Jersey's Lawmakers, Victims' Group and Operation Rectangle Cop Publicly Decry Blogger Ban.

As a continuance of our PREVIOUS POSTING where we reported how Bloggers were banned from the media room at Jersey's Independent Care Inquiry and all State Media had been granted accreditation, and able to use the media room in the same ruling.

There have been some kind of developments to this but it is still very unclear as to what these developments are and as soon as we get a straight answer from the Inquiry Team we will inform our readers.

We have been contacted by a number of witnesses/victims/survivors, and potential witnesses,victims and survivors who, as a result of the Blogger Banning are reconsidering their decision to give evidence to the Inquiry. Some have threatened to withdraw the evidence they have already submitted.

Of course this is a decision that can only be made by those involved. The banning of Bloggers has caused an amount of distrust in the Inquiry and we are hoping a resolution can be made between Bloggers and the Inquiry very soon.

In this Posting we would like to share with our readers some of the support we (Bloggers) have from key interested parties in the Jersey Child Abuse scandal. This includes the former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle and former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper. The Chairperson of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, Ms. Carrie Modral, prominent local lawyer, Advocate Philip Sinel, and a number of local politicians who have all written to the Chair of the Committee Of Inquiry, Francis Oldham QC expressing their concerns of our banning and have warned how damaging this could prove to be to the Inquiry itself.

Below are a few of the letters of support and we thank those who have written them.

20^th August 2014

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

We are writing to express our concern regarding the fact that two local bloggers have now been excluded from using the media room facilities available for the Committee of Inquiry, having been granted access from the outset to these same facilities until last week.

Bloggers have been very instrumental in supporting all abuse victims, uncovering many facts which would otherwise have remained hidden from the public. Voice for Children have never published any material that has been challenged or factually incorrect, whereas the MSM have been very economical with their facts, and in some instances been damning of the whole abuse investigation from the outset as clearly demonstrated in the bundles of newspaper clippings submitted to the inquiry team and which has been upsetting for the victims.

Bloggers as an increasingly recognised means of alternative media should be afforded the right to work alongside those of the MSM especially in something as high profile as this. We perhaps need to say that we have read Robert Hall’s comments published on the COI website and his concerns about bloggers being able to use the media room. Having witnessed him attending the hearing on the Tuesday hearing day prior to that when both VFC and Bob Hill were informed that they can no longer use the media room, we can only assume that the legal team for the COI have allowed themselves to be influenced by a well-known journalist from the BBC who happens to be also well connected with Jersey having started his career as a reporter and presenter at Channel Television in the Channel Islands in or around 1977.

Indeed, VFC and other bloggers have also persuaded some victims to come forward and give evidence to the Committee of Inquiry who may well not have done so initially, through fear or scepticism. Furthermore, this decision could jeopardise further witnesses from coming forward and could even result in some of those that have come forward to retract their statements and walk away.

We also feel that, given Mr McMurray’s disability, he is unable to function properly in the hearing room given that he is unable to balance his tablet on his lap and type at the same time with the use of only one arm and it seems unreasonable to expect him to do so.

Finally to conclude, we would ask you to perhaps re-consider your decision. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these people for all the good work they have done and will continue to do, and would ask that they are permitted to do so with the proper resources available.

Yours sincerely

Jersey Care Leavers Association

14 August 2014

As the former senior investigating officer of the Jersey Historical Abuse Investigation, Operation Rectangle, I have a strong interest in your inquiry being able to get to the truth and reveal the facts about the manner in which children were abused within the Care System and its off shoots in Jersey.  To do this, you are going to have to win the trust of those who suffered and whose previous attempts to find justice have been crushed by the Jersey Government, those working within its so called care agencies and criminal justice system, and the state controlled official Jersey Media.  It is these groups who have labelled the victims "criminals and people with disturbed minds", a description enthusiastically recirculated and repeated by the media in Jersey.  It is essential that you succeed in doing what myself and my team had to do - win the confidence of these victims so that they will come and talk to you and give you their story, knowing you are not in the pocket of the Jersey government.

