Monday, 28 October 2013

Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Law. (RIPL)

Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron

Attorney General Tim Le Cocq

Bailiff Michael Birt

John Nutting QC

Readers may have been following the exchanges in the UK following the Wikileaks revelations regarding the extent to which security agencies are tapping into the communications of political figures and ordinary citizens.


It has been revealed that the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel could have been tapped by the American National Security Agency (NSA) and might have been tapped for the last ten years as reported HERE. The British equivalent (GCHQ) also has many uncomfortable questions to answer.  If somebody as high risk as the German Chancellor can be bugged, we have to ask, how many not so powerful political dissidents and "independent" journalists, particularly in Jersey, are under surveillance?

So far the unfolding story may appear to be nothing to do with Jersey but according to some reliable sources who have been in touch with "The Voice" then this is far from the case. However, to begin with we will take a brief look at the law in Jersey and just who is in control. 

In future postings we will look at some of the alleged abuses and ask whether there is a need for a new look at how these things are managed in the Island. Unlike the local State Media the Citizen journalists from "The Voice" will be asking some hard questions about those in power. For the benefit of anyone from the State Media who happens to be reading, that is what proper journalists do but is left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media). But first, in order to bring readers up to date, we set out in this Blog Posting the current situation as we understand it, in order that readers can be prepared for the revelations which are to follow.


A contribution by a “Friend of the Voice” 

As a friend and regular reader of the “Voice” I have been asked to produce a “plain person’s guide” to the laws governing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers in Jersey. I am told that this is because of some of the continuing fallout from the Curtis Warren case and also because of some apparent controversy relating to the management of these powers in the Island.

I am not a lawyer, a police officer, or a customs officer, but I do have some indirect knowledge of these laws and how they operate. A copy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Law 2005 (RIPL) and the accompanying Codes of Practice are available on the Jersey Legal Information Board (JLIB) website. These are some useful documents for anyone interested in exploring the subject in greater detail than I will attempt, although it is fair to warn that they are not an easy read. I have attempted to study these documents and have been helped by the comments of friendly contacts with recent legal and operational experience in dealing with this law. I hope that I have correctly summarised the contributions which I have received from others. The challenge has been to attempt to “boil down” a complex law into something comprehensible to normal everyday folk. I hope that I have had some success. Any mistakes are mine and not those of the patient and helpful people who have assisted me with this task.

It might be useful to begin with setting out what I think this law is about. It is basically about the powers of various state agencies to intrude into the privacy of citizens by such actions as placing them under surveillance, tracking their movements, bugging their cars, their phones, their homes or targeting them with hidden cameras. The law sets out who can do this, what the grounds are for doing it, who can give authority or issue a warrant for such actions, and how evidence from this type of activity can be admitted as evidence in a Court. There is an additional law which provides more information on the interception of telephone and other communications. This is the Interception of Communications Law 1993 which, for those with a serious interest, can be found from the link above (JLIB). Although I have taken information from both laws I will not deal with any of the laws in detail as I have been told that what is required is a simple explanation of how the Regulation of Investigatory Powers works in most cases in most circumstances.

Article 11 of RIPL sets out who can apply for a warrant under the law to install bugging devices and similar activity set out in the law. The people who can make an application in Jersey are: The Chief of Police, the Head of Customs and Immigration, the Director General of the UK Security Service (MI5), The Chief of the UK Secret intelligence Service (MI6), The Director of GCHQ, and the Head of Intelligence at the UK Ministry of Defence. I am told that in Jersey the Chief of Police and the Head of Customs make periodic use of the Law. I do not know what use MI5, MI6 or the Military make of the law and I am not likely to find out. Sorry about that. I have no information to offer on those organisations. I just know that Jersey lawmakers have included them in the law.

It might be useful to the reader to set out two opposing views on the effect of the laws referred to above. One view is that they give extensive powers to state agencies to “snoop” on the public. Another view is that they in fact restrict intrusion by laying down a set of rules, prior to which there were no clear constraints on this type of activity. Whichever view is taken these laws are the ones which apply in Jersey now.

