"On 3rd July 2017, we delivered our report into the care of children by the States of Jersey from 1945. We identified 10 failings underlying the findings that we made. These failings allowed abusive regimes and practices to persist and flourish in the care system in Jersey for many decades causing severe and enduring harm to many hundreds of children. In our report we made eight areas of recommendation which the States of Jersey accepted and committed resources to improve the safety, quality and effectiveness of the care of children in Jersey.
Since then Jersey has embarked on a major programme of improvement in its public sector structures, processes and practice and has made significant investment in services for families, children and young people. We have been invited to review the island’s progress in implementing our 2017 recommendations. We have started this work and will be back in Jersey between 13 -20 May this year. We will provide a report in the summer of 2019 giving our view on whether services for children in Jersey are safer than now than two years ago and what needs to be done in future to keep the island’s children safe.
Today we are launching our website www.ijcipanel.org which sets out what we are doing and how we are doing it and explains how people in Jersey can contribute to this review. We want to hear from people working with children, people receiving services and members of the public in Jersey. People can ask to meet privately with us, can take part (anonymously) in a survey or sit in on our public discussions with professionals, politicians and voluntary organisations. We can be contacted by email at info@ijcipanel.org or by post at IJCI Panel, MB 013, Suite 1 Castlecroft Business Centre, Tom Johnston Road, Dundee DD4 8XD, UK.
We look forward to engaging again with people in Jersey and finding out what has changed and is changing to keep children in the island safe and support those for whom the state is or has been their “corporate parent”.
Frances Oldham QC, Prof Sandy Cameron, Alyson Leslie"
Stuart Syvret has stated time and time again that this was a fake Inquiry that failed to fulfill its' purpose.
ReplyDeleteSo where does VFC stand on this?
Greater (legal) minds than mine have commented on Stuart's decision not to give evidence to the Care Inquiry:
Delete"An obvious hole in the Jersey Care Inquiry Report is the absence of former Senator Stuart Syvret’s evidence. Syvret had been an outspoken critic of the way the Jersey establishment had dealt with allegations of child abuse dating back to the 1970’s. In 2007 he was dismissed from his post as the Minister for Health and Social Services after claiming that child abuse cases were being covered up. When Syvret called for an independent inquiry he was accused by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, of damaging Jersey’s reputation. Syvret was arrested in April 2008 and charged under the Data Protection Act in relation to articles written on his blog allegedly containing confidential information. The Care Inquiry report noted his refusal to assist the inquiry as regrettable. But Syvret himself told the Jersey Evening Post that he wanted to give evidence, but did not because he was not granted legal representation, something he felt he needed to prevent the breach of any of the court orders that were in place against him.
If the States of Jersey truly wanted to draw a line and turn a new leaf, which is what this inquiry sought to do, then legal representation should have been granted to Stuart Syvret. That would have served one of the strongest possible indications yet that the government wants to move forward into an era of transparency and honesty whilst at the same time demonstrating an element of humility, which has been so lacking in the eyes of the victims."
From HERE.
I did give evidence to the COI both HERE and HERE. But I am not subject to the same super-injunction as Stuart.
DeleteI have also been invited, by the COI, to give further evidence which I have agreed to.
No compensation for victims but bet this crew will charge well for "services " & be paid promptly!!
ReplyDeleteSyvret has consistently stated that the coi was a fake inquiry irrespective of whether he was given legal representation. So where doesVFC stand on this was the question that was asked.
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased to know that you hold my opinion(s) in such high regard. What do you think of the COI and its report?
DeleteNone of this has anything to do with ex States Members.
ReplyDeleteThe only people up for scrutiny are the people in charge - like the Children's Commissioner and the Minister for Children.
This particular Blog Posting (Press Release) has more to do with encouraging people to take the survey and submit evidence to the COI so it can have a more informed opinion on the State of the Island and if children are any better cared for now than they were 2 years ago when the COI's report was published.
DeleteReaders are encouraged to read the links in the Press Release, take the survey, and submit evidence. In particular the survivors of the Les Chenes atrocities who have (with many others) been overlooked/ignored for too long.
Agree VFC - this is a 'not to be missed' opportunity for people with thoughts on what has/hasn't improved since the publication of the Inquiry Report, and doubts they still have about children's care at this present time, indeed anything of relevance to this return visit by the Panel which they promised would happen, and probably shows what concerns they had 2 years ago by saying they would do so.
DeleteOn the last day of the Inquiry hearing in public in June 2016 Alan Collins made a remarkable presentation about the illegal detentions of hundreds of young people over decades. Some of these youngsters had been detained illegally for very long periods of time and often they had been treated with abuse.
ReplyDeleteNot only did Jersey's entire legal and judicial system allow this to happen in silence but the supposedly trained care professionals also did not object and even elected politicians raised no concerns.
Yet Alan Collins - a UK lawyer - has been able to make contact with many hundreds of people who were abused by this system once the lid was blown off the scandal. And it is not only in large part the result of his efforts that the whole Initial Compensation - Inquiry process was established but it is even more remarkable that his final presentation seemed to fall upon "deaf ears". In spite of all that had been revealed before and money spent - his claim that there were hundreds of cases yet to be investigated was not picked up by the Inquiry Panel and in true form the Jersey lawyers, judges and politicians - with a very few exceptions - maintained their traditional lack of interest or concern.
Thus it is wholly due to Alan Collins continuing work since 2016 - with the support of a few individuals such as Carrie and Jill - that the missing Les Chenes and related victims have finally received recognition and will be entitled to minimal compensation for the denial of their rights.
Yet there is still not even a suggestion that those in authority who actually physically abused or caused the hundreds of youngsters to be detained illegally - shall be prosecuted.
They are not even to be publicly identified.
After Alan Collins gave his presentation in June 2016 I recorded this interview/discussion with him and Carrie and Jill.
That discussion is very relevant today and I hope that the re-visiting Inquiry Panel will pick up where they left off with this tragically unfinished project.https://youtu.be/SxdcEMNnicQ
The whole thing is a joke.
ReplyDeleteThe States apologise for the abuse handed out by people who have already sailed away into to Sunset and instead of getting the abusers to pay compensation it is today's Tax Payer who is covering this bill.
Excellent points made Tom Gruchy. The silence of the legal profession, over the decades, and to this day, has been deafening. This in itself demonstrates that some institutions/individuals are as complicit (with their silence) as much today as back then.
ReplyDeleteHas anything changed or does "The Jersey Way" still prevail?
Here is the link to your INTERVIEW.
It has been said many times before but is well worth repeating again that IF Stuart Syvret had been this Islands first Chief Minister, as the overwhelming number of votes he took indicated many things that have passed would have been very, very different.
ReplyDeleteBut it was not to be, Frank Walker (who just scrapped in) got his mates to vote him in as CM and the disaster that followed started.
Stuart without doubt would have directed a very bright light into the darkness that the abused children had to suffer over many, many years.
We as the long suffering public would not have had to witness the disgraceful engineered sacking of the then Chief of police Graham Power and the vilification of Lenny Harper and we most certainly would not have had to have spent £24,000,000 pounds on a C.O.I. as Stuart would have no doubt brought those responsible to book.
Now we hear that further compensation has been agreed for other abused children, that I have no problem with whatsoever, but who gets the bill? we taxpayers do, why not those who were responsible and who perpetrated the abuse?
These individuals are no doubt collecting enormous states pensions but when (if ever) will they face a charge of criminal neglect while in office.
PPC have now brought forward proposals to reform the system of government and perhaps the most important of the proposals is to get the constables out of the states, their (block) vote over decades have been the 'logjam' that has prevented meaningful reform.
One thing I would dearly love to see in my lifetime would be for the States of Jersey to extend an unreserved apology to Stuart Syvret for the abuse he received trying to protect the our vulnerable children.
Was that a pink pig that just flew past?
I have no interest in trivia such as "apologies".
DeleteWhat I am interested in - is bringing the effective - real - rule-of-law to Jersey - for the first time in over 800 years.
And there is nothing complex - unevidenced - obscure - even hidden - about the utter lawlessness of The Jersey Situation. It is all easily seen - clear - plainly grossly illegal - by all respectable standards and case-law.
As many activists, journalists, authors, academics and law-enforcement officials in many jurisdictions around the world know.
Let's face it - when evidenced mafia scum are shielded - by fatally conflicted law-firms - using embezzled & fraudulently obtained public money - and encouraged and facilitated and protected in committing undisguised perjury - and what passes for a "police force" in Jersey is a part of the active concealment of such crimes, with police officers openly boasting - in front of witnesses - that "We've been ordered by higher up - actually really high up - not to take statements of criminal complaint from you" - then Jersey's real problem - high-level, high-value, international serious organised crime - is thrown into a stark light.
That objective - replacing the Potemkin village "rule-of-law" in the Crown Dependency of Jersey with the actual, real, rule-of-law - given the novel age we live in - is an increasingly sound bet. In what some may have regarded as a surprising turn of events, in fact the London based mafia-syndicate protectors of the Jersey mafia, are likely to be brought to justice before the Jersey crooks. And once that 'shield' is gone - well, as I said, we live in interesting - unique - times.
One thing is certain - as events have proven, and continue to show - time is on our side - not the mafia syndicates. The longer and longer they double-down on The Jersey Situation racketeering matrix - the more they amplify the evidence.
E.G. - the embezzlement of £24 million pounds to run an undisguisedly fake - make-believe - brazenly corrupt - fraudulent - "public-inquiry".
Nothing complex about it; simple thought-experiment; study the following: how many statutory public-inquiries - in modern British history - have agreed to have the entire evidence-feed and interface with the conflicted public authorities - run and handled by actually expressly - profoundly conflicted - directly culpable - individuals?
I'll save you the time. None.
There are simply no words to describe how corrupt the Jersey Potemkin village "public-inquiry" was.
Hey, well - law-enforcement officials - in a number of other jurisdictions know it. So it matters not how long and effectively Jersey's hick-town "juiced-in" (watch the film Casino) gangster scum can carry on convincing their local audience that black is white.
You see - there's this thing - called "reality" - out there - in the real world - and it is often not very nice to those who choose to disregard it. And it is implacable.
No hiding place.
Stuart Syvret: investigative journalist, historian, writer, international anti-mafia activist.
Who sent them and above all how do I give live evidence, in my experience things are getting worse not better.
ReplyDeletePhilip.
DeleteThe details for giving live evidence, and more, are found in the COI's new website (link in main posting) This PAGE will be helpful to you and those looking to take part.
Unfortunately parts of the State Media are keeping this all pretty under wraps. I watched bot ITV/CTV and local BBC television "news" last night. Both broadcasters gave it (COI Press Release) about a 20 second mention and gave no details of how people wishing to participate can make contact with the COI.
I do value your opinion since you have campaigned long and hard against state sponsored abuse of children in care. I also value the COI and it’s report. I believe strongly that the COI needed to be engaged with ( which is why I gave evidence) and still needs to be engaged with. I cannot disagree more strongly with those who are prepared to dismiss the COI as a ‘fake I see such claims as a kick in the teeth for all those, like me, who gave evidence, and especially for the victims of abuse who were brave enough to relive the horrors of their stolen childhoods in a public forum. I strongly urge everyone to support this review. I hope I answered the question I put to you in an unambiguous and clear manner ... perhaps now you could do the same.
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset the COI had its faults. A vast number of these were documented by former Deputy Daniel Wimberley HERE.
DeleteIt's TOR's were too limited (not a fault of the COI but not extending them was).
There were many people, for various reasons, (including Survivors) who opted not to engage with the Inquiry and that's their choice and it's not for me to judge them.
The COI also did some excellent work, not least giving the Survivors a voice, recognising their horrendous plight, and believing them. The COI vindicated the Survivors, Lenny Harper, Graham Power, Stuart Syvret, this and Rico Sorda's Blog and whistle Blowers.
It vindicated our extensive work by exposing the reported lies given during the (possibly illegal) suspension of former Chief Police Officer GRAHAM POWER QPM.
It didn't go to the heart of the corruption (IMO) on the island which is the Attorney General's Office. It did however demonstrate that the former AG and current Bailiff William Bailhache has some uncomfortable questions to ANSWER.
This Blog has fairly reported on the COI. We have challenged it where it's needed challenging and credited it where it deserved credit.
I chose to give evidence to the Inquiry, and assist it with its witness questioning, because it was the only gig in town. If I was/am to call it a cover-up I could do so with the knowledge that I supplied it with a wealth of evidence.
There are those (including Survivors) who disagree with my decision to engage with the Inquiry but those I have spoken with have not judged me on it. They respect my reasons for doing so. Similarly I don't judge those who chose not to engage, their reasons are as valid as mine.
I will continue to engage with it and make a submission. I would encourage others to do the same but won't judge them if they don't.
... and the COI also named Andrew Lewis as a liar. A “fake” COI would not have done this either.
DeleteThe COI told us nothing new in regards to the "discrepancies" concerning Andrew Lewis. Myself and Rico Sorda exposed them years ago. The COI confirmed that he lied (something we already knew) but the burning question it failed to answer is "why?" We still don't know why he lied, or who for. We still don't even know the real reason as to why he suspended the former Police Chief in the first place. No questions have been answered by the COI in this respect.
DeleteVFC - I - and I suspect you - and if not you, others certainly - know the answers to those questions you pose.
DeleteAnd there has only ever been one - proper - response to the situation: bring in the objective - real - rule-of-law.
Simple as that.
Not our job to prosecute and try Andrew Lewis.
But it is our job - as would be the case of civil society in any respectable jurisdiction - to see that there was in fact a criminal-justice system capable of objectively and independently pursuing those issues against someone in Andrew Lewis's circumstances.
Jersey - at present - and the island's vulnerable people - have no such basic safeguard.
Stuart Syvret.
Not long before Lewis lied, Wendy Kinnard who was the Home Affairs minister suddenly resigned from her position (or was asked to). Like the in camera States debates, the Lewis lie and the 'no cellars' press conference I always thought the Kinnard matter smelled. She must have known something or had something held against her. People don't quit office 2 months before the elections. Why has she remained so quiet since?
DeleteI was never sure if witnesses before the COI had immunity from prosecution for their past actions or for any allegations that might be made. So far as I am aware no prosecutions arose out of the evidence - but rather like the recent Election Expenses scandal it seems that the AG has extraordinary powers not to prosecute when it suits.
ReplyDeleteTom Gruchy is dead right."When it suits". Just consider this: Deputy Scott Wickenden has broken the election law - the LAW - on both times that he has been "elected". Both times the court has done nothing. His illegal election, if I may use the term, has been allowed to stand.
DeleteNow consider that a former St. Helier Deputy, Trevor Pitman alomh with his fellow Deputy wife, were both removed by the Royal Court simply for being made - illegally as it transpired - bankrupt. Neither has broken any election law.
They were it is true two of the tiny handful of elected States members who took up the fight triggered by Syvret/Harper & Power. Coincidence?
If ever one needed proof of what Tom describes as "when it suits" this is it beyond question. Now if that ain't a huge unchanging, underlying issue for the COI to look at which demonstrates how their £23.000.000 investigation totally missed the real ball game I don't know what is.
Points well made. The law is only the law here in Jersey according to who you are, or if you rock the boat or not. If the COI can't grasp that then all that money would have been better spent on regenerating the town or waterfront.
DeleteWhat is needed is an independent inquiry into the judicial system here in Jersey itself. Probably with a minimum back-date to legal operations since 1900. You would probably discover that far from improving judicial transparancy and playing by the book has got worse, rather than better as one should surely be able to expect in the 21st century.
DeleteTom Gruchy.
ReplyDeleteWitnesses to the Inquiry only had immunity as much as they couldn't incriminate themselves. The could be incriminated by other witnesses.
You say:
"but rather like the recent Election Expenses scandal it seems that the AG has extraordinary powers not to prosecute when it suits."
That's what's known as "The Jersey Way."
Two interesting written questions in the States next week -
ReplyDelete18. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –
“Will the Minister state –
(a) the number of prisoners currently in La Moye Prison who have been convicted of sexual
offences, the nature of the offences committed, the sentence each received from the courts,
and the time remaining in their sentences;
(b) the nature of the resources available for the rehabilitation and treatment of these offenders;
and
(c) the recidivism rate for offenders convicted of such criminal offences?”
19. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –
“Will the Minister advise members how many investigations have been carried out into individuals accused by witnesses in the Independent Jersey Child Care Inquiry of physical or sexual abuse; and how many of the people subject to such investigations have been prosecuted and (if prosecuted) subsequently acquitted or convicted?”
This is said above: -
ReplyDelete"I cannot disagree more strongly with those who are prepared to dismiss the COI as a ‘fake I see such claims as a kick in the teeth for all those, like me, who gave evidence, and especially for the victims of abuse who were brave enough to relive the horrors of their stolen childhoods in a public forum."
VFC answered, but I suspect the comment was more aimed at me. The comment is so ridiculous - so redolent with the cultivation-of-ignorance that is such a malign feature of The Jersey Way - that we can tell it was authored by a spin-doctor. But - anyway - let's take a look at a few immutable facts, facts which are now a recorded, un-erasable part of the global historic record. As Chomsky says, "There's never any substitute for facts."
