Jimmy Savile, Jersey, BBC and suspects (Part two)

In part two of our exclusive and in-depth interview with former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation Lenny Harper we discuss, and try to fathom out, the culture of concealment surrounding paedophilia, the agenda of the discredited, and disgraced BBC along with the rest of the island's State Media and how they just fail to understand that protecting children should be at the forefront.

Carrying directly on from Part 1 of this interview the subject is on the BBC and how they set an agenda of "News." Not long after Mr. Harper's interview on BBC State Radio was aired, their Headline was that Mr. Harper was calling for an independent Police Force to investigate the Savile allegations in Jersey. Contrary to the impression given to some by the BBC Mr. Harper (as explained in part 1 of this interview) has the upmost respect for the SOJP but knows there will be political interference.

It was the BBC's Headline that set the agenda but to my way of thinking was not the biggest revelation of Mr. Harper's interview with them. He said, live on air, that there are still Child Abuse suspects working in the "care" system in Jersey, surely that was the most frightening, chilling, and "newsworthy" statement he made? I immediately phoned the BBC "News"room in an attempt to point this out but was told that this has been mentioned before and didn't need repeating (or words to that effect).

In light of the latest Savile allegations and the possible culture of concealment within the BBC I could barely believe my ears and had to explain, "Surely the priority should be to protect our children and if there are Child Abusers in our "Care" system then this should be the Headline "News?" I was told if I wasn't happy then I could submit a complaint to the BBC trust!

This is the very attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile, and no doubt countless others, to carry on abusing children. Do/say nothing when you have the ideal opportunity to expose those who are a danger to our children.

The interview (below) also demonstrates  further misinformation put out by the BBC when one could clearly hear the producer of the show frantically saying in Chris stones ear-piece that Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, supported a Committee Of Inquiry (into the Child Abuse) when in-fact Senator Le Marquand voted AGAINST a Committee Of Inquiry.

Of course it's not just the BBC who look to be complicit in the suppression of documented evidence and misinformation, according to Mr. Harper, and a growing number of others, the entire local State Media has played its part and ignored the MASSIVE amount of documented evidence, leaked to, and published by, the local Blogs (Jersey's only independent media).

As regular viewers/readers would have come to expect this interview asks the questions that the State Media won't.....and gets the answers. The State Media attempt to set an agenda that is misleading and ducks the real issues as in this case the protection of our children.

Mr. Harper, in his trademark manner, tells it how it is as uncomfortable as that might be for the ruling elite, and the state Media, in Jersey, as well as the paedophiles and those protecting them.

The Blogs are the ONLY place in Jersey where you are going to get the evidence of the Jersey Child Abuse cover up and as Mr Harper explains, the State Media is "conspicuous by its silence." As are Messrs Gradwell and Warcup by theirs.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Mr. Harper's interview with State Radio can be heard HERE

Jimmy Savile, Jersey, BBC and Comparisons.

Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, who regular readers will know was (illegally?) Suspended from duty while (because?) his Police Force were investigating decades of Child Abuse/Paedophilia that Jersey has now become so (in)famous for has responded to a request from VFC and offers us (exclusively) his thoughts on the comparisons with the Jimmy Savile allegations/enquiries and that of  Mr. Power's experiences with the Jersey Child Abuse ongoing scandal.

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 21^st 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

Chair Borne To Heaven Borne (A Guest Posting)

My name is Jean and I am a survivor of the Jersey Child Abuse. The Abuse that I, members of my family, and friends suffered took place in an institution many of you won't have heard of.


After coming across a publication by VFC which was a guest posting from TOM PERRY I have made contact with VFC and he has agreed to publish a short guest posting from myself which I hope will bring attention to, or make people aware of, the abuse and suffering concerning those who were in other Jersey Institutions not reported in the media.

I have written a book about the trials and abuse that happened in the "Grouville Girl`s Home" in Jersey. It appears some people that live in Jersey say that they did not know of this Girls Home existing. I can assure you it did, as I was in that home from the age of 6years old until I was 15. My older sisters were in the same home. The staff would routinely beat us with a number of different implements, objects or weapons these would include "stinging nettles". This would happen if we wet the bed or any similar "crime." The staff also put us in ice cold baths of water and would keep our heads under the water until we gasped for breath. There was also sexual abuse.

This kind of Abuse and Paedophilia gets described as HISTORIC as mentioned in the Tom Perry submission. How can people talk about these things being historical, utter rubbish, these things stay with you and affect you for the rest of your life specially when someone brings up these subjects, It all comes back to mind as if it were today, it has a big effect on you for the rest of your life. These things do not go away over night, in fact I have had to have counselling only recently because of the effect it had on me. I have NOT seen a psychiatrist over the abuse and have no reason to see one, as it seems some people think you, or all Abuse Survivors, do if they want compensation. I wonder how they would deal with such abuse if they went through it and then told they needed to see such a person. It seems to me the decades of abuse was covered up over the years by those who should have been protecting us and I for one am glad it has come out and made public.

Asked why we did not report it at the time we were threatened we would have our tongues cut out or our throats cut with a pair of scissors if we did, we lived in fear of the staff the whole time. My book is called Chair borne To Heaven Borne and goes on to happier times as I got married and left Jersey for the UK. I suffered lots of illnesses even a broken spine ending up in a wheelchair. Then a healing miracle takes place in my life I go around now helping other people. This does not take away the memories of my childhood and the abuse I suffered in fact the older you get the harder it gets to erase it from your mind.