It was with some alarm therefore that I heard you have withdrawn the authority to use the media facilities from Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog, and Bob Hill the former member of the States.  These two individuals are two of a very few people who are trusted to tell the truth by those who have suffered abuse in Jersey.  I will speak more about that below.  I believe that the action has been taken in response to a rather unreasoned and bitter series of attacks launched by another blogger, Former Senator Stuart Syvret, from the very media room in the last day or two.  Now, everyone knows that Mr Syvret has been fighting a battle for some years, and has been unremitting on his attacks on the behaviour of the government and their treatment of himself and abuse victims.  Not everyone approves of the manner in which he behaves, and the sometimes wild and random nature of his written attacks, but there is some understanding of the way in which the corrupt behaviour of the Jersey establishment has driven him to the point where he feels that he has nothing else to lose.  Notwithstanding, I do understand that some of his comments yesterday cannot be tolerated or accepted.

However, it must surely be possible to prevent Mr Syvret from having access to the media room and thereby the opportunity to abuse the facility, without taking a scattergun approach and banning the two people from whom the abuse victims look to for truthful information.  They will not get it from the Jersey media. Even tonight, the Jersey Evening Post is continuing with its campaign to discredit victims and the investigation.  Victims will NOT want to engage with your inquiry if they believe that the truth is again going to be suppressed - and that is exactly what the Jersey media are perceived to have as their main agenda.

I know that VFC and Mr Hill applied for Accreditation and were told it was not necessary.  Then, after Mr Syvret's attacks, both of them are banned in what a number of the victims have already said to me is an attempt to suppress the truth again.  I do not believe that Mr Syvret applied for an accreditation.  Surely, rather than run the risk of alienating victims who rely on the other two individuals, it would have been easy to exclude Mr Syvret, either because of his intemperate behaviour or his lack of application for accreditation?  It hardly needs pointing out, and the victims are only too aware, that it was Mr Hill and VFC who were among the main reasons, with one or two others, why the Jersey government reluctantly agreed to this inquiry, and why victims have come forward to talk to you in the first place.  Furthermore, Mr Hill played no small part in making sure the Terms of Reference were not totally ineffective.

In closing, who you allow into your media room is a matter for you.  However, if you wish to gain, or retain, the trust of victims, and indeed, people like myself, then restricting reporting of your proceedings to the blatantly corrupt and conflicted Jersey mainstream media, is not the way to do it.

Yours faithfully,

Lenny Harper"

01 September 2014

As one of the key political proponents of the Committee of Inquiry, and an originator of some of the terms of reference, it is with some reluctance that I write to the Committee, as I had wished to simply be an observer of proceedings, letting your body continue in their complex task unhindered from political interventions.

I am, however, moved to write to you to make representations on the recent decision to debar bloggers from the media room on what appear to be questionable grounds.
It is not necessary for me to go over arguments that have perhaps already been made by other parties, however, I would be grateful if the Committee would reconsider their decision and adopt what I would consider a less draconian and more liberal approach.

I am also concerned that one of the bloggers, Mr McMurray, without whose tireless and exacting reporting (in stark contrast to some of the 'official' media) the inquiry would not have gained the momentum to have happened, is being prejudiced, given his disability, by not having adequate facilities to be able to make notes, , as any other member of the public, because electronic devices seem to be banned from the public area (is this correct?).

It seems paradoxical that the journalists who command the most respect and trust from the care leavers themselves are the ones being denied adequate facilities to be able to report.

Your sincerely,

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Dear Mrs Oldham

29 August 2014

I have been consulted by Neil McMurray who as you are aware writes the Voice for Children blog spot. It is a popular, respected, widely read and long established blog.

In Jersey the position for a long time has been that the blogs are the only media trusted by a large portion of the population, this notwithstanding the disparity in resources and the fact that the blogs have no backing from any national or international organisation and that they produce no revenue and carry no advertising.

It is not in a way of exaggeration to say that without the activities of bloggers in Jersey there would never have been an enquiry at all; the remaining media have historically have been complicit in endeavouring that the truth was shaded or buried.