Consider the contents of the Judicial Review Handbook, which is regarded as the ultimate guide to British administrative-law case-law. This book is THE authority on whether public administration - public bodies - are acting with vires - or without vires. Which means, in plain English, whether they're acting lawfully - or unlawfully.
In the section on "Grounds for Judicial Review", a number of chapters deal with specific questions and causes-of-action for JR. These chapters describe the ways in which the conduct, acts, and omissions of a public body can be non-compliant with the law.
The Jersey supposed "public-inquiry" manifestly broke the law - was ultra vires - was so much in conflict with settled, uncontroversial administrative-law - that a 1000-page book could be written about it. (Actually, it is, but that's for another day.) So what I say here shouldn't be regarded as exhaustive, rather, a mere tasting of the stark lawlessness on display.
Judicial Review Handbook chapter, "Frustrating the Legislative Purpose". Here's the chapter summary; "A body [a public authority] must act so as to promote the purpose for which the power was conferred.".....
Continued.....
....Continued from above.....
ReplyDeleteSo, there's nothing complex about what this means. It means that if you have, say, a police force, its "legislative purpose" is to police the rule of law. If you take, say, a Children's Minister, that "public body's" legislative purpose is to promote and protect the welfare and rights of children. This principle applies not only to directly empowered public authorities, but also to any subordinate body working under the authority and policies of the public body. No person may use or exercise a discretionary power in a way in which the overall legislative purpose of the power, and any proper policy decided by that power, is thwarted.
There is nothing complex or controversial about these kinds of legal principles. In cases such as Wednesbury, Padfield and others the law has established that a public body has to meet a test of "reasonableness" - in which test are included basic questions such as "is the conduct at issue of this public body so unreasonable - for example, being in direct opposition to its legislative purpose - as to be unlawful and without legitimacy.
For example, see R v Department for Education and Employment, ex p Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115, 1130B (describing reasonableness as an "objective concept []: otherwise there would be no public law, or if there were it would be palm tree justice".
It is not - and could never be - "reasonable" for a public body established for an express, legislative purpose and policy - for example, a public-inquiry - to then act in ways counter to that legislative purpose, and certainly not in ways which obstruct the legislative purpose.
Jersey's child-abuse supposed "public-inquiry" did not even obey its basic legislative instructions - for example, ignoring Paragraph e of the decision of the legislature - and instead going off on a frolic of their own - and doing the complete opposite of their legislative purpose.
The manifest unlawfulness of the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" is further demonstrated on the historic record, in that they thwarted the legislative purpose of having a public-inquiry - by adopting clearly unlawful policies, such as acting counter to the requirements of the ECHR - and disapplying the settled, uncontroversial Salmon Principles and doing so in a selective, biased manner, only against certain key witnesses. For example, me.
You cannot run an effective - lawful - public-inquiry - if that body then harasses, intimidates, constructively excludes, and tampers with - a core witness.
QED
Conduct of the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" - unlawful.
And the above barely scratches the tip of the iceberg.
Stuart Syvret. International anti-mafia activist.
Just read this comment from Syvret himself. Hmm, he seem to know his stuff. Not bad for a lay person, not bad at all. He could have cited more recent case-law, and perhaps have drawn into the argument related principles, 'procedural unfairness' comes to mind. Under this heading he could cite causes-of-action apparent in the Jersey public inquiry conduct such as 'material irregularity' and 'procedural legitimate expectation'.
DeleteNow I think about it, given what we know of the behaviour of your public inquiry, I could pretty much flip open the Judicial Review Handbook almost at random and find causes-of-action against the body and related agencies. Ah and allas, if only your weak and powerless had access to some of those juicy Jersey funds. I could come over clean the place up in 18 months and retire to a villa in Tuscany.
Which is precisely why none of those 'juicy Jersey funds' are ever made available to the 'weak and powerless' on the place.
DeletePerhaps you and I should hook-up and look at ways & means of challenging the exclusive rights-of-audience held by our Jersey colleagues? I'm sure that you, like me, can readily see the causes-of-action. We could run the challenge here. Let's face it, it's all the Crown and our Secretary of State for Justice.
Q19. Raises another interesting question; namely, how many individuals were accused by witnesses in the COI of physical and sexual abuse. Anyone know the answer?
ReplyDeleteNot sure.
DeleteTrouble with these cases is that it generally boils down to one word against another, and they need more than that.
A friend drew my attention to a piece in yesterday's Jersey newspaper which reported that your public inquiry panel is reassembling and returning to the island. Discussion here in London was all about how the panel intend to try and dig themselves out of the pretty serious hole they dug for themselves by excluding Stuart Syvret, the actual person who blew the whistle on the child-abuse cover-ups. The legal profession is toxic, if I say so myself, imagine actors only without the grace, and bigger egos and you're pretty much there. Gossip and schadenfreude abound. Absolutely no end of m'learned friends (largely because of envy at such huge sums of money for no competent work) are relishing Oldham's plight. The female colleague who spoke to me today even keeps a copy of the Iselyn Jones/Phil Palmer legal opinion on her phone.
ReplyDeleteTime to crack out the Chablis & popcorn. Do they possess the basic sense to sit in a neutral venue this time? The bet here is 'no'.
Trebles all round.
An interesting, if not a little disturbing, well written Blog which is topical of this posting. Can be viewed HERE.
ReplyDeleteWhat an important and wise blog.
DeleteIf only Mr. Lever was one of our politicians.
Stuart Syvret
Adapted from an article the J.E.P 25/04/19
DeleteErr....no. Let's not be idiots. The article published by Colin Lever on his blog is the full, unredacted article he wrote for the JEP. What appeared in the JEP was a redacted, reduced version.
DeleteMay I congratulate Colin Lever on having the integrity not to be enfeebled and silenced by the Jersey rag's censorship regime.
