Lenny Harper Responds.

As the Jersey Establishment (and parts of its media) has recently upped the smear campaign against former top cop and Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle). Lenny Harper has (reluctantly) issued a brief response (below) to some of the criticisms levelled against him and makes a couple of observations of his own.

For those following Jersey's ongoing Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI), you will be aware that "Interested Parties" (IP's) were recently given the opportunity to make final submissions, to the Inquiry Panel, based on the evidence given to the COI by witnesses/Survivors/Victims etc.

As reported HERE by Rico Sorda the Jersey Establishment took (abused?) this opportunity to carry out an all out attack on those who lifted the lid on Jersey's dirty secret(s), exposed the scale of paedophilia on the island, and attempted to bring the Survivors/Victims something close to "justice." This attack was dutifully regurgitated by the State Media, and as far as we are aware, totally unchallenged.

Former SIO Lenny Harper.

Response from former SIO Lenny Harper.

"The past few weeks at the Committee of Inquiry into Child Abuse in Jersey has seen a succession of closing statements by various people and organisations. I chose not to present a closing statement as I believe that I said all I had to say in my evidence and that a further statement, which of necessity would have had to include rebuttals of some of the nonsense written about myself, would only further divert attention away from the victims/survivors and also detract from the main issues. These of course, being the abuse suffered by innocent children at the hands of the States of Jersey, and the disgraceful treatment handed out to them when they tried to report that abuse.

It did not come as a surprise to me, nor I suspect, to any of the victims/survivors or those who have been following the inquiry evidence, that once again, many of those failed organisations or individuals who were implicated in the actions of those organisations, totally ignored the suffering of victims or at best paid lip service to it. Instead they launched a repeat of the attacks on myself and others who had tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to obtain some measure of justice for those victims. Once again, the plight of the innocent victims took second place to an attempted character assassination of the people who had challenged them and refused to give in to their bullying. The same sort of bullying I notice, to which the Inquiry team were subjected to in the very recent past. It may be now that the Inquiry knows exactly the sort of treatment we were talking about when we said that the Jersey establishment came for whoever dared to stand up against them.

As I stated, I do not wish to present a new rebuttal of all the nonsense which would only entail an extension of the slanging match and erode further the focus on the abuse of children. However, there are two factually incorrect assertions made against me which show the desperate nature and intent of the establishment response to being caught out, and I will briefly mention those.

Mick Gradwell.

One of my successors, Mr Gradwell, made part of his closing statement, an allegation that myself and a well known and respected BBC journalist were in a corrupt relationship and that I had been giving him “off the record” briefings during which confidential police information was passed to him. Let me say straight away that nothing improper took place between myself and that BBC journalist. I did indeed meet him away from the environment of formal press briefings, always in public places, and never to discuss information he should not have had. Such meetings are a common occurrence. Indeed, the journalist when told of Mr Gradwell’s ridiculous claims contacted me and during the conversation confirmed that he and Mr Gradwell had also met at a service station in the UK where a similar briefing took place. It seems just a little hypocritical of Mr Gradwell to mention one without the other.

The other matter was the statement by counsel for the States of Jersey police claiming that the force now regretted appointing me to the investigation. My first impulse was to say well, of course they did. It exposed levels of abuse which for one reason or another had been suppressed in the past. However, I then saw the bizarre side of it. No one anywhere near the SOJP now had any part in appointing me. Graham Power appointed me initially, and then on the advice of the UK ACPO Homicide Working Group, reinforced that appointment on a full time basis. As far as I am aware, Mr Power has not been asked that question. Why state that you regret a decision you played absolutely no part in? It can only have been a ruse to raise further sensational headlines in a media only too willing to swallow it whole.

The SOJP lawyer claimed I had “done the victims a disservice.” Perhaps I did. They do not seem to be in much of a better position now than before the investigation I was part of. However, I have not heard it from any of them and I would pay more heed to the words of the victims/survivors than to the mouthpiece of an establishment trying to deflect from the issues.

These closing statements we have been listening to should have been an opportunity to focus closely on the abuse suffered by innocent children, abuse which has had far reaching implications in the adult lives of those treated so badly. Instead, once again, those victims and their suffering have been largely ignored or marginalised. Elements of the establishment have again turned their invective on myself and others who were doing their best to obtain justice for the victims.

This should not be about us. It was never supposed to be. The agenda of the inquiry was hi-jacked by desperate people who sought to protect their reputations at the expense of those who had been abused and ignored. I sincerely hope that the inquiry when coming to report will realise the reason for the diversionary tactics and blatant disregard of the very people that we should all have been trying to help.

Following decades of this abuse being ignored and even encouraged it seems to me that even now, the victims/survivors are in no better position than they were. The Jersey establishment and their friends in sections of the local media are still attempting to hide their failings rather than facing up to what went wrong. They are still attacking those who seek to challenge those failings. It does not affect me greatly here in the UK in retirement. My heart goes out to those in Jersey and elsewhere who still have to live with the ramifications of the vile abuse they were subjected to.

