Thursday, 18 February 2016

Blowing The Whistle.



Yesterday Wednesday 17th February 2016 rather a lot happened. Those who were lucky enough to witness the second appearance of ANDREW LEWIS before the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry were treated to a cringe-worthy performance of epic proportions, for which the term “stranger to the truth” was never more applicable. As reported by Rico Sorda HERE. The clinical and forensic dissection of Lewis by Advocate for the Inquiry Cathryn McGahey was a sight to behold. Team Voice attended the Hearing and at times we could only wince and I had to confess to coming close to feeling sorry for the hapless, clueless and abandoned Lewis. Nobody should do that. He made his bed and now he lies in it. In every sense. His position as a States Member surely now MUST be untenable.

But “Operation Whistle” is another matter altogether. On the same day the States of Jersey Police effectively announced that the police Investigation into historic sexual abuse in the island, and reportedly in at least one "care" establishment (Haut de la Garenne) run by the Jersey Government, is back up and running. Except that it is no longer “Operation Rectangle” but “Operation Whistle.” Bit of a pity really we rather liked the name “Rectangle,” but we will settle for “Whistle” provided that it does the job properly. No cover-ups, no bending to political pressure, and the investigation driven by police officers who are not afraid to blow the said “whistle” if there is even a hint of dubious practices, from either their senior officers or the much discredited Jersey Law Officers who purport to represent the interests of the “Crown.” (Yes, remember that if you are reading this you learned assembly of lawyers. The Crown is worn by the Queen, not dodgy businessmen with influence or third rate politicians with a bad attitude. It is worn by the Queen and so far as we know she expects her officers to deliver a justice which is blind to social class, background, political persuation or personal history. You forgot that in the past. Do not mess up again. While you are at it, how about some genuine and transparent independence around your decision-making, perhaps something that inspires public confidence rather than creating suspicion.)
The press release for Whistle is fairly substantial in its detail, according to
ITV/CTV (granted not the most reliable source) there are:  


7 investigators on the team

26 new complaints since Operation Whistle went live in June 2015

33 of the suspects are deceased including 11 in the public eye

41 named victims currently engaged with officers

9 suspects arrested

13 interviewed under caution

2 charged, with 1 conviction in February 2016

7 released on police bail pending further enquiries or legal advice

3 files with the Law Officers Department for consideration of prosecution

31 on-going investigations
        
4 UK investigations aided by SoJP

LINK.

Subsequent media reports indicate that both Jimmy Savile and Ted Heath stand accused of sexual assaults in Jersey and that some of the alleged crimes occurred at, as mentioned above, Haute de la Garenne. Well if they need to dig it up again we know quite a few people who would happily lend a spade.

So what are we to make of it? The police Press Release, and the subsequent release of more details in response to media questions, together constitutes a substantial and detailed release of information relating to a sensitive Investigation. Was it the right thing to do? The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has in the past released guidance to police forces on this very issue. We do not have access to those guidelines and ACPO no longer exists, but we do have an extract from the (possibly illegally) suspended former Police Chief Graham Power’s statement to the Wiltshire investigation in which he quotes from the guidelines.

In paragraph 308 he says

“Providing more detailed information to the general public can increase the likelihood of generating additional valuable information.” That seems like common sense to Team Voice. Telling the wider public that there is a live and active investigation taking place can encourage victims and witnesses to come forward and add momentum to the Inquiry. It is the right thing to do.   Unless of course your name happens to be Lenny Harper or Graham Power and the year is 2007 or 2008. If that is the case then what you are doing is “sensationalist” and “damaging to the reputation of the island.” Funny business don’t you think? What in one year is near to high treason is a few years later best practice and the right thing to do. It is an odd paradox. Perhaps we can persuade Sir Philip Bailhache to make a speech about it as he did at the height of “Rectangle.?” 

Come on Sir Philip, give us the benefit of your wisdom.  Is the real scandal the damage to the reputation of the island or do Child Abuse Victims get a look in this time?


Extract from Philip Bailhache’s Liberation Day speech:

“Yet many journalists continue to write about the Island's so called child abuse scandal. All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” 

So why, so far at least, is the Jersey Establishment not braying for the blood of the police officers who have issued this Press Release? Why has nobody been suspended? Is it because the “good guys” are now in charge, or is it because the Establishment are afraid? From where we sit, they are still attempting to extract themselves from the mess they created by the (possibly illegal) suspension of the Police Chief in 2008 and it might be that they just no longer have the nerve to attempt the same again?

But let us give credit where it is due. Lenny Harper and others broke down the door to the chamber of dirty secrets in Jersey. Warcup and Gradwell, backed by the Jersey Establishment and sections of the Jersey media,  (of the time) boarded up the door. But now it is open again.

So how should we react to this development? We confess that this is a question which has caused Team Voice some difficulty and our opinions might differ, but on balance for now, we say give it a chance.

If you have any information which might assist “Whistle” then get in touch with the investigation and have your say. We know that we have a lot to be cynical about, but give it a go but let us all keep our eye on it just the same.  Let us watch it, monitor it, and report what we know about it. If you are on the Whistle team, and if you have a whistle to blow, get in touch with Team Voice. We protect all of our sources of information and we are good, very good, at blowing whistles and we have a growing international/worldwide readership.

After some discussion among ourselves we decided to give Whistle a chance to finish the job others (Operation Rectangle) started. But we will be watching and OUR whistle is ready for us to blow.


Jersey Police can be contacted on 01534-612612.

