Sunday 30 June 2019

Len Norman (with others) and "The Jersey Way."



Constable Len Norman


At the last States Sitting Deputy Mike Higgins submitted the following Oral Question to Home Affairs Minister Constable Len Norman.

“Will the Minister explain to members what actions, if any, the States of Jersey Police are taking to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward and place their trust in the Police; and will he provide his assessment of how effective any such measures have been in ensuring the public are convinced that the Police investigate all allegations without fear or favour?”

The question, from Deputy Higgins, came about, seemingly, because an alleged Survivor of child grooming and similar alleged sexual offences felt she had no other alternative than to waive her anonymity and take to Social Media in an attempt put pressure on those responsible (States of Jersey Police/Law Offices department) for bringing her alleged abuser to "justice." From the information available it appears that the alleged Survivor had gone through all the correct channels in reporting the alleged crime only to be met with alleged protection of the alleged perpetrator by those who are supposed to be upholding the law without fear or favour.

At this point we should mention that the number 1 priority of this government is: "We will put children first." The government's priority comes in the wake of a damming (not as damming as it could/should have been) REPORT from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) after decades of Child Abuse was exposed by Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper under the leadership of former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Subsequently exposed by the IJCI itself.

In the wake of the IJCI report The Powers That Be have been busy ticking as many boxes as it can attempting to convince the public that things have changed, children are safer, and the protection of the system over the protection of children is an attitude of a bygone era.

Deputy Mike Higgins

Well judging by the "answer" (below video) to Deputy Higgins's question (above), nothing can be further from the truth.

One would have thought/expected the Home Affairs Minister, Constable Len Norman, to ask Deputy Higgins: "just exactly what have you read on the internet?" He might have said: "If you (Deputy Higgins) have any evidence of any shortcomings concerning the police force then I need to see that in order to have it investigated, and if needs be, hold my officers to account." The Home Affairs Minister could have said: "I need to hear first hand the alleged Survivors side of events because I have heard the police's side of the story." The Home Affairs Minister asked NONE of those questions and rabidly defended the cops/system without question (The Jersey Way).

Just as telling (of "The Jersey Way") was the silence of all other States Members during this question save from Deputy Montfort Tadier and Deputy Kevin Pamplin (videos below). If there appears to be any kind of Child Abuse cover-up, or allegations of, then surely, post-Operation Rectangle, post-IJCI States Members would be holding the Home Affairs Ministers feet to the coals? There would have been a barrage of questions from across the political divide to demonstrate that States Members are not going to allow history to repeat itself and sit silent while a potential whistleblower (Deputy Higgins) is labelled (by the Home Affairs Minister) a "conspiracy theorist." Alas the silence was deafening.

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Montfort Tadier was the only States Member to stand Deputy Higgins's (and alleged Survivors) corner. The Deputy has been an avid campaigner for Abuse Survivors since he was first elected in 2008 and was instrumental in ensuring there was a public Inquiry and indeed formulating its Terms of Reference alongside current/former politicians/Survivors and Bloggers. The Home Affairs Minister's "answer" to Deputy Tadier's question was yet another demonstration of "The Jersey Way." The Deputy asked the Home Affairs Minister to "work constructively" with Deputy Higgins in order to restore (some much needed) faith, and trust, in the government. The Home Affairs Minister seemingly refused to do this, refused to acknowledge the concerns of Deputy Higgins (and alleged Survivor(s)) and indeed the concerns of those of us who don't want to see "history repeating itself" where whistleblowers are marginalised and the State is rabidly defended without question. (The Jersey Way.)

Deputy Kevin Pamplin

But possibly the most bizarre, if not frightening question, came from Deputy Kevin Pamplin. Deputy Pamplin is a member (although he should now be considering his position) of the "Care of Children Review Panel."  Its "mission statement" includes: "Following the recommendations put forward by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, thorough Scrutiny will be essential in ensuring that what is put in place is both fit for purpose and helps to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey."

The last few words of that sentence being possibly the most poignant; "to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey." So why is it that his one question, to the HA Minister, was about his concerns for "the care and well-being" of the Police Officers accused of wrong doing? Why aren't his concerns with the alleged Survivor and potential Survivors? How is that "caring for children?" How can that question not be seen as "The Jersey Way?" It has to be said that this did come as quite a surprise to me because from what I have watched of the Scrutiny Panel Hearings Deputy Pamplin has seemed to be on top of his game (for Jersey standards) and asked some searching questions of those brought before the Panel. Unfortunately his concern for the police, and not the (or any) alleged Survivor(s) with his question to the Home Affairs Minister (below video) does deem his position on the Scrutiny Panel untenable.

