Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Carries On “The Jersey Way.”

Back in July, this year, we published a Blog exposing the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry for adopting what's known as "THE JERSEY WAY". Where suspected paedophiles are granted multiple identities  at the Inquiry and can give evidence appearing to be up to three different people. A protection that is NOT afforded to Victims/Survivors and creates a distorted view of the facts and puts the Victims/Survivors (among others) at a distinct disadvantage.

Yesterday we learnt that the “The Jersey Way” still prevails at the Inquiry where it looks as though a false history of events is being documented as fact at the Public Hearing(s).

Counsel to the Inquiry, PATRICK SAAD,  opened yesterday's Hearing by reading out a prepared statement. Part of that statement claimed that Andrew Lewis (former Home Affairs Minister) suspended the Chief of Police (Graham Power QPM) without having read the MET Police Interim Report. This is a statement of fact from the Child Abuse Inquiry and it is still unclear as to why this particular “fact” should have been included in Mr. Saad’s opening address at all? What significance did it have? A question that I asked Angharad Shurmer (Solicitor to the Inquiry) and one that she was unable, or unwilling, to answer.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Why this is suspicious is that the Inquiry Team knows full well that Andrew Lewis looks to have told Jersey’s Parliament, when informing it that he had (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief Of Police, that he HAD seen the MET Police Interim Report.

How do I know that the Inquiry Team knows this? Because when I e-mailed my original complaint against Deputy Lewis for telling (what I and many others believe to be) untruths to the States Assembly I copied the Inquiry Team into the e-mail and subsequent e-mails with PPC.

My COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPUTY LEWIS to PPC documented the different versions he appeared to had given concerning his sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report.

He told the States Assembly;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

He added;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

Brian Napier QC.

Yet in the Napier Report we have this;

As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

So the Inquiry KNOWS that it appears Deputy Andrew Lewis has given, at least two, different versions of events. So why present only one of them as “fact?” That was another question I asked Ms. Shurmer which she told me that Andrew Lewis told the Napier Review he HADN’T seen the MET Interim Report and Patrick SAAD stands by his statement.

In an e-mail to me Ms. Shurmer wrote;

"I refer to our discussions earlier this afternoon where you asked me to review the following section of Patrick Sadd’s opening, where he stated:

In November 2008 David Warcup writes to Bill Ogley, Chief Executive, raising concerns about Operation Rectangle and refers to an interim report by the Metropolitan Police. Without having seen the Metropolitan Police report, Andrew Lewis now Home Affairs Minister, formally suspends Graham Power, Chief of Police. Graham Power never returns to his post.

I have discussed this with Patrick and whilst he is aware of your correspondence with the PPC and the information Mr Lewis provided to the States, the evidence currently available to the Inquiry supports the statement made by Patrick during today’s opening i.e. at the time of Graham Power’s suspension Andrew Lewis had not seen the Metropolitan Report. Amongst other evidence in the Inquiry’s possession, the Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ and that Mr Lewis placed reliance on a summary contained within a letter sent by Mr Warcup to Mr Ogley on 10 November 2008. There is also further documentary evidence supporting this which will become apparent following the evidence of Bob Hill which is to be heard later this week and, as stated by Patrick this morning, the Inquiry will also be hearing evidence from Andrew Lewis during the course of this Phase of evidence.

For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no statement to amend today’s opening."(END)

So a Child Abuse Inquiry who is tasked with gathering evidence and reporting it fairly, and accurately,  actually looks to be ignoring evidence and creating a false history, a la State Media, or "The Jersey Way."

The Inquiry quotes "The Party Line" as contained in the Napier Report;  "the Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ 

Yet omits the other Andrew Lewis version told in the island's parliament;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

I, and others, argue that if it was that important for Patrick Saad to make mention of the MET Police Interim Report in his pre-prepared statement, then at least he could/should have included that it was "unclear" as to whether Andrew Lewis had seen it or not.

Further evidence exists where Andrew Lewis looks to have inferred that he HAD read the MET Interim Report (which the Inquiry should be aware of) where he stated;

"it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. (my emphasis)

To which the former Chief of Police replied;

"Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements."

Readers (and the Child Abuse Inquiry) are encouraged to read more of that exchange (if they haven't already) between the former Police Chief and Deputy Andrew Lewis HERE.

As much as the Inquiry is doing good work in some areas it lets itself, and the public, down when ignoring relevant evidence and passing "The Party Line" off as if it's the only line.........."The Jersey Way."


  1. I hate to say it Neil, but it is conceivable that Andrew Lewis could have seen a letter from Warcup to Ogley describing what the report contained but that he never saw the actual report itself back then. Whether it was good practice for Lewis to have been shown this letter and then to make such a far reaching decison based on a sort of paranoid speculative thinking that the actual report might be much worse than Warcup's version, still needs examining very closely.

    1. Nick.

      This statement given by Andrew Lewis to the States is unambiguous.

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

  2. I know that but people, particularly politicians(!), don't always speak precisely or mean exactly what they say particulary when they are on their hind legs speaking. If he had written this statement down, it would be another matter.

    1. Nick.

      It is inconceivable to believe that he could have made a mistake. He wasn't at the States informing them that a cop turned up late a couple of times for work so he's going to tell him off.

      He was (possibly illegally) suspending the highest ranking officer in the land during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this island has ever seen or is likely to see. If he was telling the truth then there would be no discrepancies.

      If he saw a letter from David Warcup then that's what he would have said......but he didn't......He said;

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police"

  3. Is this "letter from Warcup" a new explanation that has been offered that wasn't mentioned before? If that is so, then some might see it as the product of someone being on the verge of being investigated trying to cover their tracks. If it is old news then it may be valid but it still shows Lewis up as someone who appears to have BS'ed to the States to justify his actions.

    1. It is not a new explanation, or excuse, and has been mentioned before. It's a complex area to cover in a comment here but I'm sure more will come to light after Bob Hill gives evidence to the COI.

      Readers should know what the MET Report is/was and how David Warcup abused its use. It is/was a peer review and is NOT to be used in, or for, disciplinary purposes.

      Further Andrew Lewis told the States;

      "If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

      On learning that he was allegedly criticised in this report (peer review) Mr. Lenny Harper made a complaint to the MET. An investigation was instigated by the IPCC which was named Operation Tuma.

      Operation Tuma ruled against Mr. Harper's complaint because neither he, nor anybody else involved (including Graham Power) in Operation Rectangle, were (or could have been) criticised in the MET Report.

      Quote Operation Tuma;

      "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

      For more on Operation Tuma please read HERE.

    2. To further demonstrate the abuse of the MET Interim Report by Andrew Lewis and David Warcup you/readers/The Child Abuse Inquiry might want to read this extract of former Home Affairs Minster Ian Le Marquand addressing Graham Power QPM and his representative at one of the infamous Suspension Review Hearings.

      "Senator B.I Le Marquand:

      We then had a discussion to other possible matters that could be looked at in the context of the present review at this stage and there was obviously the issue of the Metropolitan Police Report and we had discussions about the possibility of a redacted version of that which would openly deal with call matters. Developments of this being, of course, is that it was mentioned and indeed there was a section in the letter of Mr. Warcup headed Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. Now, you, I hope, will be aware that there have been continued difficulties in relation to this. The Metropolitan Police are absolutely against this being used in any way in the context of this hearing or my having access to it in any form whatsoever, and you will also see the letter which I passed up to you just now of Mr. Bonnie(?) who takes a similar view in relation to this. Can I perhaps suggest a way forward on this which may or may not be acceptable? It seems to me the fairest thing for me to do here is, in the absence of my being able to see the report or yourselves being able to see the report, simply to ignore the whole section of the letter of Mr. Warcup which relates to the Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. I think the other section that will need to be ignored then would be the second paragraph on the penultimate page in which he says: “Interim findings in the review by the Metropolitan Police fully support my previous comments and opinions which I have expressed herein.” So if we treat that as not being in play, as it were. You may need a bit of time to consider that."

      The full transcript can be read HERE.

  4. Of particular worry is the cynical positioning of Andrew Lewis as a left of centre ' man of the people', at a time when the CoM are making themselves unelectable.
    'Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look'.
    His support of a living wage and challenges of accounting practice are a ploy for high office next time around and he will do everything in his and his backers powers to avoid or obfuscate his ' inconsistencies'.

  5. Great work VFC. Lewis was very clear about what he said to both Napier and the States. Problem is, both statements cannot possibly be true.

    And let's not forget, Lewis is not some bumpkin politician. He owns, or at least did own, a PR agency. The spoken word is his stock in trade. He is a professional communicator. He was very, very clear about what he said, on both mutually contradictory occasions... :-)

    In other invite for Warcup and Gradwell yet? According to tonight's JEP Bill Ogley is going to show up, so nobody can try and pull the old 'compromise agreement' sketch, can they? If Bill's showing up, why not the rest of them? He had such a lot to say for himself, once upon a time, that Mick Gradwell...

    1. I could be mistaken but I am sure Mick Gradwell's name was read out yesterday while Patrick Saad was misleading the public with his opening address. I believe he is expected to give evidence, as is Warcup.

      Like you say, he couldn't be shut up, before he left the island so let's hope he is as talkative when/if he gives evidence!

  6. A very good and important posting, VFC.

    I'm afraid Nick, above, is simply missing the point. The point is, Andrew Lewis gave two different accounts of events: one to Napier - and a different one to the Jersey legislature.

    Let's be clear about what the issue is here; the issue is that Andrew Lewis lied to the Jersey parliament. Lied to the Jersey parliament over a matter of such constitutional gravity as direct - political - intervention into policing matters - to the extreme degree of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief during a major- politically inconvenient -child-abuse investigation.

    Given the purposes, role and remit of this so-called "public inquiry" - it would actually be difficult to think of a more central issue for it to examine - than the issue of the Home Affairs Minister lying to the Jersey parliament so as to sabotage a child-abuse investigation.

    The point being made - rightly - by VFC is that the issue - of the two different versions of events given by Lewis - is a pivotal and centrally important point of inquiry. But - Eversheds & Patrick Saad have - via an attempted but failed sleight of hand - tried to rescue Lewis and the Jersey oligarchy from this nightmare of their own making by - conveniently - pre-determining that only one of the two versions given by Lewis is relevant - and that the other version will be - effectively - excluded from the "official history" of events. The Jersey CoI have just pro-actively aided the Jersey mafia by trying to bury one of the most inescapably damning acts and episodes in the whole Jersey child-abuse scandal.

    The actions of this "public inquiry" and of Eversheds comes as no surprise to me. After all - one of the first acts of this set of expensive clowns was to decide that I am the only human being in the entire populations of the member states of the Council of Europe - to be barred from having unconditional legal representation - in straight defiance of Article 6.

    With each passing week, the farrago that is the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" elevates it's ranking in my very long list of "I-told-you-so" eventualities.

    Stuart Syvret

    1. Yes.
      Beyond belief
      £12m of Paedo-PR

  7. From

    As the [Yacht] Club Secretary and Chairman were very much on-side, and not understanding the reasons as to why I was prevented from viewing the log book, I attended at the Club where the Secretary allowed me to view the log book. I then discovered that a group of senior officers frequently attended at the Yacht Club together, and who were apparently sailing buddies. From memory I seem to recall those officers documented were Rolly JONES, Trevor GARRETT and DE LA HAYE. I seem to recall discovering that at times when the officers had attended at the Club, DYKES was also present with students.

    It is worthy of note that due to the high profile of the investigation, the Police were under pressure to drop the investigation as it was harming the reputation of the College. I personally received threats and promises that my career would be hampered. In addition certain exhibits went missing from the file. This resulted in the file being locked in the DI’s (then Barry FAUDEMER) office at the end of each day.

  8. Wonder if the COI have seen The Sharpe report?

  9. Talking of reports that the Inquiry team have seen, hidden away amongst the transcript section of its website is a vast amount of documentary evidence that was disclosed on Day 97, 13 August 2015.

    Here's what you have to do to find it (brace yourselves). If you did not know it was there, you would struggle to find this information:

    Go to
    Hover your mouse over the 'Hearings' menu
    Click on 'Transcripts'
    Click on August 2015
    Click on Day 97, 13 August 2015
    There are several large documents. For example, click on "Day 97 - Blanche Pierre Non Oral Evidence (20.4 MB)"

    A few times lately the JEP has alluded to this material, but it is really hard to find unless you know where to look.

    On the plus side, the site's full text search (at top right) is pretty good. Type a name in, the search system should find it. All of the old documents have been scanned to pdf and even they are text searchable.

    1. Anonymous,

      Thanks for drawing our attention to this.

      There is, as you say, a huge amount of documentary evidence in that section of the inquiry's website.

      Sections 103-108.....whoah.

  10. Outstanding work, VFC. You've laid out the facts and given the COI an opportunity to correct their statement. It's extremely telling that they will not do so.


  11. RE The Vic College / HDLG / Yachting community cover up.


    "Former police officer Anton Cornelissen has been giving quite a lot of interesting evidence from 1996 when he was seconded to the Child Protection Team, and the police were investigating the case of Jervis-Dykes, a teacher at Victoria College accused of sexually abusing pupils in his care.

    An index file went missing, and later was found hidden in the locker of a senior officer, Roger Pryke. Roger Pryke had left the force because of ill health, which is why his locker was being cleared out. He is now deceased, and cannot be questioned as to his motives.

    One question remains: if he wanted to really hamper the investigation, why did he not remove the records and destroy them? One reason might be that he originally intended to return it, once it had been purged of any records he thought were dangerously close to the mark.

    Mr Cornelissen mentioned how three officers, John De La Haye, Trevor Garrett and Roger Pryke, had all indicated they did not want the case to be investigated. ..."


    Would Roger Pryke happen to have a connection with Establishment stooge Anne Pryke?

    THE Anne Pryke who turned up at HDLG in the company of a child abuser early in the investigation, demanding entry to take away items they believed to be there?

  12. More criticism of the possibly illegal suspension of former Police Chief Graham Power QPM by former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. This time by the hopelessly conflicted judicial review.

    Text in capitals added by VFC.

    "We are conscious that the Minister (IAN LE MARQUAND) has not responded to these criticisms of Mr Power (because the events of 12th November (ANDREW LEWIS’ POSSIBLY ILLEGAL SUSPENSION OF HIM) are not the subject of the application) and that we should therefore be slow to criticise the way Mr Power appears to have been treated. However, we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister (ANDREW Lewis). He was dealing with a person holding the most senior post in the police force and who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career.

    Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and, if so, whether he should be suspended during that investigation.

    Whatever disputes there may be as to precisely what occurred at the meeting with the Previous Minister (ANDREW Lewis), it is clear that no such opportunity was afforded to Mr Power."

    For the full transcript please read HERE.

  13. Did the met ever admit to having produced an interim report?

    1. Good question and one I will attempt to answer in a succinct reply later today.

    2. Trevor Pitman and Mike Higgins worked their socks off asking endless questions trying to establish this most pertinent of questions. Endless questions as I seem to remember mainly because they could not get a straight or honest answer

  14. Also, who was/were the author(s) of the final met report?


  15. As far as I can tell, it is still a matter of contention as to whether the MET has admitted to an Interim Report or not.

    We do know that there was a document in the form of a memorandum (without the MET Crest on it) from a civilian member of the Met review team sent to David Warcup.

    There was also a later more official version with a cover and the WITH the MET crest titled "Interim Report."

    What we can safely say is that the MET did produce some form of document setting out some provisional findings but who asked for this, why they asked for it, and what the Met were told it was to be used for is still a mystery. What we can be pretty sure of is that they were not told that it was to be used for disciplinary, or suspension purposes. As demonstrated in THIS COMMENT above.

    1. Further; the use of the MET Interim, or completed report, by David Warcup, Ian Le Marquand, Andrew Lewis did not go down well with the MET at all as demonstrated in the first Suspension Review.

      Ian Le Marquand addressing Graham Power QPM and his representative:

      “Ian Le Marquand;

      One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey
      Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose.”

      Readers can read the full transcript HERE.

  16. The witness timetable has been updated on the Inquiry website

    3 Nov 2015 - Robert Le Brocq, Ian Le Marquand
    4 Nov 2015 - Graham Power
    5 Nov 2015 - Graham Power
    6 Nov 2015 - Andre Bonjour, Barry Faudemer

    In the words of Bill Ogley, I look forward to Graham Power "bringing down the government" this year on November 5th.

    1. Alarmingly, according to the Inquiries website, YOUR LINK) Ian Le Marquand's and Barry Faudemer's evidence is NOT open to the public.

      I e-mailed the Inquiry earlier today to clarify if this IS the case, and if so, why?

      I await their reply.

    2. My view is that the column heading "Open to Public" applies to the whole day, not individual witnesses. It's just poor presentation of the data in tabular form.

      I did have the same reaction as you initially, but then if you expand all the other dates, way back to the start of the inquiry, they are all the same.

      I suspect the answer you will get is "sorry, bad web page design, those witness session will be open to the public"

    3. How the hell can the evidence of such central figures not be available to the Jersey public? Disgraceful

    4. Have had a response from the Child Abuse Inquiry who have confirmed that Barry Faudemer and Ian Le Marquand WILL be giving their evidence in public.

  17. Very, very interesting weeks ahead.

  18. I am certain that Le Marquand and Barry Faudemer will be heard in public. If you look at last week's timetable you will note that Emma Coxshall and Peter Hewlett (two good witnesses I have to say) appeared in the afternoons, in public, but it was shown in the same manner as on the newly released timetable.

  19. Put your money on a serious statement from Bob Le Brocq. Remember he was arrested, accused and locked up for a day, over the Roger Holland affair when it was Philip Bailhache then attorney general, who failed and then tried to pass responsibility on the Constable who was at the time Bob Le Brocq.

  20. Looking on Hansard I was amazed to note that in a response to the former Deputy T Pitman the Attorney General claimed that there was no legal requirement for States employees to report allegations of child abuse to the police. I just don't see how this can be married up with a duty of care or the old 1969 (I think) Children's Law. Can you or former Senator Syvret enlighten me as to what is correct? Thanks. if the AG is right then I can't but help think how debarcles like the Jervis-Dykes scandle were almost inevitable.

  21. Lewis' comments to the States were made in a secret, in camera debate right? But recordings must still exist.

    1. There is a Hansard record of the sitting which was leaked to Bloggers and published HERE.

    2. And there is, or should be, a tape recording. How else can Hansard be verified on the occasions when the transcript is faulty?

      I used to occasionally when there was a particularly misleading bit of transcript, or just because I was in that sort of a mood, send an email to the States officer responsible for maintaining Hansard pointing out errors and they would be corrected. Presumably if they had any doubt about my assertion they would check the tape.

      And no I did not spend my life reading the Hansard. But when I did have reason to read a debate or a question again, the errors kind of jump out at you.

  22. Zombie Topic: No rift between the police and the Attorney General’s legal team

    Chronic resident of the Troll Zoo quotes the JEPeado

    Only a fool would suck on the filthy rag.

  23. Is former Deputy Bob Hill's evidence available on line and do you know exactly how many of our past or present States Members have given evidence to the Inquiry? A bit concerned I might have missed someone.

    1. Former Deputy Hill's evidence/transcript is not yet available online. Former politicians who have either submitted a statement or given evidence to the Child Abuse Inquiry include Paul Le Claire, Ben Shenton, Frank Walker Ian Le Marquand, Bob Le Broque Bob Hill, Trevor Pitman and current members include Mike Higgins, I believe, Zoe Cameron, Philip Bailhache.

      There are others but those are just off the top of my head.

      Surely the disgraced Terry Le Sueur will be called?

      I could have mis

    2. Are you sure about ex-deputy Pitman? Don't get me wrong his giving evidence would be a real shot in the arm. I ask only because he seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, just vanished in fact. I too feel Terry the gerbil Le Sueur simply must give evidence.

    3. If the above reference is to Anthony Giles LeSueur, then he has done:

    4. Actually now that I look at it:

      "7 Neither
      of these statements is intended to cover the personal evidence I can provide to the Inquiry about matters I have witnessed in my professional career, including my experience as Head of Children's Services. This evidence will be provided to the Inquiry in a subsequent witness statement. " it seems that Terry Le Sueur will provide a further witness statement.

    5. I think you will find that the above named is actually Tony Le Sueur, Head of Children's Services and not Terry Le Sueur, ex Chief Minister. Two different people.

    6. ^^ Oops sorry, was confusing the two Le Sueurs.

  24. Am I correct in stating that the inquiry does not have legal powers to compel persons to give evidence?

    If so, in an odd way, this vindicates Stuart Syvret in his decision not to give evidence (a decision which I tend to disagree with, though I can somewhat understand his paranoia, given the actions and proven corruption of the Jersey oligarchy).

    What I am trying to say is that if the inquiry cannot compel a former politician to give evidence and/or testify, then Syvret is surely correct when he states that its terms of reference are flawed.

    In Ireland recently, a former banker was threatened with arrest when, it was alleged, he did not furnish a written statement to the national parliament's banking inquiry within the required time period:

    The issue was subsequently resolved more or less amicably, apparently it was due to a misunderstanding and he did duly provide a statement and testify, but it is interesting to note that the powers existed in law to report someone who, in the view of that inquiry, was not co-operating with it.

    1. The refusal to provide unconditional legal advice to key witnesses such as Syvret is beyond belied IF this CoI is tasked with discovering the truth, good and bad.

      My firm recollection is that the CoI DOES have the power to subpoena witnesses
      So IF the CoI's intention was to discover the truth it would indeed force Syvret to give his evidence!
      ..........but it has not ......and probably will not, because to do so would bring into yet sharper relief it's dereliction of duty in not providing the key whistleblower witness with unconditional legal advice.

      So the lawyers involved would rather pretend that inconvenient witnesses do not exist, call (what is basically an inquiry into decades of abuse) a "Care" inquiry.

      The establishment is hell bent on limiting the damage it suffers. The establishment pays the piper so it calls the tune.

      A few slippery local shysters are let off the hook but Jersey's reputation is left in tatters by another half baked cover up.

    2. ^ I take on board what you're saying, but if one reads the witness statements on the inquiry's website, much of it has been damning. Some of it, subtly damning. Some of it, well, just damning. Much of it supports what Stuart has said on his blog, over the years.

      I continue to be of the view that Stuart should testify to the inquiry, but also recognise his valid reasons for not doing so.

      PS: Incidentally, hi Polo (we live in the same town, I'm from southside - like yourself, sojourned in Jersey briefly), and if she's reading, hi to Denver Elle also.

  25. How convenient it wold be for the CoI if Stuart Syvret was dead. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK establishment stepped in eventually and did it like they sometimes do to their own. The local establishment realizes they wouldn't be able to cover it up successfully.

    1. The stakes are certainly high enough.

    2. Well you have to wonder if they were behind the non-prosecution of the mystery man who ploughed into Shona Pitman on that pedestrian crossing? Maybe 'Big Trev' going off the grid as a reader suggests was quite a smart move? He and Stuart would be the prime targets by far.

  26. Stuart and Trevor should give evidence. End of.

    1. Trevor has submitted a 200 page statement and is very likely to be appearing as a witness to give evidence soon.

    2. Wow! I hope he includes what is probably the most important Scrutiny review of all time, this bring the one he led into the stitch up of Harpet and Power over financial management by Home Affairs and BDO? Now here's a report that really should be read by all no matter how critical of Scrutiny some people are.

    3. Indeed, without this report we would never have found out about the sneaky, leaky, Mick Gradwell who could have been facing disciplinary charges if he hadn't of scarpered off the Island.

      The State Media did not come out too well either. HERE.

    4. The entire damming report can be read HERE.

    5. I think States Scrutiny is a total waste of time. But fair dos this report is dynamite. Don't remember reading much about in the Stste efia though or on the Gogglebox.

    6. What is "efia" if I may be so bold? Some kind of media slang for effluent?

    7. A very poignant paragraph from the link above.

      "Secondly, and perhaps of even more fundamental concern for us if we are the caring and civilised society that we like to believe: when and how did purely financial matters, no matter how undoubtedly serious, become more important than turning our focus and attention to discovering how our most vulnerable children - instead of being protected and cared for by the States - could actually be systematically assaulted and abused over a period of decades?"

    8. Sorry to be thick but who are you quoting here with this most poignant paragraph?

    9. Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny sub Panel Report from THIS LINK from above comment.

  27. Its good to know that Home Affairs Minister at the time of Chief of Police Graham Power's illegal suspension, has agreed to give evidence to the COI. Thinking about it. Wendy Kinnard, at that time, resigned & disappeared in disgust, at the way Walker, Ogley and Warcup had so underhandedly, treated Power and her. The last few years have given her ample opportunities to spill the beans, but instead has chosen to keep quiet and therefore, herself safe....Realistically why should she speak up now?

  28. Senator Dick Shenton looks after No.1

    From Paul Le Claire’s testimony

    Ten minutes after I had been effectively ‘told off’ by the committee for what I considered was doing my job, I was intimidated into apologising to James Le Feuvre for having gone behind his back to check up on what he had told us.

    Therefore I was apologising to someone who had lied to the committee and covered up the fact that nothing had been done to resolve the problems at the renal ward.

    Several years later when Senator Shenton himself was in need of the services of the renal unit, we met at Overdale Hospital with the patients. As a result of this meeting he was successful in securing a substantial private donation to fund another kidney dialysis machine.

    Speaking afterwards to me at that time, he referred to the incident where we were misled as a committee and said had I spoken to him privately about the matter instead of raising it in the committee meeting, he would have been able to do something about it.

    Senator Shenton was a very capable and likeable man whom I hold in high regard but this admission of his underlines the fact that nothing can be done overtly given the climate of concealment that is pervasive within the Civil Service and the General Hospital in particular.

    So Dick Shenton did nothing until he required dialysis himself?

    1. I'm more worried about the sentence "had I spoken to him privately about the matter instead of raising it in the committee meeting, he would have been able to do something about it"

      Translation: "Had we engaged in the usual cover up, it would have all been brushed under the carpet with no transparency or good governance whatsoever. The public would never know, and everything in the garden would remain rosy"

      The Jersey Way. Amen.

    2. All of Paul Le Claire's testimony is essential reading. Both his witness statement and his oral testimony.

      Day 100, 10 September 2015.

    3. ^ Interesting indeed. He supports Syvret's narrative to the extent that he states bluntly that he felt States of Jersey civil servants could not always be trusted to give accurate and reliable information to the Health Committee, which Syvret was also a member of during much of the time that Le Claire was.

  29. RE. the snippet of Paul Le Claire’s testimony:

    Shenton and his Health and Social Services Committee decided to leave Jersey patients' health, welfare and even lives at risk in the renal ward, rather than tolerate an incompetent (or deliberately lying!) senior civil servant being "undermined".

    Would the Social Services Committee have previously had responsibility for the care, welfare or protection of children before some of these responsibilities were transferred to the Education Committee?
    Dick Shenton (father of Ben Shenton) was also in charge of Jersey's police for many years while children were being sickeningly abused and raped.

    What chance did they have? What chance do children still have after all these decades if the CoI has one eye over it's shoulder to it's establishment paymasters and is even unquestioningly parroting the establishment line on the illegal suspension of anti-corruption police chief Power?
    Pretending that inconvenient witnesses do not exist is a way of not finding inconvenient truths.

    It is important to compare Paul Le Claire's "civil servant undermining" experience with what happened to Health Mininster Stuart Syvret when he discovered that Jersey's child protection system was failing and not fit for purpose.
    What will the CoI take on this? Will they quote from the ourchap report which the shysters commissioned to say that Mr. Syvret was being "rude" and was "undermining" staff?

    Should Stuart Syvret have highlighted the failings he had found or should he have apologised for his "rudeness" like Paul Le Claire was forced to?


  30. On the subject of lying and the failure of democracy in the Bailhache fiefdom:

    In Jersey the Bailiff has the power to protect peadophiles and all manor of other corruption.

  31. Interesting to compare and contrast the two.

    Australian Child Abuse Inquiry WEBSITE.

    Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry WEBSITE.

    1. From a public engagement point of view the Australian Inquiry does have an added advantage. (for the public)

      From its website;

      "The Royal Commission will hold public hearings, open to the media and the public, which will be live streamed on the Royal Commission’s website."

      It would be good if the Jersey Inquiry streamed its Public Hearings live on its website and might help gather interest (from the public) in its work. It would further restrict ITV/CTV from misrepresenting what was, or wasn't, said at Hearings.

    2. KTV: Krichefski TV

    3. KTC: Krichefski TV


  32. Voice for Children your suggestion about streaming witnesses online is spot on, but think it through.

    How would witnesses - which the child abuse enquiry have given numbers rather than use their own names, ever get away with staying close to invisible if their faces were streamed online while being questioned ?

    Not going to happen is it ? Just like the ex Minister for health Stuart Syvret being criticised openly by senior civil servants who have legal protection which has been denied him. A major witness responsible for health and childrens services left on the sidelines.

  33. I reckon Sir Philip Bailhache thinks he is Ronnie Pickering?

    1. Ronnie Bailhache28 October 2015 at 21:46

      Do you know who I AM!!!

  34. Replies
    1. related new comments here:

  35. Will next Tuesdays States sitting be a record breaker? The fortnight before sitting was finished just after 1pm. Can this one finish before 1? As the weeks go by less meaningful opposition is happening. Therefore everything they want through is getting through with a predictable vote of at least 30 to 20 every time. 10 Ministers + 10 Assistant Ministers + 10 Constables = 30 near enough, every vote.
    The Government we deserve?!

  36. The Rags Saturday interview this week is with Mike Bowron. The Rag takes the opportunity of going over their old ground of how Graham Power was suspended for making a mess of Operation Rectangle. They even mention disgraced Mick Gradwell and quote him as saying Operation Rectangle was a poorly managed mess.
    How convenient for them when Graham Power is programed to give evidence to the COI next week.

    1. The JEPeado. Filthy organ of the Jersey Mafia.

  37. Typical Filthy Rag. Reference the Care Inquiry great to see on their website that Trevor is giving evidence.

  38. Would this be Mick Gradwell leaker of evidence in a live child abuse enquiry? A police officer who would have been facing disciplinary proceedings had he stayed on in Jersey? The JEP editor does dig himself some holes does he not?

    1. The JEP survived it's collaboration with the Nazis so it can survive this.

      It's readers are that dim, trusting and gullible.

      The newspaper they deserve.

    2. JEP has shown that it is too compromised to rise above its traditional role as mouthpiece of a corrupt administration.

      So much for the optimism at the change of editor.

  39. Ex. City of London Bow-Wow Bowron was the ideal candidate for the Fiefdom Force if he were already accustomed to running a private police force on behalf of rich individuals and powerful corporations?

    Sussex police wouldn't touch a case because "civil matter" and the plumber "acted reasonably" but after a few strings are pulled City of London Police spend over £1m and abused ANTI TERROR legislation to harass a plumbing small businessman who justifiably complained of the sexual and financial misconduct of an insurance executive [with KROLL Corp. security connections].
    After a protracted malicious prosecution the plumber was exonerated and the executive quietly offloaded for fiddling expenses.

    Like Jersey, the City of London has it's untouchables.
    The documentary includes the shocking details and can be viewed in full at:

    No surprise that Bowron is happy to be wheeled out by the JEPeado in order to continue trashing the investigation into decades of child abuse and the necessary investigation by good officers before Jersey policing was again hijacked by the forces of corruption and cover up.

    Bow-Wow Bowron. The Police Chief on a leash.

    Just like in the good old days..........
    ......when children were abused on an industrial scale.

  40. This weeks Timetable
    Day 1086 Nov 2015

    ​9:00 Public witness

    13:00 Public witness

    ​Andre Bonjour

    Barry Faudemer

    Day 1075 Nov 2015

    ​10:00 Public witness

    14:00 Public witness

    ​Graham Power

    Trevor Pitman

    Day 1064 Nov 2015

    ​10:00 Public witness

    ​Graham Power

    Day 1053 Nov 2015

    ​10:00 Public witness

    14:00 Public witness

    ​Robert Le Brocq

    Ian Le Marquand


    1. What an interesting week.

      Barry Faudemer used to be one of the good guys RE the Vic College sex abuse and the suspicious deaths of patients the hospital wards:

      I wonder if Faudemer still is one of the good guys or if he will distance himself from his previous good work?

  41. I see the JEP are still allowing on line abuse of those good people giving evidence in support of the victims. So much for their new editor indeed.

    1. I can't see any comments on the Rag's on line stories. I can't even read the report on Bob Hill's evidence. But I can read about the Bailiff. Why is that?

  42. Faudemer has been kept sweet with a post-retirement job in finance. Therefore of course he will distance himself from his previous good work.

    1. Come, come, you're surely not suggesting Mr Faudemer obtained, and retains that job with the Jersey Financial Services Commission on any other ground that what an eminently suitable, tough, incorruptible and honest man Mr Faudemer is?

      If you are imputing other grounds, then, well I join with those who deplore and decry you bloggers as merely a disaffected, bitter, jealous swamp of anarchists tin-foil-hat wearing nut-cases and irrational fantasists.

      Why, one needs only to consider that the Jersey Financial Services Commission comprises such towering figures of ethics and probity as its Vice Chairman Mr John Averty, to understand instantly that the mere notion of a retiree with loose ethics looking for an easy & lucrative second-career wouldnt even make the long-list for interview.