79 comments:

  1. Sorry to sound cynical but the police still have the same problems Rectangle had. They have to get their files past the Law Office. Many of those Law Officers who are there today were there through Rectangle. I'm not convinced Whistle will be successful whilst the same Law Officers are in place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congratulations Team Voice. Conspiracy Theorists you are most certainly not. You have been incredible in the pursuit of the truth. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. VFC remember that it is SIR Jimmy Savile as in Sir Edward Heath or perhaps Sir Philip Bailhache.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another great piece of balanced, sensible journalism from a blog that is right up there with the very best political blogs in the world. What a great job you do Mr Voice! You are a legend and such an asset to all good people in Jersey. People who care unlike so many within our self-proclaimed lords and masters. Please promise you will never stop your excellent work even when the COI is done and their report published. You really are THAT important. That we actually have an inquiry however flawed is largely down to YOU and a small number of others, bloggers like Rico and a handful of good, honest politicians circa 2008. Be proud and once again 'Thank You'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is all very serious is it not? I always saw that it was, even if many of my conservative friends and colleagues failed to see the gravity of what was being done on their behalf in the early years of this disaster. I couldn't begin to count up the number of professional conversations, and in dinner parties, at which I warned, 'no good will come of this, mark my words. This is hubris of such folly it threatens us all, threatens our livelihoods.' In many ways I feel the conservatism of my generation and those of my background in Jersey was somehow overtaken and pushed into the margins without us realising, by a kind of dangerous radical political extremism embodied in the Bailhache brothers and their opportunistic followers and clacquers.

    Now events have a momentum which can't be braked with the usual anchor of a public inquiry. In spite of what are honestly embarrassing attempts to manipulate the process, the COI itself is now helpless in the tide.

    Dear oh dear, Jersey. How did we come to this? Illegally suspending the Chief Police Officer at the height of a major criminal investigation with the government essentially as a main suspect? The Bailhache brothers weren't able to bring us to this disaster alone. We let them. And now we shall pay the price.

    A Jersey conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glad you put up the infamous words of Sir Philip Bailhache immortalised in his revolting Liberation Day speech back in 2008.

    It reminded me just how disgusted I was when only three of our esteemed States members voted to oust Bailhache with the then St Helier Deputy Shona Pitman's vote of no confidence.

    Reading Bailhache's horrible, uncaring words after all of these years I was struck to ponder just how many more of our politicians might have grown some cohonies had the Deputy brought her proposition now after Andrew Lewis' pantomime and Sir Philip's own epidemic of 'I can't recall-itis'?

    You would hope such a vote today could now come closer to actually winning.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You forget one thing.
    The Law Officer's haven't changed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see the joke of an ex-Deputy Nick Le Cornu is busy on Facebook making quite sure his exceedingly brief career as a Deputy is never resurected. The JEP are hammering him and for once rightly so.

    Can't this idiot help himself? Making comments about how seriously ill and even dying States Members still never resign in the debate over the admittedly useless Senator Zoe Cameron not bothering to turn up for the Hospital debate is another case of Le Cornu foot-in-mouth.

    Shameful when one considers the stirling work while ill of Mike Higgins.

    Really this all makes the tragedy of us losing Trevor Pitman two years ago all the more poignant. Pitman was exactly what the people of St. Helier needed. Hard working, illteligent and fearless. Then the poor people of Number 1 district were gullible enough to vote in an arrogant buffoon on his coatails just because Le Cornu also claimed to be a Leftie.

    Please come back Trevor before the next elections. Where ever you are we will pay for your ticket! Our island is being destroyed by lunatics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Illteligent? I'm sure you mean intelligent? If so I agree 100%. Let's be honest though. Good as Trevor Pitman was even if he did come back, and no doubt winning election easily, it wouldn't change much. Jersey is beyond saving.

      Delete
    2. I thought Nick Le Cornu was being unfairly targeted until I was shown what he's publically written about ill and dying states members and it's horrible.
      What is going through his mind? Mike Higgins/Richard Rondel/Kristina Moore don't deserve that, actually nobody deserves that kind of remark, Nick your letting yourself down.

      Delete
    3. What has this chap Le Cornu said about unwell politicians? Forgive those of us outside Jersey who don't follow local political minutiae. His remarks sound absolutely dreadful and I'm comforted to see him being condemned here on VFC. The man would appear to be some kind of sociopath.

      Delete
    4. 'The JEP are hammering him and for once rightly so.' If my recollection is right, the last time they panned him was when he tweeted that disgraceful comment about Deputy Moore. Are you seriously suggesting he was right that time? It is at last refreshing (...for once) to see people who found themselves on the same team in championing child abuse victims admitting each other's failings. A failure to do so too often in the past has weakened all of your arguments because fair and robust debate necessitates honest self awareness and criticism, which has been sadly lacking. And that, I am afraid, has made many campaigners appear in the same light as the Council of Ministers. People are not stupid. It pays to learn the valuable lesson that the way you argue is as important as what you say and there have been some good arguments. Sadly, for the victims, too many of the headline acts in the whole saga since 2008 have failed to display that insight and critical self-awareness. It is great to see Rico challenging Stuart, for example, more recently and, for that matter, Rico acknowledging that the MSM have played an important role over the past couple of years. Time to reassess who the enemy is, or are we still too blinkered to step out of trenches that went stagnant long ago? I know where Le Cornu is still festering....

      Delete
    5. All very true. But you also have to ask why on earth would Trevor or Stuart want to come back into mainstream politics? They have given their all and more and in the eyes of some of us then been badly let down by so many who let them take all too many of the arrows. Trevor even produced a huge witness statement obviously putting aside what must have been substantial reservations. Yet how was he treated by QC Oldham and her panel? In a word effectively kicked in the proverbials.

