“Entirely Accurate” (2)

In the POSTING of former DCO Lenny Harper’s letter, sent to the Royal Television Society and Channel Television, the last sentence written in that posting by VFC was “We know CTV's interpretation of "Entirely Accurate" and trust they will abandon it in this instance and report the FULL story.”……..well they didn’t.

Reproduced below is some correspondence between Lenny Harper and CTV, where CTV are happy with their “award winning” Report. This raises some pretty fundamental questions about the “accredited” media as a whole. The fact is CTV were given an award for the Report and, according to them (CTV) they were up against stiff competition……well what was the competition? This particular sentence from CTV’s reply to Lenny Harper might put the award winning article and the standards set by the “accredited” media into some perspective.

“Your comments regarding the story broadcast by Channel Television on the findings of the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Inquiry are noted.” “on the findings of the Wiltshire Report” So somebody else “found it”, CTV reported it and they win an award?? What research or investigating did CTV do? What did they do other than broadcast something that somebody else said?

Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Programme of the Year
To CTV
From Lenny Harper.

Please find attached, a letter sent in response to the article on the CTV web site.
Lenny Harper

Dear Sir/Madam,

Congratulations to Channel Television on winning the Regional Programme of the year for the programme on the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. It is a great pity that you did not check the facts or you would have had a really good story. Let me clarify a few points for you. I will deal with them in the order they appear in the story.


“Officers clocked up hundreds of hours overtime.” Show me a major enquiry anywhere in the world where officers do not have to work long hours. It is the nature of the job. There were hundreds of victims and many more witnesses. Did Wiltshire and Channel Television want officers to work to rule and only complete eight hours a day? I remember the fuss from CTV and others because I gave officers a Sunday off during the early days of the enquiry. By the way, did Wiltshire work only eight hours a day during the investigation which led to the long overdue and hugely expensive report of which something like only ten per cent ever saw the light of day? I think not.


The first class flight to Australia. How many times is this nonsense going to be resurrected? Let me make one thing clear first of all. This trip was carried out in perfect accordance with States rules on long haul flights, and the relevant regulations can be found at paragraph 2.5 of the States Travel Policy. Have a look at the trips carried out by States members and Civil Servants to long haul destinations. You will find that NONE of them have travelled economy. Let me once again explain that on 28th May 2008 I submitted a full report to Frank Walker through Steven Austen-Vaughtier which explained all the circumstances of this trip, (which incidentally led directly to the conviction of a child abuser who received a jail sentence.) I will summarise some of the main points in the report.


· The initial quote for the flights was £7,879 for Business Class including the five hour flight from Perth to Brisbane. This was by Emirate Airlines who were by far the cheapest option. However, when it came to making the booking the only option was to return first class at an additional cost of £700. To offset this, the officers opted to fly the five hour journey from Perth to Brisbane by economy class, which meant that the first class journey on the return leg only cost £122 more. Again this was offset by the free chauffer services which saved a further £86. Net cost, £36. Furthermore, whilst away, the officers took NO rest days thus saving on a further eight days hotel and food costs. This was despite lengthy interviews with emotional and nervous victims.


My report to Walker and Austen-Vaughtier not only contained a full explanation of the trip but also had attached receipts and a full daily itinerary. The report followed a meeting with Mr Austen Vaughtier and the female head of Finance, during which they fully agreed that the costs of the trip were properly incurred and totally justified. I received through the Accounting Officer the confirmation that Frank Walker had also agreed the costs were within the States Policy and fully justified, although I could almost hear his teeth grating. Isn’t it strange how all this was forgotten when I retired and left the island and the subject of the Australian trip was raised again? Mind you, Frank Walker has had a faulty memory on a lot of things involving the SOJ Police in the past few years.


Not for the first time, my instincts told me that desperate and dishonest attempts would be made to distort the truth of this, and I therefore kept a copy of the report to Frank Walker and the attachments which went with it. Anyone interested in seeing it need only ask, as the details have already been widely discussed incorrectly in the media.


Next, were the “unnecessary trips to London.” There were trips to London for three reasons as I recall. Firstly to interview victims and witnesses, and then record statements. Secondly, to arrange and secure the loan of specialist equipment from the Metropolitan Police such as the sifting machine which was borrowed from Scotland Yard free of charge and at a saving of many thousands of pounds. Thirdly, there were the trips to a department of the Met which advises on the operational security of investigations, both physical and other types of security. Not only was advice given, but Met officers visited the incident room at Jersey and carried out security surveys. Again, all free of charge. The officers from the department concerned at the Yard were all interviewed and provided full information on the services they provided. Funny how none of their statements have ever been mentioned.


