Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Scrutiny Call for Evidence.

IJCI

On the 3rd of July 2017 The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) delivered its damming REPORT on the decades of Child Abuse carried out in Jersey State run "care" homes and elsewhere across the island. The Panel, as part of its report, made 8 key recommendations which can be found in the link above or the shorter version can be read HERE.

In response to that report, and recommendations, a Scrutiny Sub Panel (The Care of Children in Jersey review Panel) was formed which is tasked with monitoring the Children's Minister's progress (or not) in implementing the 8 key recommendations of the IJCI. In December 2018 the Panel presented to the States its quarterly REPORT where it had set out its findings concerning the implementation (or not) of (IJCI) recommendations 1-4.

The Panel is now looking for evidence, from institutions and members of the public, from witnesses who have experience/knowledge of recommendations 5-8. The closing date for written submissions is this coming Friday 16th August 2019. Oral evidence can be given past this date. Its Terms of Reference, and contact details can be found HERE.

ITV/CTV

Some readers might (like myself) believe that all witnesses who gave evidence to the IJCI (like myself) will be receiving a letter from the Scrutiny Panel inviting them to make a submission/give evidence to it. This is because local (Old Media) ITV/CTV, who has a long history of broadcasting Fake News, told it viewer(s) this in a report last month. As I hadn't received a letter from the Panel I contacted them explaining I had given evidence to the IJCI HERE,  HERE, and HERE and not received an invitation (as reported by ITV/CTV) to give evidence to the panel. The Scrutiny Officer (who has been extremely helpful) told me:

"I’m afraid it was incorrectly reported that the Panel were writing to all those who gave evidence to the Inquiry."

I asked the Scrutiny Officer if he would contact ITV/CTV and suggest they broadcast a correction to its "incorrect reporting" because potential witnesses might believe, because they haven't received an invitation/letter from the Panel, they are not required to give evidence. The Scrutiny Officer told me that, after making contact with it, ITV/CTV will amend anything necessary on its website but would NOT broadcast a correction as I understand it. I explained to the Scrutiny Officer the long history of ITV/CTV's Fake News and in particular when it comes to do with anything about (Child)Abuse. I sent a link backing up (with hard evidence) the long and sordid history of ITV/CTV's Fake News reporting HERE to suggest, it is more likely than not, that the "misreporting" is more of a design than a mistake. No correction was broadcast (to the best of my knowledge).

In the hope of minimising the potential damage caused (again) by ITV/CTV and to, hopefully encourage witnesses to come forward, we asked Chairman of the Panel, Deputy Rob Ward if he would agree to an interview and explain what kind of evidence the panel is looking for and from whom. The Chairman was very accommodating, agreed to an interview (below) and answered our questions as best he could.

VFC's  interest primarily with recommendation 7 (The Jersey Way):

"13.18 "Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. This was well summarised in the contribution of a Phase 3 witness who told us:

“We (also) have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way.”

"13.19 That fear factor and lack of trust must be addressed, therefore we recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are out with our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports."(END)

"The Jersey Way" and "fear factor" are not exclusive to matters concerning Child Abuse and is the culture of those who run this Island, as in Crown Officers Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff and the Law Offices Department. People live in fear of retaliation/persecution if they speak up/out and we feel this is NOT being adequately (if at all) addressed and might prevent witnesses coming forward to give evidence to this panel's review. We have previously reported on recommendation 7 and explained (or former possibly illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power did) the far reaching (beyond Child Abuse) consequences of it HERE.

We asked Chairman Deputy Rob Ward, in regards to recommendation 7, if people have evidence of alleged political/judicial corruption, could they give this evidence to the panel/review? What assurances (if any) could he give those wishing to submit evidence that they won't become victims of "The Jersey way" and face persecution/retaliation? What "legal status" does people's written submissions have? Could the Attorney General's Office come after somebody for what they have written in their submission? The irony of that is, the Panel will no doubt be getting its advice from none other than....................The Attorney General's Office.

We thank Deputy Ward for the in-depth, exclusive, interview and hope that those who feel able, will make contact with the Panel (links provided above) and submit evidence. Not only on recommendation 7 but 5,6 and 8 also.


Sunday, 4 August 2019

Exclusive Interview with Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.


Trevor Pitman

Former Deputy Trevor Pitman will need no introduction to long-time readers/viewers of VFC or the local Blog scene. Trevor, along with his wife, former Deputy Shona Pitman, both represented St. Helier Districts 1 (Trevor) and 2 (Shona).

Both were outspoken critics of "The Jersey Way" or "THE JERSEY SITUATION" and inevitably/ironically/predictably both ended up victims of it. That story is well rehearsed and not for topic of this particular Blog Posting but will no doubt be discussed at a later date. In a nutshell both were made bankrupt in a politicised Jersey Court which automatically debars them from holding political office. Subsequently they lost their seats/jobs/house and were driven from the Island (The Jersey Way). But as discussed in the video interview below, if it turns out that half the Jersey politicians are potential criminals, (discrepancies with election expenses forms) then it is deemed by the Attorney General as "not in the public interest" to prosecute (The Jersey Way).

After being forced off the Island Trevor and Shona travelled Europe and have now settled in the UK.

During (and after) Trevor's time as a St. Helier Deputy he published his own Blog (which is still available in "My Blog-list" on the left-hand side of this Blog) Called THE BALD TRUTH which later became (also available in "My Blog-list) NOT THE STATE MEDIA.

Trevor took a (5 year) break from Blogging and, we are pleased to say, has decided to return and is launching a new Blogsite. The launch date is Wednesday 7th August 2019 and we will add it to "My Blog-list" as well as publish a link to it in the comments section of this posting.

With the launch of his new Blogsite in mind we interviewed Trevor a couple of days ago to ask, among much more, what topics will be covered? Has he been keeping an eye on "The Jersey Situation?" What does he think of the New States Assembly? Will he be reporting on the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) and the implementation  (or not) of its recommendations? We discussed how far forward (back) things have come (gone) since the IJCI published its REPORT and not surprisingly he was as disgusted as we are as to how far things have gone back as demonstrated by Home Affairs Minister LEN NORMAN.

We asked if "The Bald Truth Review" will be making a return? Long-time readers/viewers will remember Trevor would regularly publish a video with a round-up of current/political affairs which proved to be quite popular with his "LEEK OF THE WEEK" and "A TREAT FOR TROLLS" not forgetting his catchphrase "If you don't do politics, politics will do YOU."


