Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry (Costs).

There seems to be a sudden interest in the costs of the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry now that the alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, has lodged a PROPOSITION requesting another £14m funding. 

VFC has had concerns about the Inquiry's expenditure for quite some time and back in September 2014 e-mailed (below) the States Greffe in an attempt to allay these concerns by requesting a break-down of certain costs.

Readers will come to their own conclusions as to whether the questions were answered adequately.

E-mail to States Greffe September 2014

“I have become increasingly concerned over the performance of the Jersey Care Inquiry and am starting to question if the taxpayer is getting value for money. I am also questioning the "equality of arms" concerning the representation of the victims/survivors and the States of Jersey and, what appears to be,a lack of media involvement from the (four strong) media team employed by the Inquiry Panel.

With this (costs) in mind I bring to your attention from the Care Inquiry's website and in particular paragraph five.

"At agreed intervals, the Inquiry will account to the States Greffe for its spending, within the parameters set."

1) Could you please tell me how often the "agreed intervals" are and how/when these interval were agreed?

2) Have you received any sets of accounts, to date, from the Inquiry Team, if so how many, if not why not?

3) What is the hourly rate for accredited Lawyers, for Interested Parties?

4) Are all accredited Lawyers on the same hourly rate, if not why not?

5) How much money have the accredited Lawyers, either been paid, or billed for?

6) Could I have the individual bills/payments for Carey Oslen (SOJP Lawyers) Beverley Lacey (Chief Ministers Department) Allan Collins (JCLA Lawyers) Lewis Hymanson Small LLP (Mick Gradwell's Lawyers)?

7) Is the hourly rate any different from time spent working at the office to time spent attending the public hearings?

8) Is the four strong Media Team paid on an hourly rate, if so, what is that rate?

9) How much money has the Inquiry's Media Team been paid, or billed for, to date?

10) Could I please have a breakdown of the costs incurred by the Media Team?

11) Could I please have a copy of the documentation where the costs' "agreed intervals" were agreed?

12) Could I please have the set of accounts you have received from the Inquiry Team if you have received any?

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance with this matter and I'm sure you can appreciate, in such austere times, £6m is a lot of money and the Inquiry's spending will need to be monitored and kept under control in order to best serve the taxpayer.”(END)

Reply from States Greffe.

“Apologies for the delay in replying but you will hopefully have received my out of office reply when you sent your email and seen that I am currently out of the Island.

I think it is important at the outset to make it clear that the decisions on expenditure by the Committee of Inquiry are decisions for the inquiry itself to make and it is an important principle of the total independence of the inquiry that the States of Jersey are not able to interfere with those decisions. I am sure that you and others would quite rightly be very concerned if you heard, for example, that I or anyone else in the States administration was trying to dictate how the inquiry operated, how it spent its funds or how much it could spend. The principle of independence also, of course, means that the inquiry itself is accountable for the decisions it makes about expenditure in the areas where it has responsibility.

The inquiry does, as its website states, report expenditure on matters over which it has jurisdiction on a regular basis to the States Greffe/ Treasury and that is being done on a monthly basis so that I can monitor at the end of every month how much has been spent and how much of the allocated £6m remains. I also understand that, as stated on its website, the inquiry will publish details of its expenditure when a mechanism is agreed with with the States (I have made enquiries today to ascertain what needs to be done to enable the publication to happen).

I am advised that the inquiry has sought to control costs by setting fees for the services it is responsible for in accordance with established UK rates and through careful stewardship of its resources. All legal services procured by the inquiry have been been contracted at the most recent (2008) UK Treasury Solicitor rates. Identical rates are used for Interested Parties legal fees for which the Inquiry has responsibility. There are some Interested Parties, most notably the States Police and the States departments represented by Advocate Lacey, where the inquiry has no involvement in the setting of rates as it is not funding these costs and they do not form part of those that are reported to me regularly. The costs of legal representation for the States Departments and the States of Jersey Police are not matters that either the inquiry or I have any involvement in and is a matter for those parties.

I am advised by the inquiry that it has decided to use part time services of a UK media company. Two of its staff are employed on a part time rota basis at current NUJ rates. A student intern is also employed intermittently for a nominal fee. The inquiry had previously been assisted by local media services provided through an arrangement negotiated by the States Greffe but that contract has now been terminated.

You will appreciate that I do of course know many of the rates that you are asking about below through the financial reporting that the inquiry makes to me but for the reasons given above I believe it is a matter for the inquiry itself to decide when, and it what extent, it intends to publish information about the costs it is incurring as responsibility for those decisions rests with the inquiry and not with me. Totals of expenditure incurred in 2014 will, of course, be published in the States accounts after the year end.

I would simply conclude by saying that the States have allocated a budget of £6m to the inquiry - I agree with you that it is a lot of money but the inquiry is an extremely important one for the island and experience elsewhere has shown that such public inquiries, if they are to be done properly and comprehensively, will cost a considerable amount.”(END)

All that said, there is no question this Inquiry MUST proceed, and the local State Media MUST NOT be allowed (as it did with Operation Rectangle) to turn this into a story about the price of a prawn cocktail in a London Restaurant.

It's about decades of covered up Child Abuse and wrecked lives and the Inquiry needs to get to the bottom of how this was able to go on for so long and make sure it can't happen again. The Victims/Survivors stories need to be told/heard and although the expenditure needs to be monitored costs should not be used as an excuse to shut the inquiry down.

Those wishing to give evidence to the Inquiry can do so HERE.


  1. The powers that be are going to try and close this enquiry down using the excuse of lack of funds and this must not be allowed to happen.

  2. Apparently Phil Bailhache is in today's paper trying to scare monger the public into contacting their politicians to vote against Ian Gorst's proposition. Why would a Bailhache brother not want this enquiry to go ahead???????

    1. Hmm, I wonder? Something to hide, I think. It reminds me of the late Mandy Rice-Davies saying !He would,wouldn't he?'

  3. As I have made known on several occasions, there are a number of serious problems with this present "public inquiry" - some very serious problems.

    However, setting aside those considerations and looking at the situation as it stands, it would be beyond unethical - beyond intellectually bankrupt - for the Jersey Establishment to - de facto - sabotage their "public inquiry" by constraining it financially.

    This is a legislature - let's remember - that can happily spend many millions of pounds - from the COCF no less - to enable Phil Bailhache to fund his vanity-project of returning a couple of fields to a natural state.

    What price effective child-protection?

    No respectable legislature would contemplate wrecking a child-abuse public inquiry.

    The words "politically catastrophic" don't even begin to adequately describe the damage the Jersey oligarchy will inflict upon itself if it fails to agree the funding.

    The Chair and her panel members would plainly have no choice other than to resign. The notion they could hang on and "wrap-things-up" - when more than half the task remained incomplete, is laughable. No respectable professional would put their name to such a charade and white-wash.

    Stuart Syvret

    1. Stuart.

      My guess is that the Establishment is considering what is the least worst option for them. Pull the plug on the Inquiry, get some bad press, and Jersey's reputation will be no worse for it because Jersey's reputation as a secretive corrupt paedophiles playground could not get much worse.

      But what if the Inquiry is able to get to the truth? That, one might suspect, would be far worse for the Establishment and could force the UK to intervene which could mean the end of the Establishment and "The Jersey Way."

      If the plug is pulled on the Inquiry then that will strengthen the argument to have Jersey included in the UK CSA Inquiry and is that what the Establishment really want?

      Interesting times ahead and the fact that Philip Bailhache looks to be campaigning to have this Inquiry SHUT DOWN gives me that much more confidence in the Inquiry itself.

    2. Since Philip Bailhache is so keen to have the plug pulled on the Jersey enquiry he should be asked if he would support Jersey being included in the UK enquiry. He should also be told to stop meddling because this enquiry is meant to be free of any political interference and he is interfering via the media.

  4. Fuming does not go halfway to describing what I feel over this interference of King Phil (or the man who would be king if he had his own way).

    Firstly, I am going to take some issue with you Stuart, as you still maintain that there are 'serious' problems with this Inquiry. I know you are still digging your heels in about giving evidence as you are unable to get Inquiry funded legal assistance. However, this has not stopped you in your past legal battles and surely this is one of the utmost important gestures you could make to the victims who came to you, confided in you and relied on you. Whilst you maintain that there are 'problems' with the Inquiry, I will say that you have not been much in evidence of late, so can you be fully aware of what is going on and what will be going on?

    Right - now I have that off my chest, from the outset I did not think that £6m would come anywhere near the cost of completing this Inquiry and I have said so for a long time. However, does that really matter? Whatever the cost, it will be, and has to be worth it. I have sat through every single day of the hearings and believe you me I thought I had heard it all, but the harrowing evidence I have heard has been heart-breaking, a disgusting slur on the Island and the services that were supposed to provide nurture, comfort and guidance to those who were placed in its 'care'. I have been sickened to the core and realise what damaged people this cause and effect has had. This has a knock on effect as victims have difficulties with their own families/lives/trust issues and a multitude of other problems that this abuse has caused.

    I wonder just why PB is now interfering and trying to get the public 'on side'. Maybe as someone said to me the other day 'maybe some people are getting twitchy because they (the Inquiry) are getting and will get close to the truth'. Well, the truth is what we want isn't it and as far as I am concerned any money spent will be money well spent. If PB succeeds this will not be the end of it. How will he cope with the national and international reverberations from all this? Try as he might, there is not doubt that people will view this as just another cover-up of a cover-up. Jersey's reputation is already well and truly tarnished in this regard. Why was PB always so anti this Inquiry?

    Has the man himself, or indeed any other politician taken any interest in what is going on? Reading the media reports only scratches the surface of what is heard in that hearing room. The longer I have sat and listened the more I have confidence that a good job is being done. I have seen Monty Tadier there on occasions, but apart from that I can count on the fingers of one hand those who have shown any interest, and then only at the commencement.

    Go, listen, be saddened, be angry and ashamed that what you will hear actually did happen. Do NOT let anybody scupper this - please.

    1. Understood but why would many people be interested in going to watch this?
      Its private, personal to people who were in the care system and no different to people having a lurid interest in on-going court cases.

  5. Is the JEP reverting to type? You said new editor Andy Sibcy was doing better than the old regime but I read the paper this evening and it's very very poor journalism. It permits Philip Bailhache and others to scare-monger with figures plucked out of the air. How did Bailhache reach his estimate of a '£50 million cost'? Why did the JEP run that story & set that hare running, without very clearly questioning the claim, like asking' how did you arrive at that figure?' Any credible journalist would see instantly the political intent of making such a scare-mongering assertion, so would automatically give that claim a real grilling, subject it to serious scrutiny, and then report whether Bailhache could justify it and back it up.

