Monday, 21 July 2014

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent?






Former Jersey Politician, Deputy Daniel Wimberley has issued a Press Release (below) where he raises a number of concerning points involving the actions/inactions of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and believes it could be a Fake.

Mr. Wimberley worked tirelessly, as a States Member, and continues to work tirelessly, to get to the truth behind the decades of paedophilia/Child Abuse so prevalent on the Island for so long. He, along with the Jersey Care Leavers Association, (JCLA) Team Voice, and a very small number of politicians, was instrumental in the formation of the Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the current Inquiry. Terms Of Reference that were extremely hard fought for against a determined Council Of Ministers (COM) to keep the TOR's to a bare minimum. Which will explain why Mr. Wimberley, and stakeholders, insist they are implemented and not watered down more than they have been by the COM.



ABUSE INQUIRY MAY BE A FAKE SAYS CAMPAIGNER

On the eve of the first public hearings of the child abuse inquiry, the Panel faces the accusation that it is set to be a fake.

Campaigner Daniel Wimberley has put 13 questions to the inquiry chairman, Frances Oldham and her panel.

The questions challenge the panel to pledge that it will take all abuse committed in Jersey as being within its remit and also that it will consider all the issues surrounding the suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power.

“As things stand, there is a bias towards concealment”, said Mr. Wimberley. “The team have narrowed down the inquiry to just children within the care system. And yet Ministers amended the Terms of Reference (TOR) to include “third party providers of services for children and young people”[1] So the Inquiry Panel are going directly against the wishes of the States and their ownTOR. It is completely and utterly unacceptable and so I am asking for an explanation.”

In his letter to the Panel Mr. Wimberley says that his giving evidence depends on getting satisfactory answers. He writes:

“The questions at the foot of this letter are your last chance to show the public in general and stakeholders in particular that you are the real deal, offering a comprehensive, robust and resistant-to-influence inquiry and not a sham and narrow inquiry offering a whitewash. And only then can I consider giving evidence.”

“Jersey is a polarised society” he writes. “where there is widespread cynicism about the way our island is run. The mistrust extends to believing that it is entirely possible that the COI is in fact “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus and will not recommend anything, and will not allow to be public knowledge, anything that would upset their rule and the way they rule. To have procedures which create difficulties for potential key witnesses, or Terms of Reference which narrow down the scope of the Inquiry would then be interpreted in this light.

The concerns of the public and stakeholders are even more understandable when one recalls that the first inquiries at Hillsborough and in North Wales both failed and had to be repeated for the truth to at last come out. We do not want the same to happen in Jersey.”


ENDS

ATTACHED letter to the abuse inquiry




[1]     TOR 14



Friday, July 18, 2014                                     by email from dwimberley
Dear Chairman and Panel of the Committee of Inquiry into child abuse in Jersey,
Before launching into what this letter is really about, I should perhaps introduce myself to you. I played a leading role in the States in pursuing the issues around the suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power, including the role of the “media consultant” Matt Tapp and the “Interim report of the Metropolitan Police”, and in seeing that the Napier report was commissioned and in securing the very existence of the Committee of Inquiry (COI). [1]
If you inspect Hansard you can confirm that I contributed major speeches in all the big debates in this area and asked numerous States questions.  For me justice for the victims and securing a better and safer future as regards child abuse is intricately linked with the governance of the island. And so to the matter in hand.
Many people: victims, stakeholders, and members of the public had great expectations of the inquiry into child abuse in Jersey.
We wanted to believe that the inquiry would be fearless, comprehensive and independent.
We wanted to believe that after all the evidence had been heard, after the ensuing public attention and debate, after you had written your report and recommendations and after these were acted upon, then Jersey would be in a better place and we could all be certain that systematic child abuse of the kind which happened across the island could never happen again. [2]
But your actions so far have dashed the faith which I, in common with so many others, wanted to place in you.  It looks as if your COI will be a fake. So much so that I am driven to write this letter to you offering a last chance to prove to us all, by answering the questions at the end of this letter in a satisfactory manner, that your Inquiry will not be a fake, but the genuine article.
At the moment this is billed as a “care” inquiry and not as an inquiry into abuse. It is billed as an inquiry into abuse at States-run institutions or programmes (such as fostering) and not as an inquiry into abuse wherever it occurred – be it Victoria College, the Sea Cadets or elsewhere. It is billed as an inquiry into the abuse of children, thus excluding the abuse of young people who would not see themselves as children, when in fact such people can be, and were, abused in Jersey, as I recall.
I describe the actions which have dashed my faith in you in detail in Appendix 1 but in summary:
i)          you have limited the scope of the abuse to be covered by your inquiry;
ii)         you have excluded victims from coming forward by putting out the message that the inquiry is not for them. This is an astonishing outcome for an inquiry into child abuse and is inexcusable.
iii)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have set aside the clearly expressed wishes  of the States
iv)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have breached your own Terms of Reference (TOR)
v)         you have failed to consult people about the TOR as requested by the States;
vi)        you have failed to consult people on the procedures to be followed at the inquiry, as requested by the States;
vii)       You have maintained that the TOR could not be changed, when this is patently untrue.
viii)      you have undermined your relationship with stakeholders by the way you have treated them
All the above, taken together, looks like incompetence or partiality or both. It also looks like a deliberate attempt to limit the COI. This ties in with the COM’s resistance to widening the scope of the TOR. Many on the island want stuff NOT to come out. The narrowest possible interpretation of the TOR serves this purpose.
Jersey is a polarised society where there is widespread cynicism about the way our island is run.  There are very good reasons for this – such a high degree of mistrust has is likely to be based to a degree on reality. I give you more detail both about the degree of cynicism and mistrust and about the reasons this situation has arisen in Appendix 2.
The concerns of the public and stakeholders are even more understandable when one recalls that the first inquiries at Hillsborough and in North Wales both failed and had to be repeated for the truth to at last come out. We do not want the same to happen in Jersey.
The mistrust extends to believing that it is entirely possible that the COI is in fact “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus and will not recommend anything,  and will not allow to be public knowledge, anything that would upset their rule and the way they rule. To have procedures which create difficulties for potential key witnesses, or Terms of Reference which narrow down the scope of the Inquiry would then be interpreted in this light.
The credibility of the Inquiry is absolutely essential, as I’m sure you are aware. We all have to be certain that in spite of our worst fears, the Inquiry is not “in the pocket” of the ruling apparatus. To repeat, the questions at the foot of this letter are your last chance to show the public in general and stakeholders in particular that you are the real deal, offering a comprehensive, robust and resistant-to-influence inquiry and not a sham and narrow inquiry offering a whitewash. And only then can I consider giving evidence.
Yours faithfully,

Daniel Wimberley


QUESTIONS FOR THE COI

NOTE many of these questions are capable of a Yes/No answer. In all cases the answer Yes is the answer which will demonstrate to me that you intend this inquiry to be comprehensive, robust and truly independent and influence-proof.

1
You have excluded a certain victim, and this is not a hypothesis but a fact. It is likely given the limits you have placed up to now on this COI,  that she is not alone and that others have got the message that this inquiry is nothing to do with them.

So my first question to you is this: do you see that this incident is extremely damaging to the credibility of your Inquiry? Some victims of abuse will be heard, some will not.

2
Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse as it affected not only children but also young people in Jersey?
Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out in organisations, institutions, settings not run directly by the States?
Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out in organisations, institutions, settings not providing “care” to young people or children, but rather doing any other provision?
Will the Inquiry include in its remit abuse carried out within families, or by organised groups, but not covered by the above? In particular will the Inquiry include in its remit the response of teachers, schools, and the education authority, and the response of Social Services to reports or evidence of such abuse?

3
Will the COI include in its remit both independent and in-house reports and investigations relevant to the abuse being considered by the COI in all of the “period under review” as defined in TOR 1 (and not just “after 2007” as per TOR 6)?

4
Will the COI include in its remit the following issues: the suspension of Graham Power, the denigration of the SIO (Senior Investigating Officer), the handling of the changeover from the Power / Harper team to the Warcup / Gradwell team, the handling of the evidence, and so on?

The reason I ask this is that in your reply to this point Peter Jones wrote:

“In relation to paragraph seven of your letter, and the list of issues that you set out, the extent to which they (and any number of possible permutations of evidence) will be examined will depend on what evidence emerges, and where that evidence needs to be pursued, given the focus that the Inquiry must necessarily have on its Terms of Reference.  Many of the Terms of Reference will call for consideration of the motivation of people who have done things, as much as the acts themselves. But the starting point will be whether the Terms of Reference are engaged on the evidence, and where does the evidence then need to be followed?”  (my emphasis)

In other words the COI will follow where the evidence leads – but only if where it leads is within the TOR. But surely what matters is: are these questions important – and not “are they within the TOR”?

Clearly then, if these matters are to be taken seriously, then they should be made explicit within the TOR. You have refused my request to include them in the TOR, hence this request that you formally state that these essential matters will be treated in the same way as any other important evidence, and not just politely listened to but not heard, because they are not explicitly mentioned in the TOR

5
It is quite clear that the COM and States members expected you to consult and instructed you to consult, on the TOR, but you did not. Why?
6
Why did the legal team insist that the TOR could not be changed, when in fact they can?
7
Will you adopt from now on appropriately inclusive language in all communications? Thus: referring to “children and young people” and not just “children”; referring to care settings, schools, youth work, remand centres, indeed any setting and abuse conducted in no “setting” at all? – and not just “care”?

8
Any victim of abuse outside the care system may think – ‘this Inquiry is nothing to do with me’ because of its name. What exactly will the Inquiry do to address this issue?

9
In the light of the above two questions, how will you correct the false impression given in the past that this COI is only concerned with abuse which happened to people “in care”?

Please outline the steps you will take to reach witnesses with this new approach, and to encourage them to come forward.

10
Will you have a set target time for oral evidence to appear on the Inquiry website? Will you publish reasons for any failure to meet your own target? Will documents read by the COI appear immediately on the website? Will these documents be properly searchable as with the Hillsborough Inquiry?

11
What is the research capacity of this inquiry? And what will the Panel do if the research staff prove to be not enough?

In asking this I have in mind some potentially large users of research capacity: contacts with the Jersey care system from authorities in the UK such as Birmingham, Islington etc.; research into how out of line Jersey is statistically both with the scale of historical abuse and with the continuing spate of cases of abuse, online pornography, grooming and so on (in other words, is there a Jersey factor”?) ; situations where you have to soldier through vast amounts of emails.

12
The Lord Chief Justice said in September 2012, concerning the Hillsborough disaster, and the ensuing inquiry and inquests, that there had been “deliberate misinformation surrounding the disaster” [3]   If you find this is the case in Jersey, what will the Panel do?

13
If you find evidence of criminal behaviour, (which has not been before the courts already) what action will you take?

14
How did the name “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry” come to be given to the inquiry? When was it suggested and by whom?


Thank you in advance for answering these questions.


I would point out that if I say that other stakeholders will take note of your response to my questions, I think you can see that this is a true statement.  The reputation, possibly the continued existence of the COI, is at stake here.


