Graham Power QPM. Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we interviewed former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper. And in continuation of our series of interviews with those who participated in the BBC4 Rogan Productions documentary "Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne" which can be viewed on iplayer HERE.

We were granted an exclusive interview with the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM to ask him about his thoughts on the documentary and related matters. Regular/long time readers will be aware that we at Team Voice have interviewed Mr. Power on a number of occasions following his (possibly illegal) suspension in 2008. We have covered the story of this huge miscarriage of "justice" for much more than a decade and we continue to do so....................

What is quite often overlooked is that, in the early days 2008/9/10/11 former Jersey politician, and 30-year MET Police veteran Bob Hill was the politician keeping Mr. Power's (possibly illegal) suspension on the political agenda. It should also be said that St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft played a huge part ALSO.

Many people played a big part in keeping Mr. Power's (possibly illegal) suspension on the political agenda and indeed continue to. The problem with attempting to name them all is that one might forget somebody and create a resentment which is why we won't try and list them all here.

Former Deputy Bob Hill

Former Deputy Hill DOES deserve special mention because his pursuit of the truth and justice for Mr. Power and Survivors of Abuse almost certainly cost him his career and contributed to his near fatal stroke. Back in 2015 Bob, and his family, were delivered a severe blow when he was struck down by a stroke which we reported HERE. We followed some of Bob's progress HERE and HERE. We were pleased that the documentary (Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island:Garenne) used the footage, supplied to it by VFC, of Bob up at Haute de la Garenne showing Gradwell and Warcup to be "less than authentic" when they tried to tell us that the cellars at Haute de la Garenne didn't exist. The film footage of Bob was taken from HERE.

Mr. Power, in the interview below, gives Bob a mention and we thought it was high time we did. Readers can view Bob's Blog HERE.

Mr. Power, just as in the case of Mr. Harper in our PREVIOUS POSTING, first, and foremost, pays tribute to the Survivors of unimaginable abuse that was covered up by the Jersey Establishment for decades. He points out how the State Media got people talking about how much Mr. Harper spent on a prawn cocktail in a London Restaurant and other such mundane diversionary twaddle. It (State Media) took the focus away from the decades of suffering, and covered up Child Abuse, that Lenny Harper (and the Operation Rectangle Team), under the leadership of Graham Power, was trying to investigate. How did that happen and just as importantly "why" did it happen? How and why did the State Media turn a story of a police investigation into decades of covered up Child Abuse into a story of the lead investigator asking for a second helping in a restaurant?

Francis OldhamQC

Further discussed in the interview is the fact that neither Mr. Power, nor anybody else (who wasn't involved in it) knows why he was (possibly illegally) suspended. Fourteen years later and we are all none-the-wiser. We do know that Judge Oldham QC, Chair of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI), found that Andrew Lewis, who (possibly illegally) suspended Mr. Power, lied to both the States Assembly (the Island's parliament) AND the IJCI with his "reasons" for the (possibly illegal) suspension.

The irony is (discussed in the interview) that Mr. Power was ready to retire from the police force. He was well past his retirement date and had they have asked him to resign then he would have walked away. They chose the route to suspend him or "SCAPEGOAT" him which clearly was not the wisest of moves - or to quote Mr. Power from the interview: "it was a damn stupid decision." he further goes on to remind us: "This is not just a legal, political, academic point. While they were showing no political interest, people were suffering life changing harm. It's about real blood, real pain and real suffering that they allowed to happen"

Plenty more is discussed in the interview which we hope will open the eyes, or educate viewers, of what has been allowed to happen and what is allowed to continue to happen in this island that I was once proud to call my home. 

Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island: Garenne

"Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island: Garenne tells the extraordinary story of the child abuse scandal that erupted on the idyllic island of Jersey in 2007. For a long time, the victims’ voices had remained unheard, but when widespread allegations of sexual abuse resurfaced in the late 2000s, Jersey’s then health minister Stuart Syvret spoke out about the scale of this historic child abuse and the damage done to the victims.

Syvret’s words sparked a moment of reckoning for the small community, whose leaders were determined to protect the island’s reputation, home to a trillion dollars in offshore investment. This discreet offshore tax haven found itself in the middle of a major police investigation as the world’s media descended on the island, creating a media circus. In the midst of all this, the community became divided, with one group fearful that the scandal would drive investors away, and another demanding justice for the victims.

As bitterness and enmity drag on and the press desert Jersey, two unlikely bloggers decide to reignite the smouldering, unresolved issues. Teaming up with former police officers, survivors and supporters, they fight for the voices of the survivors to be heard, digging up past evidence and recording first-hand testimonials. In the process, they force the island to confront its past."

Monday 15th March 2021 10pm

SOURCE

JEP Editorials. Compare and Contrast (2)

Back in August 2009 while Jersey's biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) was still live, Bloggers were publishing the evidence and facts that the Old Media (formerly known as MSM) was trying to bury.

We (Bloggers) were being trashed by the Old Media, discredited at any given opportunity, in a desperate attempt by the Old Media to churn out the Party Line and bury the truth. Survivors/campaigners/whistleblowers and the cops, (particularly SIO/DCOLenny Harper) were all either silenced or ridiculed by the Old Media, pedophiles, pedophile protectors and supporters of the regime.

Back then (August 2009) Jersey's only newspaper, The Jersey Evening Post, published an Editorial attempting to ridicule Bloggers/Citizen's Journalists and hold onto the immense power it had back then (but was rapidly losing).