    Instead the JEP has just propagated and nurtured another urban myth. Is this Andy Sibcy's idea of evidenced journalism?

    But even worse, and this is what leaps out of the JEP reporting, is the fact there's no questioning of Philip Bailhache's widely known and obvious personal conflicts of interest. Philip Bailhache was the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Deputy Bailiff and the Bailiff when many many of the horrifying cases of child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups of which dramatic evidence has been given from many many different survivors and other witness to the CoI. The man obviously has days and days worth of questions to answer, He was directly involved, in many cases of child-protection failure and child-abuse cover-ups by Jersey's public authorities. But yet the JEP is apparently happy to abuse the trust of its readers by failing to point out that known fact, those obvious conflicts of interest. Of course Philip Bailhache is going to carry on opposing the public inquiry and trying to sabotage it, he is one of the most culpable public officials. JEP readers have a right to be informed of that fact, so that can look at Bailhache's attempts to sabotage the CoI and rightly think, 'Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?'.

    It's going to be interesting to see how the JEP try and redeem themselves out of this, if they even do.

  6. VFC, you say this: -

    "But what if the Inquiry is able to get to the truth? That, one might suspect, would be far worse for the [Jersey] Establishment".

    Actually - no - it wouldn't be.

    There is not - and never was going to be - any "good" way out of this for the Jersey Establishment.

    So given what the plain and obvious destination of all this is - the question is actually, "what is the least damaging path for the Jersey Establishment?"

    What we see unfolding here is the same syndrome - the stagnation, stupidity, loss of ruthless survival-instinct - overt decadence & collapse basically - of the Jersey oligarchy & their FACAWS that so characterised events at the beginning.

    It has been clear from the get-go in this controversy - from July 2007 when the exposure of decades of concealed child-abuse began - that, no matter what traditional abuses of power the Jersey establishment may try to engage in, this time - there was no - and never was going to be - a "damage-free" finish to this controversy. Such is its nature - such is the evidence - such has been the multiple suffering of hundreds of vulnerable people - such is the stark testimony - and so plain are the many misfeasances of public authority in Jersey - that dramatic - epochal - consequences were inescapable.

    The Jersey oligarchy doesn't do "ethics" - and nor do their Friends At Court At Whitehall - so set aside the ethical and moral considerations - and instead take a brutal "utilitarian" view of their predicament.

    What any "resilient" & "efficient" establishment does - is know how to defend itself - in the most ruthless and effective ways.

    For example - the Conservative Party recognising that - for its "good" and "credibility" - Thatcher had run her course - and for the long-term "good" and "survival" of the party - she had to be ruthlessly "disposed" of. No matter her iconic status.

    Indeed - we've seen a very recent example of the same "resilient efficiency" at work - in the case of Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Not only had he behaved in unacceptable ways - he seriously believed he was so "indispensable" that he was "invulnerable". This led to the spectacle of him asserting to the world's press it was fine he carry on being Chair of the Intelligence & Security Committee - when everyone could see he was finished.

    To quote a BBC Radio 4 reporter, "Overnight the Conservative Party did what they term 'handing him a whiskey and a revolver, and the message, 'we know you'll do the decent thing'." That's a metaphor, of course - one used in Conservative political circles, and as reported on BBC Radio 4. But what it meant - and what it shows - is that a large resilient establishment - such as the Conservative Party - knows and understands that no individual is bigger or more important than the organisation.

    The Jersey Establishment - by way of contrast - is so stale - so mired in decadence - so ripe for collapse - it's lost that ruthless survival instinct and ability.

    Instead of doing what - unavoidably - must be done - throwing the culpable such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq to the wolves - a fate they've brought upon themselves and they richly deserve - the Jersey Establishment and its FACAWS have followed individuals such as Philip Bailhache down the path to 'mad-last-stand-in-the-bunker' territory.

    And the Jersey Establishment - in its final decadence - have chosen to go down with them, in some kind of Gotterdammerung.

    It is obvious - really - to everyone - with the exception, apparently, of anyone in the Jersey Establishment - that the "least bad" path to the inevitable and unavoidable destination - is to throw the plainly culpable individuals to the wolves.

    It is that - or go down with them.

    Stuart Syvret

  7. E-mail sent from Deputy Montfort Tadier to local media including Blogger(s).

    Dear All,

    I am very concerned by these latest attempts, clearly led by Senator Bailhache, to close down the committee of inquiry. He was never a supporter of it, in fact, he consistently used his influence to try not to have one at all. This does not surprise me.

    However, what does surprise me is that we were told by the Chief Minister that the Committee of Inquiry must be allowed to do its job - and that States Members should stand back and let them do this.

    Senator Bailhache is trying to fan the flames of populism by asking a question that seems to invite an obvious answer: should we spend £50m on an inquiry to make lawyers rich?

    I would ask the 2 questions: should we let the Committee continue its work and bring those perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes against children to task, including holding former Attorney Generals, politicians and staff to account - as per the agreed terms of reference?

    Should we say to the UK - Jersey has run out of money. We would now like your Committee of Inquiry to extent to Jersey and we will give you free access to come over to do that?