William Bailhache

Further discussed in the interview below are subjects like "discrepancies" of the current Bailiff, and former Attorney General William Bailhache, concerning his "reason(s)" for not prosecuting an alleged prolific PEDOPHILE. Once more the "official line" does not stack up and has not been questioned by the Old Media (formerly known as MSM). We ask the former Deputy if he has plans of returning to Jersey politics? How the Jersey (so-called) "JUSTICE" system is used as a tool to silence political dissent(ers) and those who attempt to get "justice" for Abuse Survivors. How Survivors are palmed off with a couple of quid instead of "JUSTICE."

We are sure Trevor's new Blog will be a welcome, and popular addition, to the Blog scene and hope readers/viewers will support it/him. A big thanks for the exclusive interview and look forward to the launch of his Blog on Wednesday 7the August 2019.







Wednesday, 3 July 2019

Les Chenes "JUSTICE?"


Senator Sam Mezec (Children's Minister)

On Monday 1st July 2019 the government announced its REDRESS SCHEME for Survivors of the brutal regime suffered during their time at Les Chenes Secure Residential Unit and for those in a Jersey Foster Care Placement.

From the get-go parts (but not all) of the Old Media were (and still are) reporting the Redress Scheme as "Justice" for the Survivors. It would be interesting to learn how many Survivors the Old Media have spoken with who believe what they are(n't) getting is "justice." Certainly the ones I have spoken with see it as the only option available to them. Their abusers are NOT going to face charges so they (Survivors) have to make do (for the most part) with a couple of quid.

After the public announcement at St. Paul's Centre (Monday 1st July) VFC was granted an interview with Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec. We took away the governments (and parts of the Old Media) agenda as passing this scheme off as "justice." Instead of declaring money (and an apology) is being offered to Survivors wouldn't it have been a better declaration to make that their abusers have been jailed AND the Survivors have been "adequately" compensated?

We asked the Children's Minister questions along those lines. "Why is this all about money and not justice?" "How can a price be put on a childhood/lifetime of misery and torment?" How on earth did the conflicted, and untrusted, Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office get to be the Administrators of the Redress Scheme? The very people who have failed the Survivors for failing/refusing to prosecute (and allegedly protecting) their abusers. Staggeringly the Children's Minister told us that some Survivors asked for the option to have the Law Offices Department administer the scheme. The Minister, through the Lawyer representing many of the Survivors, says that partly for the simplicity of it and partly for the COST some survivors chose the Law Offices. Really? The Survivors voluntarily chose to make things as simple and cheap for the government without being pushed down that avenue? They weren't told that if we put the administration of the scheme out to tender then that could take a lot more time and your ordeal could drag on, unnecessarily, a lot longer? We asked, alongside the governments apology, shouldn't there be an apology from The Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office? We know that the AG's Office has some (many) uncomfortable questions to ANSWER.

It is two years to the day that the Independent Jersey Care INQUIRY published its REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS and one has to ask; "has attitudes towards Child Abuse, and Survivors, changed in any way?" "How is money perceived (by the government and parts of the Old Media) as "justice?" As mentioned above, and in the interview (below), those Survivors I have spoken with have ALL said this is/was never about money, it's always been about justice. It's the government (along with The Law Offices Department) who have made it about money, it is not the choice of all Survivors. Their choice would have been not to have been abused in the first place.



Sunday, 30 June 2019

Len Norman (with others) and "The Jersey Way."



Constable Len Norman


At the last States Sitting Deputy Mike Higgins submitted the following Oral Question to Home Affairs Minister Constable Len Norman.

“Will the Minister explain to members what actions, if any, the States of Jersey Police are taking to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward and place their trust in the Police; and will he provide his assessment of how effective any such measures have been in ensuring the public are convinced that the Police investigate all allegations without fear or favour?”

The question, from Deputy Higgins, came about, seemingly, because an alleged Survivor of child grooming and similar alleged sexual offences felt she had no other alternative than to waive her anonymity and take to Social Media in an attempt put pressure on those responsible (States of Jersey Police/Law Offices department) for bringing her alleged abuser to "justice." From the information available it appears that the alleged Survivor had gone through all the correct channels in reporting the alleged crime only to be met with alleged protection of the alleged perpetrator by those who are supposed to be upholding the law without fear or favour.

At this point we should mention that the number 1 priority of this government is: "We will put children first." The government's priority comes in the wake of a damming (not as damming as it could/should have been) REPORT from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) after decades of Child Abuse was exposed by Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper under the leadership of former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Subsequently exposed by the IJCI itself.

In the wake of the IJCI report The Powers That Be have been busy ticking as many boxes as it can attempting to convince the public that things have changed, children are safer, and the protection of the system over the protection of children is an attitude of a bygone era.

Deputy Mike Higgins

Well judging by the "answer" (below video) to Deputy Higgins's question (above), nothing can be further from the truth.

One would have thought/expected the Home Affairs Minister, Constable Len Norman, to ask Deputy Higgins: "just exactly what have you read on the internet?" He might have said: "If you (Deputy Higgins) have any evidence of any shortcomings concerning the police force then I need to see that in order to have it investigated, and if needs be, hold my officers to account." The Home Affairs Minister could have said: "I need to hear first hand the alleged Survivors side of events because I have heard the police's side of the story." The Home Affairs Minister asked NONE of those questions and rabidly defended the cops/system without question (The Jersey Way).

Just as telling (of "The Jersey Way") was the silence of all other States Members during this question save from Deputy Montfort Tadier and Deputy Kevin Pamplin (videos below). If there appears to be any kind of Child Abuse cover-up, or allegations of, then surely, post-Operation Rectangle, post-IJCI States Members would be holding the Home Affairs Ministers feet to the coals? There would have been a barrage of questions from across the political divide to demonstrate that States Members are not going to allow history to repeat itself and sit silent while a potential whistleblower (Deputy Higgins) is labelled (by the Home Affairs Minister) a "conspiracy theorist." Alas the silence was deafening.

