Boris Bailhache - Guest Posting.

Boris Bailhache

Political observers cannot help but have noticed that the national mainstream media have recently been (almost wall to wall) covering stories regarding the calls for the sacking/resignation of Boris Johnson. The calls are being made, seemingly, because he has gone "off message," is "ignoring collective responsibility" and "undermining the authority" of his Prime Minster Theresa May regarding Brexit.

Boris Johnson, it is firmly believed, is setting his stall for a leadership challenge against Theresa May by undermining her authority with his publicly made Brexit views and is making the PM into some kind of a laughing stock because she is unwilling, or unable, to reign her foreign Minister in.

But what about the Jersey situation with our Foreign Minister, Senator Philip (Boris) Bailhache, and leader Senator, Ian Abraham ,  (Theresa) Gorst? Senator Bailhache and his constant undermining of Ian Gorst, and the latter's attempts, not only to have a Committee of Inquiry (COI) into decades of Child Abuse, but to implement its recommendations. Not only has Boris Bailhache consistently attempted to derail the COI but is now attempting to derail senator Gorst and his attempts to implement the recommendation of splitting the dual role of the Bailiff. Senator Bailhache playing (as mentioned below) the old "tradition" card. Although he didn't play that card when he wiped out 500 years of tradition with the church. That obviously wasn't "traditional" enough to worry the public with.

While drafting this Blog Posting I was contacted by a reader and asked if I could/would publish a Guest Posting which, coincidentally, mirrored some of the points I was going to make so have incorporated it. Thankfully the reader HAS seen the similarities/comparisons between the Theresa May/Boris Johnson, Ian Gorst/Philip Bailhache sketch but can it be that not ONE of our esteemed professional local journalists have seen these similarities/comparisons? Do they not watch the national news?

Below the Guest Posting is senator Bailhache having yet another dig at Senator Gorst and yet another dig at the Care Inquiry. It came by way of an interview with ITV/CTV (who we credit for the recording).

Readers might recall that Sir Philip, with the help of ITV/CTV, managed to EXONERATE the then Jersey Dean Bob Key.

The Guest Poster has asked to remain anonymous.

Guest Post.

"They say that States Members start behaving strangely a few months before an election - some, who have otherwise been inconspicuous for the past 3 years have even been heard to speak, ask questions and even be critical of Government policy. When you are on a sinking ship, even the most loyal crew member will start eyeing up the life-rafts, knowing there may not be space for everyone.

This is standard practice, but what is going to be different about the May elections is that, for the first time in recent time, the fracture lines are starting to show - and in unusual places. Namely, there is infighting on the right. We saw the early signs of this in the fall-out over the innovation fund. Clearly, it was mismanaged. And whilst in times of success, various Ministers would line up to claim the positives as their own, or to take part in the traditional patting of each other's backs, this time, the knives came out.
The public wanted a scalp. The highly paid civil servants were shrewd enough to leave the scene (and the island) before the 'vraic hit the fields', and they would have been laughing all the way to the bank.

Senator Alan Maclean

Rightly or wrongly, Senator Ozouf was the one in the firing line for the failings of the fund and he had to go. The Chief Minister, on the other hand, strongly suggested that it was not his friend Philip who was to blame, so much as Senators Maclean and Farnham - the traditional right-wing of his council of Minister.

Skip forward a few months, and we see another prominent, canny politician who is fully aware that this Council of Minister's ship is heading firmly for the electoral rocks. The English-man Gorst and Phil'll Fix it have never been so unpopular. With the rise of Reform Jersey, and the decline of the neo-liberals, it is important that Senator Bailhache not only has a life raft (chauffeur-driven no doubt), but a ship of his own to captain when SS Vanity finally goes under. For that he needs a flag and a crew.

The 'flag' is tradition and the cause is the Bailiff. An uninspiring one, you might say and this is where the spin is needed. Remember the 2014 elections, which instead of being dominated by the real political issues and the Council of Ministers being held to account for their failings in Health, Housing, Social Security, electoral reform and Population control, the election was engineered to be little more than a side show about the Constables. Whilst younger people, unimpressed, showed their contempt for the political class by staying at home, the older voters took the bait - swallowing the hook, line and sinker too - believing that parish rates would go up if the constables were not in the States. The right (traditional and business class) were united in their efforts then, and saw off the unaligned independents, whilst the Social Democrats of Reform Jersey made no net gains, but maintained their seats.

This time it is very different. The rift between Gorst/Ozouf on the one hand, the 'progressive'-conservatives on one hand and the feudal-reactionaries on the other is palpable. Philip Bailhache, who never was one to toe the line (on the Child Abuse Inquiry, notably) has sensed the public mood and is making the separation of powers debate about something it is not. He knows it is a very simple matter - that Courts and Legislatures should be separate, and that Judges should stick to judging and politicians to politicking. So he needs a distraction and a bogey-man.

(1) POPULISM: This is a matter for the people. This is a constitutional matter, and - of course - constitutional matters should be put to the public (when it suits politicians). How dare arrogant politicians think they can make such a monumental decision without consulting you!