His uncensored article is an honest and necessary example of public interest reporting at its finest. Thank you.
Greenfields in the news for no improvement in two years. Only two? Ten more like. Ask Syvret.
ReplyDeleteYep. That's right.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's face it - none of us can be surprised.
Survivors, whistleblowers and me brought these disgusting, systemic, failures to protect vulnerable children in places like Les Chenes and Greenfields into the light - into public knowledge - over ten years ago. And at that time the entire - and I mean entire - Jersey polity opposed us - rabidly - and with every fibre of its being.
Given that degree of toxic misfeasance and malevolence - on the part of an entire polity - it would be a frank miracle if things were better today.
Stuart Syvret.
Wasn't Greenfields the preferred juvenile sentencing establishment of former magistrate Ian Le Marquand, when other alternatives could and should have been used?
ReplyDeleteThe man who went on to become Senator Ian Le Marquand, who did everything in his power to prolong the (probably illegal) suspension of Graham Power?
The same Senator who thought it appropriate to place a photocopy of a coconut on every States member's seat in the assembly, when no coconut was ever proved to exist. I believe it was an untested, throwaway comment by a lab technician who said "LIKE a coconut" without managing to explain how the said exhibit contained collagen.
The same Ian Le Marquand who, after leaving public office a few years back, has not uttered a single word in public discourse, instead just disappeared off the radar?
I do hope the Greenfields case sheds some light on his juvenile sentencing policy as magistrate.
Yes - that is correct. That Ian Le Marquand.
ReplyDeleteBut, you omit another of Ian Le Marquand's actions as Home Affairs Minister.
He handed over - unlawfully "abdicated" (see Judicial Review Handbook) - democratically accountable Ministerial and public control over policing policy - to a fatally conflicted Jersey law firm - The Ogier Group.
That being the same Ogier Group which became the venue of Jersey's supposed "public-inquiry" into the decades of concealed child-abuse.
I wrote at the time of Ian Le Marquand's unprecedented - in any established Western democracy - and extraordinary decision to just hand over control of a policing function - to a group of conflicted private businessmen.
http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/
Originally posted on 29th August 2013, I was forced to up-date the piece on the 4th September 2015 - so as to observe the simply jaw-dropping spectacle of Jersey's supposed "public-inquiry" into child-abuse choosing to base itself in a non-neutral - directly conflicted - venue.
This was no accident. The - no doubt immensely lucrative - hosting of the "public-inquiry" in the Seaton Place "tradesman's entrance" section of The Ogier Group building, would have been fully known - and fully understood - and fully calculated - by those who arranged it - as an express act of witness intimidation targeted at me and others.
Locating the "public-inquiry" in a non-neutral - conflicted and intimidating - venue was merely one of a set of arrangements which were all carefully designed to harass, threaten, interfere with, obstruct and tamper with me in my capacity and potentiality as a hostile-witness against the Jersey establishment.
Stuart Syvret. Historian, investigative journalist, international anti-mafia activist.
Ahh, "scoops Le Marquand" ro the investigation into Graham power's suspension:
Delete"I have just recently given an interview to the Jersey Evening Post explaining the various reasons
for various delays upon the way. I do not want to expand on that because I promised
the reporter that she would have a scoop".
The Beano is not the Rag
Ah yes, good old Scoops Le Marquand! As former Deputy Pitman said 'Really?!' Refusing to give a Scrutiny Panel information because the old duffer had promised a juicy exclusive to his chum at The Rag! You have to laugh. Or cry? To be fair maybe feeling a bit panicked Scoops did subsequently throw his little mate Gradwell under the bus of Pitmnan's Scrutiny in fingering the 'whistle-blower's' leaking of confidential info during a live police inquiry. Could not make it up as someone used to say.
DeleteIs that the Gradwell who also was inadvertantly shown on TV showing evidence already dismissed by him and Gimme-a-job Warcop to other victims, thus rendering them useless in any subsequent court case? Or this some other geezer?
DeleteThis forms an important part of the historic record concerning the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Chief Police Graham Power QPM and much more.
DeleteThankfully this historic record was documented by VFC in an interview with former Deputy Trevor Pitman.
Ian Le Marquand was trying to get David Warcup the job of Chief Police Officer while Graham Power was still in post. The fact that he (Ian Le Marquand) looks to have withheld evidence from a Scrutiny Panel because he had promised a journalist (sic) a scoop is as perverse as it gets.
The short interview with former Deputy Pitman can be viewed HERE.
Don't know if it just I alone but I can't seem to get on to promised video link? Can you check this out if possible? Easy to start to think that Deputy Pitman was just someone who was utterly fearless in raising issues that would otherwise lie burried. Looking again at a couple of your old interviews that are accessible by going to the original story you are reminded just what a smooth operator he used to be. Clear, to the point, almost articulate to the point of elequence be it TV, radio or in the States. By contrast when I listen to some of our present batch I honestly wonder if English is even their first language. They do say that we don't know what we have till its gone. Perhaps Trevor Pitman is a good reminder? Could certainly do with him back. Not that I think it ever likely to happen.
DeleteStuart, you have been proven right about most things over the years.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I've never understood your argument about the building at 11-15 Seaton Place where the Inquiry was held. Yes, it is behind and to the side of the Ogier building, and next to rear entrance of that building. But as far as I know, the office building at 11-15 Seaton Place is not physically linked to the Ogier building. I do not know if the Ogier Group has ever owned that building, do you? You have always seemed so sure of this point - that the Inquiry was held in a building somehow associated with the Ogier Group - but I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the Ogier Group has anything to do with that building. Have you and, if so, can you tell us what that evidence is please?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I have just never understood this line of argument from you. As I say, pretty much everything else you've been right about, but on this, I need more convincing.