APPENDIX 1
i)         you have limited the scope of the abuse to be covered by your inquiry;
your website
Here is the text of a news update on your Inquiry website dated July 8th 2014 which appeals for more people to come forward in the following words:
“Anyone with experience of the island's care system, including those who were abused or worked within it, is invited to get in touch with the Inquiry team” (news item for July 8th. http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/news?newsid=25)
The people who were abused or who worked in Jersey schools, youth organisations, remand centres do not get a mention. People who may have been abused outside any formal or semi-formal setting do not get a mention.  All such people are not invited.
Opening speech by the chair
How did the COI end up with such an extraordinary limitation? Well, it happened from day 1. The chairman’s opening speech at the first preliminary hearing on April 3rd showed that she actually does think that this inquiry is only about abuse which happened in care. Again and again she referred to “care” and “care system” and “children’s’ homes and foster care.” No other setting was specifically mentioned, so far as I can see. For the many extracts which prove this point please see Appendix 3.
In particular she interpreted TOR 8, which is about “how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported,” as only being about children in care, when in fact TOR 8 is completely open and could and should be interpreted to be about all abuse. [4]
The choice of name for the inquiry
The COI is now known as the “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.” And yet the COI has always been referred to in the States as an ‘Inquiry into child abuse’ or the “Historical Abuse Inquiry.” [5] And of course that is what it is – or should be. So why was the name changed? This needs an explanation as the implications of this name change have been profound.


ii)        you have excluded victims from coming forward by putting out the message that the inquiry is not for them. This is an astonishing outcome for an inquiry into child abuse and is inexcusable.
Your actions have led to at least one victim being told directly that the Inquiry did not apply to her. She was excluded by your Inquiry.
What happened was this.[6] A victim of serious abuse [7] asked your legal team words to the effect of ‘is it (the Inquiry) only for children in care?’ The answer was effectively ‘yes.’
She is almost certainly not the only one as your website, as quoted above, sets out to exclude  any victim who was not in care.
This matter is at the heart of my complaint to you. You have excluded certain victims, and this is not a hypothesis but a fact. So my first question to you is this: do you see that this incident destroys the credibility of your Inquiry? Some victims of abuse will be heard, some will not. And my second question to you is this: What are you going to do about it?
iii)       in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have set aside the clearly expressed wishes of the States
The title of the proposition setting up the COI was “COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY: HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE.” The report accompanying the proposition opened with these words: “This proposition, seeking the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry into Historical Child Abuse in Jersey, reflects both the belief of the Council of Ministers that this course of action is the correct one for the whole community and that it is the will of the States, following the approval of P.19/2011” And paragraph a) of what the States passed , for the avoidance of all doubt, was: “to agree that a Committee of Inquiry should be established in accordance with Standing Order 146 to enquire into a definite matter of public importance, namely historical child abuse in Jersey;”  (my emphasis)
It could not be clearer. I am minded to ask: did your Panel read the report and proposition? And if so, how did the COI change into the “Independent Jersey Care Inquiry”? This feeds into the suspicion surrounding this COI, that certain areas are being excluded deliberately.
iv)        in limiting the scope of the inquiry you have breached your own Terms of  Reference (TOR)
The wishes of the States are of course ultimately embodied in the actual words of the proposition as approved, which in this case include the TOR.
Two of the TOR specifically point to a wider interpretation than the “care settings only” one which you seem to have adopted.  TOR 2 reads:
Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.” (my emphasis)
And TOR 14 reads:
“14.     Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.”  (my emphasis)
Clearly for these two TOR’s to be properly investigated, children and young people in such non-care and non-States settings would have to give evidence, and for that to happen the Inquiry has to actively seek them out. Instead, as we have seen, they are excluded, because only people who have been in care are invited or even considered.
You might wish to argue that TOR’s 2 and 14 mean that accounts of abuse in non-States run organisations need not be considered, but only evidence about the “organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture” of such organisations.
But this is to strain credulity. Such a reading is possible but would lead to extraordinary hair-splitting as witnesses gave evidence – ‘you can say this, no, you can’t say that.’ And it flatly contradicts the intentions of the States.
The Amendment which inserted the words in italics into TOR’s 2 and 14 as cited above was tabled on 27th February 2013 by the Council of Ministers (COM).  The opening words of the Report accompanying this Amendment are as follows:
“The Council of Ministers, having discussed the amendments to Terms of Reference with Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade and the Attorney General, is of the view that it is reasonable to expect that children who may have suffered abuse in non-States run establishments and third party providers of services for children may also wish to be able to raise their concerns with the Committee of Inquiry. The further amendments outlined in (a) and (c) above (sic) therefore intended to widen the scope of the terms of reference beyond that of States-run establishments, as described.”  (my emphasis)
So the intention is clear: the COI must cover non-States run establishments and must cover providers of “services” and not just providers of care.
In ignoring the wishes of the States in this way you are setting aside months of struggle to have truly comprehensive TOR. 
I am minded to ask: if your Panel read the proposition and if you read the reports which accompany the original proposition and the third amendment and if you did study the TOR themselves and dig into their implications, then how could you find yourselves in the situation you now find yourselves in?
It is abundantly clear that this is an Inquiry into child abuse, and that the intention was quite rightly, to cover all abuse in the island, wherever it occurred. How else can the COI get the full picture? And how else can the Panel make effective recommendations?
v)         you have failed to consult people about the TOR as requested by the States;
There can be no dispute that this is a true statement. When the States set up the COI they agreed under paragraph e)
“that the proposed Chairman should be requested to recommend any final changes to the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry referred to in paragraph (b) above for approval by the Assembly, and also to set out the proposed process for conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where necessary;”  (P.118/2012, paragraph e)) [8]
The point was spelt out repeatedly in the debate, as I showed in my submission to you about suggested improvements to the TOR. It is quite clear that the COM and States members expected you to consult and instructed you to consult, on the TOR. But you did not. The question is: why?
vi)        you have failed to consult people on the procedures to be followed at the inquiry, as requested by the States;
Paragraph e) quoted in the preceding section applies here also. You were requested by the States to “set out the proposed process for conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where necessary.”
Your not doing so had important consequences. Stakeholders were put in an impossible position, thus seriously eroding trust. 
In an email dated 17th April, I wrote this to the legal team:
………………………
“I too may wish to become an IP (Interested Party) - however I cannot decide this due to the reasons before cited on the various threads. But I am concerned that if one's application for IP is not put forward within the "deadline" - which as I have pointed out does not appear in the General Procedures protocol -  then the process is subject to the caveat that the Panel will deal with it when they can. So, assuming that after all the clarifications and negotiations which will take place, I do decide to ask for IP status, then the COI may proceed gaily for months before I get it. This would mean that all that had transpired before that time would be inaccessible to me.

So applying for IP status later down the line is very much a second best for the person concerned. And yet, as I have said in my previous email today: “the problem (of unresolved issues within the protocols) exists solely because the inquiry has pressed ahead with these without any consultation in direct contradiction with what the States charged the COI to do at paragraph e) of the proposition which set the COI up.” So why should I be made to suffer because of the failings OF THE COI?”
(My emphasis)
Under Standing order 147 you may have had the right to do what you did and write the protocols in private and then release them to the world, [9] but in doing this you created serious problems which could, and should, have been avoided. The burden of these problems fell entirely on stakeholders, and not on you.

vii)      You have maintained that the TOR could not be changed, when this is patently untrue.
At the very first meeting with them on April 3rd, immediately after the preliminary hearing, your agents i.e. Eversheds legal team told stakeholders that the TOR ‘could not be changed.’ Later they told Carrie Modral of the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association that they were ‘set in stone.’ This is untrue, as we demonstrated to them. When this line evaporated your Eversheds moved to a different position, in this email of 10th April:
“First, any Inquiry - including this Inquiry - is bound to investigate such matters that are referred to it from the appointing body, as set out in the Terms of Reference. It has no power or authority to inquire into matters that go beyond those terms of reference. It was for this reason that I set out to Carrie Modral that the Terms of Reference set the boundaries for what the Inquiry can, and cannot, do.

Further, no Inquiry has the power to extend its own terms of reference.  That can only be done by the appointing party, in this case the States of Jersey.  In the event that the Inquiry Panel wished to extend or clarify its Terms of Reference, I anticipate that the Inquiry Panel would need to go back to the States for clarification/modification.

I interpret your email and your letter on behalf of the signatories to be an application that the Inquiry should invite an extension to its own Terms of Reference.”
Quite. So why could the legal team not have come clean about this in the first place, and told us that yes, it is open for people to suggest changes to the TOR and these will be considered?
To maintain from our first meeting on April 3rd that it was not possible to suggest changes, and again to Carrie Modral, and then to say, well yes, it is possible and you just did not put it quite right gives a strong impression of deceit. It is exactly what we had to contend with in the States repeatedly, namely the use of words to obscure rather than to illuminate, the use of language to obstruct instead of to assist. It does not inspire confidence in the Panel when your agents behave in exactly the same obfuscating and obstructive way as the Ministers whose words and actions you will be scrutinising.

viii)     you have treated stakeholders in a way which has undermined your relationship with them.

Sections v) and vi) and vii) above describe how stakeholders could not engage with you over key matters of procedure (in effect you shielded yourselves from them and their concerns) (sections v) and vi)), were misled by words which were in a very strict sense true, but to any lay person were untrue, (section vi)), and put at a disadvantage (section vii)).

I believe this damage to the relationship with stakeholders could have been avoided.  In retrospect maybe you think so too.

Taken together this is a sorry state of affairs. These are your witnesses, these are the activists, the very people who desperately want this inquiry to get to the truth, yet it seems as if they are not wanted – the very same syndrome I have noted under section i) above.

I am not asking that there should have been privileged access. Of course all stakeholders would have been able contributed to any possible improvements to the TOR and to the formation of the protocols. Yes it would needed careful handling, but it would have avoided the damage.



APPENDIX 2

I stated that such depth of mistrust does not spring up entirely by itself from nowhere. It is fed, constantly, by the actions of the ruling apparatus. The evidence is out there on the blogs and occasionally in the mainstream media. To mention just three recent examples, there was the pledge made in the hustings for the position of Treasury Minister by the current holder of that office, that “I will not increase GST (Goods and Service Tax)” which was then broken. The excuse given, namely that the world economic situation went unexpectedly into meltdown was nionsense as the meltdown was well and truly under way when he made the pledge.

There was the golden handshake of over ½ million for the Chief Executive at the time of the suspension of Graham Power, Bill Ogley, which many believe was the price for silence.  There was the raid on Stuart Syvret’s house when the police not only arrived on his doorstep in large numbers to enforce an infringement of the Data Protection Law, but took his partner’s box of evidence about planning graft!  There was the absurd use of the DP law to silence a blogger. There are 8 or 9 examples of dishonesty in my proposition to deal with States members misleading each other in the States Assembly (P.169/2011).

