Monday, 16 June 2014

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and The "Health" Department.





On the day YET ANOTHER DAMMING REPORT was published concerning Jersey's "Health" Department and how the island's children are STILL being failed despite the old "lessons have been learnt" sketch.

The independent Committee Of Inquiry held its second preliminary public hearing to hear, among others, argument from the disgraced "Health" Service as to why it should not comply with the Inquiry's protocols and hand over vital evidence/documents.

The Health and Social Service Department have failed to comply with a summons from the Inquiry Team arguing Data Protection issues.  Chairperson Frances Oldham QC ruled against the disgraced Health Minister and ordered the Department to hand over the documents within seven days.

The full transcript of today's hearing will be published on the Inquiry's WEBSITE (hopefully) later tonight. In the meantime, from its website, we reproduce below its latest update after today's hearing.


16 June 2014
The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry will begin public hearings on Tuesday 22 July. The announcement was made by Frances Oldham QC, the Inquiry's Chair, at a preliminary hearing in St Helier.
The Inquiry is still waiting for documents from the States of Jersey relating to the Redress Scheme, set up to compensate victims of abuse in the care system.
A summons requesting these documents has not been complied with and will be the subject of a further preliminary hearing on Wednesday 2 July.
Mrs Oldham said: "Despite expressions of support from the States, these documents have not been forthcoming. The summons that was served is designed to prevent delays so that the Inquiry can get on with its work."
When oral hearings begin, it's expected the first witnesses will be experts on the care system in Jersey, and will provide evidence on its context and background.
Mrs Oldham has promised a "robust and fearless" investigation of the way the service was run
 on the island, including the abuse of children over many decades.
The Panel, including Prof Sandy Cameron and Alyson Leslie, aim to establish what happened and. They will make recommendations to ensure children are better protected in the future.
The transcript from today's preliminary hearing will be available on the website shortly.
The Inquiry's Legal Team is still taking witness statements. Anyone with experience or information that might be relevant is invited to get in touch.
Jersey/ UK:      0800 735 0100
International:  +44 (0) 1534 828 798
Post:  PO Box 551, St Helier, Jersey JE4 8XN





87 comments:

  1. Everybody is being failed VFC not just children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There will be greater tests of the CoI's metal.
      This little spat could just be a charade put on for the public to make it look as thought the inquiry is doing it's job.

      Time will tell.

      Delete
    2. yes, everyone is being failed, the vulnerable, people with special needs, everyone.

      Delete
  2. SSDD - What a surprise the same lying tactics of data protection to refuse to tell the truth. Why waste the six million and just give it to the victims? This is scandalous and who is milking who?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now why on earth would the health dept not want to hand over documents that to an inquiry inititated by its politcal and financial paymsters- the assembly of the States of Jersey? Moreover, what confidence can ordinary people have in dealings with the bureaucracy of the Health department when it is prepared to try to deny even the CoI.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, in a nutshell the States (Health Department) are now being obstructive, and the Chair (Frances Oldham) is being pro-active. What does this say to us all?

    Please States of Jersey, let the Inquiry get on with its remit without hindrance or obstruction if you have nothing to fear. Enough is now enough surely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It must be obvious to anyone with half a brain ( except brown nose or incompetent states members ) why they were so keen to pass data protection laws. Who are they really trying to protect ? Is there any truth that certain senior managers at the health service have been granted unlimited overtime, and W.H Smith have sold out of black marker felt tip pens ?

    Well done to Francis Oldham QC and her panel, show no mercy in the hunt for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After the war files went missing. Then as your not expecting one to turn up it does! This enquiry might be just an excuse to bluff the public into thinking all our Civil servants are human or just full of the brown stuff...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Data protection has its downsides but in the long run it is essential and a positive step. In regards to the documents, I think it's been blown out of proportion by most of the local media. The fact of the matter is; Health want to cover their backs by ensuring they are not breaking the law by handing over sensitive information with no legal requirement to do so. Therefore, to get around this, the summons idea was introduced to ensure there is a legal requirement, so health no longer have to worry and can hand all information over in this way. She even said in the video that they would be using the same method with all departments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the health department have refused to comply with the summons!

