Monday, 5 June 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Panel will stay tight lipped.





The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (IJCI) has sent the below e-mail to the mainstream media and, we believe, Interested Parties, which has got to be its most outrageous, and alarming, statement thus far.

It explains that the report will be published on its website (apparently no hard copies). It will not be answering any questions from the media (or Bloggers). It seems to be saying that cameras won't even be allowed at the Press/public statement (where no questions are allowed). It states: "A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event."(END)

It's difficult to know how much of the Panel's blunder after blunder in its Press Releases are down to outright incompetence or is there a more sinister motive behind this?

How can it be with such a high profile review/investigation/report that the media are going to be so shut out and the panel can be so tight-lipped? 

 


Statement/e-mail from Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry

The IJCI Panel on Monday (5 June) issued further details about the publication of its report on July 3 2017. The public launch will take place at St Paul’s Centre, Dumaresq St, St Helier.

Interested Parties will be given access to the final report two hours before its publication. This is in line with paragraph 19.6 of the Inquiry Protocols: General Procedures.Interested Parties and their legal representatives are invited to attend St Paul’s Centre at 1300 to consider the report. They will not be allowed to speak to anyone else, including the media, at this time.

At 1500, St Paul’s will be open to the public and the media. There will be a statement from IJCI Chair, Frances Oldham QC. The Panel will not be taking any questions or giving interviews. A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event.

The report will be published on the Inquiry website at 1500 on July 3 2017.(END)

It's absolutely bonkers that the media (and Bloggers) will not have a copy of the report before the Panel Chairman Francis Oldham QC delivers her statement. Then again it would be pointless having a copy because questions are not allowed in what must be an unprecedented move.

This latest move by the Inquiry Panel does not inspire confidence. This is/was the biggest Child Abuse Investigation/Inquiry in Jersey's history. As Victims/Survivors and Campaigners will be only too aware silence is the paedophiles biggest ally. Now the Chairman of this panel wants to remain silent? 

Team Voice is reserving its judgement on the Panel's work until we have read the report. We are not impressed with its (or lack of) media presence during the time it has been running up to this date.

123 comments:

  1. I told you so.

    But the 3rd July is the beginning, not the end.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dream on. After July 3rd it is over. The Bailiff Gang will have survived again.

      Delete
    2. "The Bailiff Gang will have survived again."

      Only if we let them.

      I think the answer is to find a form of protest or direct action which hits them where it hurts or makes the media spotlight unbearable.

      We owe this to the children of the past and the children of the future.

      Delete
    3. Beginning of what? We will never get 400 witnesses to partake in an Inquiry again.

      Delete
    4. Did the "400 witnesses" include Mike Pollard ?

      Seriously, does the '400 witnesses -2 line repeater'
      ....expect the Health Minister who publicly blew the whistle
      ....a decade ago
      ....on the unfitness of Jersey Children's Services

      ....for which he was sacked
      ....for supposedly 'bullying hard working staff'

      Expect to be informed of the ways forward before the report is even out???

      Delete
    5. Thought it was the Police who commenced an investigation into historic child abuse and they let the HSS Minister know sometime after?

      Delete
    6. Instead of writing snide tweets against the COI Stuart should tell us exactly what he plans to start next with a time frame.

      Delete

    7. Look at the 2 liners flow!

      @13:42 are you ignorant or just wilfully disingenuous???
      The police (now deposed and replaced by a pooch on a leash) AND health minister Syvret BOTH started investigating the concealed abuse INDEPENDENTLY of each other. Mr Syvret was also investigating abuse that was current and ongoing.

      @13:47 "Instead of writing snide tweets against the COI Stuart should tell us exactly what he plans to start next with a time frame"
      ......which part of
      "Seriously, does the '400 witnesses -2 line repeater'....expect to be informed of the ways forward before the report is even out"
      did you not understand???

      PMSL

      Let's talk some more about Mike Pollard and his investigation into Stuart Syvret's "bullying".

      Delete
    8. ***Instead of writing snide tweets against the COI Stuart should tell us exactly what he plans to start next with a time frame.***

      Good question, it is time he told us what he has planned if he is serious.

      Delete
    9. anon- 6th June - 13:42
      The police were holding a covert investigation which was not made public till later.
      At the same time, victims were going to Stuart to offload.
      Stuart took his information to the police who replied "yes, we're onto the same thing."
      Hope that helps you.

      Delete
    10. I have more than a basic knowledge of what went on within the Police and Syvret was informed over a year after initial inquiries started. I hope that helps.

      Delete
    11. If you have 'more than a basic knowledge', then you already knew the police and Syvret were both investigating abuses separately, each without the knowledge of the other. The difference is that some victims asked Syvret to meet him privately as they trusted him and not the police. With the arrival of Gradwell and Warcup, their fears were founded. For someone who has 'more that a basic knowledge of what went on within the Police', why put a question mark at the end of your comment on 6th June at 13.42, it shows your intention was to muddy the water.

      Delete
  2. Staurt did just as did Trevor Pitman despite giving his evidence to the chairman's panel.

    This screams of being got at and cover up. The blacked out witness statements now make so much sense.

    Stuart decided against giving his evidence while Trevor did. But they both told us so. Why did we dare hope otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What type of commission doesn't take questions from even the media? Outrageous, truly outrageous. Someone in the States should demand that hard copies are made available. Think about it. Some of those getting copies (presumably hard ones?) will be those who have been largely responsible. The indifferent states departments, judiciary and even accussed abusers! WTF!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Disgusting. Barely believable. The Jersey Way rolls on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. £23.000.000 for what exactly? As somebody says some of our few remaining decent States Members must demand a change of position.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Three million for the review. Twenty million to play along, go through the motions and keep quiet?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You can likewise be sure that Intgrity Lewis' cementing of the Cuntstables remaining in the States forever tomorrow will also be passed. We are the most effective dictatorship in history. Effective opposition in past few years almost zero. Time to turn the lights off and go down with the Titanic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Take the money and run?

    It sounds like they do not expect their report to be well received by those who matter and do not feel themselves capable of defending it.

    This would simply seem to be setting the seal on their ongoing incompetence.

    Is Frances Oldham nearing retirement?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The treatemnt of Harper, Pitman and Bob Hill all makes sense now doesn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Add Graham Power, and a lot of other witnesses, to that. My God, witnesses like Graham Power should have been questioned for a couple of weeks. (As should the other key witnesses, and moreover, been given the opportunity to be questioned by their own legal representatives, as is the long established norm in British public inquiries.)

      And whilst I think of this subject, just think of how the rights of the core witnesses like the so many child-abuse victims have also been denied and abused by the COI failing to subpoena key witnesses whose testimony was relevant to those survivors.

      The child abuse victims have been failed by the COI in not questioning witnesses who may have been culpable in the cover ups. And failing to question witnesses who were key in the exposure and whistle-blowing like Stuart Syvret.

      Surely there'll be a few members of your parliament even in your tax exile gangsters' paradise who won't tolerate this?

