Scrutiny Call for Evidence.

IJCI

On the 3rd of July 2017 The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry (IJCI) delivered its damming REPORT on the decades of Child Abuse carried out in Jersey State run "care" homes and elsewhere across the island. The Panel, as part of its report, made 8 key recommendations which can be found in the link above or the shorter version can be read HERE.

In response to that report, and recommendations, a Scrutiny Sub Panel (The Care of Children in Jersey review Panel) was formed which is tasked with monitoring the Children's Minister's progress (or not) in implementing the 8 key recommendations of the IJCI. In December 2018 the Panel presented to the States its quarterly REPORT where it had set out its findings concerning the implementation (or not) of (IJCI) recommendations 1-4.

The Panel is now looking for evidence, from institutions and members of the public, from witnesses who have experience/knowledge of recommendations 5-8. The closing date for written submissions is this coming Friday 16th August 2019. Oral evidence can be given past this date. Its Terms of Reference, and contact details can be found HERE.

ITV/CTV

Some readers might (like myself) believe that all witnesses who gave evidence to the IJCI (like myself) will be receiving a letter from the Scrutiny Panel inviting them to make a submission/give evidence to it. This is because local (Old Media) ITV/CTV, who has a long history of broadcasting Fake News, told it viewer(s) this in a report last month. As I hadn't received a letter from the Panel I contacted them explaining I had given evidence to the IJCI HERE,  HERE, and HERE and not received an invitation (as reported by ITV/CTV) to give evidence to the panel. The Scrutiny Officer (who has been extremely helpful) told me:

"I’m afraid it was incorrectly reported that the Panel were writing to all those who gave evidence to the Inquiry."

I asked the Scrutiny Officer if he would contact ITV/CTV and suggest they broadcast a correction to its "incorrect reporting" because potential witnesses might believe, because they haven't received an invitation/letter from the Panel, they are not required to give evidence. The Scrutiny Officer told me that, after making contact with it, ITV/CTV will amend anything necessary on its website but would NOT broadcast a correction as I understand it. I explained to the Scrutiny Officer the long history of ITV/CTV's Fake News and in particular when it comes to do with anything about (Child)Abuse. I sent a link backing up (with hard evidence) the long and sordid history of ITV/CTV's Fake News reporting HERE to suggest, it is more likely than not, that the "misreporting" is more of a design than a mistake. No correction was broadcast (to the best of my knowledge).

In the hope of minimising the potential damage caused (again) by ITV/CTV and to, hopefully encourage witnesses to come forward, we asked Chairman of the Panel, Deputy Rob Ward if he would agree to an interview and explain what kind of evidence the panel is looking for and from whom. The Chairman was very accommodating, agreed to an interview (below) and answered our questions as best he could.

VFC's  interest primarily with recommendation 7 (The Jersey Way):

"13.18 "Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. This was well summarised in the contribution of a Phase 3 witness who told us:

“We (also) have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way.”

"13.19 That fear factor and lack of trust must be addressed, therefore we recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are out with our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports."(END)

"The Jersey Way" and "fear factor" are not exclusive to matters concerning Child Abuse and is the culture of those who run this Island, as in Crown Officers Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff and the Law Offices Department. People live in fear of retaliation/persecution if they speak up/out and we feel this is NOT being adequately (if at all) addressed and might prevent witnesses coming forward to give evidence to this panel's review. We have previously reported on recommendation 7 and explained (or former possibly illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power did) the far reaching (beyond Child Abuse) consequences of it HERE.

We asked Chairman Deputy Rob Ward, in regards to recommendation 7, if people have evidence of alleged political/judicial corruption, could they give this evidence to the panel/review? What assurances (if any) could he give those wishing to submit evidence that they won't become victims of "The Jersey way" and face persecution/retaliation? What "legal status" does people's written submissions have? Could the Attorney General's Office come after somebody for what they have written in their submission? The irony of that is, the Panel will no doubt be getting its advice from none other than....................The Attorney General's Office.

We thank Deputy Ward for the in-depth, exclusive, interview and hope that those who feel able, will make contact with the Panel (links provided above) and submit evidence. Not only on recommendation 7 but 5,6 and 8 also.

Teresa Rodrigues, La Moye Prison, a Raft of Questions/Allegations and a Call For Information.

