Statement of Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper.

Former DCO Lenny Harper.

"With the report of the Committee of Inquiry being delivered on 3rd July I have over the past few weeks been contacted by various media outlets in the United Kingdom and Jersey. Each of them has asked if I would be willing to speak to them when the report is delivered.

Whilst none of us know what will be contained within the report, I feel more confident in being able to predict the different ways in which the contents will be dealt with by media in the UK and the local media in Jersey.

Jersey’s media, and admittedly some have been worse than others, have continually sought to protect the image of the Jersey establishment to the detriment of the abuse survivors. There have been many ways in which they have sought to do this. One of the most used tactics has been to discredit anyone who was seen to be acting in the best interests of the abuse victims and survivors. By smearing and attempting to discredit myself and others, vested interests have ignored and trivialised the sufferings of the abused.

I find it inconceivable that the horrific abuse suffered by children through the decades in Jersey could have been covered up, both pre and post Operation Rectangle without at least the tacit complicity of the main stream media in Jersey. 

I have witnessed at firsthand how actions of mine have been deliberately misrepresented and how evidence which did not suit the agenda of the Jersey media has been ignored, twisted, or just plain perverted. Only through the blogs of Voice For Children, Rico Sorda, Stuart Syvret, and other public journalists has the truth emerged. There are numerous examples of this but I will mention only a few.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and in denial of the facts, the Jersey media still insist on referring to the coconut myth. Evidence that the item concerned was never conclusively identified as a coconut and indeed, was even found to contain collagen, (only found in mammals) has been ignored. The evidence of a respected Professor who stated that the bones found had been burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed has been totally ignored. Even a few weeks ago a media source in Jersey was asking me about this nonsense.

The fiasco of the BDO Alto report was a stunning example of how the establishment went to great lengths to deflect from the abuse and the evidence of the survivors by discrediting myself and others. The Scrutiny Report was scathing in its condemnation of the behaviour of the Jersey media, elements of the States, and of course Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. What happened to the Chair of that Scrutiny Panel, Trevor Pitman, was intended by the Jersey establishment to be a stark lesson to all who dare to challenge their version of history on behalf of the abused.

More recently we have had the desperate attempts to discredit me and by extension the abuse survivors by the efforts to somehow link me to the criticism by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Operation Belfong) of the States of Jersey Police in its failings regarding Data Protection issues and much more from 2009 onwards. This despite me leaving the force in 2008 and being told by the PSNI that I did not feature in its investigation, which is why they declined my invitation to be interviewed as part of that investigation.

It was perhaps an unfortunate “oversight” that the Inquiry Terms of Reference did not include how the Jersey mainstream media was able to manipulate public opinion to try and turn it against the survivors and those acting on their behalf.

For all of these reasons and more, I have decided before knowing what is contained in the report, and no matter what is, that I will not be speaking to the mainstream media in Jersey. Should the public journalists that I have mentioned above wish to speak to me I will of course agree to do so. I will also be happy to speak to United Kingdom media sources.

Lenny Harper

24th June 2017"

Compare and Contrast.

Senator Philip Bailhache

In our PREVIOUS POSTING we warned readers/politicians to be "careful what (who) you wish for" concerning the Vote of No Confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. A vote that he comfortably survived.

Our concerns, as Anti Child Abuse Campaigners, were that if Senator Gorst (who is a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry) was ousted then we could almost certainly end up with Senator Bailhache as Chief Minister. As pointed out in our previous posting (above link) Senator Bailhache is NOT a supporter of this Inquiry and has attempted to thwart it at any given opportunity. We believe that if he had become Chief Minister the COI report would not have seen the light of day. (It still might not)

At this point it should be of interest to readers to note that during the Vote of No Confidence debate Senator Bailhache did NOT speak. He had nothing to say, either in support of his Chief Minister, or otherwise. Could it be that he didn't want to show his hand and reveal that he was after the top job?

The very next day after Senator Gorst was voted to remain as Chief Minister and Senator Bailhache realised that he's not getting the top job just yet. During "arrangement of public business" he (Senator Bailhache) proposed that the in-committee debate to discuss the findings of the Child Abuse Inquiry's report should be deferred. It is due to be debated on the sixth, and if needs be, the seventh of July. He wanted it deferred until the tenth of July. His reasons, apparently, is to give members time to read and digest the report because three days aren't long enough.