Lenny Harper."(END.)

As Mr. Harper has explained; It is (or should be) about Victims/Survivors of heinous crimes committed against them as children and how it shouldn't be able to happen again........It's Not......And it CAN.

ITV/CTV To be Banned from Reporting at Child Abuse Inquiry?

In an attempt to undo some damage possibly caused by discredited, and disgraced, ITV/CTV (Jersey's ITV franchise) we publish an e-mail below sent from VFC to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

It is inaccurate (and burying of) stories from the State Media that  allowed the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up to continue and it looks like ITV/CTV wishes to carry on its time honoured tradition of, at best, sloppy "journalism" and at worst down-right lies in order to frighten victims/witnesses from coming forward to the Committee of Inquiry to give evidence.

The e-mail (below) was sent on Friday 6 August 2015.

"Dear Inquiry Team.

I'd like to bring to your attention yet more inaccurate reporting and sloppy "journalism" from the discredited and disgraced ITV/CTV.

On its 6 o'clock alleged "news" programme yesterday (Friday 7 August 2015) it reported on the testimony of Morag and Tony Jordan. Twice during the report it was stated that the Jordan's were "cross-examined" By Patrick Saad.

I (unaccredited) (and just about anybody with the slightest interest in your Inquiry) am aware that there is NO "cross-examination" of witnesses and to the credit of the Inquiry it has gone to great lengths to stress this fact. Indeed from the very outset of the Inquiry on April 3rd 2014 Judge Oldham QC, at her opening address, at which (I believe) ITV/CTV was present she stated;

"This is an inquiry: no individual or institution is on trial. This does not mean that the Inquiry will avoid making criticisms, but it does mean that there are no parties and no sides; no scoring of points. Every witness will have a valuable perspective. There will be no cross-examination of witnesses."

Judge Oldham went on to reiterate the point that there will be NO cross examination of witnesses in her opening address here;

"I turn now to legal representation. I repeat this is an Inquiry, not a trial. You do not need a lawyer to provide your evidence to the Inquiry. The Inquiry’s legal team will assist anyone asked to give evidence or produce documents. You will be taken through your evidence by Counsel to the Inquiry and will not be cross examined by anyone else. Most of those who give evidence to us will therefore not require legal representation. They will give evidence to the Inquiry and may have no further role to play." 

I argue (as does the Inquiry) that witnesses believing they will be cross-examined while giving evidence could be deterred  from coming forward. Sloppy inaccurate "journalism" like that of ITV/CTV could be extremely detrimental to the aims and objectives of the Inquiry in attempting to gather as much evidence from as many witnesses as possible.

This is not the first time ITV/CTV has mis-represented the proceedings of the Inquiry. It also misquoted a recent witness/transcript when it reported that a witness "accused" former Health Minister, and Whistleblower, Stuart Syvret of encouraging residents of homes to make "allegations" against staff at the homes. The witness/transcript actually said that Mr. Syvret encouraged residents to make "complaints." The connotation could be seen as residents being encouraged to tell lies. When the fact is that Mr. Syvret was doing the right thing as Health Minister by encouraging victims to voice their "complaints" of abuse and wasn't "accused" of doing anything.

It must be said that the Panel itself should take some responsibility for the sloppy "journalism" peddled by ITV/CTV who have a long history of this when it concerns the Child Abuse scandal and subsequent cover-up. If the Panel had done just the slightest of research into ITV/CTV's reporting (or not) of the Child Abuse scandal then I am confident it would not have granted it accreditation and banned it from the Inquiry's Media room instead of banning Bloggers. (Jersey's only independent media)

It is a waste of time me contacting ITV/CTV (copied in) directly because it has a complete disregard for the English Language as demonstrated HERE. Further has a complete disregard for the facts as demonstrated HERE  and no matter how inaccurate its reporting is ITV/CTV always believes everything it broadcasts is "entirely accurate" as demonstrated in the above links and HERE.

Could I ask the Panel, in an attempt to undo any of the damage ITV/CTV might have caused the Inquiry by possibly deterring witnesses from coming forward to ask ITV/CTV to correct its latest misreporting by broadcasting an apology and correcting its misrepresentation of the facts? To make it clear that witnesses are NOT cross-examined?

Could I then please ask the Panel/Inquiry Team what sanctions are open to it should an "accredited" media outlet continue to misrepresent proceeding of the Hearings, and which, if any, of those sanctions will ITV/CTV incur?

Kind Regards.

VFC. (Unaccredited)"(END)

It is inconceivable to believe ITV/CTV was unaware that witnesses ARE NOT subject to cross examination. How is it, at all, possible to make that kind of "mistake?"

The Inquiry has been doing a good job of its expert questioning of witnesses without cross examining them. Information is coming to light from documents acquired by the Inquiry that shows it (Inquiry Team) is doing some serious homework/research in some areas.

