Chief Minister John Le Fondre
Part two of our exclusive interview with the Chief Minister is a direct continuation of part one. In part two we ask such questions as "who is the opposition in the States now that the opposition has been recruited by the Establishment?" Was this a genuine move on the Chief Minister's behalf to finally have a more inclusive government or was it a cynical move in order to silence the opposition? Is Reform Jersey (Jersey's only political party) now the Establishment? Who, in the States Chamber, with any political experience, and who are not members of the Establishment Party, is left to scrutinise what the government is doing?
Regular readers will be aware from our INTERVIEW with Children's and Housing Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, that he (Senator Mezec) agreed to adopt the terminology suggested by The National Association of People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) when referring to child abuse to use the term "non recent" rather than the derogatory and offensive term "historic." We are pleased to report that the Chief Minister has also agreed to adopt this terminology from NAPAC media GUIDELINES. We hope that others will follow suit and in particular the mainstream media who even refer to present day Child Abuse as "historic." This BLOG POSTING explains, from the perspective of Survivor/Abusee Tom Perry the word "historic" is used and who uses it.
We go on to ask the Chief Minister what can we expect from his government that is different from any other government we have had? Can there be any much needed change or is it just the same old with different faces? Only time will tell.
We would like to thank the Chief Minister for his support of Citizen's Media and in particular for the positive feedback of (and during) our interview/Blog. He believes we are a force for good in holding power and the mainstream media to account.
Part one of our interview can be viewed HERE.
Full marks for getting your foot in the door at this early stage and for getting the CM on the record as supporting serious social media. Perhaps he could have a word with Crown Officer Bailhache and get him to moderate his recently expressed illiberal views. Not that his views are any surprise but are non the less dangerous for that. It was his brother, after all, who pulled the mic on Stuart Syvret and the administration have been attempting to minimise the scandal of child abuse ever since.
ReplyDeleteYour point about scrutiny is well taken. Dissent around the cabinet table is not a substitute for forensic scrutiny which is open to the public. I know that the rule on cabinet collegiality has been modified but the point still stands.
I know you were pushed for time and subject to distraction but I'd just like to add Trevor to the Scrutiny hall of fame while I'm at it.
Glad you got sorted back online. I was getting worried there for a while. As we know, Blogger has its glitches and I'm glad it was just one of those and nothing more sinister.
Polo.
DeleteThanks for your support but the reason I didn't include Trevor in the legendary scrutineers is because the point I was making is that of current able scrutineers.
I am still unable to leave comments through my google account but am able to do everything else as though I was signed in.
Fair point re Trevor. Musta got distracted myself. Anyway he's now got a mention.
DeleteThe Google/Blogger distinction clearly has its pitfalls. I'm trying to stay clear of it. Touch wood.
Trevor was the Chairman of a Scrutiny Panel who produced a document that has been described as "The most defining report of a generation." It can be viewed from HERE..
DeleteI don't doubt there are some capable Scrutiny Members in the States now but I'm not so sure there are any with the "Testicular Fortitude" of Big Trev and able, or willing, to produce such a hard hitting investigative document/report as he, and his panel did.
Firstly VFC, if I may say how lucky we are to have someone of your calibre conducting these interviews (so well) and your concentrating on all the issues that still abound in Jersey.
ReplyDeleteI do feel a wee bit more comfortable with the CM after this second interview, albeit his approach is still very measured which I guess is not bad thing. On balance maybe it is better for him to err on the side of caution. Tome will tell. It may be useful if you were able to have this access to him on a regular basis (say quarterly) to gauge just how far he has moved on?
I may just be able to jump down on one side of the fence then.
Seen this?
ReplyDeletehttps://unknownjerseyci.blogspot.com/
I wasn't aware of the Blogsite LINK.
DeleteNow that I am I shall add it to the Blog-list situated on the left hand side of the page. I am a supporter of Ms. O'Conor's work (I am assuming she is the administrator of the Blog) and might get to interview her one day.
Not sure but Cheyenne works with a number of silent people including Decoys in the UK like Dark Light.
DeleteAwesome Blog though and its time the Courts upped the sentences.
12 in a year is bad.
VFC, I have caught up with a very important exchange of comments under the second part of your interview with Sam Mezec, and I think they should be reproduced here. I'll copy & paste them if that's ok. The first was a question to Sam Mezec, the second is his answer, and the third was the answer to Sam. I'll copy them in three following comments.
ReplyDeleteAs per my previous comment, here are the questions to Sam.
ReplyDelete'VFC may I raise a few issues with Senator Mezec through your invaluable independent media?
Senator Mezec, I in common with many other Jersey child abuse survivors was persuaded to settle for a public inquiry instead of our attackers and the criminals who covered up for them facing justice.
The inquiry ended up costing tax payers about £25 million.
But where is the product of that money? The facts, evidence and archive of experiences and testimony which was published? It was taken down, 'de-published' as some have said, during the middle of the summer break so most will not have been aware of the secrecy being applied to what was supposed to be 'the answer' to the Jersey child abuse nightmare.
The excuses by the establishment for this unprecedented act were clearly lies. Don't try lying to child abuse survivors. We see everything now. It is claimed that there were some 'data protection issues', and that the archive of the public inquiry needed 'cataloguing'. Even if those excuses were true (which they're not) correcting a few data protection issues, and cataloguing would take a few weeks. But the establishment has said they won't make the archive of the public inquiry public again for 1 and a half years.
Come on? This is a disgrace. We're not fools. We see why this has been done. Because it makes it easier for the lawyers on both sides to stitch up the survivors now they've seen how we were betrayed by the States compensation scheme, we were given peanuts compared to the 2 victims seeking £190 million. We too had our lives destroyed. We too need lifelong support, therapy and care (those of us still alive).
What about Les Chenes victims? Now it's 10 years overdue that lawyer has suddenly decided to get tough on our behalf. But how can we be clear about what the evidence shows, and understand things, see how much our experiences were shared by others, see how much of a deliberate cover up it all was, and instruct our lawyers accordingly, if the evidence archive of the COI is now taken down? How can any of us writing our books be expected to do that properly when the evidence has been made secret by the States?
The secrecy is just outrageous. I know from speaking with other survivors that unless the evidence is put back, we will be denouncing the public inquiry process. Like many have said here, it will be a fake.
Senator Mezec, there is no credible reason for making secret the archive of the public inquiry a year after it was completed. We won't be treated like fools anymore. We know the reason the public inquiry archive has been taken down is to disadvantage and handicap us in our continuing battle for justice. Applying secrecy to the material of the public inquiry is a direct attack on Jersey abuse victims, and a dangerous and threatening step against vulnerable children today. All of that evidence needs to remain public to deter child abusers and deter those who cover up for child abusers.
Senator Mezec will you demand the immediate restoration of the public inquiry archive?
Thank you.'
Here is Sam's reply.
ReplyDelete'The reasons given for the removal of information from the IJCI website are accurate. Whilst archiving all of the documents, they discovered that there was inconsistent redacting methods used, which meant that it could be possible to compare two versions of the same document submitted and cross reference it to another source to discover what was redacted. This meant there was a chance that identities could be revealed which ought to stay confidential (including of victims and survivors). There is no evidence that anyone had taken advantage of this flaw though.
All of the information will be put back in the public domain once it is fixed and this is due to start happening soon. If it was simple enough to have taken a few weeks, then it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
As for the victims from Les Chenes, the government has had to take legal advice to establish what the best way of ensuring they are supported is, and these proposals will come to the Council of Ministers soon, to hopefully be implemented before the end of the year. It is sad and disappointing that it has taken so long, and they do not deserve to have waited for so long, but unfortunately it wasn't quite as simple as just re-opening the previous compensation scheme.'
...And here is a reply to Sam left earlier today.
ReplyDelete'I believe you are sincere Senator Mezec, and have reported honestly what you have been told. However, what you have been told are lies. In spite of everything there are still some brave whistleblowers who know of events re Jersey and I know the truth from reliable sources. And if I may respectfully say so, you exhibit some significant naivety in swallowing what you have been fed. For example, simply reflect on the fact this action of the Jersey authorities is without public administration precedent in modern British history. The removal from publication of the archive of a public inquiry. This has never been done before. In the case of any British public inquiry. So let us deal with what is known from appropriate sources. The Jersey establishment has at known motivations (in addition to unknown motivations) in depublishing the public inquiry. 1stly, advice and opinion has circulated in expert circles in London for many months that the Jersey public inquiry had no credibility, for multiple grounds, and could not be successfully defended should it and the material generated, or any UK citing thereof, come under the scrutiny of any legitimate judicial tribunal. (This is recognised to cause huge long term problems for the credibility/viability of IICSA and to place a huge hostage to fortune over the statement to the Commons made by then Home Secretary Theresa May when she excluded events involving Jersey from IICSA and justified that bizarre exclusion by naming 'the Oldham Review' and claiming its work would be sufficient to inform the IICSA process. It isn't.) 2ndly, the case of the 'Family x' 2 victims and the sums rightly being claimed for them have thrown the existing Jersey 'redress scheme' and the paltry sums issued under it into a harsh spotlight. Survivors who were previously conned into settling for, for example £11,000, are asking very serious questions and were examining the evidence archive closely. 3rdly, the very obvious question is now being asked by many observers given all that is known, 'why were there no prosecutions for all of the abuse, and for the criminal conduct engaged in in the cover ups in respect of the Les Chenes / Greenfields child abuse, and likewise, the dramatically evidenced Blanch Pierre child abuse? 4thly, given the clear catastrophic failure of Jersey's prosecution system, why did 'the Oldham Review', to use the term given to it by the now Prime Minister when Home Secretary, fail to carry out its legislative instruction to publicly inquire into the Jersey prosecution decisions, and instead pay a private businessman for an unscrutinised and unexamined 'opinion' that everything in the garden was rosy? (This is recognised as one of the most serious and indefensible flaws of the Jersey inquiry.) 6thly Why has it taken 12 years before either the Jersey authorities, or the survivors own lawyers, to start recognising the fact that the Les Chenes victims and others had an open and shut case against the Jersey authorities, and should be compensated and supported and helped? Do not underestimate the seriousness of this point. There are people who have needlessly suffered for a further decade, and a number of people who are now dead because of the harm and damage they suffered, who almost certainly would still be alive today if they had been rescued from their suffering promptly instead of some grudging recognition 12 years after the States of Jersey was stripped of any excuse for ignorance and of failure to act. 7thly all of the above equals 'panic' (scarcely disguised panic from what my sources say) and a desperate need for 'breathing space', for the Jersey & London authorities to give them time to try and think of a strategy to dig out of the hopeless mess they've put themselves in.'
Thank you so much for re-posting that.
DeleteThe boat has to be rocked to shake this out
I hope that Sam can wise-up and man-up
Regarding mention of former St Helier Deputy Trevor 'Big Trev' Pitman the man will always be a legend.Why do you think he and his good lady rebel wife will still be illegally banned from standing even in 2022!?
ReplyDeleteFace it, our modern day people's politicians are Establishment lite. Not a peep out of any of the about this. Shame you didn't ask Bailiff butt-kissers Le Fondre about it. We now have Corporate Jersey. The game is up for democracy.
Chatting with lawyer colleagues from Jersey just recently. Knowing my keen interest in the Jersey situation the two lawyers independently of one another both brought to my attention the speech made by the Jersey 'Bailiff' William Bailhache during your court's annual gathering at which they & most Jersey lawyers were present. It was most noteworthy that both said they 'inwardly cringed' at the attack on journalism made by Bailhache. Both also said that in private discussions afterwards 95% of lawyers were condemnatory of William Bailhache's conduct and words. He has no meaningful support from your island's legal profession, and most are of the view he cannot retire one moment too soon. I don't have access to the speech (perhaps you do?) so I can't quote from it, but the feedback I have is that there's pretty much a universal view amongst Jersey's lawyers that the man's a nutcase and a most serious threat to the 'stability and economy of Jersey'. They apparently see his behaviour as the greatest threat to their livelihoods.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone else shed some light on the speech?
Have reported on the speech HERE.
ReplyDelete