And then of course, the revelation that visiting officers were put up in four star hotels in Jersey and in particular the “L’Horizon.” No mention of the fact that because of the hard work of our Admin staff and the fact that we were out of the tourist season and able to guarantee room occupancy, we actually only paid £70 a night at the hotel mentioned. How many States members and Civil Servants stay in hotels costing £70 a night when they go to the UK and other destinations on business? I can safely say that the answer, should CTV care to investigate will be none. Why, when you are at it, don’t you ask the SOJ Police to make the accounts for the hotels available? They will be revealing. Just where did Channel want us to accommodate officers living away from home and carrying out this difficult and important investigation? In tents?


One more thing I should add. Despite all of these allegations being aired as if true, and despite the several days and hours of fully tape-recorded interviews and statements that Wiltshire obtained from me, NOT ONCE was I ever asked by them about any of the above. Why not? Perhaps as part of their efforts to win the same award next year, Channel Television might ask them. They might also ask what expenses they incurred during their enquiry which I would venture to suggest was not nearly a fraction of the importance to the victims of the horrific abuse meted out by people working for the government of Jersey to innocent children.


Leonard Harper South Ayrshire (End)

25th January 2011

Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your letter sent by email on 23rd January.


Your comments regarding the story broadcast by Channel Television on the findings of the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Inquiry are noted.


Channel Television offered a right of reply to former police chief Graham Power as the man ultimately responsible for the management of the abuse inquiry and included Mr Power’s interview as part of the broadcast report.
I am very satisfied that our report was accurate, fair and balanced.


Yours sincerely,


CTV (name changed) (End)

Wednesday, 26 January, 2011 17:25:27
To CTV
From Lenny Harper

Dear CTV (name changed).  Thank you for your reply.  Although it addresses none of the issues or questions I raised, it does prove that you are unique.  You are the only person I know who thinks that programme was fair, balanced, or accurate.  Especially accurate.
Lenny Harper (End)


Why didn’t CTV address Lenny Harper’s issues or questions? Why, in the interest of being fair, balanced and factual didn’t CTV give Lenny Harper "the right of reply" and report them? “fair, balanced and accurate” but by who’s standards? And are these the standards that "non accredited" media should hold as some kind of benchmark?

Another "kick in the teeth" for Abuse Survivors.

In continuation of our previous Blog we follow up with a letter of complaint to the Royal Television Society from the Jersey Care Leavers Association. The complaint, as regular readers/viewers will be aware is about the decision of RTS to present CTV with an RTS Award for “Regional Programme of the Year” or something like that.


This award has outraged a number of people, but none so important as the Abuse Survivors themselves. Below is the letter sent by JCLA and one hopes that when those at Channel Television are all patting themselves on the back that they are aware of the pain and anguish they have caused, and are still causing, the very people they SHOULD be giving a voice to.

In the coming days we will publish the letter, sent to RTS 2 days ago by VFC and have not even had an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a reply.

Letter from JCLA to RTS

25th January 2011

Ref: CTV/RTS/Award

Dear Sirs,

We are a charity known as the Jersey Careleavers Association, formed in the wake of the Historic Abuse Enquiry in Jersey, not just for Haut de la Garenne abuse victims, but for all Careleavers who had suffered abuse at the hands of the States of Jersey run children’s homes.

The past few years have been very difficult for us, having to re-live our most horrendous memories and inner feelings again. We have encountered a lot of negatives, not only from members of our Government, but sadly from our local ‘accredited’ media also.

It is therefore with great dismay that we learn that Channel Television have won an award, based on a very biased, one-sided and indeed factually lacking report on the alleged ‘expenses scandal’ by the police team who were instrumental in bringing these abuses into the open.

There was indeed NO expenses scandal. The scandal lay, and still does, in the cover-up there has been, and the vilification of police officers who were totally trusted by the abuse survivors. The investigation team were offered an open cheque book by our then Chief Minister, and indeed all expenses were scrutinised and authorised by a senior civil servant.

This award therefore has been based on misinformation and very frugal information, and we beg to ask the question, how much investigation was done into the fuller story behind this ‘news’ item? It cannot have been a lot, because there is a far, far bigger picture to this.

As a group, we are very sorry to say we cannot trust our local media to be open, honest and unbiased, as they have proved time and time again that their interests lay on the side of our Government.

We have suffered many ups and downs over the last few years, more downs than ups. Just when we felt that the ‘knocks’ were coming to an end, we have been kicked in the teeth yet again by this totally unjustified accolade being awarded to CTV for a very misleading piece of journalism.

We would also be most interested if you are able to tell us how you initially came into possession of this piece of ‘journalism’, and furthermore who put this forward for the award.

We await your comments with interest.

Yours Sincerely
(name redacted through fear of repercussions)
Jersey Care Leavers Association

Congratulations CTV, but what about ALL the “facts?”

Channel Television have just won a regional programme of the year award for, by the looks of it, copying and pasting parts of a Report carried out by the Wiltshire Constabulary, and ignoring ACPO.

One of the first people to congratulate CTV was former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and Senior Investigating Officer of "Operation Rectangle Lenny Harper (re-produced below). Although Lenny spells out some “facts” there are a few that he could have added. The fact that Gradwell and Warcup spent more on “Operation Rectangle” than he did, to the tune of more than HALF A MILLION QUID. How the hell did they manage that? And ultimately he was not responsible for the expenditure. Perhaps CTV will be interviewing Steven Austin Vautier or Frank Walker about their involvement and accountability?

Letter from Lenny Harper to CTV.

Dear Sir/Madam,


Congratulations to Channel Television on winning the Regional Programme of the year for the programme on the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. It is a great pity that you did not check the facts or you would have had a really good story. Let me clarify a few points for you. I will deal with them in the order they appear in the story.


“Officers clocked up hundreds of hours overtime.” Show me a major enquiry anywhere in the world where officers do not have to work long hours. It is the nature of the job. There were hundreds of victims and many more witnesses. Did Wiltshire and Channel Television want officers to work to rule and only complete eight hours a day? I remember the fuss from CTV and others because I gave officers a Sunday off during the early days of the enquiry. By the way, did Wiltshire work only eight hours a day during the investigation which led to the long overdue and hugely expensive report of which something like only ten per cent ever saw the light of day? I think not.


The first class flight to Australia. How many times is this nonsense going to be resurrected? Let me make one thing clear first of all. This trip was carried out in perfect accordance with States rules on long haul flights, and the relevant regulations can be found at paragraph 2.5 of the States Travel Policy. Have a look at the trips carried out by States members and Civil Servants to long haul destinations. You will find that NONE of them have travelled economy. Let me once again explain that on 28th May 2008 I submitted a full report to Frank Walker through Steven Austen-Vaughtier which explained all the circumstances of this trip, (which incidentally led directly to the conviction of a child abuser who received a jail sentence.) I will summarise some of the main points in the report.


· The initial quote for the flights was £7,879 for Business Class including the five hour flight from Perth to Brisbane. This was by Emirate Airlines who were by far the cheapest option. However, when it came to making the booking the only option was to return first class at an additional cost of £700. To offset this, the officers opted to fly the five hour journey from Perth to Brisbane by economy class, which meant that the first class journey on the return leg only cost £122 more. Again this was offset by the free chauffer services which saved a further £86. Net cost, £36. Furthermore, whilst away, the officers took NO rest days thus saving on a further eight days hotel and food costs. This was despite lengthy interviews with emotional and nervous victims.


My report to Walker and Austen-Vaughtier not only contained a full explanation of the trip but also had attached receipts and a full daily itinerary. The report followed a meeting with Mr Austen Vaughtier and the female head of Finance, during which they fully agreed that the costs of the trip were properly incurred and totally justified. I received through the Accounting Officer the confirmation that Frank Walker had also agreed the costs were within the States Policy and fully justified, although I could almost hear his teeth grating. Isn’t it strange how all this was forgotten when I retired and left the island and the subject of the Australian trip was raised again? Mind you, Frank Walker has had a faulty memory on a lot of things involving the SOJ Police in the past few years.


Not for the first time, my instincts told me that desperate and dishonest attempts would be made to distort the truth of this, and I therefore kept a copy of the report to Frank Walker and the attachments which went with it. Anyone interested in seeing it need only ask, as the details have already been widely discussed incorrectly in the media.