    Kind regards,

    Deputy Montfort Tadier

  8. You know, reading of this latest manoeuvring by your oligarchs, I wouldn't be so worried. Looked at from a broader national and international perspective it looks just disastrous for your establishment. So much so it seems to a number of us that it plays into the hands of external campaigners, and people like Stuart Syvret. OK, he's said up there he opposes wrecking the inquiry by capping the funds, but he'll know sure as eggs are eggs that in terms of the bigger picture he sees, the need to clean up the Jersey system, the local oligarchs couldn't make a bigger blunder. And the fact the sabotage is being led by one of 3 or 4 of THE most culpable and conflicted public officials in Jersey, Philip Bailhache, must have Syvret secretly turning summersaults and whooping with pleasure.

    One of Syvret's phrases, 'never underestimate the stupidity of the Jersey oligarchy', comes to mind. Not for the first time their spin-doctors need sacking for failing to see the fact that, yes, they can spin, manipulate and drive these outcomes they choose within Jersey, but failing to realise the result is an even more disastrous position for Jersey in the national and international arena. In a very real sense, the known ability of the Jersey Establishment to run-the-show and wield absolute power in Jersey is no longer relevant. Sure that can do that, they can sabotage the CoI. But is that domestic politicking in Jersey really what matters in this case? Is it not the case that what's truly relevant to the image and future of the Jersey Establishment is perception and effects at the national and international level?

    In fairness to Syvret, he isn't being entirely cynical, he's given a perfectly correct analyses in his second comment above in which he points out that all entrenched, powerful systems and power-structures sooner or later have to defend themselves from the damage, what could be terminal damage, inflicted on them by dangerously maverick individuals in their own senior ranks. The example he gives of Thatcher is very appropriate. Syvret's absolutely right in suggesting the 'least bad' path for the Jersey Establishment would be to brutally cast out the obvious dangerous mavericks without whose mad and bad conduct none of the potentially terminal disaster that engulfed the Jersey Establishment in the last 8 years would have happened.

    I suspect Stuart Syvret has made that observation with another of his stock phrases in mind, 'I told you so'. He knows the Jersey Establishment well enough to understand that it is in reality too weak & incompetent, too 'decadent', another word he uses, to be capable of defending and saving itself, so it will carry on being led to disaster by people like the Bailhaches. So when the inevitable happens he'll be able to point back at this and say, 'I told you so'.

    It's a foregone conclusion that the additional funding will be rejected. It's equally obvious to anyone with a brain that that outcome will be a pyrrhic victory for the Jersey oligarchs. They'll feel pleased with themselves, but in truth a better outcome for their system would have been to throw all those failed Crown Officers to the wolves via votes of no-confidence in all of them, but they don't have the strength or calibre to do that.

    Syvret must be rubbing his hands with glee.

  9. Wait until they start using the cost of this Inquiry to raise taxes and cut services.
    Its as certain as night following day.

    1. These people who cynically wrap themselves in the flag of public service and nationalism, while advancing their interests behind the scenes and misdirecting millions into their own projects .....they rarely use their own money if they have access or influence over the public's funds.

      Perhaps the bulk of the cost of the inquiry into child abuse should be billed to the Bailache family. They are the architects of most of the failures heaped on failures.

    2. User pays @ 16:55

      What a brilliant idea.

  10. Monty and Anonymous @ 21:55, 25th February - you have both hit the nail on the head in regard to questioning just where PB plucked this figure of £50m from and who 'advised' him. In fact I did e-mail Andy Sibcy last night on this very matter along with some other concerns. In fairness he was very quick to respond, but he did not answer that very question i.e. did anybody actually ask PB as to where, or who the advised him? Have they got a breakdown or a forecast of these figures in black and white so that we, the public that PB wants to engage with can see? this a figure plucked from thin air to suit an agenda.

    Inquiries by their very nature do not come cheap, and this one need not have been so costly for several reasons, none of which the Inquiry Team are responsible for. Is PB's 'advisor' fully au fait with Inquiries and all the facts?

    I would suggest that of these questions are not asked in the media, they could perhaps be part of a question at the next States sitting.

    Over to you Monty!

  11. Bailhache's tactics smell rank with desperation to me. Fear that despite it he and his equally 'knee deep' brother and chum Birt are likely to be facing some difficult questions after all. What I truly hope does happen to add weight to this is that those politicians past and present brave and principled enough to stand up when the others were all ducking below the parapet - I'm obviously thinking Syvret, Pitman, Hill, Wimberly and Higgins here - WILL give evidence to the inquiry and stand up just as they did in the States. I really think this is essential if just to show not all politicians to cower and bend the knee the Mad King and his Barking Brother. Do you think that they all will VFC?

    1. I am aware that former Deputy Trevor Pitman is in the process of submitting a substantial bundle of evidence to the Inquiry and it is anticipated that he will be called as a witness. I'm hoping a compromise between the Inquiry Team and Stuart can be reached which will enable him to give his evidence also. I believe Deputy Higgins intends on submitting evidence (if he hasn't already) and former Deputy Daniel Wimberley I am not sure where he stands at the moment but hope that he too will submit evidence.

    2. Forgot to mention that I believe former Deputy Bob Hill has submitted a substantial, and detailed, statement to the Inquiry also.

