have given your response and your account.(END TRANSCRIPT)

So we have, in former Attorney General William Bailhache’s statement, and another “reason” for not prosecuting witness “Mr. K” that “there is no physical sign of any injury.”

But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size.  They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape.  They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars.  Causes could include cigarette burns”

Just these couple of discrepancies in William Bailhache’s decision not to prosecute witness “Mr. K” bring serious doubts over his integrity/honesty and professional capacity to hold the office he did and does. It further adds evidenced weight to the theory that it’s the paedophiles who are protected by Jersey’s “Justice” System and the Victims/Survivors (like the most of us) DO NOT enjoy the protection of law.

It also adds weight to the claim that the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) should be re-opened and should NEVER have been SHUT DOWN.

140 comments:

  1. This posting is first rate journalism which once again puts the Island's official media to shame. It exposes yet more flaws in the official account of events and what was, at the best, the half-hearted approach of the prosecution authorities in Jersey so far as child abuse is concerned. (They are far from half-hearted when an opponent of regime is accused a transgression as many other cases show.) Genuine prosecutors engage in a hard and determined search for reasons to bring abusers to justice. This lot just search for reasons to justify letting them off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doesn't surprise me at all the whole system in jersey is out there to protect them selves however there is more out there that needs to be held in to account . For example when vulnerable isn't written in your reports even though you are under the mental health on a weekly basis for a long period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The bailhache brothers are and have been covering up abuse for along time. They both should be ashamed of themselves but we know they will not be. It is disgusting the way that both of them have behaved. Both on their speeches on Liberation Day was totally out of line.
    The truth is now coming out and as we have always suspected senaror bailhache has tried to close the enquiry down on a number of occasions and now we see why. He thought by saying £50,000,000 it will cost of we carry on with this enquiry says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shouldn't people wait until all sides have been heard and the Team have completed their report before pointing fingers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All sides HAVE been heard and published. William Bailhache said “"He (suspected paedophile) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance."

      And the suspected paedophile said those reports don’t exist; at least that’s how I read it. You might have another interpretation?

      William Bailhache said “there is no physical sign of any injury.” Yet Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine said “there were numerous pale mature scars” and “They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns.”

      Delete
    2. Are you running this Inquiry or are the lawyers?
      Some of us will wait until the findings have been evaluated before jumping to conclusions on testimony that may or may not be even true.

      Delete
    3. @13:02 "Are you [VFC] running this Inquiry or are the lawyers?"

      VFC is reporting on important aspects of the Inquiry and the "testimony"[press release] which ......"may not be even true" was issued by then AG William Bailhache!!!!
      .....as part of the cover story for not prosecuting a priority suspect accused of multiple crimes by at least 9 different people!

      It is good that you have come to Jersey's premiere real news site because these aspects are unlikely to be reported by the usual suspects BBC-Savile, CoverupTV-Krichefski or the JEPeado.

      Keep up the good work !

      Delete
  5. No I don't agree clearly some people haven't been on the receiving end of this cover up to make statements like that !!! Which they are lucky if they haven't .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great posting VFC.

    All roads lead to the law office and especially the Attorney General.

    Rs

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr K will not be reading this locally he is having a well deserved holiday after a long time off work with a stress related illness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After the "performance" Mr. K gave at the Child Abuse Inquiry one would have thought he would be physically exhausted too. He couldn't have dug himself, Mick Gradwell and the establishment a bigger hole if he tried.

      Delete
    2. Your logic makes no sense at all.
      I know Mr K and he's innocent of any wrong doing so like his wife would say, shove it.

      Delete
    3. He dug a big enough hole for William Bailhache as well when he said the monitoring and reports did not exist. The MSM have kept this quiet haven't they?

      Delete
    4. Firstly have you read his transcripts in their entirety and secondly how did you come to the conclusion he is innocent?

      Delete
    5. The subject of this blog is not the guilt or innocence of Mr K as I read it. It's more about the guilt or innocence of Willy Bailhache who looks like he is as guilty as sin!

      Delete
    6. @19:56 Really?

      www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shove+it

      ..."short slang for shove it up your ass"

      Sounds a delightful lady!

      Perhaps those two were made for each other

      Delete
  8. Interesting to see which way the COI will go next Tuesday. Will they :Go forward with all guns blazing, delay the proceeding till further notice or will they cowardly resign.
    Interesting few weeks ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve made this view known before, and I will continue to say it; this Committee of Inquiry should resign. I have less than zero confidence in it – and the same is true of some other witnesses.

      We need a real - and competent – inquiry into the corruption of the Jersey Crown Offices.

      From the very outset of its existence this “public inquiry” and the lawyers who advise and run it have made blunder after blunder – and that’s the most charitable thing one could say about their “performance”.

      It’s hard to know where to begin; how about Eversheds, the lawyers – failing to comply with the Code of Conduct of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, either in respect of ethical dealing with witnesses – or declaring conflicts of interest?

      How about such an overt epic fail as choosing to ignore an actually fundamental part of the enabling legislative decision which confers their purpose – Part (e ) of the States decision – and thinking no-one would notice?

      Failing to work to the long-established Salmon Principles?

      Multiple breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights?

      Refusing to give legal representation funding to key witnesses?

      Failing to secure the confidentiality of key witness statements?

      Agreeing to an “evidence” collating and supply system – which is actually run by some of the expressly and directly conflicted child-abuse concealers their supposed to be inquiring into?

      And it goes on…..

      I can make a further observation – drawn from twenty years of working in a political / legislative / quasi-legal and very hostile and contested environment; you develop a quick and acute ‘six-sense’ when it comes to assessing the calibre of individuals.

      The three members of this public inquiry panel are of manifestly jaw-dropping inadequacy.
      I’ve sat in that room and watched them “perform” – and the phrase out-of-their-depth just doesn’t even get close to describing them.

      The standard of questioning from the three panel members has been so bad and deficient as to be beyond parody.

      The Chairwoman – setting aside the various acts of overt bias she has exhibited – is just so obviously frightened. Really, she’s like a rabbit in the headlights. She knows “something’s” going on – but she doesn’t know what it is. She had – and still has – no idea what she was getting into. It’s obvious – the absence of confidence is palpable – the fear drips off her.

      She knows enough to know that even if she sticks their course – the “work” she and this panel are doing will not withstand even the lightest scrutiny from the deeper, bigger, more serious examinations of “The Jersey Situation” - which are unavoidable - and inevitable.

      They should resign – and resign now.

      For God’s sake go.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. For somebody who refuses to give evidence and has never had anything good to say about this Inquiry since it started what worth are your demands?

      Delete
    3. Cart before the horse - quite obviously.

      I would have had good things to say about this "public inquiry" if it had acted with competence, followed settled procedure for public inquiries such as the Salmon Principles, adhered to the ECHR, not ignored a fundamental part (paragraph (e)) of the legislative decision which conferred the inquiry's purpose, had provided legal funding in a manner compliant with Article 6, not abdicated it's investigative purpose by giving the task of "evidence-gathering" to directly conflicted senior civil-servants they're supposed to be investigating - etc - etc.

      This public inquiry failed - from the get-go - in all of the above ways - and more.

      What you term my "demands" are in fact what is termed in law "reasonable expectation". I suggest you read the following Wikipedia entry: -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation

      The public inquiry is a "public authority" - as such it is bound by administrative law case-law. The CoI is unavoidably bound by all relevant "legitimate expectations" - for example, it is a "legitimate expectation" that such a body would comply with the ECHR, which is binding on all public authorities. It is a "reasonable expectation" - for example - that a statutory "public inquiry" would not "abdicate" its core "legislative purpose" - that of objectively inquiring into the relevant matters - by surrendering evidence-gathering to directly conflicted individuals under investigation.

      There's not even anything complex or credibly disputable about the situation. This public inquiry has acted in so many unambiguously ultra vires ways that not only are we clearly faced with a biased body - we're also faced with one not possessed of even rudimentary competence.

      The "worth" of expecting and requiring that a public authority such as this public inquiry actually follows legal obligations and settled standards, is that we require and expect the effective and objective rule-of-law. If this public inquiry is to be permitted to carry on ignoring the lawful requirements of administrative law, then it is merely a continuation of the same abuses of power and ethical bankruptcy by the Jersey polity which got us into this mess in the first place.

      This Committee of Inquiry was supposed to be a part of the solution - not just the latest face of the problem.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. Can you not just give all this evidence and stop making weak excuses to avoid?
      It seems ironic that your version of what is right and wrong is never verified by qualified people or supported by anybody else in Authority and you mention the ECHR which you were supposed to take Jersey to 7 years ago. Bring this action to a conclusion and stop dragging it out.

      Delete
    5. Did you not read the LINK Stuart posted?

      Delete
    6. Yes, and?
      I wish people would just get on with giving their evidence and stop holding back.
      At the moment people are accusing Mr Syvret of not having any.

      Delete
    7. To be fair, it would be pretty difficult to accuse Stuart of not having evidence........He's published a majority of it! To include file notes from the former Chief Police Officer, affidavits from former senior police officers, the damming report of the Howard League For Penal Reform to name but a few.

      Delete
    8. Isn't Syvret's fundamental issue, which is the same problem at the heart of the child abuse cover ups, that the judiciary in Jersey is openly corrupt? Seems pretty clear to me that that's what he objects to and it's that which he is fighting. You can't be surprised he's never going to look at this child abuse public inquiry as though it was addressing that big problem, because it isn't. And it's for that reason of judicial corruption he's not interested in going to Strasbourg. He says Jersey should have courts of 'first instance' that are unbiased and not contaminated with conflicted people. And he's right, absolutely right. Courts of first instance have to be free from contamination, and Jersey's courts don't meet that test.