I've spent the last couple of weeks pondering whether or not to publish this Blog. My fear is that if Survivors see the exchange in the States, the attitude of the Minister, the concern for the well-being of the cops, and the silence of the vast majority of States Members then it might put them off coming forward to report abuse (alleged or otherwise). I had to ask myself is there confidence in our so-called "justice" system as Constable Norman seems to think there is? Is there confidence in our government to do the right thing and could any Survivor take their concerns to the Old Media should all other avenues fail?

The latest SOCIAL SURVEY suggests not with only 50% of islanders having confidence in the so-called "justice" system, only 33% have trust in the Old Media, and 28% having trust in the government. The Jersey Evening Post was the only outlet of the Old Media to report on the exchange and question the cops. It (JEP) reported that the cops DID send a file to the Law Offices Department who decided not to prosecute the case in question. So credit to the JEP for being the only Old Media to report on this which also helped me make my decision to publish a Blog on it. I have been made aware of at least one alleged Survivor who has, thus far, decided not to come forward because of his/her distrust in the system. While wrestling with whether or not to publish this Blog I had/have to think of the impact it could have on Survivors and would it stop them coming forward as it has (thus far) with the Survivor I have been made aware of? After the JEP reported it, it is of huge public interest, and do I think Survivors should trust the authorities? The answer, Im afraid to say, is "no" I don't think the authorities can be trusted to do the right thing. as Home Affairs Minister clearly demonstrated the number 1 priority is to "protect the system" and Survivors have the right to know the facts. If I was to hide these facts from Survivors then I would be as bad as the Establishment and parts of the Old Media.

I have e-mailed the Home Affairs Minister asking him a number of (perfectly valid) questions and asked him for an interview alongside Deputy Higgins in order that the most reliable, and factual, evidence can be published on the Blog. Deputy Higgins agreed to this joint interview but the Home Affairs Minister refused. I will look to publish the e-mail exchange in the comments section.

It is with a heavy heart I have concluded that nothing has changed despite Operation Rectangle, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, and its report. "The Jersey Way" of protecting the system, marginalising Whistleblowers and ignoring Survivors is stronger now than it ever has been.

Survivors can take some solace in knowing there are at least two States Members (Tadier/Higgins) who are willing to be a voice for them, put their heads above the parapet, and attempt to hold power to account.

The first video is an edited version to demonstrate the Home Affairs Minister's rabid defence of the cops and to label the Questioner/Whistleblower a conspiracy theorist for attempting to hold power to account. The full (un-edited) version is at the bottom of the posting.

The second video is of Deputy Tadier's support for Deputy Higgins and Survivors and NOT "The Jersey Way."

The third video is of Deputy Pamplin's concern for the well-being of the cops and NOT any alleged Survivor.














59 comments:

  1. E-mail correspondence (sic) between HA Minister and VFC. (Part 1)

    My e-mail to Len Norman Wed 19th June 2019 13:48

    “Minister.

    I contact you concerning your answer(s)/exchange with Deputy Mike Higgins (copied in) Tuesday 18th March 2019 in the States Chamber. It is your answer to Deputy Higgins's Oral Question(No.7):

    “Will the Minister explain to members what actions, if any, the States of Jersey Police are taking to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward and place their trust in the Police; and will he provide his assessment of how effective any such measures have been in ensuring the public are convinced that the Police investigate all allegations without fear or favour?”

    I have to say that I was astonished to see that rather than ask Deputy Higgins for any (further) evidence of the States of Jersey Police allegedly covering up Child Abuse/Child grooming you maliciously attacked him and defended the police without question. Giving absolutely no thought to any alleged victims of this and similar alleged crimes. Your rabid defence of the SOJP and unwillingness to even consider the notion that something COULD be amiss with the police's handling of ANY case is out and out "The Jersey Way" and is exactly how the police (pre 2000-2008) were able to cover up the Child Abuse for decades. We were always told to "leave it to the professionals" etc and it was the professionals either abusing the children or covering up for those who were.

    It was like stepping back in time listening to your attack Deputy Higgins because he was showing Survivors/Abusees that they do have someone/a politician who will be their voice in the States and ask the uncomfortable questions and attempt to hold power to account.

    Judging by your answer, in the States, you have clearly got the police's side of events. Can I ask have you attempted to make contact with the alleged victim(s) of the alleged crime(s) to get his/her/their side of events?

    Part of your attack on Deputy Higgins was to call him a "conspiracy theorist" and this is where I felt like I had stepped back in time. (November 2008 to be precise).

    The then Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis when answering (sic) questions in the States Chamber http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html (just like you were) called the then Senator Stuart Syvret a "conspiracy theorist" (just like you did to Deputy Higgins).