We reproduce below the video of Senator Bailhache's short speech making the proposition to have the debate deferred. We ask readers, in spite of the revelations in our previous posting, where we reported that the Senator, while in his role as Bailiff, delivered a now "infamous" speech at a Liberation Day ceremony where he said words to the effect: "Child Abuse is a scandal but the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey and its people by the outside media." When asked by Council to the Inquiry if he had considered the effect this might have on Abuse Victims/Survivors he replied in the negative.

We ask readers (after watching the video below) has Senator Bailhache learnt anything since then? How much compassion for Victims/Survivors does he demonstrate in his reasoning for deferring the debate?

But here is one of the more curious aspects of his proposition. He wanted the debate deferred until the tenth of July. But as Senator Gorst pointed out in his speech (below) during the debate, and indeed another States Member pointed out in their speech, Senator Bailhache is due to be off-island on the tenth of July on what sounds like official States Business (Jersey-London Day). Despite being reminded of this by two States Members during the debate, the Senator did NOT acknowledge it in his summing up speech.

It could be that he completely forgot that he would be off-island on the tenth, and he completely forgot to acknowledge this despite being reminded by two States Members during the debate and did NOT address the issue in his summing up speech. In his defence we must say that the Senator's evidence to the Committee of Inquiry did demonstrate he has a woefully inadequate memory. Under questioning from Council to the Inquiry he could barely remember a thing and was unable to answer many questions.

It could also mean that he fears he is (rightly) going to be heavily criticised in the Inquiry's report and doesn't want to be around when it is being debated?

Readers should compare and contrast the speech of Chief Minister Gorst against that of Senator Bailhache and ask who considers the interests of the Victims and Survivors and who doesn't?

Be Careful what (who) You Wish for.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Now that the vote of no confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst has been officially LODGED It's potential implications need to be examined and some pragmatic questions asked should it succeed.

Including Constable Taylor (the mover of the proposition) 14 States Members have signed the proposition and agree the Chief Minister should go. There is a rule of thumb, or an unwritten rule, that if a vote of no confidence against a Minister is brought then the proposer of the proposition should put themselves forward for the post. In this case Constable Taylor has publicly stated that he doesn't want the job claiming he has "the best job in the world" being Constable of St. John. None of the other 13 signatories have publicly declared an interest in the top job either.

So where does this leave us should the proposition be successful? As things stand NOBODY has put their name forward to replace the Chief Minister and 14 politicians have signed a proposition to get rid of him without knowing who his replacement might be. Some names have been banded around who might make a good/competent Chief Minister but none of these people have publicly declared they want the job.

Deputy of St. John Tracy Vallois' name has been mentioned a few times, not least by her Constable, that she could fill the Chief Minister's shoes. She has since ruled herself out of the running. Treasury Minister Senator Alan Maclean's name has also come up in the mix but he has not said anything publicly about it that we are aware of.

Another name that is strongly rumoured and there is a real possibility (he has previously ran for the post) that former Bailiff and current External Relations Minister Senator Philip Bailhache could put his name forward and has a good chance of winning the vote. He was asked on BBC Radio Jersey recently if he would stand for the position and would not give a categoric "NO." This only serves to strengthen the rumour and possibility of him putting his name forward.

Looking at this as an Anti Child Abuse Campaigner there could not be anything more concerning than the thought of senator Bailhache becoming our next Chief Minister. The former Attorney General and former Bailiff has consistently attempted to derail the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. He spoke against giving the Inquiry extra funding HERE. He stands accused of receiving a leaked witness statement and attempting to intimidate WITNESSES to the Inquiry, accusations he strongly denies.  He has employed what have been termed as "scare tactics" by indicating the Inquiry's cost could reach as much as £50m (it cost less than half that amount). Whilst Bailiff he gave an infamous speech at his Liberation Day address saying:

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".

A man who seems to believe that children being horrendously abused and tortured in the "care" of the States of Jersey, and elsewhere, is less scandalous than Jersey getting some bad press?

From the TRANSCRIPTS of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Senator Bailhache being questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry Patrick Sadd:

Q. Did you discuss the (Liberation Day) speech and the draft with anyone?

A. I usually used my family as a sounding board on these occasions. I find my children to be my most ferocious critics so I would have shared it in the family, but beyond that, no.