      And anyone who's followed the excellent factual, evidence based reporting by Jersey's bloggers like VFC, Rico Sorda & Syvret, knows that Syvret's position is absolutely reasonable and very well evidenced. For example, I remember reading that Syvret is in possession of three separate affidavits sworn by a certain disgusting and deranged troll which contain a multitude of lies, which are perjury if in an affidavit. And then there's the recordings of the abusive, drunken tirades of hatred and threats made by that troll, evidence which proves the troll was committing perjury in the affidavits. Syvret wants an objective police, prosecution and judiciary that will bring the perjuring troll to justice.

      But at the moment Jersey doesn't have an objective judiciary, once again as the evidence published by the bloggers proves. And this post is the latest shocking example. You have William Bailhache, former Attorney General and Deputy Bailiff who's now the chief judge in Jersey, being proven to have lied to the States over 'Mr K's 'good reports' when there weren't any. And over the medical evidence concerning that victim. There's so much evidence of Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache acting improperly when they've been conflicted in the issues that there pretty much isn't any need for any more. Syvret's argument is proven, many times over. The ball is not in his court or the other campaigners now. The burden to disprove that evidence has now long since been on the establishment.

      It's their problem now. They're the one's who need to produce counter-evidence.

      Delete
  9. That Mr K is guilty is known by a range of different people across Jersey and beyond, and I don't mean only his victims, the most serious problem for the Jersey Establishment is the stark spotlight this shines on the corrupt and non-functioning Crown prosecution system in Jersey. With so many people who know the truth, including a significant number of Police Officers, there's no hiding place for William and Philip Bailhache.

    The expert forensic medial testimony given to the COI and re-produced here, contrasted with the falsehoods William Bailhache actually peddled to the Jersey legislature, is damming. Just utterly damning.

    It's a case of QED.

    And now William Bailhache is head of your legislature and head of your judiciary.

    A reader suggested under an earlier posting you Jersey campaigners should get together and send a joint letter to Her Majesty the Queen. Indeed you should.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Stuart Syvret is correct, the chain of corruption goes back to the Queen, and certainly She has been contacted and shown no interest in the matter.

      Delete
    2. I don't recollect Syvret ever saying the Queen is corrupt. My memory of what he's said is that the advisory apparatus that leads up to the Queen, that whole big dusty establishment, has become stagnant and is incompetent. I think he's also said that parts of that system have been 'captured' and are misused for corrupt and self-interested purposes, by people like the ancient Jersey crooks and the City of London. That's not the same as saying the Queen is corrupt. It's saying the people and systems that advise her have failed.

      Delete
  10. Write to the Queen eh? I agree. I think that would be a very good idea. As much as the Monarch and the Offices of the Royal Household may want to protect their feudatory in Jersey, the idiots and lunatics in your local Establishment have acted so crazily, and there’s such a volume of damming evidence, it would be simply too much of a ‘Big Ask’ of the Royal apparatus to carry on shielding these criminals if there were a clear, detailed and historic written submission to Her Majesty.

    The Monarchy are very conscious, and wisely so, of their need to modernises, to be neutral and to be on the side of the unbiased rule of law. As much as it may break Her Majesty’s heart to have to signal a lack of faith in Her loyal Jersey barons, and make it known via the Privy Council the Jersey system no longer enjoys Her confidence, really, what other choice would She and He Offices have? Once damning written evidence is sent to Her?

    The Monarchy can only jeopardise its standing and reputation so much. Are a collection of overt spivs, fools and concealers of child-abuse worth absorbing the collateral damage for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William Bailhache was appointed by the Queen. She is as guilty as he is.

      Delete
  11. Anon 19.56

    That's hilarious.....you know Mr K, so therefore he is innocent! And you have the brass neck to question VFCs logic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr K is innocent unless the law decides otherwise.
      Nothing stopping any of his alleged victims ever taking civil actions.

      Delete
    2. It was the “law” (William Bailhache) who dropped this particular case on what look to be extremely dubious grounds and false evidence. Jersey does not have the rule of law. It has a politicised judiciary and because somebody hasn’t been tried in a Jersey court does not automatically mean they are innocent. Jimmy Savile was never tried in a court that doesn’t make him innocent.

      Delete
    3. This is going around in circles.
      So you believe William Bailhache drops cases on dubious grounds.
      I would ask you to tell us what qualifications you hold to make that educated view but I shan't bother because this blog seems to be rife with unqualified people giving legal opinions already.

      Delete
    4. It’s incredible some of the daft questions that get asked. If you have read the Blog (which you clearly haven’t) you would know the dubious grounds of which I believe William Bailhache dropped the case. What “qualifications” do I (or anybody) need to see glaring discrepancies?

      Delete
    5. RE "daft questions"
      It is difficult to believe that it is anything other than distraction trolling.

      Then again some people maybe are that stupid or morally illiterate.

      Delete
    6. Anyone who doubts William Bailhache is less than honest or committed to fair and consistent application of the law need look no further than when former Deputy Trevor Pitman exposed his lies in claiming two JDA candidates were the only ones who broke the Article 39A election rule. You can probably still find the basics on Hansard unless this has been disappeared. When Pitman calls Bailhache out and (I believe) held some evidence our former Attorney General suddenly piped up that he 'now recalled' thus proving the Deputy right. Set the lies about Mr K's nonexistent good reports and we see why Bailhache really must be disbelieved and grilled by the COI. But will they? Bit like the dying Maguire let off only to turn up alive and well in France 10 years later.

      Delete
  12. It is incredible VCF - the daft questions that get asked! In my opinion, these daft questions and attitudes can only be interpreted by me as 'pro abuse' and anti-victim stances.

    Anon@16.45
    What qualifications do you hold? (Other than possibly knowing the accused). There is no qualification to see through BS when it's as blatant as it is!

    ReplyDelete

  13. The poster above is complete out of his/ her depth, I refer to:

    Anonymous 20 May 2015 at 15:44 who writes,

    Can you not just give all this evidence and stop making weak excuses to avoid?
    It seems ironic that your version of what is right and wrong is never verified by qualified people

    As I see it one of the driving forces for the inquiry was ex Deputy Daniel Wimberley. A man with knowledge on many aspects and angles regarding the present CoI. Especially the all-important terms of reference.

    Why was Mr Wimberley’s open and honest questions never answered by the so-called experts advisers or the panel itself? Instead they completely ignored him.

    This in itself means:

    a) They have no answers. b) They have come off the rails and wish not to be seen as foolish by back-tracking, c) They are blagging it, and hope no one will notice thus disrespecting the intelligence of observers. d) If they cannot or will not answer the ex Deputy's question's are they indeed setting up their own ambush later down the line ?

    I suggest that Mr Daniel Wimberley and Stuart Syvret are intelligent and caring men, and reasonable knowledgeable in the area of child abuse and basic legal procedures. Now tell us again how competent the well-paid qualified panel are, the one that refuses to answer basic questions.

    Not looking good is it ?

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The commenter is also forgetting that Ex Health Minister Syvret has already endured prison super-injunction and bankruptcy in order to ensure that the evidence already publicised on his blog remains in the public domain.

      The document which Deputy Daniel Wimberley submitted to the CoI (& which remains unanswered) can be read here:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      Delete
    2. Daniel Wimberley's unanswered question to CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY.

      Delete
  14. "He received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." Would those reports have been provided to the COI or is the word of the Attorney General classed as the report?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly the reports, in paper form or digital form don’t exist. According to Witness Mr. K’s” evidence.

      “Patrick Saad - I understand that, Mr K. So if you can limit your answer to my question, which I'm going to ask you again: was your performance at Haut de la Garenne, in the time that you were employed there, formally evaluated and recorded?

      Mr. K - No. However, it would have been verbally.”

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Brazil blogger known for reporting on corruption found decapitated"

    They don't mess around in Brazil, feel safe in Jersey then? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to worry. They 'kill' reputations and livelihoods here in Jersey not the political opponent. Just Stuart, Trevor and Shona and Graham and Lenny in particular.

      Delete
    2. Decapitated: Brazilian journalist investigating child prostitution & corruption killed

      http://rt.com/news/260689-brazil-murder-journalist-corruption/

      Jersey is relatively safe compared to Brazil but unfortunately there are a few criminally insane narcissists about who do make death threats and harass child protection campaigners. Click on the audio which is still available here:

      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

      One could perhaps ignore these sad local losers if only their bragging about police and judicial protection were false ......but have proven to be TRUE to the tune of over £300k of public money.

      Beneath the thin veneer of respectability Jersey is not that different from a wild west frontier town.

      The process of deep cleaning this filthy cancer from our fair isle is well underway, and the bloggers have proven a vital part of it.

      Delete
  17. A number of comments have been submitted (one removed) that could help identify an anonymous witness (suspected paedophile) to the Inquiry. We have to be extremely careful that we are not responsible for identifying witnesses and regret we are unable to publish the comments.

    The hope is that the Child Abuse Inquiry will reverse its absurd ruling to offer this person such a privileged position to the detriment of natural justice and we are able to inform readers how (willingly or otherwise) the Inquiry has been protecting this suspected Paedophile who is also believed to be protected by the establishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CoI needs to do the right thing and name him ......like they (eventually) did with Mario Lundy.

      ........NO, hang on a minute. The AG needs to do the right thing and PROSECUTE him in court and punish him if guilty. The (non corrupt) investigating officers at the time were adamant that there was more than enough evidence to prosecute this priority suspect!

      Delete
    2. A casual reader may not appreciate how indefensible and inconsistent the decision of the CoI is, when it refuses to permit the naming of Mr K. Nor may a casual reader understand the significance of that behaviour by the CoI or why it should behave so. Sadly, a close reading of the CoI's ex cathedra protocols and the comparison with the Mario Lundy example tends to strengthen and endorse the view of Stuart Syvret that the body is biased.

      Although wrong and unjustifiable, the CoI took to itself in its protocols a 'rule' that has conferred anonymity on virtually all categories of witnesses who are suspected of any form of wrongdoing or misfeasance. Usually anonymity only applies to victims or alleged victims of sexual crime. Thus, at the outset, this CoI sabotaged the very purpose of the CoI, namely being a 'public inquiry' in which the facts and the people involved in events are made public.

