Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel
Readers will be aware that the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry PANEL has returned to Jersey as reported by VFC HERE followed by an interview with Panel Member Sandy Cameron HERE. The Panel is over to hear from a wide range of witnesses in order to determine how its eight RECOMMENDATIONS have (or haven't) been implemented.
The Panel held a number of private and "public" meetings. The so-called "public" hearings took place at St. Paul's Centre this week between 21st and 24th May and the list of witnesses/schedule can be viewed HERE.
Firstly, as the selected e-mails below will demonstrate, the title of this Blog Posting ("Care Inquiry Panel and "The Jersey Way") was chosen by the Panel itself. We were hoping for the title to be "Care Inquiry shows humility and allows filming of public hearings."
We should say that the Panel, up to the point of refusing to allow the "public" hearings to be filmed, had been very open and accommodating to us the New Media (formerly known as Social Media) and has kept us (as far as we know) as up to date with its work/schedule during the week as it has with the old media (formerly known as mainstream media). We have been included in the media mailing list and for that we are grateful.
However, a rather bizarre turn of events occurred, (e-mails below), not so much (as bizarre as it is) that the Panel refused to allow Public/Civil Servants, Politicians, and members of the old and new media to be filmed (at "Public" Hearings). It was "The Jersey Way" style that the Panel went back on its word, attempted to defend the indefensible, and pretend it didn't go back on its word.
Here (below) are some e-mails between VFC, and the panel, which should explain how the title of this Blog Posting was chosen (by the Panel) and why (unfortunately) that title is so apt.
Names have been redacted/changed.
However, a rather bizarre turn of events occurred, (e-mails below), not so much (as bizarre as it is) that the Panel refused to allow Public/Civil Servants, Politicians, and members of the old and new media to be filmed (at "Public" Hearings). It was "The Jersey Way" style that the Panel went back on its word, attempted to defend the indefensible, and pretend it didn't go back on its word.
Here (below) are some e-mails between VFC, and the panel, which should explain how the title of this Blog Posting was chosen (by the Panel) and why (unfortunately) that title is so apt.
Names have been redacted/changed.
"(witness to Panel) has contacted me after s/he gave evidence to the panel today. S/He has told me that you/the Panel WON'T be allowing the public hearings to be filmed? I'm hoping s/he is mistaken on what the Panel have, or have not, said to him/her
On the 8th May 2019 (12:56pm) in an e-mail to you I asked:
"Hello (VFC)
"(Panel Member)
"(VFC).
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
On the 8th May 2019 (12:56pm) in an e-mail to you I asked:
"Will the media be allowed at the public hearings?"
To which you replied (the same date):
To which you replied (the same date):
"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."
Firstly I hope that (witness to panel) is mistaken but s/he does seem quite adamant. If this is the case I would ask that the Panel reverse its decision to exclude media, show some openness and transparency and honour your commitment above.
The Panel has gained a certain amount of trust from me and I have continued to encourage Survivors/Abusees to participate in your work. IF the Panel has decided to go back on its word and place restrictions on reporting of (ironically) "public" hearings I can only see this as a retrograde step and will bring with it distrust, not only from myself, but from the public, and more importantly Survivors and Abusees.
I cannot, with a clear conscience, support the Panel's work if it has decided to go back on its word (or lied to me). Further; holding "public" hearings and not allowing filming of them is an absurdity! It's something only the Jersey authorities (one would have thought) could dream up.
What would be the icing on the cake is if the Panel doesn't allow filming of the hearing involving the media. Surely the media is all about openness? How could the panel sell to the public that it is open and transparent if it is going back on its word and restricting media reporting at "public" and "media" hearings?
I am considering publishing a Blog on this apparent turn of events and like any responsible media I am seeking your side of the story as it were.
As I have said, I hope (witness to Panel) has got this wrong. If s/he hasn't then I ask the Panel, in order to keep/gain my, the public, trust and confidence that it honours its commitment in the e-mail of 8th May.
Please consider your reply for possible publication on my Blog.
(VFC.)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in my earlier email we foresee there will be no restrictions on what can be reported – unlike the Inquiry where Frances had to ask for some names etc that inadvertently were mentioned, to be redacted when reported. In looking at how things are reported, we have to take sensible steps to make the environment suitable and safe for the people who are participating.