Some good work is being done by the Inquiry (and some not so good) but when the "accredited" media continues to peddle inaccuracies/untruths it does the Inquiry no good and can prevent witnesses from coming forward.

We hope witnesses will still come forward to the Inquiry who can be contacted through its website HERE. It is not too late for Victims and Survivors to come forward.

Hopefully readers will be assured, by this Blog Posting, that witnesses ARE NOT cross examined and will have a flavour (by clicking on the links provided) of ITV/CTV's history of making up its own stories rather than reporting the facts.

As well as Victims and Survivors coming forward we'd like to reassure the likes of Bill Ogley, Ian Critch, Jon Richardson, Ian Le Marquand, Emma Martins, David Warcup, Mick Gradwell, Frank Walker and with the latest revelations coming from the Child Abuse Inquiry, and State Media PHILIP BAILHACHE. Not forgetting the notorious ANDREW LEWIS that you will not be cross examined and that your testimony is eagerly awaited.

We will keep readers posted as to what sanctions (if any) the serial offender ITV/CTV incur from the Inquiry for this latest, potentially dangerous, crock of (not even) Churnalism. 

Cost Of Failed, Taxpayer Funded, Super Injunction Remains A Secret.

After more questions asked of alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, by Deputy Trevor Pitman, in the Island's Parliament today we still don't know the full amount, to the taxpayer, of the failed superinjunction placed on former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Senator Gorst ducked, and dived, a number of questions surrounding the case with only very little given away. We did, however, find out that the four proxies, it would appear were "invited" by Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins to take action against Mr. Syvret.

Data protection commissioner "invited" the claimants to come forward, according to Deputy Mike Higgins. How many other people has she "invited" Will she be inviting Stuart Syvret to make a claim against disgraced former Housing Minister, Deputy Sean Power, after he stole personal data belonging to Mr. Syvret and his ex partner which caused it to be published on a reported paedophile protecting hate-site? No she has already ruled that stealing other people's personal data, sharing it with others, and causing it to be published on the internet is a "regulatory" offence and not criminal.

Senator Gorst also revealed that the four "representors" (proxies) contributed nothing, financially, towards the cost of the case. Which brings us back to a previous posting where we published an extract from the court judgement HERE which read;

"he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense." 

They were put to NO expense, unnecessary or otherwise. 

Good (unanswered) questions from Deputies Tadier and Higgins also which left Senator Gorst floundering. (recording below)

VFC credit TJW for this recording.

Stuart Syvret Super Injunction Part 2

In continuation of our PREVIOUS POSTING we bring readers/viewers part 2 of the exclusive interview with former Health Minister Stuart Syvret concerning the multi million pound, taxpayer funded, failed super-injunction against him.

Since we recorded the interview there has been even more nonsensical gibberish published in Jersey's ONLY "News"paper, the disgraced Jersey Evening Post, in which its readers are expected to make some sense of.

For example, in the judgement against the former Health Minister, we read;

"he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense."

Then we read in the "News"paper;

"The commissioners office was awarded its legal costs in the prosecution which was funded by the taxpayer."

So the "representors" incurred no cost at all which were awarded to the Data Commissioner's Office (the tax payer) so were the four individuals the "representors", was it the Data Protection Office, or somebody else or a mixture of all three?

Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins, is quoted, in the  Jersey Evening Post as saying "The Royal Court judgement is clear, and the office of data protection commissioner notes that all of the applicants have been successful in winning the relief that they were seeking."

One has to ask, if Ms Martins did say that (because it was in the JEP there's a good chance SHE DIDN'T) then what exactly were the "applicants" looking for? The offending articles, are apparently still up on the internet, and Mr. Syvret is going to be publishing more, indeed he has already!

Yet the JEP question none of it and expect its readers not to either!

Well we have questioned Mr. Syvret about the costs (interview below) and just who it was that was paying them and indeed who the "representors" are/were and as most have known for quite some time despite a multitude of un-answered questions in the island's parliament, that it isn't/wasn't the four individuals named on Mr. Syvret's Blog and the evidence does appear to look as if this court case was brought by "others" with an all together more sinister motive and agenda.

Speaking of un-answered questions in the island's parliament readers MUST listen to THIS which will demonstrate just what a sham this has been for quite some time and further demonstrates how long the disgraced Jersey Evening Post along with all local State Media has known about this Super Injunction.  

We also asked Mr. Syvret exactly what, in his opinion, this court case has achieved? It appears all it's achieved is to line the pockets of Lawyers and not much else as he has not, and will not, take down the offending articles from his Blog. According to Mr. Syvret another achievement of this (not so) secret court case is that it has made The Powers That Be look "even more ridiculous and oppressive than they did already." It has, according to Mr. Syvret, strengthened his case against the UK Justice Secretary/Privy Council as another achievement.

We hope readers/viewers will be a little more informed after watching the video interview than what they might have been from watching, listening to, the State Media.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE.