Saturday, 12 November 2016

Unhappy Anniversary (8)


Graham Power QPM.

On November the 12th 2008 Jersey's (then) Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty during the biggest Child abuse police Investigation (Operation Rectangle) the island has ever seen or is likely to see again and the original suspension smells just as much (if not more) today than it did back then.

The official version of events, concerning Mr. Power's suspension from duty, has not only been torn apart by Team Voice, but has now been discredited by evidence given to the Independent Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. (COI) That evidence includes the evidence given by the then Home Affairs Minister, and now Public Accounts Committee Chairman, Deputy Andrew Lewis who originally suspended the former Police Chief.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

We have Blogged extensively on the evidence given by Deputy Andrew Lewis to the COI and that is where one of (if not the biggest) smell comes from. Readers can view parts of the Deputy's evidence/transcripts HERE, HERE and HERE. Notwithstanding Team Voice attempted to (before he gave evidence to the COI) glean answers form Deputy Lewis concerning his apparent contradictory statements over his suspension of Mr. Power. We did this in an open letter HERE. He refused to answer our (legitimate/public interest) questions and the COI faired little better in gaining any coherent answers from him when he gave evidence to it.

Every year since the controversial suspension of the former Police Chief, Team Voice has published a Blog (links at bottom of post) marking the event because it is one of the most significant decisions/acts made during this ghastly/dark period in Jersey's history. Suspending a Chief of Police in such suspicious circumstances, while his force is investigating alleged "STATE SPONSORED PAEDOPHILIA" in State run "care" homes, and elsewhere on the island, has got to be unprecedented.

We must also recall that on the 12th November 2008 Mr. Power had just returned to the island after visiting a sick family member when he was called to a suspension meeting with (then Home Affairs Minister) Deputy Andrew Lewis and the then States of Jersey Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley. Mr. Power was not told this was to be a suspension meeting, he was not offered any representation, he was not shown any evidence and he was not given time to prepare for a suspension meeting........ Because he wasn't told it was one.

Mr. Power, at the beginning of the meeting, was offered less than an hour to "consider his position." He declined the offer setting in motion a chain of events which has contributed to the setting up of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry.


This year's "Unhappy Anniversary" Blog is possibly the most poignant and well timed of them all. The COI could (should) be publishing its report, findings and recommendations within weeks. It has, according to it own timetable, until the end of December this year to do so.

Will the COI back the Jersey Establishment line or will any of the great and the good be shown to be guilty of abusing their positions to the detriment of Abuse Survivors/Victims and those who attempted to get them justice?

Victims/Survivors have been able to tell their story, and horrendous ordeals, to the COI. Those accused of the abuse, those accused of covering it up, witnesses and whistleblowers have given evidence to the COI. Within weeks, the COI being the "jury" should be publishing its eagerly awaited "verdict." We just wonder who will be considering their position when (if not before) the Inquiry's findings are published?

As far as the Team Voice jury is concerned (regarding the COI) It's still out. It has done some fantastic work in some areas and not so good in others. It's not been perfect but a "perfect" inquiry does not exist. We only need look at the UK CSA Inquiry (IICSA) to see what a shambles an inquiry of this nature can be. Jersey's COI, in comparison with the UK's, deserves an amount of credit.

Team Voice will deliver its verdict once the COI has published its report.

The seven previous “Unhappy Anniversaries” can be viewed from Below.







178 comments:

  1. Great to see Jersey's best political blog back and reminding us of what is important. Any chance of prompting a return for Rico's blog and the Bald Truth? Brilliant to have Team Voice back. Come back Mr Power policing under Bowron is a bad joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Graham Power was one of the good guys. A Jersey legend. Policing now in the island is all about appearances and nothing to do with justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A timely return and a timely reminder with the COI report due within the month that a white wash will be a betrayal of everything the brave victims and their noble supporters fought for.

    Good to have you back as the above comment says.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Horay! Thought we had lost you forever. Power is a Jersey hero but so are you. Long may you blog!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder if the inquiry will make use of this crucial historical document? They certainly should.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How can Andrew Lewis hold any position of responsibility in the States?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The sun peeps out through the gloom reminding us that spring will come again eventually.

    And then VFC returns too. Reminding us that one day democracy and justice will cut through the clouds of corruption as well.

    You will get sick of hearing this by the end of the day I predict. But, great to have you back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Welcome back VFC.

    Andrew Lewis.... Tick Toc Tick Toc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder if Deputy Andrew Lewis is looking forward to the 2018 election? Closer than you think Andy 'I've seen a damning report' Lewis...

      Delete
    2. Need to rid ourselves of not just Lewis here in St. Helier 3 & 4 at the election but Deputy Richard Rondel too. Sorry he has been unwell and hope he makes full recovery, but he has done a complete about turn since being re-elected. Just a COM flunkie now voting with them every time.

      Delete
  9. Nice to have you back Voice. can you tell us if Mr Power is well? Haven't heard anything from him for ages. An honest man who did his best for Jersey and for his thanks got shafted by the Establishment gangsters. Just like almost everyone else who tried to do the same. What a place. The septic isle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Power is keeping well and his interest in justice for the Victims/Survivors is as strong now as it ever was. Hopefully when the COI has published its report we will be hearing a lot more from him and indeed from Mr. Harper.

      Delete
    2. Hopefully come the report's publication we will hear a lot from many who appear to have been temporarily silenced.

      Delete
    3. Just as important hopefully come May 2018 enough capable people will come out of the woodwork to give us a chance of sweeping the States cesspit clean. If I was a few years younger I would have a go myself and I have never addressed a bigger crowd than at my daughter's wedding. We need change like never before.

      Delete
  10. VFC. Its right that you highlight Graham Power as the most important part of this Child abuse inquiry. It will be very interesting to see how the Committee Of Inquiry's highly paid team conclude the (possibly illegal) suspension of the only Jersey Chief Of Police who stood up for the abused and tried to expose the abusers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a great Christmas if you are reading this Mr Power. Mr Harper too. In fact everyone who tried to do the right thing.

      Delete
  11. GP should move to Jersey and stand for election on clean up the judiciary ticket. He would top the poll.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lets hope that the COI lay's the Jersey cess pit bare. The evidence is there for everybody to see.

    ReplyDelete
  13. VFC, thank you for painstakingly maintaining this historical record.

    On the 10th anniversary in 2018 I suggest, in all seriousness, that you formally write to the Jersey Archive, offering to donate all of your work on this important historical subject to them. It'll be interesting to see how the Jersey Way kicks in there. Tell them your retention policy is only 10 years and that it is important, for future historians, that your work since 2008 should be catalogued by the official Jersey Archive.

    With regard to the report by the Committee of Inquiry, this is what I predict will happen. The inquiry will officially label at least one person as an "unreliable witness". It certainly won't be Graham Power or Lenny Harper.

    My second prediction is that the person deemed an unreliable witness will just put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening" and try to carry on as normal. We'll see the true Jersey Way in action, it'll be a masterclass in the Jersey Way.

    Trouble is, islanders will always, always, always know him as the unreliable witness.

    That's my prediction, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi VFC,

    One more thing. You really should consider writing a book about this, once the CoI has reported.

    Welcome back, and keep up the truly excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lewis lining himself up for a "top job" next time around with his scrutiny of civil servants expenses etc etc making out to be the "goodie"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope Lewis goes for Senator. Just as deluded as Sean Power was, with the public ever so slowly waking up to these incompetents and bullsh**ers he will end up out on his ear. Just hope we have a few more quality progressive thinkers willing to stand.

