Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. Interview IJCI Report.


Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Yesterday (Mon July 3rd 2017) saw the publication of the long awaited report of the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry which can (and should) be read HERE. As readers would expect Team Voice will be reporting on the report's content/findings in more detail in the coming weeks/months.

Firstly we should say that the report vindicated the Victims and Survivors of horrendous abuse over a period of decades. They were listened to by the Child Abuse Inquiry and most importantly they were believed. A landmark day for the survivors.

VFC was granted an in-depth interview (video below) with Chief Minister Ian Gorst who acknowledged the vindication of Victims/Survivors and went on to acknowledge/vindicate Team Voice for its determination to give them a voice.

We asked the Chief Minister questions that don't get asked by the local Mainstream Media, indeed we asked him about the local MSM, who despite (in some cases) have improved their reporting (or not) in recent years still have many questions to answer for their role in forming public opinion against the original police investigation (Operation Rectangle) and by implication the Victims/Survivors and their campaigners.

Chief Minister Gorst is encouraging States Members and members of the public to read the Inquiry's report in its entirety. He wants people to try and understand the extent of the abuse dished out to vulnerable children who were in the "care" of the States of Jersey and elsewhere. We too encourage readers of this Blog to read the harrowing stories given in evidence by Victims/Survivors and others.

Unless people have read the transcripts/evidence of abuse Survivors' to the Inquiry they will have no idea of the horrors they were subjected to. This (we argue) is because the local MSM has down-played that evidence/abuse and not reported on it at all.

A particular story they haunts me to this day and I believe will haunt me for a long time to come is of a Victim/Survivor giving evidence to the Inquiry. He was, courageously, reliving/telling his story of when he was an eight year old boy at Haut de la Garenne when he was anally raped by one of the staff. His anus was bleeding for days and through embarrassment/fear he tried to mask the anal bleeding by stuffing toilet roll in the wound. When that did not "cure" the "problem" he was taken to the hospital where the "doctor" "diagnosed" him with piles and back he went to Haut de la Garenne. The Victim/Survivor told the Inquiry that his abuser told him if he spoke of the abuse to anybody he will be sent to St. Saviour's mental hospital.

Can you imagine being an eight year old vulnerable child put into an institution of "care" where you are being anally raped/tortured and then being told/threatened that a place exists (St. Saviour's) worse than where you are at?

The same day this evidence was given to the Inquiry local ITV/CTV reported that evidence of abuse was given at the Care Inquiry by Victims which included being flicked by towels in the shower. This is why the local MSM's role in public opinion against Operation Rectangle, and by implication, the Victims and Survivors should have formed part of the Inquiry's TOR's and why everybody should read the Inquiry's report to get a real understanding of what torture these vulnerable children really went through because the MSM hasn't told that story.


Former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis.

We also asked Chief Minister Gorst what he is going to do about former Home Affairs Minister, and current PAC Chairman, Andrew Lewis. Deputy Lewis has now been labelled a "liar" by the Panel of the Care Inquiry. The Panel believes that not only did the Deputy lie to the Island's parliament when he (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police during a live Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) but believe he also lied (under oath) to the Inquiry itself. Is that not perjury?

The Chief Minister was visibly uncomfortable with that question and answered it by saying the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) will need to look at it. When told by VFC that a complaint had already been made about Deputy Lewis' "lies" (long before the report was published) PPC refused to deal with it. The Chief Minister told us that PPC will HAVE to deal with it.

Regular readers will be aware of the complaint to PPC against Andrew Lewis but for our many new readers it can be read HERE and HERE. The question has to be asked: "Is PPC fit for purpose and will a Vote of No Confidence be brought against it?" We are told that a Vote of No Confidence against Deputy Andrew Lewis IS being drafted and attracting strong support from across the political divide.

Also discussed in the interview below are the recommendations of the Care Inquiry and if /how they can be implemented. "The Jersey Way" is another topic discussed and much more.

Team Voice would like to thank Chief Minister Gorst for being approachable and engaging with Citizens Media. We also thank him for the support he has given to the Care Inquiry, his vindication of Abuse Survivors and finally his vindication and support of Team Voice's campaign.

We'd like to take this opportunity to remind the media that there will be a Press Conference held by Campaigners for Abuse Victims/Survivors at the Royal Court Building 1:pm in the Blampied room. The Press Release can be read HERE.