Next, were the “unnecessary trips to London.” There were trips to London for three reasons as I recall. Firstly to interview victims and witnesses, and then record statements. Secondly, to arrange and secure the loan of specialist equipment from the Metropolitan Police such as the sifting machine which was borrowed from Scotland Yard free of charge and at a saving of many thousands of pounds. Thirdly, there were the trips to a department of the Met which advises on the operational security of investigations, both physical and other types of security. Not only was advice given, but Met officers visited the incident room at Jersey and carried out security surveys. Again, all free of charge. The officers from the department concerned at the Yard were all interviewed and provided full information on the services they provided. Funny how none of their statements have ever been mentioned.


And then of course, the revelation that visiting officers were put up in four star hotels in Jersey and in particular the “L’Horizon.” No mention of the fact that because of the hard work of our Admin staff and the fact that we were out of the tourist season and able to guarantee room occupancy, we actually only paid £70 a night at the hotel mentioned. How many States members and Civil Servants stay in hotels costing £70 a night when they go to the UK and other destinations on business? I can safely say that the answer, should CTV care to investigate will be none. Why, when you are at it, don’t you ask the SOJ Police to make the accounts for the hotels available? They will be revealing. Just where did Channel want us to accommodate officers living away from home and carrying out this difficult and important investigation? In tents?


One more thing I should add. Despite all of these allegations being aired as if true, and despite the several days and hours of fully tape-recorded interviews and statements that Wiltshire obtained from me, NOT ONCE was I ever asked by them about any of the above. Why not? Perhaps as part of their efforts to win the same award next year, Channel Television might ask them. They might also ask what expenses they incurred during their enquiry which I would venture to suggest was not nearly a fraction of the importance to the victims of the horrific abuse meted out by people working for the government of Jersey to innocent children.


Leonard Harper


South Ayrshire (End)

There is enough in this letter to keep any "journalist" busy for years should they want, or be allowed to get, "the truth", They could learn how to attempt this from some Bloggers.  But one can't help focusing on the last paragraph, where I believe the former DCO appears to be asking, "how can you put a price on bringing Child Abusers to court?" Furthermore I would question the ethics of the "accredited" media for actually giving awards out for it!!

One must also remember that there are, at least, two sides to every story, so why didn't the Wiltshire Constabulary ask Lenny Harper for his side of this "story". Just as importantly, why didn't the award winning CTV ask him for it? We know CTV's interpretation of "Entirely Accurate" and trust they will abandon it in this instance and report the FULL story.

Goodbye Boscar.

Today brings this Blog back to it’s roots. I originally started Blogging as a way (the only way left) to protect my children from this government. As a result of this, I have received death threats, threats of physical violence and more that I’ll not mention on this particular posting.


Today’s Blog is for my children, they want to say goodbye to a much loved member of our family “Boscar” who very sadly took ill yesterday and was put down. Boscar was our 13 year old Boxer dog.

This is without doubt the hardest Blog I have ever published and might not make a lot of sense to a lot of people. I know people have lost loved ones etc. and will say “it’s only a dog” but to my children and family he was that much more.

I re-produce below (by request from my children) the handwritten goodbye letters they have written to their “brother” hoping that this Blog posting will immortalise him. Unfortunately I have to omit the names of my children because of the threats I have received.

Letter from my 17 year old son.


To Boscar.

When I first saw you I was 4. I was the happiest kid alive, I had my dog. At first you were a bit dopey but that was the best thing about you. As you got older so did I but we never grew out of each other.


As the years went on our bond grew and you were like a brother to me. Three years later our sister was born, and you were there for her just like a human would be. You looked after us when we needed you, you were “super dog” to me. Now that you’re gone, you are still here in all our hearts and your son’s “Clay”.


Now it’s my turn to look after someone and don’t you worry I’ll make sure he is happy. So you just keep running and chasing them seagulls and just remember, I LOVE YOU.


Goodbye super dog.


(name excised) Xxxx

From my 10 year old daughter.



Dear Boscar.


This is the saddest day of my life and the paper I am writing on is wet with my tears. I am trying to think of all the happy times I have shared with you but I am still very, very sad.


I miss you so much and I wish you were here where you belong, with the family. I will look after Clay for you and for as long as I live I will never forget you or the love I feel for you.


I am too sad to write anything else for you but I will write to you again soon.


All my love.


(name excised)


Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


RIP Boscar.

The Law Office(r)s Part 1

As part of an up-coming “Team Voice” venture, where we will be looking at the Law Officers, who are, it is believed by some, the people who hold the real power in Jersey. They are unaccountable. They are powerful and unaccountable and nobody can do much, or anything, about it. They are not elected. They are not on any fixed term appointments that we are aware of. The process by which they are selected is a bit of a mystery and once appointed they appear to hold their powerful position for life or until they retire or move on.