      Delete
  8. meanwhile a millions miles away at Scrutiny today the External Relations Minister Senator Bailhache disclosed that Jersey is about to announce "positive progress" on ratification for Jersey of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by the "middle of the month" He preferred to "hold back now on a formal announcement" so I am delighted to assist him here with the news that the public of Jersey has been waiting for over several decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is regrettable how may decades this has taken but there was far more urgent and expensive legislation to rush through, like the Jersey Canons Law 2012 to protect our chap the Dean from disciplinary action or outside scrutiny of his safeguarding failures.

      One has to prioritise.

      Delete
  9. Richard Jouault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is he responsible for CAMHS?

      Delete
  10. I really do not understand why so some well known bloggers are taking to social media to attack every little move of this inquiry.
    So they have summoned Health to give them documents which would be classed as confidential under data protection in 7 days time, big deal.
    Is there really any need for a daily drama on this inquiry or is this going to be the norm throughout?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I really do not understand why so some well known bloggers are taking to social media"

      Pure gold.................#priceless

      Delete
    2. Now -why would bloggers and members of the public want to keep a tab on the action or inaction of an entity set up by a polity and a legislature with a proven taste for covering up it's failures?

      Delete
    3. well known, good, you are well known

      Delete
  11. Some parallels with the Curtis Warren case where, under pressure, the authorities set up an independent inquiry led by Hampshire Police into the handling of the case, and then, according to the findings of the subsequent hearing, failed to cooperate with the very investigation which they had themselves established.

    Probably at the core of this is an institutional failure by States Departments to grasp the concept of "independent." Then they set up an "Inquiry" their expectation is that it will do their bidding and inquire into the actions of others. They seem to be taken by surprise when they themselves are asked to account for their actions. In spite of all the alleged "changes" nothing changes. The window dressing is different but attitudes are the same.

    It is the Jersey way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/search?q=emma+martins

    Remember this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the above link.

      Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins said they will not get in the way of the Commission. Emma Martins said:"For the avoidance of doubt, the work of the Committee will not be fettered by the Data Protection Law - there will be nothing in the law stopping individuals from giving information to the Committee or organisations such as the police force from handing over records. "To be clear, no one will be able to claim that the Data Protection Law prohibits them from answering questions put by the Committee or to avoid handing over whatever the Committee wants to see."

      Delete
    2. Shhhh....don't tell anyone - because us dopy plebs aren't supposed to notice such things - but when Martins refers to the "Data Protection Law" not "prohibiting them from answering questions put by the Committee or to avoid handing over whatever the Committee wants to see" - that isn't quite right. Is it.

      Because as we fully know - Martins does not apply the Law objectively - rather she abuses it for overtly politically oppressive purposes - for example - the oppression conducted against me - for public interest disclosures - contrasted with, say, letting Deputy Sean Power off for the theft - and trafficking - of private data, of no public interest merit.

      Then there's also the very well documented history of Martins and other public authorities in Jersey - such as Attorney Generals, Deputy Bailiffs and Bailiffs - abusing their powers so as to oppress and suppress people - once no-one is really paying attention any more. So - when this "public inquiry" is over - and its members and staff gone - and a "decent" interval of time has passed - the customary succession of reprisals and vengeances and oppressive "example-making" will be conducted against anyone who gave or said anything to the CoI that was especially damaging to the oligarchy. That - of course - being a core methodology of "The Jersey Way" - for over 800 years.

      But additionally - even if Martins's words could be taken at face-value - which they cannot - as is clear from the CoI protocols - and its conduct so far - this is an "exercise" utterly subservient to, and moulded by, and nothing more than, an extension of the oppressive application of the Data Protection Law. One of the core purposes of carrying out an inquiry on a quasi-judicial basis, is that - like a court - it trumps 99.9% of usual statutory measures and practices that make things confidential or secret. And that is how this CoI would be running - were it not a cover-up exercise. The only people who should be given identity protection should be the victims - as is the case with sex-attack cases now, in courts. Data protection law should be - in the context of such a public inquiry - simply an irrelevancy.