275 comments:

  1. Not sure what you are getting at with the Press.
    We are currently aware of the ISIS torture and murder of children in Syria and Iraq but many UK Newspapers will not report on the details because it would not be appropriate to do so with a Family audience. There is nothing in Law that forces them to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually he UK Newspapers are fairly keen to publish the atrocities of ISIS

      @10:20 I'm not sure why you are defending the wilful complicity of the establishment media:

      "A particular story they haunts me to this day and I believe will haunt me for a long time to come is of a Victim/Survivor giving evidence to the Inquiry. He was, courageously, reliving/telling his story of when he was an eight year old boy at Haut de la Garenne when he was anally raped by one of the staff. His anus was bleeding for days and through embarrassment/fear he tried to mask the anal bleeding by stuffing toilet roll in the wound. When that did not "cure" the "problem" he was taken to the hospital where the "doctor" "diagnosed" him with piles and back he went to Haut de la Garenne. The Victim/Survivor told the Inquiry that his abuser told him if he spoke of the abuse to anybody he will be sent to St. Saviour's mental hospital.

      Can you imagine being an eight year old vulnerable child put into an institution of "care" where you are being anally raped/tortured and then being told/threatened that a place exists (St. Saviour's) worse than where you are at?

      The same day this evidence was given to the Inquiry local ITV/CTV reported that evidence of abuse was given at the Care Inquiry by Victims which included being flicked by towels in the shower."

      Delete

    2. READERS PLEASE NOTE
      If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

      If (when) it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

      NB. later replies to the first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked

      The way for readers to be sure of reading the whole thread without omissions is to click "Load more..." right at the bottom, and then read from the beginning

      Delete
  2. The poor boy anally raped was a victim of the man William Bailhache stated in not prosecuting him had had consistently good reports from his superiors.

    We heard in the inquiry that none of this was true.

    So our Bailiff lied.

    Yet no mention I can find in the report?

    What does our CM intend to do about this Bailiff is the bigger question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who were aware and did nothing should be facing criminal charges .

      Delete
  3. Lewis is still in denial.
    So what is he saying, the Care Inquiry Team are all liars?

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/04/inquiry-politician-staggered-by-claim-he-lied/

    ReplyDelete
  4. No questions about the judiciary? We need another inquiry in to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clean the Swamp .Learn from Trump.

      Delete
  5. I. QUESTIONS
    *
    (d) – Urgent Oral questions
    The following urgent oral question has been approved by the Deputy Bailiff and will be asked at the present meeting –
    Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee –

    “Further to the finding of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017) that Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier “lied both to the States and to us” (paragraph 10.42), what action will the Privileges and Procedures Committee be taking, if any, in relation to this matter and, if no action is proposed, why not?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Doctor says immediate suspension http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2017/07/senator-gorsts-first-challenge.html

      Delete
    2. Don't be side-tracked Monty. We need questions on the behaviour of the Bailhaches, Michael Birt, jurats and, Bill Ogley, Anton Skinner and the like before we worry about stupid, wannabe patsies like the pathetic Andrew Lewis. Yes he should be sacked but not as a sacrificial lamb to deflect from the real pillars of the Jersey Way Ian Gorst won't face up to.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you. The Bailhaches are a ducked major issue. As are the structural abnormalities of a politicised judiciary. We paid £23 million for the above not to be touched. That is what money really went on- the protection of that. So they threw Lewis to the wolves instead thinking it will all go away.

      Delete
    4. "The Doctor says immediate suspension http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2017/07/senator-gorsts-first-challenge.html"

      as a neutral act!

      Delete
    5. It's a good question, PPC need to have a good look at Lewis, they cannot ignore the findings of a Public Inquiry.

      Delete
    6. Was Lewis brought back into the fold to be the fall guy?

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  6. So the Chief Minister is going to implement these reccommendations with his ministers and the States. Let us be reminded, that one of his ministers, Philip Bailhache, was at the forefront of not prosecuting many of those accused and implicated many times. Also, he allowed a convicted paedophile to become part of the Honorary Police whilst Attorney General, he allowed an officially identified paedophile protector (in the Sharpe Report and investigating Police Officer) to become a Jurat whilst Bailiff and evidence given in the enquiry from a former Head of Education, stated that Bailhache told him that he wasn't going to prosecute an alleged paedophile and that he just wanted him 'got rid of'. Furthermore, we have a Speaker of the States, William Bailhache protecting Mr K and both him and Michael Birt not prosecuting the Maguires. This is a big part of the Jersey way, which neither the report or Mr Gorst has the courage to talk about. How can Gorst ensure the protection of children, and deliver justice and some final closure to the survivors of this abuse, when those responsible for not prosecuting the alleged perpretrators are not held to account and are in Government and the Speaker of our Government. Nobody from what I have read, has seriously addressed the issue of the Judiciary's role in why this abuse has continued. Where are our few decent politicians asking these questions publicly - Deputies Mezec, Higgins and Tadier? Because when it comes down to it,it is only by politicians putting stuff like this on the public agenda, will things change. What Gorst says he is going to do is just window dressing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two possible reasons why the Inquiry "did not go there"

      1) Coming to critical conclusions was "above their pay grade". So they documented the different accounts and left it to others. The chair for example, may depend for future work on some sort of legal patronage. I am not saying this is the case,
      I don't know hoe judges get cases assigned, but it may be so. (Mind you she has earned enough to put her feet up for a while!

      2) They were / are all into child protection and care systems. They are not into politics. In the end they got the stuff about the "Jersey Way" a bit, and their comments on that have helpfully launched a big debate. But joining the dots, they were not really interested, for instance the sequence - Bellwood, Syvret; power, and Harper (denigration of) - is a pretty remarkable sequence . . . but no attempt at interpreting this from the panel.

      They took a view of the TOR which was restricted. Even the name they adopted - or were given???? - is restrictive. From the very word go, the talk was about "care" and this affected the way they went about their task.

      Yes, they did some stuff round Power's suspension, tney looked at the relationship between the Police and the LOD, but they did not really engage with that stuff.not about "abuse"

      Delete
  7. Good interview and credit to Gorst for giving it to a citizens media outlet. But let him off the hook please do not. He doesn't want to talk about the Jersey way he says. Tough.

    The Jersey way starts with Bailiffs, Attorney Generals and Gorst's predecessors as Chief Minister. Why not grill him on that? Does he have the backbone to call out the knighted sociopaths? Of course he doen't.

    So the Jersey way will roll on once the headlines have faded.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poor Andrew Lewis is staggered he has been called a liar. He also claims in the JEP that PPC have already cleared him. Does that answer your question to Gorst?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have you been interviewd by national media? If so where can we read/view this? Like to say that I would also like to see interviews with Daniel Wimberley and Trevor Pitman if they have done any. We must not let this drop now over the summer. Election only 10 months away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-original-whistleblowers-say-abusers-still-large/03/07/

      Delete
    2. National print media singularly uninterested so far. I have sent them releases about the website issue - and how the info from the Inquiry, including their internal workings will be preserved, and not a sign of interest. We sent them the release of the "campaigners' group" anticipating the report of the Inquiry - again no interest.

      Except from the broadcast media, for some reason, who turned up in force - BBC1, Sky and ITV (perhaps via Channel) were all there.


      Delete
  10. Well done Voice. Excellent interview. And great to hear Gorst giving you praise at the end. Very well deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We have been told time and time again that the system of governance in Jersey is functional.

    This is, is it not, why the Clothier report was not fully implemented. Things were not considered to be all that bad, right? Only a few tweaks were needed or needed to be accepted to bring about a fully functioning government with checks and balances...? No.

    Well if this inquiries final report is not confirmation of a dysfunctional system of governance then I don't know what is. It's not a matter of sacking or vilifying a single politician (sorry bureaucrat) in this situation of insurmountable evidence for the entire systems failure to provide for those most in need. It is a crime against logic ( as well as humanity) to continue to support a system, a regime, of feudal lordship over all. It would be highly improbable that the failings as reported did not extend into every sphere of life and culture as we understand it.

    This report should be the beginning not the final end. We all should by now know that it MUST change.

    The government must resign.

    The Lieutenant Governor must make a statement and ask for a public referendum on how the system must change whilst imposing a temporary government oversight until such time as there is a fully functioning DEMOCRATIC system of government is in place. This must include a set term of office.