      Delete
    2. In reply to 21.14
      I'd like to think there are a few members of the States ( of Jersey -parliament) who won't tolerate this. ......... BUT.
      Bottom line, there is only Mike Higgins. Mezec doesn't talk COI much, Tadier will do what he can, Southern has very good (bad) reasons to stay quiet on this.... And that's it.
      That is it. The sum of the 'good' guys = Mike Higgins + Monty on a good day.

      Terry Mc.Donald? Oh come on. Why’s he so quiet? He's being got at and I suspect we will find Terry behind the Boschet compensation plan. Who else is there? The DJ's.....No Despite their trendy careers they’re as right wing as it comes. Simon Crowcroft?......hardly.

      Progressive politics in Jersey has taken a vey serious nose dive in recent years. What I find interesting about this group of key progressives is the cause of their departure.

      Syvret - a very strong progressive who gained the highest number of votes in elections... Gone. And who was responsible for that? ......The States.
      Trevor and Shona Pitman- a good, progressive couple. Where are they? - Gone. Why? The States.
      Bob Hill- Gone. Ousted from his seat by 2 establishment parish families.
      Daniel Wimberley- gone. Why? I suspect he jumped before being pushed.
      What about Kinnard? Good question. She stood on a progressive Senatorial platform, was held in high esteem and then............hmmmm, gone.

      The progressive politicians were, in 2007/2008, undoubtedly more prominent in the States then than they are now. Most have left in strange circumstances. New progressives haven’t filled the void probably because people like Mark Forskitt have calculated their futures prospects. How helpful for the States that these strong voices of the past are not States Members on 3rd July 2017. I think we should sue the States of Jersey for playing dirty tricks on our progressive politicians. No doubt the A-G will turn the case down, and so the democratic facade carries on.

      Delete
    3. I too wished we had these good people back in the States right now never mind come July 3rd. Perhaps the even sadder aspect is that none are likely to be putting themselves up for election in just under a year's time. I would particularly like to see Trevor Pitman stand if I am honest. He had the rare ability to explode a swept under the carpet scandal in to a confrontation in one two minute speech. This just doesn't seem to happen these days. This barring someone for nine years even after their bankruptcy (decidely dodgy in the Pitmans case as we know) has been discharged as Jersey alone in the world does is a scandal in itself. Undoubtedly illegal in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights that this is still in place demonstrates what a Rogue State Jersey really is. Mike Higgins is a truly first class politician as you say and on a good day Monty Tadier is up there with the best of them. But for me Stuart Syvret, the Pitmans, Bob Hill and Daniel Wimberley were a different class when it came to consistently walking the walk even though they were all very different people. They always stood up for what was right. But the reality I fear is that though many people are now heartily sick of Gorst, Bailhache, MacLean and co there will be no one of real stature to catch the imagination and provide an alternative. The song, as Led Zepplin sang, in my mispent youth will remain the same.

      Delete
  10. I have heard from usually well-informed sources that the chair of the the Jersey child abuse public inquiry discovered, part way through her task, that the lawyers were being paid a lot more than her. So her response to this was to demand a correspondingly higher fee.

    If that is correct, then your public inquiry has just crashed and burned.

    The chair will be lucky to avoid criminal prosecution.

    Or would be lucky to avoid prosecution, in any law abiding polity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be a little bit wary - it could be misinformation designed to discredit the Inquiry. Yes I know, they discredit themselves mightily. But, it is still possible that some souls out there are getting as many blows in as they can to limit any possible damage coming their way.

      This won't stop me however potentially damaging the Inquiry by challenging them yet again about their appalling website.

      Delete
  11. I get the impression that if it weren’t for section 19.6 of the General Procedures protocol – which more or less obliges the Inquiry to organise some kind of event at which the report can be previewed to the Interested Parties – the report most likely wouldn’t be launched in Jersey at all.

    Given that the panel has previously reiterated that IPs will not get prior access to the report on the terms they were demanding (several days or weeks, if I recall correctly), it looks as though this two-hour closed session is being organised on a “minimally-correct” basis. It gives the IPs privileged “access” for the two hours conceded in the protocol, but it’s timed to coincide with most self-respecting lawyers’ lunch break. And it might offer nothing more than arm’s length visual sight of a single bound copy that must not be disturbed for dust-conservation purposes, let alone read – or, heaven forbid! photographed – while being watched over by the Panel or their team. Without re-building a lot of the IT paraphernalia used during the Inquiry’s hearings (Magnum, etc.), it would be difficult to give the IPs electronic access to the report without a significant risk of “leaks” to the press – or elsewhere.

    Something else we don’t know (yet…) is how long this report is. I’ll guess, from what I’ve seen elsewhere, that this one might run to several tens of thousands of pages. No one could possibly read it and make anything other than a superficial, pre-judgmental assessment of its content in a mere two hours. Two weeks might perhaps be nearer the mark for someone intending to form a reasoned opinion on the report’s value to the good people of Jersey. Two years or more will be needed for any analysis directed towards achieving significant social, administrative, legal or constitutional reform. The report will no doubt have an “executive summary” – but that, too, is likely to be of substantial length – easily enough to over-fill a two-hour reading session on 3rd July.

    Given that the Inquiry has given itself no alternative but to organise a two-hour “in person” event, the restrictions surrounding it seem designed not primarily to pre-inform the IPs, but rather to enable the Inquiry to keep tabs on what those IPs do and say during the allotted two-hour period. I’ll not criticise the Inquiry for that.

    Today’s info tells us Frances Oldham will be making a public statement in the open session starting at 15:00. And I suspect that if the Panel will not be taking questions from anyone, it’s because they’ve already booked flights to a place of safety, leaving from Jersey at 15:30 at the latest.

    With all that in mind, I would echo VFC’s penultimate sentence in the post at the head of this thread. I, too, will reserve judgment on the Panel's work until I have read the report (or at least the executive summary). My hunch ('hope', still) – and today’s press statement does nothing to change my mind on the matter – is that it may be so damning of “The Jersey Way” that the Panel’s restrictive plans for launching the report are designed principally to get the foul deed done without immediate loss of life or limb.
    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have that hope too RL.

      But the bitter experience with this supposed CoI is that it is a hope not an expectation.

      Delete
    2. I agree ... I believe that the report will be completely damning of the whole jersey apparatus and all its institutions that allowed the serious abuse of children in the care of the states of jersey to continue unchecked for decades. What else can they conclude? This report will bring shame on the island including recent attempts by those in positions of authority to underplay the atrocities that have taken place. If it were down to me I would classify what took place as a crime against humanity.

      Delete
    3. RL's point seems sensible.

      Perhaps a case of 'doing a Goddard', except that Oldham did her job before scarpering. :)

      Delete
  12. Surely there should have been questions in the States about this today? Does anyone know if there were? Can't listen at work and just on tea break now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I am right in hearing on my car radio that Montfort is asking the CM a question at the end of questions of Ministers this morning. If you can't listen, you will be able to watch on the live streaming.

      Delete
  13. As a non local but someone who has tried my best to follow the black farce that appears to be politics and democracy in your island of Jersey I have been intrigued by one particular slice of your history.

    Residents will please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that you have had only one vote of no confidence brought against a Chief Minister.

    Even more astounding given the many hundreds of years we are talking about. You have had only one vote of no confidence brought against your non elected president of the Jersey legislature, your Bailiff.