In continuation of what will now be a series of posts concerning the allegations made in a national newspaper by a former so-called "Drug Counsellor" from La Moye Prison in Jersey Teresa Rodrigues.

Ms Rodrigues claimed to have had a two year affair with prisoner Curtis Warren whilst she was employed at the prison and gave (possibly sold) her story to the Mail newspaper which was published HERE.

VFC, after reading the article, contacted the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (Parliamentary Select Committee) in order to get some answers and to ask if the Panel would be investigating these very serious allegations made by Ms Rodrigues, or would be asking the Home Affairs Minister to make a public statement?

Regular readers will be aware that the response received from the Panel Chairman was dismissive, rude, and quite frankly "staggering" which can, and should, be read HERE.

Deputy Montfort Tadier submitted an Urgent Oral Question, (Below) to the discredited, and disgraced, Minister of Home Affairs at the earliest opportunity concerning the allegations made by Ms Rodrigues in the National Newspaper. The "answers" given were completely unsatisfactory and left us with more questions than answers.......Yet again.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following urgent oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Would the Minister advise whether a former prison employee had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner at HMP La Moye and, if so, what assurances can he give that correct safeguards are in place so that such alleged practice may not occur in future?”

The "answer" can be listened to HERE.

In the video below Deputy Tadier discusses the information he, and others, have received concerning the alleged "practices" up at the prison and makes some startling claims which suggest that Ms Rodrigues' alleged affair with Curtis Warren is just the tip of the iceberg.

VFC has spoken with a number of credible sources who tell us Ms Rodrigues was making a good income on the side, up at the prison, by selling mobile phones and drugs to prisoners at extremely high rates for quite some time, and that just about everybody knew of Ms' Rodrigues' antics but she was "untouchable" and earned the nick-name, among some staff members as "Teflon Teresa" (nothing could stick). We have also been told that if she did have an affair with Curtis Warren, then he wasn't the only one. But more about that in up-coming posts.

It looks as though Ms Rodrigues' revelations/allegations, in the Newspaper, has opened up a whole new can of worms and as viewers/readers will discover (from the video below) she is not the only member of the prison staff to be accused of abusing her position.

It's at this point we remember the words from Scrutiny Panel Chairman Constable Steve Pallett. "At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter."

We acknowledge that the prison authorities, Home Affairs, and Ms Rodrigues will strenuously deny the allegations made in this Blog, and interview, which will give more reason to hold an "independent" Committee of Inquiry so we can get to the truth.



Deputy Tadier can be contacted at m.tadier@gov.je

"Scrutiny" The Steve Pallet Way.

Readers will be aware of a recent article in the MAIL ONLINE concerning a former so-called "Drugs Counsellor" at La Moye Prison, Ms.Teresa Rodrigues.

Ms. Rodrigues, in the Mail article, claimed she had a 2 year affair with a prisoner, Curtis Warren, while she was employed at the prison.

Naturally if these claims are true then they raise some very serious questions as to how this affair, with a maximum security prisoner, was able to take place and to go on for so long?

The discredited, and disgraced,Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, still hasn't grasped how a so-called "Democracy" is supposed to work and has reverted to his dictatorial and totalitarian ways and refuses to answer any questions surrounding these extremely serious allegations. In the absence of an independent mainstream media, it looks like he/his Department won't be held to account and any questions will remain unanswered.

But that is what Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) is there for right?

Constable Steve Pallet is the Chair Person of the Scrutiny Panel who are supposed to "Scrutinise" the disgraced Home Affairs Minister and his Department. The only other Member on his Panel is another Constable Michel Le Troquer who actually voted for Geoff Southern to be Chairman. But guess who voted for Steve Pallet (besides the rest of the establishment members)? None other than the disgraced Home Affairs Minister himself!

So it will come as no surprise to learn that although Panel Member Constable Le Troquer believes questions need to be asked/answered, Steve Pallet, the Chairman, does not. "Why not" you might ask?

I suggest it is because Constable Pallet doesn't know how Scrutiny is supposed to work. But just as alarmingly the Constable won't be Scrutinising the Minister (who voted for him) seemingly because The Mail has said some horrible things about a friend of his!