      No. Any proud Jerseyman need only consider the selfless sacrifice, the community-spirited dedication, the sainted humility, the profound, Christ-like wisdom naturally present in a Jersey Establishment former Senator - let alone combined with the Nobel-Peace Prize worthy vision and ethics of a Chief Executive of the Gution Group having nurtured as it has Jersey's post-enlightenment depth & breadth of wise and reasoned public discourse through the Pulitzer Prize worthy Jersey Evening Post - of such a dazzling Renaissance Man as John Averty in order to understand that Mr Faudemer - as rightly as one of Christ's Apostles - has found his natural milieu.

      Thank God that the decent, humble people of Jersey are shielded by Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors and Her Majesty's Attorney Generals from lunatic scum such as you 'bloggers'.

      One need only read your ravings to see how fortunate we were that Jersey's Crown-appointed judges had the great good wisdom to see the child-like errors of the Jersey parliament, so damaged as it is by the influences of well-meaning but foolish democracy & the consequent restraint upon wise paternalism, and overruled the mad statutes of the Data Protection Law and instead protected our stability with wiser judge-made law instead.

      I'm a humble Christian man, and will remember you in my prayers, ask that Our Lord forgive you, and that he, in His love might bring, even unto thee, maturity and wisdom ultimately.

    2. Are you the real Proud Jerseyman who penned the brilliant but poorly publicised blog series

      And used used to slip his cutting satire past the censors at the JEP online troll-zoo?

      Welcome back / jolly good effort.

    3. Ditto. With knobs and oak leaf embellishment.

  43. Will be interesting to see what the filthy, filthy, Rag, don't report ?

  44. The JEP never published the Dear Freddie letter which has turned up on another decent local blog. The corruption by the local Mafia appears to have surfaced.

    1. "The corruption by the local Mafia appears to have surfaced [AGAIN]"

      The Jersey electorate are that thick that they just can't help voting for vacuous shysters and shameless social climbers.

      #Andrew Lewis

      Their incompetence is dwarfed only by their lack of morals.
      The government you deserve.

  45. from Planet Jersey:

    "This letter is the smoking gun, well found Gladiator.

    In May 2011 around four years ago, the board of directors of WEB instructed the CEO Mr Izatt to write a letter informing the planning Minster Freddie Cohen, that there was an oversupply of grade A office space coming down the track in and around the Esplanade.

    The Chief minister Le Suer, Planning Minister Cohen, Treasury Minister Ozouf , and head of planning Mr Scate, all received letters or copies so were informed and were well aware that the oversupply would not be in the best interest of Jersey.

    Yet they pushed ahead, against the advice of the Governments own tax funded development board. The commercial stresses of private developers and the financial implications are very different, as almost everyone lends to Governments who just raise taxes when they run short. A facility not available obviously to private independents.

    There is a very bad smell about all this - in fact it stinks.



  46. WTF Eddie Noel who is now promoted to minister was a director on the WEB board, according to the directors named at the bottom of the letter, and that little prat advised against building the International Finance Centre and has kept it quiet all this time. What a brown nosed useless muppet.

  47. ..............
    Actually they bu@@ered the children years ago.
    Now it's your turn, suckers!

    A disaster in the making:
    Broken promises on the replacement of the lost parking spaces?
    Broken promises on the park area?
    No chance of sinking the avenue or producing an integrated scheme?

    "I was talking to a businessman yesterday who had formed the view that this Council of Ministers had less confidence from the public and the business community than any other.

    Given the lacklustre performance and mistakes under Terry Le Sueur as Chief Minister, I’d say that is quite an achievement, but probably true. It is the inability to admit mistakes, the fortress mentality, and the political hubris that says "Trust us" which just does not inspire confidence."

  48. What a farce the Care Inquiry timetable is this week. Ian Le Marquand over-running and hasn't even talked about Graham Power yet. This leaves Mr Power himself with only a day to give evidence! Nowhere near enough. If he then over runs that means former Deputy Pitman who already only has half a day will also over run.#shambles

    1. Giving a key figure like GP just a day and a half smacks of either incompetence or collusion with the Establishment. It is obvious that other figures like the above mentioned Le Marquand and Pitman need a full day too so black marks all round.

    2. In fairness to the COI the vast majority of them were fog bound in the UK yesterday and some didn't arrive until today. They still managed to start today's hearing only an hour and a half late. It was through no fault of their own.

      I seriously believe they have under estimated the time needed for Ian Le Marquand's, Trevor Pitman's and especially Graham Power's evidence. Anton Skinner gave (if memory serves correct) 3 days of evidence and if ILM is to be adequately questioned on his disgraceful actions during the (possibly illegal) suspension of Graham Power then that alone would/should take a day or two.

      We shall see what transpires.

  49. I wonder if they will be paying for Graham and TP to be put up in a nice hotel? If so please tell Graham and Big Trev not order a desert! If they do Le Marquand's evidence will last a week. The 'Hollywood' lifestyle of COI witnesses. You can almost see the Rag's front page.


  50. Rob Le Brocq gave some stunning powerful evidence today but will the accredited media pick up on the fact that Philip Bailhache when AG let through a kiddy fiddler called Roger Holland when he should have been vetted, and then took Le Brocq and to court when he was Constable and in charge of the voluntary St Helier police.

    Who sat in Judgement Philip Bailhache of course.

  51. I don't think the Inquiry team have given Graham Power nearly enough time either. However, I really write to say a huge thank you to Graham Power for coming to Jersey. Also massive thanks go to Lenny too, for everything you've both done to support victims of child abuse and other state abuses in this corruptly controlled island.
    I'm guessing it must have been tempting at times to think - why don't I just ignore this Jersey problem? I'm far away from it now. I don't have to give evidence just like some retired-but accountable-off-island-golden-handshake-civil-servants won't be. The Jersey problem is not my problem, why bother?
    But Graham and Lenny care- really care- unlike the care inquiry- that doesn't really care and Graham and Lenny are strong, very strong. Strong like the evidence against Jersey's law officers and countless Jersey officials. If the Care Inquiry really cared, and was really strong, it would secure justice and the guilty would be held to account. If that doesn't happen, then it shows that the Care Inquiry doesn't care. It sucks because it will be the second time that victory was within grasp. The first was back in 2008, when the then scrutiny panel could have brought down the government – it was within it's grasp, but it chose naval gazing. I wonder why? And I wonder this, if the Care Inquiry doesn't secure justice, then what's the common denominator at play here?
    Once again, my sincere thanks to Graham and Lenny.

  52. Disgraceful that the disgraced get away with it.

  53. Ian Le Marquand's evidence is interesting.
    Great reporting.

    1. "Interesting" isn't the word I'd have used. (Sadly) "laughable" would have been my choice of word.

  54. Indeed VFC - not only laughable!! but embarrassing also. How refreshing to have a lucid, honest man like Graham Power following him, and hopefully he will not be rushed into finishing his evidence as he needs to be able to furnish the Inquiry with the fullest facts as we know them. Running late yesterday and today was not the fault of the Inquiry team, but unforseen travel problems.

    Personally, I can't wait for ILeM to return because he truly is a comedian!

    1. Le Marquand is Jersey's very own Mr Bean as the much missed Deputy Shona Pitman once famously joked. Only difference is unlike Rowan Atkinson ILM isn't very funny

  55. I don't buy the JEP and if ILM was on the radio recently, I missed it.
    Not that Radio Jersey is any better nowadays. But back in the 2008-2010 days, how tedious, ridiculous, hopeless, fake-intellectual, bumbling, daft and bizarre ILM spoke. Day after day, week after week, listeners were forced to listen to his endlessly silly roundabout way of defending the establishment position which, was clearly to anyone (bar the gullible), a government cover up.
    Offering extremely limited opposition and always reporting the government line without investigation was the typical biased reporting we were already accustomed to with BBC Radio Jersey, and still are.

    1. So Power continues tomorrow? Can anyone tell me what? And what time is Trevor Pitman on as well please? Thanks.

    2. Whoops! I meant to ask what time Mister Power resumes. I have the day off so thought I might make a first visit.

    3. Graham Power will continue to give evidence at 10am and 2pm tomorrow Thurs 5th November, according to the timetable at

      The hearings are being held in public at 11 -15 Seaton Place in St Helier (1 minute walk from Sand St car park)

      It looks as if Trevor Pitman has been bumped. He was due to appear tomorrow but my guess is that his evidence has been deferred to a later date, due to the delayed start this week.

    4. Bumped into the former most excellent St. Helier Deputy yesterday evening walking though town. In stopping to wish him well and add my personal two penath that I really hope he will stand again he told me that due to the Power situation following a delayed start he had agreed to move his slot back to the week after next. Didn't say exact time.

    5. Let me guess- Stuart Syvret, Trevor Pitman and ...........
      Was it Bob Hill? Not wishing to offend Shona Pitman, Mike Higgins and a few others though......

    6. sorry, that comment was meant to go under Bergerac's dog post at 22.05 below

  56. I was amazed to see not one, not two, but three of the Island's finest politicians of the modern era all in a wine bar early this evening. Bean Le Marquand wasn't one of them!

  57. "Former Senator Ben Shenton’s interview with the Jersey Care Inquiry is instructive for the sidelong glances at how the upper levels of the Civil service work, and the dysfunctional nature of the Council of Ministers.

    It is worth reproducing here because it many ways it complements and reinforces Tracey Vallois’ critique of the Council of Ministers. It is both a comment on the past, and how very little has changed in the present.

    What Ben paints a picture of is a Council of Ministers with an “inner circle” who make most of the main decisions, especially with regard to finances, and the pliable Ministers who accede to that. .........."


    Interesting. The above supports what Syvret was saying a decade ago.

    Was Ben Shenton able to offer any credible excuse or justification of his role in undermining the child abuse investigation?

    Was any mitigation offered? Was Ben mislead over the facts, costs and seriousness of the situation, or was he just undermining an investigation which could only show his daddy in a very poor light?

  58. The main politicians and Civil Servants Graham Power refers to 8 years ago are no longer involved in the Assembly.
    So what happens next?

  59. I was one of those who actually attended yesterday's hearings and I will tell you one thing. Seeing people of the caliber of Stuart Syvret, Bob Hill, Trevor Pitman and Mike Higgins in the public gallery - the first three all having been driven out of politics because they did the right thing - you realise the wrong people have had their hands on power for years. That is how all of this happened.

  60. If corruption was 'off the scale' one presumes that evidence was secured to show that to be the case. If so why were there not criminal prosecutions against officers for said corruption. I'm not talking about the odd case regarding Data protection but out and out corruption such as passing information to criminal gangs and what grace or favour the officer/s received in return for such activity. There were none.

    It is very easy to make statements like that Mr. Power when you are not required to produce clear evidence of such behaviour. I could easily make the Statement that Power and Harper were two of the worst people ever to wear the Jersey Police uniform and brought nothing but ridicule upon themselves and the hardworking officers of the force by their ineptitude and total disregard for the laws and customs of the community in which they Policed. But I would not, as that would not be fare without presenting evidence to back it up.

    Having watched the behaviour of Harper when briefing the worlds press and some of his gimmicks like producing a tooth with a coin etc I find it staggering that anyone at any time could describe the man as one of the best detectives of his generation. If he was, then the quality of his generation must have been incredibly low.

    1. RE. If corruption was 'off the scale'.....
      I seem to recall an example of corruption and malpractice being the (theft and) illegal sale of firearms handed in to the police under an illegal/unlicensed gun amnesty. Was this a dangerous corruption within the police force or do you see it as "enthusiastic recycling"?

      GP may not be at liberty to state details and it may not have been the forum. Knowing with reasonable confidence that it has happened and proving it can be different things, but there were dismissals and prosecutions.
      Also on a practical level, if corruption is endemic, affecting 80-90% (say) of a force - you have no force left if you loose that number of officers. A manager may decide to offload the worst offenders he finds and allow an amnesty for the rest under a tighter and cleansed regime.
      something off the blogs I think hinted that the above was the case.

      Have you read the Letters to Lenny series?
      Boschat claimed to have dirt on a good portion of the force

      Why was Boschat not prosecuted?

      And why does the death threat caller in this audio boast of police protection:

    2. As former Police Chief Graham Power, and former Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper have both written, in their own, open names (unlike the commenter at 14:57) and have both stated under oath (unlike the commenter at 14:57) prosecutions for corruption and prosecutions that were deemed by the Jersey Establishment to be politically 'inconvenient', were routinely obstructed by the Jersey Attorney General and his 'honorary police forces.'

      For example, read the affidavit of former Deputy Police Chief Harper here:

      It's interesting that the commenter seems to regard "the odd case of Data Protection" to be some trivial thing when it comes to police officers illegally trading data in exchange for emoluments. How then, we must ask, does the commenter regard massed dawn police raids, arrest, searches without a search-warrant, the theft of huge quantities of parliamentary and legally privileged data, carried out against an elected representative of the people over a stark and unambiguous public-interest disclosure, for an alleged Data Protection case?

      Is it OK for corrupt police officers to be selling data to the benefit of a local business man - and to the detriment of his competitors - but NOT ok for an elected representative of the public to expose child-abusers, child-abuse cover-ups, and suspected serial-killers?

      Very substantial quantities of evidence have been adduced, not only by Mr Power, but Mr Harper also, and a significant number of other individuals. So much evidence, on different occasions and in different contexts, that the Jersey Establishment was so unable to answer it, they resorted to such acts as deeming a whistle-blower's entire defence case "no longer admissible" once they realised the evidence was so embarrassing and damning; and not satisfied with that - then resorted to the first ever Secret Trial In The British Isles (no, it wasn't the UK alleged terrorism case - the Jersey suppression of the whistle-blower case took place before that).

      Consider this: there is now no credible dispute that many decades of child-abuse occurred in Jersey, and that much of that child-abuse was knowingly and deliberately concealed by the Jersey authorities. In fact, much of the abuse and the concealment has been acknowledged and admitted already by certain witnesses in front of the COI, and shown by certain evidence displayed by the COI. So, given that the decades-long child-protection failures were occurring, how many Jersey Police Chiefs and Deputy Police Chiefs - before Mr Power and Mr Harper - intervened to stop the child-abuse and bring the abusers to justice?


      That's how many.

      Not one.

      Graham Power & Lenny Harper were the first Police Chief & Deputy Police Chief in the history of Jersey to tackle the endemic child-abuse and the culture of child-abuse cover-ups.

      For any decent person, gauging the value of these two men is an obvious and easy thought.

      A more troubling question is contemplating what kind of person can deem these two fine, courageous, selfless professionals to be Jersey's "worst ever police officers"?

      To anyone still entertaining doubts, look at it this way - and be honest - if your children, your wife, son, daughter, husband - were subject to abuse, attack or under the threat of violence or corrupt oppressions - if there was a threat to your loved-ones, your family - and their protection depended on straight, honest, fearless policing - which type of police officer do you hope would be there for you - for your children?

      It doesn't - if we're being honest - take much thought, does it.

      I pray that my family, my children are never in such need - never facing such horrors, such violence, such abuse - but were it ever to happen, I pray that Police Officers of the calibre and strength of Graham Power and Lenny Harper are there for them.

    3. Thank you commenter 03:38 for that clear summary which thoroughly nails the blinkered apologist.

      For clarity it is worth observing that when you say :
      "So, given that the decades-long child-protection failures were occurring, how many Jersey Police Chiefs and Deputy Police Chiefs - before Mr Power and Mr Harper - intervened to stop the child-abuse and bring the abusers to justice?
      None. That's how many."
      You must be referring to abuse and paedophilia by individuals connected with authority or within the care system.

      Some offenders were prosecuted, but not generally from the establishment, civil service, care system, politics or the business elites.
      A possible exception might be Geof Le Marquand who I believe was eventually prosecuted after his offending became too embarrassing and too widely known

      I think Le Marquand's connections won him a very light sentence (probably also in exchange for his silence).

      is a must read and broke the BBC actor Wilfrid Bramble story in 2008. As usual years before the MSM caught up/stopped covering-up.

  61. The JEP allowed my contribution in the comments section for thirty minutes then ripped it down in response to Philip Bailhaches letter supporting the release of the Dame Heather Steels letter, and again supporting the Dean. It was a little long this is shorter version that as Jersey's leading blog you may feel is worthy to publish.

    Dear JEP,

    What a bossy one sided letter Philip Bailhache has written concerning the non publishing of Dame Heather Steel report which he wishes to see out in the open.

    No where in his letter does is mentioned the vulnerable lady victim who was sexual assaulted by a warden of the same church she was a member of. After she complained she was arrested locked up for two weeks without being offered bail, taken to court given the choice of Jail or a plane taking her off island.

    She chose the plane ride and was dumped in the UK destitute and without money. In Jersey she worked and contributed and was a member of the Church of England congregation.

    The excellent objective and honest local blog written by ex States member Bob Hill writes up the full sad story, just google it.

    Philip Bailhache also forgets that the Dean apologies openly for the incident.

    Obviously the new report between the UK and CoE diocese would be conducted by a person of integrity that would be shown to be completely independent from Jersey and its various administration and judiciary ruling department’s.

    Senator Philip Bailhache was employed in as Attorney General and leading head judge and in his letter also acts as Lay Chair of the Jersey Deanery Synod.

    List of members of the judiciary of Jersey.

    Dame Heather Steel DBE 2004

    Is this report seen as another whitewash ? Or possible the church or maybe Dame Heather are clever enough to realise how conflicted she is, and has asked for this report not to be placed in the public domain.

    Tim South.

    1. Perhaps Sir Phil should employ Mr Tapp to put out some PR for him because he is coming across as nothing more than a bullying conspiracy theorist. Again.

    2. HG was never interviewd by Dame Steel, which of course means the report cannot be fair and balanced or at best lopsided. Seeing how good your local blogs are in Jersey maybe the report should be released. The bloggers could then examine the factual evidence as to why Mr Bailhache wants it out there and like failing to starve the enquiry of funds in parliment, he could and would be embarrassed yet again.

  62. I watched the CTV report on Graham Power's evidence and have to ask why he didn't go public with this 5 years ago when Frank Walker and Ian Le Marquand were still around to be accountable. Its like the Dame Heather Steel Report, they let years pass before we get food for thought and then it's too late for anybody to do anything with it.

    1. I didn't see the report but the chances are that whatever Graham Power said was said 5 years ago and covered up by the State Media. I dare say it was published on the Blogs though.

  63. I feel privileged and humbled having heard the evidence of Graham Power yesterday and today. A truly honest, sincere and credible man whose honourable career in the Police Service was destroyed in one fell swoop by the Establishment because he 'dared' to stick by his principles and stand up to them. His damnation of the Jersey Way was so spot on, and it was also a privilege to sit amongst others whose lives have been blighted in the same way for the same reasons.

    Where were those who brought about this so sad and sorry state of affairs? Very noticeable by their absences. Oh that there were more people around with their courage, and I include the bloggers in this comment without whose unending commitment to this we would probably never have got anywhere near the TRUTH.

    1. Well said Gill.

    2. Matt Tapp what a lying scumbag!

  64. It stands to reason why Graham Power did not go public 5 years ago. He would have lost everything he owns. You have got to remember that the corrupt powers at work at that time had already sussed that and removed/mislaid/stole his States of Jersey personal contracts.

  65. I think I will wait until everybody has given evidence before concluding anybody tells the truth.

  66. Come on, everybody is covering themselves.
    Unless you get everybody doing a polygraph test whilst giving evidence which is still only around 87% accurate, you'll never get the truth.

    1. "Come on, everybody is covering themselves"

      Errrrr...., does "everybody" include you?

      Even if it doesn't we still need to live with the fact that we will never get the whole truth. Too many offenders have died unpunished or have been pronounced innocent contrariety to the evidence (including expert medical testimony)

      Too many victims have drunk themselves to an early death or have resorted to suicide and have taken their "truth" with them.

      The whole thing is such an unnecessary tragedy heaped upon this island by unworthy people in positions of trust.

  67. Well said Gill, I also sat through Graham Power's testimony, to those who have had only heard the MSM remember it is only THEIR interpretation, wait until you can read the full transcript before forming an opinion. We saw documentary evidence that was both shocking and revealing. I believe that we had in Graham Power a chief officer of exceptional ability and integrity ,sacrificed in order to protect the JERSEY WAY shame on you who treated him so badly

  68. VFC, a number of people ask me why I decline to give evidence voluntarily to this so-called "public-inquiry".

    There are a number of different - and all equally valid - answers to that question.

    But in case a very obvious issue elludes some people - one of the reasons I'm reluctant to give evidence is that such all-powerful, starkly conflicted, child-abuse concealing criminals - such as William Bailhache - and his allies and backers - will have me killed.

    I live in fear of these people.

    On the - obvious - evidence.

    They are multi-evidenced criminals - oppressive gangsters - who've repeatedly demonstrated their "ownership" of the policing function, the prosecution function and the judicial function.

    Even setting aside the other valid reasons for my grave concerns at the prospect of engaging with this "public inquiry" - I can never engage - in a fearless and unintimidated manner - with any Jersey-based public inquiry - unless and until the Crown suspends and purges the obviously captured, corrupted - and dangerous and intimidating - Crown "law-enforcement" system in the tax-haven of Jersey.

    We've just seen a former Police Chief - who fortunately enjoys the security of him and his family no longer living in Jersey - describe - under oath - how he was subjected to an illegal conspiracy to remove him from office.

    A conspiracy which involved people such as William Bailhache. A conspiracy to the ultimate purpose of capturing and corrupting the police force, so as to pervert it from its real purpose of combating crime, and instead bending it to the corrupted purpose of covering-up crimes and oppressing those who expose crimes.

    William Bailhache - and a similar milieu of all-powerful criminals - have been permitted to capture the entire - the entire - "criminal justice system" of the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

    For as long as they're permitted to remain in power in Jersey by the authorities of London - no full and fair - unintimidated - public inquiry can ever function with vires in this island. Not whilst witnesses like me are forced to live in fear.

    Stuart Syvret

    1. What world do you live in Stuart because its not Jersey?

    2. RE "What world do you live in Stuart because its not Jersey?"

      Just a decade ago we believed that we lived in a world where our governments and it's agencies did not allow or cover up the serial rape and abuse of children.
      Such a notion would have been farcical but unfortunately seems to have been the case in Jersey and in the UK.

      The people who control the pipeline thought which hundreds of £££££millions flow annually do not like their position threatened or their activities questioned.

      Someone who jeopardises their control of that could find their freedom or their safety threatened.

      Whereas those who threaten that safety and boast of police protection are left to run amok and are even assisted with a good chunk of £300,000+ taxpayer's money (that we know about so far)

      Beyond belief, isn't it?

    3. So what form do these 'threats' to your life taken then Mr Syvret? And for all you have done in agitating the Jersey 'establihment' you can hardly claim to have been alone in that? Which begs the question why haven't we heard of any threats or abuses against anyone else?

    4. Are you for real? Lots of those who have done the right thing have been abused by the Bailiff's courts.

    5. "Which begs the question why haven't we heard of any threats or abuses against anyone else?"

      Sigh! .... If you listen to the phone call on the link
      there were
      DEATH THREATS AGAINST A MAN'S FAMILY just for harbouring a political dissident!

      As for abuses against other people' I think that there is currently a multi million pound CoI into that very subject case you hadn't noticed.

      But because of the total hijack of the policing and judicial functions you do not need to be vulnerable in Jersey to be a victim. Advocate Sinel angered the establishment and was targeted as a result.....

      Advocate Sinel carries his victimhood well :-)

      Easier targets for the establishment include elected politicians like the Pitmans ......whose case was decided by an establishment pro paedophile cover up Jurat.

    6. Stuart,

      "Even setting aside the other valid reasons for my grave concerns at the prospect of engaging with this "public inquiry" - I can never engage - in a fearless and unintimidated manner - with any Jersey-based public inquiry - unless and until the Crown suspends and purges the obviously captured, corrupted - and dangerous and intimidating - Crown "law-enforcement" system in the tax-haven of Jersey."

      You must see that this isn't remotely going to happen in the foreseeable future.

    7. I may be new to your island but some of these claims seem utterly fantastical. For example.
      Nowhere in the western world would an individual with a history of bullying children - pupils we are told - into not reporting abuse.
      Just as bad apparently refusing to consider evidence of abuse committed by a colleague. I put it to your readers just what type of judge or Bailiff as you call them here would fail to act on such outrageous betrayals of responsibility? Such people would have to be corrupt beyond redemption. No. I would need to see the proof otherwise I would be straight back on the plane to the City of London great secondment here or not.

  69. What everyone now reading reports such as the JEP's on the Graham Power hearing should remember is that there is hardly anything at all new in what Mr Power has revealed about the disgraceful machinations of the Jersey Establishment. That the MSM are now reporting such things is simply because the Inquiry and those brave few who fought for it have forced them to. The question that should be asked is given Jersey's 'media' had Mr Power's huge statement years ago why didn't they publish the truth then?

    1. Indeed, the fact is that Graham Power produced very little, or nothing new, whilst giving his evidence to the Inquiry. A great deal of what he had to say was produced in his affidavit years ago which was published on this Blog HERE.

      It was also made a public document by former Deputy Bob Hill as a part of his proposition P.166 (forgotten the year). The State Media were burying all this stuff back then and it was the Bloggers who were publishing it. It is only now, some five, or so, years later that the MSM is reporting, what we were reporting back then.

  70. We hear that Frank Walker and Bill Ogley have been asked to give evidence. But does anyone know if they are willing to? Have to? Or when will they? Stand in front of the COI Team/Panel?
    Especially now that Graham Power has blown them out of the water!?

  71. The simple reason people are opening up so much is because the Inquiry is not a trial, but call it a gathering of thoughts and views to make things better.
    The ultimate goal is to use the findings of this Inquiry to improve Child Care as a whole in Jersey.
    From many points discussed here I think people are missing the point, and you'd be mistaken to think that the Inquiry is a trial with an active prosecution and defence system running.

  72. The reason that Jersey's lame professional media is publishing this information now is because the statements will all be published by the COI on their web site anyway. As it is an official Government funded information site the media are " protected " should they get angry calls from the Chief Ministers department full of spivs and spins doctors.

    When before it was published on the blogs it was not rubber stamped as official even if it was one hundred percent true.

    This may be seen rightly as a unexpected positive in setting up the COI.

  73. What's the big issue about who reports what?
    This is all about the protection of children, not a media war.

    1. The question is asked that, with what we know the MSM have covered up, then what else has it covered up? If the MSM were challenging, or exposing our government and Law Offices', then they would have got the message sooner that it's not OK to rape and abuse or children. Instead, the media played along with the government and Law Office hence the children's protection suffered because of it.

    2. @19:55
      Unpaid Bloggers should not need to be doing this.

      The big issue is that the JEP, CTV and the BBC were given much of this evidenced information from 2008. They could have reported it then but the individuals and commercial organisations involved deliberately withheld this information from Jersey people.
      In some cases they actively colluded with the forces of cover up to undermine the investigation and attack those trying to expose the truth.

      Without a functioning media we do not have a functioning democracy because we live in a make believe reality painted by the media.

      Are children protected by Jersey's make believe media reality?
      NO! the abusers are protected
      That is the BIG ISSUE.

      CTV's Wilfred Krichefsky was amongst those who regularly abused and raped orphans at HDLG. What is the BBC and JEP excuse?

      A functioning media would protect children .......and so would a functioning police force and judiciary.
      The CoI seems determined not to investigate the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief. If this goes unchallenged, how can we have a functioning police force? We have a politicised police force headed by a plastic yes-man.

    3. Why would more reporting of child abuse make any difference?
      Child abuse is in the news every day, paedophiles are in the news regularly like that pervy cop Waterhouse on the news last night.
      I do not read the JEP because its full of adverts or listen to the BBC because the music's rubbish, we get plenty of child abuse stories on the tv without cover ups, that makes no sense.

    4. The "currency of concealment" explained so that even the unfamiliar can understand:

      Same applies to all manor of corruption

  74. @20:59
    "we get plenty of child abuse stories on the tv without cover ups"
    How do you know it is without cover ups?

    Do they report what they are covering up?

    Not reporting high ranking abusers gives individuals and commercial organisations an absolute hold over the perpetrators. This can buy them anything they control, from legal indemnity to business deals to planning permission.
    These things can be worth millions!

    Reporting low ranking abusers sells copy and tricks the receiver into thinking that they do report.

    1. Yes, that's obviously the case. And it's interesting that the Jersey Establishment is still peddling overt nonsense via paid internet trolls. Your Establishment appears to have no realization that 'events', and the entire nature of their self-made crises has 'moved on'. Right now they ought to be exhibiting 'signals' to the effect they understand the paradigm shift events has imposed on them. Any smart leadership would be looking to indicate, you know, with subtle signals, to the other parties and neutral observers that the relevant steps are being taken to move circumstances and issues onwards, towards a 'territory' that could be shared in a 'peaceful' rapprochement.

      Such realities are the basics and 'givens' of negotiation, and there's no shortage of famous works on the subject. For example, 'Getting to Yes' by Fisher & Ury, and 'Negotiation Genius' by Malhotra & Bazeman. One of the things that's been fascinating about observing the conduct of your Establishment over the years is the sheer incompetence and dysfunction of them. There doesn't appear to have been any advisor at all, any professional guidance on their side that has made them swallow the basic fact that they are, inescapably, in a 'negotiation' situation. That there is no, and never was, any way out of this mess which didn't involve 'negotiation' of some form. And it's very surprising that Whitehall appears to have shared the same remarkable incompetence. It was perhaps understandable, to some extent, that the medieval insular and ignorant potentates of Jersey should have engaged in this lunacy with the singular 'strategy', if it merits that word, of force majeure, and if that didn't work at a given point, then all they needed was a bit more force majeure, ad infinitum. But this is the 21st century. If your Jersey bosses weren't capable of grasping the unavoidable reality of negotiation, of diplomatic settlements, then someone in London really should have subjected the Jersey Family god-fathers to a taste of force majeure themselves. They are, after all jeopardizing the good name of the Crown.

      As a lawyer, I (in professional 'market' terms) love dispute; as a professional, its our bread & butter. But I do try to cling to some humanity and take satisfaction in those situations when I'm able to save clients time, money and untold anguish by guiding them towards & through negotiation, towards the 'peaceful' resolution.

      But remarkably, as a long-term observer of the Jersey crises, I don't see anywhere in events any kind of indication that your Establishment and the authorities in London even understand they're trapped in a 'negotiation' situation let alone any signals of negotiation.

      I think when the dispassionate histories of this fascinating and pivotal episode come to be written the groupthink of force majeure, contrasted with total absence of any negotiation strategy and signals, will be the most revealing lense through which your Establishment can be understood.

    2. It's always been simple to understand things in Jersey without needing to search for subtleties such as indications of a realisation of a need for negotiation. There's an easy way to see and understand the on-going intransigence of the Jersey establishment and their protectors in London. Just look at the sheer volume of obvious prima facie criminal offences on display. Not just the many corruptions, abuses, rapes, attempted murders and murders, but the 'system' crimes, the many conspiracies to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office. Basically all of the many crimes involved in the cover-ups. Those crimes are very obvious, but London is permitting the Jersey bosses to carry on with them, adding crime upon crime. As the overt prima facie crimes of the cover-ups are being allowed to continue, you can be very certain none of these people in Jersey or London are contemplating any negotiation situation. But in many ways Jersey campaigners are totally to blame for the fact they've failed in truth to advance their cause one jot in these last 8 years. (As VFC admits above, there's nothing new in what Graham Power has said. The blogs were publishing his evidence 5 years ago.) Jersey campaigners all appear to, amazingly, still be stuck back in the days of thinking this is a child-abuse situation and investigation, rather than an all-encompassing 'break-down in the rule of law' situation in which the 'Watergate' factor of the 'cover-up' had long become THE issue.

      Of course the Jersey establishment and London will carry on winning. If Jersey campaigners carry on 'fighting' a battle they lost and the establishments won 5 years ago, rather than fighting the war against systemic corruption, the war is lost.

    3. "Jersey campaigners are totally to blame for the fact they've failed in truth to advance their cause one jot in these last 8 years."

      Thank you for your vote of confidence. Could you tell us what you have done to campaign for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and exposing the cover ups?

    4. Don't know why you engage with/rise to this. Everyone and his dog by now know who sites this garbage. Ignore: the individual behind it is desperately seeking attention when what he needs is psychiatric help. Let's keep the focus on the victims as we have done so well these past seven plus years. Keep up the good work.

    5. I'm not responding to defend my position. I understand your frustrations. I'm on the side of the Jersey campaigners. (Apart from commenting on the Jersey blogs over the years, I haven't contributed directly to the Jersey campaign, but I'm a civil society activist, I contribute more directly to campaigns closer to home.) My earlier comment wasn't intended to give offence, but was intended to help Jersey activists maybe see that they need to look at things from a different perspective and then to take different actions. There's a saying, something about the definition of idiocy being repeatedly carrying out the same actions but expecting a different outcome. The Jersey campaign has carried on with the same actions for many years now and only achieved the same outcomes. I'm trying to help your campaign by suggesting you need to think seriously about taking different actions. New actions.

      Let me make a suggestion (which may have occurred to you allready after Graham Power's evidence) you now have your former Police Chief stating in public that he was the victim of a 'conspiracy'. And he clearly was, that much has been known to you for a long time, but he's know said it in a forum that can't be ignored. So, if your Police Chief was the victim of a conspiracy to pervert justice, then so were all the victims of crime the police force under his leadership were assisting at the time. Why then, given this now 'official' revelation, are you Jersey campaigners not signing a joint letter to the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary drawing to their attention the fact that what should have been your objective impartial police force was wrecked by an illegal conspiracy against your Police Chief?

      Don't you see, the facts are there, waiting for you to take the necessary new actions. Yes, of course, the UK authorities may ignore you or respond inadequately, but if you don't make new moves, especially now informed as your new moves would be by the officially delivered testimony of your former Police Chief, you're making it easy for the UK authorities to get away with their failures.

      My point is that if you persist in simply 'waiting' for events to deliver to you the outcome you seek, then you'll still be waiting in another 5 years. Now Mr Power has said in a privileged setting the 'smoking gun' words, what are you now waiting for? Get to it.

  75. I left the comments at 18:08 and at 20:46, and I suggest you be warey of the comment at 20:30. I've followed the blogs and the Jersey issues enough to know who that comment may be alluding to. And rest assured the suggested troll is not me. (Perhaps I should take offence that my comments, which I think are reasoned, could even be suspected of coming from the said mentally unfit individual.) I don't usually respond to critical comments, but something in the comment at 20: 30 rings alarm bells. Namely that it says this, 'Let's keep the focus on the victims as we have done so WELL these past seven plus years. Keep up the good work.'

    That sounds wonderful, doesn't it? 'Keep focused on the child abuse victims, as you've rightly and so 'successfully' done for the last seven plus years.' That would be great, if only your work and focus of the last 7 years had been 'successful'. But it hasn't been successful. Which is why I recommend you be skeptical about such comments. Your establishment are just fine and happy if you carry on just like you've done for the last 7 years. Why wouldn't they be? They've won. Your strategy has failed. You've repeatedly enabled them to dodge the bullets they've carried on firing at their own feet.

    If you want a simple example of just how badly you've failed, remember how the Brian Napier review into the unlawful suspension of your Police Chief was able to be rigged by the establishment ignoring a vital part of the terms of reference as passed by your parliament. OK, they got away with it then, but you learnt the lesson, right? You'd never let them get away with such corruption again, right? But you have. You've let the public inquiry you fought so hard for, pull the same corruption AGAIN. They failed to engage with stakeholders to develop the methods of the COI and to consider whether the terms of reference needed refining.

    I'm saddened if your readers think I'm the establishment troll. You'll find some of my views and conclusions hard to take. But with respect, I think what I say merits mature reflection, and can't be put in the same bin as the trolling. I suggest that, in fact, the comment at 20:30 could even have come from the troll. Think about it. Who has most to gain from you continuing to follow a strategy that's already failed these 7 years?

    1. Gratuitous use of the word "failed", but interesting and helpful nonetheless.

      Your cup is half empty

      We are grateful for outsiders taking an interest in our predicament and it is vital to invent, contemplate and evaluate alternative and parallel strategies, whenever time allows.

      The good people of Jersey are equally sickened by the omitted TOR from Napier and the half baked CoI that is too scared to use their powers to subpoena Syvret, and refuses to investigate the ambush of the police chief and the hijack of Jersey policing back to into a private force!

      The CoI is part of the cover up, tragically as predicted by Syvret:

      Despite it's faults we are delighted that the CoI has gone ahead. Its shortcomings are sufficiently puerile and documented but most of the corruption is now official, published and mainstream.
      Let's face it; something that Bailhache so desperately wanted to stop cannot be all bad :-p

      The CoI is like a jigsaw with the centre pieces missing.
      A child can see that! but the establishment victims now include every taxpayer (yes reader, that's you) who has bankrolled the contrived civil service lawyer-fest.
      All this money and time and children still do not have the protection of the rule of law!

      The wound is not closed. It is out in the light and all can see those festering bits which the CoI determinedly leaves untreated.

      Our cup is at least half full and we are immensely proud of our bloggers and all they have achieved with no resources and sometimes precious little thanks from the community.

      Without this CoI (which Team Voice et al were instrumental in achieving) Jersey child protection campaigners would probably still be voices in the wilderness.

      What bloggers have done HAS worked. Total success is an elusive goal that we strive for both here and in the UK.

      Your suggestion is good and that should be done but even you concede that success is not guaranteed (to say the least)

      The Jersey child abuse cover up is actually part of the UK child abuse cover up.
      What are you going to do about it?

      It is best to work together.

    2. Some further observations for our helpful csa (civil society activist) above

      CSA, as a follower of the Jersey child abuse cover ups, you will be aware that this British island has subtle but significant differences from most of the British Isles.

      ".....precious little thanks from the community" I said. How can this be? Are Jersey people more stupid than other Western Europeans? Somehow more uncaring or even evil??
      Those questions do not have simple yes/no answers. The Jersey population is probably actually of slightly above average intelligence and education because of the influx of qualified people to service the finance industry. Jersey education is two tier, with two of the four secondary schools being (on paper) amongst the 10 worst performers in the entire UK !
      Along with issues such as racism in a very cosmopolitan community this gives Jersey more than a hint of the class system and attitudes still prevalent in 1950's UK.

      Many also have a 1950's mentality to deference to authority. Feudal is a word banded about (not without reason) and this deference to authority particularly manifested itself in acceptance of the Bailiff as the Queen's representative.
      The Bailiff was presented as a just and benevolent authority of the Monarch in a keenly royalist community. This was the endemic "reality" islanders just had to accept, and until a few decades ago watching films, dancing and music events were literally "by kind permission of the Bailiff"

      The Bailiff's role as "gatekeeper" in the partially elected parliament means that "feudal" is a valid description of how it actually works. This subtle fudality being constantly reinforced by the three unchallenged media companies who paint criticism as being unpatriotic!

      People living a while in this semi-feudal world develop a semi-feudal mindset.
      Jersey, the size of a provincial town stuck out in the middle of the sea: Like the chickens in the film Chicken Run, "the fences are inside their heads".
      But on the other hand ...If someone as high as the Chief of Police can be stamped on by the feudal jackboot .....what chance do lesser individuals have.

      The fear of people on the blogs is palpable. Where, outside Jersey, would you find this extent of unwillingness to post under their own name?

      Whilst not entirely irrational, this fear is of course massively overblown. The corrupt authorities do not have the resources to victimise innumerable dissenters. They can only concentrate on the key players and the average law abiding man in the street has nothing to fear because of the force of numbers and the landscape change achieved by bloggers.

      The perceived threat however is as effective as if it were real if no one questions it. People with families to support are risk-averse even though, ironically the failure to act is what really puts their families at risk!
      Sexual predation on minors is just one aspect of this risk.
      More broadly, the notion that this corruption .....of authority, of law, of policing .....does not have victims is of course a ridiculous notion.

      Syvret described Jersey is a microcosm (of the ills of the outside world) and despite some of the cultural differences described above, you in the UK can learn from the failings Jersey CoI as your own will follow a similar protocol.
      You can also learn from the successes of Jersey bloggers such as Team Voice because what they have already achieved in this environment is quite remarkable. These achievements must now be consolidated to build us a better island.

      The war is not over and it will be fought on many fronts.
      Mr. CSA, your appeal to VFC comes at a good time. The game has changed and there are things in the pipeline but now is a good time for discussion of the many ways forward. This discussion could be had here or VFC could set up a blog page for the purpose where comments and suggestions could be marked for publication or for consideration. Even the generation of ideas can be crowd-sourced. Reader, that means you peeps.

    3. "Jersey education is two tier, with two of the four secondary schools being (on paper) amongst the 10 worst performers in the entire UK !"

      Do you have a source for this please?

      Btw, I get an error message when I click on the Youtube link you have inserted as your name?

    4. Sorry I don't know why that stopped working

      An link which still works to "Newsnight 25th Feb 2008" (24?) is:

      The Jersey education stats were from a FOI request several years ago and were published in the filthy rag.

      If you are from Jersey you will know that part of the poor performance is because many the more motivated pupils are creamed off Hautlieu from the age of 14 and 50% private/fee-paying education for those who can afford it and by

      I shall try to find the link if you need it.

    5. ^ Yes that Youtube link works fine.

      Also, I found some articles regarding Jersey education stats, I posted them but they came up in my latest comments on the very end of this comments chain.


  76. There are also some extremely good UK child protection blogs

    The above reminds me to ask if there is any family connection between Brian Napier (of the forgotten TOR) and Charles Napier, career connected paedophile, PIE treasures and half brother of John Whittingdale MP ......Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport!!!!

    While this relationship is proof of nothing, the net is closing and it would be interesting to know what steps John Whittingdale took (didn't take) to ensure the safety of children who came into contact with his sibling over the 30 year period.

    Family loyalties are not unique to insular islands. they are just more common.

    It will be interesting to see how much of his sentence Charles Napier actually serves.

    1. Re "Outside of the microcosm" 's post @ 14:33:

      I think it's always important to be wary of 'guilt by association', regardless of whether there are or are not family relationships involved, but for what it's worth, Napier is a very old Scottish aristocracy name, and Brian Napier is described online as a "leading practitioner in employment law at the Scottish bar."

  77. To the Anonymous who posted @ 21:34,20:56 & 18:08 on November 8:

    Some of the points raised are valid but I feel you are not being not being entirely fair to the Jersey bloggers/campaigners.

    In Jersey we are talking about a small island with a population of 90,000 approx (no larger than a large town in the UK or Ireland), some of which are never going to become involved in campaigning of this type - some, in fact, are or have been actively involved in the cover-ups. Others aren't directly involved or implicated, but feel they have too much to lose by being seen to go against the establishment. Some, particularly, in the expat community, have no long term allegiance to Jersey and have no interest in becoming involved in controversial political matters. So we are left those locals who are interested and engaged in campaigning, augmented by those overseas, some originally from Jersey, others not, who are willing to assist in campaigning.

    Worth noting media in the UK has been to the forefront in exposing allegations of VIP abuses, during and following the Savile scandal.

    In Ireland, similarly, the exposure of abuses in church-run (but state-mandated) residential institutions was very much local media-driven.

    By contrast, what Jersey HASN'T had is a supportive local media. In fact, much of Jersey's local media are perceived by campaigners as being part of the problem.

    As for suggestion of a letter to Home Secretary etc, yes I think that is a good idea at this stage in the proceedings.

  78. I found a relevant link:

    The info in the link does seem to validate what was posted above as regards Jersey having a 'two-tier' educational system. Average Jersey GSCE pass rates are actually above England/Wales, but one school would be ranked third last if it was included in the England/Wales table.

    1. ^ oops sorry posted wrong link, meant to post this one:

      It seems that since then Grainville's pass rates have improved significantly, but other state-owned Jersey schools still languish in the lower tiers in terms of GSCE A-C's.

