Friday, 20 November 2015

Former SIO Mick Gradwell Re-Post.



In May 2014 we published the below post concerning disgraced former Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Mick Gradwell.

Today he gives evidence to the ongoing Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry where it is hoped (although not anticipated) that he will be adequately questioned regarding his actions/inactions during his time, in Jersey, as Senior Investigating Officer.

Mr. Gradwell has opted NOT to return to Jersey to give his evidence and will be appearing via video link from the UK.

This, one could speculate, might be because he fears arrest for his alleged leaking of confidential information to an equally disgraced "journalist" David Rose as mentioned in the post below. Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has conceded that Gradwell would likely have faced disciplinary charges for his alleged leak(s)

It might be, in order to show face, that the Jersey Establishment, is willing to hang him out to dry and arrest him if he came to Jersey so he is playing it safe and staying put in mainland UK.

Begin Re-Post.



Mick Gradwell.

Now that the Committee of Inquiry into the decades of child abuse in Jersey is well underway and taking evidence from witnesses. Team Voice thought it would be a poignant time to reflect on the actions/behaviour of former Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell.

Regular readers will be aware that Mr. Gradwell took command of the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) after the retirement of former Deputy Chief Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper. Mr. Gradwell, in an unprecedented move, went on to trash the original Investigation with the help of the local State Media and achieved little else other than to replace the mistrust of the police that Mr. Harper and his team had gained from Abuse Victims/Survivors.

It was Mr Gradwell who told us that the 65 children's teeth found up at Haut de la Garenne were left there for the tooth fairy despite some of the teeth NOT being shed naturally. It was also Mr. Gradwell who told us, in a PRESS RELEASE, that the cellars up at Haut de la Garenne were not cellars but along with former Deputy Bob Hill B.E.M Team Voice showed him to be less than genuine in a Blog Posting HERE.

It also became apparent that (during the LIVE Child Abuse Investigation which he was heading up) Mr. Gradwell was leaking confidential information to a "journalist" David Rose, who has a history of supporting convicted paedophiles, and had already written articles trashing the Child Abuse Investigation before Mr. Gradwell was in position as SIO.

The revelation of Mr Gradwell's unprofessional, and possibly illegal, leaking of information came about as a result of a Scrutiny Review held by former Deputy Trevor Pitman, former Deputy Daniel Wimberley and Deputy Roy Le Herissier. The resultant report to that review has been hailed as possibly the most defining report of its era. It can be read in its entirety HERE. The Report also exposed the local State Media for its disgraceful "JOURNALISM."

Extracts from the report and its transcripts are a damming indictment on the disgraced former SIO, Mr. Gradwell, to include;

From outside consultant Mike Kellett (25 year friend of Mick gradwell) giving evidence to Scrutiny Review.

"Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak." (to sunday Mail "journalist" David Rose)

"I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible." Lots more can be read HERE.

David Warcup.

From the same review evidence given by Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup;

 
"Leaking of information to the media is something which can, as I say, seriously undermine criminal inquiries and the consequences could be quite serious. That is not serious to you or I or others, it is to the victims of crime who will not get justice through the courts."

Ian Le Marquand.

From the Minister for Home Affairs Senator Ian Le Marquand.

"The first I was aware of an issue in relation to D/Supt Mick Gradwell was when he went public just before he left the Island and that was the first time. I viewed this as merely a continuation of that, he had already gone public with his views to the local press, radio. It is my understanding from David Warcup that Mick Gradwell, although he was asked very strongly not to do anything before he went, and not just by David Warcup, but I understand even by the Attorney General of the day, again this is hearsay, this is obviously what I have been told, that he had already pre-recorded interviews before he had left. So that is the first that I was aware of an issue, and then of course my staff picked up the Mail article and they did some excellent detective work, emailing, and then sent to me the consequences of that, which clearly pointed to Mick Gradwell. I have to say, when the issue came up again, I had completely forgotten about this, I had just totally forgotten about it. I had to look back and find the emails and then say: “Oh yes, now I do recall it”, because it was not that significant to me once I knew it was Mick Gradwell."

It wasn't significant to Ian Le Marquand (Home Affairs Minister) that a Senior Investigating Officer could be leaking confidential information to a "journalist" during a LIVE police Investigation?

Mr. Gradwell, who told us he would take part in any Inquiry looking into Operation Rectangle DIDN'T take part in the Scrutiny Review and offered NO evidence/testimony to it. Not surprising when one considers there looks to be more than enough evidence contained in the Report to have him questioned as part of Operation Elveden.

Now one wonders if Mr. Gradwell will offer evidence to this latest  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY chaired by Francis Oldham QC or will he be subpoenaed? How credible can his evidence be if he does turn up? Will he be arrested by Operation Elveden and unable to turn up?

Lenny Harper.

Former Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper, who DID give evidence to the Scrutiny Review has also given evidence to the ongoing Committee of Inquiry and it is believed he WILL be called to give evidence in the public hearings when they begin.

Mr. Harper, and former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, have always made themselves available to any Inquiry, and indeed to the local State Media and Citizens Media to answer all and any questions put to them - the same cannot be said for Mr. Gradwell.