    Senator Syvret was asking legitimate questions of the Home Affairs Minister (as was Deputy Higgins to you) and it turned out (according to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry) that the Minister was actually telling lies in the States that day. Which makes me ask; are we going to find out that you were telling lies somewhere down the line?

    Could you please give me some examples of when Deputy Higgins has perpetuated a conspiracy theory as you have accused him of? If not I believe you owe the Deputy a public apology. Will you give him that public apology if needs be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part two.

      You might be aware (if you follow Social Media) that your attack on Deputy Higgins, more importantly, your attack on Survivors/abusees and unquestioned defence of the SOJP has reached widespread condemnation and has done more to harm the trust in the police and authorities since the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM and the Old Media's attack and smearing of former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.

      You have, single handedly, (in your attack on Deputy Higgins) done more damage to the trust and confidence of Survivors/Abusees, and members of the general public than I can think of in recent times. Could I ask" How are you so sure the police have no case to answer if you haven't spoken with the alleged Survivors? If you haven't attempted to make contact with the alleged survivos(s)....Why not? Will you attempt to make contact with him/her/them?

      I am considering publishing a Blog on this subject but the only thing stopping me so far is that your actions/in-actions might very well be preventing (m)any survivors coming forward. To be truthful I'm not convinced they would get the justice they deserve if they did come forward after seeing your reaction to Deputy Higgins's perfectly legitimate question(s)

      As you will be well are, I run a responsible, fact based, Blog and in order to do that, where possible, I like to get both sides of a story so I can put as much evidence to my readers so that they can make an informed opinion.

      In order to do this could I ask if you would be agreeable to an interview? Or will you address my questions in this e-mail (written in bold) which will be considered for publication?

      My (and no doubt me readers/viewers) preferred option would be to interview yourself and Deputy Higgins at the same time. Could I ask would that be agreeable to you both?

      Kind Regards.”

      Delete
    2. Part 3.

      Len Norman’s reply to me Friday 21st June 2019 18:00

      “Dear Neil

      Thanks for your message. Long time since I heard from you!

      You will understand that I have nothing to add to the answers I gave in the States except to say nothing to undermine the efforts of either the Police or the SARC in this area to support and safeguard victims of sexual abuse should be tolerated.

      I very much appreciate your kind offer to interview me, but on this occasion I will decline the opportunity. But thanks for asking.

      Best wishes and kind regards.

      Len”

      Delete
    3. Part 4

      My reply to Len Norman 22nd June 2019 07:27

      "Minister.

      I'm not sure if you see the irony/hypocrisy in your reply as I do?

      In the States Sitting (Tues 18th June 2009) you said:

      "It is shocking, in my view, that Deputy Higgins should base these sort of allegations on some comments made on social media.
      We all know that Deputy Higgins, when it comes to being a conspiracy theorist, is right up there at the very top. I invite him once again to get his facts from the people, who know what is going on, not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat. Come and see me, I say to Deputy Higgins. Come and see the police officers responsible for dealing with sexual offences and get his facts right, before he makes these sort of wide allegations, which are offensive to the States of Jersey Police suggesting that they do not investigate things properly, because I know they do."

      Here I have contacted you, so I don't "base these sort of allegations on some comments made on social media." I have taken your advice when you said: "I invite him once again to get his facts from the people, who know what is going on, not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat. Come and see me, I say to Deputy Higgins."
      So I have "come to see you" as it were. I have asked you a number of questions which you have refused to answer as well as refusing an interview. It's difficult to see how anybody can get the facts when the person, supposedly, with the facts (you) suggest people ask you for the facts and then refuse to give them!

      Delete
    4. Part 5.

      If you are as interested, as you claim to be, in protecting the integrity of the police force, and don't want "wild allegations" made "which are offensive to the States of Jersey Police suggesting that they do not investigate things properly, because I know they do." Then you would surely be bending over backwards to get the truth out there? Yet when I, as a member of the public (and constituent), attempt to get the some facts from you (as you suggested) you stone-wall me.

      I'm not sure if this is all "A Constables thing" as I am having de ja vu here remembering when Constable Chris Taylor told me to get my facts right, so I asked him for the facts, and he refused to give them to me also https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/08/constable-chris-taylor-and.html. It's yet another case of history repeating itself when those supposedly with the facts that vindicate alleged wrong-doers come up empty every time.

      From your refusal to answer my questions, or have a joint interview with Deputy Higgins (copied in), I believe I am entitled (on my Blog) to suggest you are covering up for the cops and have made no attempt to get a counter-view from those (Survivors) who claim the cover-up. Exactly (history repeating itself) the attitude that ensured decades of Child Abuse could occur on the island with those perpetrating it and covering it up being protected, and un-questioned, by those with political responsibility.