We published that editorial HERE where we asked readers to "Compare and Contrast" the opinions of the JEP Editorial and that of a (then) senior journalist working for another Old Media outlet. Readers should read that link in order to grasp how far things have come, how wrong the JEP was and how it is because of the JEP (and all island Old Media) that Bloggers became so trusted and were proven right and totally vindicated whether it be by SENIOR POLITICIANS, Former SENIOR POLICE OFFICER(S) or the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry ITSELF. Even former Attorney General/Bailiff WILLIAM BAILHACHE (through gritted teeth) HAD to vindicate former SIO/DCO Lenny Harper.

We, on this Blog, have (rightly) exposed the JEP for its (shall we say) "failings" over the years, and indeed we've exposed the rest of the Old Media as well. But I digress, regular readers will know that we try to be as fair and balanced as we can be on this Blog and like to give credit where it is due.

In 2014 Andy Sibcy took over the editorship of the newspaper and we have repeatedly given him, and the paper, credit where it has been due and we are pleased to say that has been more often than not. He gained a lot of our respect when he came to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry to sit alongside BLOGGERS to discuss the role of New and Old Media. It should be noted he didn't have to attend and ITV/CTV as well as The BBC didn't have the courage to come and defend their (indefensible) reporting, and non reporting, of the Child Abuse cover up(s).

We found that Sibcy was humble, at the IJCI hearing, approachable and willing to take onboard constructive criticism/feedback as readers will see by clicking on the above link. The paper (since Sibcy took over) has (in our opinion) become almost unrecognisable since the bad old days. That's not to say that it now practices any kind of investigative journalism, or such like, but you are now seeing articles/opinions published that would never have seen the light of day pre-Sibcy.

In this Blog Posting we want readers to compare and contrast the JEP's opinion from today's EDITORIAL and that of 2009.

Before we do that we need to give readers some context behind today's editorial.

Deputy Mike Higgins

Yesterday, (8th September 2020) in the States (parliament) sitting, Deputy Mike Higgins asked two questions of the children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec concerning possible criminality within the Children's Services, certainly underhanded, and dangerous tactics allegedly employed by them and it appears the Minister is more inclined to protect the system than he is to hold it to account and protect its users/clients.

Video of the questions and "answers" (sic) can be viewed HERE and HERE. It should be noted that not one other politician had a single question to ask on the back of Deputy Higgins' question. That should put fear into anybody who thinks politicians (other than Higgins) are looking after Children's best interests, or protecting them in any way.

Former Health Minister, and whistleblower, Stuart Syvret

Deputy Higgins, just like Stuart Syvret (and others) before him is going up against the establishment trying to be a voice for the voiceless, trying to root out any wrongdoing and rot, before we have another Child Abuse atrocity on our hands because of Ministers protecting their Department/staff instead of protecting those who are allegedly being abused/failed by it/them.

Regular readers will know that whistleblowers, in the States (like Stuart Syvret) were always portrayed as troublemakers or conspiracy theorists and we thought after the Survivors/whistleblowers/cops and Bloggers were all vindicated by the IJCI that this would end. Well we know it hasn't, as demonstrated by Current Home Affairs Minister LEN NORMAN who tried to portray Deputy Mike Higgins as a troublemaker/conspiracy theorist just as others did before him to (vindicated) Stuart Syvret.

So, finally on to the compare and contrast of the JEP editorials.

JEP EDITORIAL 2009:

"RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS

THE proposal that the States should be televised live on the internet should remind us that, as time
marches on, the media of mass communication evolve. A certain amount of hoo-hah over who should be allowed to video Scrutiny panel hearings also reminds us that a new breed of media person is abroad – or would like to be abroad.

Citizen journalists, as they call themselves, believe that they should share the same rights of access as
more traditional media such as newspaper reporters and TV or radio broadcasters.

In itself that sounds like a reasonable idea and a potential enhancement of democracy. The new kids on the block, however, must realise that if they want privileges they must play by the rules – and that involves signing up to codes of conduct and refraining from defaming everyone who is framed in the view finder or splashed all over a blog.

Until that sort of agreement can be negotiated and finalised, citizen journalists are about as welcome as citizen brain surgeons, citizen airline pilots or, indeed, citizen bricklayers."

JEP EDITORIAL 2020:

"THE Independent Jersey Care Inquiry evidenced beyond doubt that  victims and those who were in desperate need of support did not trust government departments which were supposed to provide it. There was also distrust on the other side of the fence – a reluctance to believe people who said that they were abused by those in positions of authority and responsibility.

As a consequence, marginalised Islanders turned to anti-establishment politicians and bloggers outside of the mainstream who they trusted. They became their champions and ensured the spotlight shone on things that others wanted to ignore or forget.

Long-serving backbencher Deputy Mike Higgins was one of those who used his position in the States to give voice to victims who felt unable or were unwilling to seek redress through more official channels – or who simply were not listened to.

In the wake of the inquiry report there were promises of action and better funding, of putting children first and taking steps to make sure mistakes were not repeated. And yet still there are stories of failings, of case-loads which make providing a good service impossible, of mistakes and cover-ups.

And still those fighting against the system turn to people like Deputy Higgins.

There will, no doubt, be people reading today’s front-page and issuing a sigh – irked by or not interested in what the St Helier Member has to say in his questioning of the Children’s Minister.

But to dismiss the allegations would be to demonstrate that the lessons of the past have not been learned.

Assertions of anything from abuse to malpractice and incompetence must, of course, be tested in appropriate ways, as not all allegations will be fair or true, but it is critical that people with grievances and complaints are empowered to speak out, to blow the whistle and to be heard.

In her opening remarks summarising the panels’ findings, chairwoman of the Independent Care Inquiry Frances Oldham QC quoted the 2008 words of the Howard League for Penal Reform after it reviewed Jersey’s youth justice system. She said: ‘Powerful interlocking networks may exclude and disempower those outside of the groups and make it hard for those outside of those networks, who have genuine concerns, to raise them or make complaints in an effective way. This is likely to be particularly true of deprived, disadvantaged and powerless children.’ The powerful networks of today might be different to those of the past, but they remain and there is still a gulf between them and the powerless. It is through that lens that we should read Deputy Higgins’s comments.