It might also be useful to make the point that this article is confined to high level intrusion into the privacy of a suspect or suspects, which would involve things such as the installation of hidden bugging devices or the monitoring of phone calls. These things are subject to specific controls, a prescribed application process, and a requirement for the issue of a warrant before any action is taken. What is described as ”non intrusive” activity such as surveillance in a street or public place can normally be authorised by a senior officer in the organisation concerned, subject to relevant rules and guidelines. For those with a keen interest, the Code gives some details of how “non intrusive” surveillance and similar activity is authorised and managed.

I have set out above the details of who can make an application for a warrant under the law. The grounds for an application are also set out in the legislation. For practical purposes the grounds which matter are National Security and Serious Crime. RIPL defines “Serious Crime” in detail. The short definition is that the term “Serious Crime” is applied to offences for which a person aged 21 or over with no previous convictions could expect to receive a prison sentence of 3 years or more. I am told that in Jersey nearly all of the warrants issued under this provision relate to drug trafficking and drug dealing.

I have asked contacts how this process works in practice and this is what I have been told. Apparently, when the Police or Customs have information about activity which could amount to a “Serious Crime” the front line officers involved assess whether some form of intrusive activity, such as bugging or phone monitoring, is necessary and justified. If they think it is then they submit a detailed case to the relevant Chief Officer asking him to use his powers to make a formal application to the Attorney General for a warrant to allow the intrusive activity to take place. My contacts in the UK tell me that in the UK this was once done by means of a detailed written application but is now more commonly done by means of a specially designed computer system which records all of the information and the decisions taken in a database which is not capable of subsequent amendment. This means that decisions cannot be reviewed with the benefit of hindsight. I do not know what method is used in dealing with these matters in Jersey.

On the subject of applying to the Jersey Attorney General for a warrant, my UK contacts expressed some surprise at this part of the Jersey process. Procedures in the UK vary between the different national jurisdictions (for example Northern Ireland is different to Scotland and so forth) but it is usual for applications to be finally considered and a warrant issued by a judge or a government minister, both of whom would be expected to be completely independent of any investigation or prosecution which might follow. UK contacts see the position in Jersey as conflicted in that a warrant is granted by the Attorney General who is also the head of the prosecution service and legal advisor to both Police and Customs. The Attorney General would therefore be issuing a warrant in respect of a case in which he may have some direct involvement, either at the time or in the future. One UK observer with some knowledge of the Warren case saw this conflict as being a key difficulty with that investigation. Regular readers of this website will be aware that conflicts of interest are not exactly unknown in the Jersey legal system. Keen collectors may nevertheless wish to add this example to their list.

I am aware that some readers would like to know more specific details about how the process of scrutiny of applications by the Chief Officers of Police and Customs operates in Jersey. I have made my enquiries and have not been able to find out anything beyond that which I have set out above. That said, the law is clear enough. An application to the Attorney General for a warrant can only be made by the Chief Officer (or his Deputy in his absence) and no other. On my reading of the law the role of the Chief Officer in scrutinising applications would appear to be one of the key safeguards in the legislation. I have spoken to a contact in the UK whose role once involved attempting to persuade Chief Officers of Police to make applications for warrants. He told me that the procedure involved operational officers putting together a written case for a warrant, followed by a meeting with a Chief Officer (usually an Assistant Chief Constable) who would ask questions. I was told that this was sometimes a difficult process, with Chief Officers often rejecting applications or sending them back for more evidence or information. This happened to such an extent that my contact began to take a cynical view of this process. He suspected that Chief Officers were sometimes asking for more information for no better reason than to create an “audit trail” which purported to demonstrate how thoroughly they were scrutinising applications thereby protecting themselves from any allegation that they were taking their duties lightly. That is all I can find out on this subject.

Once a warrant is issued by the Jersey Attorney General then the relevant intrusive action can take place. The legislation and the code set out rules regarding the need to review progress and ensure that the original grounds are still valid.

