Sunday, 2 July 2017

What To Look Out For In The Abuse Inquiry Report.


Former Deputy Daniel Wimberley.

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

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


Submission (to VFC) of Daniel Wimberley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here goes . . . 


Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.


STARTING AT THE TOP . . . 

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

Question 1: 

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

NOTES 

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

Here is para. 36: 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Former AG/current Bailiff William Bailhache


Continuing with WB 

Question 2: 

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

Extract 1 

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

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

Extract 2 

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

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


Former Home Affairs Minister/current Deputy
Andrew POWERGATE Lewis.


Andrew Lewis (AL) and connected issues 

Question 3: 

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

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

NOTES 

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicts of interest 

Question 4:

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

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Question 5: 

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

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

The Deputy of St. John (Andrew Lewis): 

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

The Bailiff: 

Minister, do not go down this road, please.

The Deputy of St. John: 

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

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

Andrew Lewis not getting any advice sent to him direct

Question 6: 

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

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

Andrew Lewis and how the suspension of GP was approached

Question 7:

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

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

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

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


Former CEO Bill Ogley.

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

Question 8:

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

NOTES 

Ms McGahey to Bill Ogley: 

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

…………………………..

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Ogley, Andrew Lewis, and lying

Question 9:

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

NOTE

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

Destruction of evidence.

Question 10:

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


Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.


NOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the skull and the coconut

Question 11:

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

NOTE

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

LH’s handling of the media

Question 12:

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

Judges’ attacks on LH

Question 13:

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

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

NOTE

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

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

Question 14:

How does the Inquiry report cover this issue?



Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

NOTE

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

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

“Quite early on in my career at the SOJP, it was clear that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one
occasion were referred to as the 'politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of police headquarters.”

…………….. 

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

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

Former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Removal of Stuart Syvret (SS) from ministerial post

Question 15:

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

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

The role of the media

Question 16:

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

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

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

NOTE

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

IN CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

Daniel.

106 comments:

  1. Two points, both relating to the suspension of Graham Power and it's continuation. Has the Inquiry picked up on these pivotal events and what are its conclusions? Both, in effect, relate to political interference in the police investigation of the abuse of children.

    Graham Power, in his evidence, speculates on who might have been behind his suspension. He includes Person 737. That person was down in Mick Gradwell's worksheet for interview under caution as a suspect in the week following Power's suspension. Did this interview take place? If so what was the resul?. If not, would this not lend support to Power's suspicion of who might have been behind his suspension?

    Power looked for a judicial review of his original suspension. Ian Le Marquand, then Home Affairs Minister, re-suspended him thus making the original suspension irrelevant in this context. The object would have been to keep Power silent by keeping him on the books and also to avoid the need to seek approval from the States which would have been needed in the case of a straight sacking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The (suspect) suspensions of The Chief of Jersey Police and a sacking of The Minister for Jersey Health & Social Services within months of each other. Just because they both wanted to expose the child protection issues the corruption and The Jersey Way. Are surely near the top for tomorrows COIs explanations. If not why not?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your photos in this are poignant. Four good men, Daniel, Lenny, Trevor and Stuart amidst some the most contemptible creeps involved in trying to silence the voices of those who know what really happened.

    Someone rightly called for Trevor to get in to politics again within the comments on your last post. I wish he would but let me also extend that to say to Daniel and Stuart to also consider getting back in to politics.

    And Mr Harper. If you happen to be getting bored since retiring what about having a bash at politics in Jersey? Lots of big stones to shine a light under.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a coincidence that the Filthy Rag on line highlights Home Affairs annoncement of seeking the public's opinion on how roles like that of the Bailiff are awarded.

    Dive for cover. White wash incoming!

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the UK the National Football Supporters Federation including reps from the country's biggest club Manchester United have voted to support Liverpool and Everton fans in boycotting the Sun newspaper in the areas of all 70 participating clubs as we await any charges being made against the cover up merchants regarding Hillsborough. What about starting up something like this to finish of the 'Hollywood' JEP?

    ReplyDelete

  6. The Islington Council connection and why Jersey must become part of the UK child abuse ( not child care ) enquiry.

    Thank God for the internet, no where to run no where to hide,

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg61444;topicseen#msg61444

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel ,in answer to your question re notes being destroyed by a manager of Greenfields. Testimony was given by an administrator of Greenfields following its opening she states that boxes of children's records were given to her by Jo Kennedy and Phil Dennett for shredding which she did.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As ever Daniel, and excellent in depth analysis of what we need to consider tomorrow. Your work is indeed painstaking, and worthy of a huge thank you.

    I can concur with what Anonymous at 19.06 says about records being handed over to be destroyed, and if my memory serves me correctly there was another instance of records being disposed of at either Les Chenes or Greenfields.

    Oh what tangled webs they wove..................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les Chenes - it is in Mario Lundy's transcript or witness statement, iirc

      Delete
  9. The COI report due Monday, exactly where will it be posted (I assume at 3pm)?

    Also why are hard-copies not been provided or is the Jersey Establishment seeking to ensure that as few people as possible actually read the full report and instead have to rely on the Jersey MSM for their 'interpretation' of the conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should be posted on its website HERE.

      As for hard-copies I'm not altogether sure what the deal is. I think Jill can possibly help in that department?

      I was told today that because it is an "R" (report) that ALL States Members should get a copy and I believe the Chief Minister is prepared make available hard copies for anybody who wants one.

      Hopefully some might be available at Morier House?

      Delete
    2. I have arranged for some hard copies to be available to some survivors and others who gave evidence after the release this afternoon. It is to be hoped that maybe there will be some extra at St. Paul's Centre if you (Anonymous) are going to be in attendance?

      Delete
  10. Tomorrow is a huge day for Victims/Survivors and my thoughts are with them tonight as they are every night and day. I hope it gives them as much as it can and that includes justice and may be some kind of closure for some.

    It has been a (decades) long hard struggle for them and we can only hope something positive will come out.

    Campaigners who have been fighting the cause for Victims/Survivors had a meeting today and a Press Release will be published later tonight or tomorrow morning as a result. The campaigners will be holding their own Press Conference on Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 1pm at a venue TBA. Questions, at the Press Conference, WILL be permitted and indeed encouraged.

    Will post an update to verify time and location as soon as.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Survivors need closure, so many years since Operation rectangle began and tomorrow is like the Conclusion of it all over a decade later. I hope tomorrow allows most if not all victims of historic abuse to move on.

      Delete
    2. Agreed but not the "historic" bit.

      Delete
    3. and "moving on" is a favourite phrase within the Jersey Way.

      It means, we do not have to think about that any more.

      For survivors, I cannot comment, it is different for each person.

      For Jersey's institutions, the States, departments, etc. we absolutely do not "move on" we deal with the problems revealed - otherwise, the cycle may all start over again.

      Not to mention other vulnerable groups in Jersey to whom the same issues revealed in the abuse saga apply as well.

      Delete
  11. The inquiry must address the Mike Pollard question.

    Was he invited to give evidence? If not, why not?
    If invited, did he decline? If so, why?
    If he did decline, why was he not subpoenaed?
    Did everyone pretend he was subject to some sort of fake gag or something?

    A Jersey child abuse inquiry that does not take evidence from Mike Pollard after he wrote *that* infamous letter to all H&SS staff, following Syvret's claims about Children's Services, is not a valid child abuse inquiry.

    It must address the Mike Pollard question. If it fails to do so, it will have zero credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.

      The failure to subpoena certain witnesses - like me - like Mike Pollard - like two-dozen others I could name - is - a priori - terminal to the "credibility" of the CoI.

      Make no mistake about the seriousness of the omission of Mike Pollard.

      And of Jane Pollard - his wife - working for States of Jersey Human Resources.

      The letter that Mike Pollard wrote to Jersey Health & Social Services staff - is primary criminal evidence.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  12. Good work Daniel and VFC

    But I see a stark - and deeply serious - omission from this list of topics to observe

    The Blanche Pierre Group Home cover-up - and cover-up of Jane and Alan Maguire - and all of the life-wrecking abuse and damage inflicted by them, on their victims.

    Blanche Pierre - covered up - again - and again - and again - for decades.

    Victims like Dannie Jarman. Now dead - and so not able to condemn the CoI - if it is in any way weak on the Blanche Pierre cover-up.

    Which it is going to be. Of course.

    Given that two men - centrally involved in that cover-up - repeatedly - for two decades - Philip and William Bailhache - were not asked so much as one question - between them - concerning their involvement, and that of their law-firm - in the betrayal of the Blanche Pierre children.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the report is to be posted on the CoI website do you know if it will be in a format that will enable the document to be downloaded in it's entirety? I ask this because with limited hard copies being made available it would be essential that as many electronic copies are held as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. Don't know what format it will be in.

      Delete
    2. Most likely a non searchable pdf. From an online article on the subject:-

      "Why would someone want to take a perfectly good, fully-searchable document and turn it into an image-only PDF which is just a picture of the page in a PDF wrapper?

      The answer is that in the course of vigorously defending a client, some firms desire to make using documents as difficult as possible for the other side."

      Delete
    3. a classic example of an issue which helps me to decide if this Inquiry is genuine in its intentions or not.

      I have to say that so far, in my dealings with the Inquiry about these sorts of issues, from matters such as their Terms of Reference, and the way they were going to apply them, and the way they should have tweaked them, the fact they called themselves the "Care|" Inquiry, the way they set up the website with no regard for the needs of users, and on issues which I simply observed from afar and learnt about from others, their record inspires no confidence at all.

      I hope against hope that in spite of their complete failings in process, they will still turn in a revolutionary (for Jersey) report, that they have joined the dots, that they have understood about what has been going on here, not only within Childrens' Services (who I believe they will do a thorough job on) but also in all the political and institutional areas that are so desperately bad in Jersey, but I am preparing for what to say to the media in the likely event that it is a disaster.

      So, yes, will the online document be searchable? Will the hard copy have an exhaustive, well laid out Index?

      I damn well hope so!

      Delete
    4. It is in sections on the IJCI website, one pdf for each chapter. Quick to download but if you are looking for "cigarette burns" for example, you have to search the chapters separately.

      It is in one pdf for the entire report, all 3 volumes, on the States Assembly website. Takes longer to download, but not too long, and only one document to search for what it is you are looking for.

      Address is here:

      http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2017/R.59-2017%20Independent%20Jersey%20Care%20Inquiry%20Report%20%20-COMPLETE-.pdf



      Delete
  14. Regarding crucial evidence mentioned by Daniel.

    Trevor Pitman, then being a States Deputy, stated quite categorically that according to the States employee who found them and then contacted the Deputy once the inquiry had kicked off, when all collected together there were between 3 and 5 boxes worth of evidence found hidden under Property Holdings.

    Pitman stated that the employye informed him that once he had hulked this all up to his Line Manager she read much of it and was so upset that she contacted her bosses in Hill Strret and finally agreed to deliver it there.

    But only if she received a signed receiupt for it all . Which she did.

    Pitman even provided the inquiry with the names of all involved.

    Why is this so important?

    Because the letters/documents were all letter from parents and lawyers complaining of abuse/ill treatement of children at HDLG!

    Last I had heard, probably via this blog or Pitman's former blog, the Bailiff/States of Jersey were trying to claim that these were just old plans of HDLG and had been provided to the inquiry.

    You don't need to be a genius to work out that this doesn't stack up at all. Several boxes of old plans????

    But did the inquiry push for the documents? If there is no mention of them in the report then white wash it will be.

    What could be more damning than letters from parents and lawyers actually complaining of abuse in the 70s and 80s?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for this, Anon

      Daniel

      Delete
    2. Unless my memory is totally shot which I hope it isn't at thirty three one of the two taking charge of the bexes of documents was the very same civil servant who would leave the States after being slagged off by Ozouf. Not sure if he can be named on line so will just say I'm sure I recall his initials being DF

      Delete
    3. DF- the guy who used to work for Property Holdings? Would Gardening leave be a useful phrase anon (13.05)?

      Delete
  15. Will the COI Chairman's statement be up on here please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we don't publish it in its entirety we will publish a link to it.

      Delete
    2. See my comment just above this one, it's a reply to someone

      Delete
  16. 'Members of the media who have received Inquiry media accreditation will be given a copy of the Executive Summary of the final report in “lock-in” conditions at 1300 on Monday 3 July, 2017 at St Paul’s Centre in St Helier.'

    'NB: The media will not be allowed to leave the room, speak with anybody or release any information within the Executive Summary during this two-hour window. Any electronic devices must be handed to the Inquiry team before entry.'

    I don't get it, what's so secret for this 2 hours?
    Then she says she won't take any questions. Can anybody shine any light on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously doesn't want content of the report leaking out before it's official release ... fair enough!

      Delete
    2. Hopefully the Chair, Francis Oldham QC will address these questions in her statement at 3pm today.

      Delete
    3. Probably to allow the MSM to get their stories prepared in advance like a mini embargo.

      Delete
  17. How terribly convenient the timing is, this police complaints report, just last month in an attempt to sully Lenny Harper's name again
    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/06/13/police-complaints-report-highlights-systemic-failures/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Won't answer questions?
    They having a clucking laugh.
    Ah it's 3.00 p.m., you can read what we think on the Website, sorry got to go, have to bank our £15 Million Cheque before the Bank shuts at 4.00 p.m., ahh bye !

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reading chunks, no homicide at Haut de la Garenne but Andrew Lewis is being called a liar.
    He has to resign, no other option.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "We find that Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police Service report, stating that he had had sight of it when he had not."

    Bye Andy !!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good riddance.
      Bet the cheeky monkey will stand in May though....

      Delete
    2. The report also says that he (Lewis) also lied to the enquiry. Now given that he was under oath does that not make him guilty of perjury!!

      Delete
  21. £26.000.000 for bugger all. From what I read so far, and the reccomendations give it away, a croc of shite letting the Bailiff gang off the hook yet again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only read a few bits so far.

      My impression so far is pussyfooting about and being very vague and imprecise when there is a danger of standing on any toes.

      It does touch on some "no go areas", but does not go into them!

      From page51 Executive Summary:

      Ten fundamental failings in Jersey’s care system
      12.3 We consider that the ten fundamental failings in the Jersey child care system are:

      (i) Failure to value children in the care system, listen to them, ensure they are nurtured and give them adequate opportunities to flourish in childhood and beyond. This includes lack of investment in the recruitment, management, supervision and continuing development of staff with suitable backgrounds and skills to care for children.

      (ii) Failure to have in place an adequate legislative framework that prioritises the welfare of children in need or at risk. While the States of Jersey has always been able to provide sufficient resources to keep pace with developments in international financial law, Jersey’s child care legislation has lagged behind other jurisdictions in the developed world – often by decades.

      (iii) Failure to keep pace with developments in social policy, child care practice and social work standards in the developed world. For example, in Jersey there has been an ill-considered, misguided and potentially harmful approach to secure accommodation that was used routinely for children whose needs would have not have met the threshold for secure detention elsewhere and without the thorough assessment or rigorous safeguards that were in place in other jurisdictions. [more vindication of Syvret]

      (iv) Failure to plan and deliver services in an effective, targeted manner to achieve positive, measurable outcomes for children. For decades, there was little evidence of a considered approach to the needs of and desired outcomes for individual children. At a strategic level, there was a marked
      absence of government initiatives to tackle the causes of social inequalities and deprivation or to promote the welfare of children. In the youth justice system, punitive approaches were taken to children whose misdemeanours likely would not have reached the threshold for prosecution in other jurisdictions. [NB Ian Le Marquand]

      Delete

    2. (v) Failure to establish a culture of openness and transparency, leading to a perception, at least, of collusion and cover-up. Jersey’s culture has not encouraged the reporting of poor and abusive practice. At times, efforts to protect the island’s reputation and international standing have led to insufficient acknowledgement of the gravity of the Island’s failings and the egregious nature of some of the abuses perpetrated on children in its care. Such attitudes have fostered the suspicion, within parts of the community, that most politicians and States employees cannot be trusted and that abusive practices have been covered up.
      [a perception, at least, of collusion and cover-up" -Anyone with half a brain knows it but £23m does not tell us where and when but finds a "perception"]

      (vi) Failure to mitigate negative effects of small island culture and its challenges. Failures have included ignoring or failing to manage conflicts of interest and prioritising the welfare of staff over the needs of children. Social connections have meant that, at times, there has been insufficiently robust professional challenge to poor practices.
      [the conflicts of interest are listed where?]

      (vii) Failure to make sufficient investment in staff development and training. Dedicated staff have not been truly valued, while unskilled staff have been allowed to run institutions or care for children with severe and enduring emotional needs.

      (viii) Failure to adopt policies which would promote the recruitment and retention of staff with essential skills in child welfare and child protection. Incentives and expedited residency qualifications are available from the States to draw highly valued individuals and financial organisations to the island. In contrast, little effort has gone into creating the incentives that would make Jersey competitive in recruiting and retaining exceptional managers and staff to care for Jersey’s children, who could be seen as the island’s most valuable asset.

      (ix) Failure of the States of Jersey to understand and fulfil corporate parenting responsibilities, including adequate aftercare of children who have been looked after by the state. The overwhelming majority of adults who have been in the care system, and whose stories the Inquiry heard, still suffer from the effects of abusive or emotionally neglectful childhoods in the care system, their difficulties often compounded by being turned out, unsupported, into a world with which they were singularly ill equipped to cope.

      (x) Failure to tackle a silo mentality among public-sector agencies. States departments and institutions have been characterised by territorialism and protectiveness rather than openness to pooling resources and learning. As a result, there has been a lack of a comprehensive strategy to secure the bests interests of children in the island.


      *** No mention of failure to prosecute or the deliberate delay of law changes to leave prosecution as difficult as possible

      *** No mention of failure to protect or even reward whistle blowers

      Delete
    3. It was always going to be thus. Jersey's feudal system hasn't survived for more than 800 years for nothing. Power in Jersey is wielded behind closed doors.

      Delete
    4. The more I look the more predictable it is becoming

      I paraphrase

      "we believe the establishment"

      "we find no evidence of"

      "Apart from Andrew Lewis (the designated fall guy) we saw no misconduct"

      etc.

      Pages of hand wringing and platitudes but they fail to square the circle of reconciling this with the extent and longevity of the abuse and the failures extending into the present day.

      I have to say that it is looking like Stuart was right

      Delete
  22. I think its better than those who were pouring scorn on it in the run up.
    Haut de la Garenne demolished - yes.
    a Children's Commissionaire - yes.
    Interesting comment about the cost of housing creating family problems and also recruitment problems for specialists.
    Still reading but whether it's worth £23 Million is another debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I have just pissed myself

      Executive Summary Page40 :

      "10.20 We agree that Mr Syvret’s public criticisms of civil servants were inappropriate and did not assist his cause. We accept that Frank Walker and Bill Ogley were genuinely troubled by his conduct in this respect, and we do not believe that the attempts to remove him were conducted with the intention of covering up child abuse. In those circumstances, further consideration of the reasons for, and manner of, his removal from post does not fall within our Terms of Reference."

      HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

      One suspects that the CoI are instructed what to believe and what not to believe

      Effectively the panel  find against Health Minister Syvret.
      What the panel say they "believe" is of limited relevance if they failed to take evidence from Mr Syvret (by subpoena if necessary)

      A £23million crock of PR shit !

      Arrogant gobshites.

      Delete
  23. How damning that the COI Chairman chooses to quote the no longer in office Deputy Trevor Pitman in their executive summary about the Jersey Way that allowed all of this to happen. I quote:

    "(The Jersey Way is) the powerful, the Jersey Establishment protecting the guilty, and ensuring that those who probably should be held to account will not be held to account."

    So Chief Minister Gorst what are you going to do about it all now? All these failings and cover ups? All these children with ruined lives in their adulthood?

    And dare I ask why is it that you and your Establishment pals are so desperate to keep Trevor Pitman out of returning to politics?

    Love to all of the victims and survivors and those who fought for them. Not least this blog.

    Do something about it now Gorst or go.

    ReplyDelete
  24. " We do not accept the evidence of Mr McKeon and Mr Lundy on the frequency with which secure accommodation was used.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  25. "The States police were found to have investigated properly and consistently both before and after the departures of Mr Power and deputy police chief Lenny Harper."
    Enjoy that, Johny H!

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is a very damning report which acknowledges the decades of abuse inflicted on children in the care of the states of jersey and it lays the blame squarely on all the institutions of government responsible for this abuse. I hope that the victims/survivors feel that finally their voices have been heard and their suffering acknowledged.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So apart from Lewis all the great and the good get off scot free. None of Daniel's important points covered. Waste of time,

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lewis must go. He must be removed from PAC. But I tell you now he won't be. From reading so far looks like WHITE WASH on any criticism of Bailhaches and Birt and their kangaroo courts though. Jog on. Nothing to see here.

    ReplyDelete

  29. Let off scott free by Jersey Court child abusers from Blanche Pierre run by Jane and Alan Maguire.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7268734.stm

    ReplyDelete
  30. No evidence of cover up of Jervis-DYkes? Now that is taking the piss. I was at VC.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The report reveals a total fear of confronting the Jersey elite. Which makes their highlighting of Trevor Pitman's very true summation about the Jersey Way insulting to the victims beyond belief.

    As a reader posted if there is one good thing coming out of this £23 million pile of luke warm poo it is goodbye Andy Lewis. What a mug. Wonder if he regrets being the establishment patsy now?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Press Statement

    Deputy Andrew Lewis welcomes the report

    However he does not agree with the finding that asserts that he lied to the States assembly.

    “The inquiry refers to an answer that I gave to the assembly when being questioned at length, during which I unintentionally described a communication from the Deputy Police Chief as a report. This error I have endeavoured to correct on many occasions, including at the inquiry itself. I am therefore concerned that the inquiry team have failed to acknowledge this. I am disappointed that this has been characterised as a lie rather than the honest mistake that it was.

    I am pleased that the inquiry has acknowledged in paragraph 10.378 that there was no conspiracy to derail Operation Rectangle. As indeed was the same conclusion reached by the Napier report in 2010.

    I look forward to reading the report in more detail I would hope that attention is placed on the very important issues of abuse in our care system rather than an attempt to discredit the government and officers of the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WTF?
      He HAS TO GO!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. What planet is Lewis living on? Monty T, Mike H or Sam M. Will one of you please lodge a vote of no confidence in the accussed liar running our PAC?

      Delete

    3. No.

      He has to stay

      Andy is still of use as a decoy to protect the more important perps behind him

      Delete
    4. Ok deputy Lewis .... but how do you respond to the charge that you lied to the inquiry whilst under oath?

      Delete
  33. The states should cancel the summer break and get on and deal with this

    ReplyDelete
  34. So the report highlights how in retrospect other prosecutions could have followed at Victoria College. We can be quite sure this refers to a certain notorious Jurat and former Vice Principle, and a second Vice Principle too? Yet the report also comments that they were presented with no evidence of cover up of the Jervis-Dykes case. Duh! Running scared of criticism of Jersey's Bailiffs and Attorney Generals.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good to see Stuart Syvret on the news accepting the COI's findings and recommendations.
    Good show.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If clear that other prosecutions could have followed regarding Vic College what does that say about whoever was AG at the time?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lenny and Graham carried out their investigations properly. Stick that one up your troll pipe and smoke it Sharrock!

    ReplyDelete
  38. 10.22 "......Subsequent scientific analysis revealed that the item, believed at that time to be part of a child’s skull, was not human bone and was probably coconut shell."

    Then again, if the item left Jersey containing collagen and came back as something else, it was probably *swapped*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Research LGC Forensics and you find that this is perfectly possible

      Delete
  39. I wrote this about Andrew Lewis: -

    Andrew Lewsi: A Liar and a Crook: -

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/andrew-lewis-a-liar-and-a-crook/

    If the States assembly don't take action to have him removed as Deputy - after he perjured himself to the CoI - then the States are not serious about child-protection.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  40. More trivial dross

    "10.24  ....... Mr Walker and his wife were given a tour of the crime scene by Mr Harper, who told them that new forensic evidence indicated that no murders had taken place. ....."

    errr ....... forensic evidence can fail to indicated that a murder (or other crime) has taken place.
    It *cannot* indicate that no murders had taken place

    The panel should be aware of this distinction. methinks someone is misquoting Mr Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hang on a minute ... they said that they were not presented with evidence ... and that in my book reads that there may well be evidence ...

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is a completely damning report ... I hope Stuart will concentrate his undoubted talents on highlighting their most revealing findings/criticisms wrt the failings of the higher echelons of government ... Stuart knows as well as anybody that reports such as these do not use words in the way that they have without being deeply critical of those aforementioned oligarchs ... and that he will redirect his attack away from the inquiry panel and use their report as an ally in his fight for the proper rule of law in Jersey. Take a bit of time out Stuart and think about it.
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  43. A huge document but has anyone been able to find any reference to the boxes of letters from worried parents regarding HDLG hidden under Property Holdings?

    Me neither. How can these not be mentioned by the COI, either because they saw them and they were damning, or because they were not handed over?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This question of missing evidence is key. The COI were not that interested in joining the dots. \Evidence going missing is a basic element of cover-up

      Delete
  44. A big thanks to Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst for agreeing to, and giving me, an in-depth interview tonight which I hope to publish tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you asked him some searching questions?

      Delete
    2. Gorst did great on channel four news tonight ... I almost felt a bit of pride returning after Walker's embarrassing Paxman interview ... pr money well spent lol!

      Delete
    3. @anon at 20:54. I to watched that interview and thought that there was no way a local member of the MSM would have the texticular fortitude to ask those questions in that manner.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  45. Lewis cannot stay in the States and should resign or be removed.
    The snake in the grass has been labeled a liar at a Public Inquiry FFS, it's serious.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wonder what hypocrites like Ben Shenton, Sean Power, Jimmy Perchard and Terry Le Main have to say now that the Inquiry has found Graham Power and Lenny Harper did their job properly?

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-03/andrew-lewis-denies-claims-he-lied/

    Cough, splutter.......
    my next guest on the Jeremy Kyle show is Andy from Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mike Pollard literally gets two footnotes in the whole, full report, which can be read here:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2017/R.59-2017%20Independent%20Jersey%20Care%20Inquiry%20Report%20%20-COMPLETE-.pdf

    Pages 380 and 381.

    Barely believable.

    And the footnotes say:

    Page 380

    5.38
    Ben Shenton described Social Services as under-resourced and a “dysfunctional and fractured arrangement which lacked responsibility”.(footnote 10) In January 2008, he wrote (footnote 11) to the Chief Minister,(footnote 12) setting out his concern that Children’s Services was not fit for purpose, and that there were difficulties with accountability and departments operating in silos.

    (footnote 11): "Although he believed that it was drafted by Chief Executive of the Department, Mike Pollard"

    Page 381
    5.40
    Ben Shenton...provided a report to States members, entitled “Greenfields – Time for Truth”, (footnote 13)

    (footnote 13) " WD007917/36 – again, he believed that it was drafted by Mike Pollard"

    So, according to Ben Shenton, Mike Pollard drafted a letter to the Chief Minister where he (Mike Pollard) set out his concern that Children’s Services was not fit for purpose.

    Is this the same Mike Pollard who wrote *that other letter* about Syvret's claims about Children's Services?

    And why the **** does Mike Pollard only register two footnotes in the whole report?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Look out to see which politicians support Lewis when he faces the music. Then write down their names to be voted out next election.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "5.51 ......... One of its appendices was a critique of the Williamson Report by Professor Ian Sinclair, who identified a number of omissions from the Report. One of his findings was that Andrew Williamson failed to give consideration to the prevalence and scale of child abuse in Jersey."

    Basically the Williamson Report  (which found no evidence) was a crock of shit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep.

      I said so at the time.

      A crock of shit.

      Stuart

      Delete
  51. Good mention of Neil's fine work on The London Economic website. Worth a read

    ReplyDelete
  52. It was in the damning report what I didn't see3 July 2017 at 23:31

    If someone is so thick that they claim they didn't know the difference between a REPORT and a LETTER then whatever one says we don't want people that stupid running our island. Or Public Accounts Committee.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Is the Andrew Lewis 'Way' similar to the Jersey Way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really.

      The Jersey way is to turn a blind eye for friends and family, with family being generally defined in the traditional sense plus also anyone within the establishment, or valuable to the establishment, or so well informed and connected as to be a threat to the survival of the establishment, and quite often with masonic connections.

      The Lewis way is to lie and then compound that lie with further lies, ad infinitum, even when faced with the stark evidence of those lies. A bit like the ostrich effect of burying your head in the sand or sticking your fingers in your ears and saying I cant hear you over and over again. A career in advertising is a sound grounding in developing this ability.

      Delete
    2. I should have added that the Lewis way does not preclude you from being a fan of and indeed following the Jersey way for so long as you are useful to the establishment. After that who knows what may happen, but if your friends down the lodge start seeing you as a liability........

      Delete
  54. Lewis lied under oath and should be arrested for perjury

    ReplyDelete
  55. The Lewis Way is to repeat a lie enough times in the hope it becomes a truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herman Andrew Go-ing4 July 2017 at 09:58

      Isn't that what Goeballs said to Hitler he should do in the Nazi era? The Jersey Naz-ty Party. Selling out kids, good coppers and brave politicians )a few do exist) for the good of the Naz-ty Elite.

      Now please point me to the bunker. I need to get ready for Downfall.

      Delete
  56. I just listened to Ian Gorst being interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. When pressed by the interviewer to answer a question, he confirmed that he was shocked and surprised by the findings of the public inquiry. He also stated words to the effect that the inquiry's report was the first time evidence of widespread child abuse in care homes had been documented, and how shocked he was to hear the stories of the survivors.

    VFC, I hope you obtain a transcript of this interview and ask Mr Gorst to explain these comments. You would literally have had to have been in a coma for the last decade to find anything in this report either surprising or novel. The existence and extent of child abuse in government institutions in Jersey, the identity of many of the abusers, and the enablers (from H&SS managers turning a blind eye to law officers actively protecting abusers and harassing whistleblowers), the states members covering up and lying, the local media mounting propaganda campaigns against police officers intent on uncovering the truth: we have known about all this for years.

    Yet not, apparently, our chief minister. I hope you relentlessly question him about the credibility of his comments.

    I hope you also specifically ask him whether he feels he should apologise, on behalf of the states, to Stuart Syvret for the way in which the former senator was treated, and ask him whether he believes Syvret has now been vindicated.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 4.58 Three of those accused held the post of Superintendent of the Home, namely Colin Tilbrook, WN532 and Jim Thomson. If one includes allegations of physical assault by Mario Lundy while at HDLG, then the Home was run and managed by those accused of abuse for over 20 years of its 27 years of operation. Other individuals accused of serious sexual and physical abuse occupied senior management positions within the Home.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Andrew Lewis will not be arrested or prosecuted. There is no way our feudal overlords would want Lewis on the stand trying to save his skin by spilling the beans about who's orders he was following.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Senator Gorst's first challenge Calls for the immediate suspension of deputy A Lewis ahead of the inquiry report debate.

    ReplyDelete

  60. Deputy Andrew Lewis says it was a letter from acting police chief Warcup that he was referring to. This is his get out of lying card.

    The COI states clearly that Warcup was critical of the previous efforts of the enquiry under Harper and Power, but it was well known that Warcup wanted Graham Power's job as police chief as Power was suspended by Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley and not active in post.

    Therefore Lewis's albi in it self, contains no integrity or honesty value due to the ambitions of David Warcup. He says he was quoting from a letter from a man who was acting as police chief but was obviously fully conflicted in wanting the top job and was putting his predecessor down to the media, during an ongoing police investigation which is unheard of. Politicians new what was going on and stepped in asking questions which stopped Warcup being made full time Chief of Police

    Francis Oldham concludes that both Haper and Power ran the investigation properly.

    Warcup on leaving Jersey.

    ... the primary reasons for leaving are due to the political hostility which has been directed towards me, the attacks on my personal integrity and the resultant delays in securing my appointment

    David Warcup, Acting Police Chief

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-10690882

    Lewis does not have a leg to stand on which ever way he tries to play it. The big question now is will Gorst, who talks the talk but can he actually walk the walk and call a no confidence vote in a fellow politician stripping him of all responsibilities and calling for his resignation which even if Lewis refuses, leaves him powerless ? Over to Gorst the leader of the Government.

    ReplyDelete
  61. VFC interview with Chief Minister Ian Gorst now published HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Here is some help with finding what you are looking for in the Inquiry Report

    The States Assembly website has the entire Inquiry Report in one document, so you can search, just once, and find and go through all references to “cigarette burns” – there are none. Or references to Stuart Syvret – there are 26.

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2017/R.59-2017%20Independent%20Jersey%20Care%20Inquiry%20Report%20%20-COMPLETE-.pdf

    (Can someone make this a link?)

    For copies of each chapter, go to the Inquiry’s own website. These are quickly downloadable, which is handy. The downside is that to search for one thing you are looking for, you have to search each chapter separately, which is very time-consuming.. So use the States Assembly version.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.