    3. Is former Deputy Trevor Pitman even in the island now? If he is and you have contact as you suggest can you please tell him to bring back his old political video show? The Bald Truth Review it was called and for a low budget affair bloody brilliant.

    4. Yes Trevor is on Island but has been tied up, as mentioned above, with preparing his evidence for the COI among other project(s). Hopefully he can be convinced to bring back The Bald Truth Review, and indeed his Blog, when he has a bit more free time. You are not the first to ask for a return of The Bald Truth Review and I will do what I can to convince him to make a return.

    5. Maybe the Jersey earthquake the other night was just a little foretaste of how this island will be shaken if Sir Chinless doesn't manage to stop the Care Inquiry from hearing the likes of these people? Here's to a 10.1 on the Richter scale or should that be the Righteous scale?

    6. Bring back Big Trev - his blog - and especially TBTR all are missed nearly as much as him being in the States. I hope he is able to be convinced to come back online and when able to stand again for election.

    7. Former Deputy Bob Hill did some great work with certain Blogger assistance in exposing the lie that cellars at HDLG did not exist. Another man definitely missed in the States.

    8. Indeed Bob Hill, with VFC, in the Cellars that don't EXIST.

    9. Reference the short blog tv political reviews Trevor used to do this is probably precisely the type of interactive communication so evidently lacking in our local politics today.

      Fair enough these question times events might be well worth it eventually. If the organisers can ensure they are not as bland and sterile as the ones so far. For example get in some of the more controversial figures who will actually be willing to shake the torpor by saying what really needs to be said. Not to forget put an end to never allowing people seen as critiques of establishment to ask a question.

      But even then Trevor's video shows still gave something else to me. Informative but undoubtedly funny with it and always hard-hitting whether you agreed with him all the time or not. Maybe all our States members should have to do a weekly show about political events?

      Now that would be revealing.

    10. Lord! Careful what you wish for.Can you honestly imagine any Constable managing to talk sense for ten minutes?

    11. Philip Bailhache has gone completely out of control since Trevor was dubiously taken out of the states you only need to see what Bailhache has said in the JEP to know he is trying to pull the plug on the COI. Trevor should bring back the BTR with a Philip Bailhache special..........................COME ON TREVOR YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU..".......................IF IAN GORST WON'T REIN THE LUNATIC IN!!!!!

  12. £50 million quid to finally expose the Jersey Way corruption emanating from the top of our Judiciary after all of these years seems pretty damn cheap to me. A bargain in fact.

  13. Surely whatever these former states members know should be in the hands of the Police already?
    Please do not tell us that evidence has been withheld.

    1. What an obviously planted troll comment from anonymous at 13.37. Why even legitimise this tripe by publishing it? I know you clearly believe in free speech and hearing both sides but this is just trite tolling attempting to twist the very important points underlying your post.

  14. Tom Gruchy interview with Deputy Montfort Tadier and Alan Collins PART ONE.


    1. Well done Tom and Monty. We must never forget that the one group certainly not getting rich from the millions this is costing are the victims. We must pay whatever it takes. Maybe we then could ask that it be paid back by confiscation of Crown Officers' salaries and estates?

    2. Excellent interviews - read and digest. Realise, that by Bailhache attempting to do what he wants to do he will heap injustice on injustice and damage Jersey's 'reputation even further.

    3. I would hope that if Senator Bailhache gets his way and the investigation is shelved Alan Collins will be screaming all the way to Westminster about how Jersey is clearly the most corrupt place in Europe.

  15. I too hope the brave but pitifully tiny number who have fulfilled their election promises to serve the people (as mentioned by a reader above) come through again now. Just how bad does it have to get before a few more of our 'leaders' find some Testicular Fortitude (How we miss the coiner of that phrase in the States!) displayed by the few and say however belatedly enough is enough! My only conclusion is that every States member past and present who has not stood up with the brave few must actually support corruption, and by extension abuse. Penny wise and pound foolish yes. And betrayers of their oaths of office.

  16. Having watched both parts of the Tom Gruchy interview I am left wondering what may be a very simple question. IF the cost of this inquiry is now being highlighted as something so important it does raise this question from me. As an individual I have the following insurance policies, loss of income, motor vehicle, house and contents etc. So why is the States of Jersey not 'covered' for these types of matters, the premium for cover would be of course quite high, but if you are carrying out your administration in a proper manner the premium would be 'money well spent'. Instead we now see the farce of the most important inquiry this Island may ever see being sidelined for the matter of how much it will cost. Along with most Islanders I note that the general waste of our tax revenue on other useless matters is never questioned by PB and others. I have to say I simply can't wait for these people to stand before the committee and give their own reasons for how things went, but then that is why this inquiry MUST be stopped at all costs is it not?.

  17. Hi Vfc

    reading all of these comments about those politicians who did try and do the right thing I was struck by one thing above all else. In 2008 we had a States that was beginning to shape up precisely as a democratic government should. Question Time actually had questions. Politicians actually brought propositions to try and force through what they had pledged. Bailhache and his ilk were actually challenged and not treated with kid gloves like some kind of royalty. What we have now is so dire in contrast that it is shocking. If there is any hope I'm afraid that I can't yet see it.

  18. Good to see so many on line taking an interest in this even if people do have different positive/negative perspectives. Credit to you for sticking to quality not gossip and puerile abuse like the troll forum for lunatics and power drinkers.