      Delete
  9. So Phase two is over? But will anything useful come out of Phase three? And who will we be hearing from anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It appears that Team Voice and your regular readers are not the only people who have their doubts about the Jersey Law Officers. Yesterday Josephine Olsson, who was recently interim manager of Jerseys children's services, gave evidence which was highly critical of the way the service operated. She is reported to have said "I do not leave the island believing that children are safe, and I still have great concerns about their safety." According to the BBC report she also said that the island's justice system is inherently conflicted because prosecutors were also legal advisers to States departments. And she is right. In respect of Operation Whistle the Jersey law officers will have two main tasks. One will be to decide on prosecution files presented by the police. The second will be to represent the interests of the Jersey Government whose neglect of child welfare allowed some of the abuse to occur in the first place. I hope that they do not become conflicted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Keep paddling Team Voice. You are doing a sterling job against a tsunami of Jersey law officers and corrupt officials. Blow that whistle harder!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Commenter at 13:47. Isn't Josephine Olsson airing the same concerns about child protection/safety, that Stuart Syvret was also airing 8 years ago. She said, (two days ago): "I still have great concerns about their safety". Didn't Syvret say nearly exactly the same words nearly eight years ago. Then for him saying that, was got rid of!?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ian Bartlett has been jailed for 'LIFE' for abusing a young girl over a period of several years

    The Bailiff, William Bailhache, told Bartlett: ‘The reasons for the court’s decision [on giving a life sentence] will be handed down as soon as possible.’

    Wasn't William Bailhache desperate to pronounce a far more serious HDLG paedophile and child torturer innocent?:
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tragedy of the Jersey situation is that Bartlett would very probably win an ultimate appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if it was possible to obtain genuinely independent legal representation in Jersey. He is guilty. And fully deserving of the life sentence & minimum tariff of 10 years. But the law is the law. The proper administration of justice is very clearly established. There is no way, shape or form in which such a personally and politically conflicted person such as William Bailhache, a man who's just been questioned as a very culpable politicised contaminant in Jersey's prosecution / judicial system - so has starkly overt motives to try and show himself now to be "tough on child-abuse" - can be seen to be a dispassionate and objective judge in the case of a person such as Bartlett.

      It's crazy. Simply crazy.

      This can't remotely stand.

      If Bartlett's lawyers take the sentencing to Strasbourg on the grounds of breach of Article 6, he will win. Open & shut case.

      The ECtHR case-law on such matters is already established and unarguable.

      Courts have to be free of any contamination.

      I have to say to you VFC and your readers 95% of who will want Bartlett to rot in jail (rightly so) you cannot say "we want the objective and impartial administration of justice, oh, except when we're considering child-abusers, and judges who have obvious and desperate political motives to try and redeem their hopelessly destroyed career by now pretending to be 'tough' on abusers, now that they face professional and reputational ruination like William Bailhache'.

      You either support the objective and impartial administration of justice - or you don't.

      There is no such thing as saying 'we want objective justice, we want the objective rule of law! (oh, but we're ok with a biased, personally & structurally fatally conflicted system when it comes to abusers.)

      Sorry.

      No way out of this.

      If it is wrong, biased and conflicted - as it most very very seriously was - for William Bailhache to be involved in prosecution and judicial and legal advisory decisions in child abuse cases when he's personally and politicly conflicted, then it's equally wrong for him to be involved child-abuse cases now as a 'judge'.

      It is on questions of established principal such as this that the Jersey blogs such as VFC will hopefully continue to distinguish themselves ethically and intellectually from Jersey's heritage media.

      One supports the objective administration of justice - or one doesn't.

      It is as clear as that.

      Delete
    2. @22:19
      I wrote 20:57 and I agree with most of what you say. My main point was that it was a "relative injustice" on Bartlett with the 'judge' William Bailhache cynically "playing to the gallery" in order to try and show himself now to be "tough on child-abuse"

      The 'LIFE' sentence is unprecedented in Jersey? when far more serious abuses go unpunished.

      I don't actually want Bartlett to "rot in jail". That is inhumane. Surely chemical or medical castration would enable him to be rehabilitated safely into the community. Perhaps serious abusers should be offered that choice?

      This suggestion is controversial but paedophilia appears to be otherwise untreatable.
      This is not just a challenge for Jersey. It is a challenge for Europe and the wider world
      Civilised society needs an effective treatment because releasing offenders to re-offend is a cop out. This cop out fails our children again and again.

      Would giving the offender the choice between "effective treatment" and extended incarceration get round ECtHR and some ethical concerns?

      Delete
  14. Yes, the person who says 'Isn't Josephine Olsson airing the same concerns about child protection/safety, that Stuart Syvret was also airing 8 years ago' is right. A relative of mine and some friends of mine were children who the Jersey system had let down. And we've never understood what the big deal was about what Stuart said. I want to ask whoever wrote that comment at 20:22 what they mean? How dare they try and put Stuart in the same category os le Cornu? I think that's a troll and I think we know who. My family never understood what was supposed to be wrong with what Stuart said & did. So spit it out then whoever says that? Enough with hints and whatever, put it in writing exactly what was wrong with what what Stuart did?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The idea that anyone who questions anything Stuart does is a troll tends to underline the point that I was trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 00:07 "The idea that anyone who questions anything Stuart does is a troll tends to underline the point that I was trying to make."

      That is the problem. What point were you trying to make?
      21:02 actually asks you what you mean:

      "A relative of mine and some friends of mine were children who the Jersey system had let down. And we've never understood what the big deal was about what Stuart said. I want to ask whoever wrote that comment at 20:22 what they mean? "

      In your waffle at 20:22 you say "It is great to see Rico challenging Stuart ........ Time to reassess who the enemy is"

      Right so the whistleblower Health Minister Stuart Syvret is the enemy???