      I am too long in the tooth to have a drawn out e-mail tennis match with you. I've asked the questions, you've refused to answer them and refused to be interviewed on them. There is a saying in journalism (not that I am an "accredited" journalist) that says: "If you don't tell your story then somebody else will tell it for you."

      I'll be telling your story, how I see it, after attempting to get the facts from you, and I'm not sure it will show yourself or the police force in a good light.

      I am also considering submitting a complaint against you, under the code of conduct for States Members, to the Commissioner for Standards. This will be for your conduct in the States Chamber in "answering" Deputy Higgins's question(s) and your "answer" to me. I believe your conduct falls well short of that expected of States Members but in reality, I'm sad to say, is pretty much the norm for the majority of Members.

      I invite you once more to revisit my questions and answer them and reconsider your refusal to have a joint interview with Deputy Higgins in order to help restore some (much needed) trust in yourself and the States of Jersey Police?

      I should say that the complaint is not personal it is solely based on principle

      Delete
    5. Len Norman is a stereotypical "useful idiot".

      He knows what he says in his rants is demonstrably false. He knows, certainly, a lot of the core facts. He knows what the horrifying truth is concerning mafia activity on Jersey.

      But, he is weak, he is unethical, he is 'owned' by events.

      Just another silly little man on Jersey - a hick-town non-entity - who will be thrown to the wolves of history - like those inadequates he seeks to protect.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.

      Delete
  2. From listening to the exchanges I'm convinced that the Minister, if confronted with the issue at the time, would have labelled Jesus a conspiracy theorist (or worse) and assured the public that Pilate and the Sanhedrin did everything by the book.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was an absolute disgrace, accusing Deputy Higgins of being a conspiracy theorist. The Minister should resign but that is not the Jersey Way. His dismissal of social media also shows a profound ignorance of today's political and social environment. A useful ploy but a base one. It would certainly not inspire anyone's confidence in dealing with him or relying on his judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On reflection, I may have been a bit forward bringing Jesus onstage in the context of the States of Jersey debates. I seem to remember an earlier spat between (I think) Deputy Tadier and the then Bailiff in this regard :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it was very apt. Jesus was as my old padre used to say the very first Socialist. Were he to appear in today's Jersey and start kicking up a rumpus for the victims and general downtrodden he would be attacked by the leftie-hating Establishment party with every low trick in the book.

      Delete
    2. The William Bailhache/Monty Tadier and Jesus AKA Ronnie Pickering STAT.

      Delete
    3. I was attacked for, and then illegally stopped from speaking in the Jersey legislature, when attempting to cite the words of Jesus towards the welfare of children, when I was attempting to make the 2007 Christmas speech as father of the house.

      These people are decadent scum.

      Don't be surprised by any of the depths they sink to.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.

      Delete
  5. Len Norman is (and has been for many years) well past his use by date, he is like so many past members of the states convinced he is 'needed' well not in my own experience Len.
    Many ,many years ago you showed your complete arrogance to me, while I was talking to the then housing chief officer (a friend from many years back) you just thrust yourself between us, nearly knocking me off my feet, with your back only inches from my face, to this day I deeply regret I did not give you a good jag in the kidneys for your utter rudeness.
    But what you said to Deputy Higgins just shows you are no better now than back then, a bit like Terry Le Main spitting and screaming at Stuart Syvret and telling Stuart that child abuse was all a load of rubbish on that day when Stuart had the courage to say what he did.
    Len do us all a favor (especially those who were abused) and resign.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It was I who raised the alarm on the perpetrator. He has clearly committed offences but will most likely get protected

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your courage is admirable, Ana and hopefully has built a foundation for others to come forwards and speak out.. x

      Delete
    2. Co-sign.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Mike and also Stuart

      Delete
  7. Deputy Mike Higgins genuinely cares about survivors. I met him recently, also I thank Monfort Tadier for his support. I'm not surprised by pamplin as he is/was good friends with the perpetrator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ana.

      I'm pleased Deputies Higgins and Tadier have your support. There are other politicians in there who want to do the right thing but don't have the courage to speak up. Hopefully they might find the courage (as you have) soon.

      Delete
  8. Where were the rest of the care of children review scrutiny panel? Why were they so silent and didn't speak up for the alleged victim? Come on Deputy Rob Ward - Deputy Trevor Pointon - Senator Christina Moore speak up now. Deputy Higgins is the only one worthy to be on that panel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only we could swap Deputy Trevor POINTON to be replaced by the brilliant and sorely missed Deputy Trevor PITMAN!

      You are quite right. Histry repeats itself and in reality circa 2019 things are probably now even worse and sliding downwards rapidly if Len Norman's behaviour is anything to go by.

      As for Deputy Kevin Pamplin's attitude WTF?