(2) BLAME THE IMMIGRANT. Gorst is an Englishman. He is just trying to make us like an overseas county of England. Look at the House of Commons, they are a complete shambles. We don't need an elected speaker like in England. Look at the mess they are in.

And the Jersey media go along with it.

In the recent Channel TV interview, (below) which was cloying in its deference to 'Sir' Philip, the story ran - Jersey could elect its own speaker like in the UK. But of course, it could have said 'like Barbados', 'like the Cayman Islands' or - how's about - 'like France.'

If there is an obvious parallel to be made with the UK it is the sharpening of knives from the likes of Boris Johnson and the would be pretenders for the lame-duck Theresa May's job.

Surely I am not the only one to see the comparison between Sir Philip Johnson and Boris Bailhache (with a little bit of Rees-Mogg thrown in for good measure)?"(END)

One Rule for One?

Following the debacle, and scandal, of the failed Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) which could have cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of £'s. It has been reported that two out of the three independent reports into the failings of JIF will not be published. This is apparently because the remaining reports are of a disciplinary nature. (So what)?

The one report that has been published is reported to have exonerated Senator Philip Ozouf but leaves questions to be answered of Senators Alan Maclean and Lyndon Farnham. Questions the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst doesn't seem able to understand or ANSWER.

Back in 2010 the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, set a very dangerous precedent by (possibly illegally) publishing the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire report, as explained in the below e-mail sent to BBC Radio Jersey from VFC.

This is after his (ILM's) predecessor, and now St. Helier Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended the former Police Chief DURING a major Child Abuse Investigation amid contradictory statements of which he remains UNACCOUNTABLE.

The Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven 1) was the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM for a supposed disciplinary hearing..........That never happened!

Despite there never being an "outcome" (because he robbed the former Police Chief of a disciplinary hearing) Ian Le Marquand still went ahead and appeared to have breached the Wilts confidentiality clauses, by publishing a heavily redacted form of its report.

Former CO Wilts Constabulary Brian Moore.

Operation Haven (1) Confidentiality Clauses.

"Highly Confidential – Personal Information

An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police

Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

Obligation to confidentiality

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000)."(END).

With all this in mind VFC sent the below e-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

E-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

"I heard on your radio programme this morning that the remaining reports into the Jersey Innovation Fund will NOT be published because they are of a disciplinary nature.

I'd like to cast your/the BBC's mind back to 2010 when the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, (possibly illegally) published the prosecution side of a disciplinary report from the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Haven 1) against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

I reported here https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html that a precedent had been set and asked the question"Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????"

You/BBC might want to challenge the Chief Minister's decision to bury the JIF reports on the basis of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand back in 2010?"(END)

Of course the BBC could find itself in a bit of a sticky situation considering that it, alongside all other local mainstream media, published the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer. But despite being leaked the Chief Officer's interim defence case refused to publish a single WORD OF IT. Indeed, to this day, NONE of the local mainstream media have published a single word of it despite it now being a publicly available document (somewhere) on the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's WEBSITE. And despite ALL local Mainstream Media reporting on the prosecution case.

We await to see if the BBC (or any of the Mainstream Media) will challenge the Chief Minister on his decision to bury these Jersey Innovation Fund disciplinary reports in light of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand. Or will it be a case of "One Rule for One?"

A Precedent has been SET. (For some?)

Francis Oldham QC Letter to Treasury Minister.

As we reported PREVIOUSLY there are some concerns over the costs of the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and five months after VFC voiced these concerns the Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, got concerned and asked (as VFC had) for a breakdown of the costs in a letter to Francis Oldham QC which can be read on page 22 of the PROPOSITION lodged by alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, to request the States to agree to additional funding for the Inquiry.

Senator Maclean's letter started off with this sentence;

"Further to the Council of Ministers meeting on Wednesday 28th January and your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations and Constitutional Affairs........."(END)

Wait a minute! "your meeting with the Chief Officer for External Relations?" What on earth has the conflicted Senator Philip Bailhache's Department got to do with the finances of the Child Abuse Inquiry? What is Francis Oldham QC doing meeting with representatives of the conflicted Philip Bailhache's Department on ANY issue?  These questions need to be asked at a political, and indeed at a journalistic level, by the State Media.

Back to Francis Oldham QC's letter/reply to the Treasury Minister (below) which can also be found at page 24 of the alleged Chief Minister's PROPOSITION. Although I don't agree with the letter's contents entirely I believe it is worth a Blog Post of its own and broadly support it and will make comments below.

"9 February 2015-02-26

Dear Senator Maclean

Report on Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Expenditure

Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2015 seeking information as to the ongoing work and costs of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. I have responded to your questions in the attached appendices, which I hope will be of assistance to States Members in considering the way forward.

I understand the financial pressures the Council of Ministers is having to address across budgets. It is clear to the panel however that there are extremely serious matters regarding the history of care for children in Jersey which must be fully explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years Importantly we must make a judgement whether current services for children are fit for purpose and provide protection from the failures of care in the past. We ca only do that if we are able to complete our Inquiry in full.