The sessions will be professionally recorded and transcribed and the transcripts published online. (This is not an overnight service like the Inquiry – it will take a few days). This will provide an accurate and accessible record.
We looked at whether the sessions could be streamed (in the way meetings of the States are broadcast) and there were issues which made it problematic. We had considerations raised on behalf of some of the people coming to participate (parents, care experienced people etc) who for very good reasons do not want their full details publicised. Others who are simply attending as members of the public also expressed concern lest they be identified attending. Filming could cause these people distress. We also are alert to potential liability issues arising from filming someone without their consent , in a situation where we cannot monitor what/who is being filmed.
For all those reasons no filming will be allowed in the room.
This applies to all media organisations and individuals. We ask everyone in media to be trustful of these sensitivities.
Kind regards (Panel Member)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to say it but this is a "Jersey Way" response from you/The Panel. You have misled me (and others) by firstly saying:
"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."
You/The Panel have done a 180 on that statement and not even acknowledged it. Rather you have tried to defend the indefensible and pretend you were correct in what you originally stated.
Having done a study/report on our Island you must be aware how important openness and transparency is for the "good" people of Jersey. It is something we have fought for for years and continue to do so. I/we never thought we'd be fighting against a panel who is over here to rid the Island of this secrecy.
This part of the statement from your previous e-mail is about as unambiguous as it gets:
"so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."
Not being allowed recording devices or cameras is a restriction on reporting. I wanted to film part(s) of the hearing and publish it/them on my Blog. But the "restriction" on cameras has "restricted" my reporting. There clearly are restrictions and by denying this further casts a shadow over the integrity of the Panel and shows it in the light of "The Jersey Way."
You either intentionally misled me and others to begin with or you are being dishonest/disingenuous now.
With regard to your latest e-mail and in particular this sentence:
"We had considerations raised on behalf of some of the people coming to participate (parents, care experienced people etc) who for very good reasons do not want their full details publicised."
This is obviously a new dilemma since you first said there would be no restrictions and one that I'm not unsympathetic to. That is a fair consideration. However this mornings hearings were exclusively with Civil (Public) Servants who, incidentally, are answerable to the public and I see no reason why they could/should not be filmed.
After seeing the lay out of the room at St. Paul's I see no reason why a camera can't be pointed at the table blocking out any members of the public. I agree any members of the public who are giving evidence shouldn't be filmed if that's what they wish as I share their fear of repercussions and "The Jersey Way."
Could I please ask:
1) Will you/The Panel accept that you misled me in saying "so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."?
2) Will you/The Panel reverse the decision not to allow cameras in cases of Civil Servants/Politicians and those who have no objections to being filmed?
3) Have any of the island's media questioned your decision on the camera ban?
4) I would like (for the historical record of my Blog) to film when I give evidence on Thursday. There will only be Bloggers and journalists at the table. Even if the Panel refuses to be open enough to allow filming of Civil Servants and politicians what harm can be done filming the media/Social Media?
You will be aware that I was contacted by a European documentary film production who asked me if filming was permitted, at the "public" hearings, and I assured them it was by sending the relevant part of your e-mail:
"Yes – the media – including social media - will be welcome. There is no accreditation system or dedicated facilities for media. As we are not discussing specific cases, there should be no sensitive material involved so there won’t be restrictions on reporting."
They too saw this as unambiguous in that there were no restrictions and travelled to Jersey (at a great cost one should imagine) on that basis. This has turned out to be a waste of time and money for them and is further embarrassment to the Panel.
As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, I am considering publishing a Blog on this subject and including our e-mails, or relevant parts of, as evidence of what has transpired. I am pondering on what the title of the Blog might be and it depends on your answers to my questions, and related concerns, in this e-mail.
The two titles I'm thinking on are something along the lines of;
A) "Care Inquiry Panel and The Jersey Way."
B) Care Inquiry shows humility and allows filming of public hearings.
You will appreciate that I have credited the Panel/Inquiry where it is due and will continue to do so. I will also challenge it where I feel it is necessary to do so and this is one of those times.
Look forward to your reply.