    Am I correct or am I mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That just proves how deeply popular the office and the office holder is

      The CoI is a great success because 400 witnesses partook

      Delete
    2. Or alternatively what an utter bunch of cowardly worms 99% of our States Members have been down the generations even faced with appalling failings in both honesty and professsionalism.

      Delete
  14. I might have got the wrong end of the stick but surely the publication launch isn't designed to allow IP's any sort of pre-warning or an opportunity to engage with the media over its contents? According to some posters it will run to thousands of pages and will take weeks or months to fully analyse. Imagine the outcry (rightly so) if the IP's had such a long period of grace to pick it apart and prepare their defense in advance of the public getting hold of it? I think this brief "lock in" is nothing more than a simple courtesy, providing the appearance of special treatment for the IP's but really designed to keep the spinners from getting their retaliation in first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope you are right @16:36

      Unless the report proves to be worth the £20million there is a worry that with ignoring evidence, ignoring central witnesses, doing a bit of spinning themselves is just a part of their brief.

      we will see.

      Delete
  15. @ 6 June 2017 16:36

    I’m not sure if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick or not, but maybe this will help to clarify (based on what I read in yesterday’s press info and what I’ve seen happen on similar occasions elsewhere):

    The public launch of the report is at 15:00h when Frances Oldham will be making a statement, with the press and media (including bloggers, I hope!) in attendance, with everyone free to say whatever they like about the report – but not to ask questions of the Inquiry Panel.

    The previous two hours, when the IPs will get a preview of the report (and be subject to some quite stringent rules on what they can do and who they can talk to), are indeed a mere “courtesy”, which the Inquiry committed itself to when it issued General Protocol 19.6. And, as I suggested previously, what the Inquiry is offering is a “courtesy” cut down to the absolute bare bones. It is little more than an empty gesture - just sufficient to let them say “you got your two hours, so count yourselves lucky”, nothing more. The prohibition stopping the IPs “engaging with the media” obviously applies only to that short period, during which there will in effect be an embargo designed to prevent leaks to the press (or others). I’ve no doubt some of the IPs will practicing their newly-acquired PR skills on TV screens in Jersey and around the world just a few hours later, after the embargo is lifted at 15:00h.

    One thing that’s not clear (to me at least), is at what point the report will actually be formally presented by the Chair to a representative of the authority that commissioned it? Again, from what I’ve seen elsewhere, that would normally be done in the prior private session attended only by the IPs (but possibly with the media present, to record the moment for prosperity), and would involve some kind of “ceremony” in which the hard-bound original (with the Inquiry Chair's signature) would pass from the hands of the Inquiry Chair to a representative of the States Assembly – in this case, presumably ... (guess who!).

    There has been some outcry here about the panel not taking questions from the press or public. Frankly (and leaving aside what I suggested previously about them probably being in a hurry to get off the island smart-ish) I am not at all surprised about that. The Inquiry was given a job to do. When it has formally handed over the report, it will consider that the job is done, finished. The report is supposed to answer the questions that were put to it in the TOR. I hope it will in fact answer all those questions – and maybe a few others – in a far more comprehensive manner that any Panel member could do in an off-the-cuff Q&A session on 3rd July. The Panel will also, I believe, want to avoid being trapped into making any un-scripted comments that might inadvertently skew the interpretation given to the report in the subsequent days/weeks/months.

    Let’s also bear in mind that when the public session starts, no-one other than the panel will really know what the report says – or what has been left out. Even the IPs who turn up for the closed session will only have had time to get a vague gist of some parts of it. No-one will be in a position to ask sensible, relevant questions about the Inquiry's findings and recommendations just minutes after setting their eyes on it. So, if there can be no worthwhile questions so soon after the launch, there’s surely little point offering the opportunity for a barrage of ill-informed questions. And after the launch, after the Panel have gone home for tea and biscuits, surely any questions that remain – including any concerning the manner in which the Inquiry conducted its business – should be put to the IPs and their representatives, and to the States Assembly.
    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am beginning to warm to this interpretation. I will be surprised if it is correct however, because of the slight way the key witnesses were treated, the way key facts about missing evidence, for example, or the bailiff's "warning" to Andrew Lewsi not to "go down that road", and so on, were not spotted and focussed on.

      I think they will absolutely murder children's services and do a lot of wise Recommendations on that area, as that is where 2 of the Panel have expertise. But they will simply not address the other stuff - politics, jersey culture, the jersey team" the jersey way" the prosecution function, etc.

      Delete
  16. I was initially outraged at the approach proposed by the Inquiry.

    Then I began to warm to the idea that the States of Jersey's propaganda machine is going to be denied both the opportunity and the means to launch the typical Jersey Way whitewash cover-up of the findings. Frances Oldham will be there at 3pm on the 3rd July and will give both barrels to the world's media, with no Jersey Way interference possible. Bring it on.

    I just hope the report is being printed in a secure facility not accessible by the "old boys network".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " ... printed in a secure facility not accessible by the "old boys network"

      Given that the Inquiry website is under the technical control of a certain IT company in Jersey, I’d be more concerned about how the Inquiry plans to up-load the report and guarantee it’s available to everyone at precisely the same time - 15:00h on 3rd July – and not a minute before, nor several days after.
      RL

      Delete
    2. Hi RL,

      Whilst the website is under the technical control of a certain IT company in Jersey, a browse at the source code shows that they are using Microsoft SharePoint Online (i.e. 'in the cloud', in Microsoft's massive data centres) to host the content. From a scalability and availability point of view, there should be no reason why whoever controls the website can't press the 'Publish' button at 3pm on Monday 3rd July.

      No doubt the PDF copy of the report (for that is the format it will have to be) will be uploaded into the system on the Monday morning in an unpublished state, then the 'Publish' button will be pressed at 3pm.

      There will be a high demand for the document; SharePoint Online should cope with the traffic absolutely fine. The website is generally poor quality, but at least someone has given the scalability some thought.

      Delete
    3. That’s all very good in theory – and technically accurate, too.

      What we don’t know, however, given the sloppy way the website content has been managed in the past (since day one!) is: who has access – authorised or not – to the SharePoint account for uploading documents in advance, and then hitting the “Publish” button? Once the PDF is on the system (and that might be done during the previous week, given that the launch is scheduled for a Monday), there are no doubt a number of people who could access it before that button is pressed.

      I’ll not be surprised if copies start circulating well before the official launch. Not accusing – just saying... Let’s wait ‘n’ see!
      RL

      Delete
    4. No hard copies is a complete scandal.

      States members - put on the pressure please and establish just what the deal is.

      Delete
  17. @ 6 June 2017 at 17:52

    “… there is a worry that with ignoring evidence, ignoring central witnesses …”

    There has been frequent comment in the blogs in recent months about the Inquiry “ignoring central witnesses”, “ignoring evidence” and the possible “destruction” of evidence, and it might be worth looking again at these topics as the Inquiry reaches its natural terminus as we all move on to deal with the aftermath.

    If the truth be told (any objections?) we don’t (yet) know whether the Inquiry has ignored any evidence or not.