      Delete
  9. Perhaps Len Norman would give a little thought to why so many commenters in Jersey feel constrained to contribute anonymously even to such a responsible blog as this.

    I know it is a practice that is frowned on generally but with the example given by the authorities, particularly from 2008 when I started taking a close interest in the matter, I'm not surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I actually thought that Pamplin was being supportive ... but what do I know ...
    I also think that you were lucky to get a reply from Len Norman ... not my favourite politician I should addd ... after basically calling him a liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deputy Pamplin was supportive. It's the fact that he was supportive of the cops, and not the alleged Survivor that is the problem.

      I never called Len Norman a liar "basically" or otherwise.

      Delete
    2. The Cops can only act if there is enough evidence to nail an abuser.

      Delete
    3. But they can also protect their friends and act dishonestly. As can the Law Offices Department. In light of the Care Inquiry report we must be vigilant and not accept what we are told by those in authority.

      It might be argued, also, that the cops did act and believe there was enough evidence to “nail the abuser” because it has been reported a file was sent, by the cops, to the Law Offices Department who then claimed there was insufficient evidence. None of us have seen that evidence and have to take the LOD’s word for it. That’s where I and others feel uncomfortable.

      Delete
    4. Yup .... I’m totally with you on your last comment ... even though I have questioned you about Pamplin and Norman

      Delete
  11. Well done for finally delivering what must have been a difficult post and angle to write. New media at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There was more than enough evidence to prove an offence was committed. The perpetrator admitted to my allegations of when I was a child

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems perfectly obvious that Len Norman's focus is on concealment of sexual abuse allegations. What have you to hide, Len Norman? Have you had involvement in abuse or concealment of such, and is this why you act in such a defensive manner? In my opinion an 'innocent' 'professional' in a position such as yours would welcome an investigation into abuse allegations but your attitude strongly suggests otherwise. You should be ashamed of the anger and hostility you portrayed, as should other members of the Assembly who's faces almost reddened with embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Time Len Norman retired (dis)gracefully.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It seems perfectly obvious that Len Norman's focus is on concealment of sexual abuse allegations.
    Because he is one of the old school cover up merchants.

    ReplyDelete
  16. HARDLY LIFE CHANGING MONEY.

    Former residents of Les Chênes will be able to claim compensation based on the number of nights they stayed there, starting at £1,000 for one week or less up to a maximum of £10,000 for those who spent more than 271 days there.

    An additional payment of between £500 to £4,000 will be available for those who suffered inappropriate physical treatment.

    A separate tariff of payments is available for anybody who was resident at any children's home or in foster care, which covers more 'serious' abuse, with up to £70,000 payable to those who were raped or sexually abused involving penetration.

    ANYBODY ELSE THINK THIS IS POOR?
    AND WHY HAVEN'T THEY PROSECUTED ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO RAN LES CHENES FOR ASSAULT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. £10,000 MAX WON'T EVEN COVER AN AVERAGE RENT FOR A YEAR UNLESS YOU LIVE IN A CRAPPY MATCHBOX AND BETWEEN £500 TO £4,000 FOR BEING PIN-BALLED. ARE THEY SERIOUS?
      THEN £70,000 FOR A RAPE. A RAPE FFS? HOW MANY STATES MEMBERS GET MORE THAN £70,000 A YEAR AND HOW FAR WOULD £70,000 LAST FOR ONE OF THESE CONSULTANTS? A STARTING POINT OF £500,000 WOULD HAVE SHOWN THEY WERE REALLY SORRY BUT ALL THIS IS A BIT OF HUSH MONEY - ITS A DISGRACE - NOT IMPRESSED.

      Delete
    2. Cringe to think what final salary pensions Tom McKeon and Mario Lundy are lapping up.......

      Delete
    3. It's an insult.

      Delete
    4. @18:27 "THEN £70,000 FOR A RAPE" ...I don't think so

      No one will get £70,000 for "a rape". £70k is the top limit for the absolutely worst cases so only a handful of survivors will be awarded anything like that sum, say if they were raped and brutalised through yeas of their childhood.
      Financial compensation is useful but can soon be spent ...and in isolation is utterly derisory.
      What survivors need for recovery is to not have this admission drawn out for over a decade as the authorities fight, wriggle and deny and attack and imprison whistleblowers.
      What survivors need for recovery is for their abusers and those who enabled and protected them to be prosecuted and where appropriate stripped of their pensions.
      What survivors need for recovery is to see an environment of real trust and care (not more empty words) where they have some confidence that similar bad things are not happening to today's youngsters …..yet they see that little has changed.