The point of obtaining a warrant from the Attorney General is, in most cases, to ensure that evidence and information is lawfully obtained and can be used in Court. But it is a bit more complicated than that. Some material can be used as evidence and some can only be used as intelligence. The difference between evidence and intelligence is that evidence can be used in Court but intelligence is used to assist in the search for evidence. The monitoring of telephone calls is an example of this difference. Articles 20 and 21 of RIPL appear to deal with this, albeit in a way which is near impenetrable to a non-legal mind. I have been told that the practical effect of this part of the law is that the transcript of a monitored telephone conversation cannot be used as evidence in a Court. This is consistent with the law in the UK. But it can be used as intelligence. For example if Customs monitor a telephone call in which suspects talk of a planned drug importation then they can use the information from the call to intercept the importation, but cannot use the contents of the call as evidence. The same does not apply to such things as bugging devices. Anything relevant which such devices pick up can be used in evidence, including, interestingly, the voice of someone speaking into a nearby telephone. From what I have read, something of this kind appeared to have occurred during the Warren case.

This does not mean that evidence obtained outside the rules set out in the Law and the Code cannot be used in Court. It just means that if evidence is obtained within the rules then it would be very hard for a Court to exclude it. If evidence is obtained outside the rules then the Court has to decide whether to admit the evidence or not, depending on the overall circumstances of the case. Nothing in the Laws themselves appears to exclude a Court from admitting evidence gathered outside the terms of the Law and the Code.

I have been asked to write something about the role of the Commissioner in overseeing the working of the law. Details of his role can be found in Article 9 of the Interception of Communications Law and elsewhere. The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications and for RIPL in Jersey is a UK Judge. Currently it is Sir John Nutting QC who is an Appeal Court Judge. The Commissioner has sweeping powers to visit the Island and scrutinise all records and activity in relation to RIPL. Everyone involved is required to give him full access and cooperation. In plain terms his role is to ensure that all parties are playing by the rules and to make recommendations for improvement. He produces an annual report to the States (Jersey’s Parliament.) His reports are published and a recent report is to be found HERE. The law allows him to exclude from his public report anything which might undermine justice. From studying the Commissioners reports this exclusion appears to be given a wide interpretation to include breaches of the prescribed procedures by law enforcement agencies. Presumably this is done on the grounds that if too much information was released on the workings of those agencies such information might be of benefit to criminal organisations. So if there was any significant concern about the way that agencies in Jersey were conducting themselves with regard to intrusive activity then this would not be included in the report to the States. In such circumstances the Commissioner makes a separate confidential report to the Bailiff. In Jersey the Bailiff is a non-elected official who is Speaker in the States and the Senior Judge in Jersey’s Royal Court. At least two contentious issues appear to arise from this arrangement. The first is that none of the agencies which conduct intrusive activity in Jersey are accountable to the Bailiff. It is not clear what if anything the Bailiff is able to do about any reported breach of the law or who is able to hold him to account for his response to any critical comment which the Commissioner might make. Readers may wish to consider whether this is an appropriate arrangement in an alleged democracy. The second point is that there would appear to be at least a theoretical possibility that the Bailiff would be shown intelligence material relating to a case which could later appear before him in his capacity as a judge. This raises the issue of yet another potential conflict of interest.

I hope this short summary is useful in assisting interested readers in understanding the basic features of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers in Jersey.(END)


The many conflicted hats of the Bailiff and Attorney General rear their heads once more and begs the question who holds the real power in Jersey? This, in our opinion, further demonstrates it is the Law Offices and NOT the "Democratically" elected members of parliament.

Readers might think that the Law (RIPL) is being administered correctly in Jersey and that loopholes in parts of the Law are not being exploited by those in power?..........................Stay tuned.

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Response from State Greffier Michael De La Haye.

Further to our previous posting where we published the PRESS RELEASE concerning the nomination of the Chairman for the Committee Of Inquiry into the decades of Child Abuse Frances Oldham QC. We publish a response from States Greffe Michael De La Haye.

In our previous posting we told readers that we were in contact (and still are) with Mr. De La Haye, all through the weekend. Before we published our previous posting, the relevant part was sent to Mr. De La Haye in order to give him a right of reply before publication.

Yesterday we received an e-mail from Mr. De La Haye, in response to the Blog Posting, and e-mail exchanges, which was considered for publication in the comments section of that posting. However, in the interest of fairness and balance, it has been decided that it should be a stand alone Blog Posting.

State Greffier Michael De La Haye. 