(VFC)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. No
3. No
4. No
You are of course free to publish whatever you wish and we will defend to the death your right to do so."(END)
As readers will see from question, and answer, No.3 if the Panel is to be believed. None of the Island's media questioned the Panel's decision to restrict the reporting of the Hearings. This, we argue, is a major part of "The Jersey Problem." The old media (although it has improved in some areas) is inherently compliant. It (old media) should not only have challenged this assault on the so-called "Free Press" it should have called the Panel out and publicly challenged it in order to fight for the freedom of the Press (as we have done). Apparently its immediate reaction is to comply and not challenge. It appears that the ONLY Jersey media to question the "no cameras restriction" is the new media (this Blogger). We are aware that the Panel was challenged by media who were visiting from off-island who clearly aren't as compliant as the local media.
As mentioned in the e-mails, we see this secretive and "Jersey Way" style of the Panel as a retrograde step in what we believed to be a much improved relationship between us, the public and them.
We maintain that "no reporting restrictions" means "no reporting restrictions" no matter how you try to dress it up.
Stay tuned for the next Blog Posting on the hearing where the old and new media were the witnesses and who had the courage to turn up and who didn't................................................
As readers will see from question, and answer, No.3 if the Panel is to be believed. None of the Island's media questioned the Panel's decision to restrict the reporting of the Hearings. This, we argue, is a major part of "The Jersey Problem." The old media (although it has improved in some areas) is inherently compliant. It (old media) should not only have challenged this assault on the so-called "Free Press" it should have called the Panel out and publicly challenged it in order to fight for the freedom of the Press (as we have done). Apparently its immediate reaction is to comply and not challenge. It appears that the ONLY Jersey media to question the "no cameras restriction" is the new media (this Blogger). We are aware that the Panel was challenged by media who were visiting from off-island who clearly aren't as compliant as the local media.
As mentioned in the e-mails, we see this secretive and "Jersey Way" style of the Panel as a retrograde step in what we believed to be a much improved relationship between us, the public and them.
We maintain that "no reporting restrictions" means "no reporting restrictions" no matter how you try to dress it up.
Stay tuned for the next Blog Posting on the hearing where the old and new media were the witnesses and who had the courage to turn up and who didn't................................................
It seems to me that this is first and foremost another example of Panel incompetence.
ReplyDeleteThey did not think this one through and have themselves learned little or nothing from their previous stay on the island.
I had remarked on a previous occasion, in relation to some of their sloppy redactions of submitted evidence, that they really did not understand the environment in which they were operating.
Readers will also remember their complete lack of communication with the public during the active period of the inquiry when their site went off line or submitted evidence was taken down.
You are being very reasonable here, particularly when they have already put you in an embarrassing position in relation to foreign media. [I hope that the disappointed media will take the opportunity to do a bit of investigating while on the island.]
It is understandable, but not forgivable, how they misled you, given their previous form. But it is a disgrace that they have not moved to accommodate you, and the old media, on the basis of the wise and acceptable restrictions which you have outlined.
The curtness of their reply, which amounts to a pulling down of the shutters and telling you to f**k off, is very revealing.
I speak as a former senior Irish civil servant who has been streamed from our Parliament when appearing before sessions of our Public Accounts Committee. It was very uncomfortable for me. So what? This is the degree of public accountability that a modern democracy demands of its public servants, and rightly so.
The Panel has once more disgraced itself, but you, at least, have come out on the right side of justice here.
Keep up the good work.
If I may inject a bit of black comedy into this £24,000,000 mummers farce.
ReplyDeleteThe Panel's last email has it's comedic elements and verges on satire:
"1. No 2. No 3. No 4. No" ……
….EverSheds: the purveyors of canned whitewash who like to say NO !
(with apologies to Del Monte)
and ….. "You are of course free to publish whatever you wish and we will defend to the death your right to do so."
To the *death* ….really? ….It is difficult to imagine this panel dying for anything …..even the life of a child ….or a busload.
But it is pure gold that you have in writing from this legal team that they will die defending your right to free expression and reporting!
I would encourage you to put this written commitment to the test but... and it is a big but ….. they are lawyers they were not specific if the "death" they mentioned would be theirs …..or yours!
Click on my name for further background
In the circumstances I actually agree with the coi decision to record everything that is said but not to allow filming which many find extremely intimidating ... nor do I accept that they deliberately lied to you and that recording the meetings is not the same as filming them.