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Montfort Tadier was the only States Member to stand Deputy Higgins's (and alleged Survivors) corner. The Deputy has been an avid campaigner for Abuse Survivors since he was first elected in 2008 and was instrumental in ensuring there was a public Inquiry and indeed formulating its Terms of Reference alongside current/former politicians/Survivors and Bloggers. The Home Affairs Minister's "answer" to Deputy Tadier's question was yet another demonstration of "The Jersey Way." The Deputy asked the Home Affairs Minister to "work constructively" with Deputy Higgins in order to restore (some much needed) faith, and trust, in the government. The Home Affairs Minister seemingly refused to do this, refused to acknowledge the concerns of Deputy Higgins (and alleged Survivor(s)) and indeed the concerns of those of us who don't want to see "history repeating itself" where whistleblowers are marginalised and the State is rabidly defended without question. (The Jersey Way.)

Deputy Kevin Pamplin

But possibly the most bizarre, if not frightening question, came from Deputy Kevin Pamplin. Deputy Pamplin is a member (although he should now be considering his position) of the "Care of Children Review Panel."  Its "mission statement" includes: "Following the recommendations put forward by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, thorough Scrutiny will be essential in ensuring that what is put in place is both fit for purpose and helps to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey."

The last few words of that sentence being possibly the most poignant; "to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey." So why is it that his one question, to the HA Minister, was about his concerns for "the care and well-being" of the Police Officers accused of wrong doing? Why aren't his concerns with the alleged Survivor and potential Survivors? How is that "caring for children?" How can that question not be seen as "The Jersey Way?" It has to be said that this did come as quite a surprise to me because from what I have watched of the Scrutiny Panel Hearings Deputy Pamplin has seemed to be on top of his game (for Jersey standards) and asked some searching questions of those brought before the Panel. Unfortunately his concern for the police, and not the (or any) alleged Survivor(s) with his question to the Home Affairs Minister (below video) does deem his position on the Scrutiny Panel untenable.

I've spent the last couple of weeks pondering whether or not to publish this Blog. My fear is that if Survivors see the exchange in the States, the attitude of the Minister, the concern for the well-being of the cops, and the silence of the vast majority of States Members then it might put them off coming forward to report abuse (alleged or otherwise). I had to ask myself is there confidence in our so-called "justice" system as Constable Norman seems to think there is? Is there confidence in our government to do the right thing and could any Survivor take their concerns to the Old Media should all other avenues fail?

The latest SOCIAL SURVEY suggests not with only 50% of islanders having confidence in the so-called "justice" system, only 33% have trust in the Old Media, and 28% having trust in the government. The Jersey Evening Post was the only outlet of the Old Media to report on the exchange and question the cops. It (JEP) reported that the cops DID send a file to the Law Offices Department who decided not to prosecute the case in question. So credit to the JEP for being the only Old Media to report on this which also helped me make my decision to publish a Blog on it. I have been made aware of at least one alleged Survivor who has, thus far, decided not to come forward because of his/her distrust in the system. While wrestling with whether or not to publish this Blog I had/have to think of the impact it could have on Survivors and would it stop them coming forward as it has (thus far) with the Survivor I have been made aware of? After the JEP reported it, it is of huge public interest, and do I think Survivors should trust the authorities? The answer, Im afraid to say, is "no" I don't think the authorities can be trusted to do the right thing. as Home Affairs Minister clearly demonstrated the number 1 priority is to "protect the system" and Survivors have the right to know the facts. If I was to hide these facts from Survivors then I would be as bad as the Establishment and parts of the Old Media.

I have e-mailed the Home Affairs Minister asking him a number of (perfectly valid) questions and asked him for an interview alongside Deputy Higgins in order that the most reliable, and factual, evidence can be published on the Blog. Deputy Higgins agreed to this joint interview but the Home Affairs Minister refused. I will look to publish the e-mail exchange in the comments section.

It is with a heavy heart I have concluded that nothing has changed despite Operation Rectangle, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, and its report. "The Jersey Way" of protecting the system, marginalising Whistleblowers and ignoring Survivors is stronger now than it ever has been.

Survivors can take some solace in knowing there are at least two States Members (Tadier/Higgins) who are willing to be a voice for them, put their heads above the parapet, and attempt to hold power to account.

The first video is an edited version to demonstrate the Home Affairs Minister's rabid defence of the cops and to label the Questioner/Whistleblower a conspiracy theorist for attempting to hold power to account. The full (un-edited) version is at the bottom of the posting.

The second video is of Deputy Tadier's support for Deputy Higgins and Survivors and NOT "The Jersey Way."

The third video is of Deputy Pamplin's concern for the well-being of the cops and NOT any alleged Survivor.














Tuesday, 18 June 2019

BBC Fake News.




BBC


On Thursday 30th May 2019 BBC State Radio was doing what most of the island's Old Media (formerly known as MSM) do and churning out another Press Release totally unchallenged and without doing the most basic rudimentary checks. The Press Release, according to Chris Stone of BBC Jersey, were signed off by the Jersey Police Authority.

The BBC, on the radio, was repeatedly claiming (because it was in the Press Release) that Jersey has the lowest number of Police Officers per 1,000 population across England, Scotland, Wales and small island Crown Dependencies. I thought "that can't be true we have 13 Police Forces!" (12 Parish Police Forces and the States of Jersey Police Force)

So I did what the presenter of the programme asked and e-mailed in my comment.:

"You are reporting that Jersey has the lowest amount of Police Officers per-head of population in the UK. This seems a little difficult to believe considering we have 13 police forces. Are the Honorary police/Centeniers included in your (States Communications Unit) stats?"

I sent that question/observation in at 07:38, the programme finished at 09:00 and I was told:

"I passed your comment on to James to put to Dr Lane, but other questions got there first."

But here's the thing, there was the best part of an hour and a half to read out my question and it wasn't read out once. On the other hand there was an observation by a listener called "Paul" who said how wonderfully safe Jersey is and how he can leave his keys in his car, front door open etc and that was read out three or four times. How can there not be enough time to read out my (perfectly valid) question (once) but enough time to read out a lovely (show Jersey in a good light) fluffy observation 3 or 4 times? This is one of the questions that I asked Chris Stone that he refused to answer.

Could it be that the State Radio doesn't want its listeners to know the truth about how "over policed" the Island looks when the real stats get put out there? Why didn't The BBC question the Stats in the Press Release/REPORT? Why did such an obvious question have to be asked (but not aired) by a member of the public or New Media (formerly known as Social Media)? What kind of "journalism" is it when a Press Release, with misleading figures, can be churned out and when it is questioned (by a member of the public) the question gets buried?