"I am writing in connection with our exchanges of emails over the weekend and today and in particular in relation to your request to be interviewed for your blog. I should mention at the outset that I have not given any media interviews about the nomination of Frances Oldham QC and the reports in today's media have all been simply based on the media release that I forwarded to you under embargo as requested at the weekend.

As I mentioned at the weekend I do not believe it would appropriate for me to be interviewed by you. As Greffier of the States I have to be scrupulous in everything that I do to ensure that I am never seen to do anything in my work that could be perceived as political or politically controversial. I hope all members of the States would confirm that I endeavor in everything I do to comply with this requirement so that no-one can ever claim that I am not at all times a totally impartial and independent officer of the States.

Although there are a range of political views about blog sites in Jersey I know you would not disagree if I say that it is clear that there are some States members who consider blogs are important and some of these are willing to engage actively with you and other bloggers to give interviews etc whereas there are other States members who do not wish to engage at all with you. It is not for me to comment on these varying views as to do so would be to be entering the political debate that will no doubt continue on this issue for the foreseeable future as the media landscape and the influence of the internet continues to evolve.

The immediate problem for me is that if I agreed to be interviewed on this issue my decision would be seen by some as a political statement on my part by those States members who feel it is inappropriate. These members could then be critical of my decision to be interviewed. I simply cannot, in my position, unilaterally decide that engaging with a blog site is a correct thing for the Greffier of the States to do. I'd stress most strongly that in taking this decision I'm not, as a result, 'siding' with those who think that engaging is incorrect but until there is general political agreement on what is appropriate I simply cannot be seen to be expressing a view either way.

I hope all who know me would agree that it is not in my nature to be awkward or obstructive and I am more than happy to explain briefly for you some of the steps that we followed in identifying Mrs Oldham so that you can be satisfied that she is a suitable person to chair the inquiry.

After the sad news about Sally Bradley QC's ill health the selection panel of Belinda Smith,Ed Marsden and myself met urgently to discuss how we could identify a new chairman. I should stress most strongly that we have never, at any time, sought any advice or guidance from anyone in Jersey about the appointment of a chairman and I can also confirm that luckily no one in Jersey has ever actually tried to tell me how I should go about the task of finding a Chairman. I have not, in fact, discussed the appointment process with anyone in Jersey until we had concluded it and even my own staff might say that I have been unusually secretive about what I have been doing! To avoid any 'Jersey' connection all the practical arrangements to contact people and arrange meetings etc were made through Ed Marsden's office.

We relied on a number of sources such as legal directories and enquiries with organisations in the UK to identify a number of potentially suitable QCs to chair the inquiry and Ed Marsden and I then met them for an initial discussion to explain what would be involved and to hear from them about their experience. We made extensive inquiries before and during the informal meetings that those we were seeing had absolutely no contacts at all with anyone in Jersey who was in any way involved with the issues to be covered in the inquiry and we made sure that they did not know anyone in Jersey who was in any way connected with the inquiry. A number of people were excluded because of connections and I think it is fair to say that we erred significantly on the side of caution when assessing any possible conflict.

When we saw potential chairmen we were keen to assess their proposed approach to the inquiry and ensure that they were aware of the importance of engaging in a sympathetic way with all who wanted to give evidence. We also wanted to hear what practical experience they had of dealing with victims of abuse and how they would ensure that appropriate arrangements were in place to handle all witnesses sensitively. We made sure that they appreciated how important the inquiry was for Jersey and wanted to know what experience they had of hearing potentially conflicting evidence and reaching an accurate conclusion. We were particularly keen to talk to QCs who had experience sitting as judges in the Family Division or the Crown Court as presiding in these courts and dealing with witnesses and lawyers for both sides would give very relevant experience for presiding over a public inquiry.