Mr. Gradwell has serious questions to answer and, in the opinion of Team Voice, should be compelled/subpoenaed to appear before this Committee of Inquiry and answer these questions in public.

As regular readers would expect Team Voice will be submitting a substantial amount of evidence to the COI and will keep readers updated.............. End Re-Post.

The original Posting of this article can be viewed HERE. 

102 comments:

  1. *BBC Radio Jersey ‏@BBCJersey · 4h4 hours ago
    'Haut de la Garenne was always a happy and fun place' - former care worker Miss K, accused of physical abuse, at Jersey Care Inquiry*

    Of course it was if you were a pervert.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy to get away with it and it was such a fun place children could not wait to escape.

      Delete
  2. Miss K was obviously happy,in a happy place Haut de La Garenne, so happy in fact, that she asked for her real name not to be used.

    You could not make this pantomime up ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Roisin.

    Opposing view points are encouraged on this Blog but we don't condone personal vitriolic attacks mixed with hear-say and gossip.

    I am more than happy to publish opposing views but please keep away from name calling and ridicule. If you would like to submit a comment within these guidelines I would be more than happy to publish it.

    We don't want the quality of comments to be dragged into the gutter and I thank you for your understanding on this matter.

    Let's please have some reasoned debate without the vitriol?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is the Roisin from a long discredited bogus political forumn I have to say I might listen more if she could face up to condemning the appalling behaviour of Mr Gradwell as exposed by States' Scrutiny.

      Delete
  4. For those who have a real desire to make Jersey a safer place for children please consider making a SUBMISSION?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shameful 'journalism' from Channel ITV defending disgraced leaker Mick Gradwell. What a different approach this equally disgraced TV company took when trying to smear Harper!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Acoording to state media Gradwell has admitted to leaking the information. We heard it here first in 2009 while the state media was busy covering it up and only report it now because they have to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true and for all we criticise our politicians whoever was involved the mentioned Scrutiny review deserved some real plaudits. In fact should any readers know who they are if I am able I will give them s vote at the next election. Which would be nice as at present all three of our household votes will be going uncast.

      Delete
    2. Tracey Vallois led was it not?

      Delete
    3. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman chaired the particular Scrutiny Sub Panel with panel members former Deputy Daniel Wimberley and former Deputy Roy Le Herissier. The Scrutiny Officer, who too did some fantastic work, was Mike Haden.

      The report has (rightly IMO) been described as “The most defining report of its era.

      A snippet of it can be viewed HERE Or it can be read in its entirety from HERE.

      Delete
    4. Don't be daft. Read vfc's text. Pitman, Le Herissier and Wimberley. Sadly gone from the States every one. Oh well, at least we now have Murray 'Smashy' Norton and Peter 'Plastic' Mac!

      Delete
    5. And my friends wonder why I am leaving the island!!! There is no hope.

      Delete
  7. Enjoyed Mick Gradwell's evidence today.
    No doubt you hated all of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too very much enjoyed Gradwell squealing as he had to admit he had been caught bang-to-rights leaking info to Rose and Rankin Establishment TV. Career in 'Tatters'? How richly deserved.

      Delete
    2. Re:

      "No doubt you hated all of it."

      On the contrary it was possibly the most enjoyable (if any of them can be enjoyably) testimony I've listened to. He had to confess to being the leak, was tripped up and made to look dishonest, throughout his testimony. So much so that this will be published in a Blog of its own soon.

      As a reader has already commented. We were exposing this in 2009 while the State Media was pretending it didn't happen.

      Gradwell did not come out of today very well at all.

      Delete
    3. Sitting there far from Gradwell bring full of confidence I thought he was going to cry more than once.

      Delete
  8. The Jersey blogs vindicated again and proven right. Gradwell should have had the guts to come over here and faced the music by facing criminal charges for what he did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed. Fine for this coward to attack Harper and even (according to ITV) steal the credit for Harper's work leading to convictions. But knowing he could face criminal charges over his leaks he hides on the mainland. As for the ITV report misleading the public that this mouthy bully had done no such thing they should be reported to the Standards authorities. Outrageous.

      Delete
    2. I've not yet seen the ITV/CTV Report but have received a number of phone-calls about it and how it is still burying the truth and wheeling out the usual smear campaign against Mr. Harper.

      Today was the first time that Mr. Gradwell publicly admitted (possibly illegally) leaking confidential police information to a "journalist(s)" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and ITV/CTV didn't report it?

      There were a number of other admissions from Gradwell that disgraced himself further but that will be the subject of a number of further postings coming up from Team Voice so we won't rehearse too mush of it now.

      Here's an opportunity for readers to become their own researchers.

      Today was day 111 of the Child Abuse inquiry Wednesday 20th November 2015. Readers might want to look at the transcripts when they become available of Mr. Gradwell's testimony today. Then compare, and contrast, them with ITV/CTV's report of today and see how reflective it is of what was said today?

      Delete
  9. Never has a career ending in tatters been so richly deserved. And so self-induced. Hide in England Mickie. Spread your pathetic lies about two police heroes. You can't change the fact history will record you as a s***bag who let the victims down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above is the most concise and accurate summary of this whole thread

      Can I also add my own well done to Scrutiny as from what you say it/they played a big part in digging out the truth.