      However, as the UK lawyers running the CoI will have well understood, attempting to secure the wish of the Jersey Establishment in pulling a veil of secrecy over all the malfeasant individuals could scarcely be possible when many of them were named already national and international media. So, with immense reluctance all round, that reality was faced up to, and an 'agreement' was reached with the Jersey government that those who had already been named in the 'regulated media' would not have anonymity in the CoI's proceedings. For that reason they had to ultimately accept they could not carry on shielding Mario Lundy from naming and scrutiny.

      The policy of the CoI in agreeing with the secrecy demands of the Jersey government has no basis whatsoever in any respectable law.

      Nevertheless, taking the CoI and Eversheds at their word and playing along with their novel anti-public-inquiry-'public-inquiry' approach, 'Mr K' too has been named in the 'regulated media'. He has been named as a Jersey child abuse suspect in certain publications including by The Sun newspaper.

      So, applying the same, albeit nonsense, policy of the CoI which they've used when it comes to the naming of Mario Lundy, why is the CoI engaging in witness intimidation and efforts to protect child abusers with secrecy, when it comes to the case of 'Mr K'? If the CoI was being consistent, 'Mr K' must be publicly named, just as Mario Lundy has been.

      There is no 'policy' difference between the two cases insofar as the CoI's self-chosen 'rules' are concerned.

      Therefore, we must ask, 'why the remarkable inconsistency?'

      It is difficult to alight at any rational explanation, other than that the CoI is biased.

      Delete
    3. Is that for real? Mr K has been named by The Sun? Then what's going on? Why's the COI making Mr K 's name a secret when its already out there? That just doesn't make any sense. Is the comment right? Has Mr K been named by The Sun? Is there a link anywhere? Or does anyone have a photocopy of the article?

      If Mr K has been named by The Sun then that raises really serious questions about the COI. Comment at 1:14 says covering up Mr K's name is not even in line with even the COI's own policy, but aren't things even worse than that? The COI is lying to the people of Jersey by saying Mr K's ID is not public when it is. In The Sun.

      Of all the questions asked about the COI this is the most heavy one I know about. If the comment is right about Mr K being named already then the COI has some really big explaining to do.

      Delete
    4. Indeed Witness Mr. K HAS been named in The Sun newspaper. I have also been told by two reliable sources that he has been named in at least one other UK newspaper. He has been given a great deal of protection by the COI (and the Establishment) and one has to question the COI's decision'/motive(s) here. Indeed I have been from the very start asking why Mr. K. has been given such a privileged status and am still waiting on a satisfactory reply.

      Further I e-mailed the COI (six days ago) to ask for an update into it's supposed "investigation" into the alleged leak (to Philip Bailhache) of Lenny Harper's confidential statement. The COI has not had the courtesy to even acknowledge the e-mail.

      Delete
    5. From the above thread this is how it looks to me, and if anyone thinks I'm off the wall with this I'm interested in hearing a better explanation. Ok, so the COI decided to protect most of the abusers and the other criminals who did the cover-ups a secret, and OK that policy is wrong, but that's what they've done. But their policy says suspected abusers will be named if they've already been named in the MSM, so that explains why Mario Lundy is named. But although 'Mr K' fits into exactly the same policy as Mario Lundy, the COI in not naming 'Mr K'. Here's the only explanation I can see, the reason for that is the same reason the Jersey Establishment protected him from prosecution in the first place, which is that 'Mr k' has the dirt on people in the Establishment who are also child abusers.

      Can anyone else see a more logical conclusion?

      Think about it, 'Mr K' as anyone who's followed events over the years knows, is maybe the most serious prime suspect of them all, in Jersey. So many victims and so many witnesses. That makes him a very very difficult and risky cover up, as the Establishment are now finding. But they've tried anyway to cover him up. Why do that? Why take that very big gamble and risk? Why has the reputation of the whole Jersey government and judiciary been put on the line to protect a suspected child abuser with loads of victims and witnesses against him? Ok, let's assume he could be innocent, so then why not a trial and his name gets cleared in court? It's not as if, as we're seeing from the evidence now, that there was no grounds or justification to bring charges and mount a prosecution at least.

      Only logical reason I can see for this guy being protected is that he's got too much dirt on other child abusers. Child abusers who are powerful and important to the Jersey Establishment's image.

      Am I wrong?

      I don't think so, and here's why. Really cunning paedophiles have always used the same tactics, it's their insurance policy. Abuse children and make sure you know lots of powerful child abusers as well, and keep a record of their crimes, maybe even 'supply' children to them, or be able to provide the environment and opportunity for powerful abusers to get access to vulnerable children. And what job better to be able to do that than working in children's homes & social services? This is how so many big profile child abusers in the UK got covered up and protected for decades. They used those tactics as a way to make sure they were always protected and untouchable, they just had to let it be known to a few Freemason cops or lawyers what they knew and about who they knew it, and would sing like a canary, and there you go. No charges.

      I don't see any better idea why the Jersey Establishment has protected 'Mr K'.

      Think about it. It's a crazy risk they took protecting him in the first place, a risk which has blown up in their faces, so a time comes when any sensible decisions have to be to cut their losses. But now they're going even crazier and have basically shot to pieces the credibility of the COI too. These are big big stakes they've placed here. Maybe even bet the farm? And it's not looking too good for them.

      Only logical reason I see is they must have something even bigger to lose by not protecting him. And the only thing that fits the bill is that he brings them all down with him if he's exposed and prosecuted.

      Delete
    6. Witness Mr. K does appear to wield a lot of power and privileges and your summary is extremely plausible. I am unable (for the time being) to publish further (absolutely bizarre) privileges and protections that have been afforded Mr. K by this COI.

      In the coming weeks we hope to be exposing this absolute assault on natural justice and, believe me, it DOES fall into the "You Couldn't Make It Up" Category

      Delete
  18. Hello there,

    I just signed the petition "Chief Minister of the States of Jersey: Issue the Official Apology to Stuart Syvret he deserves" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

    Our goal is to reach 200 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

    https://www.change.org/p/chief-minister-of-the-states-of-jersey-issue-the-official-apology-to-stuart-syvret-he-deserves?recruiter=28754004&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  19. Everyone who has followed the abuse investigation knows who Mr K is.
    So why the pretence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I believe that he might be the 'gentleman' who had a (dis)honorable mention in the UK Parliament.

      The CoI really do need to stop playing games like they did with Mario Lundy.

      However it is sensible that Team Voice do it by the book and WAIT for the priority suspects to be officially named ...and charged if appropriate.

      Delete
  20. This latest blog is brave journalism. This is the job of journalists - to posit the facts for people to make their own decision. Unfortunately the MSM don't do this though they like to appear so. The power that the Bailhache's wield in this island reaches those who run our media outlets and they don't have to reach far. It also has a hold on almost every politician - even those we regard as 'people politicians'. They are very foolish to allow themselves to live in fear of those who are their inferiors. VFC does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in a position to endorse and expand on the above comment. Whilst correct, the author may not be aware that the reverse is true also, that there are those who run certain media outlets who wield power that reaches to the Bailhaches? It is a "circular deal", do you see?

      The power and leverage flows both ways, so they must prop and shield each other. I believe a phrase was coined on Stuart Syvret's blog which describes this widespread and dangerous cancer in Jersey governance, "corruption tensegrity".

      Tensegrity is an engineering term used to describe structures made up of struts and wires, in which the struts are always loaded in compression and the wires in tension. So long as the structure retains that loading integrity it will remain stable and intact, no matter that such structures look very fragile. But, of course, if one of those members breaks, the structure will collapse.

      That is what power is in Jersey, "corruption tensegrity". The "system" holds together, no matter how bizarre it appears, because each of its "components" is "held" and "fixed" in some way. But like a tensegrity structure, should one of the components be broken, the entire structure will collapse.

      The oligarchs in Jersey and their partners in London, every one of who is a "strut" or a "wire" in the Jersey corruption tensegrity structure, know that their individual protection is dependant upon the survival of that structure, which in turn is dependent on the survival of each individual "component". Which is why they've always been so careful to ensure "ownership" over each other, and then to protect and nurture each other. Their collective survival depends on it.

      But, for all that, the "structure" is fragile, and in the 21st century in the democratic West, incredibly vulnerable. Largely thanks, in fact, to the Bailhache brothers, the "structure" is now subjected to impossible loads. Its "design parameters" have been exceeded. The struts are groaning with excess load, the wires are thrumming with tension beyond their breaking point. The failure of the structure is unavoidable and imminent.

      Some of the components might be salvageable, but only if they detach themselves now, and spring away from the collapse.

      Delete
  21. Are you aware that attempts to comment keep disappearing? This has happened to me five times now on this story. When I press publish it tells me my comment box should not be empty - all of my text having disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably not anything untoward. Probably just a glitch of the sort we have all experienced from time to time. If it persists try restarting your browser or better, restart your PC.

      To avoid the risk of loosing comments it is ALWAYS worth saving them as a word-processor/text document and then "paste" them into the comments box.

      I was going to say that this comment posted first time -but on first 2 attempts the reply box did not appear so it might be a glitch on the blogger site.

      Delete
    2. Yes. There are always glitches in the system from time to time. Sometimes on the Google server and sometimes in the browser.

      Emptying the browser cache and rebooting can be useful. Equally, just leaving it a while and coming back later can be useful if the fault is at the Blogger/Google end.

      And yes, composing comments in a separate application and pasting them in is a good idea, particularly if the comment is more than a line or two.

      Alternatively, finished comments could simply be copied to the clipboard before posting.

      I don't know how many times I have kicked myself for ignoring my own advice above. :)

      Delete
  22. "And yes, composing comments in a separate application and pasting them in is a good idea" You can use a spell check in Word as well! :)))))

    ReplyDelete
  23. Do you know if TPTB have broached yet any kind of deal with Syvret? A CA settlement or something of that nature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's a CA settlement?