ReplyDelete….in which case it is merely £24,000,000 of incompetence
DeleteMy understanding is that audio recording by media is also not permitted. This keeps the transcript totally under the control of the fake CoI's now undead corpse -what could possibly be wrong with that?
If "there WON'T be restrictions on reporting" was merely an error would be to recognise it as an error, apologise to (and maybe reimburse affected parties -e.g overseas TV) and issue a correction and clarification
There are also questions 2 and 4:
2) Will you/The Panel reverse the decision not to allow cameras in cases of Civil Servants/Politicians and those who have no objections to being filmed?
4) I would like (for the historical record of my Blog) to film when I give evidence on Thursday. There will only be Bloggers and journalists at the table. Even if the Panel refuses to be open enough to allow filming of Civil Servants and politicians what harm can be done filming the media/Social Media?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Another excellent blog and expose of what is regularly passed off in the MSM as fact and all being hunky dory. You are the true champion of democracy in the island, Sir!
ReplyDeleteEven camped out in my bunker waiting for the inevitable apocalypse you and your tireless, unbending spirit and good work for the oppressed give me hope.
A better - or should that be worse? - example of The Jersey WAy in action you could likely not see. Sweet FA changes and that is the biggest condemnation of the £23 million care inquiry. The biggest crooks still sit at the top of the pile as Crown Officers. The true champions of the oppressed and betrayed still have shattered lives. Not much more needs to be said.
ReplyDeleteRestricting press access at a PUBLIC hearing is not normal in most Western democracies. And it means that this hearing is not really public. Notebooks, recording devices and cameras should be fine, so long as they are not intrusive. The Inquiry can certainly handle all this. Creating an environment where individuals cannot obtain their own objective and complete record of the events is not a way to gain trust -- and it makes it all the easier to have arguments over the information after the fact. (We've never seen that, have we?) You can't argue with film or a recording when multiple witnesses have been there, keeping a record. We now live in a world where more than half the information put online is false (I know -- astonishing) and/or patently meant to mislead. The USA found this out the hard way with the 2016 election hacks and the barrage of fake news, garbage headlines and false advertising that confused millions of voters -- remember how the Pope 'endorsed' Trump?) Being allowed to collect and safeguard excellent primary source material is the last defense against misinformation, and this issue is not going to go away anytime soon, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the Inquiry have to lose by going the extra mile in being transparent? I'd say it has a lot more to gain.
LMG, I agree that they had more to gain ….but let's facie it …….not much
DeleteWhen a £23 million "care" inquiry into decades of covered up child abuse excludes witnesses and ignores evidence and FAILS to find any evidence of cover-up
…...anything good they do now is a bit like dusting a turd with icing sugar.
…..and who in their right mind is going to 'swallow' that ?
Delete8.12
DeleteAnd vanishes on line evidence only for it to re-appear in wholly unwarranted redacted form. Not just once either but no fewer than five times I believe. This was a sham inquiry by anyone's standards.
Imagine any other inquiry where the legal team for the suspects could whine 'we don't like that evidence we want it changed' and then actually get their way?
What would be really telling would be to learn precisely how much each of the members of the panel made out of this black farce?
ReplyDeleteSeveral times during the week the Panel referred to former CO Power and his suspension. This was because of their concern over the terms included in the deal for the new Children's Commissioner and how if she was to be sacked the matter would eventually be laid before the States to debate in camera but she would not be allowed to attend or be represented. Quite how far they are still concerned about the treatment of CO Power was not explained but they would not be alone in expressing such thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOthers have suggested that both CO Power and Stuart Syvret should receive an apology at least for their treatment but whether any States Member has or will propose this I do not know....https://youtu.be/YJkBu5Dvhz8
Link to VIDEO.
DeleteThe apologies are a long time coming.
DeleteBack in July 2017 Deputy Russell Labey asked the Chief Minister for (a well deserved) apology to the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM which was (due to online pressure) picked up by State Radio. The former Police Chief was interviewed on the subject and can be listened to from HERE.
One of the most interesting points made by Mr. Power, in the interview, was that those who DID SOMETHING were (and still are) criticized by those who DID NOTHING.
Also see the JEP have received an award for journalism.
DeleteHa ha ha.
FAKE journalism surely? But was the award from that well known Hate Comic the Daily Mail? Surely the JEP's mainland mirror. Apart from in sales figures obviously.