      Thanks for the link too. I will now actually read the report.

      Delete
  10. ITVs jaw dropping reporting on Gradwell tonight was disgracefull !

    ReplyDelete
  11. So ITV/CTV didn't mention that he admitted the (possibly illegal) leak? I take it then that it didn't mention how Mr. Gradwell "knowingly" jeopardised the budget of the States of Jersey Police with his inappropriate behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they didn't VFC. What n earth did you expect from them?! The damning truth of the behaviour he displayed because he did not like because he was in Jersey, or the fact that he 'illegally' leaked information? Oh no - young, immature and naïve journalists with no concept of the implications of the evidence MG made today.

      Delete
  12. Gradwell's testimony today caught him 'bang to rights' and Channel TV's reporting on this is appalling. A tough, experienced officer who left with his career in tatters, playing the victim, and furthermore blaming 'social media' for telling the truth????!!! C'mon Mick - who are you trying to kid? You were brought here n a 12 month secondment to trash Operation Rectangle and close it down. Be honest now.

    No-one who sat in that Inquiry hearing today was convinced that you were the victim in all this, and CTV sg=hould hang their heads in shame as well.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Listen to yourselves.
    This Inquiry is not about squabbles between Harper, Gradwell, Power and Warcup because they have gone and are never coming back.
    Its about the protection of children in the future so stop dwelling on this 'he says, she says, ctv says' rubbish and think about Phase 3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are in phase two and that is what we are thinking about. We will think about phase three when it arrives. Phase 2, as described by Francis Oldham QC:

      “In October the Inquiry will begin hearings in relation to Phase 2. At that stage we will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and subsequent decisions to prosecute alleged abusers. Did those responsible for deciding which cases to prosecute take a professional approach? Was that process free from political or other interference at any level?”

      This is not about “he said she said” it’s about a disgraced former Senior Investigating Officer admitting he leaked confidential police information to at least one so-called “journalist.”

      If we don’t understand phase one and (the current) phase two we won’t have a phase three.

      Discovering that Mr. Gradwell leaked information to “journalist(s)” during a live investigation, and the State Media covering it up will help with the process of phase three.

      Delete
    2. My mistake, okay still on phase 2, but what benefit is there in chewing over ex police officer statements when we all know they hate each other.
      This Inquiry is all about protecting children and improving their safety in the future and getting angry about statements like today is of no help to the cause.

      Delete
    3. So you think that a Senior Investigating Officer leaking confidential information to a so-called “journalist” with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles during a live Child Abuse Investigation has nothing to do with the protection of children in Jersey?

      It’s not about getting angry over statements, it’s about publishing the facts, that the State Media is burying. By doing this we hope it will go some way to help protect children in the future,

      Delete
  14. Wonder where CTV are hanging their award these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A reminder of ITV/CTV's AWARD might help put its latest load of dribble into perspective.

      Delete
  15. Have you got a link to the articles written by David Rose. Mick Gradwell being a source to those may now give a different view to readers on the propaganda angle they were aiming for.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hope none of you were kidding yourselves there had been some kind of new dawn at the Establishment's JEP HQ? Their reporter has done almost as shocking a job as the Rskine Television re-writing of history. These abuse supporters just admit the error of their ways can they.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truly disappointed with the JEP's take on the evidence yesterday, especially in light of the previous 'better' reporting of the evidence at the hearings. It seems he totally missed the grave implication of what Gradwell had done which was totally unprofessional and did not in any way absolve him from the suspicions he had been brought in to close Operation Rectangle down asap.

      It may be a good exercise for the reporter and indeed the public to read the full transcripts to get the fuller picture, and then ponder why Mr Gradwell left Jersey with his reputation in tatters

      Delete

  17. Did the lawyer working for the Child Abuse Panel ask Mr Gradwell if it was normal and legal practice for a policeman working on a live ongoing enquiry to leak information from a live ongoing case to the media using negatitve narrative aimed at previous fellow officers ?

    If not why not ? As this information is relative to policing Jerseys most deep and disturbing investigation.

    If in fact he was asked what was his answer ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. An interested observer of neo-feudalism21 November 2015 at 20:16

    As a lawyer currently working on contract in Albania I have nevertheless been maintaining s close eye on the death throes of your oligarchy. It seems to me that the clear malfeasance evident within this impossibly conflicted Care Inquiry will be an error of nuclear thermal seriousness. This will surely be the end as your Mr Syvret has warned.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So Stuart Syvret was prosecuted and imprisoned for publishing/leaking more important information 'in the public interest' but Gradwell is protected?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unfortunately this won't be the end of the Jersey Establishment.

    Out of interest. What legal work are you doing in Albania? Do they have a functioning democracy in Albania. Maybe Mick and David Rose might find some work out there as I can't imagine policing and the free press has an open policy.

    RS

    ReplyDelete
  21. Was their an exchange of money for the leaks or stories provided to the hack?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  22. In the article by David Rose mention is made of a leaked report by financial auditors. Would Mick Gradwell have had access to that report and what would of been the benefit of that particular information being provided to the journalist?