      As an aside I would suggest as a brutal that a *proportion* of people with bills to pay would 'willingly' endure "a rape" for £70k. There are multiple aspects to this but the point I am making is that largely it is not "a rape" that does the damage so much as that this happens to a child in their 'sanctuary', in what should be their 'home', their 'safe space'. The psychological and developmental damage that this "social/cultural dissonance" does might usually exceed any physical sexual brutality inflicted. Lasting physical damage is possible and this would of course compound the psychological damage as an ongoing reminder.

      The rape of a child is likely to be fundamentally different in some ways from the rape of an adult.

      In either case it is important that people define themselves by how they survived; and not by what happened to them.

      Delete
    5. I thought it was a red herring because I do not recall any rapes at Les Chenes but I maybe wrong?

      Delete
    6. The original comment included the paragraph:
      "A separate tariff of payments is available for anybody who was resident at ANY children's home OR in foster care, which covers more 'serious' abuse, with up to £70,000 payable to those who were raped or sexually abused involving penetration."

      You may well be right regarding Les Chenes but brutal regimes often form a cover or enabler for sexual abuse and also some of the individuals with a taste for physical domination also have an apatite for sexual domination. I know that in some of the other Jersey fostering houses the sexual element was covered up with the details being expunged from the statements and the 'house-parents' being re-employed.

      A £24million Eversheds whitewash says this was not a cover-up!!!

      Delete
  17. I have interviewed the Children's Minister today at the Press Conference launching of the redress scheme. Hope to publish in a day or so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was on the news making apologies for abusers when it should be the abusers apologising and begging for forgiveness.

      Delete
  18. Proud conspiracy theorist
    I was also disgusted by Len Normans attack on Mike Higgins. he called him a conspiracy theorist, I would like to point out that a theory like a hypothesis is only that until proven correct by the facts,I have followed the blogs since their inception and have watched as time and again certain people were named as conspiracy theorists as a derogatory term. Well I am proud to have been a conspiracy theorist who doubted what I was being told by the government and the MS Media. We now know following the IJCI that in fact those doubts and theories were in fact correct. We the population of Jersey have been subjected to a huge propaganda campaign ever since Syvret bombshell July 2007.It would be interesting for us to recount all the "theories" that have been proved correct.For starters, ;That there has been a cover up of child abuse in Jersey. That Graham Power was suspended illegally without cause BDO Alto report,Matt Tapp were brought in to promote that propaganda by the way who paid them, we the tax payer in the end,etc etc etc
    Why is questioning any situation or set of circumstances seen as some how a wicked and dangerous thing, surely it is our democratic right we are not sheep. Our politicians are asking questions on behalf of the electorate, Mike Higgins is one politician who will fight for what is right ,Carry on Mike your doing a great job.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Breaking News.

    Deputy Montfort Tadier has walked out of a States Sitting on principle. "The Jersey Way" rears its ugly head again.

    PRESS RELEASE FROM DEPUTY TADIER


    Deputy Tadier has said that he has once again been prevented from doing his job by the Bailiff after having been ‘shut down’ from asking questions which he says are of fundamental importance to his constituents and the wider public. During question time the Treasury Minister was asked questions about the de minimis exemption on G.S.T. (the rule that means that GST on imported goods under £240 is not applied).

    There is a fundamental principle that Parliamentarians should be able to speak without fear or favour. For some time now, I feel this principle has become eroded, in the Jersey Assembly.

    Questioning the underlying rationale for any given government policy must be a valid line of questioning, especially when it is given as a key reason for that policy. In this case, the Minister was defending a possible reduction in the de Minimis on the basis of a level playing field. It stands to reason that an elected member should then be able to question whether that rationale is sound or not.

    One of the reasons given by the Minister for potentially reducing the de Minimis was to create a ‘level playing field’ in terms of taxation between local sellers and the internet.
    I then tried to question whether the Minister was being consistent in her desire for a level playing field, given the fact that in other areas (‘High Net Worth’ Individuals, for example). The Bailiff ruled this question out of order.


    There is a wider context to consider here too. We are at a fundamental crossroads both in terms of government policy and what kind of society. GST is an example of this. Whilst there might be other compelling reasons for reducing the de Minimis, it will ultimately affect those just about managing the most, because GST is an inherently regressive tax. Similarly, any increase in the overall rate of GST would be highly regressive, especially as it currently applied to the essentials of life.

    In terms of government policy, we have seen evidence that the Government plans to perpetuate austerity, whilst refusing to consider truly fair and progressive taxation on wealth and very high incomes, this is despite signing up to very laudable and ambitious social objectives which will necessarily mean increased spending.

    The reaction by some fellow members to my stand unfortunately shows me that the Jersey Way referred to by the Care Inquiry is still alive and well. There are many States Members who are more concerned with reputation and deference to authority than they are with standing up for the underprivileged in our community.
    I have been very clear about my purpose as a Politician over the past 11 years, and that is not going to change.’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The post of "Bailiff" is - very obviously - a criminal enterprise, in-and-of itself.