Editor: Andy Sibcy editorial@jerseyeveningpost.com" (END)

It is clear that the JEP has learned some lessons from the past. It's editorial today is not attempting to silence or ridicule the whistleblower, (Deputy Mike Higgins) it is (rightly) telling us to listen to him before the "mistakes" of the past are repeated.

The editorial appears to acknowledge its own (and all island Old Media) mistakes of the past when it concedes that trying to cover up the truth will only push people towards those who/were are telling it (Bloggers)

Quote JEP:

"As a consequence, marginalised Islanders turned to anti-establishment politicians and bloggers outside of the mainstream who they trusted. They became their champions and ensured the spotlight shone on things that others wanted to ignore or forget."

A line I wrote from the 2009 EDITORIAL:

"Citizens Media is here and it is here to stay, get used to it Shipley, you helped create it/us."    

So credit where credit is due. The JEP (evidenced by the two editorials) has come a long way since 2009. Unfortunately The BBC and ITV/CTV remain where they always were, untrusted, unreliable and completely silent (as far as we are aware) on the concerns raised by Deputy Higgins in the States yesterday. It was the (Old) Media's silence that helped the cover-up(s)...........History (in some cases) repeating itself.

New (and some) old Media appear at Child Abuse Panel Review.

On Thursday May 29 2019 Team Voice and Tom Gruchy appeared as witnesses at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) REVIEW PANEL "PUBLIC" Hearing. We "New Media" (formerly known as "Social Media") were invited to sit alongside members of the "Old Media" (formerly known as Mainstream Media) to discuss a number of subjects/bullet-points. (below)

Unfortunately we only got the subjects/bullet-points the night before the Hearing which was nowhere near enough time to do adequate research but nonetheless, in the extremely short time we were given for the hearing (approximately an hour), we were able to hold our own.

Regular readers will know that the Panel went back on its word (pretended it didn't) and refused any media recording of all the "PUBLIC" Hearings as exclusively reported by VFC HERE. WE (New Media) were the only media to challenge this absurd decision as reported on in the above link. The Old media were compliant. So unfortunately were are unable to publish any video footage for the Blog. Which was our intention before the Panel went back on its word.

With the very limited time we had at the hearing, and the number of subjects to be discussed, it was an impossible, and unrealistic task and we should have been allocated at least a two hour slot and that's not counting the DAYS we would have needed if we were allowed to discuss the Old Media's role pre-2017.

ITV/CTV

Out of the Old Media it was only the Bailiwick Express and the Jersey Evening Post who had the courage to turn up. ITV/CTV and The BBC lacked that courage so credit to the two who did show up. Of course the Bailiwick Express was not around during the Rectangle Era, so had little, or nothing, to answer for. The JEP, and indeed ITV/CTV and The BBC were around and do have plenty to answer for so most credit should go to Andy Sibcy (Editor JEP). Sibcy wasn't the Editor around the time (Rectangle) the paper was doing its best to trash the Survivors/Abusees and those who tried to get them so-called "justice." We believe the Paper as come along way, for the better, under the Editorship of Sibcy.

The paper (alongside BBC, ITV/CTV) was relentless in attempting to discredit the Victims/Abusees, Lenny Haper, Graham Power QPM, Stuart Syvret and the Bloggers and should have been held to account for this at the (not so) Public Hearing.

However, The Panel was adamant the old media was not going to answer for its reporting before and during Operation Rectangle. At the very start of the Hearing the Chair, Francis Oldham QC, threatened to walk out if that line was going to be taken. Which begs the question "if we are going to ignore the "mistakes" of the past, are we not doomed to repeat them?" It would appear that the Old Media have (like a vast number of abusers) been let off the hook for its past crimes. It was the old "Jersey Way" war cry "let's not dwell on the past, and let's look to the future." So many crimes have been brushed under the carpet with that slogan and it looks like the IJCI Panel have adopted it also which is concerning.

Fellow Team Voice Member RICO SORDA, at the very start of the hearing said words to the effect: "The entire local MSM owe the Victims and Survivors an apology for its reporting during the Child Abuse cover-up." He is of course right. We cannot forget the further abuse Survivors/abusees were subjected to by the Old Media during the Rectangle Era. But, as mentioned above, Francis Oldham QC was having none of it and threatened to walk out (with the Panel) if we attempted to discuss anything that pre-dated the Panel's Report of 2017.

We should also point out that the Old Media, according to the latest SOCIAL SURVEY, only enjoys the confidence of 33% of islanders. It has a mountain to climb in order to win any trust back and by not dealing with its past failings it is difficult to see how this could happen. Bloggers, on the other hand, have earned the trust of Survivors/Abusees and whistleblowers through the years and continue to enjoy that trust. We (unlike to Old Media) can hold our heads high knowing we are on the right side of history and have spoken up for the truth.

BBC

Despite the almost impossible, and fruitless task, in holding the Old Media to account at the hearing, the Panel should be congratulated for attempting to get the Old and New Media round the table. There has always been a "them and us" attitude created by the Old Media and, although BBC/ITV didn't have the courage to turn up, we believe some bridges might have been built with those who did turn up and those who didn't have no intention of building bridges. The irony is that BBC and ITV/CTV could have got some much needed credibility just by showing up as Bailiwick Express and JEP did (from me anyway). And of course the Bloggers don't need to gain credibility from those who matter as we already have it.