    I ask those who can make this happen happen before the chance is lost for another generation or longer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hope someone at this press conference mentioned the judicial scandal that the COI shied away from? We need a separation of powers, no more brothers as chief judge and AG and no more paedo protectors being rewarded with jobs as Jurats.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This isn't the only Lewis lie though is it, recall his media actions after Farnham amended his reform proposal. Think it was this blog that did a video on it.
    The Care Inquiry Report has come as a pleasant surprise for its no punches, take no prisoners attitude against the system, and Lewis whether he likes it or not has been outed as a charlatan.
    Should have resigned this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just caught the last few words of a statement by bailhace which sounded like it could have been an apology !!!! Did anyone else hear it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very good interview VFC, and full credit to the Chief Minister for agreeing to do this, on what was a very busy day for him as well.

    At this point I will say that the momentum in getting the recommendations approved and past the States Assembly must, and I repeat MUST be kept alive. There should be a concerted effort now that all can read what is a damning report. There should be no resistance and the important word 'Independant' should prevail throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  16. More survivors have made complaints of abuse to the police since the report was published.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Agree with the above. Focus is going to go on Lewis, although deserved.The likes of the Bailhaches have huge questions over their former actions. Michael Birt, Ogley etc too. Tadier don't get side tracked. Lewis really is the easiest point to make. We need politicians asking about the judiciary etc. If the judiciary ain't going to get sorted - this injustice will go on.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A comment from your previous blog

    Anonymous 4 July 2017 at 09:16
    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.

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/what-to-look-out-for-in-abuse-inquiry.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. May 9th 2017

    The Bailiff, William Bailhache, has called on Islanders to "adopt the Jersey way" during his address as part of the 72nd anniversary of Liberation Day.

    The sun was shining brightly yesterday as the Bailiff spoke to the crowd saying: "So let us treasure our institutions, learn Jersey French, eat Jersey Royals and drink milk from Jersey cows and let us adopt the Jersey Way, whatever changes arise in the composition of our people in the future because that sums up what we were liberated from on 9th May 1945."

    There were hundreds of people sat in Liberation Square and even more lining the streets and watching the official ceremony from a big screen at the Weighbridge. The Bailiff renewed his call to reclaim the expression 'The Jersey Way' "... from those who abused it," and added, "...to me it means being tolerant, being competent in what we do, and showing integrity and compassion."

    ReplyDelete
  20. spot on Anon 16.34 The Bailiff actually said this publicly in his address to the public in the last year or so- LETS GET BACK TO THE JERSEY WAY !

    ReplyDelete
  21. Take to the streets and protest.

    Peacefully protest against a dysfunctional government.

    A government that has lost the moral right to govern.

    A government that is not elected democratically with no clear mandate

    A government for the insiders and abusers of power toward the outsiders within their own community

    A government that taxes food in likely one of the most expensive locations in Europe if not the world without adequate safeguards for the working poor.

    A government that supports the structure of an archaic feudal system.

    A government that has a multitude of rainy day funds, that have never been used even when it pours.

    A government that has proven to be above public opinion and continuously ignores opposition.

    Let us find a way to make our own mistakes make our own decisions utilising the most widely acclaimed system of rule - democracy!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is Stuart going to be doing any interviews?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Take to the streets and protest.

    Peacefully protest against a dysfunctional government.

    A government that has lost the moral right to govern.

    A government that is not elected democratically with no clear mandate

    A government for the insiders and abusers of power toward the outsiders within their own community

    A government that taxes food in likely one of the most expensive locations in Europe if not the world without adequate safeguards for the working poor.

    A government that supports the structure of an archaic feudal system.

    A government that has a multitude of rainy day funds, that has never been used even when it pours.

    A government that has proven to be above public opinion and continuously ignores opposition.

    Let us find a way to make our own mistakes make our own decisions utilising the most widely acclaimed system of rule - democracy!