      That we still suffer from this mafia apparatus is most indicative of just how corrupt the power-structure in London is. Anything as anti-democratic and suppressive of free public debate - and not compatible with the impartial rule-of-law - would not be tolerated in any other jurisdiction without public condemnation by UK government Human Rights observers.

      Time has come for us to be rid of these crime-concealing scum - and the first step on that path has to be bringing the London criminals to justice.

      Stuart Syvret

      Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.

      Delete
    2. I'm not disagreeing, but for readers here, could you give some general indication of where we will find the 'London criminals'? What kind of occupations for example?

      Delete
    3. Why not call the damned Speaker out and if needs be get thrown out of the States? That for sure would get some headlines and help Deputy Tadier highlight what continues to go on year after year. This will probably just get highlighted and portrayed as petulence and have people wrongly thinking it is the Deputy at fault.

      Delete
    4. Q. "where we will find the London criminals?"
      A …… LONDON maybe?

      Q. "What kind of occupations for example?"
      A. You can probably partially answer this yourself. Whilst child abusers can come from any occupation the London-connected criminal enterprise would be mostly connected with financial crime and the cover up of this and of child abuse and of misconduct in public office. Which occupations do you think would have involvement?

      Delete
  20. Good old Deputy Mike Higgins, or "Last Man Standing" as I refer to him. Well, we appear to have yet another situation in grubby little Jersey, and still the same underlying problem, everyone living in fear. Hark, I think I have a solution! Get in touch with VFC, Ana, get my contact details and I will name the depraved odious little weasel on my blog. I don't do fear!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian.

      The alleged perpetrator has been named elsewhere but as you are well aware we have a corrupt "justice" system and if I was to name him/her on my Blog I'd be doing a ten stretch before it was published!

      Delete
  21. ANNUAL CHILDREN'S DAY -

    SO EVERY YEAR ON THE 3RD JULY PEOPLE CAN RELIVE THE ABUSE THEY SUFFERED AND REMEMBER THE LOUSY CARE INQUIRY REPORT.

    THANKS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never thought about it like that but true.

      Delete
  22. For you next post if you would be so kind.
    Questions for Senator Sam Mezec - 1) Why is the compensation plan so pathetically poor. £500 - £4,000 for being assaulted is insulting, so why should people bother? 2) Why is it acknowledged that abuse happened at Les Chênes by the COM but nobody who worked there battering kids has been charged? 3) What is the point of a Children's Day? People want to move on and get on with lives not have an annual reminder of it all because that's what will happen Senator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Children's Day is a good idea and am supportive of it. We've seen in this posting alone (Len Norman's/Kevin Pamplin's attitude) that it doesn't take long to slip back into the bad old "Jersey Way."

      A reminder, all be it only once a year, of how ignoring Survivors and whislteblowers destroys people's lives, breeds paedophilia, and protects those who protect paedophiles. What has happened in the past (and still happening today) must be eradicated.

      A couple of your questions should be answered in the interview I did with the Children's Minister yesterday which I hope to publish tomorrow. Tomorrow being the second anniversary of the publication of the Care Inquiry Report.

      Delete
    2. Don't get too excited.
      They forgot the Corn Riot anniversary quick enough.

      Delete
    3. T'was a revolution not just about corn! Mike Dun and Trev Pitman must be disgusted. What happened to the promised exhibition mentioned in answer to Deputy Tadier;s question last year?

      Delete
  23. Never forget - £24 million = stolen money.

    Fraud.

    Embezzlement.

    Racketeering.

    And we're going to recover it.

    Every penny.

    Plus costs, interest and damages.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It was asked in an comment above just who the 'London criminals' are, and in what type of occupation we would find them. A subsequent comment correctly identified the London based legal profession as the turf ploughed by most of the main gangsters.

    I have a background in law enforcement in more than one jurisdiction, and I think the key factors involved in the Jersey situation make the nature of the criminal activity involved pretty clear. So much so, we’re speaking of things which are ‘hidden’ in plain sight.

    It has been rightly said by other observers that, at base, Jersey and its off shore finance industry represents the perfect set of circumstances for the fostering of high level international mafia activity. Given the simple non-existence of any checks & balances on Jersey, and the capacity and willingness of your local mafia bosses to run a cosmetic ‘law enforcement’ system in exchange for big big slices of the action, it would be astonishing if the place was not the most corrupt jurisdiction in all the democratic world.

    But as others have suggested, as big and as bad as your local mafia bosses are, they have worse, bigger and bader bosses elsewhere.

    The key to understanding your circumstances, and to understanding how organised crime works and uses Jersey as a ‘get out of jail free card’, is to conduct what might be termed ‘thought-experiments’.