DeleteVoice: this must be the only positive, progressive thing Deputy Labey has done since being elected 5 years ago?
DeleteThe Bailiff's removal has proven too hot for him and his useless PPC, perhaaps because Labey actually supports the Bailiff being there.
As for all of the many changes highlighted as necessary by the Electoral Monitors of this we have heard not a word.
Russell is one of the very few progressive politicians we have left in the States and to the most part has my support.
DeleteHe is currently part of a roadshow visiting all island Parishes attempting to bring the island into the 21st century by "radically" suggesting that peoples votes should be equal. This was suggested by the Electoral Monitors (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association).
He also spoke out (and voted) against the latest tool to silence online political dissent which can, and should be, listened to HERE.
When is this in St Helier? I can't say I have heard people talking about it.
DeleteCan't say that I have. But then it doesn't sound like the sort of thing the Filthy Rag would want to encourage people to visit.
DeleteOne of the most memorable speeches given in the States was from former Deputy Trevor Pitman which included (among much more) the line:
ReplyDelete"The Jersey Justice (sic) System needs a full Turks and Caicos style intervention from the UK"
Readers are encouraged to listen to it HERE.
A great speech, the like of which we will probably not see again any time soon. Maybe there is someone in the States who would want to make it? The probability however is that they will have seen what happened to Trevor Pitman, his own wife and Stuart Syvret who all lived up to their promises to call it how they saw it and suffered the consequences. All at the hands of the very people the Care Inquiry have treated with kid gloves. There is a message within this somewhere though what it is I am not quite certain. But irony does not even come close to it.
DeleteThis is said above: -
Delete"All at the hands of the very people the Care Inquiry have treated with kid gloves. There is a message within this somewhere though what it is I am not quite certain. But irony does not even come close to it."
The "message" in these events - and The Jersey Situation more generally - is not complex, difficult to see, or understand.
All that is required to understand clearly what The Jersey Situation is, is to take the one, simple action of stepping back from focus on the child-abuse and evidenced state cover-ups - and take the wider perspective on what is clearly the wholesale breakdown in the rule-of-law on Jersey.
And that step is essential - for anyone serious about effective child-protection on Jersey.
The fundamental problem of Jersey, is quite simply that the place is a text-book "mob-town".
Jersey - and what ought to be the rule-of-law on Jersey - is in the iron grip of mafia-syndicates. And always has been.
But in the years following World War II - and the explosion of off-shore finance - and the subsequent revolution in that field engendered by IT - and that fact that all of the island's law-enforcement, criminal-justice systems, and politics have always been essentially fake - a Potemkin village - and that thus any syndicates controlling Jersey have "ownership" over a multi-billion dollar commodity - it would have actually been miraculous if events on the island had NOT descended into the Worse-than-Watergate collapse we are witness to.
Jersey's "product" - the thing that those who control the place "sells" to the worlds mafias and regimes - is the ability to switch on - or off - the rule-of-law - like as simply as pressing a button. Doing dodgy things with 100s of millions of dollars? Like, just for example, Russian mafia oligarchs? No problem. Do your "business" through Jersey - and we will make you look respectable - and guarantee the forces of law-and-order won't come troubling you - because, hey - we ARE the forces of "law-and-order"!
The make-believe "rule-of-law" on Jersey is THE thing which the syndicates of Jersey and City of London "law-firms" own and control - and they will stop at nothing to maintain that multi-billion dollar commodity.
The decades of profoundly serious concealed child-abuse - and the pro-active government cover-ups of that abuse - evidence clearly the total lack of the effective rule-of-law on Jersey. The logical - and unavoidable - corollary of that is that the real rule-of-law has to be introduced to Jersey for the first time in the place's history.
But if that happens - then the City of London & Jersey mafia syndicates lose their ability to switch the "rule-of-law" on - or off like a tap, to the benefit of their multi-billion-dollar clients.
So - nothing complex or difficult to understand about the "message" here. If you want to secure real justice for child-abuse victims - and the real and effective protection of children into the future - your task - your battle - is, before it is anything else, an anti-mafia battle.
Stuart Syvret.
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
Here are my 3 interviews relating to the review of the Care Inquiry Report in one blog.