    The mere fact that large chunks were redacted from at least one witness statement quite a long time after it was first published on the Inquiry website (as discussed here a couple of weeks ago) does not necessarily mean the Inquiry has ignored that evidence. The fact that it was redacted only tells us that someone decided (rightly or wrongly, I wouldn’t care say...) that that evidence would be better kept out of public view. However, even when it has been redacted from the version of the statement published on the Inquiry website, the Inquiry – and probably the IPs also – have continued to have access to the full original text, and can take it into account if they find it appropriate to do so. The same applies to documents that have "disappeared" from the public website, or been filed somewhere inappropriate so they can’t easily be found. The website is independent from the Magnum database used by the Inquiry (which is a fully-fledged secure on-line document management system designed specifically for the safe handling of papers used in court proceedings), and we have seen nothing to suggest that similar problems have affected that system. The "mis-laid document" problems leading some to suggest there has been deliberate concealment of evidence have occurred only in the poorly designed, poorly maintained and poorly managed public website (supplied by a leading light in Jersey’s digital revolution).

    In similar vein, there has been comment in the past about the perceived failure of Counsel to the Inquiry to question certain witnesses (Trevor Pitman, Graham Power, amongst others) about sections of their sworn statements that bloggers and commentators felt were crucial to the debate. However it was made it very clear in a couple of the earlier hearings that questions during the hearings could/would be limited to sections of the witness statements which, in Counsel’s view, needed clarification or expanding upon. Parts of the statements that were already abundantly clear (as was the case in GP’s statement about the circumstances of his departure from the SoJP, for example, or TP’s very explicit views about sentencing in the Royal Court) did not need to be discussed in the hearings – but remained “on the record” as part of the evidence to be considered by the Panel. Again, there’s nothing (yet ...) to suggest that evidence that was not discussed in the public hearings has been ignored. It’s just that the transcripts must be read as being *complementary* to the sworn statements, not as a substitute for them.

    Turning to the possible destruction of evidence, it seems to have escaped the notice of many commentators that the Inquiry was of an “inquisitorial” nature, not “judicial”. Whereas a judicial inquiry (aka, court of law) would normally need to see evidence in the form of original documents or certified copies, an inquiry can rely (and this Inquiry clearly has relied) on simple photocopies or electronic scans provided (and in some cases, especially the SoJP, pre-redacted) by identifiable sources. The Inquiry has most likely not received much – if any – evidence in a form that would be accepted as irrefutable proof in a court of law. The originals have been retained by the holders of those documents – SoJP, States departments, etc.

    (to be continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  18. (continued)

    There’s no doubt a data protection consideration here, too. I believe that Jersey law (like that in many countries) requires that data can only be held for the purpose for which it was originally provided, and that purpose that must be made known in advance to the provider. And when the data manager has finished using it, the data must be destroyed, and it cannot be ‘re-purposed’ without the consent of the sources, or passed on, “as is”, to another user. It follows from that, that any data (evidence) the Inquiry received which was not relevant to its work could not be retained (tens or hundreds of thousands of pages, if we are to believe the figures that have been mentioned on the Inquiry website). And once the job is finished (and the Inquiry disbanded) all the data must presumably be destroyed, because: a) the Inquiry has no further use for it; b) the data will cease to have a data manager responsible for its safe-keeping; and, c) the Inquiry has (apparently) not been tasked with passing the data to another data manager. But, again, that, again, doesn’t constitute destruction of evidence. It only destroys the (very considerable and very costly) work that went into gathering it and classifying it.

    With those points in mind, I would ask: “What evidence does anyone think the Inquiry actually *has* and should be prevented from destroying?” And the follow-up question is: “If there *is* anything that should be kept, who should be the future keeper (data manager)?”
    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm led to believe the Jersey Archive will take custody of the documentation

      Delete
    2. RL, As usual you make a make a number of good points in a fair minded way.

      Something which you quoted but did not deal with was the CoI apparently “ignoring central witnesses”. About 25 of them I believe, from the Health minister down.

      There is a good deal of other bizarre behaviour by the CoI which was not covered even in your very comprehensive comment.

      At the outset we (and I believe also the States) were assured that the CoI would have the power to call (subpoena) witnesses.
      The CoI later announced that it did not have any power to call/subpoena!
      This has been described by some as a brazen lie.

      If it is not a lie, then who oversaw the spending of £23 million on a toothless tiger?
      and why?

      Delete
    3. The Jersey Archive - run by and for the Establishment will then bury selective evidence.

      Delete
    4. You can't even access all the stuff they were donated on Jersey's finest politician ever, the late Norman Le Brocq, hated by the establishment. So what would make anyone think they would allow the public access to stuff that is so damning it is already being redacted or mysteriously lost?

      Delete
    5. @Anon, 7 June 2017 at 10:45

      “ … allow the public access to stuff that is so damning it is already being redacted ... ”

      The documents that have been redacted are already in the public domain – including early versions that were superseded by versions with heavier redaction. Indeed, the redaction was done (in principle, and in most cases) so documents could be released to the public without interfering with the Inquiry’s work, breaching condidentiality, or upsetting the sensitivities of victims. I have seen only one clear case where a witness statement has been redacted very obviously for some other (as yet uncertain) purpose – but, again, the version with lighter redaction is in the public domain (and available on the web, but not on the Inquiry website).

      None of the redacted items have any need to find their way into the Jersey Archive. And even if they did, there should not be any need for a FOI request to gain access to them - again, because they are already in the public domain.

      Rather than heading to the Archive, the redacted stuff should be made freely available in the Public Library!

      The debate about what happens to the Inquiry’s documentation – both physical and virtual – needs to concentrate on the UNredacted versions, and on the future destination of any items of “original evidence” the Inquiry may have collected in the past few years, and which might be of use in future legal proceedings.
      RL

      Delete
    6. @Anon, 7 June 2017 at 06:01

      “ ... ignoring central witnesses .... “

      Much has already been said on the blogs about the Inquiry’s “failure” to subpoena certain people - Stuart Syvret in particular. Almost all that comment has criticised both the Inquiry and the potential witnesses concerned.

      But that, once again, does not *necessarily* imply that the Inquiry has totally ignored the views and/or evidence of those people.

      Let’s take Stuart Syvret as an example. The Inquiry has at its disposal a number of unredacted items that give his account of circumstances relevant to the Inquiry’s work, even without obliging him make a witness statement or attend a hearing.

      The Inquiry has SS’s 26-page report to Jack Straw concerning child abuse in Jersey, dated 27/03/2008. See pages 675 to 700 here:
      http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts/Day 139 Additional Documents Merged - Optimised.pdf


      The Inquiry has SS’s 6-page application for Legal Fees and Expenses Funding, dated 22/04/2014, with which he submitted three documents amounting to a total of around 40 pages of evidence, including correspondence between Appleby (acting for Jersey’s Data Commissioner) and Google to the effect that the “establishment” was trying to gag him as early as November 2008. See: http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/Application%20for%20funding%20of%20legal%20representation%20for%20Stuart%20Syvret%20with%20documents.pdf
      The document includes a list of links, prepared by Appleby (not by SS himself…), to over 30 pages in SS’s blog the Data Commissioner wanted censored.