We are pleased to say that the discussion around the table, at the hearing, was, on the whole, pretty amicable. We had an opportunity (albeit very limited)  to discuss our differences and indeed similarities with the Old Media and it wasn't a completely useless exercise for which we thank the IJCI Panel for getting at least some of the Old and New media together. This is something the Old Media has resisted for years and still resisted by BBC and ITV/CTV.

Below (in an e-mail received from the Panel the night before the hearing) are the eight subjects expected to be discussed in an hour by up to 7 or eight witnesses.

IJCI Panel

"Hello

We are looking forward to welcoming you to Thursday’s session in St Paul’s at 9.45 am.

Our sessions have been lasting 50-60 minutes. We aim to keep to time as we have a full schedule.

Our focus is on the period 2017-present with a view to identifying what is new and emerging in that period. As with other issues we are reviewing, we are not discussing matters in the period before or during the Inquiry or matters dealt with during the Inquiry. 

In honing down the topics for the session we have drawn on our meetings with over 150 people in the last 10 days, including three more sessions with care experienced young people tonight.

The questions that will help us most are:

.What have you seen that is different in the last two years in services affecting children and families

.Key areas in the last two years for media reporting on child care issues.

.What media campaigns / reporting in the last two years have had an impact?

.The public response through media/social media to the Inquiry report and child care issues
Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?

.Whether people in Jersey have tended in the last two years to use media rather than official processes to highlight complaints

.What is role of journalists in holding public sector agencies to account?

.Changing the tone of some debate and commentary to encourage more participation
In a climate of global concern about false and manufactured news and commentary, what safeguards are necessary to ensure accurate reporting?

Finally and importantly,
In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"(END)

Needless to say hardly any of the subjects were discussed but as mentioned above it wasn't a completely fruitless task and the IJCI Panel should be congratulated for getting the New and (some of) the Old Media round a table and we look forward to building bridges with those (of the Old Media) who look for the same.

We will look to publish the transcript of the Hearing as soon as it becomes available.

In the meantime readers might want to discuss/answer the questions set (above) by the Panel? Or do readers agree the hearing/subjects should have included the Old Media's reporting (or not) during the Operation Rectangle Era?

Royal Square Rally 16 Feb 2019.

Today a rally took place in the Royal Square, organised by anti Child Abuse Campaigner Cheyenne O'Connor asking for pedophiles to remain on the sex offenders register for life and for a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment to be imposed on those who are convicted as highlighted in our PREVIOUS POSITING

Around 150-200 people turned up to support the cause which considering the subject matter, and the culture of fear still so prevalent on the island, this must be seen as a success and full credit to Cheyenne O'Conor for organising the event and to those who turned up.

There were two speakers at the event, the first was a very brave Survivor of Abuse Emma, who spoke of the ongoing physical and emotional scars and how this is also felt by family members long after the abuse occurred.

The second speaker was former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. Stuart spoke of events that took place in late 2007-2008 when he spoke out about the child abuse and the hostility he faced then, and now, for doing so. How the Jersey situation now is no better, if not worse, than it was back then. He also gave us a sobering reminder that not all those who were in the "care" of the States of Jersey made it out alive and deserve as much thought and recognition as those who did. Some say those who didn't make it out alive are the lucky ones................................

Below is a short video of today's events/speeches. Possibly more (video) to follow.

Cheyenne O'Connor Rally Saturday 16th February 2019.

Cheyenne O'Connor

This coming Saturday 16th February at 10am there is a rally to be held at the Royal Square in Jersey. The rally has been organised by online pedophile hunter Cheyenne O'Connor who snares online child predators who attempt to meet (what they believe are) children. Cheyenne poses as a teenage child online and gathers evidence against pedophiles which she then hands over to the police. Her efforts have resulted in a number of convictions with some predators ending up in prison, for what she, and many others believe, a short amount of time.

Cheyenne is advocating for a minimum (three year) prison sentence of pedophiles and believes they should remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life and has created an online petition to that end. The petition has attracted more than 2,500 signatures and received a response from the relative (Home Affairs) Minister. With another 2,500 signatures it will be considered for debate in the Island's Parliament. The petition (and the Minister's response) can be viewed (and signed) HERE. She also runs her own Facebook page where she documents her online work catching pedophiles and cases she is working on. The page can be viewed HERE.

Former Health Minister/Whistleblower Stuart Syvret

VFC spoke with Cheyenne yesterday (video below) and discussed the upcoming rally this Saturday where there will be a few speakers including Survivors and former Health Minister, and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. We also discussed such topics as "The Culture of Fear" so prevalent in our Island, the message being sent out by those attacking those of us who campaign against pedophilia and trying to protect our children. Her response the the Home Affairs Minister's and Attorney General's response, Keyboard Warriors and much more.

We thank Cheyenne O'Connor for the interview and for the work she does in trying to keep our children safe. If you agree with the PETITION and want to make a difference then sign it and be at the rally this Saturday 16th February 10am Royal Square.

Stuart Syvret and VFC Discuss "The Jersey Situation."

Former Health Minister/whistle-blower Stuart Syvret

Yesterday (6th November 2018) former Health Minister/Senator and whistle-blower Stuart Syvret gave a presentation to States Members during their lunch break at the States Building. Following the presentation VFC was granted an exclusive and in-depth interview with Mr. Syvret to discuss the contents of his presentation which was primarily concerning "The Jersey Situation" not to be confused with "The Jersey Way."

Regular readers/viewers will be well aware of the infamous "Jersey Way" but the "Jersey Situation" is a different animal and one which all should become familiar with (if they aren't already). It is explained in the interview/discussion and was explained to States Members yesterday and it is believed that some Members had their eyes opened and were very receptive to the message Mr. Syvret was conveying. Will it make any difference..........Can it make any difference? This too is discussed in the interview/discussion.

We make no apologies for the length of the video. In times gone by we might have split it into two or possibly three sections but with renewed outside interest in "The Jersey Way" and indeed "The Jersey Situation" we want to make it easier for researchers (and ourselves) to be able to access this vital/crucial information and research as easy as possible. We know that those who matter will watch every second of the video, and those who don't, don't matter.

We hope those who do watch the video in its entirety will be given pause for thought and have their eyes opened as to what is still able to happen on our island because of "The Jersey Situation" and might be inspired to join the cause and speak out against it.

Again, in times gone by, we would have written, in the main Blog Posting, about the contents of the video/interview/discussion but, as mentioned in the above paragraph, those with the real interest will watch it,  not need to be told what is in it, and be able to make a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

We thank Mr. Syvret, not only for this interview/discussion, but for continuing to stand up for what is right despite the threats, death threats and intimidation he has received, and continues to receive, for being an anti-Child Abuse/corruption campaigner.

Stuart Syvret Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Interview.

Former Health Minister/whistleblower Stuart Syvret

Political observers may be aware that the Jersey elections (or lack of) are being monitored (hopefully) by an independent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA). They have been on the island since the 5th of May.

According to VOT.JE:

The Mission will observe:
. political campaigning
. electoral administration
. voter registration and accessibility
. candidate nomination
. polling (including postal and pre-polling)
. counting and tabulation
. post-election complaints or appeals

A preliminary report will be published within two days following the election to outline the initial findings. A closing report will be published within two months after the election making recommendations for electoral reform.(END)

Yesterday (Tues 8th May 2018) the CPA held a Press Conference at the State Building where the MSM, members of the public/Bloggers were welcome to attend and ask questions of the panel. Fellow Blogger TOM GRUCHY was in attendance and indeed filmed parts of the Press Conference published HERE. Also in attendance was former Senator/Health Minster/alleged political prisoner and whistleblower Stuart Syvret. Readers are encouraged to click on the link above where Mr. Syvret and Tom Gruchy demonstrate why the island needs an independent media (Bloggers) in order to get some questions asked.

Readers might not also be aware that the CPA is taking submissions from the public with their own observations concerning the electoral (or lack of) process in Jersey. We strongly urge those who have knowledge, or just observations, to contact the CPA at jerseyelectionobservation2018@gmail.com where we believe they would be happy to meet with you. Alternatively you can just make your submission on the e-mail.

Former Senator Syvret has been relatively quiet for quite some time now and the general feeling is that he fears illegal imprisonment from another secret court if he is seen attempting to rock the Jersey boat. That said he did grant Tom Gruchy an exclusive, in-depth interview, directly after the CPA Press Conference which we publish below.

We are told that Mr. Syvret will be making a comprehensive submission to the CPA as will a number of others including sitting and former politicians as well as Bloggers, members of the public, and hopefully readers of this Blog?

If you think there is something wrong with our electoral process, or indeed if you believe there is something right with it, then you should tell the CPA.  jerseyelectionobservation2018@gmail.com

Jersey Reform Day 1769-2017.

Tom Gruchy

On 28 September 1769 some reported 300-400 Jersey Islanders, headed up by an extremely brave man, Tom Gruchy, overthrew the corrupt Royal Court while, then in session, to demand substantial reform of the systems of justice, government and administration. We use the word "brave" because Mr. Gruchy, and his fellow protestors, risked being hung for their actions/protest. Hanged by order of the Royal Court and their properties confiscated. The properties of all those involved could have been awarded to the likes of the Lempriere family.

The Royal Court, made up of chosen/unaccountable judges/Rectors led by the Lempriere family were the Jersey government.

Tom Gruchy and a number of his fellow protestors were subsequently arrested and threatened with execution for sedition. For the sake of brevity, for this posting, the UK utilised its constitutional obligation, stepped in to restore good governance and the rule of law in Jersey. A pardon was granted by the King for  Tom Gruchy and his fellow protestors. Out of this protest came the 1771 code of laws for Jersey which is still referred to today.

Former Deputy Trevor Ptman

On 20th November 2012 the Island's government agreed to have "Jersey Reform Day" (28 Sept 1769) officially recognised. The proposition was tabled by the then Deputy Trevor Pitman. This proposition has an extensive account of the events of 1769 which can, and should, be read HERE. Unfortunately the government has not honoured its commitment to celebrate this historic event and appears to have buried this uncomfortable part of Jersey's history. (sound FAMILIAR)?

Despite these radical reforms in 1771 has anything changed and are we in the exact same place in 2017 as we were in 1769/1771? Who runs this Island? Is it a corrupt Royal Court as in 1769? The Bailiff as in 1769? The Attorney General/Solicitor General/Crown Officers as in 1769?

To acknowledge (since the government won't) this momentous historic day, VFC interviewed (below) local historian, Human Rights Campaigner, and Constitutional Expert Mike Dun. Mike's own BLOG is dedicated to Tom Gruchy and his cause.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst

Reform now, as back then, is very much on the agenda not least attempting to separate the Judiciary from the legislator by relieving the Bailiff from his duty of presiding over the Island's Parliament. This latest part of much needed reform has come by way of a proposition tabled by Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst.

Million's of £'s have been spent on at least 3 reports (Clothier/Carswell/COI) which have ALL recommended the separation of powers. Yet the Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff STILL remain head of Judiciary and Legislator. He remains unelected and unaccountable yet presides over elected/accountable public representatives. He decides what questions can be asked (or not) in the Parliament. He decides what propositions/amendments can (or not) be debated in the Parliament. He (as judge) can decide which political dissidents can be locked up, or financially ruined. He can shut down political commentators/Citizen Journalists through his court just as was the case in 1769 and referred to in the below interview. He is able to do, whatever he does, with complete impunity, answerable to nobody.