ReplyDeleteHope they might be of interest to some but on the basis of the few people who attended the public hearings I realise that child welfare in Jersey is very much a minority concern.
You may have to improve the link since my machine is still proving troublesome http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-jersey-way-revisited-may-2019.html
Out of the 46 comments received so far 22 of them have have not passed the moderation stage. This is mainly because they are predominantly bunkum (anonymous) personal attacks on named persons and totally inaccurate/false statements.
ReplyDeleteThe below comment falls into those three categories but thought it worth publishing to demonstrate the twaddle the moderator has to sift through in order to maintain a quality Blog.
Comment:
"The Pitman speech is a minuscule view point.
99% of the population is more than happy with the Justice System and the examples Pitman uses are hardly credible anyhow!"(END)
The "fact/evidence" is that far from: "99% of the population is more than happy with the Justice System" that only 50% of islanders have confidence in the Jersey so-called "justice" system. Here's the EVIDENCE.
The commenter thinks (as contained in the Trevor Pitman speech above) that a well connected alleged pedophile with upwards of a dozen complaints made against him (to the police) including torture and rape of young boys at HDLG and possibly elsewhere, is allowed to go free and not face a single charge is "hardly credible."
That's why children are still not safe on the island and why normally these pedophile-friendly and totally inaccurate comments don't pass moderation.
Well chaps we can all guess who the 'minuscule' (sic) comment is made by. The one example you highlight from the speech about the notorious Mr K can hardly not set alarm bells clanging to any sane person. Not least because of the fabricated 'excellent' supervisory reports William Bailhache utilised as evidence not to prosecute the golfing Mr K. Reports we know, like Pitman did, and as this blog has highlighted simply never, ever existed. Bit like a 'damning' report a certain Mr. Lewis had apparently read?
DeleteIndeed and HERE is the indisputable "evidence" of the non existent reports William Bailhache used to keep suspected prolific pedophile Mr K out of the courts (William Bailhache's court at that)
DeletePoliticians don't make speeches like this one of Pitman's, Syvret's et al because they know it takes guts and worse, they know what happens to them consequently. A sad but true fact of Jersey political life.
DeleteThere was a song "For the benefit of Mr K" on the Beatles' Sgt Pepper album.
DeleteWonder if Silly Billy co-wrote it?
To quote: 'The celebrated Mr K performs his feat on Saturday'. Wonder what day of the week he gave his most enlightening evidence?
DeleteMake no mistake about this. Mr K is being brought to justice. Your 'mafia', and his fellow Freemasons may not know that yet. But it is simply one of the givens. There is no way out of the Jersey situation which does not involve Mr K being brought to justice. If some of your establishment's more enlightened stakeholders continue to fail to recognise that fact their jeopardy is most dramatic. Obviously Mr K and his protectors who all stand to be disgraced and spend many many years in prison will go down with the ship. They have nothing to lose and will heap corruption and blackmail upon corruptions. The rest of your establishment would be most well advised to recognise the cancer must be cut out if they wish their industry to survive.
ReplyDeleteWell said my friend, well said. There are some things not even the extra £10 million tossed around the City in de facto bribes was going to cure. After all this is 2019 not 1979. Only idiots could have imagined £24 million, no matter how liberally splashed around the Inns of Court, could purchase a cover up after the Jimmy Savile exposure. In earlier comments Syvret himself refers to things on Jersey being 'worse than Watergate'. He's correct of course. The growing apocalypse at the heart of all this are the cover ups. That, and 'follow the money' of course. Events on Jersey are endlessly fascinating to some of us observers here in the City. One can't take one's eyes off the scene. It's like watching a train wreck. Grim, predictable, unstoppable, and unfolding in a kind of slow motion.
DeleteI do hope you are right but... If not one, or two, but three Crown-appointed Bailiffs have beyond any argument covered up for abusers when it suited, and even closed ranks to ensure a teacher at Vic College who had bullied abused children in to silence could keep his new job as a Royal Court Jurat I do have to wonder. The esteemed Inquiry panel have had all of this put to them and yet not said a word. Why have they not gone to the current authorities in London and offered them a belated face-saving exercise?
DeleteLondon thinks it can be toughed out as it always has.