      There are also numerous other documents that give an account of SS’s views, as perceived by other contemporaneous players – including some who supported him and those who didn’t. And many of the witnesses’ supporting documents show the extent of SS’s determination to sort out the problems he observed while he was Health Minister – both through his statements before the States Assembly and in numerous departmental reports.

      A cursory review of the documentation available on the web suggests that the Inquiry was made pretty well aware of Stuart Syvret’s position on the matters under investigation – so much so that it was perhaps unnecessary to subpoena him just to have him repeat everything again. His views *are* on the record – and have been almost from day one.

      That said, it remains to be seen if, and if so how, the Inquiry has incorporated in the report anything from Stuart Syvret’s “sideways” contributions to the mass of evidence – or whether they have chosen to ignore him and his role in the defence of the island’s children and adolescents both as Health Minister and afterwards.
      RL

      Delete
    7. I bet the spiffing photo of the bullet will disappear before it all egts to the archive.

      Delete
    8. Thanks again RL

      However. Surely with any potential witness, even if only half as important as Health Minister Syvret it would be rather negligent to rely only on what they had already put into reports or the public domain.

      Not very "inquisitorial" otherwise.

      It seems highly unlikely that ALL of the Health Minister's information and experience was in the public domain or submitted to the CoI by others.

      Half balked IMO, even IF the CoI's intentions were/are good and honourable.

      Delete
    9. Let's not forget that Syvret has already been jailed as an establishment prisoner twice already for information he did put in the public domain

      Delete
    10. RL

      Can you please get in touch. I am very concerned about the future of ALL the evidence and documentation gathered by the Inquiry as well as documentation about the way they went about their work. In my view ALL should be preserved, and in a form usable by anyone who wishes to. that was part of their job.

      You can get in touch via the hosts of the website. Or maybe Neil you could facilitate this?

      Delete
  19. Chicken Tikka May6 June 2017 at 22:14

    Well I just hope that Jeremy Corbin bloke gets in and whatever happens on July 3rd we ,ight have some small chance of genuine UK interest in the Jersey cesspit. I'm not really a die hard leftwinger by any stretch of the imagination. But listening to someone who clearly possesses not only intellect but principles (in sharp contrast to what the Fake News Media would have us believe) it really is like a hurrican of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chicken Tikka May, I think it would be rather naive to think that Corbyn gives a tuppenny happenny damn about child abuse in the 'Jersey cesspit'.

      He has never displayed much interest in allegations of child abuse in his own parliamentary back-yard!

      http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse

      Delete
    2. Buying the Tory fake news spin again? Not like good old Theresa 'Whoops, I've lost the files' May then?

      Delete
    3. May should have been sacked as Home Secretary over failings on abuse and security. Makes Trump seem caring and bright.

      Delete
    4. "Buying the Tory fake news spin again?"

      No matey,
      www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse
      is a link to the website and blog of Labour MP John Mann

      Jeremy Corbyn acting as an apologist for child abuse and child protection failures -no doubt to protect his party (or colleagues even?) is just like our establishment protecting the finance industry and colleagues from their child abusing past and present.

      It cuts both ways, and this is a  cross party problem

      Don't you think that behaviour by Corbyn to be incompatible with his supposed impeccable moral outlook?
      It makes a total nonsense of protecting the weak from the strong.

      It is like Donald Trump to blurt "fake news" at anything you do not happen to like.

      Delete
  20. Eddie Noel who has already brought in commercial waste charges ( which will be passed on to customers obviously ) has plans to charge 33,000 people that live in St Helier to take rubbish to the new re-cycling dump at la Collette where as at Belozane there was no charge nor could they be as St Helier gave up this land on condition that St Helier residents would not be charged.

    So the public according Eddie Noel are again to have to pay a new User Charge, but wait St Helier as Parish is appealing against this and wants to go to the Privy Council for a ruling. Jersey is self Governing so must get permission from the judiciary of Jersey first.

    The ruling is folks:

    John Martin QC said in his judgement that the Parish had raised “arguable points of law”, he concluded: “We do not, however, think that they are points of general public importance.”

    You could not make this crap up, is it is not in the public interest of 33,000, plus the rest of the parishes, then tell us what is.

    You can smell something is wrong and it's not coming from the dump. Jersey Justice, the " Jersey Way "

    ReplyDelete
  21. Instead of releasing the Report why don't they just come out with it and say -
    'It's our little secret'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So States throw out 'reform'?! What a joke. Can't wait to see what the independent election observers make of how EStablishment rigged system in May next year. Viva la revolution indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The States could not organise a piss up in a brewery. Today's super constituencies U iurn only proves that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gorst and Ballsache conveniently not present. The spineless Mezbourian, Rondel and Kevin Lewis all 'ill'. Eddie the midget Noel just not turning up. Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bring in Clothier in full now. Topped off with Fergusson's bar on anyone being Chief Minister more than twice. LOL! Glad I am off to Austrailia. Our island is fcuked and nobdoy seems to care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. brett you are so right

      Delete
  26. I'm really pleased to see that the REform Deputies all voted for the super-constituencies move to go a head. Good men who deserve our vote

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Jon. Like you I will be voting for any Reform Jersey candidate that I can.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Baz,

      If only Syvret was not barred from standing.

      Now that I have got over my years of childish upset,
      I realise that he was right in everything he said and I would definitely vote for him too.

      Delete
  27. Can we see the way the votes went on keeping the 29 Deputies, on here please. For debate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. All the St. Helier No 1 Deputies voted against the reform did they not? Martin, the always in London R Labey and the invisible Ozouf poodle Scott Wickenden.

    ReplyDelete
  29. An earlier commenter helpfully left the following link:

    www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse

    To which a blinkered party animal retorted "Buying the Tory fake news spin again?"

    FYI that was a direct link to the website and blog of LABOUR MP John Mann posted 23 July 2015.

    I shall paste it in a post below

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah John Mann, the great Blairite Left hater. Wss Corbyn helping Jihardis make bombs too in his spare time? Odd how the good MP Mann has little to say on the Dickens/May antics?

      Delete
    2. I recall this. It was back when Mann was doing his utmost to try and undermine Corbyn winning the Labour Party leadership and so avoid the possibilty of it becoming a Socialist leaning party again after years of being Tory-Lite under Mann's hero Tony Spiv.

      Delete
  30. www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse

    "An open letter to Jeremy Corbyn on child abuse
    Posted by John Mann MP on July 23, 2015
                                           

    Dear Jeremy [Corbyn],

    As you know, for decades there was widespread child sexual abuse taking place in the London Borough of Islington. The extent of the abuse was only uncovered through the tenacity and bravery of whistle-blowers, journalists and survivors which led to a number of independent inquiries and the damning Ian White report in 1995.

    As with the rest of the country, the reality is that child abuse was rampant, ignored, covered up and the extent of it is only just beginning to come to light. The attitude was that of the Head of MI5, who was revealed yesterday to have written about a paedophile MP to the then Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong in 1986: ‘At the present stage…the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger’

    At an event I hosted this year in Parliament of 200 child abuse and exploitation survivors, we received public testimony of the scale of abuse in Islington from a whistle-blower who was a leading light in uncovering child abuse in Islington during the 1980s and early 1990s. This social worker confirmed to me that she and others met with you in the early 1990s to raise her concerns about child abuse and cover-ups in Islington. You said that you would raise the matter with Virginia Bottomley, then at the Department of Health, but no indication of whether you followed this up was ever given.