This mistrust was noted by the former Chief of Police for Jersey Graham Power

“. . . .The challenge of achieving this (viz. establishing in the public mind that the police would behave with independence and integrity) is comparably difficult in Jersey.  In the U.K. and other  jurisdictions the authorities may have their  problems, but it would  be unusual to find any comparable part  of the  British  Isles where  suspicion and cynicism regarding those  in authority was so ingrained  in the  popular culture.”   [10]

Any incumbent of that role gets a pretty close-up and immediate view of a society. The words above come from his submission to a disciplinary inquiry into his conduct of Operation Rectangle and so can reasonably be taken as a considered view. Further credibility is given by his CV, as reported by himself.   [11]


APPENDIX 3

These are extracts from the chairman’s opening speech at the first preliminary hearing of the COI on April 3rd 2014 which showed that she actually does think that this inquiry is only about abuse which happened in care.

All emphases are of course mine.

Extract 1
The Inquiry has been set up to establish what went wrong in the Island’s care system over many years and to find answers for people who suffered abuse as children. We have been asked by the States of Jersey to investigate the abuse and mistreatment of children placed in children’s’ homes and in foster care in Jersey from the Second World War.”
Lines 26-30
Extract 2
5. On 6 March 2013 the States Assembly agreed the Terms of Reference for a public inquiry to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into historical child abuse in Jersey.”
Lines 36-37
NOTE:  I include the above quote for the sake of completeness and balance. It is indeed there, but it is the only reference to this form of words. Everywhere else this COI is about the care system and children in care.
Extract 3
 “Our purpose is to establish the truth; the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes
lines 43-44
Extract 4
 “In summary . . . . . . Finally, we will consider what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and make recommendations for the future of those services.”
Lines 48, 59-61
Extract 5
 “TERMS OF REFERENCE
……..
A. Establishing the extent of abuse in Jersey’s children’s’ homes and other statutory child care provision since 1945 – how pervasive was abuse in the statutory care system?
B. What systems operated in the child care system within which abuse took place and how effective were these?
C. Who was accountable for the running and oversight of residential child care ?
Lines 93-98
Extract 6
 “45. I recognise that the Inquiry asks a great deal of you (this refers to the abuse survivors) : quite simply , that you should come and tell us about what happened to you as a child - an account of your life both before being taken into care and whilst in care. We want to hear about how you were treated; complaints you may have made etc. . . .
lines 249-252
Extract 7
 “51. The eighth Term of Reference asks us to consider who raised concerns about abuse, and to whom, and what, if anything, was done about them. It also invites us to conduct an historical review of the systems in place for handling the disclosure of abuse by children. Although not expressed as such, we will be looking at disclosure of abuse within the setting of children in care.
Lines 283-287
NOTE: This extract is especially revealing. The TOR 8 does not specify which settings abuse occurred. It reads: “Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported . . .”  Yet the chair assumes that the TOR must be limited to “disclosure of abuse within the setting of children in care.
Extract 8
 “70. Evidence in relation to the 14th Term of Reference will be taken in 3rd Phase of the Inquiry, by which time we will have gathered a wealth of evidence.
71. We will hear evidence from those who have conducted recent reports on statutory child care provision in Jersey; experts in this field and independent of the States. We will also be assisted by witnesses from the relevant departments, giving their views on the lessons to be learned. We wish to set out clear recommendations for the future structure and management of statutory child care services in Jersey.
72. The purpose and value of this 14th Term of Reference, and indeed the 15th Te r m  of Ref e r e n c e ,  c a n n o t  b e  u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . I t  i s  t o  s e t  o u t  w h a t  l e s s o n s can be learned for the benefit of child and foster care services in Jersey”
Lines 379-390
NOTE: The actual TOR 14 is:   “Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.” So the words added by amendment by the COM are left out.








[1]     I know the official title is the “The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry”. However this title is so seriously misleading that I refuse to use it. The issue of the name of the Inquiry and what the Panel propose to do about it is dealt with in Appendix 1 sections i) and iii).
[2]    Also that non-systematic abuse, for example abuse occurring within a family, would be better understood, better picked up, and better dealt with across the board.
[3]     Source: BBC PM programme, Eddie Mair prepared intro , Monday 321st march 2014
[4]     For the actual words spoken by the chair and the text of the TOR see Appendix zzz, extract number zzz
[5]     Often with the unfortunate addition of the word “historical” which implies that all this is in a rain-filled and miserable past which has nothing whatever to do with the present. As you know, this is far from the truth.
[6]    This is a second hand account from a source I take to be reliable. Hence I do not use direct quote marks (“…”) but single apostrophes (‘…’) by which I mean – this is the gist of what was said.
[7]    I make no judgement as to whether the abuse happened or not, just as your inquiry would not make such a judgement before hearing the evidence.
[9]    I am not clear whether an explicit instruction from the States overrides what is stated in Standing Orders. SO 147 is not prescriptive but uses the word “may,” which means that you had total discretion, and you chose to override the request of the States. For ease of reference, here is the text of the SO: “147 Committee of inquiry: proceedings: (1) A committee of inquiry may regulate its own procedure for the conduct and management of its proceedings including, but not limited to, venue and adjournments”

[10]     From   Graham Power’s Statement to the Wiltshire Police disciplinary Inquiry, Para 292, July 2009. This can be found reprinted at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html  in a blog post dated August 4th 2012.
[11]     I successfully applied for a place at Queen’s College Oxford where I read Politics, Philosophy and Economics. During my time at University my senior tutor (and subsequently Provost of the College) was the late Geoffrey Marshall who was the author of the book “Police and Government” and an authority on the relationship between senior police leadership and the political authorities.
In my service as a senior officer I have worked in partnership with a range of political groups and interests.   For example, in Cleveland there were some sharp divisions between traditional “Old Labour” representatives and those who were seen as more left wing and radical.   In North Yorkshire there was strong political representation of traditional and landed interests.   In Scotland, Police Authorities, and both local and national government were sometimes strongly divided between Nationalist, Devolutionist and Unionist interests. There were also sometimes sharp divisions along sectarian lines.
I consider myself to be experienced in working in challenging political environments and aware of the need to strike a balance between proper political accountability of the police service and the need to be independent, both in terms of reality and perception, in the delivery of operational policing.”  (Affidavit by Graham Power written at the request of Stuart Syvret, 2nd May, 2011)(END)

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

VFC takes the view that it is possibly too early to judge the Inquiry  and is not judging it, although does share the concerns (and others) of former Deputy Wimberley, and await the answers, from the Inquiry Team, to his questions.

We have no idea, as yet, wether this Inquiry is going to be a whitewash, or not, which is why it is imperative that anybody who believes they have evidence that would/could be of use to the Inquiry  should submit it.

Contact details for the Inquiry can be found HERE. The Jersey Care Leavers Association can also be contacted should anybody want help or advice, either about the Inquiry or submitting evidence. They can be reached by phone 01534-738351 or e-mailed at jerseycareleavers@gmail.com

For those who have doubts about the Inquiry it is important to note that it is "the only gig in town" if it has no evidence to work with then it cannot be blamed for burying it, it cannot be expected to discover the truth, and it cannot be expected to reach a definitive conclusion.

It should also be noted that a number of Victims/Survivors who have given statements to the Inquiry have been impressed with the way they were treated and due to the positive way they were treated are now willing to appear as a live witness.

We are also led to believe that (illegally?) suspended former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM has spent a number of days giving testimony to the Inquiry Team and his experience/judgement of the Team is as positive as that of the Victims/Survivors.

As Jersey doesn't have a mainstream media that scrutinises, challenges, hold's to account, or questions any Party Line, it is left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media)/campaigners to ask these questions and scrutinise Party Lines. Indeed it is argued that if we did have a fit for purpose mainstream media on the Island then the horrific abuse inflicted on our children for decades could/would never have happened for so long in the first place. Team Voice WILL continue to hold the Child Abuse Inquiry to account because in that respect Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media)/campaigners are the only gig in town.

The Inquiry Team closely monitor this Blogsite (and other Blogsites) so will be aware of this posting and we offer a right of reply to the Team, and an opportunity to answer Mr. Wimberley's questions, which will be considered for publication as our next posting.









132 comments:

  1. It is right that these concerns should be aired. However, as you touch upon yourself, negative views of the work of the inquiry also carry with them the risk that they are providing assistance and support to those guilty of abuse and cover-ups. If victims and witnesses are led to believe that there is "no point" in giving evidence to the inquiry then this will increase the chances of abusers evading justice. They evaded justice for decades when it was felt, probably rightly, that there was "no point" in reporting the abuse. But as you say, this could be the last chance and it is important that it is taken, whatever the reservations, which might be expressed. If the chance to contribute to the work of the inquiry is not taken now then it will be lost for all time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VFC says
      "it is imperative that anybody who believes they have evidence that would/could be of use to the Inquiry should submit it."
      Worth repeating and worth repeating 1000 times !!!!!

      Those who withhold evidence are playing into the hands of the forces of evil who worked & are working for a cover up.
      All respect to those who do give statements. You owe it to yourselves and to the children of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

      Cover up is especially foolish and counterproductive because the UK's overarching inquiry into abuse and cover up can and will include Jersey.

      Toleration of the habitual cover up by shysters is waring increasingly thin.

      Delete
    2. On the other hand, an obvious sham COI could be the last straw, a final coverup of child abuse before an overarching national Child Sex Abuse Inquiry is compelled to include Jersey.

      There are breaking news stories daily on high level abuse and cover-ups only starting to unravel. This net will ensnare Jersey. If the Jersey COI is not fit for purpose, that will almost certainly be exposed. There is no stopping the flood of evidence now from UK sources, and some of it will be connected to Jersey.

      There isn't any way to coherently separate the main inquiry from Jersey abuse when so many children were sent to Jersey from UK Care homes. And, of course, Savile's crimes in Jersey have not yet been investigated in any meaningful way, which will make it extremely difficult for Parliament to avoid responsibility for including Jersey.

      The hard evidence which has already been researched and published here, by Jersey's excellent bloggers, is available to a suddenly awake national and international mainstream media. Mainstream media reporters are, once again, nosing around for stories like this, and it is the citizen media and online mainstream media leading the way, with the national inquiry likely to be dragged along reluctantly, as the available evidence is now well ahead of any government's ability to spin or conceal it.

      For those in the UK who have waited a long tome for exposure of organized child abuse, this is a hopeful time. One way or another, the flood of disclosures seem destined to help unravel the cover-up in Jersey, too.

      Elle

      Delete
    3. RIP Rent-a-verdict21 July 2014 at 12:45

      Spot on Elle.
      The mainland's previous unwillingness to step in to ensure good governance on Jersey is now explained by the UK flood of abuse secrets and linked cover up.

      This same dam-burst makes any further Jersey cover up untenable and a very expensive mistake

      The calls for inclusion in the overarching inquiry do not just relate to Jersey:
      www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/kincora-mp-keith-vaz-backs-call-for-east-belfast-home-to-be-included-in-ukwide-inquiry-30440391.html

      Kincora Boys home -MP Keith Vaz backs call for inclusion in UK-wide inquiry.