Q. Does your family include your brother William?

A. I think not on this occasion.

Q. So aside from your family you discussed it with no one else?

A. No.

Q. Before making that speech, Sir Philip, the suggestion that damage to Jersey's reputation was "the real scandal" {WD009001/2}, did you consider the effect that this might have for instance first on those victims who had come forward to say they had been abused?

A. I think, Mr Sadd, I would have considered all the circumstances in the round. I can't -- I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered, (emphasis added) but I certainly would have viewed the matter in the round.(END)




Firstly he refers to the Victims/Survivors as "alleged" despite there being a number of convictions against abusers all be it a couple of Lambs thrown to the SLAUGHTER and indeed the numerous cases that weren't taken to a JERSEY COURT by, among others, Senator Bailhache's brother, former Attorney General and current Bailiff William Bailhache. Who has serious questions of his own to ANSWER.

Secondly he states:  "I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered,"

He is giving a political speech on a Liberation Day about Child Abuse and didn't consider the Victims/Survivors?

Thirdly he should be aware that there are more "ferocious critics"than his family members and he should be using them as a "sounding board" as he is being hopelessly let down by his family members.

Then we come to his apparent desire for Jersey to break ties with the UK and become independent. Quoted in an ARTICLE (June 2012) by The Guardian Newspaper as saying:

"The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary in Jersey's interest to do so."

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

The former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM wrote in his (BURIED BY THE MEDIA) interim defence case to the Wiltshire Constabulary:

"Such views are not confined to the older elements of the honorary service. They can be found, albeit in a more developed form, in the senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007. This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island."(END)

VFC can also confirm that Senator Bailhache does NOT have the confidence of the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) or any Victims/Survivors we have spoken to. Senator Gorst on the other hand DOES have the confidence of the JCLA.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry is due to publish its final report within weeks and it is anticipated that those in power at the time, both judicially and politically, are going to be heavily criticised.

Chief Minister Gorst has been a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, firstly by voting for it to happen in the first place (Senator Bailhache was absent for the vote) and secondly for bringing the successful proposition to grant the Inquiry further funding. (Which Senator Bailhache spoke against but did not vote because of conflict.)

We don't know for sure that Senator Bailhache will throw his hat in the ring for the top job or indeed if he will achieve enough votes to get the job. What we are saying is that it's not worth the risk. (In our opinion)

Readers (including politicians) should seriously be considering what the implications could be of getting rid of Gorst. We are not saying that he is the perfect person for the job and that he hasn't got questions to answer concerning his leadership. What we are saying to politicians: You need to find out who might end up with the job if Gorst goes before you cast your vote. To readers/members of the public; don't lobby your States Member to get rid of Gorst until we know who his replacement might be. Be careful what (who) you wish for............................

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Panel will stay tight lipped.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (IJCI) has sent the below e-mail to the mainstream media and, we believe, Interested Parties, which has got to be its most outrageous, and alarming, statement thus far.

It explains that the report will be published on its website (apparently no hard copies). It will not be answering any questions from the media (or Bloggers). It seems to be saying that cameras won't even be allowed at the Press/public statement (where no questions are allowed). It states: "A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event."(END)

It's difficult to know how much of the Panel's blunder after blunder in its Press Releases are down to outright incompetence or is there a more sinister motive behind this?

How can it be with such a high profile review/investigation/report that the media are going to be so shut out and the panel can be so tight-lipped? 

 

Statement/e-mail from Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry

The IJCI Panel on Monday (5 June) issued further details about the publication of its report on July 3 2017. The public launch will take place at St Paul’s Centre, Dumaresq St, St Helier.

Interested Parties will be given access to the final report two hours before its publication. This is in line with paragraph 19.6 of the Inquiry Protocols: General Procedures.Interested Parties and their legal representatives are invited to attend St Paul’s Centre at 1300 to consider the report. They will not be allowed to speak to anyone else, including the media, at this time.

At 1500, St Paul’s will be open to the public and the media. There will be a statement from IJCI Chair, Frances Oldham QC. The Panel will not be taking any questions or giving interviews. A pool arrangement will be in place to provide video footage and photographs of the report’s launch and will be made available as soon as possible after the event.