It is the same building. The Ogier Group in the front of the office block - the "public-Inquiry" was held in the rear of the office-block. At the time I took photos of The Ogier Group facade, on The Esplanade, and the office where a make-believe "public-inquiry" was acted out, as a charrade, on Seaton Place, at the rear. To the immediate right of the entrance to the "public-inquiry", was sign saying "Ogier Group deliveries". I was intimidated, harassed, and tampered with as a witness by this choice of location. (as were some others).
DeleteThat is how I felt, as a witness.
Is not the more obvious - and profound - question: "why on Earth did the "public-inquiry" fail in that rudimentary duty, to simply locate itself in any number of available neutral venues? Any number of which, some community buildings for example, would have been available at a fraction of the cost?
How much did the private-sector, commercial and conflicted premises chosen by the "public-inquiry" cost? How much of the £24 million was blown in this way?
Who are the beneficiaries? Who are the 'effective-economic-owners' of that office complex?
But the question of the conflicted location of the "public-inquiry" is but one - only one - of the many - and undisguised - calculated acts of intimidation, harassment, ultra vires, bias, confliction and witness-tampering engaged in by the fake "public-inquiry".
None of which are lawful.
For example, breaking the law by breaching Article 6 (and others) of the ECHR.
Running the so-called "public-inquiry" with never less than seven full-time professionals present representing the Jersey establishment - in contrast to zero full-time professional representation of survivors and whistle-blowers.
Being so undisguisedly incompetent, even in the cover-up, that the chair failed to intervene and correct a straight-forward, unambiguous lie stated to the "inquiry" by Council who said the "inquiry" "did not possess the power to make witnesses attend". This false claim - delivered to satisfy the needs of the spin-doctors to peddle an "excuse" as to why so many obvious witnesses were not subpoenaed - was so nakedly corrupt I said out loud "That is completely untrue." At this observation Oldham simply stared down shamefacedly at the papers on her desk.
Ignoring its legislative instruction.
Letting core functions of the "public-inquiry" be run by expressly conflicted individuals.
Conducting private meetings with fatally conflicted public authorities and agents of those public authorities.
Failing to achieve or secure the disclosure of key items of evidence.
Making manifestly false assertions in its reports - assertions not even compatible with evidence and testimony it did obtain.
Ignoring a number of very obvious - centrally important - issues at the heart of the child-abuse cover-ups.
Etc, etc. etc.
The supposed "public-inquiry" was keen to pick-up a fig-leaf - some cosmetic pose which would enable them to pretend to be on the side of survivors & whistle-blowers, without doing or saying anything of actual meaning. To this end they took-up and appropriated the phrase "The Jersey Way", condemning the "culture" the phrase describes.
But the make-believe "public-inquiry" itself is starkly nothing other than The Jersey Way - on steroids.
Stuart Syvret, investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the building Stuart. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with Ogier.But as for everything else you've stated, I 100% agree, in particular:
ReplyDelete"Running the so-called "public-inquiry" with never less than seven full-time professionals present representing the Jersey establishment - in contrast to zero full-time professional representation of survivors and whistle-blowers.
Being so undisguisedly incompetent, even in the cover-up, that the chair failed to intervene and correct a straight-forward, unambiguous lie stated to the "inquiry" by Council who said the "inquiry" "did not possess the power to make witnesses attend". This false claim - delivered to satisfy the needs of the spin-doctors to peddle an "excuse" as to why so many obvious witnesses were not subpoenaed - was so nakedly corrupt I said out loud "That is completely untrue." At this observation Oldham simply stared down shamefacedly at the papers on her desk.
Failing to achieve or secure the disclosure of key items of evidence.
Making manifestly false assertions in its reports - assertions not even compatible with evidence and testimony it did obtain.
Ignoring a number of very obvious - centrally important - issues at the heart of the child-abuse cover-ups.
Stuart – you have made your points very clearly and strongly. People will believe what they choose to believe, but it was, to the best of my knowledge Michael de la Haye that chose the venue for the Inquiry, and one he felt was suitable for all the staff, but also the survivors, and those who wished to give evidence anonymously, hence being able to access the premises by alternative means.I think therefore that, although you may poo poo that reasoning it is also quite valid.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to moving away from the main point of this posting which is to announce that the Panel will be back, and listening to people who are interested in updating them with their thoughts and experiences of what has/has not happened since the report was published. This can happen anonymously or by completing a form which can be accessed on VFC’s copy of the IJCI press release.
It may be Stuart, that you would take advantage of this as I personally feel that all input would be most welcome.
I do feel that at this point we should all be working towards the common aim which is still the well-being of Jersey’s children and the actions of those charged with this starting with our Government.
Jersey activists face one of their greatest difficulties in overcoming and moving past the naive act of continuing to let off your public authorities from complying with the law. That is the fundamental problem that underpins systemic child abuse and the cover ups on Jersey. Was it lawful to abuse children prior to the Jersey abuse being exposed? Was it lawful for people to deliberately participate in the concealing of child abuse? Was it lawful for civil servants to collude in the cover-ups? Was it lawful to shield and fail to prosecute clearly evidenced child abusers? Was it lawful for Jersey to ignore human rights? Was it lawful for public authorities on Jersey to fail to meet clear statutory legal obligations in child protection? The answer to all of those questions is 'no'. All of those requirements of law were already in place. But your public authorities routinely and over a period of decades regarded legal obligations as 'optional', something they could simply ignore as and when convenient.
DeleteThe Jersey public inquiry was merely more of the same.
I'm sorry, but supporting and endorsing a child abuse public inquiry which itself exhibited all of that customary contempt for complying with legal obligations does not advance child protection on Jersey, not one scrap. In fact it does the opposite. Passively acquiescing to a public inquiry which exhibited frank and undisguised contempt for compliance with legal obligations, contempt for survivors and whistleblowers, contempt for settled case law, contempt for its legislative instructions, and contempt for the ECHR serves only to help cement in place yet another layer of Jersey lawlessness and cover up.