    Mick Gradwell could not of taken it upon himself to leak information unless he had been instructed to do so in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term meaning, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a fundamental maxim of the law of agency.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Operation Whistle", has gone very quiet. Also anyone guess why it was so called?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The commenter at 09:07 who says, 'Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term meaning, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a fundamental maxim of the law of agency', is correct. It may not be clear to a lay reader that the maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' embodies a long-established legal principle. In plain English it means the person (or public authority) which possesses ultimate control over a set of minions, officers, employee, office-holders and so on, is the person or public authority that carries the ultimate responsibility for the performance or conduct of those lower agents. For example, if a civil servant, or employee of a company, were to carry out some illegal or tortious act in the name and authority of the department or company, liability for that act lays with the department or company.

    Given the context in which he cited it, it is to be assumed Stuart Syvret was referring to the ultimate liability of The Monarch for the many illegal and tortious acts and omissions of her direct agents in the Crown Dependency of Jersey. If so, he's correct. When 'Her' Bailiffs and Attorney Generals act illegally and corruptly in Jersey, it is Her, as the empowering agency, that carries liability. Look at it it this way: Royal Office-holders such as the Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors and Attorney Generals are not exercising some indigenous or intrinsic power of their own. When they act, their sole power to so act comes through the conference of power on them by The Monarch. Thus when they act improperly, as they so clearly do, they are making The Monarch act improperly. It is not possible in law, not in any credible legal system around the world, for an empowering authority to let its powers be used improperly, but for that empowering authority to then dodge legal liability in some kind of 'magical' manner. A little thought shows that that must be so. Imagine if it were so possible for an empowering authority to avoid responsibility for the way in which its powers were used and abused by its agents? The result would be a form of circular anarchy, with the culpable agents claiming immunity, because of the power conferred on them by the higher authority, but yet that higher authority then claiming no responsibility lay with it, because the criminal or tortious acts were carried out by not by it, but by some remote agents. The result would be tantamount to a system in which the very concept of the rule of law, or responsibilities and liabilities for actions, had been side stepped. People would be victims of malfeasant acts, but with no legal liability for those acts ever landing on a desk of responsibility.

    No respectable legal system on the face of the planet operates in that way. Power is always, simply always, ultimately accountable. That is why the legal principle of 'qui facit per alium facit per se' is so time honored and immutable. The conduct of the agents of an empowering authority is seen to been THE conduct of THAT empowering authority. So it is that responsibility and liability for improper acts cannot be avoided by an empowering authority merely hiding behind its empowered agents. Thus when Stuart Syvret quotes 'qui facit per alium facit per se' he is correctly citing The Monarch for Her various unlawful conducts in Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret's superb comment, which he posted just after midnight on this site, has quickly been removed from this site. Just to let you know how good it was, it ended with: "Qui facit per alium facit per se".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Jetsey man on holiday in Albania22 November 2015 at 17:34

      Excellent though the comment may have been in certain aspects it also suggested matters which might be misinterpreted and to which he would IMHO need to demonstrate as being correct.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps Ex Health Minister Stuart Syvret could do a short update for publication on
      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/
      if the deleted comment was deemed unhelpful to VFC's equally informative blog

      Delete
    3. An excellent idea.

      Delete
  27. Any news on Bob Hill VFC?

    ReplyDelete
  28. VFC do you know if the transcript of Gradwell's testimony is published yet, and if so where can we read it? Could you do a link?

    I ask not because I'm especially interested in the nonsense from a man who's already shown himself to be an unreliable witness ("no basements" - oh, really? Did the BBC then build a false set, when they showed clips of people standing in them and forensic officers searching them? Was that faked?) but I am very interested in examining carefully the questioning by City (& Met boys) Eversheds. Just for example, Eversheds and the Panel must have really, really mercilessly savaged Gradwell with questions as to why he made those false statements back in November '08 about there being "no basements" when the extensive documented evidence, including BBC Panorama footage, showed that there were basements?

    Perhaps you could give us a heads-up, VFC, and tell us if the Jersey CoI did ask those questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The transcripts can (and usually do) take weeks to be published. When they do eventually get published they can be read HERE.

      The subject of the cellars, if memory serves correct, were not discussed at the Public Hearing, or if they were, not in any great depth. (Pun not intended.)

      Bob Hill and I exposed Mr. Gradwell's "mistake" concerning the cellars HERE.

      Delete
    2. You will note that the last transcript to be published is Bob Hill's which is day 104 22nd October.

      The next witness to the Inquiry after Bob Hill was Bob Le Brocq who gave his evidence on the 3rd of this month (November). Which is almost three weeks ago and there is no sign of his transcript yet. (Which would probably please Philip Bailhache)

      Delete
    3. I am told Trevor Pitman covers the cellars in his as yet unpublished evidence. Possibly he was to talk about these too but as you reported was not allowed by Operation Whitewash.

      Delete
    4. "Which is almost three weeks ago and there is no sign of his transcript yet."

      Don't worry it will be published its probably just in the wash right now.

      Delete
    5. Would that be Percil for a 'whiter than white wash'?

      Delete
  29. Speaking of unreliable witnesses, when is Barry Faudemer due to be given a comforting hug & rep-boosting pat on the head by Jersey's supposed child-abuse "public inquiry", whilst he no-doubt attacks good cops such as Graham Power and Lenny Harper, as all the Jersey police witnesses so far have obviously been coached and instructed to do?

