There are reports that more than a handful of victims have now come forward who have alleged the late Jimmy Savile abused them while in Jersey and up to 60, or more, victims in total nationwide.
Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.
I have been asked by the
Voiceforchildren blog to make some comment on the current enquiries relating to
the late Jimmy Savile. I understand
that there is an interest in any parallels which may be drawn between the
Savile Enquiry and the Jersey Abuse Enquiry. I am also told that there are some comparisons capable of being made
between the actions so far taken by the UK Authorities and a debate in Jersey
concerning a proposed Committee of Enquiry into Child Abuse.
Since I left the Police Service I
have not, so far as I am aware, pro-actively engaged in any publicity or
comment in relation to my time as a serving officer. I have however occasionally been approached
by journalists, both from the Citizens Media and the Paid Media, who have asked
me direct questions. On some occasions
I have declined to comment. In other
cases I have offered honest comment where I felt that was in the public
interest.
Against this background it is no
surprise that I have been approached from a number of sources over recent days
asking for comment in respect of the emerging allegations concerning
Savile. For the most part I have said
that I know little of any allegations against that person. He was not someone with whom I had any
significant involvement. I recall that
I met him once at an official gathering and that was about the extent of my
contact.
I have however when recently asked,
commented on some of the characteristics of the Savile affair and how they
compare with some aspects of the Jersey Abuse Enquiry. In particular it appears that Savile’s
victims saw him as a rich and powerful person who mixed with Royalty and Prime
Ministers. They regarded him as
untouchable and felt that anything they said to his detriment would not be
believed. These feelings appear to have
been confirmed by the experiences of those who did attempt to report the
abuse. I have seen a TV interview in
which one woman describes how as a young girl, she was living in a residential
institution when she was abused by Savile. She protested and reported the matter to staff. The response of the institution was to have
her punished for telling lies. The UK
authorities have addressed this situation by establishing a robust and
independent police enquiry which has made it clear that reports will be taken
seriously and properly investigated.
Victims of abuse in Jersey told
similar stories. Their abusers were
powerful and well connected. Any
reports which were made were disbelieved or ignored. Only when the leaders of a Police Enquiry
made it clear that they were resolved to get to the truth and would stand no
interference from the Jersey Authorities was confidence established and the
floodgates, which had held back the truth for decades, finally opened. I have received messages from victims which
have said that once I was removed from the Force this confidence was damaged
and that some victims and witnesses became reluctant to pursue their allegations. I do not have access to official information
which enables me to confirm these reports or otherwise. People living in Jersey are better
positioned to judge whether this might be true.
Another common factor in both
enquiries is the extent to which the victims were often from troubled
backgrounds. Even if a case had reached
the Courts, it might have been claimed that the victims were not credible
witnesses.
There is another common factor in
the two investigations in that Savile is now deceased and beyond the reach of
the Justice System. The same can be
said for some of the suspects in the Jersey investigation. In both cases victims sometimes gained the
confidence to report the abuse only when they felt certain that the abuser
could no longer do them any harm. The
death of the main suspect does not make the investigation pointless. A thorough investigation may reveal the
identities of accomplices. It might
also identify those in authority who should have acted but did not do so. In both investigations there is evidence
that senior people, who had a responsibility for the protection of the
vulnerable, failed to act. They must
bear a significant share of the blame for what happened and it may still be
possible to hold them to account. It is
the lack of any positive intervention, and the failure to prioritise the safety
of the vulnerable over the interests of the well-connected and the powerful
which is a disturbing feature of both investigations.
I have also been asked to comment
about a debate in Jersey regarding a proposed Committee of Enquiry. I find this request harder to address given
that I have not been in Jersey for a number of years and I am not a close
follower of Jersey news. I do however
recall that during the time that I was Chief Officer of the Force the Jersey
Government said that a full Committee of Enquiry would be established. I have not followed closely what has
happened since with regard to that issue.
I have however noted the actions
taken by the BBC in the UK, and UK Government Departments in the comparable
circumstances of the Savile case. I
have seen media reports which have said that the relevant organisations will be
establishing enquiries to investigate, among other things, the culture in which
the abuse occurred, who knew about it, and what action was taken by those with
responsibility. I have noted that these
commitments were given within days of the facts emerging and that we are told
that the membership of the enquiries and the terms of reference will be
available soon. These actions seem to
me to be entirely consistent with the acceptance of responsibility, integrity,
and commitment to the public interest which should be expected from credible
government bodies in a civilised 21st century democracy.
Jersey residents are better
placed than me to comment on whether their own public authorities have
demonstrated commitment to a comparable standard.(END)
The former Police Chief makes some interesting points including "A thorough investigation may reveal the
identities of accomplices. It might also identify those in
authority who should have acted but did not do so."
Who in Jersey could have but didn't act? Who are still in positions of power who either abused or covered up abuse noting the former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper told us there are at least 4 that he knows of.
Who were Jimmy Savile's contacts in Jersey? Who invited him over here? Who invited him to Haut de la Garenne? Who "made things happen" over here for Savile?
How is it that the UK institutions put in place an inquiry within DAYS and the Jersey authorities take YEARS? Has the Jersey authorities "demonstrated commitment to a comparable standard?"
Will the BBC's investigation be fit for purpose? Will (if it ever happens) Jersey's Committee Of Inquiry be fit for purpose? Will the cycle of intimidation and threats against Abuse Victims ever be broken? Will those, as a result of the Committee of Inquiry, be held to account who covered up the decades of Child Abuse on this island?
There is a common factor explained by the former Police Chief and that is how victims are too scared to speak out against those who hold positions of power or authority and inevitably these abusers never face justice, perhaps more so in Jersey.
If anybody knows of somebody who is/has either abused or covered up abuse then we encourage them to phone the Metropolitan Police HERE