      That does seem an odd suggestion from someone who is "not a troll" and appeals for "honest self awareness and criticism" on this blog

      Surely "honest self awareness and criticism" is what was lacking in our politicians in 2007 Stuart Syvret alerted them to the decades of child protection failings???
      and he was sacked and destroyed by them in direct consequence!

      Where is the "honest self awareness and criticism" from the JEP, BBC-Jersey and CTV?

      Has Stuart Syvret not been proved right time and again?
      even about this CoI:
      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      With the history of mindless establishment trolling on this island, is it surprising that those who make disruptive and pointless comments are suspected of ulterior motives, especially when they fail to effectively defend their assertions.

      Some of the protected establishment trolls are very unpleasant individuals:

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

      Delete
    2. Yes, that's what I meant yesterday. These people always saying 'Stuart shouldn't of said this, Stuart shouldn't have said that, if only Stuart had been more reasonable, if only he was more a team player, blah blah blah.' What annoys my family is that this is a fairy story that some people want to believe when there's no truth to it. We lived through those times and he was the only person who spoke out and did the tight thing. The only other politicians who were on the right side were the Pitmans. The rest of them were crap. All of them. We get angry with these trys to rewrite history. In 2007 and 2008 everything Stuart did was fine. Sure he got angry and some times said and wrote some hard things about the civil servants to blame and the other politicians who were cowards, but who can blame him by that stage? He'd exposed the child abuse cover ups and 99% of the tossers in the system were blocking him or failing to support him. He got angry and that's fine by us. These people who these days try to makeup history are just trying to cover their arses by saying 'oh we would have done the right thing if only Stuart had been more reasonable'. It's make believe and a load of boll*cks. So many of these people are looking for excuses now for not doing the right thing and the only lie they can come up with is try and say they would have done the right thing of only Stuart was more polite or some shit like that. That's why we say when we read or hear this stuff which trys to blame Stuart for the mass failure of nearly all the rest of our states members we say, tell us the facts? Give real examples from back in those days? They don;t because thay can't. 95 % of our politicians were complete crap and that fact is not Stuart's fault. It's their fualt.

      Delete
    3. Yes I agree. He knows those who still support him.

      Delete
    4. Well said @20:47

      For all their apparent intelligence and education, some people are easily led by state media and the JEP etc. Even now their prejudices against Stuart are so deeply ingrained that they cannot move beyond them.

      Some people do not have "the government they deserve" any more than they deserved to be maltreated and abused in the island's orphanages.

      "They don;t because thay can't. 95 % of our politicians were complete crap and that fact is not Stuart's fault. It's their fualt."

      Yes, the gullible and the moral cowards take the easy option of blaming the messenger (Ex.Health Minister Syvret) when it is in fact their own fault for supporting useless and self serving politician.
      IMO about 10% in/previously the States are OK. e.g.Tadier, Bob Hill and Higgins have/are *literally* fighting to the death.

      Some people follow the JEPaedo and fixate on a stupid but ultimately trivial tweet about Deputy Moore. Compare Moore's performance with Mike Higgins.

      Delete
    5. Largely agree and probably an oversight but any talk of those quality politicians who have fought for the victims and justice generally should always mention Daniel Wimberley and Trevor and Shona. The thing that is so depressing is that when you look back there have been so few of them.

      Delete

  16. On the same subject, but different place, same religion.

    Third most powerful figure in the Vatican accused of child abuse.

    Guardian.

    News Corp Australia claims detectives from taskforce Sano have compiled a dossier containing allegations that Pell committed “multiple offences” when he was a priest in Ballarat, a town in the state’s west, and also when he was working as the archbishop of Melbourne.

    Cardinal Pell is seen within the Vatican as a key promoter of Pope Francis’s reform agenda, particularly on issues of financial transparency and the Vatican bank. In this regard, the staunchly conservative cardinal is an ally of the pope,

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/19/cardinal-george-pell-hits-back-at-claims-he-is-under-investigation-over-child-abuse-allegations

    ReplyDelete
  17. Did anyone notice that Mario Lundy is named in Lenny Harper's statement as having been accused of assaults, i.e. his name was not redacted?

    ReplyDelete
  18. ^ now that I think of it, he was previously named in a brief CTV report as having been accused of assaults, so that's probably why inquiry didn't feel need to redact his name in Harper's statement.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also from Lenny's statement:

    "Sir Digby Jones was the guest speaker at this event (from
    CBI) and at one point as we left the dinner room he approached and quietly
    said to me 'You're doing a good job, but watch those bastards' (I presume
    referring to the Jersey Government or some of those present)."

    ReplyDelete
  20. It still appears that the Jersey Politico-Legal system is determined to find ways of punishing dissenters

    http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/bizarre-and-factually-incorrect-suspended-lawyer-slams-disciplinary-process/#.Vsq5x32LRR0
    (Sinel has just lost his appeal)

    Sinel: “This case is a worrying development for lawyers, investors and litigants alike. This will not affect our ability or desire to provide robust advice and representation to our clients. We have brought the litigation to a successful conclusion for our clients.”

    Advocate Philip Sinel has "displeased" the Jersey authorities on a number of occasions, from winning the Cantrade fraud case to giving these interviews, regarding a previous victimisation:


    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html


    VFC, didnt you also do a couple of blogs on representations Advocate Sinel had made detailing the dysfunctions and structural weakness in the Jersey legal system?

    The vulnerable on this island remain in danger because the same shysters are still running the "show", complete with show trials.

    Sinel brought the stalled case to s successful conclusion for his wronged client.
    The client was so dismayed by the Jersey judicial system that it made a complaint to the UK Ministry of Justice.

    Surely the Establishment's Advocate Baker did far worse in one of the show trials against Ex.Health Minister Syvret?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re:

      "VFC, didn't you also do a couple of blogs on representations Advocate Sinel had made detailing the dysfunctions and structural weakness in the Jersey legal system?"

      Philip Sinel's submission to the CARSWELL REVIEW.

      Delete
  21. Are they trying to put potential clients off of using Sinels company by not allowing the verdict the client is looking for therefore trying to do a Syvret/Pitman & potential Higgins scenario to put financial pressure on Sinel

    ReplyDelete
  22. Any chance of some direct, click links to the highlighted Sinel material?

    As for the Advocate himself fortunately being a longtime practitioner on the outrageously over priced Jersey legal gravy train he will have a lot more cash to play with than working class politicians like Pitman and Syvret.

    Not an attack just reality. Jersey's extortionate 'legal' system needs investigating and fees reduced and capped by about 75%.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tomorrows States Sitting:
    STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY
    *
    The Chief Minister will make a statement regarding the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry. Anyone, any idea of what the Chief Minister's statement will be about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could the Anonymous commentor above possibly let us know where he got the information that this statement related to the Care Inquiry?

      The Order Paper for today does not indicate what it is concerning.

      Thank you

      Delete
    2. Jill.

      It is on the consolidated order paper HERE.

      Delete
    3. Item "K" on page 6

      "STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

      * The Chief Minister will make a statement regarding the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry"




      Note –
      An asterisk * in the left-hand margin denotes either a new item added to this Order Paper since the principal Order Paper was published on 18th February 2016, or an item which has been altered or moved.

      Who will be in the chair and WILL QUESTIONS BE PERMITTED ?

      Delete
    4. Isn't TJW a member of Team Voice now

      Any chance of a recording of the debate and "Questions without answers"

      Delete
  24. "The Chief Minister will make a statement (on a matter of official responsibility) regarding the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry. Anyone, any idea of what the Chief Minister's statement will be about?"

    No, but the statement should be:

    Chief Minister will announce/propose that the States of Jersey sue Eversheds for malpractice and incompetence and reclaim the 16 million wasted (plus costs) on the unfit "CARE" Inquiry.

    The States will then form a proper, legal and human rights compliant ABUSE INQUIRY, intending to find the truth, not hide it. And particularly charged with ensuring that children will be protected in the future by robust and clear systems and by the proper rule of law.

    Not going to happen is it?
    Not til millions more have been spent on cover up and the island has been through the wringer a few more times.

    Where is the leadership?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Spotted in de Gruchy's after this mornings States session, Ian Gorst, Andrew Green and 'Brown-Nose' Murray Norton!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OOps - apologies! 'Twas Peter Mac, not Norton.

      Same difference I guess.

      Delete
  26. The statement from the CM regarding the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry was about giving 1.8M extra funding to the "hard working" Lawyers.
    Never mind, thought it might have been the CM censuring Andrew Lewis and apologising to Graham Power.

    ReplyDelete
  27. VFC, catching up with things I gather that Jersey's only newspaper published a leader comment a few days ago which was supposedly very critical of your former politician Andrew Lewis who unproperly suspended your chief of police at the height of the child abuse investigation in Jersey. Has that editorial comment been reproduced in your comments or any where else it can be easily read? I haven't been able to find a full or legible copy anywhere and I'm most certainly not subscribing to your rag in order to read it. Can you or some other Jersey bloggers post it somewhere? I'm curious about the paper editorial comment as I just can't bring myself to believe it was a serious criticism of Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I threw mine out, unfortunately. It was worth a read. I'm sure the Jersey library will have a copy. I think the date was 17th, 18th or 19th February 2016.

      Delete
    2. I have a copy which I could scan and send. It was indeed an excellent editorial. If you wish to remain Anonymous, if would care to contact VFC with contact details in confidence I will happily let you have a copy.

      Delete
  28. The whitewash across the water

    www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3455604/BBC-s-Savile-sex-abuse-probe-waited-THREE-YEARS-talk-key-witness-unmasked-presenter-serial-paedophile-rapist.html#comments

    "An 'independent' inquiry into sex abuse at the BBC has been branded a farce after it failed to interview the key whistleblower until more than three years of investigations had taken place.
    The BBC commissioned retired judge Dame Janet Smith to conduct a 'thorough' review in 2012 but she had no contact with Karin Ward until January – just weeks before its publication next Thursday.
    Miss Ward, 57, was one of the first to publicly unmask Jimmy Savile as a serial paedophile and rapist"

    www.exaronews.com/content/child-sex-abuse-fernbridge-and-fairbank-exaro-story-thread

    ReplyDelete
  29. This should be the page with the Lewis editorial . I am sure someone can link.

    http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?EID=96e930ac-3662-4b59-95e2-3f11ae91701d&pnum=10

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cancel last post the JEP deadwood press converts it to a marketing opportunity!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rico will hopefully be publishing the editorial on his Blog tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Still no interview with Andrew Lewis regarding his performance at the coi by the bbc jersey who vilified Zoe camron for three hours the day after. Is this man ever going to get the Zoe treatment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is [Andrew Lewis] ever going to get the Zoe treatment?"

      Probably not while the BBC remains the captured "State Broadcaster".
      Lewis can (and in the fullness of time will) bring down the rest of the government. The BBC remains part of the cover up.

      I hear rumours that Zoe Camron is a waste of space but she may be being targeted if she has a genuine interest in child protection (wasn't it a child protection related conference she was missing the hospital debate for?)

      Also she has questioned to what extent a new hospital is needed.
      Replacing/upgrading the hospital management would be much cheaper and might be more beneficial.

      Being attacked by the establishment may indicate that she is one of the good guys (or perhaps she was just being used in a classic opinion management distraction technique @BBC).
      If she has anything to say, would she perhaps like to do an interview with Team Voice?