    In 1986 MP Geoffrey Dickens raised serious concerns about child abuse in Islington.

    Your response was to complain to the Speaker about him visiting your constituency without informing you. I have faced such complaints myself in pursuing corruption issues.

    There are many people who also rubbished the idiosyncratic Mr Dickens. They have been proven to be wrong, indeed I have just received details of another list of names of alleged and now proven paedophiles that Dickens provided to Leon Brittan as Home Secretary, not related to Islington, but further corroboration of the scale of the cover up that has taken place.

    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  31. CONTINUED

    On February 17th 1986 you had called in Parliament for Geoffrey Dickens to “unreservedly withdraw his allegations of the existence of child brothels in the area (in Islington) and make a public apology.” You further called Mr Dickens ‘irresponsible’’.

    You inadvertently helped the rubbishing and the cover up of all of the Dickens allegations. Indeed your actions encouraged others, because a week later the Islington Gazette published a letter attacking Geoffrey Dickens over his allegations from Roger Moody, a prominent pro paedophilia activist.

    On May 30th 1995 the Independent reported that: “The Labour Borough (of Islington) has finally put its hands up. Last week an independent report confirmed that pimps, paedophiles and pornographers had for years preyed on children in Islington's homes.” The reporters highlights the inaction of the council and notes that: “Some social workers met Islington Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn begging him to influence the council, then still denying everything. Soon after, I met him. He did make inquiries but was reassured. There the matter rested.”

    You might wish to read, if you have not had the time already, the superb speech made by Ann Clwyd in the House of Commons last Thursday in which she painstakingly explained the insidious role of insurance companies in ensuring that councils’ refused and refuse to accept liability or responsibility for children they looked after, including in North Wales, but which can also be extended to my own in Nottinghamshire and nearby Nottingham.

    Perhaps most worrying of all are the implications of your question to the Home Secretary on November 3rd 2014.

    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  32. CONTINUED

    You stated that ‘Finally in my own borough of Islington there have been complaints about Islington children’s homes in the past and the council has investigated them.’  This statement at first glance is non contentious. However on reflection is an extraordinary statement considering the representations made to you in the past that the council was in fact covering up abuse and not listening to the survivors, issues you were challenged on at the time.

    Repeatedly across the country, institutions investigating allegations about themselves over child abuse have heard nothing, seen nothing and known nothing. This is at the very heart of the cover up culture.

    I know you through your work on Central African and Latin American human rights issues, and am quite certain that you are a man of the highest personal integrity and ethics. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that.

    My concern is about your politics and how that results in actions, or in this case non-actions. As we have seen with the appalling misjudgements of the NCCL and its allowance of membership to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s, sections of the left were in denial of the motivations of some campaigners and this unwillingness to face up to unpalatable possibilities clouded judgement over the most serious of allegations.

    In fact the allegations were true and are true as survivors increasingly choose to speak out. The establishment and sections of the left stood by and allowed children’s lives to be destroyed.

    The reason that your response and inactions to these matters is worthy of specific scrutiny is that unlike others who did not see what was happening, or as we saw with Saville, kept their suspicions to themselves rather than speak out or investigate, you are wishing to lead the Labour Party during the period of Goddard inquiry into child abuse and are seeking become Prime Minister.

    The so called ‘trendy left’ politics of the early 1980s was a contributory factor in covering up child abuse. I myself saw that repeatedly at first hand in Lambeth. Meanwhile children were murdered and disappeared, were raped and beaten, forced into prostitution, trafficked around and a significant number of lives destroyed and blighted.

    Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot, not about your personal character, which I admire, but about your politics which I do not. Your carefully worded excusing of Islington Council in the House of Commons equally demonstrates why it is inappropriate for you to attempt to lead the Labour Party at the critical time of the Goddard Enquiry, as child abuse is the issue that will haunt this Parliament.

     Yours Sincerely
     John Mann MP

    ReplyDelete
  33. The cross-party shysters (and the spooks & whips who control them in position) will want to shut this man down

    www.mann4bassetlaw.com/child_abuse_horror

    Listening to survivors accounts of their abuse is clearly deeply upsetting

    VFC, You must see this!
    Makes Syvret look rather tame.

    "Lift the Official Secrets Act off Special Branch officers" [on child abuse matters]

    Interestingly, Eversheds were the retained lawyers of Special Branch and are perfectly positioned to fight that demand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comment at 23:01 is right to the extent it cites the effort of John Mann - to expose child-abuse cover-ups - and his efforts to put proper scrutiny upon Jeremy Corbyn, especially in respect of the Islington child-abuse, and corresponding cover-ups.

      In that sense - yes - Corbyn was in that Left-libertarian pattern - a faction - a corrupt, influential power-bloc - which held, used, and abused, power through unions and worker organisations - to the profound detriment of the vulnerable and of the powerless clients of public service bodies.

      It was - and always will be - to my great shock - how the Left united with the Right - in pro-child-abuse-cover-up conspiracies in Jersey.

      Child-abuse cover-up conspiracies which included certain 'Left' politicians.

      And - yes - Eversheds - the City-of-London (thus axiomatically conflicted) law-firm which has run the fake CoI - works for the UK security services - such as Special Branch. You can add MI5 and the City of London Police - (Hello Game Show Mike) - to those clients. Therefore - 'can the quasi-judicial "public-body" of the CoI be a lawfully neutral and objective exercise?'

      Answer: "No."

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  34. Someone named Jon said above that Syvret was barred from standing for election. He isn't. Can we stop repeating this myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But isn't the whole truth that Syvret has a corrupt court judgement hanging over him so the moment he does stand he can be bankrupted (like the Pitmans, remember)
      and thus barred from standing

      Delete
    2. Anybody imprisoned for 3 Months or more is automatically disqualified from standing for 7 years.

      People declared bankrupt takes even longer.

      Delete
    3. 'Can we stop repeating this myth.'

      Recall Stuart said himself he was barred from standing in the last by-election.

      Delete
    4. Did Syvret have the alternative of paying a fine instead of going to prison? Personally I don't think he has it in him anymore regardless. Not that that would be surprising. A month with those numpties would send me bonkers.

      Delete
    5. No he was sent straight to prison last time without the option of a fine.

      Delete
    6. That's right.

      Following the United Kingdom's first ever secret trial.

      A "trial" heard by "judges" actually selected - chosen - and appointed - by expressly, directly, conflicted - interested - parties; conflicted parties such as Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs.

      A "trial" that it was - axiomatically - impossible to ever gain justice before - because of the plain impossibility of attracting witnesses - given the secrecy.

      A "trial" - conducted in the name and power of the Queen - by her personally appointed gangster lieutenant "bailiffs" - directly - expressly - involved, conflicted parties - in a shameless act of disgusting criminality - engaged in by the Monarchy - more shameless and oppressive than anything to be witnessed in Putin's Russia.