      Delete
  16. I still fear that the COI report will be a damp squib even if not a complete whitewash. How can they really confirm what we all know - things like a police chief being screwed to stop him exposing corruption, Bailiffs allowing people who cover up abuse to sit as jurats, AGs disregarding evidence according to who it is without making it impossible for the British government not to finally act? I just can't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. People are missing the point of the ​Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.
    It is not a Witch Hunt, it is not a place to settle old scores or re-open old wounds.
    This is an in depth investigation into historic abuse with a view of acknowledgment of the past and prevention in the future. It has been done to protect children.
    Raking over old gripes and calling their report a damp squib before it's released is unhelpful and churlish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Worrying that the inquiry report may end up a damp squib is merely being honest and an entirely plausible concern. Anyone who doubts that need only consider the treatment of Lenny Harper, Trevor Pitman and even to an extent Bob Hill when they gave very detailed evidence. Or at least tried to. I would suggest that the up-down-up-down-up-down farce with the LOD trying to block Pitman's written statement could suggest nothing other than a fear that the inquiry report may not be all that we hope it will be.

      Delete
    2. Months ago when I phoned up the Inquiry Team to ask why they never asked complete questions of Trevor Pitman in conjunction with his written submission, they said a lot of his written submission was not relevant to the Terms of the Inquiry. So the argument that he was treat unfairly is not the whole story.

      Delete
    3. That is rather odd because when asked they told me simply that it was because firstly,there was argument going on regarding the Crown Officers wanting some evidence removed. Secondly, because they were not asking many witnesses about every issue if it was felt they had put in a highly detailed statement. Ex Deputy Pitman's written statement certainly could be said to fit in to that criteria. It was both huge and very detailed. What troubled me was the excuse generally. Graham Power was also not asked about hugely important issues he had flagged up. Ducking out of asking questions in the public sessions effectively meant that so much damning material consequently never got reported by the State media. Lenny Harper had evidently learned from what happened to Power and Pitman because he really forced the dialogue no doubting knowing what would happen otherwise. What I might add I find a little strange about your comment is that anyone reading the Pitman evidence will see straight away that apart from the largely irrelevant material about working for education which the inquiry devoted nearly all of their time to just about everything was hugely relevant and backed up as to how the Jersey Way corruption works. Probably why our Bailiff(s), Attorney General and chums found it so worrying.

      Delete
  18. The only people who want the Report to be a damp squib are the abusers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. We will probably be able to tell how far the States of Jersey has moved to opness, honesty and accountability this very week when Montfort Tadier's dual role proposition is finally debated.

    The answer will surely be not progressed at all . Because most of the gutless chicken hearts in this current States will simply pretend there isn't a problem and let the dictatorship continue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I read all the above, and just shake my head at the naivety.

    It's pitiful. Tragic, really.

    The conduct of the Jersey oligarchy is that of a criminal syndicate. It is a criminal enterprise.

    The conduct of this purported "public-inquiry" is itself - overtly - plainly - merely the latest phase of the criminality.

    I don't want "public-inquiries" if those public inquires are fakes - and if we're supposed to accept them as a poor substitute for the rule of law.

    As far as I'm concerned - I have a number of objectives which can only be served by the rule-of-law.

    Chief amongst those is the prosecution and jailing for the rest of his life of Jersey's most foul and prolific abuser and rapist of children and pimp of children to other abusers.

    We all know who he is.

    "Public-inquiries" - even if they weren't as contemptibly - as laughably - as comically fake as the CoI - can take-a-hike as far as I'm concerned.

    My message to the Home Secretary, Privy Council, Justice Secretary and Her Majesty is quite simple: - I'm waiting for the proper rule-of-law.

    I'll speak to your "public-inquiry" - when the scum who raped my constituents are in jail.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "my constituents"

      You haven't been in the States for over 6 years and you never partook in the Inquiry so your viewpoints are meaningless.

      Delete
    2. If you never give evidence then nobody will ever get imprisoned.

      Delete
  21. Your standards are slipping VFC - there was a time when the blogs distinguished themselves from the Jersey MSM by only hosting comments which made sense, were true, were compatible with known facts - and which advanced debate - as opposed to the troll-like repetition of obvious lies and manifest nonsense.

    As a key witness - a fact even admitted in writing by this crappy CoI - and as could only ever be the case in respect of any person who held the legal Office of Health & Social Services Minister - and was thus responsible for the discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 - and expressly and particularly in my case as the Office holder who blew-the-whistle on the child-abuse concealing conduct of the Jersey oligarchy - and was thus the person who was illegally obstructed and oppressed for doing so - as the record shows - from July 2007 - my testimony as a witness is anything but "meaningless". As much as the widely known friend of the child-rapist might troll to the contrary.

    And only scum such as the child-rapist and pimp I refereed to above - and his child-abuse concealing gangster protectors in the Jersey Crown Offices would attempt to argue otherwise.

    The Jersey CoI chose to constructively exclude me from giving evidence by failing to adhere to the Salmon Principles - and by breaking the ECHR - and by ignoring Part e of the legislative decision - and by pro-actively engaging in direct - unlawful - witness-intimidation against me by such devices as relying upon "evidence-gatherers" who are evidenced child-abuse concealers and friends of the child-rapist and pimp I refer to above - and by basing themselves in the offices of the terminally - fatally - conflicted Ogier Group - and by having biased, favourable secret meetings with directly conflicted parties such as the Data Protection Commissioner - and also having such meetings with centrally - terminally - conflicted parties such as Applbey Global - and by failing to call and question dozens of obvious witnesses - etc - etc - etc.

    The fact that I - an unarguably - an admitted - core, vital, witness - was prevented from giving evidence to the CoI - by the CoI - as described above - is a matter that the CoI - and Eversheds in particular - will have to be held accountable for - in the fullness of time.

    My evidence - which I want to go to the cause of justice - to the imprisonment of the many criminals - the child-abusers, the rapists - and all the starkly evidenced gangsters who've illegally covered-up for them - is ready to be given to a objective - lawful - ECHR-compliant - court-of-law.

    A "public-inquiry"- even if it wasn't obviously the most corrupt - ultra-vires - "public-inquiry" in modern British administrative-law history - would not be - could never be - a substitute for that. Indeed - the opposite is the case; the running of a "public-inquiry" - when there are so many obvious - prima facie - stark - criminal acts - laying unaddressed first - could only ever handicap and obstruct the arrival - the inevitable arrival - of that rule-of-law.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For someone so eloquent you don't say much do you? More threats about exposing the real culprits, more "train coming down the track" nonsense and, as usual, silence when it really counts. Thanks for your undoubted service in the past Stuart but if you don't really want to p*ss then maybe its time to get off the pot.

      Delete
    2. Please walk away.
      These extreme outbursts are unhelpful and are doing nothing for the survivors so its time you stopped.

      Delete
  22. Stuart you have been saying the same rhetoric against the Establishment for several years yet nothing ever seems to come of it, and when people question you for that, you call them trolls.
    You are the only person who has refused to give evidence to the Jersey Care Inquiry when most would have expected you to jump at the chance with or without legal representation, so don't be surprised that a lot of people have started to doubt everything you say.
    When are you going to put words into action, 2017? The Care Inquiry is over and you are not part of it except in reference, so can't you see why people are angry at that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Comment (below) has been submitted of which I have taken out the link that was contained in it.