Below are extracts from an e-mail exchange between the Scrutiny Panel, and VFC, which demonstrate the mess this Island is in because of no checks and balances, an unwillingness/refusal of the "Scrutiny" Chairman to "Scrutinise" the guy who voted for him because a newspaper said some horrible things about his friend and why the Chairman should resign, with immediate effect and give the position, to a non-conflicted, and capable Member.

Sunday 16 Feb 2014

Constables.

I contact you in your capacity of Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Chairman/Member and bring to your attention an article in today's Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560282/Prison-manager-two-year-affair-Britains-biggest-gangster-jail-cell-But-allowed-away-it.html

Could I ask if either of you will be submitting an urgent question to the Home Affairs Minister this coming Tuesday, will you be asking him to make a statement and, as a Scrutiny Panel, will you be scrutinising the policy/procedures that allowed a maximum security prisoner to spend so much time alone with a (presumably vulnerable)  female member of staff let alone allegedly be involved in an illicit sexual relationship with her for 2 years?

I await your reply/answers with anticipation.

Reply From Constable Michel Le Troquer 16th Feb 2014

Thanks for the information. I’ll be speaking with the Chairman Constable Steve Pallet and I’m sure this is the start of something that will go on for some time. If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations.  We shall update you after we have discussed the matter. There are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation. Thanks again for advising us.

Kind regards,

Reply from VFC 16th Feb 2014

Constable.

Thank you for your reply, if no answers to my questions, as yet.

You'll forgive me for not sharing your optimism in "there are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation" 

The Assembly (if you'll excuse my bluntness) is full of head nodding lobby-fodder who don't seem to have the ability to ask a question and I would be very surprised if anybody, other than Deputies Tadier, Higgins, and possibly Le Herissier, will ask anything.

Hopefully yourself, and Constable Pallet, will put pressure on the Home Affairs Minister to issue a Statement to the Assembly and possibly the Media concerning this grave matter?

I look forward to my questions being addressed (answered) in due course.

Reply from Scrutiny Panel Chairman and Constable Pallet. 17th Feb 2014

Further to your e-mail below,I will not be asking the Home Affairs Minister to make a statement or be submitting an urgent question to the Minister in regards to comments made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday either as a back bencher or as Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

I for one have no faith in the journalistic credibility of this newspaper especially after the printing of a story very recently  linking the local radio presenter Murray Norton to the death of charity organiser and blogger Simon Abbott.So called facts in the article were totally flawed and bear no resemblance to the truth.

In regards to these latest allegations,the Minister has stated publicly this morning  that he considers them to have no basis and did not want to give any creedance to the article by commenting on it to any great degree.Undoubtedly the Minister will carry on an informal internal investigation but I am sure he believes that this so-called affair was ,more than likely,a figment of Miss Rodrigues imagination.

There will though be an opportunity to question the Home Affairs Minister at the next Quarterly Hearing if necessary to investigate the current procedures for professional visitors to inmates at HMP  La Moye which I have little doubt is extremely stringent, as I have seen on visits I have made to the prison in the past.One of these visits was with the Scrutiny Panel in late 2012 whilst Curtis Warren was still held at La Moye.

At present there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a ‘sensationalised’ story from a national newspaper with little in the way of evidence to support the allegations.

At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter.

I thankyou for your e-mail and for alerting the Panel of this story.

Reply from VFC 17th Feb 2014

Constable.

Thank you for your response and for demonstrating that you do not understand how the Scrutiny Process is supposed to work.

I have only 2 questions, before I consider a substantive reply to your e-mail.

1. Are you a friend of Murray Norton's?

2. On the strength of your e-mail will you be submitting your resignation from Scrutiny?

Reply from Scrutiny Panel Chairman and Constable Pallet. 17th Feb 2014

 Please do as you see fit.I have no intention of entering into a dialogue with you over your interpretation of the Scrutiny process.

1.Yes I do consider myself a  friend of Murray Norton’s and make no excuse for being so.Neither do I or have I hidden the fact.

2.No.

Kind Regards Steve

Ps Please do not waste either your or your own time on a substantive reply to past e-mails

Reply from VFC 17 Feb 2014.

Constable.

I find your tone extremely dismissive and offensive and in contravention of States Members Code of Conduct, and on that basis I intend submitting a complaint to PPC citing our e-mail exchange as evidence.