      Times have changed. The inbred Luddites and their rent-a-verdict-club need to wake up.

      Delete
  2. Full marks. You have outlined the doubts and qualifications regarding the inquiry by publishing D Wimberly's letter but also the positive aspect of the treatment of those who have so far come forward. Stuart Syvret has further drawn attention to the lack of a sufficiently widespread call for witnesses. It is unfortunate that things have come to this but it is a positive development that a serious attempt is being made to get the inquiry back on track.

    Hopefully the inquiry is attempting to operate in good faith and is not being influenced by the usual sinister forces with so much to lose.

    Very small point: the blog reference quoted in footnote 10 needs to be updated to Stuart's new blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sinister forces already tried to obstruct and cancel this inquiry and are working hard to ensure that it is not fit for purpose.

      These shysters at the heart of government and power do not just roll over and play nice.

      Now it the time to drag these cowards squealing into the light.

      Another layer of cover up will only damage the island further but they don't care about the cost they only want to protect their club and their lucrative hold on power.

      Delete
  3. Suggesting that a highly respected QC would knowingly head a sham inquiry is a very strong accusation. Daniel raises some valid concerns over the scope of the inquiry, however statements such as 'it looks as if your COI will be a fake' merely serve to undermine what should be (and should be treated as) a serious set of valid questions.

    Frances Oldham and her team appear to be trying to do their best, and it is obviously very difficult to ensure that everybody has everything they wish to be included in the inquiry. Perhaps an acknowledgement of the difficulty of their position and constructive suggestions, rather than sensationalist language designed to stir the ire of the blogging community, might be a more effective tool in getting acceptance of the improvements desired ?

    Making dramatic accusations that the QC, legal teams, and the States are involved in some sort of dramatic cover up merely serves to undermine, rather than enhance, the likelihood of its members engagement. Daniel, you are better than some of the comments you have seen fit to make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the things that has to happen - if ordinary powerless people in Jersey are to ever gain protection from the Jersey power-apparatus and secure the proper rule of law in the island - is the shedding of naivety.

      Unfortunately, we see little sign - even now - that that necessary stride forward in understanding is happening.

      This comment is a relevant example. It says: -

      "Suggesting that a highly respected QC would knowingly head a sham inquiry is a very strong accusation."

      And: -

      "Frances Oldham and her team appear to be trying to do their best".

      Look - Frances Oldham is a lawyer. The key team working with her are lawyers. The core organisation involved are Evershed - with major interests and client interests in the City of London where they are a major legal chambers.

      Lawyers.

      These are lawyers we're speaking of. Hello?

      Lawyers never - ever - simply "do the right thing".

      And as far as asserting that "Oldham and her team appear to be trying to do their best" - I'm sorry - but that assertion is not even compatible with the already known facts and available evidence.

      Oldham and crew have: -

      Ignored paragraph (e) of the decision of the Jersey parliament;

      Written for themselves a wide-ranging and complex set of protocols which are (a) designed to further embrace and re-enforce the culture-of-concealment, and (b) are not even compatible with the ToR;

      Employ a very expensive grouping of four spin-doctors;

      Failed to actually record - and thus provide - verbatim transcripts of these deeply questionable "preliminary interviews" they're undertaking;

      Refused to provide legal representation funding to key witnesses (example, me) - witnesses who have been illegally coerced and intimidated - and who remain vulnerable to current and future oppressions;

      Failed to object to the UK authorities over their decision to promote the expressly and centrally conflicted William Bailhache to be head of the judiciary and legislature, rather than suspending him as a neutral act;

      Refused to adopt - and run this public inquiry - in accordance with the long-settled and uncontroversial Salmon Principles.

      Refused to take evidence-in-chief in live hearings - that is, refused to allow wide-ranging freely given opening evidential statements from the witnesses - instead restricting witnesses to only answering whatever narrow questions the inquiry choose to ask;

      Refused - and this alone is staggering - and simply annihilates the "credibility" of this public inquiry - refused to allow cross-examination.

      Frances Oldham QC and the team have not "done their best" - if by "best" you mean running a good and effective public inquiry.

      As the actual evidence shows - they've done the opposite already - engaged in actions that massively limit and constrain any possibility there may have been of this inquiry really getting to the truths that matter.

      But these people are lawyers - so what did we expect?

      Stuart

      Delete
    2. As the enquiry team have taken it upon themselves to modify their prescribed ToR, did they approach the States for its approval? And of so, who was the person that signed it off?

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  4. I just submitted this comment to the inquiry's contact form - info@jerseycareinquiry.org

    "Dear Sir/Madam,

    Limiting the inquiry to abuse which occurred solely in the official care system, indeed positively naming your inquiry along those lines, excludes a lot of abuse which took place outside the care system yet was (probably) subject to similar degrees of cover-up by the same type of people for similar reasons. This inquiry was supposed to be an independent comprehensive review into all systematic abuse, both historical and recent, and how it got ignored/covered up/ insufficiently investigated plus into the suspiciously accident-prone fate of many people who tried to expose it.

    sincerely,

    Mr Nicholas Palmer"

    ReplyDelete
  5. So much for the Committee of Inquiry being totally independent, it now reads more like an inquiry steered by bloggers and ex states members.
    Why everybody cannot leave this alone and stop publically attacking it makes me wonder what the critics fear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Say hello to the pro paedo trolls @14:16

      Delete
  6. How can one trust a Committee of Enquiry (COI) which has been commissioned from an Islands government that is ultimately controlled by a politicised-judiciary?

    This pseudo-legal COI is a sham used to side-step a true court of law and natural justice, these victims should have "real justice" through "real courts of law"; justice needs to be done and seen to be done!

    The perpetrators of child abuse must stand before true justice; why oh why does one find the victims in front of a COI... this is justice turned upon its head... and as such is not true justice!



    ReplyDelete
  7. This inquiry is supposed to get to the truth about child abuse failings and pave the way to stop it ever happening again in the future.
    If people on here expect a trial of people accused in all respects of historic abuse then they are going to be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This government has removed high ranking Police Officers in order to silence them.

    This government has removed your elected politicians from office in order to silence them.

    This government has paid compensation money in order to silence victims of child abuse.

    This government deports accredited journalists in order to silence them.

    This government has substituted committees of enquiry in place of prosecution by law.

    This government...



    ReplyDelete
  9. So sad to read this propaganda over and over again.

    "This government has removed high ranking Police Officers in order to silence them.
    Never been silenced and replaced by other Police Officers.

    This government has removed your elected politicians from office in order to silence them.
    Never been silenced and was voted out by the Assembly as a whole. Subsequently rejected in Public elections thereafter.

    This government has paid compensation money in order to silence victims of child abuse.
    They should never of accepted any money then but are you sure they are silenced for this inquiry?

    This government deports accredited journalists in order to silence them.
    Who, when?

    This government has substituted committees of enquiry in place of prosecution by law.
    If accusations fail the evidence tests then that's life I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoken like a JEP Believer @8:55.

      Delete
  10. 'The perpetrators of child abuse must stand before true justice; why oh why does one find the victims in front of a COI... this is justice turned upon its head... and as such is not true justice'

    One of the main aims of the COI is to enable Victims to tell of their experiences. How would you like them to do this without appearing in front of the COI ? They are not on trial, or facing any type of pejorative 'justice' in any way whatsoever.

    This Blog seems to have become overrun with Stuart's small band of supporters (many of whom have never even set foot in the island, let alone understand the complexities of what has occurred here over the last 50 years). They merely seem hell bent on derailing any sort of inquiry with claims of conspiracy and cover up, and seem to believe that instead of a legally and procedurally complex review which is given time to produce its findings, it should be some sort of show trial where people Stuart believes are guilty are publicly vilified.

    It has been suggested in the past that Stuart has used the plight of abuse victims to further his own vendetta against those he blames for his fall from political grace, and it could be argued that this is simply more of that same behaviour. Unlike many of the victims, he doesn’t appear to want closure on this subject, because it will deprive him of his stick to beat those he dislikes. His early application to the Committee for funding to once again replay his ‘human rights’ arguments, is demonstrative that much of his actions are more about Stuart than any victims.

    VFC. A simple question. Do you support the current inquiry, and believe it will be of benefit to those who have suffered abuse over the years in the island ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Syvret is back in court on Friday to explain how he's going to pay his debts.
      Expect bankruptcy to quickly follow.

      Delete
    2. So there is a God after all.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 09:02 is silent about the cover ups which enabled the perpetrators to escape justice and enabled the abuse to continue for decades.

      He tells us that Stuart [Syvret] has a small band of supporters who have "overrun" this blog, and by implication fails to recognise that it was Health Minister Syvret who first discovered that Jersey's child care apparatus was not fit for purpose. When he highlighted his concerns to the States he was instantly deposed by the forces of evil under cover of the very sort of misinformation that Mr.Anonymous spouts.

      How precisely Mr. Syvret has benefited from his selfless actions is not explained by Anonymous.

      Mr.Anonymous. A simple question. Why do you seem totally unconcerned that the well seasoned conservative-moderate-christian Ex.Deputy Daniel Wimberley has such fundamental and well researched concerns about the conduct and effectiveness of the inquiry into abuse and cover up?

      Such fundamental and well researched concerns that Wimberley is even suggesting that the hard fought for inquiry should be halted unless the concerns are adequately dealt with !!!!

      Observers both on and off the island are in no mood to accept a Hillsborough or Kincora Boys home type cover-up
      If it is not done properly it will all need doing again. But this is not your concern, is it?

      Thank you "own goal" at 09:35 for reminding us how the forces of evil on this island deal with dissidents using corrupt show trials.

      Delete
    4. Absolute BS to suggest Stuart is doing this due to a vendetta with TPTB as a result of him being ousted as Health Minister. Unlike most Jersey tow-the-line politicians (most either sheep or there's dirt on them) Stuart puts others before himself. As they didn't have any dirt on him, TPTB had to forge some because they couldn't silence him in this traditional dirty political way. So they held a meeting to plan his removal, labelled him as a bully and subsequently got him out that way. Prior to this, Stuart found out that civil servants had deliberately lost files and tried covering up previous child protection mistakes. Stuart was also contacted by scared victims- he was the only politican they could trust. That says alot to any normal thinking person. And, Stuart happens to have a broader following than is portrayed- there are a number of intelligent people who support him but are too scared to say so at their office or in their circles. Why?- because they are scared of the Jersey Way. THe Jersey way includes labelling Stuart as some sort of freak with an anti-Stuart campaign (as they always have done) simply because he has always been more smart than them. Sometimes I really think that it would it help shift minds to write up the Jersey Child Abuse Facts in a Janet and John style format so that it is spelt out simply because many can't keep up or they beleive the trash that this thick troll and the JEP write. As for this 'Care Inquiry,' it's just another whitewash inquiry (name one that was good). But this Jersey one is even worse- It is being mastered by TPTB to give the illusion that mountains were made out of molehills- when the truth is the opposite. It is such a poor inquiry, that it doesn't even follow basic inquiry structures- Salmon Priniciples. Just another Jersey Way chapter and the book will continue until people wake up. VFC, please will you consider not posting the Troll posts anymore-. Its just diversionary.