No legislation or significant changes in the way the Island is governed can pass through the States without their endorsement and Ministers defer to their “advice” on all significant issues. They are the gatekeepers of the States. They control the legislative agenda and they control debates and questions, rarely hesitating to block or rule out of order anything which challenges establishment interests “The Jersey Way.” That is their power base. Ministers and even Chief Ministers come and go. The law officers remain as the bedrock of real political power in the Island.

In this “episode” we look at, among others, the current Attorney General and former Solicitor General Tim Le Cocq and the role played by, not so much him, but his (conflicted) position.

We thought where better to start than the possibly illegal suspension of our most Senior Police Officer Graham Power QPM?

1. 12th November 2008. A Suspension meeting of CPO Graham Power QPM is held. Bill Ogley (BO) the (then) Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM (GP) and Andrew Lewis (AL) the (then) Home Affairs Minister are present. The (then) Chief Minister Frank Walker (FW) in the next room. Things were said by all sides. BO takes notes with pen and pad. He asks GP, we are told, to slow down at one point so he can catch the words and write them down. Andrew Lewis lets it slip that he has already discussed how to handle the suspension with other Ministers and that he and FW are giving a Press Conference about it that afternoon. This is while he is “considering” whether the Chief Police Officer GP should be suspended.

2. 13th November 2008 GP hands in a letter saying that he challenges the legality of the process. He (GP) also gives media interviews in which the issue of legality and a possible legal challenge are raised.

3. 19th November 2008. Ian Crich, head of States HR (but not anymore) writes a letter on administrative issues but also includes a statement that he is aware of comments made by GP to the media challenging the legality of the suspension.

4. 24th November 2008. GP gives formal written notice to the Home Affairs Minister of his intention to seek a Judicial Review of the suspension. He also asks for a copy of the written record of the suspension interview.

5. 29th November 2008 GP receives a typed document in the post. The document purports to be a record of the suspension meeting. The document is inaccurate and says things which, according to GP, are not true.

6. 1st December 2008. GP writes to the Home Affairs Minister pointing out the alleged inaccuracies and untruths in the typed record of the meeting. He (GP) asks for a copy of the original hand written notes.

7. 4th December 2008 Ian Crich writes to GP telling him that the original notes of the meeting have been destroyed!!!!!

8. During December 2008 GP is in discussions with officials of the Royal Court (Law Officers) regarding an application for a Judicial Review. The Home Affairs Minister is kept informed of this intention. (Formal Papers are served on the Minister in January 2009.)

9. During December 2008 it becomes clear that the absence of the original notes of the suspension meeting is a difficulty for the Judicial Review proceedings. On 15th December 2008 GP writes to the Home Affairs Minister and formally complains about the destruction of the notes by BO. GP points out that the destruction appears to have occurred after he (GP) had made it clear that he was taking legal action and in those circumstances it could be a criminal act (attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.) The Minister refers the matter to the Law Officers.

10. 16th February 2009. GP receives a letter telling him that there will be no criminal investigation regarding the destruction of the notes by the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley. The letter is signed by, none other than, the then Solicitor General (SG) Tim Le Cocq. The SG later represents the Minister in the Royal Court in opposing the former Police Chief’s (GP) Judicial Review Proceedings!!

It should also be remembered that according to GP, the SG (who was acting as lawyer for the Home Affairs Minister and the Crown’s interests at the same time) would not allow an investigation as to whether the notes were destroyed in order to prevent their use in Court. That is not the same as him saying that there would be no prosecution. From what is understood when a matter has been investigated the Law Officers decide to take no further action, because of lack of evidence or the old “public interest” sketch. That is not what happened here.

The SG, we are told, decided that there was to be no investigation. So therefore he couldn’t consider the evidence because HE decided not to allow the evidence to be gathered!!! The Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, made a criminal complaint. No investigating officer was appointed and nobody asked him (GP) to make a statement!! The SG decided that the matter would go no further and so that was that!! He then went to Court as Lawyer acting on behalf of the very people who had been complained against. It is difficult to imagine a more conflicted situation. It is conflicted and it looks conflicted. No right minded person could look at it and not see it as conflicted. But the then Solicitor General went ahead anyway. We do not know what was in his mind when he did so. But we know what his behavior looks like. It looks like the behavior of someone who knows that he is conflicted and does not care because he knows that nobody can do anything about it. That is the “Jersey Way.” The Government’s Chief Lawyer is also the Chief Prosecutor and also the person who defends Jersey Ministers in Jersey Courts should anyone be rash enough to challenge the legality of what is taking place. They appear not to care what anyone thinks and they do not bother to pretend that anything is otherwise than it seems.