We shortlisted down to 3 QCs and the full selection panel then conducted a formal interview with these 3. We were unanimous at the end that Mrs Oldham had all the right experience to chair the inquiry. She has many years experience dealing with abuse cases and she explained to us that a huge proportion of the cases she deals with involve some form of physical or sexual abuse. She is determined to ensure that the inquiry allows people to tell their stories so that the inquiry finally brings closure and establishes exactly what happened over the period covered by the inquiry terms of reference. She has absolutely no connections at all with Jersey and has never met or come into contact with anyone connected in any way with the issues to be covered by the inquiry. She had never been to the island before coming for the interview we held. She convinced us that she will be fearless in getting to the truth to the best of her ability. She has sat as a judge for several years and in this capacity has to hear evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Importantly she has an extremely engaging and pleasant personal manner and we were convinced that she will be seen as a very suitable person to chair the inquiry by all who come into contact with her in the coming months.

Having been charged by the States to lead the selection process for a chairman I have done everything I can to ensure that the most suitable person possible (who was available to commit to work for some 12 months on this) was found. I recognize fully how important the inquiry is for the Island and was determined to do all I could to the best of my ability throughout the selection process to find the best person I could.

I hope this helps. For the avoidance of doubt I would mention that although I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to be interviewed I have no objection if you wish to publish this email on your blog site.

Michael de la Haye
Greffier of the States"(END)

It should be noted that in all our dealings with Mr. De La Haye we have found him to be extremely helpful, professional and impartial,willing to engage and answer any questions. If only some (most) of our politicians could take a leaf out of his book then maybe we could all work together in doing what is right for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and the Island as a whole......

Monday, 21 October 2013


Being the responsible and trusted media that we are we have adhered to the strict embargo placed on the Press Release issued by States Greffe Michael De La Haye (below) which is 00.01 Monday 21st October 2013.

This however didn't stop Jersey's ONLY "News"paper breaching the embargo by publishing information from it on Saturday 19th October.........Because they CAN breach embargoes being the ONLY "News"paper on the Island. If we Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) were to act so defiantly/irresponsibly we would never be given another embargoed Press Release. Thankfully, as mentioned above, we are more responsible than that and won't lower our standards to that of the discredited, and disgraced JEP.

As regular readers would expect, Team Voice will be reporting extensively on the (possibly controversial) appointment of Frances Oldham QC, and indeed the whole Committee of Inquiry and related issues.

But for now, at least, we give our readers the official Press Release (embargo respected).

"A senior UK lawyer with 36 years experience of family and criminal law matters is being nominated to chair the Committee of Inquiry into Historical Abuse.

Frances Oldham QC was first called to the Bar in 1977 and was appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 1994. She is regularly instructed in high profile cases in both criminal and family matters and has considerable experience dealing with cases involving sexual and physical abuse. She was appointed as a Crown Court Recorder in 1994 and is authorised to try serious cases involving rape and serious sexual offences. She has been a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division for over 10 years and she spends several weeks each year sitting as a judge in the criminal and family courts. She is also a judge for the Mental Health Restricted Patients Panel Tribunal and in 2012 she was appointed as a member of the QC Appointments Panel. She was leader of the Midland Circuit between 2002 and 2005 and Head of her Chambers for 7 years.

Mrs. Oldham’s nomination comes after the lawyer initially appointed to chair the inquiry, Mrs. Sally Bradley QC, became unwell in July and was unable to take up the position. The recruitment process for the replacement chairman has been undertaken by the same selection panel comprising Michael de la Haye, Greffier of the States, Belinda Smith, Senior Legal Counsel – Child Protection at the NSPCC and Ed Marsden, the Managing Partner of Verita. Informal discussions were held in the United Kingdom with 9 potential chairmen before 3 people were invited for a formal interview.

Mr. de la Haye said “The selection panel is unanimous in recommending Frances Oldham QC for this position. She has very extensive experience in many high profile cases in the UK and her combination of criminal and family law experience at the highest levels makes her eminently suitable to chair the inquiry in Jersey. She sits regularly as a judge in both the Crown Court and the Family Division of the High Court and she has vast experience of dealing with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Frances started her working career as a management trainee in the NHS before qualifying as a barrister and she was keen to point out to us that she
did not come from a privileged background which undoubtedly, in our view, helps her to relate well to people from all walks of life. The selection panel is convinced that she has exactly the right combination of empathy and firmness to chair the inquiry successfully in a totally independent and objective way.”