      Delete
    2. Without a doubt Zoe has been targeted, it has been coming for some time it was also a rather convenient distraction from the Andrew Lewis debacle. I believe she has more than a passing interest in child protection she is passionate about it, training G.P's and lecturing on the subject in particular the impact of abuse on survivors mental health. There must be many people on this island who have heard her speak and benefited from her knowledge.

      Delete
    3. The Syvret, Pitmans, Higgins treatment to a degree I'll acknowledge. But Zoe is hardly a threat like these guys. Just a convenient distraction from dealing with Andrew Lewis.

      Delete
    4. @ "[Zoe C is] Just a convenient distraction from dealing with Andrew Lewis"

      No it is more than that.

      Syvret, Pitman T and Pitman S went into politics in order to be a "a threat" to the bad guys
      (rightly it turns out!)

      Higgins and Zoe Cameron are very much Professional Middle Jersey and have been moved into action by their knowledge and what they see around them -while most of their colleagues hide under the blanket (some quaking with fear, some counting the money)

      So "BBC Jersey ... vilified Zoe Cameron for three hours" on a trivial non-story. So trivial that despite the diversionary fanfare there is NOTHING online on the "story" on the BBC website!
      For the BBC this may be deliberate because they get to stick the knife in but leave no online evidence. They cover their tracks.

      Zoe Cameron turns out to be quite the campaigner. She IS a threat to the ruling shysters because of the unauthorised things she has been saying.
      ZC is so very different from Syvret but I was taken aback by the similarity of their twitter feeds: https://twitter.com/zoeanncam & https://twitter.com/StuartSyvret

      The BBC's diversionary hatchet job was particularly targeted at Zoe Cameron because she has just nailed her colours to the mast:
      www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-02-11/exclusive-abuse-survivors-in-jersey-are-taking-their-own-lives-because-of-a-lack-of-support/

      "Unless there's going to be some meaning to it [the investigation and CoI], and some worth, so if nothing comes of it there could be quite crushing disappointment felt among all of those who have opened their hearts and are hoping that some good could come of it.
      [yes] I think it already has [led to suicide]. I don't know how many lives, but certainly the suicide rate went up during the police inquiry. I don't know what the current suicide rate is this year, but I get the sense there are lives being lost currently as a result of past abuse still not being addressed and lessons still not being learned."
      – SENATOR ZOE CAMERON [MD]

      Zoe Cameron is saying that the children who were so appallingly let down in States "care" are now being let down by inadequate adult survivor provision and that this is leading to deaths year after year.
      Cameron is backed up in what she is saying by the NSPCC

      An unusually good investigation by ITV News, who add: If you’ve been affected by any of the issues raised in our investigation, there are a number of expert agencies you can contact.

      The Samaritans Phone 08457 90 90 90 or email jo@samaritans.org

      Mind Phone: 0300 123 3393

      Childline Phone: 0800 1111


      I would add to that list
      Jersey Action Against Rape 01534 482800 help@jaar.je

      JAAR have been counselling Jersey care abuse victims (historic & recent) and it would be useful to have feedback on the quality of their service.

      Delete
    5. www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-02-11/suicide-investigation-gary-burgess-blog/

      "ITV News reporter Gary Burgess shares some observations about producing his special investigation about suicide and abuse survivors.

      They want to be called survivors. They hate being called victims. They’ve survived abuse, they’ve got their lives on track, they’re living, here, now.

      But for some, that journey isn’t an easy one, and whether it’s a particular moment of crisis or an ongoing sense that life just isn’t worth living, they need the support of health professionals.

      The message I received again and again is that the support just isn’t good enough.

      The people working in the mental health service are all doing their best, but they’re stretched to the limit, there’s no slack in the system.

      It all means, for some, suicide is their answer.

      But suicide is a tragic waste of life and an avoidable loss. The one thing I really picked up on through my investigation is the devastating impact it has on those bereaved.

      So what is the response of Jersey’s health service? Well I was surprised at the apparent lack of urgency to offer me access to the people who make key decisions about the island’s mental health provision. That they didn’t want the Health Minister live in our studio (the offer we made on Tuesday morning ahead of a Thursday evening broadcast). I was told that, as he was attending a public meeting at 7.30pm tonight he’d be busy preparing for that.

      That’s his choice, but it chimes with the impression I’ve been given time and time again that the “feudal” and “hierarchical” management structure of the health service is removed from what’s really going on on the front line.

      ........................."


      WHY are we even talking about spending hundreds of millions on a new hospital id we have not sorted out a management which is FEUDAL and HIERARCHICAL ??????

      Delete
    6. Andrew Lewis' crossed fingers behind his back25 February 2016 at 13:42

      And when you consider Stuart, Shona And Trevor, three of the most honest, hardworking people to ever get elected you see what happens to genuine 'threats' to the system...

      Delete
  33. Still the best blog and journalism in the Septic Isle. Keep up the good work. Judging from completely dead apart from lonely trolls JEP site also still the most accessed on line resource as well. Keep up the great work you are a national treasure.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have followed this whole Saga from the very point when Stuart stated he had no confidence in child protection in this Island of ours. What has made me feel totally ashamed to be a Jersey man is having to try to explain to outsiders the pathetic, mind numbing scumbag lying cretins we have as so called senior Islanders. I will say this, I have voted all my life but I will never vote again in Jersey, and God help any of my own local Deputy and Constable if they ever come knocking at my door come the next election. One final point and it is this, millions have been spent on this Child Abuse Inquiry (most of the money unsurprisingly straight into the pockets of the lawyers. But as a taxpayer who has footed the cost I most sincerely hope that not only will the final report give closure to the many victims but it will also robustly state what went wrong and what MUST be done to put things right. One thing is for sure I fully expect to be able to obtain a copy of the report and that copy will be provided to me at NO COST!!! as I have already paid for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A heartfelt comment at 19:56 which some may feel too strong, but others, even some 'senior Islanders', might be open to, but feel this state of affairs is 'not their problem', and are sitting back and waiting, as many of them have been doing for some years now, for some 'higher authority' to clean up this mess. Even 'senior Islanders' fall into the trap of thinking there are other 'senior Islanders' above and beyond them, who will 'have things under control'.