      Delete
    5. Silent about cover ups ? I don't think I've been silent about cover ups at all. I've agreed that the inquiry is vital to learning the truth about what occurred. Where the evidence has been sufficient, people have already been prosecuted, and if sufficiently robust new evidence emerges about others, I would support their prosecution.

      You have been misinformed if you believe that Stuart was the first to discover that Jersey's child care apparatus was not fit for purpose. I'm sure Stuart won't mind confirming that there was already an on-going police investigation into events surrounding abuse far before he chose to involve himself. (after many of having failed to act as the island's health minister)

      Far from the 'forces of evil', Mr Syvret was removed from his ministerial position by a majority vote of his peers in the States because of his abusive behaviour to, and inability to work with, his staff at our health department. He then chose to remove himself from his seat in the States by choosing to remain outside of the island for more than 6 months, contrary to the legislation governing the behaviour of our elected representatives. If any of this is 'misinformation, I'm sure Mr Evil will correct me.

      Mr Syvret has attempted to benefit from his 'selfless actions' by trying to drag down people, against whom he had a grudge, who are innocent in the eyes of the law, accusing them of actions for which the evidence was insufficient to gain a prosecution. He also attempted to promote himself as a campaigner for the victims of abuse, when the motives behind his actions were to strike out at those he perceived as having wronged him because of his inability to conduct normal civil working relationships.

      Why do I seem unconcerned at Daniel's concerns about the COI ? If you believe my statements such as 'Daniel raises some valid concerns over the scope of the inquiry' and 'constructive suggestions, rather than sensationalist language designed to stir the ire of the blogging community' are demonstrative of my being unconcerned at Daniel's suggestions, then one of us has a problem with understanding English.

      Rather than making wild accusations about what people do and do not believe, perhaps you might try looking at a few other news sources before drawing your conclusions and making wildly inaccurate statements.

      Observers on and off the island are in no mood to accept a cover up ? I have a feeling that, unless we see public hangings on the 'evidence' of what a tiny minority interpret as 'evidence', you'll still be here shouting cover up in years to come, when the only people who really matter in all of this, the victims, are merely attempting to get on with their lives.

      Delete
    6. 'this thick troll'

      'will you consider not posting the Troll posts anymore'

      As always, this ends up with insults. By all means accede to this person's request and don't publish anything I write. Why should you tolerate any dissenting voice. This place is much more interesting when everybody just toes with the conspiracy line.

      Also follow this person's advice, everybody refuse to engage with the inquiry, carry on shouting conspiracy, keep insulting people online, keep demanding convictions without sufficient evidence, and that should ensure that everything works out in the end. It's a hell of a tactic so far, and I'm sure the victims of abuse feel much better for it.

      I'm sorry I wasted my time.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @12:03, Well done for ad nauseum repartition of the establishment's narrative. Where to begin? Well let's start with a [modified] quote from your first paragraph:

      "Silent about cover ups ? I don't think I've been silent about cover ups at all .........I've agreed that the [suspect] inquiry is vital to [not] learning the truth about what occurred. Where the evidence has been sufficient, people have already been prosecuted [charged AGAINST the advice of the law offices/AG]"

      So tell all .....list when you have not been silent or supportive about cover ups?

      We are evidently supposed to be able to read your [oh so pure] mind to know which other anonymous comments are yours. If you feel that readers are misjudging you and your motivations than perhaps you should post under a distinct name so that readers can recognise that you are not simply regurgitating the establishment's narrative like a paid PR stooge or a beneficiary of the lucrative Jersey legal cartel.

      So GO ON. when you have NOT been silent or supportive about cover ups?


      Clicking on my name will take you to a link which rather suggests that child protection is still failing on this island. Do tell us if you don't think that situation is A-okay and that ex.nurse Pryke is doing her job.
      Same old shut-your-eyes-and-trust which got us into this god-awful mess ?

      Delete
    8. @13:01 "I'm sorry I wasted my time."

      Quite the contrary my friend, you nave NOT wasted your time..
      (or perhaps even taxpayers money if your are being paid LOL)

      You have given a valuable service spouting the Establishment Party line so that posters can nail it with cold reality at every turn.

      Thank you.


      An insight into how the cover up of corruption and paedophilia can be of immense value to a power clique controlling a legislature can be seen on this short video with a Tory Party whip:

      http://order-order.com/2014/07/08/watch-former-tory-whip-boasts-about-paedo-mp-cover-up/

      "they will do what you ask forevermore"


      Many years ago Mr.Syvret referred to this as the currency of concealment.
      He also titled his blog ".....Thoughts on the Microcosm...."
      Jolly impressive for a mere pleb.

      Troll, moral-invertebrate, JEP-believer, Jersey Lawyer or paid-PR-stooge .......WHO CARES ?,
      just keep the comments coming ;-)

      Delete
  11. Dear Anon @ 09:02,

    If it was your children... a committee of enquiry or a court of law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Research suggests that about 2% of a population has a sexuality with a primary element based on an interest in children.
      What portion of these people actually offend depends on the opportunity, the culture and other factors.
      Of Jersey's 100,000 population a very conservative estimate would be that there are 5,000 paedophiles.

      Anon @ 09:02 is clearly a reasonably intelligent individual. His motivation for trying to fog and avoid the issues raised by Daniel Wimberley may be based on a desire to maintain a warped political system rather than by a more unpleasant motivation.

      However these 5,000+ are distributed somewhere in our society.Indeed the active ones tend to seek positions of trust including in the police and politics, or in positions with access to children. It is difficult to face but the notion that they do not is criminally naive.

      This is not just a Jersey problem but it is often found that insular island communities are particularly vulnerable to this insidious and evil perversion.
      Fortunately many suffers do not act out their desires. Many who do primarily offend within the immediate and wider family where the opportunity is greatest and the risk of discovery is least.

      Though constant awareness is necessary both in our personal and our civic lives it is important to bear in mind that about 49 out of every 50 people are not paedophiles.

      Anyone who suffers from these appetites should seek treatment.

      Delete
    2. Do you have a reference for the important research you mention?

      Delete
    3. Saw this just now . . . . Sorry.

      No I have no reference - I was asking the COI whether they had sufficient resources to do the job properly. It turned out they hadn't and had to ask for a lot more money.

      And the research which I asked for has not been done to my knowledge.

      Delete
  12. Call me old fashioned, but in my day people who committed crimes were caught by police and appeared before a court of law to be found innocent or guilty!

    Why have the perpetrators of these crimes escaped justice in a court of law?

    We have many, many victims in this COI; but in all of this, what has happened to the many (anonymous) criminals whom have committed these crimes (and escaped justice)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We still have courts of law which find people guilty or innocent. Fortunately for you and the rest of us, these courts operate on the basis of evidence, rather than hearsay.

      If you have compelling evidence the proves that somebody has committed a crime, rather than merely accusations spread by a small number of bloggers, the court would be compelled to act.

      Delete
    2. "the court would be compelled to act"
      But what if the island' legal system was a hijacked fake?

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html
      &
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html

      This would explain the decades of cover up and the non prosecution of perpetrators.

      Delete
    3. Why have the victims evidence not been heard in a court of law?

      Delete
  13. Stuart, How much money do the politicised judiciary want from your person?

    Does a person who has been declared bankrupt by the judiciary barred from becoming a politician?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'If it was your children... a committee of enquiry or a court of law?'

    For my children's sake, a committee of enquiry to understand what went wrong and ensure as far as possible that it doesn't reoccur, AND a court of law that operates on the basis of an evidential test to provide fair trials and to justify safe convictions.

    For your children's, and the rest of society's sake, what would you want ? Public lynch mobs ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:24
      What we want is a CoI which is fit for purpose and not hijacked by the forces of cover up.

      If you are not able to respond effectively to Daniel Wimberley's concerns, why are you fogging the issues and not yourself demanding a CoI which is fit for purpose AND SEEN to be fit for purpose?

      According to Advocate Sinel it appears that it is the hijacked judicial apparatus which is the "lynch mob" on th eisland:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html

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

      This would explain the decades of cover up and the non prosecution of perpetrators.

      Strangely none of this seems to concern you, while take pot-shots at the island's child protection campaigners.

      Delete
    2. Well spoken Anon @ 10:24

      Delete
  15. Anon @ 9.02

    You don't need to set foot on this island to understand that kids have been abused. What do you mean by 'complexities' and how does that justify adults abusing kids?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As said in a previous comment
      "Anon @ 09:02 is clearly a reasonably intelligent individual. His motivation for trying to fog and avoid the issues raised by Daniel Wimberley may be based on a desire to maintain a warped political system rather than by a more unpleasant motivation."

      Delete
    2. Where has anyone said that complexities child abuse cases was justification for abusing kids ?

      Complexities such an evidential test, due procedure, an individual's right to a fair trial, an individual's right not to have his life ruined by false accusations, deaths of the accused, false or un-provable accusations, are all issues that have raised their heads in the last few years. These are complexities, and they have nothing to do with justifying anything.

      If you are going to try and twist people's words, you're going to have to try a little harder.

      Delete
    3. Jesus wept. Where am I trying to fog anything ? I've already acknowledged that Daniel has asked some valid questions and should receive answers. I have simply objected to the tone of some of his remarks, which I believe could be detrimental to his case.

      Why don't people read things instead of hearing what they want to hear ?

      Delete
    4. "Where am I trying to fog anything"
      One of the places is where you volunteered the establishment line on Health Minister Syvret (you need to get over your hate-syvret fixation)

      Unfortunately pretty much all of what Syvret has said seems to have a major (or total) element of truth in it. Not just about Jersey but now sickeningly about the UK as well.

      So glad that you are "on board". People would be more inclined to believe that you were not trying to fog this thread if you responded more positively to objections to the tone and apparent motivation of your remarks.
      Perhaps you could express yourself and your laudable concerns more clearly.

      Daniel Wimberley actually references information off Health Minister Syvret's blog in support of his concerns. e.g.
      http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html in a blog post dated August 4th 2012.

      This entire blog site has been removed on the basis of a VERY expensive dodgy Jersey court ruling for the (proxy) benefit of some VERY unsavoury characters.

      It turns out that the Jersey authorities have been trying to get Syvret's blog removed since the time of the illegal suspension of of Jersey's legitimate Chief of police (again no concern to you?)

      Fortunately this blog has been recovered and is now available at :

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-end-of-the-beginning/

      Hopefully the volunteers who service that website will soon be able to re-load the comment which were lost
      You are in favour of that I take it ? .......

      Delete
  16. Anon at 10:25

    Surely you would demand that the offender be apprehended by the police and face swift justice in a court of law?

    The very fact that this government has been forced by public opinion (driven by free-speech online) to bring in UK lawyers to hold a committee of enquiry, clearly shows that this government has failed in its duty to protect children in our society and prosecute the offenders of these crimes?