I'll take your advice on not substantively responding to your previous e-mail but instead will publish our correspondence in a Blog Posting where I will be suggesting that you are willing to turn your back on the scrutiny Process because a newspaper has given negative press to a friend of yours. Furthermore that you believe if the Minister (who you are supposed to be "scrutinising") says he is not going to answer questions then that's good enough for you.

Being a responsible Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) I would like to offer you a video interview on this subject so you are given the opportunity to explain your actions on this matter?

I intend on publishing the Blog tomorrow, containing extracts from our correspondence, but am willing to postpone for 24 hours if you would like to defend your actions in a video interview.(END)

The (rude and offensive) Constable has not replied to the last e-mail so it looks like he has declined the offer of an interview.

It should also be mentioned that Teresa Rodrigues has a very colourful and worrying past, as a counsellor, which I'll not go into just now and questions need to be asked as to "why" she "left" the prison in 2011 and how the hell she got the job in the first place?

But as we know the "Scrutiny" Chairman isn't looking to "Scrutinise" any of it.

VFC acknowledges that Curtis Warren strenuously  denies the claims made by Ms. Rodrigues.

Scrutiny, Tasers and Blog TV.

St Saviour Deputy Jeremy Macon is the confirmed guest for tomorrow night's live and interactive Blog TV broadcast. Deputy Macon is the Chairman of Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel who are currently looking into the idea of our Police Service being issued with Taser Guns.

The Scrutiny Panel has received, we are told, in excess of 400 written submissions from the public on this subject and we hope to get some early indications as to how the public view the idea of the Police Force being issued with these weapons.

We will also be discussing the role of Scrutiny, its effectiveness, its successes and failures and plenty more.

The live and interactive broadcast will start at 7pm (BST) tomorrow Thursday 10th May and will be up to an hour in duration. If you have any questions/observations/comments you would like to make then come and join the discussion HERE.

Protocol.

On the 12th of January this year (2012) we "Citizen's Media" received the latest incarnation (below) of the protocol concerning filming (or not) of "PUBLIC" Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) Panel Hearings. After reading the protocol we discovered that it was much the same as the others that have been dreamt up in the past and really only there to prevent Bloggers from engaging the public in the political process.

It was signed by the Vice Chairman, Deputy Stephen Luce, who most will know is the new Deputy of St Martin after defeating former Deputy Bob Hill in the last election. Deputy Hill was/is an avid campaigner for open and transparent government and supporter of Citizens Media. These attributes appear completely lacking in his Successor, Deputy Luce, as this latest attempt to exclude the public, in favour of, State Media should demonstrate.

Our Ref 510/1(42)

12 January 2012

New Protocol for Filming at Scrutiny Hearings

Dear “Citizen’s media

The new Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee has considered in depth how it can best conduct its hearings in a professional and businesslike manner whilst maintaining the opportunity for visual media coverage. The Committee has held a meeting for all Scrutiny Members recently and decided that preferable way forward was for webstreaming, similar to that which operates in other jurisdictions. This means that all visual recording would be operated centrally and streamed. Any media outlets would be able to apply for permission to use footage taken centrally with no changes made to such format.

However, this is currently being looked into in detail and is not a short-term solution. Consideration has, therefore, been given as to the best way forward in the interim and it has been agreed that a standardised procedure is required for all involved in Scrutiny Hearings, be they Panel Members, witnesses, public or media.

It has been agreed that no visual footage will be permitted by the “Citizen’s media”. “Accredited” media wishing to take visual footage will be permitted to do so for the first five minutes of each public hearing only (it is anticipated that Scrutiny and PAC hearings will be held in public) and may not take any footage of the public but only those present at the table.

Everyone is very welcome to attend all or parts of Hearings to take notes. Also any media interviews with the Panel, Sub-Panel, PAC Chairmen or witnesses can be arranged to take place outside the States Building either before or after Hearings.

Yours sincerely

Deputy of St Martin

Vice-President, Chairmen’s Committee (END)

 

Regular readers will be aware that, in the past, these protocols have been hair-brained, ill thought-out, nonsensical and discriminatory against Bloggers.....and this latest incarnation is no different. So rather than (as we have in the past) question it, challenge it or point out, to the authors how 19th century, backward, nonsensical and draconian we believed it to be we chose simply to ignore it as it is only a very small part of the bigger picture that is the "secrecy" of this administration.