DeleteWhy no update from police on the mysterious 5am box clearing at the Animal Shelter? This investigation has gone on for two plus years and nothing seems to be happening to allow this great organisation to move on under new and professional leadership.
DeleteI reckon Sean was just collecting some Emails.
DeleteFor distribution?
DeleteSure we will get an update on the BBC's 'Britain's Secret Charity Cheats' soon.
DeleteLOL! Now that would be good!
DeleteChange of subject but does anyone know why the issue of ridding us of the Bailiff as States Speaker isn't on the agenda for the PPC Roadshow and follow-up?
ReplyDeleteIgnoring this huge white elephant is a disgrace and makes a mockery of alleged reform proposals.
Removing the Bailiff by internal means will never happen. The Old Boys/We're Alright Jack network will see to that. What we need is a sizable appeal to the UK to demand intervention. It could be done.
DeleteHmm. The 3 panel members are in serious trouble. Really, it's quite a mess isn't it? I wonder if that's begun to dawn on them yet? I'm not familiar with the 3 so others will have to comment, but do they seem to possess any capacity for self awareness? I would guess not as it's difficult to imagine anyone finding themselves in this position who was not already a stereotypical 'useful idiot'.
ReplyDelete'Useful idiots', by all assessment.
DeleteLook my dear fellow, these three people were the members of a statutory public inquiry. That is a quasi judicial tribunal, a status which carries with it all the associated requirements to be objective and meet the test of the appearance of objectivity, and to comply with the ECHR.
They chose to have one of the most centrally conflicted high profile individuals from within the culpable parts of Jersey's public sector as their sole evidence collator and coordinator. An individual widely known in Jersey and widely known to be from a core conflicted department.
There never was any way back to credibility from that astonishing decision. The three panel members are of limited intelligence. Almost certainly why they were carefully identified and selected.
Judging from my long experience of public administration, there is virtually no possibility of these people facing up to their errors of judgment and deficiencies. Personal inadequacy is a characteristic of the type.
I think one will find the situation is worse than even these two comments suggest.
DeleteThe individual referred to in the comment of 17.26 is a colleague and friend of 'Mr K'.
The gravity of that is self-evident.
Wow. I'm struggling to get my head around this. If that's true then why? It's just crazy, stupid why they would do that? It doesn't make any sense. For argument sake let's say the establishment was planning to run the COI as a whitewash, why wouldn't they try to be clever about it? Why did they do something obviously illegitimate? Why did they blow their cover like that? As we know it’s not like it would have been difficult for the establishment to run the COI as a smart cover-up, that’s how they always do things. They would have done that as per usual successfully without any need to get watsisname running part of the process in the middle of it all. Why the hell did they do that? They can never be taken seriously now. How dumb is that? Why?
DeleteA reader says: -
Delete"Wow. I'm struggling to get my head around this. If that's true then why? It's just crazy, stupid why they would do that? It doesn't make any sense."
A very important and obvious question.
"Why did these people do this? Why did they act in such a self-defeatingly incompetent manner?"
In the case of most of the enabling foot-soldier mafia infantry involved - in the City - and especially here on Jersey - there's nothing more complex than overt stupidity on display.
But - an understanding of that factor has to be combined with the deeper understanding of the organisational dynamics - especially the tend to corruption, the hi-jacking & reversing of the deterrent-effect, which is always found at work at the heart of mafia-methodology.
That has been key in determining the actions of these people.
Even the very few who aren't idiots are, beyond their will, captives of the maelstrom. Individuals who, in moments of reflection, know they've ended up on the wrong side - but now, if they wanted to change that - do the right thing - they'd be crushed by "the firm" for the "betrayal".
Stuart Syvret.
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
In an interview with this week's Radio Times, the BBC’s director of content Charlotte Moore says the biggest challenge for the BBC is to attract more youngsters.
ReplyDeleteSo even after Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris the BBC are up to their old tricks again.....
Making jokes about child abuse is as low as you can get.
ReplyDeleteNo. Abusing children is a lot lower. Covering up for Child Abusers (BBC) is also lower. Pointing out the mindset of the top echelons at the BBC in a humorous fashion isn't that low.
DeleteWe should have a road show from PPC to show uncaring, dozy islanders just what our judiciary has been covering up for so long. Why is it all left to bloggers and a handful of brave, mainly ex-politicians to stand up for justice?