      Instead - this CoI has abdicated its powers - and, frankly its abilities - to a directly and expressly conflicted Data Protection Commissioner - who is actually one of the core witnesses - who should be called - because her express conduct has made it actually a criminal offence to expose child-abuse.

      And then - of course - we get to the $64,000 question - just what "data protection law" is the CoI - and Martins - referring to? The legitimate - democratic - Data Protection Legislation - as passed by the Jersey parliament? You know? The one with the statutes in it that expressly makes provision for - and allows - things like journalism and public interest disclosure?

      Or do they mean the "judge-made" data protection "law"? You know? The judge-made-law the corrupt, conflicted judicial system of Jersey made against me - because it decided it didn't like the law as made by your politicians? The judge-made-law that says the very opposite - of what the democratic, legitimate law says? The judge-made-law that makes it a criminal offence to do journalism and public-interest disclosures?

      It's bad enough that this CoI surrendered its powers and processes to an irrelevant strand of legislation. How much worse that it has so obviously surrendered to corruptly manufactured judge-made-law, at that.

      Stuart

      Delete
  13. "No Excuses Please

    "Preparations for Jersey's Historic Abuse Inquiry are well underway, as the Committee gears up to start the public hearings in May. Committee members are interviewing lawyers in London this week in order to appoint an independent legal team to support the Inquiry."

    Carrie Modral said: "Some of the information held on abuse victims such as psychiatric reports, police reports and obviously because of the data protection law they're saying they're going to have to heavily redact these documents and in fact I've been told it probably won't be worth giving half these documents across."

    Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins said they will not get in the way of the Commission. Emma Martins said:"For the avoidance of doubt, the work of the Committee will not be fettered by the Data Protection Law - there will be nothing in the law stopping individuals from giving information to the Committee or organisations such as the police force from handing over records. "To be clear, no one will be able to claim that the Data Protection Law prohibits them from answering questions put by the Committee or to avoid handing over whatever the Committee wants to see." (2)

    I was very hearted to read that quotation about Data Protection from Emma Martins as I had concerns like Carrie about Data Protection being used to block documents. The Inquiry should have access to all documents. Obviously how much of that may enter the public domain in their report might well depend on matters such as Data Protection, but they should have no restrictions whatsoever, either from Data Protection, or on some spurious legal grounds, for not having sight of all the relevant material.

    Public inquiries can go several ways. They can help get at the truth, or they can become a convenient way to stifle a controversial issue. In the UK, the Hutton inquiry, which ended in emasculating the BBC, was very much seen as a whitewash, not least by Private Eye, which argued that the terms of reference and the way the inquiry followed them, could only lead to one outcome - namely, to exonerate the government and silence critics.

    On the other hand, some inquiries have drawn attention to important issues which might otherwise have been neglected, such as the Scarman inquiry, which was independent and forthright in its evidenced critique of the police "stop and search", and the endemic culture of racism which existed with the force.

    What Jersey needs is less Hutton, more Scarman, in how the inquiry gets to the truth, and a free reign to access all documents the inquiry deems relevant, and an independence that does not bow to any agenda."

    ReplyDelete
  14. All redactions in documents sent to the inquiry will be done using a yellow highlighter so the panel can see what it says - if they approve the redaction it will then be blacked out before being released.

    So the inquiry will see the full text of any document sent to them, it is only the interested parties (and in some cases public) that will get the redacted documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. children service started redacting inquiry case notes in 2013,they should have completed all reactions by now

      Delete
    2. Redacting or shredding?

      Delete
  15. Transcripts of yesterday's Hearing can be viewed HERE.

    The latest update concerning yesterday's Hearing can be viewed HERE.

    Part of that update explains that the Office of Attorney General was granted Interested Party status which covers his predecessors. Not sure how that fits with the corporate sole stuff perhaps somebody could explain?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi VFC,

    Just put up the Audio from today's Questions without Answers! You and your reader's can listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=511537

    Jersey's new Deputy Bailiff has been announced as Timothy Le Cocq QC who is the current Attorney General.

    The Queen has approved the appointment after the current Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, will become Jersey's Bailiff in January.

