Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Carries On “The Jersey Way.”

Back in July, this year, we published a Blog exposing the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry for adopting what's known as "THE JERSEY WAY". Where suspected paedophiles are granted multiple identities  at the Inquiry and can give evidence appearing to be up to three different people. A protection that is NOT afforded to Victims/Survivors and creates a distorted view of the facts and puts the Victims/Survivors (among others) at a distinct disadvantage.

Yesterday we learnt that the “The Jersey Way” still prevails at the Inquiry where it looks as though a false history of events is being documented as fact at the Public Hearing(s).

Counsel to the Inquiry, PATRICK SAAD,  opened yesterday's Hearing by reading out a prepared statement. Part of that statement claimed that Andrew Lewis (former Home Affairs Minister) suspended the Chief of Police (Graham Power QPM) without having read the MET Police Interim Report. This is a statement of fact from the Child Abuse Inquiry and it is still unclear as to why this particular “fact” should have been included in Mr. Saad’s opening address at all? What significance did it have? A question that I asked Angharad Shurmer (Solicitor to the Inquiry) and one that she was unable, or unwilling, to answer.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Why this is suspicious is that the Inquiry Team knows full well that Andrew Lewis looks to have told Jersey’s Parliament, when informing it that he had (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief Of Police, that he HAD seen the MET Police Interim Report.

How do I know that the Inquiry Team knows this? Because when I e-mailed my original complaint against Deputy Lewis for telling (what I and many others believe to be) untruths to the States Assembly I copied the Inquiry Team into the e-mail and subsequent e-mails with PPC.

My COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPUTY LEWIS to PPC documented the different versions he appeared to had given concerning his sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report.

He told the States Assembly;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

He added;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

Brian Napier QC.

Yet in the Napier Report we have this;

As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

So the Inquiry KNOWS that it appears Deputy Andrew Lewis has given, at least two, different versions of events. So why present only one of them as “fact?” That was another question I asked Ms. Shurmer which she told me that Andrew Lewis told the Napier Review he HADN’T seen the MET Interim Report and Patrick SAAD stands by his statement.

In an e-mail to me Ms. Shurmer wrote;

"I refer to our discussions earlier this afternoon where you asked me to review the following section of Patrick Sadd’s opening, where he stated:

In November 2008 David Warcup writes to Bill Ogley, Chief Executive, raising concerns about Operation Rectangle and refers to an interim report by the Metropolitan Police. Without having seen the Metropolitan Police report, Andrew Lewis now Home Affairs Minister, formally suspends Graham Power, Chief of Police. Graham Power never returns to his post.

I have discussed this with Patrick and whilst he is aware of your correspondence with the PPC and the information Mr Lewis provided to the States, the evidence currently available to the Inquiry supports the statement made by Patrick during today’s opening i.e. at the time of Graham Power’s suspension Andrew Lewis had not seen the Metropolitan Report. Amongst other evidence in the Inquiry’s possession, the Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ and that Mr Lewis placed reliance on a summary contained within a letter sent by Mr Warcup to Mr Ogley on 10 November 2008. There is also further documentary evidence supporting this which will become apparent following the evidence of Bob Hill which is to be heard later this week and, as stated by Patrick this morning, the Inquiry will also be hearing evidence from Andrew Lewis during the course of this Phase of evidence.

For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no statement to amend today’s opening."(END)

So a Child Abuse Inquiry who is tasked with gathering evidence and reporting it fairly, and accurately,  actually looks to be ignoring evidence and creating a false history, a la State Media, or "The Jersey Way."

The Inquiry quotes "The Party Line" as contained in the Napier Report;  "the Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ 

Yet omits the other Andrew Lewis version told in the island's parliament;

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

I, and others, argue that if it was that important for Patrick Saad to make mention of the MET Police Interim Report in his pre-prepared statement, then at least he could/should have included that it was "unclear" as to whether Andrew Lewis had seen it or not.