      Delete
    2. A 'Compromise Agreement', the kind of negotiated settlement you might find which draws a line under a dispute between an unfairly dismissed employee and the employer, usually embodying what is more traditionally known as a 'gagging clause'.

      I imagine the situation between the Jersey & London PWTB and Syvret is not wholly analogous to that kind of situation, nevertheless the intelligent thing to do would be for them to be attempting to settle somehow with him as it is pretty obvious to an objective observer they've no chance of drawing a line under this controversy in any way that does not include bringing him to the table.

      However, equally obviously that's never going to happen for as long as it's left in the hands of the Jersey PTB as they're not intelligent enough and are too hubristic to grasp that reality. A realistic path out of that situation will not be taken until TPTB in London hold a metaphorical pistol to the heads of their Jersey satraps.

      Delete
    3. Good points/questions that perhaps Stuart will address?

      Delete
  24. What gets to me is that there is so much abuse within the system and believe me it is still happening but the people with power choose to ignore it and this means the victim still suffers and the abuser us still allowed to work and continue to do what they do with full pay hopefully the truth will come out sooner rather than later !!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. As things stand William Bailhache needs to produce the evidence referenced in his non-prosecution Press Statement "He [Mr.K] received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance."

    If this evidence does not exist or is not sufficiently substantive then surely Mr. Bailhache's position as Bailiff (the island's chief judge) is untenable?

    ReplyDelete
  26. From WB's Press Statement
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/attorney-general-william-bailhache.html

    "In two of the cases, the makers of the statements were not those against whom the alleged crimes were committed, the alleged victims no longer being alive."

    Such early deaths are mercifully rare in the general population.
    Was this just extremely bad luck or did these individuals go to early drug assisted deaths or suicide due to experiences before or after meeting Mr.K?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm still trying to make sense of the last part of your first transcript section:
    Patrick Saad - ".............. I'm going to ask you again: was your performance at Haut de la Garenne, in the time that you were employed there, formally evaluated and recorded?"

    Mr. K - No. However, it would have been verbally.

    Patrick Saad - And how do you know that?

    Mr. K - "I can't answer that question again because it will be revealing, .............."

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

    "I can't answer that question again because it will be revealing" REVEALING OF WHAT???
    Is this invoking a right not to incriminate oneself, or perhaps not to incriminate some other person?
    Or revealing of some connection to another person within the system? .......Someone so high that they must not be tainted by association with Mr.K ........Or someone already so tainted that their verbally "recorded evaluation" would add no credibility to Mr.K (or Mr Bailhache’s published reason for not prosecuting ...........or would it "reveal" another conflict of Mr Bailhache or another power player?

    ReplyDelete
  28. He did not wish to reveal who was employing him at the time since this would in turn help to identify who Mr K actually is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but that does not make any sense. The questions from Saad make it clear 'Mr K' was 'employed at Haut de la Garenne', not just the question quoted here, but a number of others too. It is clear that 'Mr K', to have been working at these institutions will have been employed by the then Education Committee which back in those days ran Children's Services. It is also deducible that if 'Mr K' continued to work for Children's Services after responsibility for child-protection was handed over to Health & Social Services, he will have then been employed by that Department.

      'Mr K' obviously, from the facts already made public, worked for those two States Departments, so the reason given for 'Mr K's refusal to answer questions in the comment at 11:27 is wrong.

      So we're still left with the question, 'why would 'Mr K' refuse to answer those questions?'

      Even more significantly, we're left asking 'if the COI are happy, as they are in the case of 'Mr K' to just let witnesses not answer the questions and thus withhold important evidence, then why bother? Why are we bothering with this process at all? How much is this costing? And what is its point? Really? From this transcript the COI have now made it crystal-clear they're perfectly cool with people they summon simply declining to answer questions. So, happy days for any malfeasant individual who might get called. Have no fears now over the risk of having to commit perjury by lying to cover things up. Now, any tough questions, questions which might lead to stuff being revealed you'd rather kept hidden, all you have to do is decline to speak. There you go. Sorted.

      I was very doubtful about Syvret's call for this COI to resign. I'm not now.

      This one thing, letting witnesses choose to not answer questions, has finished this Inquiry.

      It's dead in the water now.

      Delete
    2. I suggest that you read the beginning of Mr Ks evidence He says quite clearly that in the beginning he was at Hdlg on placement from (REDACTED) In your comment you have made a couple.of wrong assumptions

      Delete
    3. I will do what you suggest. However, the question from Saad clearly says, 'was your performance at Haut de la Garenne, in the time that you were 'employed' there, formally evaluated and recorded'?

      Two things are plainly ascertainable from that: 'Mr K' was, at some time or other, and for whatever period of time, 'employed' at Haut de la Garenne. Secondly, and logically, 'Mr K's employment at Haut de la Garenne was of a sufficiently long period of time for verbal evaluations (plural) to have taken place.

      Your answer is pure semantics. Even if 'Mr K' has said he wanted to achieve hiding his employment at HDLG by not answering questions, that plan did not work. It did not wok because it is clear from the transcripts that he was at some time 'employed' at Haut de la Garenne.

      But regardless of that, the shocking point remains that this COI is perfectly happy to let witnesses not answer questions, so as to keep certain facts and information secret.

      Therefore a core purpose of a 'public' inquiry has been undermined and defeated by this 'public inquiry' itself.

      It remains the case that the decisions of the body in respect of Mr K mean that any witness who has evidence, or who knows things, or who is a party to some misfeasance, or who might be exposed as being an abuser or culpable for permitting and concealing abuse, just has to say to the COI, 'I don't want to answer that as it might disclose something I don't want disclosed.'

      I don't think you grasp the magnitude and gravity of what this conduct by the COI in support of secrecy and cover-up means.

      It means villains and incompetents don't even have to worry about the jeopardy of perjury in order to cover-up the truth. This 'public inquiry' has given them licence to conceal.

      Let's follow the methodology adopted by the COI and Eversheds through to its logical conclusion; let's look down the road, and foresee what looks like being the only time this 'public inquiry' is likely to actually invoke and use its quasi-judicial inquisitorial and enforcement powers. On present showing, the only thing the COI is going to use its actual powers for, is to subpoena and interrogate Stuart Syvret, the whistle-blower and man who first said in 2007 Jersey was covering up child-abuse.

      And if you need the irony of this scenario explaining, your name is probably Bailhache.

      Delete
    4. If my answer seems like semantics to you it is because you have failed to understand what I can and cannot say
      I think that the commentator below has just about got it
      I suggest you read this comment and please keep your insults to yourself as they are totally uncalled for

      Delete
    5. Thank you both commenters.

      Comment below to read, presumably being 28 May 2015 at 20:50 ?

      Delete
  29. Apologies to the person who has submitted a comment outlining what employment Witness Mr. K was moved to, and from, including his salary and grade. This could help identity him and I cannot publish the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To the commenter who said;

    "It can be read on the COI,s site that Mr K was moved to......."

    I am unable to find this on the transcripts but if you are able to send me the link then I can publish your comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the commenter who has now described where the transcript is. Witness Mr. K was not giving evidence that day.

      Delete
  31. Ah, I think I see what's happened.

    Perhaps readers need to cast their minds back to a comment thread under an earlier posting, when it was pointed out that the protocols and methodology adopted by this so-called 'public inquiry' allows witnesses to appear in the COI's proceedings under 3 different identities. In an hypothetical example a witness might appear in certain contexts as themselves, say Mr Smith, then in another context they will be given an anonymised 'identity', say 'Mr X', and then in yet another context they'll be identified in the inquiry's proceedings as 'Witness 999'.

    I guess I'm not alone in working out what's happened here? The witness we're talking about as 'Mr K', also appears in the proceedings as 'witness (whatever number)', and then also appears as well under their real name?

    This means the openly stated employment details of an identified individual, which are being referred to by other commenters, are in fact the actual employment details of 'Mr K', because the identified person, and 'Mr K' are one and the same person.

    And if that theory is correct, then the reasons why the Jersey Establishment (and their London supporters and agencies) have covered-up 'Mr K' fall into view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does the comment mean when it says 'And if that theory is correct, then the reasons why the Jersey Establishment (and their London supporters and agencies) have covered-up 'Mr K' fall into view.'?

      What falls into view? Is the comment saying there's some big reason Jersey and London have covered up Mr K which wasn't already obvious, just authorities sticking together to bury a scandal?

      Delete
  32. Can someone with legal knowledge please advise on the following
    If someone has been accused of abuse but has not been charged because of the AGs decision that the evidential test has not been passed and if then the COI disagrees with the A Gs decision would the naming of this individual by the COI then be a valid defence reason against future charges being made?

    ReplyDelete
  33. That depends what you mean by a 'valid defence reason'? Defence lawyers will advance absolutely anything as a defence, including all kinds of 'technical' reasons. A strand of a defence case may be 'valid', that is, cogent and well grounded, but still not sufficient on its own to secure acquittal or abuse-of-process.

    If, as I suspect, the questioner is asking would naming of a suspect in this Inquiry, on its own, amount to a total technical defence which rendered subsequent prosecution impossible, or doomed to fail, the answer is - but be careful here of the caveats - no.

    The simple naming of a suspect in proceedings of this public inquiry would not, of itself, confer immunity to that suspect, though of course any good defence lawyers would include the naming in their argument as to 'why their client couldn't get a fair trial'. But no competent court would accept the mere public identification of a suspect as grounds for abuse-of-process (that is, an inability to secure a fair trial). And if one thinks about it, it is obvious why that is so. Just think of all the criminals who are identified in the national media in one way or another, prior to them being charged, prosecuted and convicted. If mere public naming was a barrier to prosecution and conviction every serious villain in the land would employ a spin-doctor to ensure that sensational stories of their crimes appeared in the tabloid press. That prior publicity would then have the effect of generating immunity for them. That situation would obviously make law-enforcement impossible.