Former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief of Police Graham Power QPM

Regular readers will know that The BBC has a long history of churning out State propaganda and indeed acting against its own charter in burying a DEFENCE CASE after reporting on the prosecution case of the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Police Chief. Of course most people will also be aware of the BBC's protection of Britains most prolific paedophile Jimmy Savile and indeed the setting up of a right wing ACTIVIST not to mention the disgraceful treatment of a local left wing opposition POLITICIAN. We have also seen the BBC's claim (as if the links already posted aren't enough) to be "Impartial, Balanced and honest" ripped to shreds HERE. This is without mentioning The alleged Faking SYRIA'S CHILDREN as reported by former ITV and BBC Journalist ANNA BREES.

So after The BBC churning out the Press Release (unchallenged) and duping its listeners into believing that Jersey is "under policed" what is the real story here and just as importantly why doesn't The BBC (or any of the Old Media) want the public to know just how policed we are?

Firstly (and this is something I thought I'd never say) full credit has to go to the Comite des Conetables who supplied me with the figures I asked for. I emailed the Chairman of the Comite at 15:00 (Thursday 13th June 2019) asking for the figures of how many honorary Police Officers there were on the island. I got the reply at 09:05 the very next morning with the figures I wanted. Again, if it's that easy why didn't The BBC (or any of the Old Media) do it?

What The BBC is doing is knowingly broadcasting Fake News. It knows Jersey is a Police State and the stats back this up. It has done nothing (besides bury the truth) in order to inform the public of how many police officers actually police us.

Regurgitated (by Old Media) stats


The real truth is that according to the Comite des Conetables (as of May 1st 2019) there are/were 215 Honorary Police Officers. This includes Centeniers, Vingteniers and Constable’s Officers. So according to The BBC (because it didn't question the Press Release) there are 190 Police Officers on the Island which works out at 1.78 officers per 1,000 people. This, it is claimed in the Report (and The BBC), the least amount of Police Officers per 1,000 people across the UK.

What we don't know is how many Special Constables, and the like, exist across the UK and other Crown Dependencies. What we do know is, with the stats available, that Jersey has approximately  FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE police Officers across the Island and not 190 reported/repeated by The BBC. Without knowing how many Special Constables/other Honorary positions across the UK/Crown Dependencies, far from being the LEAST policed jurisdiction Jersey is in fact the MOST policed......by more than Double the amount reported/repeated by The BBC.

According to the (unchallenged by the Old Media) report Scotland has the MOST Police Officers per 1,000 people with 3.15 and Jersey with the LEAST (1.78). Yet when one asks the most basic of questions "how many Police Officers do we really have" it turns out that we are the most heavily policed jurisdiction in the UK (according to available stats). I'm no mathematician or statistician but rather than 1.78 Police Officers per 1,000 people on the Island the true figure is closer to 3.80. (Beating Scotland's 3.15 considerably)

After The BBC and ITV/CTV didn't have the courage to come and defend their "journalism" at the recent PUBLIC HEARING just this post alone might help explain why. It will also go some way to explaining why, according to the latest SOCIAL SURVEY, 67% of islanders don't trust the local Old Media. MORE stats that have no not been reported on/broadcast by The BBC!

Don't be fooled by Fake News. We are a Police State and The BBC is actively keeping that information (and much more) from you.








Wednesday, 5 June 2019

New (and some) old Media appear at Child Abuse Panel Review.




On Thursday May 29 2019 Team Voice and Tom Gruchy appeared as witnesses at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) REVIEW PANEL "PUBLIC" Hearing. We "New Media" (formerly known as "Social Media") were invited to sit alongside members of the "Old Media" (formerly known as Mainstream Media) to discuss a number of subjects/bullet-points. (below)

Unfortunately we only got the subjects/bullet-points the night before the Hearing which was nowhere near enough time to do adequate research but nonetheless, in the extremely short time we were given for the hearing (approximately an hour), we were able to hold our own.

Regular readers will know that the Panel went back on its word (pretended it didn't) and refused any media recording of all the "PUBLIC" Hearings as exclusively reported by VFC HERE. WE (New Media) were the only media to challenge this absurd decision as reported on in the above link. The Old media were compliant. So unfortunately were are unable to publish any video footage for the Blog. Which was our intention before the Panel went back on its word.

With the very limited time we had at the hearing, and the number of subjects to be discussed, it was an impossible, and unrealistic task and we should have been allocated at least a two hour slot and that's not counting the DAYS we would have needed if we were allowed to discuss the Old Media's role pre-2017.

ITV/CTV

Out of the Old Media it was only the Bailiwick Express and the Jersey Evening Post who had the courage to turn up. ITV/CTV and The BBC lacked that courage so credit to the two who did show up. Of course the Bailiwick Express was not around during the Rectangle Era, so had little, or nothing, to answer for. The JEP, and indeed ITV/CTV and The BBC were around and do have plenty to answer for so most credit should go to Andy Sibcy (Editor JEP). Sibcy wasn't the Editor around the time (Rectangle) the paper was doing its best to trash the Survivors/Abusees and those who tried to get them so-called "justice." We believe the Paper as come along way, for the better, under the Editorship of Sibcy.

The paper (alongside BBC, ITV/CTV) was relentless in attempting to discredit the Victims/Abusees, Lenny Haper, Graham Power QPM, Stuart Syvret and the Bloggers and should have been held to account for this at the (not so) Public Hearing.

However, The Panel was adamant the old media was not going to answer for its reporting before and during Operation Rectangle. At the very start of the Hearing the Chair, Francis Oldham QC, threatened to walk out if that line was going to be taken. Which begs the question "if we are going to ignore the "mistakes" of the past, are we not doomed to repeat them?" It would appear that the Old Media have (like a vast number of abusers) been let off the hook for its past crimes. It was the old "Jersey Way" war cry "let's not dwell on the past, and let's look to the future." So many crimes have been brushed under the carpet with that slogan and it looks like the IJCI Panel have adopted it also which is concerning.