Further evidence exists where Andrew Lewis looks to have inferred that he HAD read the MET Interim Report (which the Inquiry should be aware of) where he stated;

"it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. (my emphasis)

To which the former Chief of Police replied;

"Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements."

Readers (and the Child Abuse Inquiry) are encouraged to read more of that exchange (if they haven't already) between the former Police Chief and Deputy Andrew Lewis HERE.

As much as the Inquiry is doing good work in some areas it lets itself, and the public, down when ignoring relevant evidence and passing "The Party Line" off as if it's the only line.........."The Jersey Way."

Saturday, 10 October 2015

William Bailhache, Montfort Tadier and Ronnie Pickering.

Online observers cannot have escaped the legend that has become Ronnie Pickering. For those who have not, as yet, been exposed to the latest internet sensation THIS LINK should help, or search Youtube for "Ronnie Pickering."

We are pleased to announce that Ronnie Pickering (or his name) has reached the shores of Jersey and was the subject of a heated debate between Jersey's disgraced Bailiff (unelected speaker of the House) William Bailhache and DEPUTY MONTFORT TADIER in the Island's Parliament this week. There is disagreement as to whether Mr. Pickering attended/would have attended the recent Tory Conference.

We were able to capture the exchange on audio/video and share it here (below) with our readers.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015


Deputy Tadier has said that there are no hard feelings after the Bailiff, William Bailhache, misunderstood a comment made during a States Debate in which Deputy Tadier was presenting a Reform Jersey amendment seeking to reverse some of the cuts to benefits being put forward by the Social Security Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel.

‘In my speech, I stated that we all look to different inspirational figures for our moral and political guidance (be they philosophers, economists or reigious figures). I named two such figures – the American moral and political philosopher John Rawles and Jesus Christ, both of whom talked about the need for social justice and looking after the poor, the sick and vulnerable.’

‘I used the example of the well known motto “What would Jesus do? (WWJD)” or “what would Rawles do?”, before stating, rhetorically (and ironically), “Of course, Jesus would be at the Tory Conference or an IoD dinner.” Before I could finish my train of argument – “Or would he?” I was interrupted by the Bailiff, who said my comment was offensive and asked me to withdraw the comment. I did not as the comment was not offensive, but standard political discourse - as he would have found out had I been allowed to continue. This was a contravention of my parliamentary privilege and it is an important principle that elected members be able to express themselves freely without fear or prejudice.’

Talking about the Bailiff’s intervention, Deputy Tadier said, ‘The Bailiff is not the Pope, and like all of us, he is fallable. He simply got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion. Had he followed Standing Orders to the letter (see below 109 /3 and 4)) he would have asked me to clarify my comments rather than asking me to retract them, and he would have understood the point I was making. Thankfully, after the hour’s recess, the Bailiff had obviously thought better of it and I was able to contiune where I had left off.’

‘I am grateful for the solidarity shown by States Members, particularly the Chief Minister, who came to my defense, saying he did not think the comments were offensive, simply a political illustration and maybe a direct challenge to the Chief Minister’s policies as a Christian.’

‘The whole thing was quite Kafkaesque. I bare no ill feeling to the Bailiff. I was just slightly frustrated at being impeded in doing my job, in this case, of robustly fighting the Government’s austerity measures.’

Others have made comment that this is not the first time that the Bailiff has overstepped the mark into the political, and it is likely that this latest episode will add to growing calls for the States to be chaired by someone other than a senior member of the Judiciary.


109 Presiding officer's power to direct withdrawal of offensive etc words81
(1) If the presiding officer believes that the member of the States speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(2) If a member of the States, believing that the member speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, has, on a point of order, drawn the attention of the presiding officer to them, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(3) The presiding officer may ask the member who was speaking to explain
the sense in which he or she used the words.

(4) The presiding officer shall then determine whether or not the words are
offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly.

(5) If the presiding officer determines that the words are offensive,
objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly, he or she –
(a) shall direct the member to withdraw the words; and
(b) may direct the member to apologise.

(6) The member must withdraw the words and, if so directed, apologise.