    ReplyDelete
  24. The lies of Andrew Lewis ....
    10.373 Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not;
     Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008;
     Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect.
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lewis is a proven compulsive liar ... and if he continues to plead innocence then it must also follow that Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris and Brian Napier and the COI panel have either lied or failed to understand that what he actually said was a genuine mistake or both ... the man is a complete fraud and Frank Walker is responsible for allowing/encouraging his appointment as HA minister.
      Phil

      Delete
    2. But the question that the COI, by their own admission, were unable to answer was why Walker, Ogley and Lewis colluded in the way they did to suspend Graham Power. There is no sense to it. Perhaps GP can enlighten us as to the reasoning behind all of this because I don't believe that the problem ... whatever the perceived problem was ...was going to go away with his suspension. In fact I feel that the suspension just made everything worse.
      P

      Delete
    3. @ Phil
      The "emergency" removal of the Chief of Police was not just a punishment for allowing the investigation of child abuse. There were more urgent matters which precipitated the madness as at least two police enquiries were reaching a critical stage

      1. The investigation into "Planning corruption on an industrial scale"

      2. The serial rape investigation into a very senior oligarchy linchpin, who was accused by a multitude of young women of brutal and violent rapes and had been above the law up to that point. Mr [737] still holds a very senior position and is again above the rule of law.

      It is not just children who are at risk on this island.

      I shall paste a snippet of testimony at the end of the thread.

      Delete
  25. Have video interviewed (Skype) former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power.

    It must be the most candid interview he has ever given. He holds no punches and is NOT complimentary of the Jersey authorities nor the local mainstream media. Needless to say he also offers a few words concerning Deputy Andrew Lewis and his lies. Hope to publish tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sir Philip's apogee today was eight years too late. Does he really believe that we believe his "Honest Mistake"? Him and his Brother are the bad Jersey Way, which has to go.... The good Jersey Way can stay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are those who were in Government at the time who should be facing criminal charges for their part in the cover up . . Lets not let them escape justice no matter who they are .

      Delete
  27. Good work to all those who partook in the Inquiry, it was a better than expected Report, and it has given some closure for a few who feel they can move on. This is refreshing.
    We shall re-visit the promises of Ian Gorst in the Months to come as he said his Government would implement the recommendations, and I believe that as he has been so sincere.
    Andrew Lewis should have resigned today, he is a liar and his continued presence in the States puts the Assembly into disrepute. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news.
    I hope you keep the pressure on him.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's right Ian Gorst a real shocker; no way of knowing how bad it was... oh hang on... look at this link below from the appendix 1 of the report going back to 1935.

    Come on it's just ridiculous please read and pass on

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Final%20Report/Appendix%201.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give him a break ... if it wasn't for Gorst there would never have been a COI ... don't underestimate the power base that he had to navigate ...

      Delete
  29. If Lewis does not go then we must consider a protest outside the States.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Everywhere online over the past day has talked about Deputy Andrew Lewis being labelled a liar by an official report with calls for him to leave the States.
    Compared to the VONC in Ian Gorst 2 weeks ago this is mega.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew Lewis remaining a politician brings the whole parliament into disrepute. If it was a progressive/anti establishment politician called out to be a liar by a prominent QC then you can be sure a VONC would have been tabled this morning. As far as I see it he has committed perjury. He needs to go in order to help bring some trust/confidence/respect back to our parliamentarians.

      Delete
    2. It has to be sorted.
      Lewis has lost Public confidence and his pleadings of innocence no longer stick.

      Delete
  31. "Andrew Lewis should have resigned today, he is a liar and his continued presence in the States puts the Assembly into disrepute. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news. "

    Sorry, but this is absolutely NOT the only issue outstanding at the moment.

    Oldham I think has done an ok job. Probably went as far as she was allowed to. Her request to revisit the island to track implementation of recommendations is a good one.

    But let's.

    Gorst is correct and is making the right noises thus far.

    But he needs to go further.

    The police investigations need to be re-opened. Many files where the police had a lot of evidence went to your DPP, and no charges were recommended. We need not re-iterate the names, but in some cases the files related to senior people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patience.
      Getting rid of Lewis is a start.

      Delete
  32. I cannot wait for the Graham Power interview. He is reported in today's JEP as saying:

    "I have read and re-read the relevant section of the inquiry report and can give it no other interpretation than the Committee of Inquiry having publicly and openly accused Andrew Lewis of the crime of perjury. That being the case, the next proper step would be to initiate an independent criminal investigation reporting to independent prosecutors."