      Forget the CoI.

      Gaining lasting - real - protection for vulnerable children in the "Crown Dependencies" is dependent quite simply on cleansing our community from the oppressions and suppressions of the royal family.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
  35. Jon is right about Mezec, Southern and Tadier all voting for the super constituency changes though. Could we have that list of those who voted to block them please.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Errrr, why would Stuart Syvret want to re-join a Government he claims to be a criminal enterprise of oligarchs that covers up child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite so. But I agree he is not banned from standing. The only politicians they have shafted in that fashion so far are the Pitmans. Having said that if Syvret did attempt a come back I'm sure they would soon manufacture something to prevent it.

      Delete
  37. Wonder what the chances of this Gorst no confidence vote getting passed is? Being it is lodged by a Constable will any of the usually stick together crew be brave enough to join him on this? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. All those over excitable Local Tories should pause for thought. If Morticia May does win it means come post Brexit our island is well and truly screwed as we will be used as pawns to appease the anti tax haven brigade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least if Corbyn wins we will not be on our own.

      If Corbyn were to win then EVERYBODY would be screwed!
      (except the islamists)

      Delete
    2. Shut up Tory Boy. Surely your mummy will be wondering where you are? Remember who was a Tory. Yup, good ole Jimmy saville, Maggie's mate.

      Delete
    3. Theresa May should be forced to resign. Terror just got worse and worse during her time as Home Secretary and PM.

      The police her Tory party has cut and cut again were advised about one of the bombers FIVE times. Tough on terror Mrs May? I think the evidence says otherwise.

      Delete
  39. I know it’s considered bad form to quote oneself, but I beg everyone’s indulgence as it will help to contextualise what follows. I apologise also (with all due deference to the importance (?) of the UK election) for trying to bring this blog thread back on topic.

    On 6 June 2016 at 19:53 I commented:
    “One thing that’s not clear (to me at least), is at what point the report will actually be formally presented by the Chair to a representative of the authority that commissioned it?”

    And I’ve just found the answer, here:
    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2017/(196)%20Dep%20Hilton%20to%20CM%20re%20report%20of%20the%20Independent%20Jersey%20Care%20Inquiry.pdf
    in questions to the CM on 28 March 2017.

    (quote)
    Deputy Hilton: “Can the Chief Minister inform Members whether Frances Oldham will be invited to present her report to States Members? Has she been asked to do this and, if not, why not?”
    CM: “I am not aware that she has been asked to do so. If Members wish her to do so I can certainly make that request to her. [Approbation]”
    Deputy Tadier: “I think that one would have expected that to be the norm anyway, one would have entirely expected that.”
    CM: “... it would not be the norm for a fully independent inquiry to present to the Parliament ... perhaps a request is the norm is that the report (sic) would be presented with a short statement issued by such a chairman. The norm would be that even questions were not answered ...”
    CM (a bit later): “Of course it is not my report, it is a fully independent report. My understanding ... is that interested parties ... will receive the report slightly in advance of it being formally published. I assume that States Members will have it at that slight in advance (sic). I think we are talking one or 2 hours in advance before it is made public. That would be the normal process for an independent public inquiry.”
    (unquote)

    IOW, the Inquiry’s report will NOT be formally presented to the authority that commissioned it, because (if we are to believe the CM), the Inquiry is “fully independent”. And the CM clearly never expected there to be any “dialogue” whatsoever between the Inquiry and Jersey’s Parliament, Government or any other public authority at the time of the launch, or had even thought to request any such dialogue until a couple of deputies queried the matter.

    It is clear that the States Assembly has known - at least since the end of March - that there would be no formal hand-over. And, since the Inquiry’s statement of 5 June 2017 says nothing whatsoever about any such formality, we must assume that despite the well-supported view, expressed by "approbation" from States Members that the CM should at least “request” a formal encounter with the Inquiry Chair, either no such request was made (= CM failed to do what he had himself proposed, and for which th States was giving him a clear mandate) – or, if it was requested, then the Inquiry sent the CM away with his tail between his legs.

    All this begs the question: “If the Inquiry is so ‘independent’ that it doesn’t even have to formally hand the report over to the States Assembly that commissioned it, if only as proof that the mandate has been fulfilled, why does that same States Assembly think it necessary to pay for it?”

    And, more importantly, is there any formal reason why any of the island’s authorities should ever take a blind bit of notice of what the report says?
    RL

    ReplyDelete
  40. See the usual Conservative dirty tricks team is in full swing at Keele University in England. Hundreds of students turned away for 'not being on the register' even though they have their polling cards/confirmation emails of registering. A marginal seat where Labour took it from the Tories by just 650 votes in 2015. The C in Conservative surely stands for corruption?

    ReplyDelete
  41. There is some discussion above, concerning the timing, and knowledge, of the separate investigations into the child-abuse and the cover-ups. I'm answering here because it may not be seen high up in the comment thread.

    The facts of the matter in respect of who was investigating what - and who knew what, when - are as follows: -

    I - nor the whistleblowers, survivors, their relatives and friends - the people I was working with - were aware of the covert Police investigation, back in 2007;

    I only became aware of the covert Police investigation in early November 2007, when I was contacted by the secretary of the Deputy Police Chief and asked to attend Police Headquarters. I had already been obstructed, oppressed, and suppressed by the oligarchy at this stage - having been removed as H & SS Minister in September. When asked to attend Police HQ I fully expected to be told I was under arrest on some false, corrupt pretext. (Of course - that did eventually happen - but only after the Jersey mafia had captured the States of Jersey Police via the illegal suspension of GRaham Power - and then used the Police, and their gangster "judiciary" - and the power of the Monarch - to drive me from democratic office and imprison me.

    Had I known of the covert Police investigation - I certainly would have ensured the States were aware of what was to be shortly made public - during their corrupt removal of me.

    My investigations in to the decades of child-abuse - and the decades of cover-up - were entirely - entirely - my own initiative, in response to constituents' concerns which had been raised with me - and were 100% in accordance with the statutory powers - and obligations - held by the Health & Social Services Minister under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

    There are most serious questions to be faced by the States of Jersey Police Force in consequence of these events. Questions which have been totally ignored by the fake "public-inquiry".

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart can you tell us exactly what you plan to start next with a time frame?

      Delete
  42. Though your readers may like to know that Reform Jerseys Mezec and Tadier voted for the Chief Minister to serve as long as he may wish, and not the two terms as proposed by Sarah Furgeson. Geoff Southern voted for the proposition.
    It would be interesting to know why two progressives voted for Gorst to serve another term if he was re-elected, back room deal maybe ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Mezec and Tadier really “vote for Gorst to serve another term”?

      Maybe not – or at least, maybe that was not their primary objective, just an unfortunate bit of collateral damage.

      Maybe they have their sights on becoming CM themselves one fine day, but realise that in order to bring about any worthwhile “reform” of the island’s 800-year-old feudal administration they’d need at least a dozen full consecutive terms in that esteemed(?) office.

      They surely wouldn’t want to make things difficult – nay, impossible – by voting in a way that would force themselves to quit after a mere two terms each?