      "So here we have an anonymous poster who claims to have a better handle on the situation than the Health Minister who blew the whistle?

      How very odd that they express disappointment that the Ex. Health Minister did not present his testimony to the CoI ....... and does NOT express disappointment that the CoI did not subpoena that Health Minister who blew the whistle!!!!

      For a real CoI, subpoenaing the Health Minister (and several other witnesses) was not a choice, it was their job!

      How many millions of your money were Eversheds paid NOT TO DO THEIR JOB?

      If you are not a troll, you are a troll victim.
      Hilarious!"

      Delete
    2. Thought subpoenas were reserved for the most serious of witnesses like alleged abusers?

      Delete
    3. Trolls seem to ask a lot of awkward questions on here.
      Whatever is said, Stuart never gave evidence, he is not part of this Multi-million Pound Inquiry, the Media and everybody else have views on it. Some survivors have even apologised to victims of his blog because and none of it has done him any favours.
      You cannot change that now so its a waste of time getting rattled by it as we will never get an Inquiry like it ever again.

      Delete
    4. "Trolls seem to ask a lot of awkward questions on here."

      No they don't. They just endlessly repeat the same tiresome drivel
      [Syvret did not give evidence, boo-hoo -isn't he beastly etc. etc. yawn!]

      They fail to acknowledge ......let alone answer the question for how a 27 odd million pound CoI could fail to subpoena various central witnesses.

      QED

      It is either trolling or a gross intellectual failure.

      Delete
  23. Another Anon comment with a reference taken out.

    "Thought subpoenas were reserved for the most serious of witnesses like alleged abusers?"

    "No you did not think.

    If you thought you would have realised that subpoenas were "reserved" for ANY witness that a real CoI required evidence from.

    Hilarious!"

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nothing hilarious about Child Abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Subpoenas for a Public Inquiry would have been a waste of time and effort as people called could have simply refused to answer questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. then by the same errrr..... logic, ALL subpoenas are "a waste of time"

      ....in which case, why do subpoenas exist at all?
      ...and why was this CoI given the power to require/subpoena witnesses?


      Child abuse is certainly not hilarious but troll-like comments can be.

      Delete
    2. If this CoI produces a half baked report then it is indeed "a waste of time"

      If the rot is not put right it will all happen again and jersey's adults and children will be as vulnerable as they always were.

      Delete
  26. A real CoI would have subpoenaed Syvret and various other witnesses.

    End of !

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tell the 200 + witnesses that spent time giving evidence then if its all been corrupt and a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @13:21
      Gee, you are right!

      In spite of all its shortcomings and failures the fact that 200 + witnesses spent time giving evidence proves that the CoI is fit for purpose and that all is well on planet jersey.

      If only we could spot even one flaw in the logic there.

      Still hilarious?

      Delete
  28. Eversheds procuring witnesses to relive the most traumatic events of their lives in front of such a flawed CoI is an act of crass cruelty.

    Hopefully some victims have found the experience cathartic and some of the culpable have found It challenging:

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

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/andrew-lewis-child-abuse-committee-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Coi is the only show in town so either accept it or lump it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the CoI is a show we had better lump it

      Delete
    2. and reclaim the £27 million ticket price

      We need someone like Higgins or Pitman for that

      Delete
    3. Don't kid yourself. That £27 million is well ferreted away by now. Probably bought a few Bahamas beach houses for some States lawyers? Love the man as so many did not even Big Trev would have a hope in hell of getting that money back for us.

      Delete
  30. Good to see some robust debate on here but I'm a little disappointed to read so much negativity against the Inquiry before its shown its hand. Maybe you should run a poll as to whether many people think its a waste of time?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I begin to see why those behind this great blog may soon they should follow the other great Jersey political blogs in to history. One man venting his spleen against all of those who happen to think the choice he made was wrong.The carnival (as the Seekers sang with I was just a girl) is over. It is too late to whinge now. People did what they thought was right and the bus to do so had left the station (don't know about that train). We must all just hope the committee of inquiry delivers and say thank you regardless to all of those who did give evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Economic Development minister, Senator Lyndon Farnham said he's "never seen corruption in Jersey" and jurisdictions with split speaker and chief judge do have corruption."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did Lyndon exit politics very quickly in 2005? More to the point why did he bother coming back?

      Delete
  33. How did Monty's Dual role proposition finish up today? I couldn't watch Forked Tongue TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is summing up now. Predictions are that his proposition will be defeated.

      Delete
    2. Someone should bring this back every three months as Standing Orders allows I believe?

      Delete
    3. Just how many times can those masquerading as politicians here in Jersey pretend that there isn't a problem? The first time I can recall this move to end the dual role being made was by Shona Pitman. So I guess this must be back around 2005 - 2008? I'm sure that it has been brought since but can't remember by who. Can anyone help me?

      Delete
    4. There is no problem with the Bailiff's dual role. There is no corruption in Jersey either. Lyndan Farnham says so thus it must be true.

      Philip Ozouf was also a great Treasury Minister and Eddie Noel is 6 feet 3 inches tall.

      Delete
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWLJmbytkk

      I believe that Eddie Noel may be 6 feet 3 inches tall but I cant believe the rest!

      Delete
  34. Just caught a bit of the States today where good old Deputy Higgins made a point about The Bailiff going along with the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power....
    To deaf ears of course!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Let's cut to the chase.

    A Committee of Inquiry with any credibility would have subpoenaed Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they couldn't have subpoenaed Stuart Syvret without providing him with unconditional legal representation (as per basic justice and human rights etc.)

      This is what the commission of NON-inquiry was trying to avoid as it wanted Syvret to sign up to it's shady protocols first.

      I believe that the Ex.Health Minister actually wanted to be subpoenaed.


      For many working with this CoI has been like eating dirt:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      The CoI lost the last shreds of it's credibility when it failed to subpoena the Health Minister.

      This witness/whistleblower does not exist LA-LA-LA.....
      That any Jersey people with an IQ of over 70 buy the establishment line still astounds me!

      Delete
    2. As the original poster of the "Let's cut to the chase comment" I completely agree. I'm well aware of the checkmate position the former Health Minister got them into. It's an outrage that he was not subpoenaed.

      If there is any Jersey journalist with a conscience reading this, then your very first question at the press conference when the report is presented should be "Why was former Health Minister Stuart Syvret not subpoenaed to give evidence?" If you can't do that simple thing, just give up. Go and do a different, easier job instead.


      Delete
  36. Deputy Kevin Lewis disagreed with the proposal, saying: "I went to a conference recently in London and I described our parliament and explained how the chair worked. They were fascinated in the way we run our assembly and the biggest thing that struck them was the absence of party politics. One member did say to me the speaker must be truly independent. Their interest in our chair being very different to others was how independent it appears and I would much rather have a true professional than a rank amateur sitting in the chair.

    What a plonker Lewis is makes a fine pair with the other one!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. This is a short extract from the leaked secret debate into the hijack of Jersey's policing function:

      ================

      1.17 Senator S Syvret
      "........... So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force, he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?"


      The Deputy of St John [Andrew Liesis]:
      ".................... when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. 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."


      The Bailiff:
      "Minister, do not go down this road please."