The report will be published on the Inquiry website at 1500 on July 3 2017.(END)

It's absolutely bonkers that the media (and Bloggers) will not have a copy of the report before the Panel Chairman Francis Oldham QC delivers her statement. Then again it would be pointless having a copy because questions are not allowed in what must be an unprecedented move.

This latest move by the Inquiry Panel does not inspire confidence. This is/was the biggest Child Abuse Investigation/Inquiry in Jersey's history. As Victims/Survivors and Campaigners will be only too aware silence is the paedophiles biggest ally. Now the Chairman of this panel wants to remain silent? 

Team Voice is reserving its judgement on the Panel's work until we have read the report. We are not impressed with its (or lack of) media presence during the time it has been running up to this date.

One Rule for One?

Following the debacle, and scandal, of the failed Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) which could have cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of £'s. It has been reported that two out of the three independent reports into the failings of JIF will not be published. This is apparently because the remaining reports are of a disciplinary nature. (So what)?

The one report that has been published is reported to have exonerated Senator Philip Ozouf but leaves questions to be answered of Senators Alan Maclean and Lyndon Farnham. Questions the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst doesn't seem able to understand or ANSWER.

Back in 2010 the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, set a very dangerous precedent by (possibly illegally) publishing the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire report, as explained in the below e-mail sent to BBC Radio Jersey from VFC.

This is after his (ILM's) predecessor, and now St. Helier Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended the former Police Chief DURING a major Child Abuse Investigation amid contradictory statements of which he remains UNACCOUNTABLE.

The Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven 1) was the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM for a supposed disciplinary hearing..........That never happened!

Despite there never being an "outcome" (because he robbed the former Police Chief of a disciplinary hearing) Ian Le Marquand still went ahead and appeared to have breached the Wilts confidentiality clauses, by publishing a heavily redacted form of its report.

Former CO Wilts Constabulary Brian Moore.

Operation Haven (1) Confidentiality Clauses.

"Highly Confidential – Personal Information

An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police

Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

Obligation to confidentiality

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000)."(END).

With all this in mind VFC sent the below e-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

E-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

"I heard on your radio programme this morning that the remaining reports into the Jersey Innovation Fund will NOT be published because they are of a disciplinary nature.

I'd like to cast your/the BBC's mind back to 2010 when the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, (possibly illegally) published the prosecution side of a disciplinary report from the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Haven 1) against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

I reported here https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html that a precedent had been set and asked the question"Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????"

You/BBC might want to challenge the Chief Minister's decision to bury the JIF reports on the basis of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand back in 2010?"(END)

Of course the BBC could find itself in a bit of a sticky situation considering that it, alongside all other local mainstream media, published the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer. But despite being leaked the Chief Officer's interim defence case refused to publish a single WORD OF IT. Indeed, to this day, NONE of the local mainstream media have published a single word of it despite it now being a publicly available document (somewhere) on the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's WEBSITE. And despite ALL local Mainstream Media reporting on the prosecution case.

We await to see if the BBC (or any of the Mainstream Media) will challenge the Chief Minister on his decision to bury these Jersey Innovation Fund disciplinary reports in light of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand. Or will it be a case of "One Rule for One?"

A Precedent has been SET. (For some?)

Public to Discover How Much "openness" £50k can Buy?

Senator Ian Gorst

Tomorrow (Tuesday 2nd May 2017) we should find out if the reported £50k plus spent by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, (the Taxpayer) on UK Spin Doctors has paid off.

In answer to Deputy Russell Labey's previous WRITTEN QUESTION the Chief Minister claimed that the aim of the £33,500 spent on Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) was in order to help him, Ministers and Civil Servants "to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response."

We have since learnt that the Chief Minister has spent a further reported £18,000 obtaining advice from former Tory Spin Doctor Ramsay Jones presumably for the same purpose of being open and informative in the public response (with regard to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry's final report)  TO BE PUBLISHED 3rd July 2017.

Deputy Russell Labey

2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Further to his answer to my written question on 18th April 2017, will the Chief Minister advise whether the £33,500 spent on consultancy in preparation for the release of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s findings included any expenditure on engaging Ramsay Jones; and, if not, what was the cost of engaging him and what is the total anticipated spend for all such P.R. advice and training relating to this issue?” 

Deputy Sam Mezec

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“What measures, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that, in the aftermath of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry publishing its report, the evidence it received remains publicly accessible and complete?”