Isn't this why Tom Gruchy, and his fellow protesters, stormed the Royal Court back in 1769?

Mr. Dun appears, in the video, as an 18th century Acting Bailiff. Could it/he be a 21st century Bailiff?

Graham Power on Local Investigative Journalism and Blogs.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

On 3rd July 2017 the Independent Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry published its long awaited report. It was a damming and scathing report for the States of Jersey and a complete vindication of the Victims and Survivors who were finally listened to and more importantly believed after decades of being ignored, vilified, threatened and pilloried for attempting to stop the abuse happening to them and for trying to bring their perpetrators to something that resembles "justice" in such a corrupt system. Victims and Survivors remained courageous and dignified and displayed tremendous resolve and tenacity in their plight to be heard. Their vindication has been far too long coming and never more deserving.

Others were vindicated by this Inquiry, to include former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper and the team he led during Rectangle. Graham Power the (possibly illegally) suspended Chief Police Officer was also vindicated and  "reasons" given for his suspension were shown to be (according to the COI) "LIES."

VFC interviewed the former Police Chief the day (4th July 2017) after the Committee of Inquiry published its report. Because the  story was changing almost by the hour we had to interview him again some days later where we exclusively reported he had submitted a criminal complaint, against the politician who suspended him back in 2008 Deputy Andrew Lewis. Which (as far as we are aware) was only covered by BBC Radio Jersey. ITV/CTV has been made aware of the revelation but is unwilling to report it.

Which brings us on to the subject of this Blog Posting and (an extract from) the original interview with Mr. Power. What role did the local Mainstream Media play during Operation Rectangle and what role did Bloggers like Team Voice play? Who were "investigating" and who were (not) "reporting?" what was being reported and what wasn't? How was it being reported?

Former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret

Mr. Power's observations, and opinions, of the local Mainstream Media are far from complimentary. It should be emphasised that his opinions on the JEP are (for want of a better word) "historic." He is not making comment of the paper in its current form where we believe there has been a huge turn-around (for the better) under its current Editor. That's not to say that it now practices "Investigative Journalism." It does hold authority to account, better than it ever has, and does report stories that would never have been reported previously. This includes a comprehensive "Saturday Interview" with former Health Minister, and Whistleblower Stuart Syvret. The JEP accurately portrayed the "human story" of being a whistleblower in Jersey and its consequences. We hope to supply a link to that story when one becomes available.

Finally the COI's report has vindicated the work done by Team Voice. We have been vindicated, and thanked, by Chief Minister Senator IAN GORST. This Blog has even been complimented by Deputy Andrew Lewis who has said publicly; "it is a well written Blog"...........Praise indeed.

Team Voice is proud of the part it has played, and continues to play, in giving Victims and Survivors a voice. We are proud of the "investigative" role we have been able to play during this dark period in Jersey's history in order to bring the truth to our readers and viewers. We have been putting the truth out there despite threats of physical violence against us, to include being slashed across the face with a Stanley Blade. Death threats, racial abuse, disability hate, and constant intimidation from those who DON'T want the truth getting out.

We are thankful to the brave whistleblowers who have shown enough confidence in Team Voice to have leaked us many, many, documents which we have published (at great risk) in order to get to the truth.

We are humbled, and extremely thankful to Mr. Power for the acknowledgement and recognition he has given to Team Voice in this interview.

If you support our work and want to give a voice to the voiceless please share this Blog on Social Media Facebook/Twitter etc?

Liar(s) in Politics. The Government You Deserve?

Enough (in less than 90 seconds) said?

What To Look Out For In The Abuse Inquiry Report.

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley.

In little more than twenty four hours the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will (should) be publishing its long-awaited report. (3:pm Monday July 3rd 2017)

Ahead of its publication former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has put together a number of crucial questions which need to be addressed and "what to look out for" in the report.

Submission (to VFC) of Daniel Wimberley.

Hillsborough is in the News right now – it took 28 years and a series of inquiries before the truth finally was uncovered, and prosecutions brought. I am sure we all want to believe that the Abuse Inquiry here in Jersey gets it “right first time”. But will it? 

I have my doubts, and we need to be ready, as a team, to go through this report at speed and test it to see if it is reliable. The media will want comment and we should be ready to respond with reasoned views, whichever way they go, as soon as we are able.

So, in this post I list some standout moments, moments which encapsulate key issues for the panel. These startling admissions or contradictions in the evidence must have registered with the Panel.

To do a quick audit of the Report we can focus on how the Panel deals with these key moments. We can see if they have been paying attention and if their conclusions are likely to be well-founded.

And if they have ignored, or missed these moments, then it is likely that the Report and its conclusions, in the relevant areas, will not be of much use, and a sad waste of money.

Let us hope that they have done the job properly, it is all we can hope for.

Please add your own standout moments in comments, additions to lists of examples etc.. 

If you want to help with the team readathon, let Voice know. We assume the Report will be searchable so it should be possible to type in a string of words and find them. If there are hard copies available, we assume they will have a comprehensive index. 

So, here goes . . . 

Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.

STARTING AT THE TOP . . . 

The relationship between Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper (LH), and Attorney General (AG), William Bailhache (WB) 

Question 1: 

Is Paragraph 36 of LH’s First witness statement referred to at all in the Inquiry report? If it is, how is it treated?

NOTES 

At stake here is the credibility of on the one hand the Senior Investigating Officer, and on the other the prosecuting authority.

Here is para. 36: 

“I cannot recall any occasions where the Attorney General did agree to charge employees of the SOJP in relation to malpractice/corruption. Even where we had caught members of the IT department fraudulently buying computers and recording equipment for their own use at home, use which included taking topless photos of their wives, the Attorney General refused to take action. There was even one occasion where we had CCTV evidence of a particular Special Branch Officer indulging in sexual activity in the Special Branch office with a foreign national, and then letting her look at confidential papers on terrorism, and yet no charges were brought.”

The whole issue of LH’s mistrust of the AG is in this paragraph. Why were some at least of these cases not prosecuted? 

I have searched on WB’s witness statement and the transcript of his hearing for the words “equipment” “recording” Special” Branch” and “CCTV” and there were no results. 

NB The Boschat affair was covered by the Inquiry from both sides. The letter of advice for the then SG Stephanie Nicolle is reproduced as an Exhibit of WB’s witness statement. 

The gist of her letter is that the goings-on between the police officers involved, especially Sean Osmand, and Boschat himself appear to be not right, but that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Her letter is in WB’s exhibits. (It is 95% not there, replaced by a series of solid black squares.) 

It could be that the Panel were able to read other background about the matters in paragraph 36. Then we will see if that is so from their report.

Former AG/current Bailiff William Bailhache

Continuing with WB 

Question 2: 

(again, what is at stake is his credibility) Does the Inquiry report consider the discrepancies in the 2 extracts below, is the Report’s analysis thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

Extract 1 

The AG’s letter (not sure to whom) says: "He (witness K”) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." 

When “MR. K.” is questioned about this by Inquiry Counsel Patrick Saad, Mr. K. says the reports, and, monitoring, didn’t exist. More precisely, there were no WRITTEN reports, only verbal ones. But the words of the AG William Bailhache suggest written formal reports. 

Extract 2 

William Bailhache’s June 2009 public statement says about allegations of cigarette burns: ..… but there is no physical sign of any injury” 

But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ we get this: "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size. They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns” From his report for the redress scheme, written June 2014

Former Home Affairs Minister/current Deputy

Andrew POWERGATE Lewis.

Andrew Lewis (AL) and connected issues 

Question 3: 

Does the Inquiry report say AL lied to the inquiry panel on oath? Or that he lied to the States? If not, how do they come to that conclusion, and is their reasoning credible? 

If they conclude that he did lie, and if they suggest a prosecution or similar process of some kind, do they address the conflict of interest which will then arise between the AG’s role as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor?

NOTES 

On December 2 2008 AL made a statement to the States announcing the suspension of Chief of Police (COP) Graham Power (GP). During the questions and answers which followed the statement he said the following words: 

“I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision (to suspend GP) in the first place.” ………………………

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all." (My emphasis)

But in the report by Brian Napier QC (para. 101) we read: 

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so." (My emphasis) 

Conflicts of interest 

Question 4:

Including the Lewis case, does the Report address the conflict of interest between the AG’s role in Jersey as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor? What steps do they suggest to deal with this, and are they adequate?

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Question 5: 

Does the Inquiry report say anything at all about the words spoken by the Bailiff (Sir Philip Bailhache) to AL, telling him in effect to stop speaking about the Met Interim Report. in the extract below? (For those who have not considered these words before, I suggest you take a close look, and reflect on their significance.) 

These words were spoken in the in camera Q&A with Home Affairs Minister Lewis, about why he has just suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power. 

The Deputy of St. John (Andrew Lewis): 

"I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all ..."

The Bailiff: 

Minister, do not go down this road, please.

The Deputy of St. John: 

... that the actions that I took were justified and we will await the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was. 

Now why would the Bailiff say such a thing? This is about whether the Panel were inquisitive about what is going on. 

Andrew Lewis not getting any advice sent to him direct

Question 6: 

Does the Inquiry report set out clearly exactly who in the LOD sent what advice to whom and when about the possible suspension of GP, people such as head of Human Resources Ian Crich, and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley? 

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis was never (so far as I know) sent legal advice by the Law officers even though he was the Minister for Home Affairs (MHA) and as such the only person who can suspend the Chief of Police? 

Andrew Lewis and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 7:

Does the Inquiry report consider why Lewis could say things like what is quoted below, from the transcript of Day 136 and what conclusions does it draw?

Ms McGahey, Counsel to the Inquiry, asking about the phone call made by AL to GP on the evening before the suspension meeting on November 12th 2008:

“You didn't tell him, did you, that you were going to consider his suspension?

A. (Andrew Lewis) Why would we want to do that?

Former CEO Bill Ogley.

Chief Executive (CE) Bill Ogley (BO) and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 8:

Does the Report consider the legal advice which Bill Ogley had received from the Law Officers about suspending Chief of Police Graham Power? Is the way it does this thorough and convincing, and what conclusion does it come to?

NOTES 

Ms McGahey to Bill Ogley: 

Q. ………. But he (the AG) is the principal Law Officer. You have in your hands an email and absolutely it is in parentheses in the context of an email principally about the press statement, that says "Surely you will want to have the full Met report before you suspend". Is that expression of opinion not worthy of being taken very seriously?

…………………………..

Q. Did you know that the Solicitor General had advised that you should ensure that the interim report from the Metropolitan Police didn't have any caveats or qualifications in it before you relied on it as a basis for suspension? 

A. We were not allowed to see the interim report, or be aware fully of its contents. 

Q. And so you didn't know whether it had any qualifications or caveats?

A. No. And I'm not sure that I know of that advice. If you could put it before me I would be interested to see it.

The only person who knew of the caveats was Deputy Chief of Police David Warcup (DW). Bill Ogley here seems to be handing him the responsibility of telling other people about these caveats. How does the Report deal with this?

Bill Ogley, Andrew Lewis, and lying

Question 9:

How does the Inquiry Report deal with what Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis told the Wiltshire Police investigation (Operation Haven) about the dates of the letters written to GP about his suspension? Does the Inquiry come to the conclusion that they lied (see below), what is its reasoning, and what conclusions do they draw?