      =======================

      Can anyone come up with an explanation of  why the Bailiff would so desperately cut in to shut Lewis up, without mens rea ["guilty mind", on the part of the Bayleaf]


      NOTE:  ".....this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.."
      With every unhappy anniversary which goes by without wrongs righted the damage gets worse. Every time the states needs to take decisive action it fails.

      I see no conflict of interest
      I see no corruption
      I see no child abuse

      Unbelievable !

      Delete
    2. Reference anonymous@12.13

      So Kevin Lewis doesn't want a rank amateur presiding over the States? This surely begs the question why the hell did he not support the proposition? If William Bailhache, just like his brother and Michael Birt, is anything it is a rank amateur. At least when it comes to understanding and supporting law, justice and democracy. Deputy Lewis you are another to be marked down to oust come 2018. You will have had 13 years by then and done absolutely nothing of benefit to the people of Jersey.

      Delete
  37. The excuses being written for a former HSS Minister of the States who should have given evidence as a Public duty are incredulous.

    We can only imagine the outcry on here had people like Lundy of Bailhache used the same reasons not to give evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We can only imagine the outcry on here had people like Lundy of Bailhache used the same reasons not to give evidence."

      Isn't that what subpoenas at for?

      A real CoI would have subpoenaed The HSS Minister

      Doh !

      Delete
    2. "a former HSS Minister of the States who should have given evidence as a Public duty"

      Agreed.

      Delete
    3. @03:10

      The CoI should have given the former HSS Minister unconditional legal representation.

      If having failed that basic test, they had subpoenaed him they would HAVE to have given the HSS Minister unconditional legal representation.

      that is not what the child abusing establishment wanted

      # £27million sham

      Delete
    4. SS's application and their response is online and he never qualified for legal representation.
      People seem to be missing the point that he was the former minister of HSS and he should have given evidence willingly without any argument. In fact the way he has been going on over the years you would have expected him to go in there all guns blazing.

      Delete
    5. @16:46

      Really?

      Is this because he would not sign up to the establishments dodgy protocols?

      The CoI protocols with these unanswered questions:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      # £27million sham

      Delete
  38. To the reader who is keen to have his/her comment published:

    If (as you say) you gave evidence to the COI (and it was redacted) could you verify this by sending the link to your evidence from the Care Inquiry website?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Does anyone know who the 13 were who voted for an ECHR compliant separation of powers? i don't read the Filthy Rag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is at times like Deputy Tadier's proposal to end the dual role of the Bailiff that you really miss having former Deputy Trevor Pitman in the chamber.

      I can almost hear him tearing the ignorant, corruption endorsing pigmys that make up 95% of our States Assembly today to shreads.

      Now that would have been a speech worthy of live TV screening!

      Delete
  40. Three surprises in that vote: Pallett, Moore and McLinton. Why? Because all three related to Ministries.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Where did the cowardly Chief Minister, the real Chief Minister and the world's most arrogant Constable all disappear to when the vote took place|?

    ReplyDelete
  42. All this talk about subpoenas is futile and worse than ridiculous. The Health Minister of the time should have given his evidence and he must know that. But correct or not the fact is it is all water under the bridge now. Too late to do anything about it. I am one who worries about whether the inquiry team will be strong enough to make their report as damning as the mass of evidence says it should be. But we'll just have to wait and see. All those who did give evidence though deserve a big pat on the back and thank you. Whatever happens they did their best. In my opinion they also did the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All this talk about subpoenas is futile and worse than ridiculous"

      ......only if you are content with a £27 million CoI NOT doing it's duty


      See:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      &

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      Delete
    2. Depends whether he was an important enough witness or whether there were other reasons he was not seen as a reliable witness. Perhaps they will say-so next month.

      Delete
    3. 16.12

      One could easily turn that around and ask why didn't Mr Syvret do his duty and give his evidence regardless of his concerns? He had certainly done his duty courageously enough when he was minister.

      Delete
    4. He has never delivered for some reason when it comes to laying down his evidence. Perhaps he just should have sent in every posting from his blog and left it at that?

      At least those posts would have then had official evidence status. He had posted this stuff so I don't see what his concerns could be about lodging them officially along with saying I am not going to be giving evidence in person.

      As it stands I would imagine everything he put on his blog has no such status. Certainly I have never seen it on the enquiry panel's website.

      Delete
    5. That would have been worse because to send material in and then refuse to be cross examined on it would stink. We are going to have to bury this debate soon, its going nowhere and if Stuart thinks all his time has been worthwhile to end with him not being part of an Inquiry like this then that is up to him.

      Delete
    6. @18:19

      This isn't about Syvret so please get over you r fixation.

      A real CoI would have subpoenaed Syvret and several other missing witnesses

      Delete
  43. Nothing to do with this post. I just wanted to say how great it is to see this brilliant Jersey institution of a blog back in business. You have been missed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. We already know the Island's care system failed young children otherwise there would never have been an Inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we know that for sure. But to be fair knowing this didn't stop States members, Bailiffs, Attorney Generals, civil servants and journalists NOT having an inquiry for half a century. That we finally got one really is down to the likes of Syvret, Hill, the Pitmans, Higgins, Tadier, Wimberley and company. Most of all of course Power and Harper as the first senior police officers to listen and then try to do something about it all. Then we hear disgusting cowards like Senator Farnham standing up to kiss one of the guilty ones behind claiming he has never seen any corruption in Jersey.

      Delete
  45. This is SS's lastest Tweet on the subject -
    "Also conduct of @JerseyInquiry has been stunningly ultra vires & breathtakingly incompetent"
    What benefit are tweets like this to the Survivors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What benefit are [Syvret] tweets like this to the Survivors"

      the benefits may be multifold.

      Survivors and members of the public are informed of basic truths
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      Survivors and members of the public can be assured that the fight to protect future children goes on. The CoI is only a battle not the war.

      Some abusers and shysters who should have been prosecuted still can be.
      (NB The CoI abdicated its responsibilities on the review of non-prosecutions away from the public inquiry)

      WHEN(?) this CoI delivers it's let-the-establishment-off-the-hook half baked report and abdicated responsibilities, Syvret can again say "I told you so!" (probably with considerable sadness
      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      Perhaps with the right will the taxpayer can demand reimbursement and damages of Eversheds (unless they can show a secret contract justifying their behaviour and dropping the establishment right in it?

      Were they incompetent or were they contracted to cover up?
      I suspect the latter. No lawyers are that incompetent!

      Delete
    2. Why didn't any other witness back up Stuart Syvret's claims during the Inquiry?

      Delete
    3. Do you mean by providing evidence that he claimed only he had? Bit difficult I would have thought. As others have pointed out before a few gave hugely detailed statements and yet barely got asked about any of it. That remains my own biggest concern as to whether this report will do what we all hope.

      Delete
    4. I am wondering why not a single witness out of the hundreds involved in this Care Inquiry have made the same claims like Stuart has.

      Claims about the ECHR alone should of at least got some support so why is that?

      Delete
    5. Sorry to butt in to other peoples exchanges but I think problems with our courts, governmenet set up and lack of Uk intervention were highlighted by at least a handful of other people. Sure I read stuff from the Jersey Advocate Sinel. Bob Hill and Trevor Pitman. What about Rico Sorda and Neil McMurray? didn't they highlight stuff? I can't have dreamed all of this surely?

      Delete
    6. I never understood that argument when we get UK Judges flying over and presiding over cases regularly. It is not like Jersey is a closed off unit to the rest of the World.