  19. Senator Bailhache being an intelligent man, and proclaimed believer in truthfulness is not happy with the rising cost of the child abuse enquiry.

    Witness his public assertion regarding the possible costs topping fifty million pound. The way forward is for him to now propose a type of scrutiny Committee with himself as the chairman he also wants it to be impartial so may invite Terry Le Suer, Phillip Ozouf and Mr Mario Lundy and to sit in judgment over the cost of the inquiry. Once common sense and factual discussion has taken place he may then offer three open and reasonable propositions for the states to consider.

    Option A) Continue but all victims must be prepared to travel to Barbados at their own expense to give their statements.

    Option B) Continue but statements submitted must be read by the inquiry panel in confidence while flying in an airplane.

    Option C) Continue and keep the Status quo, and hope that a witness does not come forward regarding a paedophile named as Roger Holland and who was responsible for allowing him to stay in a position able to abuse vulnerable people.

  20. Do you honestly think the Bailhache Brothers could give one iota about what this blogs thinks about them?
    Its so sad its as if you waiting for Sir Philip to come and start commenting.

    1. He obviously doesn’t care as much as you do so thank you for your support and “to come and start commenting."

    2. PB can only talk at and down to people when he is save in the knowledge that those he attacks won't be able to answer back. To quote Stuart #ethicsofabangkokpimp

    3. You write questions of the Bailhache's mixed with comments about what people think of them and they are never in the room.
      What good is this method of messaging and questioning when the recipient is never there in the first place?

    4. 'Do the Bailhache Brothers care about what the blogs say about them?'

      Of course they do! There's no way so much power and money would have been abused in Jersey to silence and harass bloggers if they didn't.

    5. Since when has this blog been silenced?
      One day the penny will drop that they are not in the room.

    6. The Powers That Be had my first Blog Site closed down (silenced) and how do you know they are not “in the room?”

    7. When was the last Sir Philip Bailhache logged in and made a comment then?
      Maybe you like to pretend they are intently listening.

    8. When was the last time you logged in and made a comment then? You are posting anonymously how can you be so sure he doesn’t? How can I, and others, be sure you are not Philip Bailhache? We only have your (anonymous) word for it…………Or do we?

    9. You are hiding behind a log-in so you can cut that out!
      Hand on heart though, do you seriously think he reads this blog?
      Because if he does he never appears to be affected by any of its content whenever he speaks in the States.
      If I was a betting man I would say he is not online reading blogs!

    10. VFC. Please accept that commenter "Jon" is correct and that Sir Philip is truly an inspiration and is above us and our criticism.


      It's fictitious, It's malicious
      I don't read such stuff on planes

      Is it fictitious? ....... Is it malicious? ......
      I can't remember ..... What's my name ?

      I remember contrived 'cant' so admit it I shan't
      It don't even make sense so I'll end this rant

      ..... And I won't be drawn any further on this matter.

      The above ["Ode to a liar" translated from Vogon] was inspired by Sir Philip's data breech, denial and attack on the witness, and eventual apology by way of a limp "personal statement" made in the house where he effectively played the "oh that plane" dementia card



      A proper apology and several resignations

      A functioning media, police, judicial and child protection system



      Their childhood



      a public lynching

    11. This blog is clearly genuine and very much alive. Who can know exactly who is really behind anonymous comments? What is for sure is that the very different for or against opinions on here demonstrate genuine views. Contrast that with the sad and infamous "political forum" which is clearly read by no more than a handful of odd balls and the one way traffic and identi-kit abuse show the same lunatics posting them. Voice is Jersey's premier blog and fully deserves the wide respect that it has. More respect certainly than Bailhache will ever have.

    12. @16:52 "Ode to a liar"

      "...serious concerns raised by a member of the public who stated he had been able to see confidential documents (including [unlawfully distributed police statements] revealing both the identity of [the abuse victim] in the Dean suspension case, and her alleged abuser). All of these being allegedly carelessly read in public by Assistant Minister with responsibility for External Relations, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache during a flight from Gatwick on March 21st."

    13. Ah "Bailhachegate"? Now here was another little episode revealing the great one's belief that he can do as he pleases for the inquiry to examine. Any UK or even US cabinet member would have been sacked. But not our Lord Bailhache.

    14. Can anything more be done about that incident? HG wants to know.

    15. Not until we get a Chief Minister with balls bigger than his chin. It should still be flagged up for the inquiry though.

  21. This is not the whole story, the Constable at the time Bob Le Brocq was locked up for a day and took the flack being hauled into court, once Roger Holland was outed.

    Phillip Bailhache took no responsibility in fact quite the opposite as the links from the tonymusings blogg reveal. It was only when all the evidence came out and he was cornered that he said something. After his truthfulness you tube video this makes him a complete hypocrite if not worse.

    Politicians don't lie says Bailhache - yes they do says Syvret

    1. The treatment of Bob Le Brocq was disgusting and Philip Bailhache's part in it even worse. yet what happened later? To her eternal credit once the then Deputy Shona Pitman discovered all of the true details around the time of Bailhache's horrendous Liberation Day speech she brought a vote of no confidence in this appalling Bailiff. Only two Members supported this one of them being Stuart. The rest just kissed arse or kept their heads down. All their talk was of the great tradition of the Bailiff and what a good pillar of society Bailhache was. Barely a mention of what his failures regarding the abuser Holland had led to at all. Or the trauma of what his cowardice had put Bob Le Brocq and his family through. Nothing changes in this Septic Isle. Ever.