ReplyDeleteThe old media (formerly known as mainstream media) should be making the public aware of our corrupt judiciary. For starters it could (but hasn't) have reported that only 50% of those surveyed in the latest Social Survey had confidence in our "justice" system.
DeleteIt could (but didn't) have reported that only 33% had confidence in the old media.
SOURCE.
New media (formerly known as Social Media) brought you the facts during Operation Rectangle and continue to report facts.
It shouldn't be left to PPC to tell the truth to the public. The (old) media should be doing it.
The old, disgraced media should have told all Islanders about the truly damning Scrutiny findings around Operation Rectangle and the old media's unjust crucifying of Harper and Power. Who ever even remembers that genuinely 'damning' report now? I bet you can't even get hold of a copy to read. All swept under the carpet as per usual.
DeleteOften described as "the most defining report of its era." A summary of which can be viewed HERE. The full report can be viewed HERE.
ReplyDeleteA real eye-opener all the more so today because you can see by recent actions or lack of them that didly squat has changed. After £24 million that just has to be seen as even more evidence of how complicit in these events the UK itself has been.
DeleteReceived some very interesting gossip today. A female fellow practitioner of the 'dark arts' relayed something to me of the growing row and responsibility shoveling going on in the City legal practices involved in the Jersey chaos. Apparently 1 or 2 of the Eversheds hacks have woken up to the scale of what they got involved in and are looking to bail. They figure it's that or jail ultimately. Co conspirators trying to hold the conspiracy together. 7 Bedford Row cracking the whip on Applbey Global who are in turn at war with Eversheds over Jersey and have been for some years now. Who could forget the astonishing (and not altogether lawful) collision between the two as revealed in 'that' Report relayed to your legislature by former Chief Minister Ian Gorst? (Not us interested observers!) What fascinates us is that the Jersey controversy is still growing and becoming more & more serious with greater implications even after 12 years and in excess of £35 million all told of public money being misdirected towards cover ups of one form or another. I even hear questions are being asked concerning what might be the 'unofficial' (read real) and sudden unexpected death of the Jersey public inquiry's spin doctor Liz MacKean. Hot rumour is that she turned from investigative journalist who exposed Savile to being spin doctor for Jersey establishment in order to do an 'inside job' on Jersey as investigative journalist. It's suggested that's why she was unexpectedly dead days after the Jersey inquiry finished. It certainly 'fits' with events re Jersey.
ReplyDeleteTo my learned friend at 20:35
DeleteWas not the original chair of the public enquiry struck down with a stroke as well?
The Beano is not the Rag
Indeed, indeed. In fact, from memory I think the 'official' cause of death in both cases was a "stroke". Well, you know, a designation can cover a multitude of possibilities, and not necessarily accurate. After all the 'inquest' into the surprising death of one of your most important witnesses, the comparatively young abuse survivor Dannie Jarman, was so shoddy and inadequate I'm given to understand members of her family present at the hearing were alarmed at what they were witnessing. We have to hope Mr. Syvret is taking due precautions!
DeleteWas there something wrong with my comment earlier this evening? I didn't foresee any problem for you.
ReplyDeleteVFC have you or anyone else worked out yet why the panel bothered coming back? As another comment said a while ago, it always seemed like a lose, lose situation for the establishment. Predictably that's exactly what's happened. They acted just as bad as when the COI was going on. Worse from what I hear with them refusing to listen to a Les Chenes survivor, but having days of meetings with civil servants. They've alienated even more people. And they failed to achieve the kind of PR win they were no doubt hoping for when Stuart Syvret didn't change his mind and go and speak with them. They were obviously really hoping for that because they've zero credibility for excluding him as a witness when the COI was happening. Now I think about it it's strange that they've ended up with Stuart holding a kind of 'power' over them. They needed him to get involved with them to give them some kind of 'approval' as a core witness against the establishment. All he has to do is continue to withhold cooperation and approval, and they can never ever be credible because of their biased conduct. The COI is another black stain on Jersey history. £24 million for a fake public inquiry that was so biased it ended up tampering, intimidating and constructively excluding the star witness for the survivors and whistle-blowers. How dumb are the Jersey establishment? They've just like totally cocked it up.
ReplyDeleteNew Blog POSTING.
ReplyDelete