Following the selection of Mrs. Oldham to chair the inquiry the selection panel is now working with her to finalise the appointment of 2 committee members from the United Kingdom for the inquiry. The selection process for the members was already well underway before the summer but had to be placed on hold following the news of the previous chairman’s ill health. The selection panel is hopeful that the recruitment of 2 committee members can be concluded by the end of October so that the Chairman and members can begin to make plans for the inquiry to start.

Mrs. Oldham said “I am very pleased to have been nominated to chair this important inquiry and I am keen to ensure that the inquiry starts in early 2014. I am determined to run the inquiry in a way that will encourage all those who want to come forward to speak to us to do so. It is essential that the inquiry is able to establish exactly what happened in the care system in Jersey during the period covered by our terms of reference and I will ensure that everything possible is done to achieve that aim”.

The nominations of Mrs. Oldham and the 2 committee members will need to be approved by the States and the Chief Minister will be lodging the necessary proposition in due course so that the appointments can be considered by the Assembly in December."(END)


Team Voice, as regular readers would expect, have a number of REAL probing questions to ask that won't be asked by the State Media concerning the nomination of Frances Oldham QC.

Unfortunately, after repeated requests, we have been refused an interview with/by Mr. De La Haye (States Greffe) although he has been extremely helpful with supplying us with the embargoed Press Release (breached by the JEP) and has been in constant contact with us over the weekend.

We are still hopeful that we can reach some kind of a compromise on the interview front and Mr. De La Haye has said he is willing to answer our questions, it's just what format they take that is the sticking point right now, and hope to bring readers an update on that front as soon as we can.

Our argument is that we ARE the trusted media on the Island and the State Media stands accused of complicity in the whole cover-up of the Child Abuse and it's not us who breached the embargo or are accused of covering up any Child Abuse.

We believe the Committee of Inquiry will gain more credibility by engaging with those of us who have been at the forefront of investigative journalism on the island for the last 5 years or so and have campaigned heavily for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and indeed for the COI itself, for which we have been praised by a number of national/international journalists and local politicians.

The myth that surrounds the State Media being the trusted local news source, is just that,......a myth. If the State Media is granted an interview and Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) are refused, then it won't be our reputation/credibility that suffers, it will be that of the Committee of Inquiry itself.

This IS NOT a good beginning.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Stuart Syvret Demands "Lawful" Court.

It would appear that the State Funded so-called Superinjunction case against former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, continues to rumble on.

VFC, and a number of local Blogs, (Jersey's only independent media) has reported extensively on this case and even the State Media, in recent weeks, has had to report something about it. Today, once more, we bring our readers/viewers another exclusive.

We are told that Mr. Syvret was scheduled to appear in front of the Royal Court again today in relation to matters concerning the "superinjunction."

He tells us he has only just become aware of this himself after discovering an amount of paperwork/court documents dumped outside his flat door. Exactly what the documents say is still a little unclear as it would appear that Mr. Syvret hasn't, as yet read them, or at least in there entirety, but he does tell us that unless he is granted a "lawful" court hearing he will not be taking part in further actions against him or complying with them and he did not turn up for court today.

No doubt more will unfold, in the coming days/weeks/months but in the meantime we offer this exclusive interview where Mr. Syvret explains the situation from his perspective.

For recent previous postings from VFC on this case please look HERE HERE and HERE.

Sunday, 13 October 2013

3rd Anniversary of Abuse victim's deportation and STILL no support From Jersey Church/Establishment.

October 11th 2013 marked the third anniversary of the deportation of alleged abuse victim known as "HG." HG had reported (to the Dean of Jersey) that she was abused by a churchwarden. A subsequent Report was published, known as the KORRIS REPORT which was damming against the Dean and saw his commission suspended by Bishop Tim Dakin. Later to be reinstated after he (the Dean) APOLOGISED.

Since the publication of the Korris Report We have seen the Establishment CLOSE RANKS in order to protect.......The victim? No.....The Dean. It looks to have begun with this RECOGNISED FORMULA with the inevitable intrusion of Senator Philip Bailhache writing a letter to The Most Rev and Rt Hon Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in order to support.........The victim?.....No the Dean. Not only did Senator Bailhache support the Dean in this LETTER but he went one step further and labelled the victim as the abuser!

There has, in the opinion of Team Voice, been a relentless attack on HG who was treated appallingly by the Jersey authorities including being deported to England, left penniless and homeless as described by former Deputy Bob Hill (below).

Credit must go to State Radio for covering this story (3rd anniversary of HG's deportation) because as far as we are aware none of the rest of the State Media has bothered. But still one of the most burning questions hasn't been answered; Who from the church in Jersey has openly come out in support of HG? Where has the message of Jesus gone? How is it that an abuse victim can be treated in such an appalling manner and the church remain so silent? How is it that, if we remember Jesus was anti establishment, and crucified for speaking out against the establishment, that the establishment are now protecting/supporting his messenger (the Dean)? When did Jesus become part of the establishment?

The only open support this poor victim (HG) has received is from former DEPUTY BOB HILL , and local Bloggers and commenters to the Blogs.

Although Bob Hill was not (adequately) challenged by State Radio during the interview below neither was Bruce Willing published on RICO SORDA BLOG when he was in the studio the same morning.

Isn't it time the media starting challenging something/someone/anything/somebody? That said, at least the BBC made a lame effort which is more than the rest of the State Media has done. Will they be questioning as to whether Dame Heather Steele's Report will be worth the paper it is written on? Will they be questioning the Dame's apparent conflicts of interests? The Police's conflicts of interest? Who will be interested in the safety and well-being of HG, who until she was allegedly abused in Jersey or reported that she was abused was leading a perfectly happy life. Now she is penniless and homeless after being deported from the island. One wonders if she wished she had stayed quiet about the alleged abuse. Indeed after hearing what has happened to HG who will now speak out against/report abuse?

VFC credit BBC State Radio for this recording.

Thursday, 10 October 2013

School Shooting in Jersey Exclusive. (Update).

A little short of a month ago VFC published another Blogger (Jersey’s only independent media) exclusive.

We brought you the story from the mother of a child who was allegedly shot in the face by a teacher at his school using a Starting Pistol indoors at a five a side football match.

The teacher was fined £1,000 in the Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to discharging an imitation firearm although it is still a mystery as to why the teacher was not charged with assault, Actual Bodily Harm.

VFC is horrified, and appalled, to learn that after a so-called “internal” investigation, at the Education Department, the teacher is now back teaching at the school.

What kind of a message does this send out to parents, and the wider world? In our original reporting of this TRAGIC CASE a number of questions were asked and still remain unanswered, not least this; “what really has changed in child protection since the Haut de la Garenne/Savile cover-up? How much safer are our children now and how better represented are they when up against a States Department?”

It would appear that no lessons have been learnt since the Haut de la Garenne/Savile cover-up and the Education Department STILL won’t take child protection issues seriously.

It is inconceivable to believe a teacher can discharge an imitation firearm, at an indoor five a side football match, which causes a child to be taken to the hospital’s Accident and Emergency Department, be found guilty of the offence in the Magistrates Court and still keep his job.

Who conducted this “internal” investigation? What was its Terms Of Reference? Why wasn’t it an external and independent investigation? Considering all the alleged failings in this case has ANYBODY been held to account and if not why not?

We must remember that the “incident” occurred in the second lesson of the day yet the mother wasn’t informed of it until the child came home from school and told her himself. Why was the headmaster not told about the incident until the mother told him when she found out? Why didn’t the school take the child to A&E? How are parents supposed to have confidence that their child is safe at school when this sort of behavior (apparent worthless “internal” investigations) is still happening in light of the Haute de la Garenne/Savile atrocities/cover-ups?

Why isn’t the State Media reporting on this or asking any questions? Who IS asking questions besides Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media)?

Despite Jersey being at the centre of a major Child abuse cover-up, and attempting to raise its profile on the international/world stage as an open transparent and trustworthy jurisdiction, it is clear that NO lessons have been learnt and child protection issues remain as they always have……….non existent and so-called “investigations” are still conducted “in-house” with no outside scrutiny.

Speaking of scrutiny why is the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel so quiet on this issue? Who in Jersey will stand up, speak out, for its children if they won't?

If you believe child protection is taken any more seriously now than it was pre- Savile/HDLG you might want to think again?

Part one of this story can be read HERE