    Mr Le Cocq was born and brought up in Jersey. He went to De La Salle College before going on to study at the University of Keele.

    He was called to the English Bar in 1981 and the Jersey bar in 1985.

    In 1996 he was appointed as Crown Advocate and appointed as Solicitor General in April 2008.

    In November 2009 he was appointed Attorney General.

    Mr Le Cocq said: "As a Jersey man it is a honour and privilege to have the opportunity to serve the island in this way.

    "I am very much looking forward to all aspects of being Deputy Bailiff."

    ReplyDelete
  18. On a related side note to this; do bloggers and readers remember when Ian Evans went to the Jersey Archive to request copies of the documents listing the names of all the members of the board of governor's at Haut de la Garenne?

    Do you remember Ian? You found out about the documents on Stuart Syvret's Blog.

    One wonders if Frances Oldham QC knows about these documents?

    Ian, perhaps you should tell the Enquiry about the existence of these documents (which list the names of all the people the board of governor's at Haut de la Garenne).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here you go Ian.

    Quote: "Children’s services additional records

    There are 8 boxes of records that were deposited at the Archive in 1997.

    These boxes include copies of the minutes and reports of the Children’s Sub-Committee, copies of Education Committee Acts, some admission forms to the Jersey Home for Girls,

    Foster Parent Books and some strategic/planning papers.

    Source: Page 23, Verita – Report to Council of Ministers: Historical child abuse Committee of Inquiry (November 2011)."

    Here is the link:

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-crown-judicial-function-in-jersey-on-fire/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quote: “Haut de la Garenne was never overseen by a board of governors as such but was overseen by a Children's sub-committee of the former Education Committee.”

    Has the enquiry had access to the 8 boxes of records which are deposited in the Jersey Archive?

    The same 8 boxes of records which are listed on page 23 of the "Verita – Report to Council of Ministers: Historical child abuse Committee of Inquiry" (November 2011).

    The very same 8 boxes which contain minutes and reports... and of course, names of all those on the Sub-Committee!

    To quote Stuart Syvret (reply 103 URL: http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-crown-judicial-function-in-jersey-on-fire/ ):

    "Especially so when one considers some of the names on the membership list of the Education Committee’s Children’s Sub-Committee."




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And to further quote Mr. Syvret
      ......."Predictably enough – this is another whole – fresh – layer of apocalyptic damnation upon the Jersey authorities."


      N.B. Ex Health Minister Syvret is still subject to the dodgy (multi million?) superinjunction and risks re-imprisonment each time he breaks the terms of the secret court ruling.

      Tinkerbell-the-typist says it was a pain in the 'backspace' numbering and re-loading all the 314 Emma-Martined comments. But the fact you found it useful makes our work so worthwhile.

      Thank you for finding that little gem, no doubt there are sackfulls still to be rediscovered ;-)

      Delete
  21. @14:24 "The Website Elves" (that mine website's for gems):

    "What goes around comes around", and eight is a good round number... Even for a Dragon who likes reading J. M. Barrie.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What goes around comes around" ......... you are right ......... but how to deal with these animals and their ilk?

      The New Mexico State University has some interesting thoughts:
      http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B-227/welcome.html

      There are also chemical methods .....but how do you ensure the medication is actually taken?

      Delete
  22. Ian.

    Its now or never....

    You have nothing to loose.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is there any chance that the heads of our local media (including those now retired) will be invited to explain their actions to the C.O.I ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Media does not have to justify how it reports things unless complaints are made to their regulating bodies.
      Not sure what the COI are supposed to do about reporting anyway, the World Media went mad at the time and was completely out of control.

      Delete
    2. The local State Media has very serious questions to answer. Evidence has been, or will be, submitted to the COI concerning the role played by the local State Media in this whole ghastly and shameful business.

      Delete
    3. They are still not to blame, they are the messenger, nothing else.

      Delete
    4. To quote the words of former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

      “Secondly, the Panel rightly raises the issue of how it came to be that a legitimate and proper public debate about the sexual and physical abuse of small children was diverted into an argument about the cost of meals in a London restaurant”

      And further.