      Jersey, like anywhere else, doesn’t just need the right people at the helm – it needs to have them on duty for long enough to make a worthwhile impact. Starting from where Jersey is today, “long enough” is going to be a veeeery long time!
      RL

      Delete
  43. The more I think of this "2 hours for Interested parties, then no questions" the more I am convinced that the reputation of the States of Jersey will be totally eviscerated on 3rd July.

    I foresee the panel making a statement to the effect that, never in their many years of collective public service have the panel members witnessed such unadulterated lies and cover up by government departments, their employees and their lawyers, both historically and recently.

    The panel members will be straight on the plane to Gatwick, never wishing to step foot here again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "panel" - are going to say nothing of the kind.

      These people have been given £12 million - to whitewash the Jersey polity.

      They even lent their name to the further grab of public money halfway through - to gain another £12 million - on the supposed basis that the progress of the "CoI" needed it - but, in reality it was a corrupt front for the culpable States of Jersey departments to spend another £12 million on lawyers & spin-doctors to help whitewash events.

      This "public-authority" - this CoI - is a de facto criminal enterprise - and No Conceivable Form Of Words its report might contain - can prevent that formal complaint going on the public record.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    2. That would be great @22:14 if they stated the blindingly obvious so directly.

      However I think there is more chance of Corbyn being elected to No10

      Delete
    3. I'm sure the report will be padded with lots of wringing and platitudes. All dressed up nicely for the unwary to announce that it is a total success like they always knew it would be.

      Some vulnerable people will be relying on the report being all they hope. What support will be available to them if it is not?

      Delete
  44. It's easy to avoid attending something and then slag it off all the time.
    The whole point of the Inquiry was to get to the truth not disrupt and spoil it for those who did give evidence. But I do not believe these negative attacks will have any influence anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. @10:32 you endlessly suggest that people are not allowed to be critical of this £23m CoI

      But *IF*
      "The whole point of the Inquiry was to get to the truth"
      as you say

      Then why in the name of **** did they not subpoena the actual Health Minister or subpoena Mike Pollard or subpoena perhaps 20 or so other central witnesses???

      Are you suggesting perhaps that they did not have enough time or money?

      Delete
    2. A well funded CoI whose priority was to "get to the truth" would indeed have ensured that it herd testimony from those critical witnesses, wither by subpoenaing them, or in the case of the Health Minister who was deposed because he publicly blew the whistle -simply providing him with his human right of unconditional legal representation.

      The CoI clearly had other priorities.
      What these priorities are will become clearer when the final report is released.

      Delete
    3. At the risk of repeating (before you-know-who does)

      Yes we do *know* that about 400 witnesses did give evidence.

      Many of the culpable will have done so because the CoI as set up is in effect a get-out-of-jail-free opportunity, with FREE legal aid thrown in if you sign up!

      Many of the abused and their champions will have given evidence to a CoI they knew to be flawed because it was "all they were going to get".
      Hobson's choice does not prove fitness!

      Apart from the couple of dozen central and high profile witnesses there are also a n unknown number of potentially earth shattering witnesses who were too scared to take part.

      In addition there are the victims who have tragically taken their own lives or 'self medicated' to an early death.

      Such is the cost of abuse and cover up......

      Delete
    4. *why in the name of **** did they not subpoena the actual Health Minister or subpoena Mike Pollard.*

      Good question but they were neither abusers or victims. Personally I believe all people asked should have given evidence enthusiastically and willingly. Had the former HSS Minister been forced to give evidence what was stopping him giving a 'no comment' interview anyway? At the end of the day he is the only known person who refused when asked which will never be excused by some people.

      Delete
    5. “At the end of the day he is the only known person who refused when asked which will never be excused by some people.”

      The key word in that sentence is “known.” We don’t know how many witnesses (including Mike Pollard) were asked to give evidence to the Inquiry and refused to do so. Let’s hope the final report will name those (it legally can) who were called to give evidence and refused and the reasons for their refusal as well as reasons as to why the COI didn’t subpoena them.

      Delete
    6. No excuse for any former States Member to not give evidence.
      Be honest, what would people have said had Lewis and Walker refused with the same reason?
      It is undefendable tbh.

      Delete
    7. You are so right @13:55
      tbh it is undefendable that a £23m CoI into child abuse did not
      subpoena the Health Minister (or provide him with unconditional legal representation).

      Thank you for not dishonestly blaming a good politician and anti-child-abuse activist who has already been a political prisoner of the Jersey authorities TWICE already.

      Delete
    8. Maybe the minority 'government' Conservative Coalition of Chaos with the dopey climate change deniers and homophobic DUP are trying to out do Jersey Council of Chaos?

      Delete
    9. At 12:59, 9th June: -

      "Apart from the couple of dozen central and high profile witnesses there are also a n unknown number of potentially earth shattering witnesses who were too scared to take part.

      In addition there are the victims who have tragically taken their own lives or 'self medicated' to an early death.

      Such is the cost of abuse and cover up......"

      Yes.

      That is absolutely true.

      I'm aware of a number of earth-shattering witnesses - whistle-blowers - victims - and would-be whistle-blowers - who were directly terrified, coerced, and expressly intimidated from any engagement at all with this CoI - by the conduct of the CoI.

      And - of course - by the conduct of the relevant - and responsible - UK authorities - and - expressly and in particular - by The Monarch - who - by conferring Her "Letters Patent" on a direct, conflicted party & suspect & overt conspirator-to-pervert-the-course-of-justice, William Bailhache, to be Her "Bailiff" - thus using the "judiciary" to terrify those who may have spoken the truth - was effectively engaging witness-intimidation and conspiracy-to-pervert-justice.

      Yes - Ma'am.

      Fact.

      No hiding place.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
  45. "what would people have said had Lewis and Walker refused with the same reason?"
    They would have had legal support which is all SS asked for & was refused, simple!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Slime ball Andrew Lewis won't be looking forward to his Train arriving on 3rd July.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Can you re-link up this excellent video?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHOxVqONz2U

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy to OBLIGE. The fact that that man is still in office is a damming indictment on the present parliament and "justice" system. If anybody ever doubted "The Jersey Way" is still alive and well then Andrew Lewis still being a parliamentarian should erase any of that doubt.

      Delete
    2. OMG.
      How embarrassing for his voters.

      Delete
  48. Anon at 9:40 says:
    "Slime ball Andrew Lewis won't be looking forward to his Train arriving on 3rd July."
    Sad thing is, don't think he cares. One of the biggest issues the COI should be giving the correct verdict on is the illegal suspension of Graham Power, and the person who did this to Graham Power was Andrew Lewis. He thinks hes safe and protected. July 3rd should prove this.
    One way or the other. Could be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh he'll care. He'll wonder what the hell has just begun.

      Delete
  49. I JUST WISH SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK OF US THE VICTIMS & THEIR FEELINGS, BEFORE SPOUTING OUT AND THINKING YOU KNOW IT ALL & ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED. NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW THE TRUTH ONLY US VICTIMS NOW THE TRUTH..... THE WHOLE TRUTH..... AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH........ WE WERE NOTHING THEN AND WE ARE NOTHING NOW..........

    ReplyDelete