Even if a few of you are happy to let off Jersey’s public inquiry for its dramatic non-compliance with law, actually, you don’t have the luxury of that choice. Not if you want to secure real child-protection. The instant you say, ‘well, ok’ to gross lawlessness of a child-abuse public inquiry, simply because you find a few bits of its empty spin agreeable, then you instantly lose all the moral and intellectual authority you require to hold Jersey’s authorities to account.
Let me make a suggestion which I think will be an aid to Jersey activists in taking the necessary steps they need to take, in advancing their understanding of the issues so as to begin the task of holding your authorities to account. It seems to me and other observers that the phrase, 'the Jersey way' is not in fact helpful to you. Or if it once was, it no longer is. It is too easily glibly cited, with an almost resigned shrug of the shoulders. The fact that the public inquiry placed some emphasis on the phrase reinforces my conclusion that some thought was given by the lawyers & spin doctors as to what few cosmetic 'concessions' they could make to survivors and activists. They chose to pick up the words 'the Jersey way' because it gives easy, anti-establishment 'street cred'. And is also so nebulous as to be devoid of all meaning and consequence. Your own ancient, and accurate in its way, description of your island's endemic corruption is being blown back in your faces like some kind of sleeping drug. You only have to hear your public inquiry acknowledging things like 'the Jersey way' and you think, 'mission accomplished', and you go back to sleep.
I suggest you abandon the phrase, 'the Jersey way' which has now been co-opted and neutralised by your establishment, and instead you encourage the use of the phrase, 'the Jersey lawlessness'.
Because that is the fundamental problem you face, 'Jersey lawlessness' and if you do not train yourselves to recognise that fact, and start to demand lawfulness, no public authority in Jersey will ever face that truth.
That's absolutely correct.
DeleteStuart Syvret
I don't understand this, 'It may be Stuart, that you would take advantage of this as I personally feel that all input would be most welcome.' How come asking Stuart to engage with these people is still even 'a thing'? Those lawyers wrote that legal report saying he was right not to take part without legal representation. So anyone who wants him to be involved surely needs to target their demands at the COI who were in the wrong. It's not Stuart's fault he couldn't take part, its their fault. Has Jill asked them to give him legal representation?
DeleteAs has been observed on previous occasions, it is most regrettable indeed that the COI failed to establish any line of communication with Mr. Syvret. Such failure cannot be drawn up as anything other than a deeply problematic blunder by those involved with the Inquiry. It is accepted in other places that the lawyers running the operation and the Panel members rather swallowed too easily their own propaganda concerning Mr. Syvret and consequently enjoined upon a textbook example of Groupthink. It appears that no serious regard was given to the undeniable constitutional issues involved in the suppression of a member of your legislature, the unwarranted Police raid and arrest on false pretences of the leading opposition member of the Island's parliament, the evidenced perjury committed against him, and his imprisonment by judges not one of who can be defended as constituting a lawful tribunal because all were selected and appointed by directly conflicted parties. The significance of these factors to democracy in Jersey, to the human rights of the constituents of dissident politicians, cannot, one would have thought, been difficult for competent lawyers to understand. Any notion that such matters could be marginalised and swept away into insignificance in the background of the general 'noise' of the Inquiry was the work of fools.
DeleteThese are serious issues, which are causing significant dismay elsewhere.
There are a number of serious, and difficult to contend, criticisms of the COI. Many of those could have been avoided, and others negotiated had something as rudimentary as the obligation to provide legal representation to Mr. Syvret been met. Instead, the Jersey situation remains a source of deep embarrassment to the British state. May I suggest that someone, somewhere, puts their thinking cap on and devises some active steps to rectify the absence of communication with Mr. Syvret?
Voice
ReplyDeleteIf one was to look at today's JEP, on page 4 there is a preview, these are the words of Chris Rayner written on page 2, of tomorrows States sitting. But the following question doesn't get a mention.
Deputy Macon has put the following question to the Home Affairs Minister for the breakdown of various costs of a criminal investigation carried out by the Norfolk Police into civil servants within a States Department, the Planning Department.
Question.
Will the Minister provide a breakdown of the costs to date of the Norfolk police investigation into the Planning Department, including a breakdown of the cost of accommodation and the locations used for such accommodation.
Part of Mr Rayner's preview on page 4 that will be asked in the States Assembly tomorrow is. "There is also a question asked about whether a red horse chestnut tree that was recently felled in Pomona Road in St Helier was protected by a tree preservation order".
So where is the investigative journalism that we see on a daily basis in UK newspapers when the JEP's idea on such matters of a serious public interest is when someone steals a dog poo bin and a tree is chopped down. Maybe on further investigation, by the States of Jersey Police, it will be found that the tree forms part of the same police investigation into the dog poo bin as the said tree was popular with the male species, cocking their leg!!!
An e-mail, of support and thanks, to VFC from the the COI Panel:
ReplyDelete"Dear (VFC)
I am grateful for your help earlier in the week when you monitored and provided feedback on the launch of the IJCI Panel website. Your swift input enabled me to identify and resolve technical issues in order to allow all parts of the site to be accessed. Thank you for your response. We appreciate your publication of details about the review and our appeal for participation. Already we have had a number of contacts from people in Jersey. Thank you for helping us alert people who participate in social media to the review."
And VFC, so what about the £24 million of "product" - the archives of evidence and transcripts produced by the supposed "public-inquiry" - when is that going to back on the web - publicly accessible?
DeleteAnd what "justifications" can the "public-inquiry" give for this unprecedented - in the entire modern history of British public-inquiries - act of de-publishing the published product of a "public-inquiry"?
For at present, this unique outcome for a "public-inquiry" can only confirm that, in fact, there was no public-inquiry in the first place. At least nothing resembling a legally real public-inquiry.