The Jersey homes I was in still stay in my memory, I could do a complete drawing of both buildings even to this day. Was the Girls Home demolished to hide another Haut de la Garenne scenario? What secrets lay buried with the Girls Home? I will be signing and selling my book at the Christian book shop in the Central Market St Helier on Wednesday from 10am  12. 30. I hope the book will help people to come forward and talk about it rather than suppress it as some have done for so long.

What was done to us as children was done by a small minority of people. I do not blame everyone in Jersey and I regard jersey as a nice place to holiday.

Voice For Victims

From the Guernsey Evening Press. 

Why Voice For Victims needs your support…

Saturday 18th February 2012, 2:30PM GMT.

GUERNSEY’S Court of Appeal has again reduced the sentences handed out to two local men convicted of paedophile-related offences.

Unlike the earlier – and more significant – cuts the same court applied last summer to former hotel manager Mark Gunter’s jail term, the seven judges have not explained why they believe men who seek out vilely indecent images of children deserve a softer sentence.

They may do so in a written judgement and the panel of seven may also take steps to clarify what sentencing options local courts actually have in the wake of the Gunter case, which dropped a 15-month term to just three.

From yesterday’s outcome, that is likely to be along the lines of saying Guernsey can have a deterrent sentencing policy – as long as it’s not too painful for the perpetrators.

If so, and with respect to the court, that is not good enough.

As an appeal judge, the Bailiff has already drawn attention to the public outcry that greeted Gunter virtually being let off for a crime many here view as being at the top end of the spectrum of awfulness.

Three months for looking at small children being maimed, tortured and abused in the most sexually depraved fashion but mega years for a bit of spliff…

It makes no sense even to those who rightly condemn all forms of drug use.

The Guernsey Court of Appeal will come to what conclusions it will in line with the law.

And it is precisely that which makes it so important for people to support our Voice for Victims campaign. Every signature on the petition is another call to Guernsey lawmakers to take heed of what islanders believe are appropriate sentences for paedophile offences.

This island has the right to set those and the petition provides the opportunity for people to say what penalties they think are right rather than relying on the rather shadowy process at present.

Crown Advocate Gary Perry was absolutely correct when he said that lower sentences strike at the fabric of this society.

His must not, however, remain a lone, if authoritative plea.

Support him, support justice and the abused: sign up for the Voice for Victims.(END)

How fortunate are Guernsey to have a newspaper who campaigns for the victims of Child Abuse rather than the perpetrators of it?

"Historic" Abuse? A Guest Posting From Tom Perry.

For those readers who have not yet watched the BAFTA Award Winning Documentary "Chosen" you might not have heard the names Tom Perry, Mark Payge or Alistair Rolfe.

BAFTA for Chosen from True Vision on Vimeo.

These three men, with the help of multiple Award Winning "independent" Television Production Company "True Vision" and Director Brian Woods, brought the taboo subject of Paedophilia to the world of mainstream media thanks to the courage of Channel 4.......Notably not ITV or BBC.


Their story is humbling, heart wrenching, educational, emotional, frightening, graphic, sad, inspirational, courageous, and for those who have read "The Sharp Report" the private school talked about in their story could quite easily have been Jersey's very own Victoria College.


This is a story that cannot be covered in a single Blog posting and one we shall be returning to in the near future. The guest posting came about after we received an e-mail from Mr. Perry where he brought to our attention the (mis)used word "Historic." We subsequently replied and asked if he would consider a "Guest Posting" and thankfully he agreed.

From Tom:

I am writing to Voice for Children as someone who in 2001 filed a police complaint about the sexual abuse I experienced as a child. The Case was stayed in 2003 using a pre-trial "abuse of process hearing grounded on the Selwyn Bell precedent which was established just a few months earlier. It says - "as a result of the passage of time the defendant cannot receive a fair trial." This meant that the man I accused of abusing me did not have to answer the question in court, and no stayed criminal case has ever returned to court. Following the ruling I approached an independent television production company and four years later the BAFTA award winning documentary Chosen was broadcast.

When in adulthood I finally managed to face the abuse I’d experienced as a child, even I referred to it  as ‘historic abuse.’ The police did the same and media reports on similar cases were and continue to be  peppered with the adjective and just look at the Voice blog and others that do such sterling work on the Jersey child abuse cover up, all of them describe child abuse complaints made in adulthood as: ‘historic.’

People wishing to see truth and justice for abusees should cease using this offensive description. Why?

It is  prejudicial and serves to discount, denigrate and dismiss the crimes that abusees have experienced. “Oh that was all in the past, things are different now.” In reality little in safeguarding has changed since the 50’s. There is still no mandatory requirement in England, Wales or Scotland to report allegations of child abuse or actual rape to the police or social services.  Just in case you don’t believe 

it:http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/child_protection_legislation_in_the_uk_pdf_wdf48953.pdf - see page 3 or search key word ‘mandatory.’ 

Regrettably the appalling description “historic abuse” entered the lexicon sometime ago unnoticed and to the detriment of complainants.  It needs to cease.  The mainstream media on Jersey are addicted to this offensive description and here is just one example from the BBC with their latest effort. In England the recent conviction of Father Nick White for child abuse when he was teaching at Downside was reported by all parts of the media in the default ‘historic’ format despite the abuse on which the trial was predicated occurring only nineteen years ago.  Nineteen years!

Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the ‘historic’ word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not?  Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm,  drug smuggling, or assault,  and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse?  

For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed  discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not  wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime  they wish would  vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.

Its child abuse.