However an occasion arose where the protocol was breached by the "accredited" (State) media and one of the Scrutiny Panel Chairman, Deputy Kristina Moore. So in order to prove our point, that the protocol is a complete waste of time, and not worth the paper it is written on we complained to the head of the Chairman's Panel Deputy Tracy Vallois, asking who will be held to account/sanctioned for this blatant breach? Of course we knew nobody would, or even could, be sanctioned thus proving our point.

Here is the complaint made to the Chairman of the Chairman's Panel.

from: voiceforchildren

to: t.vallois

date: 11 February 2012 10:52

subject:  Sanctions/complaint.

Deputy.

I contact you in your capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny Chairman's panel.

On the 12th of January 2012 I received the new (draconian)  protocol of filming (or not) Scrutiny Hearings. It must be said, no matter how draconian these protocols have been/are, that "non accredited" (Bloggers) media have adhered to them throught. The same can't be said for the "accredited" (State) media and in particular Channel Television. Yesterday 10th February 2012, despite the new protocol stating that the "accredited" media can only film within the first five minutes of a hearing, Channel Television turned up to the Health, Social Security & Housing Panel Hearing, long after the first five minutes and filmed. Not only did they film but, (and again with total disregard to the protocol), filmed a member of the public, and broadcast it on their 6 o'clock news despite the protocol stating the "accredited" media "may not take any footage of the public but only those present at the table."

Channel television appear to continually disregard any rules/protocols. Back in July 2011 I published this Blog Posting, http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/07/skull-evidence-and-media.html of which I produce a section of it here.

"As for the role of the island's media, one has to question their motives. At this hearing were members of the public, among those members of the public, were victims/survivors of Child Abuse. A request was made at the beginning of this hearing and assurances given that members of the public would not be filmed by the media and reproduced below, is the "official" transcript of that.

Male Speaker:

"Could I just say before you start I do not think members of the public want to be filmed by the media.  

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Are you going to focus on us?  Please, thank you."

The "thank you" from the panel Chairman was a consequence of receiving visual assurances from the media that they agreed with this request. The request was made, not least, because one of the members of public present, who is also an Abuse Survivor, is the target of threatening and intimidatory phone calls, and has even had a stranger come to their door to, among other things, threaten him/her not to reveal the name of their Abuser. This Survivor has subsequently received more threats since this hearing." (end)

So the questions remain just what is the point of these protocols if in practice they mean nothing? They appear totally pointless and are regularly ignored by Channel Television.

Please regard this e-mail as an official complaint, but it is difficult to know who the complaint should be aimed at and indeed what, if anything, can be done about it? Who is at fault here, is it the Scrutiny Panel that allowed Channel Television to film (out of time) yesterday and for not assuring members of the public were kept out of shot? Is it Channel Television who is at fault for having total disregard for the protocols? Just as importantly what realistic sanctions are in place for such beaches of protocol? If a Blogger was to turn up at one of these Hearings and switch a video camera on, what would the sanction be? Now that CTV has breached the protocol who, if anybody, is going to sanctioned?

I dare say neither yourself, nor any of your committee know the answers to these questions as these draconian rules are made up at the drop of a hat and in reality don't mean anything and are a waste of time that only serve to prevent "independent" media (Bloggers) from filming meetings.

As mentioned earlier this is an official complaint please treat it as such and I would like to know what the consequences will be for these breaches of protocol and who will "suffer" the consequences?

VFC. (END)

A series of e-mail exchanges then took place which resulted in the Chairman, Deputy Vallois, agreeing to this interview (Part1 below) for which we are very grateful and appreciate her support for Citizens Media. It is important to point out that Deputy Vallois was not party to the decision (vote) to exclude Bloggers from filming the Scrutiny Hearings and after a request she was the only Chairperson to reply to the e-mails and "promptly" too. All other Chairmen were asked for an interview but the e-mail wasn't even acknowledged. That said, Deputy Macon, and Senator Ferguson, as mentioned in the video, did not agree with the exclusion of Bloggers, so still waiting to hear from Deputies Moore, Young and Luce...........