NOTE

My notes show that both BO and AL lied to (or “misled”) Wiltshire about the dates in what are effectively sworn statements, but I may be wrong on this. Can someone please confirm this and give references, preferably from Inquiry evidence?

Destruction of evidence.

Question 10:

Does the Inquiry report have a section on this crucial issue, drawing together all they have been told and drawing conclusions? Did they truly inquire about the various instances they were told about?

Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.

NOTE

My impression has been that they are unaware of the importance of this issue and completely lacking in any desire to inquire (Inquiry – the clue is in the title) But I may be wrong. 

Here are five cases which I remember – please commenters, tell about others.

a) Mario Lundy (Director of Education) witness statement paragraph 24 says that a manager who joined . . . . destroyed the day books 

b) Trevor Pitman’s witness statement where he mentioned 4 (if I remember correctly) boxes which were found, handed over to a “senior” person, signed for and then disappeared.

c) Hewlett witness statement or transcript, but no reference, sorry

d) “chaotic filing” at Childrens’ Services no reference, sorry

e) LH witness statement (if I remember correctly) refers to missing records

the skull and the coconut

Question 11:

Does the Inquiry come to a sensible and defensible position on this question? And what was the role of the media and politicians in highlighting this one object, and how does the Inquiry evaluate their motives for doing this?

NOTE

There is only one possible position, is there not? An object with collagen in it cannot be the same object as an object with no collagen. So the piece identified originally as maybe a fragment of a child’s skull, and which when sent away for testing, had collagen is not the same object as the “piece of coconut”. But this involves some awareness of what can and does go on at forensic testing establishments. LH refers to it a statement he makes somewhere, but did he tell the COI? Did they ask?

LH’s handling of the media

Question 12:

Does the Report make a clear distinction between what Harper said and wrote and what a) others like Ben Shenton and Frank Walker said that he said and b) what the media said that he said? Does the Report come to a balanced view about the pros and cons of his media approach?

Judges’ attacks on LH

Question 13:

How does the Report describe and interpret the appearance on front pages of the JEP of judges Montgomery and Pitchers, both with headlines and copy attacking Harper?

Does the Report analyse these attacks and their refutation by LH? Did the Panel fulfil their duty to inquire into how these assertions came to be made within judgements and how these highly controversial assertions came to court and were dealt with in court?

NOTE

There is a huge amount at stake in the answers to these questions. They are linked to the answer to Question 5. Were the Inquiry Panel interested in the possibility of a politicised judiciary? Were they inquisitive about this possibility?

Accusations that LH and GP created a bullying culture in the States of Jersey Police (SoJP)

Question 14:

How does the Inquiry report cover this issue?

Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

NOTE

The accusation of bullying by LH and GP was a vital part of the “war” waged by in particular Minister for Home Affairs Ian Le Marquand to discredit the top team at the Police.

It is of course a very serious accusation, particularly in a uniformed organisation such as the Police with strict lines of command. LH says this (first witness statement paragraph 23 and second witness statement paragraph 57):

“Quite early on in my career at the SOJP, it was clear that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one

occasion were referred to as the 'politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of police headquarters.”

…………….. 

Mr Gradwell claims that there was a culture of bullying among senior officers within the force, naming myself, Graham Power, Shaun Du Val, and David Minty. He seems to have turned this on its head. I had to take firm action on arrival within the force to stop a minority of officers from bullying, but it had nothing to do with the senior ranks of the force. These matters included assaults, inappropriate behaviour and comments, and even holding a gun to an officer's head, as well as racist abuse. I detail a number of these incidents in my exhibit LH/l. The records of each case should still be available at Police Headquarters. Despite being labelled the "politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters" by one politician, we were very successful in dealing with this, to the extent that officers were happy to report incidents to us.

Ian le Marquand was forced by GP to publicly withdraw accusations of bullying.

Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Removal of Stuart Syvret (SS) from ministerial post

Question 15:

Does the Inquiry report recognise the importance of this dismissal and tackle this subject in detail, fairly and robustly? Were SS’s criticisms of the childrens’ services right? Was Mike Pollard’s letter to all staff criticising the actions of the Minister right? How does the Inquiry report deal with the “conspiracy” in the Civil Service – the 2 simultaneous meetings documented by the File Notes of GP and Alison Fossey?

Does the Report connect the removal of SS from his ministerial post to the sacking of social worker Simon Bellwood and the suspension of Graham Power? What conclusions does it draw about these events? Does the Report connect this apparent conspiracy with the apparent conspiracy surrounding the suspension of GP?

The role of the media

Question 16:

Does the Inquiry report analyse how the media in Jersey reported on the abuse which occurred, the investigation by the Police, the political dimension and so on? There are academic teams who do content analysis of media – did the Inquiry commission research?

Were the media objective and unbiassed? Were they challenging? Does the Inquiry report consider both traditional and internet? Has the Report described the impact media had on politics and society in the area of child sexual abuse in the past and has the Inquiry report made robust and useful recommendations about the role that the media could play in the future to help bring about a society free from child abuse

Does the Inquiry report explain why they called no editor or journalist as a witness?

NOTE

It is as if the Panel did not think the media were part of the TOR, But they most certainly are. See TOR 4 “Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review . . .”

IN CONCLUSION

I have left out many areas, concentrating on the political and social issues. This is long enough as it is.

I think that they will actually do the job on Childrens’ Services and how they failed and ways to improve them. I have far less confidence about the areas focussed on here.

I have not covered recommendations for the future, that is a separate task. First we need to know if the Committee of Inquiry’s diagnosis of what went wrong and why it went wrong is based on a real understanding of the issues.

I hope that this list of some key issues is useful, and that people add their own issues, and add their own examples e.g. of evidence which has gone missing.

Daniel.