In banana Republics and Dictatorships at least the Legal Authorities pretend that they are independent of government. In Jersey they do not even bother to pretend. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General are the most influential politicians in the Island. They do not have to bother about elections. They do not have to bother about terms of office. They just hold power while politicians come and go. They are not merely the power behind the throne, they are the power beside the throne and in front of the throne. And nothing that happens on voting day alters that one bit.

Let us also assume that the new Police Chief Mr. Mike Bowron knows his place and how things are done, in Jersey, should he go "off script".

The Lions Sleep tonight?

Yesterday, Thursday 6th of January 2011, saw the final conviction(s) of the cases from “Operation Rectangle”. Anthony Jordan was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and his wife Morag Jordan was given 9 months.


Operation Rectangle, as regular readers will be aware, is/was the police investigation into Child Abuse at State run institutions in Jersey spear-headed by Lenny Harper, Graham Power and their team of dedicated professionals. After Lenny Harper’s retirement and the possibly illegal suspension of Graham Power the investigation was taken over, and some would say “sabotaged” by Mick Gradwell and David Warcup.

The Children’s Home, Haute de la Garenne became its main focus, although there were other institutions such as the Sea Cadets and Blanche Pierre where allegations of abuse were made, but curiously no charges ever brought against the suspects and this is after one of the suspects had a miraculous recovery from a terminal illness!!

We have seen, over the last couple of years, what many of us believe to be, a handful of “show trials” a few lambs fed to the lions in order to keep the statistics of convictions up. In this posting I will just concentrate on the Jordans.

The violence, pain and suffering, that these two individuals inflicted on their victims is/was heinous and inexcusable. I was present at parts of the trial so know of the violence they dished out to the very people (vulnerable children) they were supposed to “care” for….but after listening to the evidence of their victims one could not help thinking these two (the Jordans) have been made scapegoats.

During the adjournments I got talking to a number of the victims and witnesses. One victim in particular gave testimony, in fact two witnesses that I know of gave testimony, but I got talking to one of them who was subjected to violent assaults from Anthony Jordan. Both said that the Jordans were not the most violent “carers” at Haute de la Garenne. The victim that I got talking to told me that when he/she first gave a statement to the police he/she didn’t even mention the Jordans because he/she didn’t believe the police would be interested. In comparison to the violence he/she was subjected to by another member of staff, the Jordans were pussy cats. In testimony the victim said when it came to dishing out violence xxxxxxx “took the biscuit”

This person (“carer?”) was named in the court by the defence advocate(s) and witnesses that many times that the judge asked them to desist from naming this person. Not being a lawyer myself it appeared to me that the defence might have been trying to show that if this person is not in the dock then neither should the defendants be, something that the victim I was speaking to didn’t necessarily disagree with!!

The victim told me that if anybody should be in the dock, first and foremost it should be xxxxxxx. The alleged abuser is currently a Civil Servant at the Education Department who was investigated as a suspect in the Child Abuse enquiry but was never charged. Not sure why not, whether apparently there was insufficient evidence or it was “not in the public interest”.

Many statistics were left out of the recent press release from David Warcup. One of them being that 93% of the suspects were never charged. Out of 121 living suspects 8 were charged, how does that stack up with the national average? Who are the remaining 118 suspects? Well we know one of them! What were their positions? How many of them are still employed by the States?

Anthony Jordan, who had absolutely no experience of child “care” was employed by somebody at Haute de la Garenne and was never given any training in childcare while working at HDLG, who employed him? Why was he not given any training? The victims were complaining about the abuse they were suffering, who were they complaining to, why haven’t they been in the dock? How was this abuse able to carry on for decades?

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?”

After the Jordans received their sentences, the victims I spoke to appeared to feel that justice had been, (to some degree) served. Is this because the victims expectations were so low? Or was justice served on the Jordans? Only the victims can answer that question.

There is little doubt that others should have been put in the dock, and might still face Civil action, but for the time being there are to be no more criminal trials coming from Operation Rectangle.

Is it the case that a few sacrificial lambs have been fed to the lions and those with more power and influence have been, and are being, “protected?” Only a full “public” inquiry will answer that question.