    But - and here are caveats - the problem you face in achieving the charging and prosecution of the suspected child-abusers who may appear before this public inquiry (who knows, some of them might even be named) is not so much the fact they've been named, but rather the fact the processes of your public inquiry have the effect of generating and conferring a kind of de facto immunity from subsequent legal proceedings (criminal and civil) arising from or founded on evidence supplied or testimony given to the public inquiry. This means that none of the testimony or evidence provided by the suspects could be used to self-incriminate, nor could other evidence which came to light solely through the processes of the public inquiry then be used against a suspect.

    So, do not be distracted into thinking that the 'naming' of a suspect is your big obstacle to prosecution; it is a mere side-issue compared to the far bigger problem you face in that the process of the public inquiry itself has the effect of taking out of play huge swathes of testimony and evidence, rendering it not useable in any subsequent prosecution.

    I believe this fundamental issue has been addressed in earlier discussion on the Jersey blogs? From memory it was pointed out that the COI has the effect of being a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card', a kind of 'magic-wand' your authorities and the criminals can wave over events and, as if by magic, they're all protected henceforward from any kind of legal action.

    In many ways, if the main objective of the Jersey survivors and campaigners was/is prosecution of the abusers, you would, to be blunt, have been far better advised to hold-off the start of a public inquiry and instead demand of London the establishing of an objective, lawful prosecution system in Jersey, and left a public inquiry until all criminal issues had been exhausted first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that informative answer
      I seem to remember some months ago reading somewhere that this enquiry in itself would not be prohibitive for the police to independently bring future charges against suspects as long as they had gathered their evidence independently and that this evidence may or may not be the same evidence that had already been given to the ongoing enquiry

      Delete
    2. As there appears to be a word-limit on comments, I’m submitting this reply to the comment at 13:06 in 3 parts.

      Part 1 of an answer to question at 13:06

      The point in the comment at 13:06 is technically correct, in that prosecutions after the COI are hypothetically possible. But the realistic chances of that working to the point of conviction are greatly constrained. For example, the evidence and testimony sufficient to prosecute many of the alleged abusers may have already been gathered. Well, in fact we know that it was because the Police were convinced, and wanted a number of suspects to be charged and tried. The Police may well have been in possession of virtually all, or all, of the relevant testimony and evidence in certain cases. That evidence will now have been submitted to the public inquiry. So, here's one avenue that the defence lawyers will obviously run in court in the event of subsequent prosecutions, that the evidence gathered concerning their client has now been 'neutralised' insofar as its capacity for use in criminal proceedings is concerned, because it is now a part of the evidence of the COI.

      The obvious counter-argument to that (assuming Jersey possessed a functioning lawful prosecution system, which at the moment, as the event of the COI shows, it does not) would be for the prosecutors to argue the evidence which now existed in the proceedings of the COI was not so vitiated because that evidence already had a prior, independent existence, outside the context of the COI, as Police evidence.

      If that prosecution argument worked, so as to maintain the use of the evidence in criminal proceedings, the effect would be to raise a number of serious questions about the reach, and validity of the supposed 'immunities' which a public inquiry confers, which immunities are given because it is considered a high public interest test is met in such inquiries being able to access evidence freely and without constraint so as to inquire into some matter of broad and deep public importance. The subsequent conduction of criminal proceedings after a statutory public inquiry would raise very significant doubts about the boundaries and efficacy of the immunities. That, in turn, would have implications for the efficacy of any future public inquiries.

      But there are other problems. Assume it is argued that, if the prior gathered evidence was vitiated through coming into the COI, that would not matter as other evidence, different evidence or fresh evidence, could still be used to prosecute. Yes, that is technically possible. But what if there is no, or no serious or clinching, 'new', 'additional' evidence to be found and used? Suppose all the effective evidence was already gathered in the Police processes, and is now a part of the COI's proceedings? It is all well and good to say a prosecution on new, additional evidence remains technically possible, but what if there is no 'new' evidence?

      But even if some 'new', 'fresh' evidence was to be found by the Police, the next argument of the defence lawyers will be that that 'new' evidence only came to light following, or because of, or even in, the COI's proceedings. They will argue that such evidence was discovered and gathered outside of the lawful procedures and constraints and checks & balances of policing and criminal investigation. Therefore it will be inadmissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution as an abuse-of-process and breach of human rights.

      Delete
    3. Part 2 of an answer to question at 13:06

      Alternatively, let us suppose that the already extant evidence against suspected abusers as gathered by the policing processes was not vitiated, and was capable of still being used in a prosecution even after its inclusion in the COI. But what if genuinely new evidence - evidence which could have been crucial to a successful prosecution, but which the Police had not previously discovered, came to light only as a result of the COI's proceedings? Or suppose there were new suspects, previously unknown to the Police, whose crimes only came to light because of the COI? If that evidence was the clinching evidence against any of the existing suspects, or against such newly identified abusers, because of the immunity on all evidence gathered by the COI, that evidence would be inadmissible in subsequent criminal prosecution of those abusers. Again, one could argue that the Police could then seek to go and discover some other, similar evidence, some 'different' evidence, but all the above obstacles and handicaps would apply.

      But there is another obvious reason why any attempted prosecutions post-COI would be immensely difficult and dramatically constrained. Remember, it is not only prosecution evidence which becomes constrained once in the proceedings of a COI, it is all evidence. So suppose certain evidence had been given, on the basis of immunity, by certain parties to the COI, and that that evidence was claimed by a suspected abuser being prosecuted as important to their defence case. The only reason that defence evidence may have come to light is in the COI; it may have no existence outside that context. Therefore the accused abuser and his lawyers will argue abuse-of-process and breach of Article 6 because they will not be able to use that evidence in the defence case. For example, colleagues, friends or allies of an abuser might, and might deliberately, give evidence and testimony to the COI which amounts to the only available defence evidence, an alibi for example, and then refuse to give that evidence in any other context, arguing that they only gave it on the grounds of the COI's immunities. In that situation the accused abuser's lawyers would argue abuse-of-process because that defence evidence and testimony was not usable. Again, unless the court overrode and undercut the very principle of public inquiry immunity, that defence argument would be bound to succeed.

      And that leads on to another obvious consideration. So far people have focused almost exclusively upon suspected child-abusers. But clearly child-abuse is not the only criminal activity and not the only crime in plain sight here. Also clearly on display are multiple examples of prima facie misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Indeed, one could make the case that this COI’s purpose is more to inquire into those issues – the cover-ups – than the individual cases of abuse. And so far as we are aware, there has been no Police investigation, or at least serous Police investigation, into any of those prima facie crimes.

      Delete
    4. Part 3 of an answer to question at 13:06

      This means that all of the evidence and testimony for those crimes, crimes of misconduct and of conspiracy, remains untouched so far by any proper policing investigation. This means that the COI may get it all, first, without such evidence having any prior existence as policing process evidence. This, in turn, means that even if the evidence against abusers as already gathered by the Police was still usable in criminal prosecutions because it had a prior existence external to the COI, no such argument would enable the evidence for misconduct and for conspiracy to still be used in prosecutions, because the evidence relevant to those crimes will only have a substantive existence in the processes of the COI. It will therefore all be covered by immunity and not admissible in any subsequent criminal trial.

      So if it was your objective to not only ultimately have secured the prosecution of child-abusers, but also the prosecution of those suspected of the criminal conduct involved in enabling and covering-up the abuse, then the arguments for having a criminal investigation and prosecution first, before having a public inquiry, apply even more strongly.

      If you are Jersey abuse survivors it is remarkable that your lawyers have not made it clear to you that you are the victims of more crimes than child-abuse. You are also the victims of the crime of misconduct in a public office, and you are also victims of the crime of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Yet this present public inquiry almost certainly means there will never be a meaningful Police investigation into those crimes, let alone prosecutions.

      And let us not politely skirt around these issues. As Jersey's courts have again and again shown the most clear bias against the exposure of the long term child-abuse cover-ups, the defence lawyers for the accused abusers and those accused of conspiracy and misconduct would be pushing at an open door. The Jersey courts would clearly roll out the red carpet of welcome to pretty much any shabby arguments that gave them the excuse they needed to carry on burying the scandal by letting the accused off.

      No matter which way one approaches this subject, there is no avoiding the conclusion that if charges and prosecutions with a realistic prospect of success was/is your objective, then this public inquiry should not be happening now. Even if all the above problems could be overcome, those problems still amount to dramatic obstacles to successful prosecutions, and act as huge defence barricades for the suspected abusers and concealers.

      If you ask, ‘what should we do then?’, you and your legal representatives should be making representations to your Chief Minister, the COI and the Home Secretary to the effect that the Jersey public inquiry’s work should be paused, and that the United Kingdom authorities should be invited to take charge of Jersey’s Policing, prosecution and judicial systems to re-open the criminal investigations, and initiate a criminal investigation into the so far un-investigated multiple, prima facie cases of misconduct in a public office, and of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

      You are entitled to the proper protections of an effective and impartial criminal justice system, and it is that, really, you should be demanding first, not the mere poor substitute of a ‘public inquiry’.

      Delete
  34. Can you promote the Hands around the Carpark protest Ex Deputy Sean Power is kindly arranging to save our shoreline a week on Sunday please.
    It starts at 2.30 p.m. and Sean would like to see everyone there who cares about the future of the Waterfront.
    The Facebook Page for your readers is as follows - https://www.facebook.com/save.o.jersey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would this be the same Sean Dooley Power who back in the day whilst being payed as a publicly elected states member brazenly offered his services to Harcourt the prospective waterfront developers ? surely not !

      Delete
    2. Is this the thief of e-mails and trouble maker of planning forms?

      Delete
  35. Thank you so much for the legal advice and observation offered in the comments starting 29 May 12:01

    Although flawed this CoI has shaken the complacent and opened many closed eyes to the fact that there was and is something seriously wrong with The way Jersey and it's courts are run.

    Many campaigners and survivors have sweated blood to get the CoI to even happen "Not necessary" was the TLS and Government line. I think that survivors and the good people of Jersey would indeed like to see prosecutions and the guilty punished rather than (as per the current plan) be allowed to skulk away muttering insults to add to the considerable injury.

    But how to achieve your way forward:
    "....you and your legal representatives should be making representations to your Chief Minister, the COI and the Home Secretary to the effect that the Jersey public inquiry’s work should be paused, and that the United Kingdom authorities should be invited to take charge of Jersey’s Policing, prosecution and judicial systems to re-open the criminal investigations, and initiate a criminal investigation into the so far un-investigated multiple, prima facie cases of misconduct in a public office, and of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

    Would you be able to assist Team Voice or perhaps Ex Health Minister Syvret in doing this - or even do it in your own right?

    The CM, CoI and Home Secretary will all want to ignore these representations as they have in the past.
    Representations from the legally savvy are so much difficult to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  36. As from tomorrow the COI will have their busiest month, with 13 hearings....
    It will be interesting to see if much needed progress will have been made by them by the end of next month?!

    ReplyDelete
  37. The usual idiots are enjoying themselves slagging off Lenny Harper on the JEP's Facebook story (from 16:00 Saturday) (FB post links to http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/05/30/they-are-trying-to-divert-attention-away-from-me-giving-evidence-to-care-abuse-inquiry-says-former-deputy-police-chief/ ) - perhaps decent bloggers would like to point out the truth and the flaws in the tired old coconut story, etc? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lenny Harper explains it well HERE.

      One must also remember that the child's skull was discounted as evidence early on in the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle). This begs the question why was it sent (without an audit trail) for further examination (by disgraced Mick Gradwell) when it had no evidential value to the Investigation? Another one of those questions never asked by the State Media, along with what happened to the 1.6% collagen (only found in mammals)?

      Delete
    2. Also remembering that there were multiple CHILD REMAINS unearthed at Haute de La Garenne. Why did disgraced Mick Gradwell NOT send them for further testing? Another question not asked by the State Media.

      Delete
  38. Censorship? Don't they trust the girls?31 May 2015 at 20:59

    Has anyone else noticed that the BBC Jersey radio news is read in the mornings by one of a couple of young ladies every day EXCEPT whenever there's the abuse enquiry in the news? For some reason when there's any mention of the abuse enquiry, one of the senior male newreaders (Chris Rayner or Chris Stone) take over and read the news instead? It's happened so many times there's a definite undeniable correleation. I don't like conspiracy theories but have to wonder what good reason there can possibly be for this!

    ReplyDelete
  39. If its true that Stuart is being accused of lying about civil servants at the COI then for goodness sake get him down there to give his evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This has been spotted on another local site, and supports the demonstration this Sunday at the Esplanade car park

    A Dummies guide to the demand for office development on Jersey.

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2429.msg60035#msg60035

    ReplyDelete
  41. The transcript is not yet available, so for the moment we have to rely upon the Jersey MSM - and we all know how much use that's likely to be.

    Nevertheless, the suggestion appears to be that I "encouraged former residents of Le Chenes to make complaints against the institution and certain staff".

    Yes. I did.

    The point is supposed to be what, exactly?

    Indeed, should there still be people who were maltreated at Les Chenes - or any other institution in Jersey - who have not yet felt able to report what they suffered to the Police, I again encourage you to now do so. It is not too late. It is never too late.

    Insofar as my actions are concerned - perhaps there are some people in Jersey who would prefer that their elected representatives - on becoming aware of child-abuse - would NOT encourage and support the victims to make complaints?

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart.

      The BBC reported that you were alleged (by today's witness at the COI) to have encouraged former residents (of Le Chenes) to report "complaints."

      ITV/CTV reported that you encouraged them to make "allegations." There is a big difference in what has been reported by the State Media. Both CTV and BBC have a long history of churning out misleading stories and burying just as much.

      We shall have to wait for the transcripts of this morning's hearing before we know if the word "allegation" or "complaint" (or both) is correct or who is being ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

      Delete
    2. What's being implied is that you encouraged former residents to make complaints against staff regardless as to whether they were wholly truthful or not.

      Delete
    3. @16:48 yes that might be what is being "implied" by BBC-Savile and Krichefski-TV.
      But this is rather at odds with what Gillian Gracia says (below), having attended that session of the CoI.

      Do you think it odd that the usual (media) suspects chose to [mis?]report this snippet rather than 'the fact that records were cleared out / [criminally?] disposed of' ?

      Delete
    4. A reader at 16:48 says: -

      "What's being implied is that you encouraged former residents to make complaints against staff regardless as to whether they were wholly truthful or not."

      What very curious wording.

      I'd say that's been written by a lawyer, judging by it's constructive ambiguity & the deliberate scope for spreading confusion.

      I repeat the point I made earlier about not being able to comment precisely on the testimony given today, until the transcript is published and we can see exactly what was said. But let's not beat about the bush, the imputation in the comment and that being peddled by Jersey's MSM is that I somehow encouraged former residents to make FALSE allegations.

      I did not.

      In no way, shape, or form, did I ever suggest to any person - nor ever hint that - they should make false allegations. Nor would I ever do so.

      And so far as I'm aware - and as the facts which have accumulated since 2007 support - no person has made false allegations.

      What the comment, on its face, could also be interpreted as suggesting is that I should have somehow "verified" the truth of complaints made known to me, before suggesting to the complainant that they should make formal complaints to the Police. Such a suggestion is obviously absurd. And frankly dangerous. A threat, in fact, to the proper functioning of the rule of law and of the criminal justice system. It implies that a politician should somehow act as a "gate-keeper" - a kind of "filter" - that prevents potential criminal complaints from coming to the attention of the Police.

      That approach - basically protecting "the system" from civil and criminal accountability by "deflecting", manipulating and pacifying harmed and vulnerable people who lack a knowledge of their rights and how to secure them - is one of those aspects of "The Jersey Way" to blame for this catastrophic failure by the polity in the first place.

      It is not the job of politicians to protect public authorities from the public. It is the job of politicians to protect the public from misfunctioning public departments.

      And insofar as all of those people who told me of emotional, violent and sexual abuse they had suffered, I never had any cause to doubt any of them. And I want it to be noted that to date every one of them has been shown to have been truthful.

      And if any casual reader is in doubt as to who was right - the survivors, whistle-blowers and me, or the establishment and the civil-servants - just look at the facts.

      Let us not forget, back in that first half of 2007 when I had said Jersey's child-protection systems had failed, the entire Jersey oligarchy were saying I had simply "made it all up", and that there was "no evidence". Now, here we are these years later, with a few, at least, of the abusers convicted, an official acknowledgment of decades of failure for which the States finally issued a formal apology, widespread acknowledgment that hundreds of children suffered neglect, abuse, violence and rape, a public inquiry underway and several generations of people testifying as to how they suffered, how their maltreatment and abuse was ignored and covered-up, how their lives were damaged and in some cases wrecked.

      On the facts, who was right, the complainants - or the civil servants?

      Quite simply - there were no untruthful complaints.

      One stark fact that no amount of spin-doctoring will disguise - this CoI is not inquiring into whether there was endemic abuse and systemic concealment of abuse. It can only inquire into how that abuse was able to happen - and how it was covered-up.

      Delete
  42. Gillian Gracia2 June 2015 at 17:23

    As someone who was present at this mornings hearing, I can confirm that what was actually said was that when Operation Rectangle was in progress Stuart advised former residents to make complaints that he was obviously aware of due to his position as H&SS Minister. This of course was the right thing to do, and the concept that he encouraged them to make allegations is truly sloppy and misleading reporting.

    Furthermore the witness stated that he had been told this by two people who knew each other, and he himself was loathe to name the politician until pressed into doing so.

    It is no small wonder that the MSM mislead the general public with subtle differences in words that can actually mean a totally inaccurate picture can be painted.

    I am actually very surprised that this has been the main focus of this hearing, as the fact that records were 'cleared out' either in a skip, burnt or otherwise disposed of, was of far more significance in todays proceedings, or is this a minor details in the MSM's thinking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jill

      "Records were 'cleared out' either in a skip, burnt or otherwise disposed of?"

      Could you be a little more specific with "records?" Do you mean the records of residents/children at Le Chenes were destroyed? This could be criminality and has not been reported by the State Media.

      Delete
    2. Gillian Gracia2 June 2015 at 19:47

      I can only be as specific as the witness, who although quite clear that there had been a big clear-out of 'records', he thought they must have been incident books relating to children who been resident at Les Chenes and did not rule out other types of records. What he did say was that when Operation Rectangle was investigating Les Chenes most records seemed to have disappeared.

      It may be wisest to read the transcript in full when it is available to get the gist of what the witness was trying to convey, but questions were also asked by the panel on this issue at the end of the hearing as will be shown on the transcript.

      I personally found this evidence of great concern, as I would imagine most people would.

      Delete
  43. www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2015-05-21/retired-jersey-police-officer-back-in-court-over-extreme-child-abuse-images/

    Retired Jersey Police officer (Peter Philip Whitehouse, 56) back in court over extreme child abuse images

    The court was today told that so far 908 illegal images and movies of children have been found, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5, which is the most severe.

    Police are continuing their forensic analysis of a number of IT devices.

    Peter Whitehouse was a police Youth Affairs Officer, and was involved in the “Prison! Me! No Way!!” initiative. He retired from the force in 2009 after serving in the States police for 31 years.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 'cleared out' either in a skip, burnt or otherwise disposed of,". Mr K tried to help with this clear out, but was caught on site (HDLG) with Deputy Pryke.
    Remember?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Up to today, Lundy sounds a lot more innocent than what's been said about the poor man online so the COI is at least getting the other side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In an abusive system the abusers are often promoted BECAUSE of abuse, rather than despite it. This is because they can be guaranteed to cover up for others.


      So yes, let's hear form Mario Lundy "the most violent and cruel of them all"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq7H9pU0NkE&feature=youtu.be


      Has Mario Lundy is believed to have been in charge at Haut De la Garenne between 1985 and 1986?


      There have been numerous allegation about Mario Lundy. In The Jordan's court case he was accused as being the "Most violent and cruel of them all" This can be viewed in the news clip above. Mario Lundy was mentioned on numerous occasions during the trial of the Jordans. The Judge had to remind the everyone that Mr Lundy wasn't on trial and to refrain from using his name.



      From the Sworn Affidavit of Jersey's Chief of Police, Graham Power (section 19):

      19. The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my [unlawful & corrupt] suspension.

      Delete
    2. This comment by Graham Power does not name him.
      It appears that no matter who comes forward to support Mario Lundy, you have made your minds up when on the face of it all the evidence has been one word against another, with no witnesses.

      Delete
    3. Sigh! .....with a wry smile and an eye roll

      There are so many ways to spot the pro-abuse, pro-cover up & Paedo trolls on here with their diversionary tactics (or in this case their utter cr@p)

      Though both names were intentionally omitted from that paragraph by Jersey's Chief of Police, I think that you will find that he has/is making formal submissions to the CoI which include BOTH names and indeed reams of other jaw dropping and evidenced material.

      So rather more than one person's word against another, don't your think? [silly question because clearly ......you don't]

      If you remain totally unconcerned by the witness evidence regarding Lundy given in court during the successful prosecution of less senior abusers then perhaps you would like to read the first two comments made by one of the good and caring care workers from HDLG before she was bullied out of her job there (probably by the serial abusers who wanted to ensure all staff were "on team" and children entirely at their 'disposal'.

      Those first two comments off
      http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/mario-lundy-chief-executive-officer-of.html

      Jane said...
      Hi Rico, I believe it was [19]84/85 that ML was at HdlG.
      I never knew of a weight room???
      I do know that when he first met us staff at the home he thought it funny to pass the comment that the only voilence he would tolerate was bouncing the children off his office walls. I have to point out that we never saw this happen ML was always on his own with the child concerned.
      The state the children left that office in was heartbreaking.
      The children's spirits were systematically broken, they were too frightened to talk about what happened to them in the office saying that it would only make matters worse. June 26, 2013 at 12:19 AM
      Jane said...
      ML was in charge of Les Chenes. Les Chenes was only a successor to HdlG as in it was designated a remand home. Up until Les Chenes was built HdlG was designated a remand home and it was for that reason that the infamous 'cells' were used, supposed to be used solely to hold an adolescent prior to their juvenile court hearing. Unfortunately, as everyone now knows, that is not the only reason the cells were used.
      ML ran Les Chenes and temporarily ran HdlG at the same time while we were waiting for someone to be appointed for the position.
      So is it because ML was never actually appointed as superintendant of HdlG that it doesn't appear on records? I'm not making excuses, just asking. June 26, 2013 at 12:35 AM

      Thus is the making of the Head of Education, Jersey style. When an entire system is corrupted and dysfunctional the wicked opportunists rise to the top while good staff remain unprompted or hounded out of position.

      Lundy presided over an education department which brazenly insisted that it was doing a fine job until the revelation that 2 of Jersey's secondary schools were among the 10 WORST PERFORMING schools in Great Britain.

      There's a generous pension well earned ! .......and the real cost of promoting people on Jersey establishment criteria.

      Delete
  46. It's all over the state media today about "operation whistle" where the cops under the leadership of bowron are investigating 13 suspects of high prominence in Jersey. How coincidental we have a child abuse enquiry where the outside world are watching and the police suddenly look like they would dare investigate anybody of any prominence on the Island! I don't buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mr Power's suspension while away on holiday comes to mind. Lets hope Mr Gull isn't intending to go on holiday soon....
    Operation Whistle (blow)!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lets hope he is, because he has and is actively protecting 'prominent people'

      Delete
    2. That is disappointing to hear (@6:49 about Mr Gull). I had the impression that he was one of the "better eggs" in the police force, Mr Gull apparently having done some good work.

      Gossip is useful only if it can be verified or meshes with other evidence, but if you have any information please share it with Team Voice (or, if you prefer with Stuart Syvret )

      I believe that in these situations it is beneficial not to (automatically) be too harsh when judging individuals. Bear in mind that individual officers may not themselves be rotten -but especially since the establishment hijack of the police and the coup against the legitimate Chief of Police these officers must bend to the will of management and their political masters, or kiss their career goodbye. This inevitably leads to a degree of 'colaboration' and if you are forced to swim in sewerage you will have to swallow a lot of 'sh!t' and you will probably come out smelling entirely of roses.

      It seems that DCI Alison Fossey is a also a capable officer and she (similarly) chose to have a future instead of martyring herself for her previous chief officer.What would you do in their shoes?

      There comes a point where corruption makes individuals irredeemable but until that point it is magnanimous to assume that most individuals have a good core and accept that none are infallible.

      Team voice are in possession of a good deal of information which they have not yet published (and in some cases not ever publish), but the more information they have the stronger our hand and the safer our island.

      The timing and the fanfare of the announcement of "operation whistle" absolutely reeks of work by the establishment spin doctors.
      Another interpretation is that it is merely a continuation of "Operation Rectangle" which was corruptly undermined and closed down be the establishments Mr.Fix-It(s) in the higher echelons of the police, under the cover of pro-paedo journalists such as David Rose, and the on island media companies.

      Delete
    3. How can we be expected to take the investigation of high-level child-abuse - and the many cover-ups - seriously - this time around - when there are still so many public officials of different types in-post who participated in the illegal sabotage of the investigations last time around in 2008, and who were participants in various corrupt enterprises, including conspiracies to pervert the course of justice?

      Obviously, the prosecution function and the judicial function were - and are - central in that criminal activity in Jersey, being nakedly corrupt. Therefore - even if the States of Jersey Police Force were not still riddled with culpable individuals who have participated in coercion, witness-intimidation, the pro-active suppression of criminal complaints and criminal investigations, misconducts in a public office, collusions, and various conspiracies to pervert justice - even if we had a non-contaminated and functioning Police Force - any serious investigations would never get past the politicised and wholly corrupted prosecution and judicial function.

      History is not going to be kind to this Police Force for its conduct since November 2008 when it was a criminal participant in the illegal sabotage of the investigations back then - not least by engaging in the illegal suspension of the good Police Chief Graham Power when David Warcup corruptly acted as the agent of directly conflicted criminals who had interests in covering up the child-abuse - and other crimes.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. You just want it all on your terms.
      Many people said you were making up nonsense on your blog from 2008 and your paralysis when getting a chance to give your story to this COI only proves them right.

      Delete
    5. But Operation Rectangle, and now Operation Whistle, shows what Stuart was reporting on his Blog was not nonsense. Operation Whistle vindicates Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power and most importantly the Victims/Survivors including their supporters.

      What Stuart is asking for is simply an independent prosecution service. The AG is a member of, has a seat in, and advises the States Of Jersey. He is the only person who can bring criminal prosecutions and is totally conflicted. Stuart is right, as I read it, the cops can have as much evidence as they like. They can be as vigilant and honest in Operation Whistle but the stark fact is they don’t have the power to charge ANYBODY. That “privilege” lies with Centeniers/the AG.

      It was they who were a big problem during Operation Rectangle, to the point where one Cenntenier (Danny Scaife) reportedly agreed there was enough evidence to charge two Child Abuse but declined to do so on the orders of the AG.

      Unless Operation Whistle is given outside/independent prosecutors it is doomed to failure I suspect.

      Delete
    6. At least give them a chance before you shoot them done in flames. The victims deserve as much.

      Delete
    7. The Victims/Survivors/cops deserve a non-politicised and independent prosecution service. Nothing less.

      Delete
  48. Censorship? Don't they trust the girls?3 June 2015 at 21:17

    Just to prove me wrong, it seems, the BBC have brought in Francine JH (haven't heard her for ages until this week) to read the news in the mornings now, and there was a mention of child abuse this week. I wonder what's happened to the other two young ladies who have been doing the job for the last few months.......

    ReplyDelete
  49. Comment at 17:24 says: -

    "You just want it all on your terms.
    Many people said you were making up nonsense on your blog from 2008 and your paralysis when getting a chance to give your story to this COI only proves them right."

    That's inaccurate - in fact, certain people were saying I was making up nonsense from the first-half of 2007 - when I first went public with my concerns over the decades-long failure of Jersey child-"protection" systems.

    Do try to get your facts right.

    You know, there's something pitiful - self-discreditingly pitiful - in the Jersey oligarchy's spin-doctoring & trolling in light of the facts which have emerged during the last couple of years - and which continue to emerge. Still - in the face of utter humiliating error and ethical bankruptcy - of brutal exposure in having backed-the-wrong-horse in siding with the cover-ups and against survivors & whistle-blowers - the Jersey state spin-apparatus persists in clinging to the "flip-the-script" strategy; trying to depict victims as the bad people, whistle-blowers as trouble-makers, those who were right as being wrong.

    It's tragic - pitiful.

    Take the transparent - and give-away obvious co-ordinated spin-doctored - "reporting" of the CoI, describing me as being "accused" of "encouraging" victims to complain - imputing in that unsubtle use Goebbels-methodology - that, somehow, there must be something "wrong" in my encouraging victims to complain.

    It's so transparent and laughable it's been widely re-tweeted amongst UK and international campaigners as another example of the fundamental failure of the island's media and of checks & balances in Jersey.

    It adds to the conclusion the Jersey Establishment is simply mired in terminal decadence - incapable of facing the truth and cleaning itself up.

    As VFC points out, "But Operation Rectangle, and now Operation Whistle, shows what Stuart was reporting on his Blog was not nonsense. Operation Whistle vindicates Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power and most importantly the Victims/Survivors including their supporters."

    To external observers, wondering if power and authority in Jersey shows any signs, yet, of coming to terms with the historically unprecedented magnitude of its total failure, the answer's "no".

    And you can be sure it will carry on being "no" for as long as you witness attempts by the Jersey oligarchy to cling to the "flip-the-script" strategy - long after that strategy has already crashed & burned and in the doing inflicted so much irredeemable collateral-damage.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where I wrote;

      "Operation Whistle vindicates Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power and most importantly the Victims/Survivors including their supporters."

      I neglected to write (which I do now) that Operation Whistle also vindicates Operation Rectangle.

      Term of Reference 12 of the ongoing Child Abuse public Inquiry states;

      "Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’

      Hopefully the Child Abuse Inquiry will (in the light of Operation Whistle) spend minimal time of this part of its TOR's and concentrate on the more important ones.

      Delete
  50. VFC, you say: -

    "It was they who were a big problem during Operation Rectangle, to the point where one Cenntenier (Danny Scaife) reportedly agreed there was enough evidence to charge two Child Abuse but declined to do so on the orders of the AG."

    That is correct.

    That's exactly what happened.

    And the Attorney General in question, is now the un-elected, London appointed head of the Jersey legislature - and head of Jersey's "judiciary" - in which position he will hear cases arising from these matters himself - or will at least choose and appoint and assign every judge who will hear any of the cases. But, that - of course - is in the assumption that any of the cases get beyond the latest empty, low-grade dope this self-selecting, self-perpetuating, self protecting claque of shysters have chosen to be Attorney General.

    And as we all know from recent experiences, no-body ever gets appointed as Attorney General in Jersey unless they understand the first job of the Attorney General is to protect and perpetuate the dark and uncountable oligarchy which chose you to be their Attorney General.

    The Office of Attorney General in Jersey is pretty much - axiomatically - a post that, if you were deemed "suitable" to be appointed to it - you have automatically been assessed as lacking the ability and capacity to properly protect the public interest in a strong and objective manner.

    The post of Public Prosecutor in Jersey is a post in which, if you've been appointed Public Prosecutor - you are axiomatically unfit to be Public Prosecutor.

    If you were fit to be Public Prosecutor - you'd have never been appointed Public Prosecutor.

    800 years of feudal sleaze.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jersey campaigners should not underestimate the significance of the event of Operation Whistle, nor fail to understand the magnitude of the implications. Your PTB (and no doubt their equivalents in London) face a seismic 'problem' in 'The Jersey Situation' one which transcends even the UK-wide child-abuse investigation.

    In the case of Jersey, from the November 2008 illegal suspension of your Police Chief Graham Power, you have the whole range of Jersey's public governance system actively participating, at the very highest levels, in the unlawful sabotage and obstruction of a major child-abuse investigation.

    And worse yet, the relevant parts of the Whitehall machinery, parts of the UK government, were active participants in that illegal action.

    This is not something dating back to the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. This is a cover-up of child-abuse, to the dramatic degree of the actual sabotage of an extant investigation and the high-jacking of a Police Force no-less by abuse-concealing criminals, in the year 2008, and endorsed and shielded by UK authorities at the very highest level.

    It's a state-encouraged collapse in the very rule of law, one which transcends Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Spot on anon @ 18:05. Realistically the 13 suspects Operation Whistle are interested in are not just the high profile alleged abusers since 2008, but also the high profile cover-up merchants since 2008!?

    ReplyDelete
  53. @18:05
    There is no denying the depth of the hole which London has allowed the incompetent Jersey shysters to drag them into.

    The main significance of "Operation Whistle" is it's unavoidable vindication of Operation Rectangle and all of the much maligned professionals involved in it.

    Bow-wow Bowron is still Chief of Police [has someone used sly humour in naming "O.R"]. London and the orifice of the crown has promoted cover-up merchant William Bailhache to Bailiff and chief prosecutor (now that is "seismic"), with Tim Le Cocq-up bringing up the rear.

    Unless we actually see arrests (including some of the above) we must assume that because the paedophile/abuse/cover-up fraud is now being laid bare and being reported beyond the child protection blogs, the authorities are merely engaging in another "cups and balls game" to dupe a gullible public into thinking that something is being done and it is all "OK".
    -Perhaps also that Jersey can be "trusted" to report credibly to the UK abuse inquiry.

    "Operation Whistle" is more completely and reported at
    www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jersey-child-sex-abuse-thirteen-5823920

    "Operation Whistle" is reported locally to much fanfare at a critical stage of the CoI but .......if above report is accurate ..........Jersey HAS SAT ON ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS for between FIVE and TEN YEARS !!!!
    And it is reported that some (possibly most) of the suspects were known to Operation Rectangle.

    IOM this is a time to take stock and reflect on the free legal advice offered above, starting at 29 May 2015 at 12:01

    Enough has come out to make continued non-prosecution untenable. The local CoI must be paused NOW in order for this to take place. The island deserves nothing less.

    In addition I would point out that because of the significant overlap between "Operation Whistle" and the unlawfully undermined and shut down "Operation Rectangle" ......surely "Operation Whistle" (if it is anything other than a PR charade) would put a good deal of the CoI's work Sub Judice?

    Have the PR incompetents unintentionally invalidated a whole bunch of get out of jail free cards?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE "Bow-wow Bowron is still Chief of Police [has someone used sly humour in naming O.R.]"

      "O.R" ..... Apologies for typo, it should be O.W. "Operation Whistle"

      It is worth reflecting on Bowron's time running the City of London Police as a private force at the whim of big business, even using anti terror legislation to harass and intimidate innocent citizens who highlighted corrupt practises and sexual misconduct.


      If "Operation Whistle" puts parts of the CoI's work 'Sub Judice' it would surely be illegal not to pause the CoI

      When the CoI is re-started after (the prosecutions) it is an opportunity for it to be re-convened on a more lawful and human rights compliant basis

      It is telling how the Bailhache narrative has transmuted from "nothing to see here" ..........to "truth and reconciliation"
      ..........Well he would say that wouldn't he?

      Delete
    2. "truth and reconciliation" being a fashionable ploy to avoid prosecuting and to avoid prosecution. A nation's healing process to ease recovery from serial atrocity that is too big for the courts.

      For that to even work We first require the "truth" part.
      Truth still seems rather lacking

      Besides, Jersey's atrocities are well within the remit of functioning courts which actually have the will to deliver justice.

      Delete
    3. Has Bailhache said this? 'It is telling how the Bailhache narrative has transmuted from "nothing to see here" ..........to "truth and reconciliation"
      ..........Well he would say that wouldn't he?'

      And which Bailhache - and where can the quote be seen?

      Thanks

      Delete
    4. Hi,
      'nothing to see here' is (as far as I am aware) a paraphrase of both the bellyache brothers and the entire cover up narrative, rather than being a verbatim quote.

      "truth and reconciliation" IS an actual RECENT quote from Sir Philip's "$50 million" (ok ..£) scare speech where he tried to 'abort' the CoI, prior to it potentially examining the Bailhache's Oh-so-embarrassing 'nether regions'.

      www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyHansard/2015/2015.03.24%20States%20-%20Edited%20Transcript.pdf

      Senator P.M. Bailhache: ".......I was opposed to the Committee of Inquiry with these terms of reference, but I supported some form of TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION which would give victims the opportunity to be heard and help them to try to come to terms with horrible experiences of the past. Now, that opportunity has in fact been given, victims have been heard and taken seriously by a sympathetic and compassionate panel, which is entirely as it should be. I am sure that coming forward to give evidence was an act of considerable courage for a number of the victims. If this inquiry is to be curtailed this is the appropriate, and indeed the only, time to do it because one of the major purposes of the inquiry, to give victims the opportunity to be heard, will have been fulfilled. ......."

      Blah de blah de blah

      ".....There would be disappointment for some victims, and I am very sorry about that, but we owe a duty to other vulnerable groups too: the disabled and the mentally ill, to take but 2 examples. Only a week ago there was a headline in the newspaper: “Fears over scale of child sexual exploitation” when the police expressed their serious concerns about the grooming and sexual manipulation of children. What is more important: do we continue to apply our financial resources looking backwards or do we concentrate on the present and the future? We cannot do everything. I think that we should draw a line in the sand." END

      We "should draw a line" round the necks of certain individuals. It is of course preferable that this is done metaphorically rather than physically..........
      [suddenly Bailhache is a champion of "the disabled and the mentally ill" ....and no doubt dead against buying headlands LOL]

      I do not know if "truth and reconciliation" would be an actual quote from the junior half of the double act WB. Interesting ....does anyone know?

      Always remember
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8129122.stm
      "Former bailiff stands by speech: Jersey's former bailiff has said he was justified giving a speech on Liberation Day 2008 about a child abuse inquiry"

      Pass the bowl because I think I'm going to throw.

      Delete
  54. I know for a fact that abuse carries on in the system but because they can't allow it to get out they cover it up so the victim is left not knowing what way to turn and who to trust and to make or worse the abuser is allowed to continue working within the system it's shocking and hopefully one day the truth will come out !! The sooner the better for justice

    ReplyDelete
  55. I was advised to contact the enquiry with my evidence to what has happened to me in the last few years while i was under the mental health. I was informed the name of the abuser who abused me four years ago being a member of staff of the care system name had come up a couple of times however I was told that it was not under there terms of reference because it was only to do with child abuse years ago so what happens to the abuser who is still working within the care system to this day when are they going to learn lesson this was only 4 years ago it's been reported and guess what covered up again it really worries me to think he is still accessing vulnerable people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very concerning situation. Can you contact VFC, or me, if you feel able to explain what you've experienced and the failures of the system?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    2. It's worrying people like this get away with this sort of thing. Bring them all down they are disgusting!!!

      Delete

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