    Let me give you a highly relevant example. The following, it should also be understood, is very much a part of the awareness of the Jersey situation held by law enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions.

    It is commonly understood, yes, that judicial departments are supposed to be impartial, non-political, whiter than white, free of all suspicious activity and not involved in day to day executive, political activity? I think that is not credibly disputed. A judicial department most certainly should not be involved in matters of deep, partisan, political controversy, let alone controversies which involve mafia based financial terrorism, and the obviously illegal cover-up of child-abuse. With me so far? I say nothing controversial in the foregoing.

    So, here is your ‘thought-experiment’ for today: ‘what, on Earth, is a judicial department, the United Kingdom Justice Department, doing having partisan political, executive responsibility for protecting the deeply controversial, sleazy, mafia run, big money, crime concealing establishments of the Crown Dependencies?’

    You see, no?

    The very last UK public authority which should have any responsibility for or involvement in the stone-age crime family jurisdictions of those tax havens is the UK Justice Department. But, there it sits.

    You ask ‘where we might find the London criminals?’

    Simple thought experiments are often crucial in penetrating high level organised crime.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Email sent from Deputy Montfort Tadier (this morning) to parts of the Old, and new, Media (part 1).

    "Dear Media,

    We are now two years on from the Care Inquiry Report being released, with its shocking findings and recommendations for urgent modernization needed in Jersey.

    Yesterday, we saw two things: yet another example of an elected politician (it happened to be me this time) being shut down by an unelected Chief Judge from asking a perfectly legitimate AND in order question to our treasury Minister about a fundamental plank of her tax policy. Apart from one diligent BBC reporter who contacted me before I sent out this press release yesterday, none of the Mainstream Media have contacted me for comment maybe because it is so commonplace, they have stopped reporting it(?). *And I have just seen a JEP article, but not read it yet.

    We also had a farce of a debate which skirted around the issue of our politicized judiciary (the fact the our Chief Justice STILL remains the power-base in our legislature), and there is clearly no appetite for change from the rural representatives who have benefited from our gerrymandered electoral system to give them vastly disproportionate voting power.

    This brings me on to electoral reform - because all of these issues are linked - the media should be up in arms about the electoral inequity. The media should be leading the campaign for modern, fit for purpose institutions and fighting for Jersey’s powerless and (relatively disenfranchised).

    So that I do not fall into cliché, I do recognize the many individual examples of good journalism and personal stories that are covered, but I have to ask that media take it upon themselves to campaign for systemic change for the fundamentals of any democracy.

    I reattach a (corrected) version of my press release from yesterday."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part two.

      "PRESS RELEASE FROM DEPUTY TADIER

      Deputy Tadier has said that he has once again been prevented from doing his job by the Bailiff after having been ‘shut down’ from asking questions which he says are of fundamental importance to his constituents and the wider public. During question time the Treasury Minister was asked questions about the de minimis exemption on G.S.T. (the rule that means that GST on imported goods under £240 is not applied).



      'There is a fundamental principle that Parliamentarians should be able to speak without fear or favour. For some time now, I feel this principle has become eroded, in the Jersey Assembly.

      Questioning the underlying rationale for any given government policy must be a valid line of questioning, especially when it is given as a key reason for that policy. In this case, the Minister was defending a possible reduction in the de minimis on the basis of a level playing field. It stands to reason that an elected member should then be able to question whether that rationale is sound or not.

      One of the reasons given by the Minister for potentially reducing the de minimis was to create a ‘level playing field’ in terms of taxation between local sellers and the internet. I tried to question whether the Minister was being consistent in her desire for a level playing field, given that in other areas of Jersey taxation a level playing field is not considered necessary. The Bailiff ruled this question out of order.

      There is a wider context to consider here too. We are at a fundamental crossroads both in terms of government policy and what kind of society want to live in. GST is an example of this. Whilst there might be other compelling reasons for reducing the de minimis, it will ultimately affect those just about managing the most, because GST is an inherently regressive tax. Similarly, any increase in the overall rate of GST would be highly regressive, especially as it currently applied to the essentials of life.

      In terms of government policy, we have seen evidence that the Government plans to perpetuate austerity, whilst refusing to consider truly fair and progressive taxation on wealth and very high incomes, this is despite signing up to very laudable and ambitious social objectives which will necessarily mean increased spending.

      The reaction by some fellow members to my stand unfortunately shows me that the Jersey Way referred to by the Care Inquiry is still alive and well. There are many States Members who are more concerned with reputation and deference to authority than they are with standing up for the underprivileged in our community.

      I have been very clear about my purpose as a Politician over the past 11 years, and that is not going to change.’

      Thank you for your time."

      Delete