I am instructed that Mr McMurray and indeed Mr Hill (of Bob Hill's blog spot) applied for media accreditation back in April of this year. However no media were provided with accrediation. The blogger in conjunction with other media were simply afforded the use of the media room.

Arbitrarily on 12/13 August Mr McMurray and Mr Hill were informed that they were not allowed to make use of the media room but simultaneously accreditation was granted to other media representatives. In one case this was done by prearrangement with Eversheds staff. Additionally the BBC were allowed to swamp the room.

The effect upon the credibility of the enquiry of the this development cannot be overstated. Many Islanders were cynical before the start, this does not help. I therefore ask that you address this matter immediately and that Mr McMurray and  if he so seeks it, Mr Hill, are granted accreditation before the enquiry restarts on 3 September 2014.

Yours sincerely

Advocate Philip Sinel"(END)

For reasons of brevity we have not posted all letters of support for Bloggers to Francis Oldham QC, as we believe there are more to be written and we will look to post them in a part 2.

Readers of our PREVIOUS POSTING will be aware that the Inquiry Panel is able to work with lightning speed when it was able to make a ruling, almost overnight, to ban Bloggers, get that ruling in place and published on its website within days.

All correspondence to the Committee of Inquiry is supposed to be published on its own WEBSITE but the letters of support for Bloggers have not made it on there yet. If only they could act as quickly copying and pasting a few letters as they did with an overnight ban perhaps the Inquiry Team might get a little more credence?

Guest Posting From Abuse Survivor and JCLA Chair Carrie Modral.

What a week! 

I have been invited by VFC to submit a guest posting of this past week’s events to which I am grateful as the Blogs seem to be the only place to get the FULL TRUE story out.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) do not represent or indeed speak for all abuse survivors, our views may not necessarily be the views of others and indeed, we are acutely aware that some abuse survivors have different thoughts on how they would like to see the Committee Of Inquiry (COI) into the “Historic” Child Abuse in Jersey run and we respect that. 

On Monday 24^th September, myself and two other members of JCLA along with our trusted JCLA Administrator Jill, attended a meeting with the Chief Minister (CM), Ian Gorst, Chief Executive Officer Mr Richardson and Mr Williamson. Copies of both the Verita and Williamson reports were handed to us at that meeting.  As it happens, I did get chance to read both reports ahead of the meeting and duly arrived armed with my trusty hand written notes.  It was clear from the outset that the CM is in favour of a full COI and that the problem lies with the Council Of Ministers (COM). To say that the meeting went smoothly would be an understatement. Did I lose it, I don’t think so but something snapped inside of me and I was fed up with “pussy footing” around the issue and after a heated discussion, I asked Mr Williamson to withdraw his report. When he declined to do so, I made it clear to the CM that I wanted it formerly noted that I had made that request. 

So we go onto this week’s mainstream media reporting. Both CTV and BBC seem to have turned over a new leaf and have produced some very fair reporting particularly with  VFC being allowed to air his thoughts on radio without interruption from Mathew Price, this has to be a good thing!  And so we go to the JEP.  Firstly, my letter in yesterday’s edition of the JEP was in fact an e-mail that I sent to Ben Queree on Wednesday 26^th September following his article published in the JEP on the same day. To be fare to Mr Queree, he did come back to me and apologised if there was any misleading impression from the article and offered to write a clarification in the next edition. I could not trust him to do that and therefore asked him to publish my e-mail in full with an apology for the hurt that may have been caused to the abuse survivors. 

Now we turn to the editorial published on Thursday 27^th September which can be read HERE giving a glowing reference to the Williamson report without a single reference to the Verita report and at the same time implying that the abuse survivors will never be satisfied no matter what!. JCLA sent a “right to reply” letter to the JEP on Friday 28^th September and it remains to be seen whether or not it will be published.  VFC has kindly agreed to publish the JCLA letter on his Blog this coming Tuesday.