      “If I have not said it enough then I say it again, the most important people in this whole story are the victims of abuse. It is their plight and their memories which need to be the subject of candid and public debate at the highest level. 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.” (END)

      Jersey’s State Media ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It has relished in telling the island how much Lenny Harper has spent on a prawn cocktail in a London restaurant, how much he spent on this, and that, yet NEVER has the local State Media EVER asked how it was possible for vulnerable children to be abused for so long (decades.) And you think they are only the messenger and shouldn’t shoulder any blame?

      “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.”………State Media (among others.)

      The words of the former Police Chief can be read HERE.

      Delete
  24. Face facts Syvret has been shafted by the Jersey oligarchy. The Pitmans have been shafted by the Jersey oligarchy. G Power was shafted by the Jersey oligarchy. Harper likewise. Tadier just seems to have disappeared. Hopefully he hasn't also sold out? Le Cornu has never really appeared somehow getting lost on the way from election victory to States Chamber. Higgins is the only one left standing up to the people ruining our island. It really is that depressing. Sam Mezec - I hope you know what a weight will soon sit on your shoulders because trust me-Higgins is next for "the treatment".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many would argue that all these people shafted themselves.
      Rule number 1, don't give your enemies ammunition to fire back at you.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Deputy Higgins will be next. He holds information that would embarrass the establishment terribly.

      Delete
    3. We heard the same about Stuart Syvret.
      He was going to do things if 'put inside' last Winter but never carried out any threats.

      Delete
    4. You make an extremely valid point here. Stuart Syvret never did carry out the threats that accompanied any prospective decision of Commissioner Clyde-Smith to have him jailed for contempt of court. He was going to name the person that was, apparently, central to Mr Power's suspension due to Mr Power's wish for that person to be investigated or prosecuted for what I understand to have been allegations and evidence of serious crimes having been committed.

      Apparently, though, it seems that Deputy Higgins has in his hands one or more undeniable cases involving civil service, judicial and indeed police corruption. The alleged criminals do, as a matter of course, strive to hang on to their power bases for as long as possible but I sincerely believe that the house of cards is tending towards instability. I expect it's all getting very hot for them, what with former Deputy Pitman's case as well.

      Delete
    5. I somehow doubt they are worried about Higgins after what Syvret has been threatening to do to them without delivery for so long.
      Over time these threats of exposure blow out into insignificance and the Establishment just carry on.

      Delete
    6. The Establishment is, and always has been, a bit of a juggernaut. Moreover, the Establishment is indeed a criminal enterprise as Stuart Syvret has observed. Should Mr Syvret 'expose' these criminals at the moment and almost certainly face more State-sponsored legal oppression? I am not sure. It might be best to wait until some more cases come to light. We'll see.

      Delete
    7. They did try to "get Higgins" - at least that is how I took the extraordinary business about the Air Display accounts.

      At the time the JEP published one of their screaming leader articles damning Higgins with innuendo, and saying - well, prove that you are innocent.

      Having challenged him in this way they could hardly not publish his rebuttal of what the Economic Development Department, especially Minister Maclean,. were saying about him - so they did.

      And after they had printed Higgins' rebuttal, everything went quiet.

      Delete
    8. JEPaedo Island22 June 2014 at 08:37

      Some cowards pounce on perceived weakness

      Perhaps that's why they like little boys .......

      Delete
  25. @Anonymous at 2:33

    Yes. I remember that. He took them on and sent them running.

    They were an absolute disgrace, and if I remember correctly, there was more to that one as well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Regarding the above comment about the person being investigated at the time of Graham Power's outrageous suspension. Who knows, maybe some brave soul will name the individual during evidence for the committee of enquiry? Wouldn't that put the cat among the Jersey chickens! Sorry, I meant pigeons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The person has already been named in a public hearing but redacted out of the official transcript.

      Delete
    2. Do you have a link to the relevant transcript, or has it not yet been published?

      Delete
    3. Not sure if the transcript has been published, although I am led to believe there are hard copies of it in circulation (I don't have a copy.) No doubt they will surface some time. The Scrutiny Panel's Report where it was also discovered that disgraced former DCO Mick Gradwell was leaking confidential police data (to a journalist, with a history of trashing abuse inquiries/victims/survivors, David Rose and supporting convicted paedophiles) during a live Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) can be read HERE.