    And BTW, we're never going to forget that amongst the four spin-doctors Frances Oldham and Eversheds decided to employ, was one of the 'Jersey Financial Services Commission' spin-doctors. Very handy all-round, eh, for Barry, for John, for company's with Big, Big stakes in the City of London and its tax-dodging symbiosis with Jersey? You know? A bit like Eversheds LLP?

    It was pretty obvious where this "public inquiry" was going, when, rather than spending those precious resources on, oh, you know, maybe something like ensuring there was at least 1 full-time paid professional present at the hearings to represent survivors & whistle-blowers, for show, against the 7 full-time paid professionals present representing the Jersey Establishment, they choose to employ a pack of spin-doctors instead.

    It's not as though they're even any good. If they had been, the COI might have been 'advised' to avoid some of the terminal stupidities it's engaged in, e.g. the Chair putting on record her startling bias against abuse survivors by writing a letter to a USA publication in which she attacked and sought to undermine Jersey's only survivors' organisation? And Oldham & her colleagues might have been advised that, you know, actually, in the national and international court of public opinion, constructively excluding Syvret from the inquiry, the lead whistle-blower on the side of the victims, by breaching his right to legal representation, was going to be a 'tough sell' in the long run.

    Any competent organisation would be demanding its money back from the spin-doctors. But we're not dealing with a competent organisation. When are we ever, in anything to do with Jersey?

    Pip Pip.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewSubmissions/Submission%20-%20Issues%20surrounding%20Review%20of%20Financial%20Management%20of%20Operation%20Rectangle%20-%20States%20of%20Jersey%20Police%20-%2004%20July.pdf

    In this article Mr Gradwell vehemently denied leaking a copy of the report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Mr Gradwell is a proven liar ?

      If you can't trust the police, who can you trust

      Delete
    2. I love the letter to ex-Deputy Pitman as Chair of the Scrutiny Panel where the police tell him Gradwell has 'vehemently' denied it was me, gov! If this doesn't show what a liar he was I don't know what will.

      Delete
    3. Just tried going to the link under the posting 'BDO Alto - Acting on behalf of Paedophiles' which was left at 06:43, but only got a warning that it was potential a dangerous, corrupted file-path. Can anyone sort that out? Was the link originally good, and has been sabotaged or hacked in some way, or was it a false-lead? If it was intended to be a link to a good source, could someone re-post a correct link? Thanks.

      Delete
  31. Just published

    http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/ex-deptsupt-mick-gradwell-and-david.html

    EX DEPT/SUPT MICK GRADWELL AND DAVID ROSE - TEAM VOICE ON THE MONEY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The seriousness of Gradwells actions can't be underestimated.
      .........but something else came out. Guess who he alleges put him onto David Rose? That will be tonight's posting."

      on
      http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/

      Delete
  32. One only has to look at email thief Sean Power trying to launch his re-election campaign to a crowd of a few good hundred on the back of the manufactured Finance district drama to work out that when it comes to abused kids most in Jersey don't give a fig about such abuse. Well... at least not until they find its no longer someone else's kids who are being buggered while our judiciary and senior politicians cover it up. We have become a very sick, uncaring place

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A sad observation but a true one.

      Delete
    2. A most fascinating and curious comment at 15:30. I confess I don't follow the parish pump jiggings of your insular spivs, but whilst your local bosses are not so bright, I would have thought even them to have sufficient sense to make it clear to Sean Power that he was one way or another being politely indicated the direction of the exit? No doubt the man, being what he is, has had his passing uses to the Jersey curia but why aren't they just paying him off in some way and inviting him to make a well resourced fresh start in some other jurisdiction? As we all know, it wouldn't be the first time such an invitation has been proffered to Mr. S. Dooley Power. And as such invitations have shown, he knows what's good for his health.

      Yes, it's most curious indeed given the fragilities of the Jersey situation that, of all the people to have playing about in your political environment, even to be flirting with him, your bosses continue to seem willing to publicise, foster & harbour a man with such potentially high profile (& not in any kind of good way) baggage. Actually, thinking as I'm writing this I'm struck by the thought perhaps your bosses don't know? Well, they're not very bright, to be sure, but Sean Power? Really? Fortuitously, your parliament was shed of him once. Some systems just don't know when they've dodged the bullet.

      Words of advice to the Jersey king makers, best all round if Dooley is assisted in making a fresh start elsewhere, something appropriate to his talents. Costa del Sol? Arbitraging dodgy time-shares perhaps? You know the kind of thing.

      There comes a time when the usefulness of an interim asset has run its course. Good chaps just 'know' that.

      Delete
  33. Any update on Bob Hill please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waiting to hear from a family member and as soon as I do I will publish the update. Hopefully will have something tonight.

      Delete
    2. Have had a brief message from Bob's family. Firstly they would like to say thank you for the wonderful support and people taking the time to comment online. They are currently waiting to hear news as to whether Bob can be moved to Jersey hospital (hopefully) in the next couple of days.

      Delete
  34. This blog and other good Jersey blogs have consistently exposed criminal behaviour by senior figures in your Establishment, and criminal behaviour by their carefully selected minions. Usually the blog articles and the interesting comments, a great number of which are obviously from informed people, obliquely expose the criminality without actually stating it in so many words, for understandable legal reasons. This posting and many of the comments here is a case in point. You and your readers may not directly say so, for obvious reasons, but what is described here is an undisguised course of criminal conduct.

    My question to you is 'what are Jersey campaigners going to do about it?' Let's not beat about the bush, what you're confronting, and what Jersey bloggers have so assiduously documented over these years, are a number of interwoven criminal conspiracies involving your highest authorities. And let me point out now this question supersedes any debate about the merits of the present putative Jersey 'public inquiry' into child-abuse. For the purposes of my question, we can assume for argument's sake your 'COI' is good and objective and produces a reasonable set of findings. What I'm curious to gain some insight into is what Jersey campaigners have planned to do if you get an honest and effective report? Then what? What are your next steps? You will understand, presumably, that, even were it an objective body, your public inquiry cannot change anything itself?

    For what it's worth, my assessment is that even if the findings of your public inquiry are appropriately damning (and it takes an exercise of the imagination to see how they couldn't be given the sheer quantity of evidence already discovered and adduced by the bloggers since 2008) the report will stop short of stating 'here are crimes'.

    But here are crimes. That much is already extensively evidenced. But as it is your prosecution system and judiciary that is behind those crimes, and has given succour and protection to the criminals, then what? For everything I've read on the Jersey blogs, I've seen no understanding of 'the next step'.

    What happens, what do you do, even in the very unlikely event that Eversheds & its sock-puppets produce the goods? You will will still be faced with, exactly what it was you were faced with right before the COI began, a criminalised polity. Let me stress, as I've had to do before, these questions are not trolling. I am on your side. But we really need to see some signs that Jersey campaigners have faced up to these questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right now the vast majority of campaigners I am aware of are concentrating on helping to make sure this current COI is able to do the best job it can for the Victims and Survivors.

      They/we are doing that by supplying it with vast amounts of evidence and challenging it when it falls short. Victims/Survivors,
      Bloggers current and former politicians and campaigners fought long and extremely hard to get this COI and now that it's here all energies are focussed on helping it achieve the best outcome it can with its limited Terms Of Reference.

      The vast majority of us, at this point, are not looking beyond the COI. Let's wait for its final report.

      Delete
    2. What a well written, deeply considered comment. The questions raised in fact remind me very much of your former Senator Syvret. So, providing that everybody who can, and this certainly must include him as an absolutely central witness, delivers their evidence the question will then rightly be (just as your eloquent poster suggests) what do we do next? Not just individually but collectively.

      Delete
    3. The fact of Stuart Syvret not giving evidence to this public inquiry is NOT a decision of Syvret. And the potential action of Syvret giving evidence to this public inquiry is NOT a putative action which lays in the free gift and choice of Syvret.

      Stuart Syvret is not giving witness testimony to the Jersey public inquiry, because the Jersey public inquiry has chosen, IT has made the decision, to PREVENT him from giving witnesses testimony, by deciding to break his human rights by refusing to give him the legal representation to which he is entitled. There's a well established legal term for such outcomes, 'constructively'. The Jersey COI has made the 'constructive' decision to prevent Syvret from giving his witness testimony.

      To give a common example of 'constructive' action in the legal sense, you will often see in the media cases where employment tribunals have found that an employee (often a whistleblower) will have been 'wrongly dismissed', even though they weren't actually dismissed, but instead 'resigned'. In reality, the employee will have been forced by mistreatment of one kind or another, to 'resign'. A position in which they had no real choice. In such cases the tribunal finds that, in reality they were 'constructively dismissed', and finds for the former employee.

      In the question of Syvret and him giving evidence to the Jersey public inquiry, the same principle applies. In reality, the decision that causes him to not give evidence to the COI is not his, but is instead the 'constructive' decision of the COI itself by refusing to give him effective legal representation.

      The second misapprehension is that Syvret could, nevertheless, overcome the constructive obstacles generated by the public inquiry itself, which the public inquiry has placed in the path of him giving evidence to it, by just choosing to set aside his established human rights and other legal protections, and just give testimony anyway. He could theoretically do that. But if he did, he would be surrendering his absolute rights to which he has fundamental guarantees and protections in law. Not only ECtHR law, but also long established British common law. For him to give witness testimony under such conditions, conditions in which he would fear (wisely, given the experiences he's already had and the evidenced conduct of your Establishment) all kinds of consequences and reprisals, would mean that he was a coerced witness. He would be a witness giving testimony in fear, under threat, and under already demonstrable risks. He would not be a 'free' witness.

      Under those circumstances, your campaign needs to reflect upon the very real possibility that even if Stuart Syvret went 'through the motions' in response the pressures he's under and gave 'testimony' to the COI, that testimony may wall be in some ways be false, partial, skewed, incomplete, guarded, dishonest or otherwise less than full and frank, because of the very obvious and very real threats he's under.

      And should that seem implausible, let us be honest, this is a man who's already been falsely and corruptly jailed twice by the very judges and prosecutors guilty of decades of child-abuse cover-ups, cover-ups Syvret was trying to expose. You might imagine him to be fearless and expect him to just take the same consequences and treatment again & again, but if so, I suggest you're taking him for granted and failing to make any allowance for the human limits of the strength of one person.

      The situation is that Syvret is not giving evidence to your public inquiry, because your public inquiry has made the constructive decision to prevent him from giving evidence to it. They've made that decision by joining in with the campaign of witness intimidation and terrorisation he's already been subjected to for these years. If you want Syvret to give evidence, you must demand of the public inquiry that it reverse its decisions to intimidate him.

      Delete
    4. They are all good questions @19:16

      A more likely question is what will we do when this CoI fails to give an honest and effective report.

      Suggestions for both scenarios would be appreciated.

      Delete
    5. Very nicely explained @21:36

      The fact that the central whistle blower, and at the time actual HEALTH MINISTER !!!! is "constructively prevented from giving evidence" to this CoI effectively renders the CoI void.

      The cost of this charade has now passed £10,000,000 !
      ........adding every Jersey taxpayer to the long list of Establishment abuse victims.

      A fit for purpose CoI would have provided the closure the island so desperately needs.

      Campaigners however can still view this CoI as a success. It still enables the victims to be finally heard and the extent of the abuse to partially be reported in the state media. Unthinkable five years ago when the denial machine was at full tilt and still on it's bearings.
      Despite clearly having "No Go" areas this CoI still documents some of the atrocities and amongst the hand wringing and "did-not-see/find-any-evidence-of" it may even deliver a few improvements and lower echelon heads on plates (Gradwell for instance LOL)

      This is just the first round. The warm up. We shall have our cake and eat it. This fight will continue locally and in the UK

      The good news for the Jersey Taxpayer is that the conduct of the CoI has been so bad, so incompetent that with a little political will Eversheds can be made to foot the bill.

      This CoI is just a stepping stone.
      The children of this island are not safe until the proper rule of law reaches make it up as you go along Legal La La Land

      The proper rule of law in a functioning democracy. That is what success looks like.

      Delete
    6. Re:

      “And should that seem implausible, let us be honest, this is a man who's already been falsely and corruptly jailed twice by the very judges and prosecutors guilty of decades of child-abuse cover-ups, cover-ups Syvret was trying to expose. You might imagine him to be fearless and expect him to just take the same consequences and treatment again & again, but if so, I suggest you're taking him for granted and failing to make any allowance for the human limits of the strength of one person.

      It was Stuart, in 2011, who told us; “I will not bow to their pressure.” He went on to say; “They’re going to carry on bringing these corrupt, oppressive, malicious prosecutions against me until they have either succeeded in intimidating me into silence or driving me out of Jersey permanently and they are not going to do either of those things.”
      “I won’t comply with their oppression, I will be jailed again which will probably go on for some years.”

      LINK.

      Does, or should, anybody expect him to sacrifice so much? I should say not but if anybody is “failing to make any allowance for the human limits of the strength of one person” it is Stuart himself.

      He has been the target of the Establishment, and it’s media, ever since he spoke out against the Child Abuse atrocities in Jersey. His resolve has been unrelenting and has endured more oppression than most could cope with and he should be applauded for it. But it is he (if anybody) who has “not made allowances for human limits.”

      Delete
    7. I think that Stuart Syvret recognised a while back that the solutions to Jersey's problems unfortunately lie outside Jersey. As yet all appeals to the UK have resulted in them neglecting their responsibilities of oversight with the (unanswerable?) complaints simply being referred back to the corrupt Jersey authorities who are actually the subject of the complaint !
      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jack-straw-and-the-illegal-jersey-child-abuse-cover-up/

      Blogger Tony Bellows parodies the local end of the problem
      http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/leading-channel-islanders-unite-to-save.html

      UK campaigners need to keep an eye on Jersey and ensure that this CoI is repaired or re-run on a fit for purpose footing. Toleration of a Committee of Non-inquiry lays the foundations for similar stunts to be pulled in the UK. Forcing a proper Jersey CoI will send a very strong signal that your UK inquiry must also be fit for purpose.

      Delete
  35. Sadly the only thing that will come out of the enquiry is that ''lessons have been learnt'' Jerseys reputation will be promoted as being intact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey's reputation is just like Mick Gradwell's (according to him) and is in tatters. I can't see that the outcome of this COI is going to bolster Jersey's reputation to "intact." I can't see Mr. Gradwell's reputation being bolstered any either.

      Delete
    2. "Lessons have been learned". We really should pass a law making this pathetic Establishment platitude illegal. Makes my skin crawl.

      Delete
  36. I would like to thank "London Lawyer" for his excellent and clear explanation of the Syvret issue above, 23 November 2015 at 21:36

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/11/former-sio-mick-gradwell-re-post.html?showComment=1448314619098#c992078706766735794

    ReplyDelete
  37. So what happened to the Trevor Pitman interview Voice? Did the 'Bald Truth' refuse to speak? I note his evidence to the Care Inquiry hasn't appeared on line yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have recorded an exclusive, an in-depth, interview with former Deputy Pitman regarding his evidence (or not) to the Child Abuse Inquiry. Hope to have it published tomorrow.

      Delete
    2. Hope there is more in it than suggested by the size of the piece in the Rag?