      And that is the fatal mistake the Jersey 'establishment' has made and is still making in these years. There is 'no one in control'. There is 'no leadership'. The destiny of Jersey has been as a rudderless ship at the mercy of a storm. Until someone from within the establishment rises up and causes the rule of law to cleanse our community of the likes of the Bailhache brothers and all their associated contaminations we're doomed to hit the rocks.

      A Jersey conservative.

      Delete
  35. I expect many of your readers VFC have followed closely the publication of the Report by the Dame Janet Smith Review. There are serious question-marks over that Report, and no doubt in the coming days and weeks the national debate will focus on those issues.

    The point I wanted to make concerned the sacking of BBC disk-jockey Tony Blackburn, and the implications of that action and the contrast which will be drawn in due course with your polity in Jersey and the case of the disgraced politician Andrew Lewis.

    It’s important we be exact about the supposed reason for sacking Blackburn. He has been sacked, not because he was found guilty of sexual impropriety, but specifically because the BBC had to confront the fact that the testimony given by Blackburn to the DJSR was simply not compatible with the actual, documented, evidenced facts in possession of the DJSR. What the BBC Director General has said is that the ‘standard of testimony given by Blackburn to the DJSR did not meet the standards expected of BBC staff’, or words to that effect.

    What has happened is that Blackburn made repeated and unambiguous assertions in testimony to the DJSR which appeared to be untrue in the face of significant amounts of other evidence. The implication being he was, let’s say, ‘inexact with the actuality’ – in a very brazen way – and that his credibility was therefore destroyed.

    Obviously, the BBC as an organisation, its credibility already savaged, would have faced an impossible task had it even attempted to keep employing Blackburn under such circumstances.

    The position of Tony Blackburn, in that issues of his testimony to the DJSR being non-credible, is very analogous to the position of former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. The former Minister has made repeated and unambiguous assertions to your public inquiry, which, like Blackburn’s assertions to the DJSR, are simply not faintly credible when held alongside the relevant known documented facts.

    OK, in the case of Lewis we’re dealing with an elected politician, not an employee, so in terms of what action could and should be taken, we’re dealing with different issues, but the problem the Jersey authorities face is analogous, and just huge. Simply huge.

    My understanding is that there is actually legal precedent for members of your parliament to be stripped of office. (I’m sure if I’m wrong someone will say so.) But there’s a more basic test than that, which is what is the internal disciplinary body of your parliament, your ‘Privileges & Procedures Committee’ going to do or say in response to the Andrew Lewis situation?

    It seems pretty clear looking in from the outside what your parliament’s disciplinary and standards committee has to do, in due course.

    It would be interesting to know what other readers of this blog think?

    A London Observer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "what is the internal disciplinary body of your parliament, your ‘Privileges & Procedures Committee’ going to do or say in response to the Andrew Lewis situation?"

      PPC has known about Andrew Lewis' "discrepancies" for quite some time and has chosen to turn a BLIND EYE.

      What are they going to do or say in response to the Andrew Lewis situation? Not a damn thing and "The Jersey Way" will trundle on as it always has. The children of this island will be no safer at the end of the COI than they were back in the 1900's. That is truly frightening and sad........yet very true.

      Delete
    2. I see the Tony Blackburn case rather differently than you.
      I think the current BBC management has been caught up in the earlier management's cover up.
      There seems to be a redacted memo that claims that 2 now deceased men interviewed TB.
      Why would TB lie about it. If he said "Yes that's correct, I was interviewed" he is completely in the clear, with no possibility of any contradiction.
      Maybe the 2 men charged with the investigation went to see JS and said, "keep your head down for a couple of weeks Jim, we're investigating you". Later they say we have interviewed everyone and found nothing.

      Delete
  36. Q. "which is what is the internal disciplinary body of your parliament, your ‘Privileges & Procedures Committee’ going to do or say in response to the Andrew Lewis situation?"

    A. simple... NOTHING

    Did you thing we were a democracy with proper checks and balances?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sod Privileges & Procedures. If Andrew Lewis has blatantly lied under oath he should go to jail for perjury.

      So the question is "what is Frances Oldham QC going to do or say in response to the Andrew Lewis situation?"

      Probably nothing because the her CoI is a farce. Their final report will probably say that they accept that Andrew Lewis was acting in good faith and there is no evidence that he intentionally misled....

      How many coats of "Eversheds® Whitewash" do they think they will need to cover this up?

      Delete
    2. Frances Oldham's action (or inaction) is getting to be a common theme of discussion. As is comparison to the BBC's sacking of Tony Blackburn for submission untenable evidence to the Dame Janet Smith Hall/Savile Inquiry.

      Here is a short piece by Dr. Mark Forskitt http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/183217.html

      "Dame Janet Smith & the BBC:

      Listening to the initial fall out of Dame Janet Smith's report on how Hall & Savile were able to operate so long has been interesting. Predictably the people who were paid the most to be responsible at the top were not on the hook - it was all middle managers. That is not what being responsible means. The reportage was clear that there were many failings at the organisation and there was a pervasive culture of fear and deference. Is this sounding vaguely familiar yet?