Stuart Syvret
Anonymous-29 April 2019 at 13:11 - no Jill has not asked the Panel to give Stuart legal representation. It is not my place to do so, and I was merely suggesting that given this is a review (which I assumed you were referring as a 'thing') where thoughts on what has been happening, negative or positive, or anything that bears relevance to the Inquiry report and recommendations can be submitted anonymously should Stuart wish to do so. I doubt he will, but it is his choice entirely.I also felt that the comments were rather straying away from the purpose of the posting. Hope this makes it clearer.
ReplyDeleteFull respect to Monty for abstaining on the vote of the powers of the Children's Commissioner. She should be denied no access to any information to enable her to do her job properly and I am dismayed that our Children's Minister tried to persuade him not take this decision. Not hard to guess who has further down in my estimation and it is not Monty. It will be interesting to see if the review by the IJCI panel have any thoughts on this.
ReplyDeleteStuart asks above about when the care inquiry documents will be back online.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the Jersey Archive have just put them online. There is a very impressive search and indexing system. If you search for a well known surname quoted at the inquiry (eg Lundy) you can click through to view each document but from each transcript you can also click through to see all 'associated names'. It is a much better indexing system than when the inquiry was sitting
https://catalogue.jerseyheritage.org/categories/categories-ijci/
How can I just find and bring up the (old) pdf containing all of Graham Power's or Mick Gradwell's evidence? Or have the individual items in these old documents now been split up?
ReplyDeleteFrom that perspective I'm finding the new setup quite confusing.
You're right Polo. On reflection, this new site has many deficiencies. You cannot just go to a single day of evidence.
ReplyDeleteSeems like Jersey Archive have not finished cataloguing everything yet
ReplyDeletehttps://www.itv.com/news/channel/2019-05-02/care-inquiry-documents-online/
Have you wondered if the archive coming back on line (half of it anyway) is just a knee jerk reaction to the enquiry team returning and conducting a review of progress. The enquiry team should still raise this half baked effort as a further example of failing to take this whoile issue seriously enough. Who will give me odds on all of this that has been put online being taken down again post the teams review "in order to make further changes and comply with data protection issues." If that happens we might never see it again.
ReplyDeleteMy litmus test is to be able quickly to go to the two entries: reference to 737 (i)in Power's evidence, and (ii) in Gradwell's.
ReplyDeleteCombining these with an earlier (less redacted) version of Power's evidence (which, of course, I don't expect to see back as it was already "gone" before the lot went) blows 737's cover to smithereens.
I have earlier covered all of this on my blog.
As things apparently stand, with the COI returning to put the administration through the hoops, it is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to quiz them on why they didn't follow up on this at the time and if they still subscribe to the lame and contradictory reasoning offered then.
This week "our government" in the States agreed to reform - in part - the legal aid system. I attended some of the Scrutiny Panel hearings considering the latest law and was suitably appalled that the Law Society and the Bailiff kept such a tight control on the process. I heard some of the debate in the States and a few Members of the Assembly complaining about this aspect.
ReplyDeleteBut throughout the process - and it has been going on for years - I have heard nothing about lessons learnt from the Care Inquiry during that process. Jersey lawyers and the legal system seem to be just as not interested in the problems of children in care or their treatment in law as they were in 1945.
So it is especially relevant to listen again to this interview with Alan Collins from 2012 - before the Care Inquiry was set up. Even then he had already been advising Jersey survivors of abuse for several years and he is still doing so today.
The one reform that Alan's activities flags up more than any other is the need to abolish the Jersey lawyers monopoly and I have campaigned for this for decades. Of course the Bailiff and the Law Society members will resist this to their dying day yet they show no enthusiasm for providing a legal aid system that will be useful to many - most notably children.
It needs to be emphasised that Alan Collins has been acting for children - mostly now adults - in Jersey and receiving the equivalent of payment for his services from Government funds for years. He is the worked example that shows how the monopoly should be ended and how a proper system of legal aid paid from public funds is still needed.
So - if my link works - here is Alan Collins speaking in 2012 and it could be today....https://youtu.be/ebsXd3ePeG0
Excellent interview and the questions surrounding local lawyers is (shamefully) as relevant today as in 2012 and before. Link to your INTERVIEW.
DeleteWhat a shambles this Mezec Bailiff vote was. Our States is beyond a joke. Same old same old. Delay and kick a crucial issue in to the long grass for another ten years. Resign Senator Mezec. Cuddling up to Le Fondre's proposals which basically would ensure the Bailiff stays forever shows what a plastic progressive you have become.
ReplyDeleteThere must only be us, Guern-land and China where they don't, at least superficially, have a separation of powers?
DeleteJust as well we haven't started chopping the heads off of dissidents yet otherwise a newcomer might think Jersey had been taken over by Islamic State!
Give them time.
DeleteWho is our new Bailiff as listed in the new phone directory? And when was the Right Hon Earl John Fogarty (should that be Farty?) elected?
ReplyDeleteOld Billy Bighead Bailhache must be well miffed. Someone on the staff doing a bit of mischief or could it have been a few glasses of wine too many at lunchtime for the printers?
DeleteTrailer of up-coming interview with Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel Member Professor SANDY CAMERON.
ReplyDeleteIt was most interesting to hear this past week - with no form of prompting from me - a Jersey survivor of the island's fundamentally systemic child-abuse cover-ups - refer to, and cite, "Stockholm-Syndrome": -
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
I couldn't help but agree with them.
The Jersey survivors know-the-score - and no amount of efforts to induce forelock-tugging-"gratitude" on their part - "gratitude" to overpaid - intellectually bankrupt - unethical - thugs - is going to manipulate them into endorsing the overt non-application of the effective administration of justice on Jersey.
Ultimately - the rule-of-law will out.
Stuart Syvret. International anti-mafia activist.
Full interview with Professor Cameron published HERE.
ReplyDelete