      Delete
    3. I can't believe that all someone like Trevor Pitman would have to say would be the little piece described by the JEPedo.

      Delete
  38. I have had an update on Bob Hill.

    His family have said that, all going to plan, he will be moved from Southampton Hospital today and admitted to Jersey General Hospital.

    They also asked me to reiterate their thanks for all the support and well wishes. The family have been “overwhelmed and the comments have been a real comfort.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely wonderful news - welcome 'home' Bob and stay strong.

      Delete
  39. Brilliant news about Bob. Hang in there mate. Loads of us rooting for you. Best wishes to you and the family. Meanwhile any update on when the interview with Bob's former comrade-in-arms Trevor Pitman will be going up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great news indeed. Keep us posted.

      Delete
    2. Due to some technical issues the interview with former Deputy Trevor Pitman will be published tomorrow.

      Delete
  40. Had to laugh at JEP story on people jumping red lights. Apparently 184 drivers prosecuted. But not if you run down 'anti-establishment' political figures like ex-Deputy Shona Pitman!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Great news VFC. Please keep us in the loop such as where cards can be sent.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Inquiry timetable has been updated. See http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/inquiry-timetable

    1st Dec - Deputy Anne Pryke. I do hope counsel ask her why she reportedly attempted to gain access inside the police cordon at Haut de la Garenne.

    4th Dec - Deputy Mike Higgins. That should be a good lesson in truth and plain speaking for all the cover up merchants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I do hope counsel ask her why she [current Health and Social Services Minister Anne Pryke] reportedly attempted to gain access inside the police cordon at Haut de la Garenne."

      And also ask Deputy Anne Pryke why she attempted to gain said access in the company of alleged serial child rapist and torturer "Mr.K"

      The "Mr.K" that now Bailiff William Bailhache seems so keen to bend over backwards to provide an alibi for?

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      Taking upon himself to "exonerate" his friend, ex Jersey policeman, "Child Social Worker""Mr.K" CONTRARY to the evidence, including expert medical testimony!

      While they have Anne Pryke's full attention they could perhaps ask her if she has any recollection of her late husband's activities and motivations while a mid ranking policeman DS Pryke .......including the apparent theft of evidence in the Victoria College sex abuse investigation/cover up?

      The Bailiff is foisted upon us by FOCAW, but why does Jersey elect such shysters to aid and abet this ongoing tragedy?

      Delete
    2. Excellent comment, Nest of Vipers. She'll probably come out with her usual schtick and the inquiry will lap it up. As opposed to asking her real, hard questions.

      She'll no doubt say that she knows nothing about her late husband Roger Pryke concealing evidence from a major child abuse investigation in his police locker. For a kick off, had he told her anything about that evidence, it would also make him guilty of serious data protection breaches, let alone the rest of it...

      The other thing that campaigners need to be aware of is any attempt to link Roger Pryke's actions to his illness. The inquiry should be reminded, as lawyers, that they can't just say "oh, that sounds like a good explanation, let's put that in the report." No. For any causal link to be proven, even on the balance of probabilities, they need to see contemporaneous medical evidence that would explain such actions. Otherwise, they are just speculating. They can't just say "oh, that sounds plausible, let's write it up".

      Then again, it sounds like it worked for Big Al Maguire, didn't it?

      Delete
  43. Let's not mess about, eh, children?

    We've see - on many occasions now - most recently and obviously with former Police Chief Graham Power, and with former Deputy Trevor Pitman - that this "public-inquiry" / Oldham / Eversheds - far from wanting to pursue the necessary, serious and obvious questions - are instead just rigging the process.

    Rigging the process by constraining and rail-roading witnesses who have damaging things to say concerning the conduct of the Jersey oligarchy - but on the other hand, nurse-maiding, giving free-reign to, and comforting, the culpable pro-oligarchy witnesses - even to the extent of hiding their identity.

    Such is the degree of contempt with which Oldham / Eversheds / the COI have approached the side of the survivors, whistle-blowers & campaigners - they haven't even attempted to be cunning in disguising their bias. There they are - simply treating us like fools - like uppity pleb scum.

    What we see as the defining characteristic in the Eversheds / Goddard / Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" - is simply old-fashioned class-war. These people don't need to be right - they don't need to do what's right. They don't have to. They need not have any regard for established case-law. They are the people with the connections, the money, the power, the status, the protections - we, by way of contrast, are merely the scummy proles; irritants to the Establishment Machine.

    That's why these people laugh & joke with each other over how they shield guilty witnesses - and by way of contrast, constrain former politicians like Deputy Pitman, and largely neutralise immensely significant witnesses like former Police Chief Graham Power.

    In fact so inept - so arrogant - has been the conduct of Eversheds / Goddard / CoI, I heard on Thursday one or two senior professionals back at Eversheds base in London are not liking what they're seeing. Not one little bit. These things have a way of traveling around the Inns of Court. And a damaging mess, is a damaging mess, for all it might come with cheque stapled to the suppurating, toxic waste-bag.

    I'm told this is one of those cases in which the Lloyd's Names have long-since been groomed to take on the chin - come what may. After all, the rackety matrix has to continue, somehow.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete

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