      The treatment of DJ Tony Blackburn is most noteworthy. The chair refused to accept his evidence that a meeting never occurred, when documentary evidence had been seen that showed it had. As a result he is no longer at the BBC since his 'evidence had fallen short of the standard required'. The parallel to a former minister testifying that his actions were based on a report that I believe could not have been read at the time as he claims is clear to me. Whether the CoI will accept the former Home Affairs Minister testimony is yet to be seen - I think that won't come out until the conclusion of the hearings.

      I note the repercussions of the testimony of actions of Deputy Lewis are far more significant that those of Mr Blackburn's. Lying to the Assembly over the dismissal of the Chief of Police gets right to the heart of constitutional matters. This is no small matter. Frances Oldham QC will be under the spotlight on this. It is probably the lynchpin that distinguishes the two narratives that have been presented. Pulling on the right loose thread leads to the whole garment unravelling. That's what the chair needs to do - pull the loose threads so we can see the naked truth."


      Of course we require ALL the plumbs on skewers, not just one little head on a plate.

      Delete
    3. "Andrew Lewis ....should go to jail for perjury"

      Andrew Lewis and his co-conspirators should go to jail for the UNLAWFUL suspension of the legitimate Chief of Police.
      Is there a crime more serious than the hijack of the policing function -the theft of justice itself?

      Delete
  37. VFC you mentioned above that the official comment by the Jersey newspaper concerning the constitutionally significant undermining of a major police investigation into child-abuse by a politician, and that politician then having lied about it, was going to be published on one of the blogs soon. I haven't seen it yet? Do you know if it's going to posted by the bloggers soon?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jersey should be added to the list in this catalogue of shame.

    The Guardian: Shocked by the BBC Savile report? Prepare for more of the same
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/25/shocked-bbc-savile-report-prepare-more-of-the-same

    Aside from the obvious horrors mentioned in the article, one standout statistic is this:

    "If Goddard can do anything in her mammoth £17.9m inquiry over the next five years..."

    The obvious question is, how come Justice Goddard can run a five year inquiry in London with £17.9m when Jersey's shorter and smaller inquiry is already budgeted to cost £23m?

    I should add that I am a vocal supporter of the Jersey Care Inquiry and am very angry that its cost overruns have mostly been caused by legal cover-ups orchestrated by our own government, its civil servants and its lawyers.

    Either Justice Goddard has vastly underestimated her budget, or the people of Jersey have been well and truly ripped off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First line from your link:

      "A hierarchical organisation, overseeing a climate of fear, where the overriding concern is to protect reputation rather than investigate the sexual abuse of children and young people."

      Applies equally to Jersey!

      Do you really think anything will be different after this CoI ???

      Delete
  39. Saw Andrew Lewis on TV news being interviewed about airline expenses... I wasnt left thinking £13000 was a lot of money for flights, but why is this man still acting as spokesmen for the government. Didn't get the impression he was fearing for this job or Liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw Andrew Lewis on TV news being interviewed about airline expenses .......Didn't get the impression he was fearing for this job or Liberty"

      Lewis on TV is a clear signal from the establishment and state media that it is "business as usual"
      Lewis is being deliberately rehabilitated in the minds of the thick Jersey electorate. It has worked before and it will work again. There will be no consequences for participating in what must be one of the most serious crimes imaginable. The HIJACK of the actual Police Force.

      A crime that inevitably leads to innumerable other crimes and their cover up.

      Children and the vulnerable are no safer this century than last.

      Delete
    2. You may be right... but I'm no body's fool... lets hope the rest of Jersey wake up in this regard and stop electing these idiots.

      Delete
  40. VFC, may I leave a question for Stuart Syvret on your blog please? On his twitter feed, he tweeted (about the Verita report) earlier this evening

    "Remarkable; I had similar experience as Health & Social Services Minister in Jersey. Unexpected death of a patient.. "
    "@ShaunLintern ...."investigation" was "overseen" by "investigator" known to & called in by a key conflicted party. Couldn't make it up."

    Would Stuart mind identifying the investigator and the conflicted party please? I would be most interested in understanding any such relationships. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. RE. discusssion above (24 February 2016 at 12:19) about the targetting of Dr. Zoe Cameron by state media for being "off message" about Jersey child protection and mental health provision and the Hospital Replacement.
    Looks like we need to cut the dead wood out of management and target investment better:

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3980.msg60706#msg60706

    "As a member of staff at the hospital I will comment from the front line. Here a few obvious changes that our glorious members have not made because apparently it costs too much.

    The Island GP practices have the best IT system and are now note free, for some reason our hospital didn't buy in. Instead we have a system everyone - except management, loathe. Our learned leaders will not spend money on updating, but instead do sticking plasters on an existing system which is not fit for purpose.

    Yes we need a new hospital, but where they should be spending money is technology. If we spent money on that, patients could come in and go through a 1st class technological look-see, i.e radiology and biopsies. I believe one exists in Liverpool courtesy of Sir Paul - you go in and come out the other end with all the results in front of you - why can't we do that?

    Expensive consultants have had to cancel clinics (or lessen them) to discuss complete bulshit (my own take on this) with management. End result is management come before patients

    We don't need much extra space, but with the right technology we could stay where we are and we just need to update everything - sure be cheaper than buying up land. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey's civil service is still way out of control

      Posted on the New Hospital thread:

      http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=sc1el7vi7r5im1jsu265j9aa81&topic=3980.msg60708#msg60708

      RE "civil servants who spent £15k flying business class ......
      It states in the government rule book that civil servants should only travel economy unless they want to pay the difference themselves."

      So is the balance of this £15k going to be recovered from the offending civil servants?

      In the private sector fiddling/rule-breaking on expenses is likely to lead to dismissal

      Delete

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