Fellow Team Voice Member RICO SORDA, at the very start of the hearing said words to the effect: "The entire local MSM owe the Victims and Survivors an apology for its reporting during the Child Abuse cover-up." He is of course right. We cannot forget the further abuse Survivors/abusees were subjected to by the Old Media during the Rectangle Era. But, as mentioned above, Francis Oldham QC was having none of it and threatened to walk out (with the Panel) if we attempted to discuss anything that pre-dated the Panel's Report of 2017.

We should also point out that the Old Media, according to the latest SOCIAL SURVEY, only enjoys the confidence of 33% of islanders. It has a mountain to climb in order to win any trust back and by not dealing with its past failings it is difficult to see how this could happen. Bloggers, on the other hand, have earned the trust of Survivors/Abusees and whistleblowers through the years and continue to enjoy that trust. We (unlike to Old Media) can hold our heads high knowing we are on the right side of history and have spoken up for the truth.

BBC

Despite the almost impossible, and fruitless task, in holding the Old Media to account at the hearing, the Panel should be congratulated for attempting to get the Old and New Media round the table. There has always been a "them and us" attitude created by the Old Media and, although BBC/ITV didn't have the courage to turn up, we believe some bridges might have been built with those who did turn up and those who didn't have no intention of building bridges. The irony is that BBC and ITV/CTV could have got some much needed credibility just by showing up as Bailiwick Express and JEP did (from me anyway). And of course the Bloggers don't need to gain credibility from those who matter as we already have it.

We are pleased to say that the discussion around the table, at the hearing, was, on the whole, pretty amicable. We had an opportunity (albeit very limited)  to discuss our differences and indeed similarities with the Old Media and it wasn't a completely useless exercise for which we thank the IJCI Panel for getting at least some of the Old and New media together. This is something the Old Media has resisted for years and still resisted by BBC and ITV/CTV.

Below (in an e-mail received from the Panel the night before the hearing) are the eight subjects expected to be discussed in an hour by up to 7 or eight witnesses.

IJCI Panel

"Hello

We are looking forward to welcoming you to Thursday’s session in St Paul’s at 9.45 am.

Our sessions have been lasting 50-60 minutes. We aim to keep to time as we have a full schedule.

Our focus is on the period 2017-present with a view to identifying what is new and emerging in that period. As with other issues we are reviewing, we are not discussing matters in the period before or during the Inquiry or matters dealt with during the Inquiry. 

In honing down the topics for the session we have drawn on our meetings with over 150 people in the last 10 days, including three more sessions with care experienced young people tonight.

The questions that will help us most are:

.What have you seen that is different in the last two years in services affecting children and families

.Key areas in the last two years for media reporting on child care issues.

.What media campaigns / reporting in the last two years have had an impact?

.The public response through media/social media to the Inquiry report and child care issues
Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?

.Whether people in Jersey have tended in the last two years to use media rather than official processes to highlight complaints

.What is role of journalists in holding public sector agencies to account?

.Changing the tone of some debate and commentary to encourage more participation
In a climate of global concern about false and manufactured news and commentary, what safeguards are necessary to ensure accurate reporting?

Finally and importantly,
In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"(END)

Needless to say hardly any of the subjects were discussed but as mentioned above it wasn't a completely fruitless task and the IJCI Panel should be congratulated for getting the New and (some of) the Old Media round a table and we look forward to building bridges with those (of the Old Media) who look for the same.

We will look to publish the transcript of the Hearing as soon as it becomes available.

In the meantime readers might want to discuss/answer the questions set (above) by the Panel? Or do readers agree the hearing/subjects should have included the Old Media's reporting (or not) during the Operation Rectangle Era?

Sunday, 26 May 2019

Care Inquiry Panel and "The Jersey Way."

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel


Readers will be aware that the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry PANEL has returned to Jersey as reported by VFC HERE followed by an interview with Panel Member Sandy Cameron HERE. The Panel is over to hear from a wide range of witnesses in order to determine how its eight RECOMMENDATIONS have (or haven't) been implemented.

The Panel held a number of private and "public" meetings. The so-called "public" hearings took place at St. Paul's Centre this week between 21st and 24th May and the list of witnesses/schedule can be viewed HERE.

Firstly, as the selected e-mails below will demonstrate, the title of this Blog Posting ("Care Inquiry Panel and "The Jersey Way") was chosen by the Panel itself. We were hoping for the title to be "Care Inquiry shows humility and allows filming of public hearings."  

We should say that the Panel, up to the point of refusing to allow the "public" hearings to be filmed, had been very open and accommodating to us the New Media (formerly known as Social Media) and has kept us (as far as we know) as up to date with its work/schedule during the week as it has with the old media (formerly known as mainstream media). We have been included in the media mailing list and for that we are grateful.

However, a rather bizarre turn of events occurred, (e-mails below), not so much (as bizarre as it is) that the Panel refused to allow Public/Civil Servants, Politicians, and members of the old and new media to be filmed (at "Public" Hearings). It was "The Jersey Way" style that the Panel went back on its word, attempted to defend the indefensible, and pretend it didn't go back on its word.

Here (below) are some e-mails between VFC, and the panel, which should explain how the title of this Blog Posting was chosen (by the Panel) and why (unfortunately) that title is so apt.



Names have been redacted/changed.



"Panel member."

"(witness to Panel) has contacted me after s/he gave evidence to the panel today. S/He has told me that you/the Panel WON'T be allowing the public hearings to be filmed? I'm hoping s/he is mistaken on what the Panel have, or have not, said to him/her

On the 8th May 2019 (12:56pm) in an e-mail to you I asked:

"Will the media be allowed at the public hearings?"

To which you replied (the same date):

"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."
Firstly I hope that (witness to panel) is mistaken but s/he does seem quite adamant. If this is the case I would ask that the Panel reverse its decision to exclude media, show some openness and transparency and honour your commitment above.

The Panel has gained a certain amount of trust from me and I have continued to encourage Survivors/Abusees to participate in your work. IF the Panel has decided to go back on its word and place restrictions on reporting of (ironically) "public" hearings I can only see this as a retrograde step and will bring with it distrust, not only from myself, but from the public, and more importantly Survivors and Abusees.

I cannot, with a clear conscience, support the Panel's work if it has decided to go back on its word (or lied to me). Further; holding "public" hearings and not allowing filming of them is an absurdity! It's something only the Jersey authorities (one would have thought) could dream up.