    2. I listened to that no confidence vote and I remain of the same opinion today that if one listens to what was said, or rather what wasn't said, by all but the proposer and a couple of other members it tells us exactly how the Jersey Way works. Of bailhache's failings barely a squeak of acknowledgement. Well worth finding on the States website if the transcript can be tracked down.

    3. Shona's proposition is here:

      The debate is here - and go to page 55

  22. Could someone reminds us, when Bob Le Brocq was hauled before the Superior Number of the Royal Court to be scapegoated over the Holland crimes, didn't Sir Philip Bailhache, in his capacity of Bailiff, actually hear the case? It was him, wasn't it, who sat with the Jurats?

    Or was it Sir Michael Birt? We need to be certain about this.


  23. Talking of cowards: It would seem that Bob Key has been asked to disappear for at least 3 months?!

    1. Does the Justice minister from the UK know about all this Bailhache stuff?
      And Bob Key?

  24. Voice, this quote from the BBC article on the recent care abuse allegations, is this 'Police Legal Advisor' The same Ian Christmas who was jailed for fraud while serving as a magistrate?

    'Police legal advisor Ian Christmas, said at the time the allegations were made officers treated them as being implausible.'

    1. I believe it is the same person yes.

    2. Yes. It was that Ian Christmas

      A charlatan & crook - but in this context, a puppet.

      For sure every single piece of his culpability in the abuse cover-ups must be dragged out.

      But let us not be foolish.

      How often has a judge in Jersey been prosecuted for corruption - even though evidenced corruption is starkly routine in what passes for a "judiciary" in Jersey?


      He's the only one.

      Why - do you imagine - that singular fate befell him a couple of years ago?

      The Jersey "judicial" system - the island's corrupt oligarchy in other words - could see what was coming down the tracks, so had to tee-up a couple of ready-made disposable scapegoats - to (a) decoy public anger, and (b) to cosmetically "show-the-system-works".

      The recently jailed former Constable of St. John was - likewise - singled-out for "special-treatment" - event though his corruption was nothing that wasn't common-place in those circles.

      So Ian Christmas - a crook - yes.

      But remember - back then - in the 1990s - he was a mere insignificant bit-player - whose role in covering-up child-abuse was a case of "only-obeying-orders" Let us never lose sight of the real cover-up villains - those who gave those orders.

      Those who gave the orders being Bailiffs, Deputy Bailiffs, Solicitor Generals and Attorney Generals.

      In the Blanche Pierre atrocity - that despicable catalogue of monstrous abuse by Jane and Alan Maguire - the prime concealment crook was - in the 1990 phase - the Attorney General Philip Bailhache - and in the 1998 phase - then Attorney General Michael Birt, who stood and told the Royal Court the case was being dropped - and lied to the court by saying there was "insufficient evidence".

      And in that 1998 phase - the survivors were utterly - utterly - betrayed by "their" lawyers - who were Bailhache LaBesse (now Appleby Global) - Senior Partner at that time - William Bailhache - Philip Bailhache's brother.

      Those being the same Philip Bailhache who - as Bailiff in 2007 obstructed my efforts to expose the child-abuse - the same Michael Birt who obstructed me - the same William Bailhache who obstructed and illegally oppressed me - and none of who ever - from that day to this - have ever publicly acknowledged their plain and evidenced conflicts of interest.

      Bear that in mind.

      Ian Christmas is an already destroyed crumb off the table of accountability.

      We won't settle for that. Real justice will only be served when the real crooks - the Boss Crooks - are held to account.

      Stuart Syvret

    3. Will you give evidence?

    4. Will you put your money where you mouth is and take these accusations to the Inquiry?
      We cannot go around in circles on blogs, the evidence is needed and its needed by the Committee now.

  25. "Operation Rectangle" was this week, for the first time, in this inquiry, given credit.

    1. I thought there was a Scrutiny investigation which exposed just how wrong the establishment media trashing of Operation Rectangle had been several years ago? Which begs the question why are some people still trying to perpetuate the negative myths now?

  26. When is Lenny Harper and Graham Power due to come over and give evidence does anybody know?

  27. Jersey is getting ripped off by the cost of this enquiry or should I say the taxpayer is £20,000,000, that’s eight people at £2,400 a week for 20 years.

    How many people are making a career out of the abuse enquiry?

    I can understand the disquiet that Jersey has over the abuse scandal, but I cannot understand the shame of the fictitious murder accusations of children in their care. Of course some got abused and some sexually abused, it happens world-wide and it will continue to happen world-wide, in Jersey and every other country.

    What went on in Jersey is no worse than what has gone on in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland or any other place in the Uk or the civilised world in the last 1000 years. Being such a tight knit society it has probably less abusive than mainland England. I am 70 now and was brought up in North London and one would get the cane or a slap round the head from a teacher for misbehaving or being cheeky. I remember once being sent to the head-master for having blots on my maths book from the pens that you stuck in the ink-wells, and received six stokes of the cane on the hand. That upset me because I was only nine at the time and would always get 10/10 or on the very odd occasion 9/10, both hands were swollen and even at that age I had considered going down to the education dept that was attached to the school. I did not tell my mother or father of the punishment because I knew of the resentment my father had of the spitefulness of the nuns that had taught him in the junior years of his education in the 1920/30, that was until his elder sister removed him from the school after his mother had died. I did not go home and show my mother the wells on my hands because of what my father would have down to the headmaster if he had found out about the caning. Things have changed now and there is no way a teacher would dare lay a hand on a child or an adolescence, but why does Jersey think it is worse than any other country?