    We would not have any of this whitewash if the judiciary were not a politicised entity working on behalf of the Crown controlling this islands still feudal government.

    The courts and its crown-controlled feudal (politicised) judiciary must be separated from government!

    Had this separation of crown power been the case when this child abuse first came to light many years ago, the criminals would have faced swift justice through our courts!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instead of Crown justice, the victims have the Crown desperately fumbling to keep a firm grip upon its feudal judicial apparatus which still controls power within our government by whitewashing its failure to prosecute paedophiles from within its own apparatus of power.

      If the Judiciary go after these paedophiles and their networks, it will bring its own feudal control of our government down along with it.

      Delete
    2. You said it exactly right - anon. at 12.03. So true. Many of us are so fed up with this feudal system. Its time for the proper rule of law to operate in Jersey.

      Delete
    3. Yes, for the people of this island to have fair and impartial rule of law, there must be a separation of powers, the executive, legislature and judiciary must be divided both in person and in function so that no one branch can exercise power over other branches, and that no person may be a member of more than one of these branches.

      Delete
    4. Only by the separation of executive and legislature from the judiciary will the people of this island have true judicial independence which is completely free and unfettered and exercises independent legal judgment.

      This Island's judiciary must be free from any inappropriate connections with executive and legislature.

      Likewise, the executive, legislature and judiciary must be separated for this island to have true democracy excercised in its government.

      Delete
    5. It is sickening to find States Members heavily conflicted by direct involvement with commercial interests acting within the States Chamber, the old-school politicians epitomised by the likes of Krichefski and Jeune have no place in a modern democracy.

      Such men working behind the scenes in this government have dragged their heels to maintain the status quo of feudal government purely to satisfy the interests of international big business using this island as a tax avoidance vehicle.

      That is why today, after over 800 years we still have a feudal government, and why that feudal government will not prosecute paedophiles though its court's!

      Delete
    6. That is why this feudal government refuses to prosecute influential paedophiles in its courts, and why the people of this island are reduced to having victims of child abuse appearing before a Committee of Enquiry!

      Delete
  17. Syvret was voted out of HSS by the Assembly and was then rejected by the public twice in elections.
    He has not been in Politics for 4 years like several others who move on.
    Don't let the truth get in the way of a bit of self serving propaganda eh?

    ReplyDelete
  18. no comment box available ep online to the story announcing the start of the enquiry,

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'Surely you would demand that the offender be apprehended by the police and face swift justice in a court of law?'

    Have I given you the impression that this is not what I would want ? What I object to is some people's interpretation of 'justice', which seems to be 'convict on the basis of my accusations', rather than on the basis of the balance of evidence in a court of law. What some people fail to understand is that the law assumes a person to be innocent of their crimes unless evidence is provided to prove sufficient to convict. If that evidence is simply a verbal accusation that an event occurred, that is not likely to be sufficient.

    Again, I don't believe that I have criticised people who have campaigned for the inquiry. The government ultimately voted for the inquiry to go ahead, and have acknowledged that there have been severe failings in the child protection process over many years.

    The rest of your comment about the judiciary being controlled by the crown is not a subject I have, nor wish to, comment on, suffice to say that the evidential test is key to any court case, irrespective of government or crown control of the court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are quite right, " evidential test is key to any court case"; yet, the victims of these crimes have been denied the right to give evidence against an accused in a court of law.

      The court of law has been cleverly substituted for a committee of enquiry in which no accused is made to appear to before a court of law to face such evidence.

      The evidence of the victims has been dislocated from a fair hearing in a court of law; and as such, the accused, has been dislocated from the evidence given by the victim and the cross examination of this evidence by the court.

      A COI is not a court of law, it does not cross examine witnesses or accused, a COI does not prosecute the accused.

      A COI is a political entity.



      Delete
    2. Evidence from victims given to this Committee of enquiry which acts within "politically guided" terms of reference is not evidence!






      Delete
    3. And if you really sit down and think about it, what better way for a politicised judiciary to protect its Crown's feudal right of governance and protect it own apparatus of power than to have victims give evidence outside a court of law to a committee of enquiry which is constrained within political "terms of reference" by UK lawyers.

      Delete
    4. 'Yes, you are quite right, " evidential test is key to any court case"; yet, the victims of these crimes have been denied the right to give evidence against an accused in a court of law.'

      I'm sorry, just so I understand this correctly ? You are saying there is somebody or some thing which is preventing them from walking into the police station, and providing their irrefutable evidence, the veracity of which you believe would be sufficient to secure a conviction ? They are being denied that right ?

      Delete
  20. @ 15:23: No, you have not understood this correctly!

    ReplyDelete
  21. In that case would you care to explain what is preventing them from doing so ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EARLY DAY MOTION – INQUIRY INTO CHILD ABUSE AND THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES

      •Session: 2014-15
      •Date tabled: 21.07.2014
      •Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
      •Sponsors:

      That this House, being conscious of the numerous cases of previously concealed child abuse in which individuals have been able to use their status as public figures to deter victims and to prevent or disrupt investigations of their crimes, and being conscious that in some cases abusers, and those who have concealed abuse, have been able to use their positions in public office and the institutions of the state such as Parliament and Government to shield them and their wrongdoing from proper, lawful scrutiny, recognises that the dangers of such cover-ups occurring are even greater in small, quasi-self-governing communities than at national level, where, even though checks and balances are more extensive, child abuse and cover-ups by the well-connected have still occurred; notes that a local public inquiry in Jersey into child abuse, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, has not gained the confidence of all victims and witnesses; and calls on the relevant UK authorities, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Crown and the Privy Council, in exercise of their responsibilities and powers to ensure good governance, the rule of law and proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, to empower the overarching UK inquiry into child abuse to include the Crown Dependencies.

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/279

      Delete
    2. If a victim has given evidence to the COI then it seems to be the case that they CANNOT then use that same evidence in a court of law. This was one of the many problems with the protocols (or rules governing the conduct of) of the inquiry .

      However the COI published their protocols with NO consultation with all the interested parties - States Departments, Ministers, victims, victim supporters.

      So this obviously highly problematic state of affairs could not be discussed, it was never worked through, never clarified. And I still do not know what the true position is.

      The COI team did not consult before publishing the protocols, they wrote them in isolation, despite the fact that the States proposition setting them up requests that they DO consult:

      It says, at paragraph e)

      “e) to agree that the proposed Chairman should be requested to recommend any final changes to the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry referred to in paragraph (b) above for approval by the Assembly, and also to set out the proposed process for conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where necessary;” (P.118/2012, paragraph e))

      "having consulted with interested parties where necessary;"

      Quite

      Delete
    3. That's very convenient for the judiciary and Crown don't you think, once evidence has been submitted to this COI that it can no longer be submitted by victims to prosecute offenders in a court of law...

      By giving evidence in this COI, victims are giving up their "right" to prosecute the perpetrators through the courts.

      An amnesty for paedophiles by consent of the victims!

      What a most abhorrent fake P.R. circus this COI really is!

      Delete
  22. Channel TV grossly misleading the public yet again tonight.

    Next time you see Gary Burgess in town, ask him why he's a liar! He made a clear attempt to imply that the human remains found at HDLG are ALL just a piece of coconut (and that one piece is still up for debate anyway). What about the many many many many other items found? Many bone fragments and teeth with roots attached? Why do you have to lie, Gary? Or are you just willfully ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary Burgess' style of "JOURNALISM." Watch to the end as it is a very serious message.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon @ 18:20,

      One has only to watch http://youtu.be/paZGJgzHm4k?t=7s to know that Gary Burgess has misled ITV news viewers.

      One wonders who has written the carefully worded script that Gary Burgess spoke to the viewers? Does Gary Burgess write his own material or does he just repeat what he has been told to say?

      Who at ITV ultimately wrote Gary Burgess' misleading Coconut script?

      Delete
    3. Its quite unsettling to know that the first managing director of Jersey's television station, Channel TV (now known as ITV Channel Television) was Senator Wilfred Krichefski OBE, an accused paedophile who is suspected of abusing children at Haute de La Garrenne.

      Makes you wonder?

      Delete
  23. Anon @12:35 said;

    "What some people fail to understand is that the law assumes a person to be innocent of their crimes unless evidence is provided to prove sufficient to convict."

    Slip of the tongue anon?

    Sounds like you would make a fine addition to 'our' judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting debate Anon. lets serve up some recent facts regarding Jersey's justice system. Remember the Reg's skips report, try reading it, it’s online. Bailhache, informed his aggrieved lawyer friend about a very old, forgotten law which he then latched on to and then used it to win in the same court as Bailhache and his friends work. The planning office allowed the lawyer to treat it like his own office, piling pressure on lorry driver who suffered a heart attack. The way to treat people eh that have done little or no wrong. How about HG ring a church bell for you ?

    Maybe the Lotus driver smashing his car to pieces and killing a young girl. He got a slap on the wrist with a carless driving conviction, and here is the good bit, the court awarded him all his defence costs, which must been have huge. Yet he had a conviction ? Light weight as it was.

    The case that nobody would take any responsibility for bringing. There is no Crown prosecution in Jersey, just one man, the AG, and he says it was not him, so how did the two policemen end up in court, on whose legal advice that the case against them was strong enough ? The English Judge on this occasion felt there was no case to answer and out they walked.

    Hope your not getting bored because there is yet more.

    Mr Breton the Jurat, implicated in the attempted Paedophile cover up at Victoria College, ( read the Sharp Report it's banned by Jersey but online ) yet he sits on the big bench handing out so called justice " the Jersey Way " then there is the Pitman story but that is going to Brussels so better not say too much more.

    To end, I know and like Syvret, but do not always agree with him. He is a slave to his conscience and looking at the majority of self interested, idiots in the States, If the document readers who call people liars on planes, or those politicians that waste millions or the ministers who repeatedly refuse [ or cannot ] answer questions had one tenth of his integrity and honesty, Jersey would be a far better and happier place and there would be no such thing or requirement for a spin department.

    Now lets look at a senior civil servant that are taking very large pensions and have lied to the public and their minister, and another who was named in court by a witness under oath, for being violent to children in his care, nah lets keep that for another day.

    The good news is there are the blogs like this one, especially as the Post and BBC are captured and I am afraid certain individuals including yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. anon at 21.42- Excellend summary. You are so right about Stuart's integrity and everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Depressing some of these comments. Especially the obvious trolling ones still trying to distract us from getting justice for damaged children even now. How really, really sad. I just hope that the best and most honest politicians of modern times who have stood up time and time again to face the slings and arrows of the deniers, I mean Syvret, Pitmans, Daniel Wimberley and Higgins will give evidence anyway. To me it is crucial no matter what if only for future battles. Do we know if they will be doing this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman is providing the Inquiry with evidence, as is former Deputy Shona Pitman. Deputy Mike Higgins, I believe, will be looking to give evidence and if assurances are met/legal representation given former Deputy Wimberley and former Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret will give evidence.