The scope of the Inquiry in terms of witnesses and documentation far exceeds the assumptions in the budget. In May 2014 I raised concerns about the potential cost of the Inquiry.

To date we have heard evidence of the experiences of 150 people who were within the care system from the 1940’s. Whilst there have been accounts of positive experiences, most of what we have hear has related to painful and damaging experiences. The first phase of the Inquiry has been slow and painstaking, not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public. Given the history of these matters in the island our first challenge has been to gain the trust and confidence of the victims. The fact that in recent weeks more than 20 new witnesses have come forward is, I believe, a good indicator that we have made significant progress in that regard. Many witnesses have been prepared to give evidence in public of the most intimate forms of abuse and in doing so have demonstrated enormous emotional courage.

The feedback we have had from them as to how they have been treated by the Inquiry has been universally positive. Indeed, I understand that some have made this known to the Chief Minister. If we do not now fully address the question of why their care was so often lacking in the system over many decades we will be letting down not only the victims, but the people of Jersey.

This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond.

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings. It should not be thought that those parts of the Inquiry are severable.  We cannot evaluate and/or make recommendations in relation to any one part without considering the whole.

We have constantly kept under review the running costs of the Inquiry. Public inquiries are, as you will, inevitably expensive if matters are to be fully addressed. This is even more so the case given the very extensive Terms of Reference set for us by the States Assembly. Indeed, we have resisted pressure to add to the Terms of Reference. The nature of this Inquiry is such that the publicity it has been given and the confidence we have engendered  in victims has led to them coming forward in greater numbers than envisaged at the outset.

We remain fully committed to examining how costs can be contained whilst not compromising our duty to act independently and to give you a full report in accordance with our Terms of Reference. Our purpose is to establish the truth; the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes, how mistreatment of children remained hidden for so long and what was done when concerns were raised.

Yours Sincerely

Frances Oldham QC

Chair" (END)

Firstly Judge Oldham's letter has given me some much needed confidence in her and her Inquiry. Regular readers will be aware that we have (rightly) challenged a number of decisions made by the Inquiry and in the interest of fairness and balance should also give credit where it is due. Judge Oldham appears to be standing up to the Establishment and refusing to be bullied by them.

Some interesting paragraphs here;

"This is one side of the story. Equally important is that we now move to the stage which provides the opportunity for those working within the services to tell their side of the story. We will also give those accused of abuse the opportunity to respond." 

And this paragraph in particular;

The Inquiry is also asked to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level” . As I stated in my address on 3 April 2014, “we will formulate our own view as the Inquiry evolves and when we have accumulated sufficient evidence. Only then will the Panel be in a position to make findings as to whether the process was in fact free from political or other interference at any level”. We are about to embark upon those hearings.

So Philip Bailhache is running around SCARE MONGERING quoting (un-evidenced) costs of the Inquiry at £50m just at the time when the alleged abusers, and those working within the services, are going to be called in front of the Inquiry? Does he want the plug pulled before the Inquiry starts to look at the abuse cases that never went to court and starts "to consider whether decisions to prosecute were “free from political or other interference at any level?"

Regular readers will be aware that we were asking why No managers, Senior Civil Servants, high ranking officials have been charged with any kind of neglect, dereliction of duty or Abuse……coincidence?………..or “The Jersey way?” back in November 2011. Now in 2015 it's about time we got those answers.

A word of advice for Judge Oldham would be to make sure every "I" is dotted and every "T" is crossed when it comes to expenses because the Establishment has form when it comes to trashing abuse investigations over moneys.

This inquiry is about DECADES of covered up Child Abuse, destroyed childhoods and lives and how it was able to happen for so long, indeed if it is able to happen still.

Let's not let the Establishment, and State Media, turn this into a story about money as they did with Operation Rectangle or to quote the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM;

The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

History should NOT be allowed to repeat itself and the Establishment be allowed to get away with it a second time round. Let's get to the bottom of what went on because until then the Island, its reputation, and Victims/Survivors will not be able to move forward.

Perhaps the most important sentence of Judge Oldham's letter is this;

"not least because of the difficulty many of the victims have had to wrestle with emotionally in terms of firstly giving a statement and then deciding whether to give evidence in public."(END)

Victims/Survivors have shown immense courage in coming forward to this Inquiry and reliving the most horrific memories conceivable. They have been put through enough, notwithstanding the horrors they were subjected to as children, but we must remember they were promised in 2008 by Frank Walker that there would be an Independent Inquiry with no stone left unturned. They were then told by Terry Le Sueur that there wouldn't be an Inquiry. They were then told by Ian Gorst that there would be an Inquiry. Is our government now going to tell the victims/survivors that they can have an inquiry but a few stones will have to be left unturned because despite being one of the richest places on earth Jersey doesn't have enough money to put its past right?

Don't you think it's time to give the Victims/Survivors what they were originally promised? Don't you think they have been through enough? They need closure and so does Jersey.

For those wishing to give evidence to the Inquiry they can do so from HERE.