Showing posts with label Bob Key. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Key. Show all posts

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (Submission of VFC).



In December 2015 the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry invited
members of the public to make submissions under phase 3 of its work. The Inquiry had set three questions, each of which had a 500
word response/answer limit.

VFC, as readers would expect, made a submission (below) and attempted to answer the questions which did prove a little taxing as they reinforced the realisation that the ordinary folk of Jersey have no realistic chance of cleaning up the rot that has set in. We don't elect the people who run the island (the judiciary/Crown Appointees/Law Offices). We can't hold any of them to account and, as we don't have a Party Political System, we can't change our government.

Although the MSM get a bit of a kicking in the submission it must be said that the JEP has turned itself around in recent times under the new Editor Andy Sibcy. It's reporting of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has been, for the most part, fair, accurate and challenging. The JEP has (rightly) come in for a lot of criticism on this Blog for its past atrocious reporting during Operation Rectangle and related issues but credit has to be given where it is due. Not least for this excellent editorial exposing disgraced former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.

News items are now being published in the JEP that would never have seen the light of day under its previous Editor/Deputy Editor. Probably one of the most telling points that the JEP is starting to get things right is that I've never heard so many members of "The Establishment Party" attack it so much. Back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 The Establishment wouldn't have a bad word said about the paper. Sibcy is making his own mark on the paper, and so far, as far as VFC is concerned, it is for the better. That's not to say that I agree with everything it prints (or doesn't) it just means that credit should be (and is) given where it is due.

BBC Radio Jersey has also made an attempt to distance itself from its sordid and ghastly past reporting during the Rectangle era. Its reporting of the COI has also, for the most part, been fair, accurate and challenging. Items are being broadcast, challenging the likes of the Bailhache Brothers, and the Establishment Party, again that would never have seen the light of day under its previous Editor. 

ITV/CTV remains under the same management.



So back to VFC's submission to the COI.

"For Jersey to deliver a high quality system of care for children that would set an example to the world:

What would be required?

It could be argued that Jersey has had adequate Child Care policies/provisions and legislation in place all through the decades of horrific treatment, abuse and paedophilia, inflicted on children in the care of the States Of Jersey.

The problem is that those who rule Jersey are unelected and unaccountable. A recent Jersey Evening Post article published a “Christmas Message” from four of our leaders they were: The Dean (Bob Key) unelected, unaccountable who has a seat, and is able to speak/sway votes in our parliament. The Bailiff (William Bailhache) who is Chief Judge, unelected unaccountable, Crown Appointee, Civic Head and unelected speaker of our parliament. The Lieutenant Governor Unelected, unaccountable Crown Appointee who sits in the Island’s parliament and is (as far as I understand his role) supposed to be the eyes and ears for The Crown and ensure good governance and the rule of law in Jersey/Crown Dependencies. Despite being shown/made aware of alleged judicial/political corruption at the highest level he has turned a blind eye, he has, and is, failing in this duty and has no accountability. The Chief Minister (Ian Gorst) the only elected, accountable (at the ballot box) “leader” out of the four leaders.

Some kind of outside (or even inside) accountability would be required in order to make the islands’ children safer. The Inquiry has seen, and heard, evidence from a number of witnesses who have explained that those who are in a position to hold perpetrators to account ignore policy/legislation and instead of dealing with the perpetrator in the correct fashion, more often than not, will be friends with the perpetrator, and in order to avoid any bad publicity or uncomfortable situations will either turn a blind eye, or merely move the perpetrator sideways rather than sack them or report them to the police.

What would be required is for the Jersey authorities to abandon “The Jersey Way” and face up to its sordid and ghastly past and set about cleaning up the politicised and corrupt judicial system. Authorities need to start putting the people/children of Jersey before the reputation of Jersey.

What would need to change?

Jersey needs an independent prosecution service as in the UK. Too much power is given to the (politicised/conflicted) Attorney General who, as the Inquiry has seen/heard, evidence of, has many questions to answer as to which cases are/aren’t prosecuted in the courts. There needs to be affordable legal representation for victims of crime and the Jersey Government/Law Offices’ Department. An ability to bring private prosecutions against those cases the AG refuses to prosecute. As things stand the AG’s decision NOT to prosecute CANNOT be appealed, he has the final say and cannot be held to account for his decision. Jersey needs regular outside INDEPENDENT scrutiny for all its departments and in particular the judiciary. For instance, according to the Home Affairs Minister, the Jersey police force has had NO outside scrutiny/review for SEVEN YEARS. The Inquiry will be aware that (pre-Harper and Power) the Force was accused of complicity in the cover-up of Paedophilia and other such crimes. If the force (or any other public authority) is not regularly, and independently, scrutinized there is potential, and strong possibility/probability that the rot and corruption that Jersey is so infamous for will (if it’s possible) only get worse and send us back to how this all started in the first place.