So finally we come to Saturday’s edition of the JEP.  You could have knocked me down with a feather when I read Mr Querees’ article. I must give credit where credit is due and thank him for his excellent piece of work which almost could have been written by any one of the Bloggers and is in total contradiction to Thursday’s EDITORIAL. I reproduce The full script of Mr Querees piece which I have typed up myself and apologise for any grammatical errors.

I end this guest posting with a quote from Mr Queree which just about sums all this up.

"Get it wrong, and the inquiry will clear up nothing, establish nothing, and achieve nothing"

By Ben Queree JEP 29^th September 2012

INQUIRY MUST BE FREE TO DO ITS JOB

“There are serious questions that merit a serious answer in relation to historical child abuse”

There will have been some people who read this week’s stories on the proposed new tack for the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse and not really understood the significance, turned the page, and read something else.

That’s Ok. Over the few weeks we’ve had a strange run of stories that seem at first glance quite complicated but essentially not that important – turning the ports from the States department to a States owned company the differences between economic forecasts and reality,  rows over the difference between shop prices and freight costs.

The story about the Committee of Inquiry terms of references is entirely different – in that it may not have seemed it but it’s actually very important.  It’s a simple and horrible truth that some children were physically or sexually abused in Jersey care homes, that they were abused by the people who were trusted to look after them, and that not enough was done by the people running various States departments to make sure that they were run properly and by decent people.

That’s not new information and it’s not in dispute.

It’s certainly not new to the victims of abuse, some of whom have been living in their abusers’ shadows for decades. But the significant work for the Committee of Inquiry is to go beyond those established facts and look at what went so badly wrong in the Management and policing of these homes that was allowed to happen and find out who was responsible. And it’s precisely this point that the established facts start to fade, and things start to get more insubstantial.

It’s certainly true to say that more should have been done to look after those in care and that it appears that complaints were ignored, hushed up, or concealed. And indeed, you don’t have to look too fare online to find a vast literature of those who say that they know exactly what happened, and exactly who was responsible.

But that’s not enough.

No community – Jersey or anywhere else can afford to leave questions like this open, or to imagine (as former Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur appeared to do) that a formal apology in the States Chamber and a compensation scheme to victims would bring the matter to a close.  These are serious questions that merit a serious answer. And given the years of mistrust and suspicion over the legacy of abuse – some of it reasonable, and some of it not – they are answers that are going to have to be provided independently, by someone with no links to the Island, no history here, and no axe to grind.

A Committee of Inquiry, whatever its terms of reference, is the perfect mechanism for this – it has the power to demand the attendance of witnesses who don’t want to talk, and to demand the production of files and papers.

For the avoidance of doubt, those powers are incredibly unlikely to be used to summon victims of abuse to give evidence in public if they don’t want to – they are far more likely to be used to call the abusers or those responsible for the management of the homes.

And given the suspicion that exists, and given the depth of feeling, and given the importance of the subject, the suggestion of social work consultant Andrew Williamson that the work be divided up, and the Committee of Inquiry effectively limited to events before 1994, was just not right.

Any attempt to limit the timescale of the inquiry by the States – however well intentioned will leave its ultimate findings subject to being dismissed, most importantly by the victims and survivors of abuse, but also by those who seek to make political capital from the subject.

The proposal by Mr Williamson undermines the spirit of an independent inquiry by seeking to set out what evidence it should look at.

And it’s for that reason that getting the terms of reference – essentially, the questions that the committee will set out to answer – correct, is the key to the whole exercise.

The point of an independent committee is to hand over control, and the only way to truly do that is to not bind their hands.

Only then can everyone on all sides commit to the process, rather than waiting for the outcome and seeing if it matches their preconceptions.

Get the terms of reference right, and the committee could bring an independent, authoritative voice that will establish firmly what happened, and bring some measure of closure and justice to the victims of abuse.

Get them right and the committee will have the credibility to earn the trust of those who were so badly let down by the committees of the past, and will have the authority to release its findings, no matter what they are, and no matter what they say.

Get them right and the whole Island community can get clear answers to the questions that are simply too big to continue to leave hanging.

Get it wrong, and the inquiry will clear up nothing, establish nothing, and achieve nothing.  END