    1. So you weren't raped or sodomised as a young child be the people who were charged with your care? Perhaps you should talk to those who were and you might not be so quick to attempt to minimise what happened in recent years and the lives shattered because of it.

    2. "I cannot understand the shame of the fictitious murder accusations of children in their care."

      How can you be so sure no children were murdered at HDLG?

      JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

      JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
      Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

      JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

      JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

      JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

      JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

      JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      1 fragment of bone ?human.

      JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
      Submitted to odontologist, see report.

      JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

      JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      23 Fragments of bone:
      1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
      2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
      3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
      4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
      5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
      bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
      6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
      7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
      uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

      JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

      Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

      JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragment of bone ?human.

      JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

      JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

      JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Fragment of bone ?human.

      GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
      4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
      Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs

      More HERE.

    3. There will always be complacant people who really do not know what abuse is, attention-seeking and blaring their opinions.

    4. @12:06
      Please chill RE "blaring their opinions"
      IMO you are partially right and I understand your anger.
      These opinions are still valid (even though they may be complacent or mistaken/odious in some areas)

      This is an inclusive blog where new readers and a diversity of opinion are welcome. It is not an opinion management sitl like the JEPaedo site where inconvenient opinions are censored or shouted down by the resident protected trolls(s)

      @10:21 welcome
      Have you come from the JEP "echo chamber" site, and have you anything to declare on leaving "Tooth-Fairyland"?

    5. so what's the difference between me, an abuse survivor saying the unpleasant person is blaring their opinions and you echo chambering and tooth fairying?
      Noisebag Ian?

    6. Are you aware 'The Truth Hurts' That you are contradicting yourself, not making sense and criticizing someone who has been abused and objects to the obnoxious opinion of a non-survivor who is denigrating survivors?
      You put me off reading the blog and commenting.

    7. Hi Anons @13:43 & 13:47
      I thought I was polite and reasonable but opinions and viewpoints will vary.
      I certainly am not going to trade unkind words with people I largely agree with, or whom this 'party' is in honour of.
      Sorry if I do not always make my points well or clearly.

      The Team Voice blogs go from strength to strength and generally the more important the post the more heavily the forces of evil and their JEP hypnotised followers attempt to troll and disrupt (see @20:17 below).

      IMO commenters such as above@10:21 (if genuine) should be welcomed because it gives us/VFC opportunity to to put them right on the facts and the basic moral principles.
      In this way the battle for hearts and minds can be won. The prize is a more stable, happy, just and affluent island where everyone has opportunity and where children and the most vulnerable can at last be safe.

      Is that too much to ask for?

      p.s. Do I sound like "Noisebag Ian"? (Bless him and his occasional good work)

  28. A comment has been made on Planet Jersey re Terry McDonald & the Steve Quinn returning to Scotland case,beware your statements without contacting the "accused" as you do not know what is going on in the background & you might jepordise the support being given by Terry on this case which will soon be made known!

    1. Not related, but, Planet Jersey is running on USA time for some reason.

    2. Looked at Planet Jersey. TBH it's a mess. It's a chaotic site, hard to find current relevant posts and comments in amongst mass of headings and topics a lot of which look very parochial and/or very dated. I'm saying this as honest advice from an international reader who supports Jersey social media. The Planet Jersey team need to get their heads together and radically overhaul that site if you want it to be attractive and easy to find your way around. For sure there's a lot of important archive material there, but you have to do more to differentiate current topic discussions and debates from the mass of diverse and archive subjects. I looked up Planet Jersey because of the these references to it, and not only couldn't find the thread mentioned, but got completely lost and bored with the mess in 60 seconds. A pity because it should be a really good forum and resource for public knowledge and empowerment. Time for a very major re-think guys.

  29. "So you weren't raped or sodomised as a young child be the people who were charged with your care? Perhaps you should talk to those who were and you might not be so quick to attempt to minimise what happened in recent years and the lives shattered because of it."

    Time to publically admit that you an abuse victim.
    Nobody who was not an abuse victim would get so emotional online like you do.

    1. You must be an abuser because only an abuser could show such a lack of empathy or emotion for victims.

    2. Do either of these comments make sense or relate to anything?

  30. Bailhache will have this inquiry closed by Easter if he gets his way and funny how they started moaning about costs after the Lundy evidence.

    1. Running scared.

    2. Sue Young (Mr)2 March 2015 at 11:34

      Do you know if anyone brought up Bailhache's scaremongering at the 'Any questions?' event? I couldn't go as my dress wasn't back from the cleaners.

  31. It looks like the JEP has another satisfied reader -

  32. So, assuming that Sir Philip Bailhache and other conflicted States members succeed in shutting down or emasculating the public inquiry into their child-abuse cover-ups by constraining the funding to unrealistic levels, what is the plan-b of the Jersey campaign? It's a foregone conclusion they're going to win, so what then?