      Delete
    7. @19:56
      Errrr.... everything is OK because we get "UK Judges flying over"?

      Yes, Judges chosen by the establishment, law offices etc ?

      Perhaps you have not noticed that the UK is also a cesspit of corruption and concealed child abuse.

      Less concentrated a cesspit than the Jersey establishment but a cesspit nonetheless.

      Doh!

      Delete
    8. If the UK is also 'a cesspit of corruption and concealed child abuse' then why the heck do the people mentioned above want UK intervention into Jersey matters?!

      Delete
    9. @08:28, I agree
      The quality of UK intervention (or indeed non intervention) is a valid concern backed up by facts.
      However we DO need to do something. An alternative would be to hang the abusers and the shysters from lampposts (by their b@lls! .....human rights compliance 'apparently' not being an issue locally)

      Both ways forward have their merits.

      Delete
    10. You can see why their requests for intervention have failed then.

      Delete
    11. Yes, because we have an establishment which puts protecting itself WAY above protecting other people's children.

      That is why we are where we are with decades of damaging abuse
      (Abuse described by the Chief of Police as "Stat Sponsored")

      Delete
    12. In reply to:

      "Anonymous 18 November 2016 at 18:58
      Why didn't any other witness back up Stuart Syvret's claims during the Inquiry?"

      I consider the above point to be obvious trolling but I'll take the bait and put you in your box anyway. We must fight your fire with fire.

      The answer to your deliberately trite question is that Stuart Syvret was Health Minister for a number of years during the period under investigation. He was privy to information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive (Mike Pollard) would have been privy to. Anyone else in possession of the same information would likely be breaking the Data Protection Act.

      So, it stands to reason that the inquiry is missing out on a large body of information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive had in their possession.

      I may be wrong, but the last time I checked, former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard had also not given evidence to the Inquiry, either voluntarily or by subpoena. He did leave his job after signing a compromise agreement though (the terms of which any competent inquiry could have overridden).

      When I think of the state of journalism in Jersey, all I need to do is ask myself two questions:

      1) Is is true that former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard did not give evidence to the inquiry?
      2) If so, why have no Jersey journalists asked the above question?


      Delete
    13. Very helpful and to the point comment @10:42

      In my experience this is the point at which determined anti-Syvret commenters have claimed to be an abuse victims. As far as I am aware they have never been prepared to send ID verification of this confidentially to VFC.

      I am not saying that some people who DID give evidence to the CoI cannot be anti-Syvret. Survivors will hold a diversity of opinion just like the rest of us.

      I guess that it is possible for a few survivors to be viciously anti-Syvret because they went through hell to give evidence and are too focused on this CoI being the "be all and end all" (which clearly it is not!)

      Personally I am grateful to ALL survivors and honest witnesses who gave evidence
      I am also grateful to Syvret for refusing to accept a clearly unfit CoI.

      The (unfit)CoI has been useful but because Syvret refused to sign up to their protocols and they failed in their duty to subpoena him the war to protect children is not yet lost.

      Delete
    14. "this CoI being the "be all and end all" (which clearly it is not!)"

      Yes it is.
      What can Stuart Syvret do that's bigger than the Col?
      Absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    15. "Why didn't any other witness back up Stuart Syvret's claims during the Inquiry?"

      I consider the above point to be obvious trolling"

      Trolling?
      I reckon its a dam good question.
      Who has said that they agree with Stuart's views on this Inquiry.
      Why is it only him out of 100's of people involved who makes sweeping claims against the Col without the back up of proper legal opinion? Stuart is not lawyer and remember that much, if not all of what he says online has never been tested in a real court. Big difference.

      Delete
    16. Maybe it IS trolling unless they/you answer adequately with the difficult issues raised in the parts you avoid :

      "The answer to your deliberately trite question is that Stuart Syvret was Health Minister for a number of years during the period under investigation. He was privy to information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive (Mike Pollard) would have been privy to. Anyone else in possession of the same information would likely be breaking the Data Protection Act.

      So, it stands to reason that the inquiry is missing out on a large body of information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive had in their possession.

      I may be wrong, but the last time I checked, former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard had also not given evidence to the Inquiry, either voluntarily or by subpoena. He did leave his job after signing a compromise agreement though (the terms of which any competent inquiry could have overridden)."

      Delete
  46. All this talk of SS not giving evidence in Jersey his case is supported by what's going on at the UK child enquiry with support bodies, lawyers etc all leaving as no confidence in that enquiry so sounds very similar the stand SS has made here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with this comment.

      The UK inquiry is falling apart, in large part due to the actions and opinions of lawyers (vermin). Had it been led by Professor Alexis Jay from the outset, and not allowed to become a disgusting lawyer-fest, then its chances of success would have been greater.

      I was hugely supportive of both the UK and Jersey inquiries at the outset of both but over time have become increasingly alarmed at the conduct of both inquiries and therefore do not hold out much hope of either report being as damning as it could have been.

      To hold up the UK inquiry and UK judges as some sort of exemplar though is utter folly. These things are run by people and people are - quite evidently - fallible.

      Delete
  47. If everybody found excuses not to give evidence then it would be chaos.
    I am yet to find anybody who agrees with Stuart not giving evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really?
      Perhaps you have not read all the comments on this and other blogs?

      What is your excuse?

      Delete
    2. Nobody I know involved in the COI has said they agreed with SS not giving evidence and if there are any then they are yet to put their names to it.
      A number of survivors are furious about it and feel let down by him and can you blame them?
      This Inquiry was a long time coming and the last thing many expected was SS avoiding it.
      Think somebody said they thought he'd be down there 'all guns blazing', his years of blogging a build up looked that way.

      Delete
  48. This discussion, whilst interesting, is going around in circles.
    Stuart Syvret did not give evidence and is not part of the Col.
    That is the position, it cannot be changed, so it is time to draw a line and discuss other parts of the Col.
    Does anybody know whether the Report is due before or after Xmas? If its before then it could be buried by Xmas.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Always worth double highlighting the top comments which induce a "troll fest" (or is it an !I'm not a troll fest"? LOL)

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1479552137823#c7873465213718528273

    Enjoy:


    "In reply to:
    Anonymous 18 November 2016 at 18:58
    Why didn't any other witness back up Stuart Syvret's claims during the Inquiry?"

    I consider the above point to be obvious trolling but I'll take the bait and put you in your box anyway. We must fight your fire with fire.

    The answer to your deliberately trite question is that Stuart Syvret was Health Minister for a number of years during the period under investigation. He was privy to information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive (Mike Pollard) would have been privy to. Anyone else in possession of the same information would likely be breaking the Data Protection Act.

    So, it stands to reason that the inquiry is missing out on a large body of information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive had in their possession.

    I may be wrong, but the last time I checked, former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard had also not given evidence to the Inquiry, either voluntarily or by subpoena. He did leave his job after signing a compromise agreement though (the terms of which any competent inquiry could have overridden).

    When I think of the state of journalism in Jersey, all I need to do is ask myself two questions:

    1) Is is true that former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard did not give evidence to the inquiry?
    2) If so, why have no Jersey journalists asked the above question?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was Mike Pollard called?
      Am I right is assuming that Stuart Syvret was only called after his name kept on coming up from other witness statements?
      My other thoughts are, how can any HSS Minister hold onto confidential data that was not already in the hands of the Police?