    2. Never went there but over the years Led Quennevsis' record had been excellent. Of course the States don't like to talk about this or the highly detrimental creaming off of the most academic pupils from States schools to keep Hautlieu going. The added bonus of States school over taxpayer funded 'private' 'elite' schools like Vic College of course is that if your child is abused in a States school the Board of Governors are less likely to cover it up with the aid of a Crown Officer or two in order to 'protect the school's good name'. A reason to send one's kids to the comprehensive any day of the week?

    3. "Mr Dykes", for the benefit of posters not familiar with Jersey, where is Victoria College as regards league tables and the like? It doesn't appear in the list in the link I posted above?

    4. Viv College are far too good for league tables. Besides they are likely far too busy colluding with corrupt Bailiff's and Jurats to cover up abused pupils.

  79. Excuse me if I'm missing some previous discussion, but can I ask why you Jersey campaigners don't just demand that the public inquiry subpoena Stuart Syvret? Some of you must have formal standing with the inquiry? Be witnesses yourselves, or victims, have involved party status or some such thing? I've come a little late to the Jersey scandal from campaigning for a public inquiry in the UK, but I think I've read enough to understand that Syvret is one of the main good guys in all this, but he has his own concerns about joining the proceedings without a lawyer. But regardless of his concerns he is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental witnesses in all this. So if abuse survivors and whistle-blowers feel his evidence would be important and beneficial to your side, you have a right to require of the public inquiry that he be summoned and questioned.

    My question is, why haven't you done that? (Actually, perhaps you have, but have been brushed-off? If so that must be made public.) But assuming your side hasn't demanded of the public inquiry that a vital witness of benefit to your side be summoned, then I'd have to say you've been asleep on the job. It's the obvious step.

    I'm assuming here that Syvret hasn't' been summoned so far (I guess he'd say so if he had been). In fact, thinking about this as I type, you'd have to ask why haven't your authorities, and their bad guys involved in cover-ups, and the abusers who've been put under the spotlight by the public inquiry so far, why haven't any of them exercised their right to have Stuart Syvret called? After all, central to the case of these people, and vital to their reputations, they have to discredit or at least try to discredit Syvret. This is their golden, and publicly funded, opportunity to do just that. If they're innocent, and Syvret is the nasty, lying fantasist that they and their employing authorities claim, well, here's their chance to strip him bare so to speak, and publicly reveal him for the fraud & mad man they've always claimed him to be.

    So why aren't those parties, all of those witnesses on the side of your establishment, exercising their undoubted right to have Syvret summoned?

    OK, we all know the answer to that question, Syvret is right and one of the good guys. It suits the crooks very well for him to be a peripheral figure. But why then haven't you people exercised your same rights to have Syvret summoned? He's a vital witness of benefit to your cause? I hope someone can explain this apparent lapse as I'm genuinely curious about it. Maybe there's a non-obvious explanation?

    1. The answer I suspect lies here:

      Syvret is understandably reluctant to testify in the absence of the Inquiry guaranteeing legal representation for him, given his previous experiences and oppression he was subjected to by the Jersey oligarchy.

    2. Thank you for that reply. Yes, I was reasonably aware of his concerns already. He has been jailed (twice?) for whistle-blowing by the political judiciary on Jersey. But I think you miss my point, which is that no matter whether Syvret is reluctant to give evidence to the public inquiry, if the inquiry summoned him he wouldn't have any choice in the matter. And if Jersey campaigners think (rightly I agree) that his evidence would be powerful to your cause, whilst he may not like it, you have a right to it, and should have him summoned by the inquiry.

      I think the point I'm raising is 'why haven't your side done that?' On the face of it, the only apparent explanation is that out of loyalty, friendship, to him etc, you won't ask for him to be summoned. Is that it? You think he's suffered enough maybe and don't want to be a part of an intimidating legal process against him? It would be interesting to know what Syvret thinks of this angle? I'm not trolling, I think these are fair issues.

    3. "I'm not trolling, I think these are fair issues."

      They are indeed fair issues. But there are wheels within wheels. I cannot speak for Stuart Syvret.

  80. The general gist of some anonymous comments on this topic are rather trollish and take the form, 'You have failed, you are still failing, and why don't you do this.' They are either written by a (the) troll, or someone incredibly naive, or someone who has joined the debate so late that the they haven't had time to read the detailed evidence of what has gone on in the last seven years.

    The truth is, nobody has failed, least of all the bloggers, whose research, interviews, and suppositions have proven to be both accurate and prescient with regard to evidence being given to the COI. In addition, it is highly likely that this whole scandal would have been buried back in 2008 if the bloggers had not intervened and got their teeth into the story while the MSM were not so much burying it as pretending it had never even happened.

    Anyone with any knowledge of how the Jersey authorities work would know that blithely suggesting that bloggers intervene to make the authorities do something is either deliberately provocative or the result of living in LaLa land. The reason that this story is even on the front pages of the MSM is largely down to the likes of Stuart, Neil, Rico, Bob Hill, and a few other politicians. It is already a massive achievement, gained at great personal risk and in the face of threats and abuse.

    It's unlikely that we will see malfactors like Bailhache, Ogley, and Walker answering for their evil deeds in a court of law, but at least the truth is now out there and we have heard the voices of the oppressed. Even the JEP has had to suck it up and spit it out, and who would have thought that five years ago.

    Hell, maybe they will even campaign for Stuart Syvret to get justice and compensation since he was so obviously convicted on a crock of shit and legal machinations intended to silence him. The fact that they lied to Google to get his blog taken off the Internet but it is still out there for everyone to read is a good indication to me that many battles have been won on this long road and that the bloggers have a lot to be proud of, unlike the Anonymous ones who stood on the sidelines and derided.

    1. Re: " The general gist of some anonymous comments on this topic are rather trollish and take the form, 'You have failed, you are still failing, and why don't you do this.' They are either written by a (the) troll, or someone incredibly naive, or someone who has joined the debate so late that the they haven't had time to read the detailed evidence of what has gone on in the last seven years. "

      Rob Kent,
      With respect, it's just another form of naivete to imagine that everyone and anyone who posts under 'Anonymous' is a troll and, it's downright rude to suggest that tbh. I think that the blog-owner would have records that would show that a lot of the anonymous's are different people. Personally, I've posted seven or eight times in this discussion - I post using the 'Anonymous' name only because I don't have any of the types of accounts that are listed in the 'Reply as' tab that comes up when you want to post a comment.

    2. Agree with much you say Rob but we must also face facts. Stuart Syvret also has a lot to answer for in the bull in a China shop fashion he went about things. This put so many people off and also undoubtedly set back any possibility of rapid change. To expect Jersey's current crop of politicians to start joining calls for re-consideration let alone apologies and compensation is just a plain non-starter. Just consider the only States Member who has ever really, publicly stood up in support of SS is Trevor Pitman and we all know how much the old boys network hate him too. We just have to hope this Care Inquiry team does what is right, not grssp at such unlikely straws. SS should also be at the Inquiry regardless and draw a line under the ridiculous excuses.

    3. Now, that IS the troll, 21:03, the rest of the thread looked reasonable until this turned up! Same old predictable phraseology 'putting people off', 'bull in a china shop', blaming the whistle-blowers, blaming the victims, obsessional hatred of Trevor Pitman and Syvret, 'draw a line', blah, bah, blah 'ridiculous excuses', etc etc etc.

      The discussion was actually reasoned and constructive no matter which side you took, until 21:03 showed up. And we all know who that is.

      So, so predictable, so, so recognisable.

  81. The Anti Troll.;topicseen#msg60501

  82. @Anonymous @ 20:39: " it's just another form of naivete to imagine that everyone and anyone who posts under 'Anonymous' is a troll.."

    I never said that nor suggested it. I said: "The general gist of some anonymous comments on this topic are rather trollish..." I know that people (apart from trolls) have very good reasons to stay anonymous on these forums and blogs and my criticism was not about anonymity - it was about the gist of some anonymous comments. Since I don't have time to do a textual analysis in order to distinguish one Anonymous from another Anonymous, I said what I said. If you are not the generally trollish Anonymous and one of the supportive Anonymouses, please accept that my remarks were not addressed to you.

    Re Other (I guess) @Anonymous at 21:30: "Stuart Syvret also has a lot to answer for in the bull in a China shop fashion he went about things"

    Yeah, I know - Stuart is a 'complex character' and divides opinion - movers and shakers are often like that, like this bloke But regardless of what you think of his personality, he was right, and he was wronged, grievously. The injustices against him started a long time before the child abuse scandal. Remember he was suspended from the House and told he must apologise for making the perfectly reasonable (and in the UK, mandatory) request that the head of Finance (if my memory is correct) should resile himself from the passing of legislation that his law firm had a hand in drafting on behalf of the big four accountancy firms. There was no question that Stuart was right and wronged in that case and in numerous other instances.

    As Graham Power pointed out in his evidence to the COI, Stuart was merely doing his job by asking the questions he did and raising them in the house, but they decided to get rid of him. Then things got nasty, the gloves came off, and lots of bad things were said and done. But don't blame the victim.

    I don't think there is a cat in hell's chance of Stuart being pardoned and compensated but I would like to propagate that concept in the Island consciousness because it might make people more aware of the Jersey Way and realise that what happened to him could happen to them (you). Which is why, I guess, most people like to stay anonymous online.

    As Auden said: "You may not like them much (Who does?) but we owe them..."

    1. Rob,
      I was penning a reply for the blog for the further benefit of our guest (csa). I shall probably post it later. I certainly cannot better yours!

      Fabulous links BTW !

      It is obvious how you came across the first one but you must have stumbled across the poem by W. H. Auden

      "....speaking the local patois
      of some three hundred words

      ....think of the family squabbles and the
      poison-pens, think of the inbreeding"

      Auden is wicked, unkind and grossly unfair to have said that about our good Jersey brethren!

      However your assessment of one of our Jersey sons (Stuart Syvret) is totally on the money.
      To be fair, though, I think Syvret's inclination is to assume respect for all people but he has learnt not to suffer fools even for a moment.

      Can anyone blame him after what he has been through?

      On the subject of straight talking: In our opinion readers should not be upset by our "csa" guest's brand of straight talking. However if he is an experienced abuse campaigner (sharp end especially) one would expect him to know that "you have failed" is not a helpful way of speaking on a blog on the subject of child abuse / survivor / campaigning.
      Phrasing in the positive encourages better results and cause less upset.

      I think our guest has probably already taken this on board and I do hope he sticks around and spreads our message here and in the UK. He should give VFC the respect he deserves but his questions should be considered and answered constructively. This is a time for the generation of ideas and tactics. This, and even public domain workload can be cloudsourced.
      Who knows what people may bring to the party!

      Bloggers need to consolidate their achievements because a depressing proportion of Jersey people will still not have fully appreciated the situation .......or will have forgotten/moved on by the week after next!
      (....or by the end of this paragraph in the case of some inbred individuals)

  83. Once again, an apparently simple appeal.

    I understand the need for anonymity in certain cases but it is very confusing when the title "anonymous" is used by many people with differing views.

    It is possible in Blogger comments to call yourself whatever you like and to omit giving any link in the link field.

    So, pen names please in future?

    1. Or just end each comment with a name or a chosen tagline

      * BURN THE JEP *

      is an option?

  84. This comment has been removed by the author.