What would be the icing on the cake is if the Panel doesn't allow filming of the hearing involving the media. Surely the media is all about openness? How could the panel sell to the public that it is open and transparent if it is going back on its word and restricting media reporting at "public" and "media" hearings?

I am considering publishing a Blog on this apparent turn of events and like any responsible media I am seeking your side of the story as it were.

As I have said, I hope (witness to Panel) has got this wrong. If s/he hasn't then I ask the Panel, in order to keep/gain my, the public, trust and confidence that it honours its commitment in the e-mail of 8th May.

Please consider your reply for possible publication on my Blog.

(VFC.)"

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

"Hello (VFC)

As I said in my earlier email we foresee there will be no restrictions on what can be reported – unlike the Inquiry where Frances had to ask for some names etc that inadvertently were mentioned, to be redacted when reported. In looking at how things are reported, we have to take sensible steps to make the environment suitable and safe for the people who are participating.

The sessions will be professionally recorded and transcribed and the transcripts published online. (This is not an overnight service like the Inquiry – it will take a few days). This will provide an accurate and accessible record.

We looked at whether the sessions could be streamed (in the way meetings of the States are broadcast) and there were issues which made it problematic. We had considerations raised on behalf of some of the people coming to participate (parents, care experienced people etc) who for very good reasons do not want their full details publicised. Others who are simply attending as members of the public also expressed concern lest they be identified attending. Filming could cause these people distress. We also are alert to potential liability issues arising from filming someone without their consent , in a situation where we cannot monitor what/who is being filmed. 

For all those reasons no filming will be allowed in the room. 

This applies to all media organisations and individuals. We ask everyone in media to be trustful of these sensitivities.

Kind regards (Panel Member)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(Panel Member)

I hate to say it but this is a "Jersey Way" response from you/The Panel. You have misled me (and others) by firstly saying:

"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."

You/The Panel have done a 180 on that statement and not even acknowledged it. Rather you have tried to defend the indefensible and pretend you were correct in what you originally stated.

Having done a study/report on our Island you must be aware how important openness and transparency is for the "good" people of Jersey. It is something we have fought for for years and continue to do so. I/we never thought we'd be fighting against a panel who is over here to rid the Island of this secrecy.

This part of the statement from your previous e-mail is about as unambiguous as it gets:

"so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."

Not being allowed recording devices or cameras is a restriction on reporting. I wanted to film part(s) of the hearing and publish it/them on my Blog. But the "restriction" on cameras has "restricted" my reporting. There clearly are restrictions and by denying this further casts a shadow over the integrity of the Panel and shows it in the light of "The Jersey Way."

You either intentionally misled me and others to begin with or you are being dishonest/disingenuous now.

With regard to your latest e-mail and in particular this sentence:

"We had considerations raised on behalf of some of the people coming to participate (parents, care experienced people etc) who for very good reasons do not want their full details publicised."

This is obviously a new dilemma since you first said there would be no restrictions and one that I'm not unsympathetic to. That is a fair consideration. However this mornings hearings were exclusively with Civil (Public) Servants who, incidentally, are answerable to the public and I see no reason why they could/should not be filmed.

After seeing the lay out of the room at St. Paul's I see no reason why a camera can't be pointed at the table blocking out any members of the public. I agree any members of the public who are giving evidence shouldn't be filmed if that's what they wish as I share their fear of repercussions and "The Jersey Way."

Could I please ask:

1) Will you/The Panel accept that you misled me in saying "so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."?

2) Will you/The Panel reverse the decision not to allow cameras in cases of Civil Servants/Politicians and those who have no objections to being filmed?

3) Have any of the island's media questioned your decision on the camera ban?

4) I would like (for the historical record of my Blog) to film when I give evidence on Thursday. There will only be Bloggers and journalists at the table. Even if the Panel refuses to be open enough to allow filming of Civil Servants and politicians what harm can be done filming the media/Social Media?

You will be aware that I was contacted by a European documentary film production who asked me if filming was permitted, at the "public" hearings, and I assured them it was by sending the relevant part of your e-mail:

"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."

They too saw this as unambiguous in that there were no restrictions and travelled to Jersey (at a great cost one should imagine) on that basis. This has turned out to be a waste of time and money for them and is further embarrassment to the Panel.

As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, I am considering publishing a Blog on this subject and including our e-mails, or relevant parts of, as evidence of what has transpired. I am pondering on what the title of the Blog might be and it depends on your answers to my questions, and related concerns, in this e-mail.

The two titles I'm thinking on are something along the lines of;

A) "Care Inquiry Panel and The Jersey Way."

B) Care Inquiry shows humility and allows filming of public hearings.

You will appreciate that I have credited the Panel/Inquiry where it is due and will continue to do so. I will also challenge it where I feel it is necessary to do so and this is one of those times.

Look forward to your reply.

(VFC)."

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

"(VFC).

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

You are of course free to publish whatever you wish and we will defend to the death your right to do so."(END)

As readers will see from question, and answer,  No.3 if the Panel is to be believed. None of the Island's media questioned the Panel's decision to restrict the reporting of the Hearings. This, we argue, is a major part of "The Jersey Problem." The old media (although it has improved in some areas) is inherently compliant. It (old media) should not only have challenged this assault on the so-called "Free Press" it should have called the Panel out and publicly challenged it in order to fight for the freedom of the Press (as we have done). Apparently its immediate reaction is to comply and not challenge.  It appears that the ONLY Jersey media to question the "no cameras restriction" is the new media (this Blogger). We are aware that the Panel was challenged by media who were visiting from off-island who clearly aren't as compliant as the local media.

As mentioned in the e-mails, we see this secretive and "Jersey Way" style of the Panel as a retrograde step in what we believed to be a much improved relationship between us, the public and them.

We maintain that "no reporting restrictions" means "no reporting restrictions" no matter how you try to dress it up.

Stay tuned for the next Blog Posting on the hearing where the old and new media were the witnesses and who had the courage to turn up and who didn't................................................


Monday, 13 May 2019

Deputy Mike Higgins. (The Jersey Way)


Deputy Mike Higgins


In the week that the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) PANEL return to the Island to review how its RECOMMENDATIONS have, or haven't, been implemented. We thought it would be a poignant time to reflect on a speech (or two) given at the last States Sitting (Tues 30th April 2019) by Deputy Mike Higgins.