      Delete
    2. Q.] "Am I right is assuming that Stuart Syvret was only called after his name kept on coming up from other witness statements?"

      A.] No, I understand that Stuart Syvret was never "called" because he cannot be "called" before a REAL CoI without legal representation. Syvret dared them to subpoena him and the CoI failed in it's basic duty.

      # £27million fake

      Also you may not have noticed that the Policing function in Jersey was hijacked with the unlawful and utterly bizarre suspension of the Chief of Police by Andrew Liar.

      Delete
    3. Why did he need legal representation?
      People have touched on that he was in Public office so had a duty to give evidence, so why did he see himself as a special case?

      Delete
    4. I don't think that Syvret is a special case.

      A real CoI would not refuse legal representation to anyone who refused to sign up to their dodgy protocols:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      The CoI then pretended that this Health Minister and whistle blower did not exist and failed to subpoena him. No amount of trite hand wringing, personal atacks and "wouldn't you have thought" will change that fact.

      # £27million fake

      Other witnesses chose that they would rather sign the protocols and/or give evidence. Both they and he have a right to make their own decision.

      I am grateful to ALL survivors and honest witnesses who gave evidence
      I am also grateful to Syvret for refusing to accept a clearly unfit CoI.
      A Commission of Non-Inquiry that I predict will fail to report the truth and the whole truth.

      Delete
    5. Every time you answer a question you always attack the Col.
      Its like the Col is some kind of cesspit.
      Unfortunately for you over 200 witnesses did not see the Col as unfit for purpose and that compared to 1 person who did speaks for itself.

      Delete
    6. LOL @14:49
      and what was the experience of the CoI by other people who DID give evidence???

      ....like Trevor Pitman?
      ....like poor old Bob Hill, who suffered a devastating stroke shortly after (stress related?)
      ...............?

      # still a £27million fake



      btw VFC, how is uncle Bob?

      Delete
    7. Bob Hill did not suffer a stroke because of the Col and shame on you for even suggesting it.

      Delete
    8. To any thinking human being, the irrefutable fact that "speaks for itself" is that the CoI did not subpoena the then Health Minister and whistle blower!

      Delete
    9. "Bob Hill did not suffer a stroke because of the Col"

      That is your opinion but how could you possibly know?

      There is ample evidence that strokes are highly stress related. Odds are that stress was a factor. Shame on you for passing your opinion as fact (again?)

      Delete
    10. I know a bit more about this case and the Col is not being blamed.

      Delete

    11. @16:08

      1) Bob is not a "case", he is a human being

      2) what? you won't say what you know or how you "know" it?

      2) Which parts of "factor" and "stress related" don't you understand?


      P.S the CoI still looks like  a "£27million fake"

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      Great comment here BTW:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1479552137823#c7873465213718528273

      far less dull than "Mr I'm not trolling"

      Delete
    12. The only trolling is being done by you.
      I'd like to know whether the JCLA agree with any of these smears against the Col because after all its about the survivors.

      Delete
    13. @16:51
      Here is another comment from earlier which is not boring:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1479042197306#c8885624293824215609

      "I still fear that the COI report will be a damp squib even if not a complete whitewash. How can they really confirm what we all  know - things like a police chief being screwed to stop him exposing corruption, Bailiffs allowing people who cover up abuse to sit as jurats, AGs disregarding evidence according to who it is without making it impossible for the British government not to finally act? I just can't see it."

      Delete
  50. @16:51
    Here is another comment from earlier which is not boring:
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1478997433119#c6779488041172901600

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

    "VFC, thank you for painstakingly maintaining this historical record.

    On the 10th anniversary in 2018 I suggest, in all seriousness, that you formally write to the Jersey Archive, offering to donate all of your work on this important historical subject to them. It'll be interesting to see how the Jersey Way kicks in there. Tell them your retention policy is only 10 years and that it is important, for future historians, that your work since 2008 should be catalogued by the official Jersey Archive.

    With regard to the report by the Committee of Inquiry, this is what I predict will happen. The inquiry will officially label at least one person as an "unreliable witness". It certainly won't be Graham Power or Lenny Harper.

    My second prediction is that the person deemed an unreliable witness will just put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening" and try to carry on as normal. We'll see the true Jersey Way in action, it'll be a masterclass in the Jersey Way.

    Trouble is, islanders will always, always, always know him as the unreliable witness.

    That's my prediction, anyway. "

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

    far less dull than "Mr I'm not trolling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S.
      I have a friend, "Mystic Meg" who can go into a great deal more detail with her predictions of the contents of the CoI's report than the impressive commenter above :-)

      Delete
    2. As the original "impressive commenter" above (thank you, by the way) I'm a bit lost as to whether you agree or not with my prediction? Sorry, these multi-threaded discussions can be hard to follow at times!

      Delete
    3. @18:22
      Yes I agree
      (thank you, by the way)

      Delete
  51. I am not answering anymore of this nonsense.
    I will await the final report and bear in mind only the brave took part in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:29
      No, please don't go -We make a great team!


      BTW Here is another comment from earlier which is not nonsense:

      "I still fear that the COI report will be a damp squib even if not a complete whitewash. How can they really confirm what we all  know - things like a police chief being screwed to stop him exposing corruption, Bailiffs allowing people who cover up abuse to sit as jurats, AGs disregarding evidence according to who it is [..............] without making it impossible for the British government ..to finally act? I just can't see it."

      Oh, shucks, I already did that one.
      How about this one:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1479132344194#c6565297414069734116

      "Worrying that the inquiry report may end up a damp squib is merely being honest and an entirely plausible concern. Anyone who doubts that need only consider the treatment of Lenny Harper, Trevor Pitman and even to an extent Bob Hill when they gave very detailed evidence. Or at least tried to. I would suggest that the up-down-up-down-up-down farce with the LOD trying to block Pitman's written statement could suggest nothing other than a fear that the inquiry report may not be all that we hope it will be."

      Delete
  52. Buried deep in threads earlier today on this blog post, there are two important questions:

    1) Is it true that former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard did not give evidence to the inquiry?
    2) If so, why have no Jersey journalists asked the above question?"

    Stuart Syvret might not have given evidence. But neither did Mike Pollard, as least as far as I can tell anyway. I may be wrong about this. Happy to be pointed towards Mike Pollard's evidence, if it exists. Anyone got a link?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 wrongs never make a right.

      Delete
    2. The full comment was:

      "In reply to:
      Anonymous 18 November 2016 at 18:58
      Why didn't any other witness back up Stuart Syvret's claims during the Inquiry?"

      I consider the above point to be obvious trolling but I'll take the bait and put you in your box anyway. We must fight your fire with fire.

      The answer to your deliberately trite question is that Stuart Syvret was Health Minister for a number of years during the period under investigation. He was privy to information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive (Mike Pollard) would have been privy to. Anyone else in possession of the same information would likely be breaking the Data Protection Act.

      So, it stands to reason that the inquiry is missing out on a large body of information that only the then Health Minister and the then Chief Executive had in their possession.

      I may be wrong, but the last time I checked, former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard had also not given evidence to the Inquiry, either voluntarily or by subpoena. He did leave his job after signing a compromise agreement though (the terms of which any competent inquiry could have overridden).

      When I think of the state of journalism in Jersey, all I need to do is ask myself two questions:

      1) Is is true that former Health Chief Executive Mike Pollard did not give evidence to the inquiry?
      2) If so, why have no Jersey journalists asked the above question?"