      Delete
    4. I recollect seeing a "transcript" on the States website somewhere - but, upon reflection, the term "redacted" - going from memory, might be doing too much of a favour to the Jersey oligarchy.

      "Redaction" implies a document - in which you can see - via the blacked-out sections - where redaction has taken place - where sections have been removed.

      As I recollect, the published document was not like that - but instead simply had entire sections omitted - so the casual reader would never know that X or Y evidence & testimony ever occurred.

      Who knows if the CoI is going to adopt the same "redaction" methodology?

      I don't.

      Stuart

      Delete
    5. Yes, "redacted" may be inappropriate. Redaction implies that the reader is given notice (through obscured sections) of the extent to which information is being withheld. If whole sections are missing, and the fact that evidence or testimony has been given may not be assessed, then "edited" seems to be more appropriate.

      The difference between redaction and editing may, indeed, found an application for judicial review. Is this something you will be including in your application?

      Delete
  27. VFC says:

    "The person has already been named in a public hearing but redacted out of the official transcript."

    I can confirm that as correct.

    It was me who named him - and said what he is - and who is protecting him.

    I said this in front of a parliamentary privileged committee - in formal, evidence-taking session.

    My words were unlawfully redacted out of the official transcript - on the intervention of the expressly conflicted Crown Law Officers' Department - essentially, the Attorney General.

    That is how Jersey "works".

    But - actually - the corrupt protection of the individual concerned goes far - far - far deeper than that mere instance of the improper suppression of public, privileged evidence.

    The degree of corruption involved is so significant - and has such far-reaching implications - I have credible fears for my life.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Further evidence of corruption to which the Attorney General is party has been submitted to the Committee of Inquiry. It will be interesting to see what Frances Oldham QC ultimately makes of it. She must be getting the picture by now.

      Delete
    2. "I have credible fears for my life."

      I think you are getting carried away with yourself.
      If you want to name names then just ensure you have proper evidence to back your actions up, then you should have nothing to fear.


      Delete
    3. That's the type of spin - pretty traditional Jersey oligarchy propaganda actually - that, fortunately these days the public good can be protected from - thanks to the blogs.

      In days gone by the Jersey oligarchy was able to write - and re-write - and carry on re-writing history - with inconvenient facts hidden, or causally bi-passed, or quickly swept under the carpet - or actively suppressed.

      But that doesn't work anymore - as the blogs have become the real Fourth-Estate in Jersey - have done the investigating - and become the repository of the real - evidenced - facts.

      So on blogs like this, and like Rico Sorda, and like mine, vast amounts of actual evidence for many of the various failings and corruptions and cover-ups and criminal acts by the Jersey authorities can be read.

      And amongst that evidence, you can read numerous serious examples of where the Jersey authorities - including police, prosecutors and courts - have pro-actively suppressed evidence in various serious cases - and pro-actively oppressed people - and in my case imprisoned me - for exposing evidence.

      Such actions have been able to happen - at base & ultimately - because Jersey's judicial function is corrupted - has been wholly perverted & stood on its head - and acts as a 'shield' to certain privileged wrongdoers and corrupted public authorities.

      Just for example - Jersey's police, prosecutors and judiciary - corruptly oppressing me - because I exposed the cover-up of a rogue nurse who was almost certainly murdering patients.

      I produced a wholly damming - dramatically evidenced - expert-witness supported - public-interest disclosure defence - evidence which was unanswerable.

      We don't - and society now - never will, forget what happened next - thanks to the blogs.

      Jersey's corrupted, politicised Crown judicial function got around that devastating 'inconvenience' - by suddenly deeming my entire defence-case "no longer admissible" - three-months into the case.

      So the argument "if you have proper evidence you have nothing to fear" is the work of either a liar or a fool.

      Stuart

      Delete
    4. It appears that Advocate Sinel agrees with Ex Health Minister Syvret that Jersey's court system has been hijacked and the public are thus not protected by it if they get in the way.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html

      On a darker note, readers may remember the tragic death of young Dita Pavarniece in a 2am sports car crash on St.Clements Coast Road.

      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/we-bloggers-told-you-jersey-was-corrupt.html

      Dita's businessman stepfather (Artis Zandmanis) had been trying to find out the details of the accident and how his stepdaughter died, and perhaps the significance and connections behind the identity of the mysterious driver.
      There are rumours that Dita's stepfather has recently been stabbed to death. I hope that these rumours are not true.

      Delete
    5. This Nurse.
      Do you not think that if people saw him like the danger you do, that there would be a Public outcry for him to be taken off the streets like we currently see with paedophiles and rapists on other blogs around the Globe?

      Delete
    6. Evidence of civil service and judicial corruption has been submitted to the CoI. It will be interesting to see how the CoI deals with it, particularly as a significant part of the CoI's operations are taking place in England rather than in Jersey.

      Delete
  28. Will Frances Oldham QC, be looking at the bigger picture?

    Or will she just be happy to be going along with the lessons to be learnt s**t....

    Time and history will tell!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love to know why she is being insulted so much on Twitter.
      If people are attacking an Inquiry before its even finished then what are they trying to hide?

      Delete
    2. Unlike the State Media who will only be churning out Press Releases, people with concerns about the Inquiry's motives/agenda/integrity NEED to express those concerns and question the Inquiry BEFORE it has finished. It is no use crying foul AFTER the event. If concerns are raised and questions answered during the process then there is less chance of a whitewash. The Inquiry Team SHOULD be challenged and, as we don't have a fit for purpose mainstream media to do it, once more it will be left to members of the public and Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media)

      Delete
    3. I thought this inquiry was so supposed to be fully independent and unhindered?
      Anybody from any direction who tries to challenge what it is doing is hardly allowing the inquiry to get on with its work is it?

      Delete
    4. People thought the Hillsborough Inquiries would be fully independent and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiries which turned out not to be the case. It would be foolish, and naïve, not to question and challenge the Inquiry during the process. The victims/survivors deserve nothing less.

      Delete
    5. You don't understand.
      People will think this inquiry is not independent if bloggers keep on trying to interfere and steer it all the time, and the Hillsborough and Stephen Lawrence connection is massively over the top. Would it be true to say that if the Inquiry does not conclude your claims of a cover up that you will not accept it?

      Delete
    6. Asking questions is neither interfering nor steering, it is attempting to hold to account. It’s what professional journalists are supposed to do rather than just churn out Press Releases. Indeed if we had an inquisitive, impartial, critical and objective media over here then it is questionable as to whether there would be any need for this Inquiry in the first place.

      As it is we have a State Media and the only questioning/holing to account comes from Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media).

      “Would it be true to say that if the Inquiry does not conclude your claims of a cover up that you will not accept it?”

      Children were abused FOR DECADES they reported this abuse to the relevant authorities FOR DECADES. If there WASN’T a cover up could you explain what there WAS?

      Delete
  29. I am a bit confused. Stuart Syvret says above that he has given evidence in a formal evidence taking session while the public hearings are due to take place in public from 22 July. Presumably, then, Stuart will have the opportunity to address the Committee of Inquiry again, or is it simply that the evidence he has provided and has subsequently been transcribed is to be laid before the Committee?

    Is the evidence tendered yet redacted evidence of child abuse within State-run children's homes? In other words, is it strictly within the scope of the CoI's terms of reference or has the evidence been redacted because it technically falls outside the terms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reader is indeed confused. The evidence I referred to above - and the formal evidence-taking session - related to a different inquiry; one carried out by a States of Jersey parliamentary select committee - several years ago.

      Stuart

      Delete
    2. Thank you for clearing this up.

      Delete
  30. Comment by Leigh LaFon 23/06/2014 at 8:08 pm on
    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jerseys-public-inquiry-into-child-abuse/

    As of today, there are now 100+ MPs named in support of a fully independent Hillsborough-style national inquiry into organized institutional child abuse in UK. Several of the original cross-party seven MPs, who instigated the call for inquiry, have mentioned Jersey, and ties between organized paedophilia at high levels, Savile, and Haut de la Garenne as essential to investigate as part of an overarching inquiry.

    As far as I have been able to find, there have been no mentions of the current Jersey COI in relation to this wider inquiry effort, as if no one following these investigations expects anything important to come of a local COI, now. The one possible exception is the Prime Minister’s lame mention that ‘several important inquiries’ are currently underway and should be allowed to continue their course without interference. The response of some, even within David Cameron’s party, was to remind him that decades of these same old isolated, local, underfunded and often whitewashed police operations have not been adequate. So called ‘independent inquiries’ were neither independent nor robust in their terms of reference. Cameron will be challenged to defend his preference to continue reliance on the same failed methods of the past.

    The call for the far-reaching national inquiry, led by the original seven MPs, bloggers, the fearless journalists at @ExaroNews, and Twitter activists, has now reached a level of momentum that only the BBC can truly ignore. What it will mean for Jersey and the current COI will be, at the very least, a rapidly increasing public awareness of ties between Jersey and mainland institutional paedophilia and ongoing coverups. Outside Jersey, the view that powerful Jersey forces masterminded a cover-up and smearing of good investigative police work seems to be prevailing. No one involved in the call for the national inquiry appears to have ever been distracted by Jersey’s oligarchy spin or the price of a lead detective’s prawn cocktail in London.

    Despite expectation of setbacks and fierce opposition to exposure of high level cover-ups, the social media activists on Twitter seem to feel the Parliamentary support of 100 MPs is a milestone, and has become a tipping point. The Parliamentary arguments in the days ahead will surely be of relevance to Jersey and the widely presumed deficiencies in the current COI.

    Earlier today you Tweeted a phrase about, “A government within government.” Public awareness of that as more than a theoretical concept – in Jersey and nationally – may be within reach. The cover-up agents may be challenged to keep up with all the evidence popping up and being disclosed nationally. Any of your readers who wish to do so can follow @ExaroNews and the hashtag #CSAInquiry for updates on the mainland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the mention of ExaroNews, who I had not heard of.

      Looks like a very good website, and they seem to have really pushed successfully on the national child (and young person) abuse inquiry.

      Delete
  31. Can we have an update or views on the feasibility of the Committee of Inquiry VFC because Stuart Syvret on Twitter is saying it is not fit for purpose?
    Do you know what the JCLA think of his views?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stuart, just like everybody else is entitled to his views. Does this mean people should not give evidence to the Inquiry? Not in my opinion. If the Inquiry is going to be a whitewash then it is crucial that it receives as much evidence as possible so it can't say it didn't receive any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His views in this case give very little hope to victims though.
      People are half hearted about giving evidence as it is.

      Delete
  33. Victims/survivors are understandably suspicious of this Inquiry and some will agree with Stuart (and others) that it will be a whitewash. My personal opinion is that by not giving evidence to the Inquiry it could/would make the whitewash that much easier for it.

    I would encourage victims/survivors to give their evidence. The truth is, none of us know if it is going to be a whitewash or not but without evidence what can the Inquiry do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It goes beyond suspicion VFC, he is making out its a non starter.

      Delete
    2. As mentioned earlier we are all entitled to our opinions. It is up to those who have evidence to decide whether to submit it or not. If evidence is not submitted then the Inquiry has nothing to work with, or cover up, whatever the case may be. The Inquiry cannot be accused of a cover up if it has no evidence. By the same token it cannot complete its remit if it has no evidence.

      Delete
  34. Syvret was saying this was going to be a white wash 5 years ago so his opinions mean nothing.
    The victims should get down there, give their evidence and be heard by professional people who can then give their analysis of what happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He might yet turn out to be right and I agree that the Victims/Survivors should “get down there and give their evidence.”

      Delete
    2. Since when has he ever been right VFC?

      Delete
    3. Taken from HERE.

      On the 16th July 2007 – after approximately nine months of often covert work with whistle-blowers and survivors – this is what I said in answer to a question I was asked in the Jersey parliament, in my then capacity as Health & Social Services Minister: -

      “I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”(END)

      The subsequent Report from The Howard League for Penal Reform (which he commissioned) proved him, and whistle-blower Simon Bellwood right.

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.