Being debated was the Draft Commissioner for children and Young people (Jersey) LAW. Basically this was putting into (dodgy) legislation the position of the Children's Commissioner. The Commissioner now has little more rights than the man on the street in having access to official documents. Although like everybody else she's not allowed to know what advice is given by the conflicted Attorney General's Office.

Deputy Higgins has been instrumental in bringing about the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, campaigning for Survivors/Abusees and speaking out against judicial and political corruption since he was first elected in 2008. It was Deputy Higgins who managed to copy the transcripts from the in-camera (secret) debate where the then Home Affairs Minister, and Deputy, Andrew Lewis told the States Assembly when giving one of his different "reasons" for (possibly illegally) suspending the then Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM:

"I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place."

Regular readers will know that this statement was found to be a lie by the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry. Deputy Lewis was subsequently Censured by the parliamentary watchdog the Privileges and Procedures Committee. Reported by VFC HERE. with proposition lodged HERE. The transcript, copied by Deputy Higgins, was leaked to Bloggers (not by Deputy Higgins) who had the trust/confidence of survivors/Abusees and Whistleblowers and was subsequently published HERE. It's fair to say that without the deputy's diligence this "lie" could have remained un-noticed and never have been discovered.

William Bailhache

During the States debate (Tues 30th April 2019) Deputy Higgins reminded States Members, and the viewing public, of a number of troublesome aspects concerning the cover-up of Child Abuse and alleged abusers still at large. He was able to do this due to his extensive knowledge and campaigning for Survivors over the years and attending many of the IJCI public Hearings.

In the Chair was Bailiff William Bailhache, who has some uncomfortable questions of his own to ANSWER, concerning his time as Attorney General. The Bailiff asked Deputy Higgins to clarify who (which AG) he was talking about during his speech and the Deputy was happy to oblige by reading from the Care Inquiry Report and nailing his brother Philip Bailhache.

The second part of Deputy Higgins's speech deals with (according to the Deputy) alleged abusers who have not faced justice (The Jersey Way) despite evidence given to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry against them. He made a very compelling and correct statement during this part of his speech when he said:

"We will never put this matter behind us and get the support of the people who have been abused until we address these issues and bring these people to book."

What Deputy Higgins did with his speech was to demonstrate that the Attorney General's office could "credibly" be  accused of cover-up. He showed that there are people who still appear to be above the law or even more people need to come forward to give evidence against them. If all is accurate in Deputy Higgins's speech then he also demonstrated "The Jersey Way."



Wednesday, 8 May 2019

Interview with Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel Member Professor Alexander (Sandy) Cameron.


Professor Sandy Cameron



As a result of continued communications with the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel (IJCI) and of our  PREVIOUS POST. VFC was offered an interview with Panel Member Professor Sandy Cameron to which we gratefully accepted.

Regular readers will be aware that the relationship between the Panel and VFC has not always been as amicable as it is now, not least when were were banned from its MEDIA ROOM and  ITV/CTV,was NOT BANNED.

We are pleased to say that our relationship has come a long way since then as we are working towards the same goal(s) in that we want Survivors, and interested parties, to supply the Panel with evidence/information concerning the "care" of children in the Island since the publication of its (IJCI) REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS Those who wish to submit evidence/speak with the Panel can do so by visiting its WEBSITE, taking part (anonymously) in its SURVEY or by e-mailing them at info@ijcipanel.org.

The Panel, during its evidence gathering and public hearings stage did some excellent work, not least by giving a voice to the Survivors/Abusees, vindicating them and those of us who have been fighting their corner and attempting to hold the guilty to account.

William Bailhache

As a result of the Panel's Hearings we learnt that former AG and current Bailiff William Bailhache has some very uncomfortable questions to ANSWER in his "reasons" for not prosecuting an alleged paedophile. We also learned that William Bailhache sent an e-mail to the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker and then States Chief Executive, Bill Ogley on the eve of the (possibly illegal) suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power advising them not to suspend the Chief Officer. Notably he didn't send the e-mail to (or copy in) the only man who could suspend him, the Home Affairs Minister at the time, Andrew Lewis. We also learned that William Bailhache withheld this evidence from the Napier Review.

Philip Bailhache

We also discovered, as a result of the IJCI, that former AG/Bailiff/Senator and brother of William, Philip Bailhache was accused of withholding, and asking the then Education Chief Executive, John Rodhouse, to withhold evidence from the police concerning a now convicted paedophile.

Excerpt from John Rodhouse statement to Inquiry:

"it concerned a volunteer youth worker. The then Attorney-General, Philip Bailhache, called me to tell me that a named volunteer youth worker had acted improperly with a boy. The boy's father was an (redaction) and did not want to involve the police. Philip Bailhache wanted me to investigate and take action. I protested that it was a matter for the police but Philip Bailhache said that the parents would not co-operate and that if I did not act nothing would happen. I interviewed the man who admitted the offence and with the help of the Youth Officer, the man was effectively removed from all youth work in Jersey. As far as I was concerned I was caught between the legal authority of the island in the person of the Attorney-General and what I believed to be my professional and moral duty. I have since learned that the man was some time later convicted of a similar offence and subsequently faced a further charge."

So if anybody is considering giving evidence but are not sure, you might see merit in having the historic record documented for current and future researchers. It demonstrates the the Inquiry has done good work in some areas and without witnesses coming forward this, and much more, evidence wouldn't be available. To be clear the Panel want to hear about current practices and how its recommendations have been, are, or not being implemented.

VFC

Regular readers will also be aware that VFC was invited to submit evidence to the Inquiry which we did HERE and further invited to appear as a witness which we did HERE. Despite our many differences, with the IJCI in the past, VFC has always considered the plight of Survivors/Abusees past, present and future, is the primary concern. Rooting out the corruption (either perceived or otherwise) in States Departments, Law Offices Department, Attorney General's Office and the old media (formerly known as Mainstream media). We have been striving for the Care Inquiry's RECOMMENDATION 7 before it existed and we continue to do so. Putting differences aside for the greater good has enabled VFC and the IJCI to hopefully bring more witnesses forward, to document evidence, and give a greater picture of what has been allowed, and possibly continues to be allowed to happen,  that enables children to be abused on the Island and for the abusers to be protected (more about that in an up-coming Blog)

The Panel has further invited VFC to submit evidence, and to appear at a Public Hearing, to discuss the role of the media (as mentioned in the video below) both of which we have humbly agreed to and look forward to the opportunity.