      Delete
  53. Sorry for side tracking the subject for a moment.
    But has anybody else noticed how Facebook, the JEP website and even here the debates are better balanced. Less confrontational and a little more relaxed since they changed the Telecommunications Laws?
    Mature debate is a good thing without people firing off on one, so maybe the changes are for the better...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kind of.
      FB has more people blocking each other.

      Delete
  54. After reading all the comments about the CoI above, there are a few facts that are disturbing to the average mind wanting the truth.

    I am no expert, but is it not a strange way to set up an enquiry.

    Fact:

    1) Two senior civil servants who's departments were under investigation were placed in a position where ( due to their civil service experience ) they were be able to provide documents requested by witnesses. The reality is that Francis Oldham QC placed on record that documents her discontent with the fact that requested documents were late, or completely missing.

    2) Legal council was available to every civil servant called as a witness but the CoI were selective and refused council for an ex health Minister who told the States when in office, that there were serious problems regarding the Governments care of children.

    3) Unlike heavy weight enquiries the TOR's decided by the CoI would be in an advisory capacity. In other words unlike a court the witness could blatently lie and this would result at worst as being published in a final report but they were free to say whatever they wished without serious cross examination, just questions by the panels legal team.

    4) A social services manager ( we all know his name, he who played golf with the Bailiff ) used his real name, and then appeared again but under a alias name. If you have done nothing wrong why the different names, why the disguise ?

    5) The questioning by council for the CoI was occasional described as excellent and other times when witnesses were free thinking heavyweights ( including Trevor Pitman ) the questioning was mostly about trivial matters. This does not inspire confidence ?

    6) Missing witnesses including the Queens Govenor sits in the states to make sure her subjects are treated well, Mike Pollard he of the guitar and failed hospital and Social services management, or the Attorney General heavily involved in attaching a lawyer to Graham Powers and his and others efforts to uncover truth in the Haut de le Garrenne enquiry and the AG also refused to prosecute people that Mr Harper thinks should have had their day in court.

    7) The setting up of the ToRs by the panel was a very flexible and important issue they could have set the rules almost any way they wish. It appears that according to Syvret they not only worked outside of known and respected principles, but also made it a tea party type enquiry, can we ask you a question please and here is a lawyer to guard your answer rather thatn a judicial follow the truth under perjury ( a very serious jailable offence). Why would they do that ?

    I am still trying to keep an open mind, and massive respect to all those caring people who gave submissions, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ……….

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) - Hadn't the documents needed DP clearance before release, can't remember?
      2) - The Col have given a written reason online as to why Mr Syvret was refused.
      3) - This never was a court, if it were a court then people may have clammed up.
      4) - If its allowed to happen then they are the rules.
      5) - The questioning had to follow their TORs and not waste time on unrelated / unconnected issues. You know how much they were charging an hour.
      6) - They have to have a reason to question people so presumably they had no reasons.
      7) - Mr Syvret is not a Lawyer but a member of the public and none of his legal views have been tested in a proper court anyway. If he says the Col breaks the ECHR without taking the issue up with the ECHR then its a weightless statement. I could say it, you can say it, but neither us are lawyers either.

      Delete
    2. Oh do stop this tedious, diversionary nonsense. Many commentators on this blog will always have a response to it and we ain't going away anytime soon. I know you only do it for sport (although one can't rule out other motives) but you need to be tackled all the same:

      "1) - Hadn't the documents needed DP clearance before release, can't remember?"
      It remains an outrage that two senior civil servants of one of the departments under investigation were given a role of obtaining evidence for the inquiry. It is in the "you couldn't make it up" territory. Instead of polluting the thread with "can't remember" why don't you go and research what the actual facts are?

      "2) - The Col have given a written reason online as to why Mr Syvret was refused."
      Doesn't make it right. Incorrect legal and quasi-legal decisions get overturned all the time, provided one has adequate representation.

      "3) - This never was a court, if it were a court then people may have clammed up."
      No, but witnesses did swear an oath and were therefore compelled to tell the truth on pain of perjury.

      "4) - If its allowed to happen then they are the rules."
      And you think that's OK do you? I find it appalling. It's my right to be appalled by it.

      "5) - The questioning had to follow their TORs and not waste time on unrelated / unconnected issues. You know how much they were charging an hour."
      Diversionary tactic...use a chummy statement about how much lawyers earn to try to find common ground with your opponents. Try harder next time.

      "6) - They have to have a reason to question people so presumably they had no reasons."
      Mike Pollard was the Chief Executive of one of the departments under investigation for many years. His name was mentioned by multiple witnesses in their testimony. Why on earth would the inquiry not want to talk to him? Oh, they "had no reasons" did they? Your argument is pitiful.

      "7) - Mr Syvret is not a Lawyer but a member of the public and none of his legal views have been tested in a proper court anyway. If he says the Col breaks the ECHR without taking the issue up with the ECHR then its a weightless statement. I could say it, you can say it, but neither us are lawyers either."
      As you no doubt know, but choose to ignore, his view is that he requires proper legal representation to make the appropriate challenges.

      I await your next diversionary post with a grim sense of foreboding. Nevertheless, I will bat it straight back at you. Those of us who deal in facts and the truth will just keep quoting facts and the truth at you. We've been here 8 years. We're not going away.

      Delete
    3. You are quite right @21:42 This is £27million well spent on NOT finding the truth and on NOT making children and the vulnerable safe in Jersey. PMSL

      How much are you charging per hour BTW?


      Here is another comment from earlier which is not desperately trying desperately to divert any focus away from the justice, morality and the effective protection of children:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/11/unhappy-anniversary-8.html?showComment=1479155220646#c7106315302131607814

      "That is rather odd because when asked they told me simply that it was because firstly,there was argument going on regarding the Crown Officers wanting some evidence removed. Secondly, because they were not asking many witnesses about every issue if it was felt they had put in a highly detailed statement. Ex Deputy Pitman's written statement certainly could be said to fit in to that criteria. It was both huge and very detailed. What troubled me was the excuse generally. Graham Power was also not asked about hugely important issues he had flagged up. Ducking out of asking questions in the public sessions effectively meant that so much damning material consequently never got reported by the State media. Lenny Harper had evidently learned from what happened to Power and Pitman because he really forced the dialogue no doubting knowing what would happen otherwise. What I might add I find a little strange about your comment is that anyone reading the Pitman evidence will see straight away that apart from the largely irrelevant material about working for education which the inquiry devoted nearly all of their time to just about everything was hugely relevant and backed up as to how the Jersey Way corruption works. Probably why our Bailiff(s), Attorney General and chums found it so worrying."

      Delete
    4. P.S. I look forward to recycling the comment @02:23

      .....so good I might say it 5 times!

      (thanks BTW, I know how time consuming it can be properly answering this deliberately diversionary nonsense)

      Delete
  55. Good points Boatyboy. Nevertheless points that us with average minds have already observed. Also bearing in average mind, those with so called superior minds and getting paid millions of £s of our tax payers money, for a just result. Are being watched. With intense interest!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Is it about time some people accepted that Stuart Syvret is not part of this Inquiry and moved on?
    We are where we are and nothing can be done about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, everything can be done about it.

      For example, every time you say "Stuart Syvret is not part of this Inquiry" we can fire back with "nor was Mike Pollard. Why is that?"

      Delete
  57. Can someone clarify this most important point.