      Delete
    2. This evidence should be with the Police already, I hope for the victims there is no evidence that's been held back solely for political reasons and the inquiry?

      Delete
    3. I shouldn’t wonder that a vast amount of the evidence would be AGAINST the police!

      Delete
    4. VFC "I shouldn’t wonder that a vast amount of the evidence would be AGAINST the police"

      Hopefully not a vast amount but chances are that a good number of Jersey's 5000 odd paedophiles find their way into the police.

      More spacificly. Senator Wilfred Krichefsky is alleged to have been one of the regular rapists of boys at HDLG

      Wilfred Krichefsky spent time as political head of the police, as did Dick Shenton.
      I wonder if this is why the Shentons were so proactive in trashing the abuse investigation.

      Senator Wilfred Krichefsky was CTV's first managing director and would be so proud of CTV's cover up award.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/congratulations-ctv-but-what-about-all.html

      Delete
    5. Senator Wilfred Krichefski OBE, who was also a UK representative of the Commonwealth parliamentary association...

      One wonders if Krichefski had links to other paedophiles via his parliamentary links?

      Delete
    6. Perhaps there is a Wilfred Krichefski - Sir Edward Heath link?

      This link would be the skeleton key that opens up the cover-up, a paedophile network within the UK parliament itself?

      As John Hemming has said: "the relevant UK authorities, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Crown and the Privy Council, in exercise of their responsibilities and powers to ensure good governance, the rule of law and proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, to empower the overarching UK inquiry into child abuse to include the Crown Dependencies."

      Why would John Hemming MP say this, unless he thought that there was a UK Parliament - Jersey paedophile link?

      Delete
    7. It seems that Senator Wilfred Krichefski also had links to powerful people:

      Quote: September 10, 1962, The Times, ‘New Investment Trust for Jersey’:

      “The International Investment Trust Company of Jersey … Its chairman is Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, M.P., who is chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. … On its board are the Hon. N. C. Jacob Rothschild, of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, G. C. Karlweiss, a director of La Compagnie Financiere [de Edmond de Rothschild], Paris [and later chair of Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild], J. Pembroke, president of the Royal Trust Company, H. M. Robinow, a director of Barro Equities Ltd. and associated companies, and two Jersey company directors, Senator W. H. Krichefski, a member of the States’ Assembly, and Mr. R. R. Jeune, a sollicitator of the Royal Court.”

      Quote: July 10, 1972, The Times, Business appointments:

      “Following the acquisition by Star Investments Finance (Jersey) and Drayton Securities (Jersey) of a one-third interest each in Jersey International Bank of Commerce the board will comprise of: Senator W. H. Krichefski, Mr. C. H. Barclay … Mr. R. R. Jeune, … Mr. Philip Shelbourne [of Rothschilds, Drayton and Samuel Montagu]…” Interesting, so Krichefski was the premier business partner of the British and French Rothschilds on the island, as well as person who reportedly managed some of the queen’s investments (Shelbourne at Drayton). And both Clifford Barclay and Philip Shelbourne were Pilgrims. R. R. Jeune sounds familiar too. That’s Robert Reginald Jeune, a leading senator in the 1970s and 1980s and a good friend of Krichefski. And although Jeune wasn’t officially accused, he just happened to work at the Haut de la Garenne home where Krichefski, according to at least one victim-witness, went to rape boys. That’s not all. Jeune was a partner in Mourant du Feu & Jeune, one of the world’s largest offshore law firms with clients as Rothschilds, Warburg, Barings and other major English banks. In the 1970s he was a director of Warburg Investment Management Jersey and of S.G. Warburg & Co., headed at the time by the leading Pilgrims Society member Lord Eric Roll. Roll joined Kissinger Associates in 1984 and became Bilderberg chairman in 1985. Both the British and American branches of the Warburg family have been Pilgrims too. In other words, Krichefski and Jeune were closely tied to the liberal establishment.


      Delete
    8. Wow! What a busy men Senator's Krichefski and Jeune must have been... States sittings must have been a welcome respite to put their feet up and take a rest from all that financial business they were involved in.

      Delete
  27. Daniel
    Where does it say in the protocols that the same evidence cannot be given in a court of law and why did you not include this in your list of questions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It came up in all the discussions the stakeholder group had with the COI. I read the protocols and peppered my copy with question marks.

      In the group, Stuart was raising massive issues with the Protocols, including this one. So I left him to lead on that side.

      When / if the COI reply to my questions, and if the answers are satisfactory, (which I doubt they will be, judging from their extraordinary judgement on my submission to them about the Terms of Reference) then I will send them my questions about the protocols!

      Delete
  28. Jewish Chronicle, 14 March 1969, page 19

    Senator W. H. Krichefski, president of the Jersey Jewish Congregation, made history as the first person ever, other than the Bailiff (the island's chief executive) or his deputy, to preside over the States of Jersey, the local parliament. In 1968 an Act was passed allowing a member of the House to take the chair if the Bailiff was engaged presiding at the Royal Court of Justice, the senior senator was to take the chair.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John Hemmings MP: "A point that has not been looked properly at is the disappearance of children from Care. We had the recent reports from Ireland about the deaths of children being concealed. I believe that this also happened at Haut de la Garenne. To me it seems quite straightforward that if we are sufficiently concerned about money that we should count the money and audit it, we should also count the children and audit what happens to them. "

    Source: The disappearance of children from Care and the CSA inquiry (Wednesday, July 09, 2014)

    URL: http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Listen to this: http://vocaroo.com/i/s1RQZLiGQPc2

    ReplyDelete
  31. In regard to John Hemmings statement, have the COI actually audited States records to find out if children that went into the Jersey care system have disappeared?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know of at least one child you was sent from Birmingham, in the UK, to Haut de la Garenne, and has NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR.

      Delete
    2. Yes, and according to the Daily Mail, Islington and a handful of other UK Councils have refused to check their own children's care records, so there may be more than just one child that has disappeared at Haute De La Garenne.

      Are the COI going to make these rogue UK Councils produce these records, after all, we are talking about children that may have gone missing!



      Delete
    3. Judging by the vast amount of juvenile remains unearthed at HAUT DE LA GARENNE one would suspect there are many more children unaccounted for should records be checked.

      Delete
  32. The JEP is attacking bloggers and Twitter users today for firing out insults during the start of the COI.
    It reckons the conspiracies have gone stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The JEP will know all about conspiracies……It’s entire reporting of the Child Abuse Inquiry has been a conspiracy. As mentioned before, take what you read in the JEP with a pinch of salt. It is not a serious “news”paper it’s a (Tooth) Fairy tale comic mixed in with government propaganda.

      Delete
    2. I reckon the JEP's day of reckoning is still to come. It will come, though.

      Elle

      Delete
    3. Who ultimately owns the JEP, anybody know?

      Delete
    4. Come to think of it, who ultimately owns ITV Channel Television?

      Delete
    5. The Elephant in the room!

      Read: http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ElephantintheroomFinalfinal.pdf

      Delete
  33. The should be a new offence of immoral deception - the JEP and CTV would be the first to be found guilty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trouble is that (like Data Protection) any law in Jersey is administered by the court of Bailhache.

      There is a common perception that laws are there to protect the weak from the excesses of the powerful. Interestingly the island's rich and powerful do not share that view.

      They own the law .......and your ass if they take a fancy to it. That is the ugly reality of a quasi-feudal system.

      The JEP and CTV etc are their mouthpieces.

      Delete
  34. In 2013 I challenged the JEP to a head to head debate. They could challenge my evidence against their propaganda. They declined. I was willing to be challenged on my findings. They bottled it. Have let down the innocent children of abuse for decades and are still doing so.

    http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/09/john-hemming-jep-and-bloggers-challenge.html

    I have been out of action regarding blogging for sometime but have spent some time with the enquiry team helping people tell their experiences of what happened during their time in the Jersey care system. Make no mistake. If this enquiry comes back with another whitewash then they are no better than than the perpetrators in my eyes.

    Rs

    ReplyDelete
  35. People need to calm down.
    The Inquiry has only just started and distractions like the JEP, Blogs and Twitter should be set aside.
    Of course there is going to be critics on both sides, but that's what the Inquiry is there for.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Need to calm down?

    When politicians play the triumvirate of "executive"-"legislature"-"judiciary" like an old fiddle for financial gain and turn a blind eye to child abuse!

    No matter what this COI finds, it will not change a thing until the Crown's feudal control over judiciary, executive and legislature has been finally removed leaving a free and impartial police and judiciary to be able to go after the perpetrator's of these crimes!

    ReplyDelete
  37. VFC, you have done a fantastic job in keeping everyone informed. I feel like I need to get onboard again. Having just become a father finding the free time hasn't been easy but im itching to get going again. I have 3 blogs ready to go on cyber stalking.

    Rs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rico.

      It will be good to have you back Blogging and know how much work you have been doing, behind the scenes, supporting victims/survivors giving statements to the COI and giving your own statements.

      Delete
  38. Nothing to say accept I wanted to be the 100th comment. Keep up the hard work on behalf of the victims. Thank Heavens we have the likes of you as an antidote to Gary and Leah's idea of journalism!

    ReplyDelete
  39. That sounds excellent Mr Sorda. It seems that since professional policing came to a stop after the illegal suspension of Mr Graham Power one particular individual has been allowed to run amok. Cyber bullying can lead to misery and even to suicide and needs to be stamped out. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  40. A comment has been submitted concerning a rumour of a possible paedophile (former Jurat/politician) I've not heard the name before and not heard the rumour. If he is still living it would be irresponsible/libellous/defamatory if I was to publish the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rather off tangent, but still relevant - I thought the JEP editorial comment last night was a disgrace. (Saying this I no longer buy this excuse for a paper any more but get handed it by a neighbour).

    Of course we had the usual platitudes, as we did from the SOJ Advocate and the SOJP Advocate yesterday, but what struck me was this particular paragraph 'Very few - whether establishment figures or bloggers - are likely to come through this process uncriticised. And that is how it should be. The polarisation of the debate about the debate about abuse has led to those on both sides believing that they have absolute possession of the truth, a factor which has been unhelpful to say the least'.

    No mention of the JEP themselves, CTV or BBC Jersey who have been the most complicit in being economical with the true facts, and most clearly used as a propaganda mouthpiece by the Establishment , and it would appear the status quo remains.

    The JCLA have virtually every newspaper cutting from the outset of Operation Rectangle and have submitted all to the Inquiry Team. Having pored over them again (and there are literally hundreds) the appalling 'journalism' by the JEP will hopefully show the Inquiry Team just what anybody fighting for the truth and justice was up against.

    I am very sorry Mr Sibcy, but it may be that your very paper will be the media outlet that is criticised the most. The bloggers have dealt in facts and truth - the very facts and truth that the victims of abuse are well aware of. If anybody can prove otherwise, let them come and here with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jill.

      What a pity Mr. Sibcy came out of the Rob Shipley Chris Bright mould, I had higher hopes. Yet saying that, if he wasn't of the Shipley/Bright ilk he wouldn't have got the post as editor and they might have had to employ a journalist!