Deputy Mike Higgins

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“In light of the States expenditure on public relations consultants, legal representation and civil service time in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, will the Chief Minister undertake to investigate what measures, if any, can be taken to ensure there is ‘equality of arms’ for all parties involved with the Inquiry to be able to respond to that report?”(END)

We look forward to finding out how much "openness and informativeness" fifty thousand pound can buy.

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Report to be Published July 3rd 2017.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has published an UPDATE on its website announcing its Report will be published on July 3rd 2017.

28 April 2017

The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Friday (28 April) made the following announcement:

"The Inquiry Report will be published on Monday 3 July, subject to any other unforeseen circumstances.

"Arrangements for the launch of the report will be published in due course."(END)

Jersey Evening Post Editorials.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst

On Tuesday 18 April 2017 an answer was tabled by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, to a Written Question from Deputy Russell Labey. The question, and answer, revealed that the Chief Minister had spent more than £33,000 on UK Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) in order to learn how to be "open" and "informative" with the public regarding the long awaited, repeatedly delayed, publication of the Jersey Committee of Inquiry's final Report. VFC published the question and answer HERE.

It subsequently became known that what the Chief Minister DIDN'T tell the States (Island's Parliament), or the public, was he had spent a further £18,000 of taxpayers money on another Spin Doctor former Tory advisor  (Ramsay Jones) seemingly for the same purpose. That's more than £50k spent (squandered) to be told how to be "open and "informative" by Spin Doctors and already he's NOT being open and informative.

Team Voice offer the view that if you want to learn how to "open up" you might go to a Counsellor/Therapist but if you want to learn how to "appear" to be open then you go to a Spin Doctor. There is a big difference between being open and "appearing" to be open.

We ask; how much funding have Victims/Survivors been offered for training in dealing with the national/international Press when they are inevitably asked for comments or interviews? Will they once more be abandoned by our government and left to fend for the themselves? Is it that they don't need any training (media or otherwise) in being open and only those with something to hide do?

The States of Jersey has a "Communications Unit" who have a budget, we believe, of around £300k to deal with the press. What use is it if the Chief Minister has to go off island spending £50k to get media advice? 

The Jersey Evening Post published two Editorials last week (Thursday and Friday) which grapple with some of the issues raised in this posting (and some very poignant ones of its own) and in THIS POSTING. The Editorials were highlighted in the comments section (of previous link) and readers asked us if we could publish them (in the comments section).

Team Voice agreed that the Editorials deserved a Blog Posting of their own and we reproduce them below.

"A real risk of a PR disaster.

Thursday 20th April 2017

BACK in the very first days of the digging at Haut de la Garenne in February 2008, certain ministers within the States were accused of being more concerned about the Island’s international reputation than the abuse scandal unfolding in front of them.

It is therefore somewhat uncomfortable to learn that over £30,000 of taxpayers’ money has been spent on UK spin doctors to help ministers answer questions from the ‘international press’ once the independent Jersey Care Inquiry report becomes public.

The States have a massive communication problem and some media training must be welcomed. But that problem is with getting the message to the people it governs. That is where money, if it can be found, should be spent in training politicians and their civil servants. Even in this modern world of media and its various facets, the basic principles – principles taught to us all by our parents – are still at the core of what should be done: stand up straight, take care of your appearance, look them in the eye and tell the truth. Can there be much more to it than that? £33,500 worth more?

Yes, journalists can be tough and they work very hard to ensure that all of the story is covered fairly and accurately. But there are plenty of courses available, both locally and nationally, for media training that don’t come close to the £33,500 bill Islanders have picked up so far. Can it be that difficult for a minister to answer a question if there is nothing to hide?

Further, have any of these senior ministers – or in fact any politicians representing the seat of power – considered some training in how to speak to the public of Jersey, or on a one-to-one basis with some of the victims of abuse, once the panel’s findings emerge? Surely the report’s impact upon them is far more important than dealing with foreign journalists and the media attention it attracts.

Whatever their intentions in undergoing media training, it is going to be seen by the public as an exercise in either more covering up, an attempt to manipulate the truth or putting Jersey’s international reputation before anything else, something the Council of Ministers can ill afford.

There is a real risk the media exercise could itself turn into a local PR disaster."

"ANOTHER day and another potential PR disaster.

Friday 21st April 2017.

Today’s front-page exclusive reveals that ministers have hired a top Tory spin doctor to advise on how they should navigate what is going to be a difficult time for this Island. Once again Jersey is going to be thrust into the national and international limelight to answer for its record on child protection and care.

It is not the cost which is going to be the main thrust of public frustration here in the Island at this news or even the fact that ministers did not think to mention that they had engaged Ramsay Jones when they were questioned about the use of Portland Communications during this week’s States question time.

Readers will recall Wednesday’s lead article which reported that the UK PR agency had been brought in at a cost of £33,500 to help ministers on how to respond to questions in the wake of the publication of the Independent Care Inquiry report, which is expected to be imminent.

It goes way deeper than that. It is the fact that, locally at least, the government’s whole PR strategy over this very difficult issue seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what they need to say before they have even said a word.

Once again, Senator Ian Gorst and his team appear to be on the back foot as they prepare for the storm. The abuse inquiry was supposed to be Jersey’s attempt at truth and reconciliation; a chance to let everyone tell their stories in an open and transparent environment.

At the very least, the employment of PR specialists creates a perception that openness and honesty are not uppermost in their minds. That may not actually be true, but the failure to explain the need for this help before they were forced to do so shows how little has been learned from cock-up after cock-up over the years.

If ministers want some effective PR advice, they might start by listening to those who are telling them to get out onto the front foot and take their arguments to the people they represent, to have the courage of their convictions and to lead.

And they might also jettison those – and especially those in the public sector – who believe that the job of a PR professional is to deny voters the honesty and transparency that must be a basic democratic right and to manage information cynically.

All too often, it seems, they seek the counsel of the latter, a lack of judgment which could cost this administration and the Island dear."

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry to Destroy Evidence?

Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley

Former Jersey politician, and Anti Child Abuse Campaigner, Daniel Wimberley has issued a damming Press Release, ahead of the (long awaited) Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's (COI), final report being published.

Mr. Wimberley was  instrumental (with others such as Jersey Care Leavers Association, Team Voice, current and former politicians and campaigners) in formulating its Terms of Reference. He has studied and researched the entire Child Abuse scandal up to, and including, the COI.

The (below) Press Release is just a tiny snapshot of the alarming revelations contained in Mr. Wimberley's "documents" as listed at the beneath "Notes for Editors" below the Press Release. 

ABUSE INQUIRY WEBSITE NEEDS COMPLETE OVERHAUL BEFORE REPORT IS PUBLISHED. KEY DOCUMENTS MUST BE SAVED, NOT DESTROYED.

The Jersey Abuse Inquiry has been told that their website should be radically improved before they publish their report. 

Abuse campaigner and former States member Daniel Wimberley has written to the Panel setting out in detail the many changes which are needed. His letter, sent on March 31st, says:

“When the report appears it is obviously essential that anyone with an interest, from direct protagonists (victims, perpetrators, alleged perpetrators, those accused of wrong-doing of any kind) to the public and the politicians who represent them, to journalists, to charity workers, campaigners and policy-makers, that all of these stakeholders can check your report against all the original documents. 

“To do this the website must be in good order, with every document actually present and correct, both documents of evidence and documentation of the workings and decisions of the Inquiry. And all the contents of the website must be accessible, easy to find, easily down-loadable, and extracts easily copied. None of these conditions apply right now.” (original emphasis)

“The website as it stands now is a disgrace and is not fit-for-purpose,” says Mr. Wimberley. “You cannot find what you want, witness statements are incomplete and sometimes garbled, key documents are missing, or else they come and go, Panel decisions are shrouded in mystery, and using the website is made to be as awkward as possible. When the national and international journalists show up for the launch of the report they will not be amused.”

Mr. Wimberley has also discovered that the Inquiry Panel plan to destroy key information instead of placing it on its website so that everyone can read it.

“This is a stunning blow to victims and to all those who want to see Jersey learn from the horrors of the past” said Mr. Wimberley. “When the Inquiry began its work ‘information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference’ was going to be preserved,” said Mr. Wimberley. 

“Now the Inquiry says this information will be destroyed. The Panel has either made a mistake or made an astonishing and unpublicised reversal of policy which they must explain to States Members and the public. Why ever would one seek to destroy all this information?”

“I already pointed out the many issues which the Panel needed to address in an email in June last year,” said Mr. Wimberley. “They have had plenty of time, but they are ignoring these concerns. There seems to be no willingness to engage, and no desire to reassure the public. This is not the best way to build confidence and trust in this Inquiry.” ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1 proof of the Inquiry’s intention to destroy relevant information
The “Inquiry Protocol on Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Redaction” can be seen at: http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/key-documents It states:

“6. The Inquiry will categorise the information that it receives into the following categories:

6.1 Category 1 – evidence given and referred to during oral hearings. This will include witness statements of those witnesses giving oral evidence and those that are taken as read in to the Inquiry’s record. This information will be uploaded onto the Inquiry’s website;

6.2 Category 2 – information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and is probative of them; and

6.3 Category 3 – information that is irrelevant or immaterial to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference or not probative of them. This information will not be disclosed to Interested Parties or published as part of the Inquiry’s work.

7. All Category 1 and Category 2 information will be considered and the documents referred to within the hearing room will be redacted in accordance with the Inquiry’s policy on redacting personal information (which is set out in detail below), prior to release to Interested Parties and/or publication on the Inquiry’s website.

8. Following the conclusion of the Inquiry’s work, all Category 1 material will be transferred to the States of Jersey Archive in redacted form. All other information will be logged and then destroyed by the Inquiry or originals returned to the provider. A copy of the document log will be provided to the States of Jersey Archive, again redacted in accordance with the Inquiry’s redaction policy.”

So, “Category 2 information” which is defined as “information that is relevant and material to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and is probative of them” (para. 6.2) will be “logged and then destroyed” (para. 8)

2 the original policy on destruction of relevant information

From the following extract of the transcript of the second preliminary hearing on June 16th, 2014, page 43, lines 9-15 it is clear that the original policy was to keep Category 2 information:

9 A similar point we have made and again there has

10 been no response, I regret to say, in relation to

11 paragraph 8 of the previous protocol, which is at

12 divider 7, which provides:

13 "Following the conclusion of the Inquiry's work all

14 category 1 and category 2 material will be transferred

15 to the States of Jersey archive in redacted form."(my emphasis)

3 could it all be a mistake?

Yes of course this apparent destruction policy may be a simple error. I have put this possibility to the Inquiry and they have failed to give any assurances. h, misleading statements and obstruction in Jersey over the whole issue of child abuse they should have done.

4 List of attached documents, in order of usability (conciseness and emotion)

A “letter of reply by DW April 6 2017 to reply of Panel.doc”

B “letter to panel about website March 31 2017.doc”

C “letter to panel about website June 21 2016.doc”

D “reply of Panel Nov 4 2016 to DW letter re website of June 2016.doc”

E “reply of Panel April 5 2017 to DW letter re website of March 2017.doc”

F “TOR as used by COI”

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONS

A This 2 page letter to the Inquiry legal team expresses my shock and disappointment with the Panel’s failure to engage and summarises the issues and says that I will publicise this.

B is an 8 page letter to Chairman and members of the panel, dated 31 March 2017. It lists the Failings of the Website, takes the issues under Completeness of Information and making the Site User-friendly one by one and pleads with the panel to act to save their website. Basically a shortened and improved version of letter C.

C is the first letter in this correspondence about the website - a 17 page letter to Chairman and members of the panel, dated 21 June 2016.This letter puts 25 questions to the Panel about their website all of which need to be addressed if the website is to become fit for purpose, with explanations.

D is the reply of the Panel to my June 2016 letter. Note the date 4½ months after I wrote to them and only sent after I sent a long chasing email on 11th October 2016.

E is the reply of the Panel to my March 31st 2017 letter. It is 39 words long.

F the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Jersey, as agreed by the States.(End)

Team Voice has collated the (above) listed documents A-F and published them HERE.

£35k For "Openness?"

Chief Minister Ian Gorst

After a Written Question tabled by Deputy Russell Labey (below) to the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst,we have learnt (as if we didn't know already) that our Ministers/Assistant Ministers and their officers don't know how to be open and informative with the public.

We learn that they have spent £35,000 on what looks like a PR spin company (Portland Communications) to learn the art of openness and informativeness. This begs the question; "what are the States Communication Unit being paid (around 300k a year) for?" Further, if our elected politicians don't know how to be open and informative, is a PR (spin) company the best people to ask? Will the £35k be taken out of the States Communications Unit's budget?

Deputy Russell Labey

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 18TH APRIL 2017

Will the Chief Minister advise if the services of Portland Communications have been engaged by the States of Jersey to provide media training to Ministers and/or others in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, or for any other reason, and, if so:

1. (a) which Ministers or other personnel are receiving this training;

2. (b) if the cost of the programme including fees, flights and accommodation are to be met by the tax payer, how much will this amount to; and 

3. (c) what is the brief Portland Communications are working to and what exactly is the firm charged with delivering for the government?

Answer

Portland Communications were first engaged as a result of an open competitive tendering process initiated in 2011 by the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey for the provision of combined strategic support to the Islands, which at the time was mainly in relation to UK matters.

During 2012 and 2013, Portland Communications provided advice on UK Party conferences, Global transparency initiatives, FATCA and enhanced engagement with a number of key European countries. Since the offices in London, Brussels and Caen have become more fully established, in partnership with the Bailiwick of Guernsey, those offices have been able to take on these functions and Portland Communications is now engaged only to provide additional strategic advice, as needed, on matters where there is strong national or international interest.

Most recently, this has included the provision of advice on how best to engage with the anticipated national and international interest in the report to be published this year by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. The aim is to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response.

This strategic advice includes matters relating to anticipated national and international media interest and has been provided to officers and relevant Ministers (the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister/Minister for Health and Social Services, Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs), usually during telephone calls. In 2017 this has also involved the relevant Ministers visiting the offices of Portland Communications in London as convenient (usually when in London for other personal or official business).

Portland Communications has received £33,500 from the Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs for the provision of this strategic advice and support, with the aim of enhancing the provision of public information, including to the national and international media, following the release of the report by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.(END)

Being open means telling (the sometimes uncomfortable) truth. Being informative is telling/publishing the facts without using spin and Spin Doctors. Paying £35k to Spin Doctors doesn't instil confidence that we are not going to get a load of spin from our leaders when the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry publishes its report and the infamous "Jersey Way" continues.........................

Ian Gorst's Guide to the Galaxy.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

The meaning of everything, according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was/is 42 but Chief Minister Ian Gorst has his own version.

After the scandal of the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) was exposed serious questions needed to be asked, or more importantly answered, of those politically responsible i.e Senator Philip Ozouf who signed off two of the loans, and Senator Lyndon Farnham, along with Senator Alan Maclean who between them signed off five of the loans and last but not least Chief Minister Ian Gorst who surely has ultimate responsibility for the actions/in-actions of his Ministers and Assistant Ministers?

We reported HERE. how it looked like Senator Ozouf was being slung under the bus for his part in this fiasco, and in fairness to him, he resigned as Assistant Minister So we know he did "The Honourable Thing." What we DON'T know is if Senator's Maclean and Farnham have also offered to do "The Honourable Thing" or if Chief Minster Gorst asked them to?

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier attempted to find this out on 14 February 2017 by tabling the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister:

“Given that Senator Ozouf was not the only Minister to have signed off loans from the Jersey Innovation Fund, will the Chief Minister also be asking Senators Farnham and Maclean to 'step aside' from their Ministerial duties until the relevant investigation has fully reported back?”

This is where we discovered that senator's Farnham and Maclean signed off the majority of the loans but we DIDN'T get an answer to Deputy Tadier's question. So on 14 March 2017 the Deputy attempted once more to get his question addressed if not answered where he tabled the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister.

“Will the Chief Minister state whether, following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report entitled ‘Jersey Innovation Fund’ (R.3/2017), Senator Farnham and/or Senator Maclean offered to resign as Ministers or whether he, as Chief Minister, asked them to resign?”

Again a pretty straight forward, clear and concise, question? But this is where we discovered that Chief Minister Gorst has his own version of "42" which appears to be "the former Assistant Minister did the honourable thing."

If this (edited video below) didn't make such a mockery of our so called "Democratic Process" it could almost be funny. The fact that the (unelected/unaccountable) Chair(s) of the States Assembly rule it perfectly acceptable for the Chef Minister (and by implication ANY Minister) to "come out with their own version of 42" in "answer" to any question makes the whole so-called "Democratic Process" that much more (almost) laughable and tragic............