Further discussed in the video below are subjects of who can make contact with/give evidence to the Panel, how to make contact (links above), Do witnesses need to be on-island? what its purpose is of this visit. Will the hearings/meetings be transcribed for the historic record and along with documents provided to the panel, will they be uploaded to the website/given to Jersey Archive? The controversial  taking down of the website, and its alleged reasons, are also (very briefly) discussed.











Wednesday, 24 April 2019

Press Release. Independent Jersey Care Inquiry returning to Jersey.





From The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel (IJCI)

"On 3rd July 2017, we delivered our report into the care of children by the States of Jersey from 1945. We identified 10 failings underlying the findings that we made. These failings allowed abusive regimes and practices to persist and flourish in the care system in Jersey for many decades causing severe and enduring harm to many hundreds of children. In our report we made eight areas of recommendation which the States of Jersey accepted and committed resources to improve the safety, quality and effectiveness of the care of children in Jersey.

Since then Jersey has embarked on a major programme of improvement in its public sector structures, processes and practice and has made significant investment in services for families, children and young people. We have been invited to review the island’s progress in implementing our 2017 recommendations. We have started this work and will be back in Jersey between 13 -20 May this year. We will provide a report in the summer of 2019 giving our view on whether services for children in Jersey are safer than now than two years ago and what needs to be done in future to keep the island’s children safe.

Today we are launching our website www.ijcipanel.org which sets out what we are doing and how we are doing it and explains how people in Jersey can contribute to this review. We want to hear from people working with children, people receiving services and members of the public in Jersey. People can ask to meet privately with us, can take part (anonymously) in a survey or sit in on our public discussions with professionals, politicians and voluntary organisations. We can be contacted by email at info@ijcipanel.org or by post at IJCI Panel, MB 013, Suite 1 Castlecroft Business Centre, Tom Johnston Road, Dundee DD4 8XD, UK.

We look forward to engaging again with people in Jersey and finding out what has changed and is changing to keep children in the island safe and support those for whom the state is or has been their “corporate parent”.

Frances Oldham QC, Prof Sandy Cameron, Alyson Leslie"

Monday, 1 April 2019

Deputy Montfort Tadier Suspension.



Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Montfort Tadier was suspended (Fri 29th March 2009) from his duty as Assistant Minister for culture. The decision to immediately suspend the Deputy was made by Chief Minister John Le Fondre following an email exchange between a few States Members (including the Chief Minister) where there was a discussion about the prescribing of medicinal cannabis (or not) for patients with chronic pain.

Deputy Tadier, it would appear, was calling for the dismissal of a pain consultant who, it seems, has refused to prescribe the pain reliving drug despite the the Island's parliament voting overwhelmingly to allow cannabis to be prescribed. The pain consultant was copied into the e-mail. The e-mail itself (from Deputy Tadier) was a reply to an ongoing thread and was not a stand-alone e-mail calling for the pain consultants dismissal. (As some media outlets would have you believe)

So firstly this is not some surreptitious Machiavellian conspiracy to get rid of a States employee on Deputy Tadier's behalf, it was an open, honest and transparent call for the employee to go. The employee could have responded to the e-mail fighting his corner. We've not seen evidence that this has happened. 

For those who keep an eye on Jersey politics; the calling of the pain consultants dismissal/removal is nothing new. Deputy Tadier has made his position clear in a number of States debates including HERE.

The old media (formerly known as "mainstream" media) has been doing what it always does and "reported" (or not) on this story but to the best of our knowledge "questioned" nothing. That's where the "New" Media (formerly known as "Social" Media) continues to carry the slack and actually question the government line rather than just report (repeat) it.

We ask: Has the Chief Minister overplayed the severity of the incident by suggesting there could be a claim for constructive dismissal?

As far as we understand it; JACS states that constructive dismissal occurs when an employee considers it necessary to leave their job against their will because of the employers conduct.

We ask: Surely Deputy Tadier isn't the employer? The employer is the States Employment Board? Could a case of constructive dismissal really have any merit?

Since the "offending e-mail" had nothing to do with the Ministry Deputy Tadier has responsibility for (culture), nor did it relate to a member of his department, then one must assume he was acting as an independent States Member.

We ask: Is the Chief Minister over-looking these facts in order to justify the severity of his (what looks to be) over the top, (and possibly wrong) sanction? How can an independent Member of the States be bound by the Ministerial Code of Conduct?

We hope to follow up on this developing story very soon and also hope to have as many answers as questions.

Tuesday, 26 February 2019

#Panodrama - An Exposé of the Fake News BBC!





This is a must watch video/documentary of how the "elite" BBC and mainstream media conduct their business. It (the documentary) will come as no surprise to those who have been reading the local Jersey Blogs since 2007/8 during Operation Rectangle and the trashing of the names (by the MSM and Establishment) of those who have tried to protect children in Jersey.

The documentary appears to expose homophobia, racism, elitism, bias, classism, blackmail (and much more) by the BBC and its associates.

You won't have seen, or be seeing, this documentary in the mainstream media and after you have watched it you will know why.









Saturday, 16 February 2019

Royal Square Rally 16 Feb 2019.




Today a rally took place in the Royal Square, organised by anti Child Abuse Campaigner Cheyenne O'Connor asking for pedophiles to remain on the sex offenders register for life and for a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment to be imposed on those who are convicted as highlighted in our PREVIOUS POSITING

Around 150-200 people turned up to support the cause which considering the subject matter, and the culture of fear still so prevalent on the island, this must be seen as a success and full credit to Cheyenne O'Conor for organising the event and to those who turned up.

There were two speakers at the event, the first was a very brave Survivor of Abuse Emma, who spoke of the ongoing physical and emotional scars and how this is also felt by family members long after the abuse occurred.

The second speaker was former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. Stuart spoke of events that took place in late 2007-2008 when he spoke out about the child abuse and the hostility he faced then, and now, for doing so. How the Jersey situation now is no better, if not worse, than it was back then. He also gave us a sobering reminder that not all those who were in the "care" of the States of Jersey made it out alive and deserve as much thought and recognition as those who did. Some say those who didn't make it out alive are the lucky ones................................

Below is a short video of today's events/speeches. Possibly more (video) to follow.