      You are correct that it's been the Bloggers who have produced official documents and evidence while the JEP, along with the rest of the State Media has either buried the evidence or come up with an alternative (Tooth) Fairy Tale.

      Not forgetting that it was the JEP who bottled out of a head to head with Bloggers when challenged by Rico HERE.

      If this COI is to be "the real deal" then the local State Media is in for a rough ride.

      Delete
    2. Not being funny, but do you not think the JEP will be loving all this?

      They write an article about bloggers and tweets and you guys and gals blow a gasket.

      Delete
    3. I think “blow a gasket” might be a bit strong. I merely made a few observations and expressed an opinion.

      Do I think the JEP will be loving all this? I should imagine so as any publicity it can get to help its dwindling sales should be greatly appreciated.

      Delete
  42. You need to learn to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Some very interesting investigative posts proving a link between Krichevski and Jeune,I am sure that Jeune was involved in bringing Jimmy Saville over to Jersey to visit the youth club in St Helier,I was told this by a person who attended the club,the Rothchilds, Paedophilia,dirty offshore finance,Ted Heath,and Jimmy Saville.What a colourful forty square miles we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The JEP and the rest of the State Media are probably blowing a gasket over being held to account publicly. They've had a monopoly on disseminating information to the masses, and misused their role by becoming propaganda mouthpieces. For the first time, they have little control over what evidence is allowed to see light of day, and they are not handling their loss of power gracefully. The evidenced bloggers are used to being demonized by the state media, so that's hardly anything new.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  45. "The JCLA have virtually every newspaper cutting from the outset of Operation Rectangle and have submitted all to the Inquiry Team. Having pored over them again (and there are literally hundreds) the appalling 'journalism' by the JEP will hopefully show the Inquiry Team just what anybody fighting for the truth and justice was up against."

    Why is the COI being used as an ombudsmen for the Press?
    This is not Leveson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the perfect answer lies on the comment above yours Anonymous.

      However in response - no, this is not Leveson, but it is an Inquiry and Inquiries depend and rely a lot on evidence. Strangely media reporting on Haut de la Garenne was mentioned in the Leveson Inquiry, so why on earth should the local media not be held to account for their reporting, past, present and future. This is also evidence of how the public were often very misled, and abuse victims made to feel like second class citizens, and all part of a bigger picture.

      Delete
  46. UK is as sickening as the Jersey situation:

    Eileen Fairweather
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10177681/The-truth-behind-the-child-abuse-cover-ups.html

    How do they get away with it?
    In Jersey we see how, in microcosm, and in a clarity which enables the more nebulous mainland situation to be better understood.

    At least the "selected" boys at Vic college got shown pornography, taken sailing and drugged with alcohol with probably only minor use of threats - better than being beaten shitless, tied up, or half drowned which have been amongst the preferred methods by some at places like HDLG and some mainland homes that have been infiltrated by paedophiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People in the know recognise that a half hearted or hobbled Committee of Inquiry is a favoured way of placating public opinion without actually doing anything or holding anyone to account

      www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/inquiries-fail-abused-children

      Eileen Fairweather ..... "links between the abuse I uncovered at care homes in Islington, North London, and the horrifying discoveries on Jersey."
      www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-523706/I-known-Jersey-paedophiles-15-years-says-award-winning-journalist.html


      http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/was-islington-at-the-centre-of-a-vast-paedophile-network/

      "......Nick Rabet was deputy supervisor at Islington council’s Grosvenor Avenue home. Rabet was widely suspected to be a paedophile, and despite many allegations, Islington never took the proper steps of having him investigated. Rabet was born in JERSEY, and often took children there on unauthorised trips from Islington children’s homes.

      After Rabet left Islington he set up a ‘children’s recreational centre’ at a country house near Heathfield, East Sussex. Islington council sent many children there for days out. One of Rabet’s circle, Neil Hocquart, became a ‘volunteer’ at the centre. Hocquart was from GUERNSEY, and killed himself in 1991 after being raided by police and found with over 100 child-sex videos and 300 photographs of naked boys. One of the boys was a 10 year old in Islington’s care.

      Rabet and Hocquart were “networkers”, involved in the supply of children for pornography and abuse. Hocquart was connected to a powerful JERSEY paedophile ring, which included an aristocrat, clerics and a social services chief. A list of members of this paedophile ring was given to Scotland Yard & NCIS on 4th January 1996, but the information was never acted on.

      Other than Rabet, at least two other Islington social workers were also from JERSEY. It seems unlikely that so many JERSEY social workers would end up working in north London by coincidence alone...."


      KEEP UP THE PRESSURE ON THIS INQUIRY, it may not be too late for them to correct their mistakes and save their professional reputations.

      Delete
    2. There seems to be a very strong Islington - Jersey link here.

      What is most chilling, according to John Hemming MP, Islington County Council have refused to check their children's records for missing children!

      Richard Watts MP (Labour Member for Tollington Ward) is the head of Islington County Council, perhaps readers may like to ask Councillor Watts why Islington has refused to check its children's records!

      Richard Watts MP

      Correspondence address:

      Town Hall
      Upper Street
      London
      N1 2UD

      Bus. phone: 020 7527 4717 (PA)

      Email: richard.watts@islington.gov.uk

      Delete
  47. One of the best ways of ensuing that an inquiry does it's job is to ensure that their work will be externally scrutinised. It concentrates the mind and the conscience.

    Please sign this petition to ensure the Jersey inquiry do the best possible job, not the worst that they think they can get away with, as is beginning to look likely with their non-consultation, non-answers and evaporating ToRs

    www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/theresa-may-home-secretary-include-jersey-channel-islands-in-the-historic-csa-inquiry

    ReplyDelete
  48. This blog has become the forum for meaningful discussion on the most important matters.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Over 40 years ago now but builder and businessman Edward Paisnel was a visitor and "father Christmas" volunteer for HDLG

    According to this press cutting (Daily Mail, 3rd September 1971) from his trial
    SEE
    http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/black-magic-story-in-isle-sex-trial-03-09-71/

    Police officers found a "black magic" alter in the secret cellar at his home. Also there were books on the occult & on hypnotism and medical texts.

    Paisnel claimed to be a member of a secret religious cult on Jersey and to have attended orgies with important people


    Paisnel continued to offend for over a decade because a contact in the Honoraries let him off having his fingerprints taken in the island wide sweep

    In the spotlightonabuse comments section a researcher "Troyhand" has google-referenced and transcribed a selection of relevant global press cuttings (snippets below):


    The Sydney Morning Herald – Dec 1, 1971
    "The court was told that Paisnel modelled himself on the infamous Gilles de Rais, a fifteenth century Marshal of France known in history as Bluebeard, reviled for his ritual murder, torture [& rape] and sacrifice to the Devil of children lured to his castle."
    "Bluebeard" info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais


    [Scotich? or Glasgow?] Evening Times – Nov 29, 1971
    "Sir Robert had told them that they must not be influenced by the “revolting details” of the case....
    .......Paisnel did not give evidence.
    Nurse Miss Florence Hawkins and Paisnel’s parents claimed Paisnel was with them during two of the attacks – 1970 and 1966.

    The defence claimed more than one man was responsible for the attacks because of varying descriptions of the attacker."

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mCQ-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=jkoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6421%2C4368989


    I wonder if the transcript of the Paisnel case is available and un-redacted????
    Probably will not reveal much. Paisnel kept stum after his initial outbursts but he had links to HDLG and may have been left carrying the can for a wider ring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paisnel gets 30 years (Daily Mail, 14th December 1971)

      http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/paisnel-gets-30-years-14-12-71/

      Paisnel was convicted of 13 offences against boys and girls

      Attorney General Mr. Peter Crill told the court ".... Paisnel was a cunning hideous man who showed no remorse or horror or revulsion for his crimes against these children but, mercifully it does not appear that they have sustained any effect from these dreadful attacks"

      .....case closed !

      Delete
    2. http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/haut-de-la-garenne-jersey/

      Delete
    3. One wonders if Edward Paisnel was referring to Wilfred Krichefski when he "claimed to be a member of a secret religious cult on Jersey and to have attended orgies with important people" ?

      Delete
    4. And don't forget, Wilfred Krichefski died in December 1974, and was still an important person in Jersey politics; so this time-frame would most certainly have fitted in with Paisnel's outburst in 1971 that he "attended orgies with important people".

      And Krichefski was a most important person, not only in Jersey politics but also with ties to Crown, establishment, UK politicians and the mega-rich!

      Delete
    5. I read that Wilfred Krichefski (OBE) was a in the Brotherhood of Jersey Freemasonry
      Does anyone have info on this?

      Delete
  50. http://www.news.com.au/world/politicians-linked-to-horror-childrens-home/story-e6frfkyi-1111115704573

    "Wilfred Krichefski, a senator in Jersey's Government and chairman of several committees on the British Channel island, was said to have regularly visited Haut de la Garenne to abuse boys until his death in 1974.
    Living members of the island's establishment, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have also been identified as suspects.
    One former resident has claimed he was repeatedly raped at the children's home by Krichefski in 1962 and 1963.
    The man, now in his late 50s and living in the West Midlands of England, said that every month, he and another boy would be taken into a back room at the home and abused by two men.
    The former resident said he would be woken by a care worker with the words: "There is someone here to see you".
    The only person he told about the abuse was a psychiatrist who told him that he would be placed in a mental hospital if he repeated the allegations."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The disappearing Sharp Report26 July 2014 at 08:53

      Threatened to be "placed in a mental hospital if he repeated the allegations." .....checkmate sunshine! best keep stum.

      People in orphanages are viewed as society's most vulnerable. Actually inmates at mental hospitals are even more vulnerable and beyond outside help.
      Mental patients can be locked up and drugged for decades and no one will ever believe their outlandish or depraved "fantasies" because they are diagnosed as .....well ...mad.
      Damaged and labelled the ultimate "unreliable witness" by the system that was supposed to protect and heal.

      Jimmy Savile knew this which is why he persuaded Thatcher's government to put him in charge of Broadmoor!

      Lucky that Jersey's children/adult mental health services were always so much better and our politicians are so much more astute and trustworthy; God-fearing and church-going even???

      And Jersey had and still has a press/media which would hunt down the great and the good at the merest hint of a transgression. LOL

      Dream on suckers and island sycophants.
      Check out the Vic College Sharp Report ...The 'education' your children deserve?


      .........the link to the Sharp Report has been mysteriously erased (in Mar2013?) from
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_College,_Jersey

      Where is it now available?

      Delete
  51. The Sharp Report can be downloaded from HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Page 20 of sharp report is missing

    ReplyDelete
  53. I heard a little while back that there is a big house in the Wellington road area that was fitted up with manacles, chambers and electric shutters to close off areas of the house against outside intrusions where the rich and connected used to have perversion parties with victims procured for them by others. I was told this house, and the structural evidence is still there - presumably the parties have stopped. Anyone know about this and the name of the very rich person who owned it?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Did Daniel get any media coverage of this? I didn't see any

    ReplyDelete

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