    Will the final report be tabled without any preview by "interested" parties who might like a quiet read while on a plane trip for instance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope this will clarify, taken from the COI website:

      "Mrs Oldham responded to a suggestion from a number of parties that there would be benefit in engaging again with the Panel before the report is finalised and in particular that there should be "early dialogue" with the Panel to ensure "realistic and achievable" recommendations.
      “The Panel recognise that those parties are motivated by a desire to assist the Inquiry. However, all parties have in fact had the opportunity to engage with the Panel and make recommendations when giving evidence, taking part in public consultations and when making closing submissions. Public sessions have been held with key stake-holders, members of the public, managers and senior politicians.

      “The Panel has decided therefore, that any further engagement would be inappropriate prior to publication of the report. We will therefore adhere to what we set out in our protocols at the outset of the Inquiry with regard to the arrangements for the publication of the report.”

      She said the Panel also considered that a "Maxwellisation" process in which parties are given notice of potential criticisms before publication and invited to respond was unnecessary. Criticisms had been put to the parties and they had had the opportunity to address those criticisms during the course of the hearings."

      Delete
    2. As far as I could see from looking at the COI website most of the establishment interested parties just used their second statements and final comments to chuck mud at the big hitters who had exposed the crooked nature of status quo Jersey.

      A perfect example of this was one ex copper of dubious credibility now working for our financial services quango who constructed a truly appalling and I would suggest clearly farbricated attempt to attack the former Deputy Trevor Pitman's evidence.

      I don't know either man in person but if the old saying that a man shall be known by his works is true than I know which one I believe. And has never worn a uniform or a helmet! Or if you are still confused he is known for his distinctive shaven bonce.

      Delete
  58. Realistically Graham Power could have gone the same way as the "ex copper of dubious credibility now working for our financial services quango", and would have been looked after for life (well may if he's very lucky). But Graham Power didn't because he is one of the few good guys

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't change my M story in court honest, guv!21 November 2016 at 13:31

      Found the attack mentioned above and it is so appalling and clearly put together to try and undermine the Deputy's evidence I am even surprised this far from whiter than white COI panel allowed it. Any person taken a detached view would ask one question reading this ex-policeman's second statement. If you felt so strongly about this and for such a long time why did you not write it all in your first statement? The answer seems starkly clear. It must be because the former plod was asked to do a number by the Law officers department?

      Delete
    2. Can we have a link to this please ( for those who know little about the history).

      Delete
    3. The very fact that second witness statements were allowed by the States' side making claims they had never made originally is one undeniable black mark against the COI. As the above poster highlights why wouldn't a person say something in his or her first statement if it was true or of significant importance?

      Another question troubled me too and maybe one of your readers can enlighten me? That is were all individuals attacked in second statements allowed by the COI to respond against the newly invented claims/accusations as they surely should have? if they were not then you have to say that some of Stuart Syvret's concerns become more difficult to refute.

      Delete
    4. This is intriguing if not a little confusing to those of us who aren't experts on the Jersey situation. All I would really like someone to explain to me is why were second statements for people ever introduced? Does this happen in inquiries on the mainland?

      Delete
    5. Can you tell us if when the COI's report is published it will be presented in public i.e. where any of us plebs can go and watch? Or will it be just for the Great and the Good?

      Delete
  59. I don't have all of the answers to the points made above. But I do think it is revealing to consider how credible this type of second stab at a statement would be seen in a court. (A proper court obviously not one of our Bailiff and jurats kangaroo jobs)

    Mrs X makes a statement resulting in Mr Z being taken to court. Mrs X has accused Z of breaking in to her house and stealing a diamond necklace. No other allegedly stolen items are mentioned.

    Mr Z then refutes Mrs X's allegations stressing that he has never once been inside Mrs X's home.

    Upon seeing Mr Z's statement Mrs X then makes another statement, her second, now claiming that it had really troubled her for a long time, and she really meant to mention it before but, Mr Z (she claims) also broke in to her shed at the bottom of her garden and stole her lawnmower which the Bailiff had given her as a birthday present.

    Okay, so I am being flippant with the bit about the Bailiff but you surely get my drift. Such a process of adding on claims would be farcical and could in theory just go on and on forever.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You would think a date for the release of the COI final report would have been indicated by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not be at all ssurprised if the report did not come out this year at all. If you consider the UK these things often drag on for years longer than expected. Look at the Chilcott Report to give an extreme example. There must be a chance that this will all be delayed until Barking Bill and friends have retired?

      Delete
  61. What a surprise.
    Not out till March 2017.
    http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2016-11-22/jerseys-historical-child-abuse-inquiry-findings-delayed/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoops! Better check the COI website. Trevor Pitman's evidence must be about to disappear again courtesy of the Bailiff Gang!

      Delete
  62. It would seem that the Police, Politicians & Civil Servants Lawyers & Law Office are to see/vet the COIs final report first. Hence the delay. Thought a "Maxwellisation" process had been agreed!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, there was supposed to be no Maxwellisation.

      I await the CoI's publication of the reason for the delay with anticipation. Maybe it is just a case of more work than originally expected?

      Delete
    2. Sorry: "a Maxwellisation process was concidered unnecessary". Rather than had been agreed

      Delete
  63. Hope to have a Blog posted tomorrow concerning this latest turn of events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely not true that LOD being allowed to look at it all first?

      Delete
    2. Looking at it?
      They will be amending and redacting it.

      Delete
  64. So they didn't like the first draft so have told the Col to re-do it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. As a London trained barister currently doing a little work in Saudi Arabia I often unwind by checking out events back in the UK and its colonies. Doing so tonight I was utterly shocked to read this latest news about the delay of the Jersey Care Inquiry report. I will be watching with interest to glean what your former Health Minister Senator Syvret has to say on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  66. From the CoI website:

    "22 November 2016

    The Panel Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is progressing with the drafting of its report into the abuse of children in Jersey's care system over many years. It confirms that the report will be published during the first quarter of 2017 and not at the end of 2016 as previously published. Further information in respect of the publication will be provided in the New Year."

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/news?newsid=198

    ReplyDelete
  67. I wasn't expecting the COI to publish their report this year. There is a huge body of work to shift through. It was our Chief Minister who asked them to deliver before the end of 2016. I don't have any worries personally. Im pleased its not coming out just before Christmas.

    Get it done once. Get it done properly.

    Rico

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Behind you 100% on this Rico. The time scale between the end of the Inquiry and producing a Report fit for purpose was just not 'do-able'. As I have said elsewhere, better a thorough report delivered a bit late rather than one that has had to be rushed.

      Gorst must realise that the Panel faced a mammoth task here, probably far more than they realised, and I am content with this development as well.

      I hope, and am pretty certain, that the survivors who waited so very long for this Inquiry will accept this as (hopefully) a positive.

      Delete
    2. Good to hear the survivors are optimistic about this report in the face of a couple of infamous people, who have done nothing but pour scorn on it over the past few Months.

      Delete
    3. @09:15"a couple of infamous people"

      Who are these "infamous people"?

      VFC and Trevor Pitman presumably:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-witness.html

      We wait for the final report with some hope but with great trepidation.

      Commenter 19 November 2016 at 20:37 "Boatyboy" summed it up well

      ...."if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ………."

      There is every sign that the CoI is a lame duck.
      It is essential that vulnerable people have realistic expectations as to what it is likely to deliver.

      A golden egg or a lead balloon?
      (packed with £27m of hand wringing)

      Delete

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