There needs to be a separation between the legislator and the judiciary. This has been recommended in a number of reviews/reports including Clothier and Carswell. The parliament needs to have an elected/accountable speaker who does not have a conflict of interest.

Jersey needs to be cleaned up but who can clean it up is the sticking point. Constitutionally the UK (as mentioned above) has responsibility for the rule of law and good governance in all Crown Dependencies including Jersey. The UK exercised this power not so long ago when it stepped in at the Turks & Caicos Islands but is abdicating its duty when it comes to Jersey. My personal view is that the current UK government is probably as corrupt as our judiciary (the real power in Jersey) and the Island, or its children, would be no better off if it was to attempt to restore good governance and the rule of law.

There needs to be a cleaned up judicial system that protects whistle-blowers and doesn’t subject them to secret Kangaroo Courts for speaking up for victims of alleged horrible crimes. A judicial system that won’t force gagging orders on those who try to protect their children. A judicial system that will make a criminal out of those who harm our children and not those who try to protect them.

Jersey would benefit from “Mandatory Reporting” which I believe is being considered in the UK. This would make it a criminal offence to turn a blind eye to Child Abuse and will act as a deterrent to those wishing to cover it up and will be a protection/safeguard for children. That said we’d still need a non-corrupt/politicised judiciary.

What part could you play?

The people of Jersey are powerless to play any part of changing the system. We cannot change our government because we don’t have a party political system. We can’t vote out the Attorney General/The Law Offices’ Department or the lieutenant Governor because NONE of them are elected or have any kind of accountability. We have a mainstream media who question nothing and see it as their job just to copy and paste government Press Releases. It has buried damming evidence and alleged corruption of the authorities for years.

The only part that can be played by ordinary citizens is to try and put some kind of pressure on those in charge by reporting their failings on Social Media. Realistically there is nothing that can be done to rid this island of the rot and that is a sad, and frightening, reality because it means children are no safer now (nor will they ever be) than they were in the 40’s/50’s/60’s/70’s/80’s/90’s/noughties."(END)

So we ask readers; what is the answer, how can Jersey be cleaned up? We know what's wrong with the island but we want to know how can it be put right? How do we get out of the problem and into the solution? Can the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry deliver a report that is capable of cleaning Jersey up? Can it give us a fit for purpose non corrupt/non politicised judicial system? Is that in its remit? How can children/whistle-blowers/VictimsSurvivors and ordinary members of the public be protected against the corruption of this island?

Did you make a submission to the COI? Do you want it published on this Blog? Why not make a submission answering the three questions for publication on here? The COI is no longer accepting submissions so we'd like to hear some of your solutions in cleaning up Jersey and protecting children who, as things stand, are no safer today than they ever were.

Monday, 22 September 2014

Deputy Sam Mezec Unelected States Members Part 1 (The Dean)

Deputy Sam Mezec, Chairman of Jersey's only political party, REFORM JERSEY has been making the headlines, on State Media, and has been the subject of attacks from church lobbyists, for his comments on social media concerning the role of the Dean, and religion, in the Island's parliament.

VFC exclusively interviewed the party Chairman (below) and discussed, in-depth, his views on the controversial subject of religion and politics. Among the subjects discussed are, the Dean's pay, his political influence, church lobbyists, and we ask where have the teachings of Jesus gone? Is Jesus, who could be described as "a political agitator" or "anti establishment" now a part of the establishment?

In part two of the interview we discuss the role of the Island's twelve Constables, eleven of which, who have not faced an election................




Monday, 2 December 2013

"Exonerated."

Discredited, and disgraced, ITV Channel Television continues to mislead its viewer(s) with what looks to be a carefully orchestrated/rehearsed piece of media spin/opinion management led by Senator Philip Bailhache.

In the video below readers will hear Mark McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, claim that the Dean of Jersey, Bob Key, has been "exonerated" by the un-finished, and un-published Steel Report.

The interview would have come about as a result of Senator Bailhache publishing, a misleading and inaccurate, Press Release which was shown for what it is on this Blog posted HERE. In that Blog Posting I published an extract from an e-mail I sent to ITV Channel Television pointing out how the Steel Report had NOT exonerated the Dean of Jersey nor had it exonerated the Island's clergy and asked if ITV/CTV was referring to another Report?

After having to be chased up ITV/CTV responded to my e-mail and a subsequent exchange took place between them and I where CTV/ITV explained it was indeed referring to the Steel Report and concluded that what was reported was "Entirely Accurate." Regular Readers will know that ITV/CTV (or CTV as it was then) has a very strange understanding of the phrase "Entirely Accurate" as has been demonstrated on this Blog HERE and HERE. Yet ITV/CTV has gone one step further this time and, for all intents and purposes, claims the English Dictionary to be wrong while ITV/CTV is "Entirely Accurate."

On Monday 25th Nov 2013 I wrote to CTV/ITV;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.

Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."

After not receiving a reply, or acknowledgement of the e-mail, after a couple of days I sent a reminder e-mail and then got a response where on Wednesday 27th Nov 2013  ITV/CTV wrote;


"Thank you for your email.  I have taken the time to consider your query, reviewing the programme concerned and discussing the matter with the news editor and programme producer of the day.

Our interviewee Sir Philip Bailhache was indeed discussing the Steel report, which, as you correctly point out, has not been published.  However in a press release received by ITV Channel Television from the Bishop of Winchester, it states: "...based on Dame Heather’s findings to date ... I will not be taking disciplinary action against any member of the clergy in relation to the handling of the safeguarding complaint in question or the subsequent review process."

Sir Philip clearly used the word 'exonerate' as an interpretation of that statement. Mark McQuillan repeated the term in a question back to him which we do not believe is unreasonable or would have misled our viewers.  Our coverage of this story was entirely accurate and we have not make any misleading claims as part of the report or subsequent live interview.

I hope that clarifies the matter."

To which I replied on the same date;

"I'm sorry but I do not accept your interpretation of "not taking disciplinary action" as "exonerated" they are two completely different things. Viewers, in my opinion, were given the impression that the Dean, and clergy being "exonerated" would mean they are blameless which clearly isn't the case.

If you will not make clear, to your viewers, the difference between "exonerated" and "no disciplinary action" then I will take up my complaint with OFCOM or whoever it is that are supposed to regulate ITV. Could you send me the contact details of the relevant body who deals with complaints to ITV if you will not accept the difference between "exonerated" and "no disciplinary action"?"

To which ITV/CTV replied;

"I have given you my response to your original complaint.  If you wish to take your complaint further, Ofcom is indeed the correct regulatory body.  The contact details are:

Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA

Tel 020 7981 3040

Ofcom's website is: www.ofcom.org.uk"



I then responded;

"I find it incredible that anybody with the slightest understanding of the English language (let alone a professional Journalist) could interpret "no disciplinary action" as "exonerated."

My complaint is that your viewers would have been misled by Mr. McQuillan/ITV and after reading the dictionary interpretation of "exonerated" (esp. of an official bodyabsolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, esp. after due consideration of the case."  I would ask that you reconsider your response and agree with me that your viewers (according to the dictionary) would have been left with the impression that the Jersey Dean/clergy are blameless.

OFCOM will insist that I have attempted to resolve this matter locally before they will accept my complaint which is why I am once more asking that you reconsider your response (in light of the dictionary definition of "exonerated") and don't expect OFCOM to defend your interpretation of the English language which is contrary to the English dictionary?"

ITV/CTV were having none of it by responding;

"Thank you for your email.  We stand by the response I have already sent you, so I suggest that if you are not satisfied, you contact Ofcom for an independent adjudication."(END)

So there we have it, contrary to the English Language and Dictionary, ITV/CTV claim it has been "Entirely Accurate" in its reporting.

Moreover, despite being in possession of a document(s) which completely contradicts what Mark McQuillan and Senator Bailhache were peddling, ITV/CTV or Mr. McQuillan ("accredited" "journalist") didn't see fit to tell its viewer(s) of this contradiction. The Dean has apologised for his so-called "mistakes" when he wrote;

“I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter." From HERE

To any objectively minded person ITV/CTV's report (below), its subsequent refusal to acknowledge the English Language, and its total refusal to question Senator Bailhache's misleading and contradictory, Press Statement, one has to come to the conclusion this is nothing more than "OPINION MANAGEMENT"

We must also remember there is an alleged victim here (besides ITV/CTV viewer(s)) who is conveniently (for some) being air-brushed out of history. The lady who should be at the centre of this mis-managed shambles who claims she was abused by the churchwarden, then dragged through Jersey's so-called "JUSTICE SYSTEM" and kicked off the Island and left penniless, and destitute, in mainland England.

The victim, known as "HG" might very well feel she has been kicked in the teeth by ITV/CTV but hopefully will gain a little satisfaction in the knowledge that she is not alone when it comes to CTV kicking Abuse Victims/Survivors in the teeth CTV HAS FORM after accepting an award for cutting and pasting another, evidence lacking, REPORT.

So contrary to the media spin peddled by ITV/CTV and Senator Bailhache, there is no document, I am aware of, in the public domain that exonerates the Jersey Dean, or the Island's clergy, other than Philip Bailhache's Press Release. There are, however, at least two documents that say the Dean, and others, are far from exonerated and have serious questions to answer HERE and HERE. 

For those who have an interest in the facts behind the media spin concerning the whole sorry case of the way "HG" has been treated, and related matters, they can be read on the very informative, and researched, Blog of former Jersey politician and 30 year MET Police veteran Bob Hill B.E.M. HERE.

To quote George Orwell "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printing: everything else is Public Relations."

Good work ITV/CTV you really have Philip Bailhache on the ropes with this grilling. 

















Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Jersey Dean Who Exonerated him?


Senator Philip Bailhache has published a Press Release claiming that the Dame Heather Steel Report has exonerated the Dean of Jersey and the Jersey Clergy. Yet in the same Press Release he criticises Bishop Tim Dakin for not publishing the (unfinished) Steel Report.

This begs the question how does Philip Bailhache know the Steel Report exonerates (or otherwise) ANYBODY when it is unfinished and he's complaining it is unpublished? Nobody is supposed to have seen this Report yet Philip Bailhache claims to know what's in it?

Naturally parts of the local State Media have given Senator Bailhache the platform he was looking for in order to peddle his Press Release totally unchallenged and not least by ITV Channel Television where the Senator was interviewed on last night's 6pm "news" programme and was not asked the most obvious question(s) (surprise surprise) WHERE DOES THE STEEL REPORT SAY ANYBODY HAS BEEN "EXONERATED"/HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I e-mailed ITV Channel Television and asked them;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.


Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."(END)


Below is Senator Bailhache's Press Release that makes no mention of the alleged Abuse Victim "HG", who he has, in a previous letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, labelled this Abuse Victim as the Abuser, the letter can be read HERE.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache


PRESS RELEASE

24 November 2013


"I am delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report but appalled by the Bishop of Winchester’s expressed intention to suppress its publication on what appear to be very specious grounds. The Bishop agreed with the Bailiff and the Dean that he would pass copies of the report to them, and he should honour that promise.

He asserts that he has given an undertaking not to release the report after representations from an interested person. As it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey, the only people who might be concerned about criticism in the report are those in or near the entourage of the Bishop. The unidentified interested party is either the person who made the original report which wrongly impugned the Dean, or a member of the Bishop’s staff. As Ms Korris’s report was published without its even being shown to the Dean, there can be no justification for acceding to any representation from her. As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding, and a full explanation of why the Dean has been exonerated. The Dean and the clergy are entitled to the publication of the complete Steel report so that their reputations can be fully restored in the eyes of the public.

The Bishop asserts that “questions remain about safeguarding best practice …”. Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were. The Bishop should act in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Terms of Reference that he issued, and deliver a copy of the final report to the Bailiff and Dean as soon as he has received it."(END)

How does Senator Bailhache know  "it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey?" How can he be "delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report?" when in the same Press Release he complains "Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were." The Senator seems to know that everybody in Jersey has been exonerated, how-come he doesn't know the conclusion the safeguarding issue?

This Press Release, in my opinion, was a (not so) carefully orchestrated piece of spin to artificially restore the reputation of the Dean/Clergy and Jersey. Published with the full knowledge that the State Media will not question/challenge him or it......As seen on ITV Cannel Television last night.

If the Dean has been "exonerated" then why did he APOLOGISE and why wasn't that question asked of Philip Bailhache on State Media last night?

Yet possibly one of the most "laughable?" sentence's in the Press Release has got to be this: "As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding" JERSEY'S REPUTATION FOR SAFEGUARDING? IS HE FOR REAL? Yet he wasn't questioned on this either.

If only we had a mainstream media who realised that it's a journalist's job to challenge/scrutinise power rather than be a part of it. If only we had a mainstream media who spoke up for those who had no power/voice then ITV Channel Television might have had "HG" sat on their couch last night and not Philip Bailhache. If only we had a mainstream media who scared authority rather than could be relied upon to scare the powerless and voiceless....................If only.