    "If it is necessary I am quite prepared to make a formal complaint in my own name but that should be unnecessary"

    "If, as is sometimes claimed, the Jersey authorities are committed to high standards in public life, then steps to initiate such an inquiry should already be under way and we should be hearing about the terms of reference soon. Or will it be yet another case of the Jersey authorities being dragged kicking and screaming towards doing the right thing?"

    Ten out of ten, Mr Power, I salute you.

    Also, I know Stuart Syvret rightly hates the JEP and refuses to read it. Please can someone buy him a copy of the edition dated 4th July where, on page 8 , they report the Inquiry's praise of his actions and, in their editorial on page 12, they say:

    "Many, including former Senator Stuart Syvret and survivors he and others represented and championed, will today rightly feel vindicated by the findings. In so many ways, they have been proved correct."

    Let me just repeat that a few times...

    In so many ways, they have been proved correct
    In so many ways, they have been proved correct
    In so many ways, they have been proved correct

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Have things changed?"

    "Are the most serious dangers past now?"

    Oldahm said somethings I agreed with. For example, "Some children are still in danger today."

    And let me give you a current, live, example of that.

    Earlier this year I wrote a detailed e-mail to the States of Jersey Police Force, explaining to them I required to make formal, detailed statements of criminal complaint - complaints of child-abuse, of corruption, of rape, of murder, of misconduct in public office, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    I paraphrase - but, in essence today's "police" force told me to fuck off.

    Somethings never change. Our police force - since the illegal suspension of Graham Power - is nothing more than a public-funded, private "security" firm, of muscle and enforcement and threat - under the express, direct executive control of the Jersey mafia.

    There are child-abusers - walking free in Jersey - right now. And they do so secure in the knowledge that Jersey's "law-enforcement", "criminal-justice system" is on their side. Working for them. Protecting them. And crushing whistle-blowers.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are child-abusers - walking free in Jersey - right now. And they do so secure in the knowledge that Jersey's "law-enforcement", "criminal-justice system" is on their side. Working for them. Protecting them. And crushing whistle-blowers.

      This is, unfortunately, obviously correct. Even the Oldham report (albeit it, somewhat obliquely) acknowledges it.

      Delete
  34. Tony Bellows has done an excellent blog on Andrew Lewis here

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/07/andrew-lewis-and-care-inquiry.html

    Although he does need to correct it to advise readers that the section titled "Extracts from the transcript" is when Lewis is being question by lawyer Cathryn McGahey at the inquiry, not the transcript of the States assembly.

    It is day 138 of the inquiry when Cathryn McGahey roasted Lewis. He is toast.
    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/JERINQ%20-%20Day%20138%20Final.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  35. This stuff on Lewis has been known since the leaked in camera debate. Deputy Higgins, I think it was, caused the debate to be published and then we had Wendy Kinnard's evidence about the meeting in her house.

    Yet Lewis was appointed/elected to the Public Accounts Committee, the function of which is to hold others to account. And he has been left there up to now.

    What does this tell us about power and cowardice in the Jersey system?

    Now it's all shock/horror in the limelight.

    Give us a break.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is relatively little in this report that has not been on Jersey's child protection blogs for years .....for *FREE* and at great personal risk.

      The truths that have "come out" in the CoI report are only half truths


      Th notion that there was no conspiracy and that Andrew Lewis acted alone
      Sheesh!
      Yes. Give us a break.

      Delete
    2. Fully agree, Anonymous.

      I am no Lewis fan, but the idea that throwing Lewis under the bus will get the oligarchy off their criminality does not pass the smell test.

      Lewis is a patsy.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. I was just using the Lewis case as an example. He is clearly a weak man and a patsy. But how he ended up as chair of the PAC is amazing.

      I'm at one with Stuart Syvret that the puppet masters need to be brought to book and that the Inquiry Report ducks the hard stuff. See my comment below.

      Delete
    4. Oldham has done an ok job. I wouldn't put it stronger than that. Given her limited terms of reference, she seems to have gone as far as she could be allowed to.

      Chief Minister Gorst's comments, as quoted in the MSM interviews, and right here on this blog, are, without a doubt, very welcome. His stated commitment to child welfare on the island of Jersey, an island where he holds very senior office
      (and the island on which he was faced with a very obvious bullshit attempt to stir up a vote of no-confidence very recently, as reported on on this blog) is welcome. ) It is a lot better than some of his predecessors, mind you 'tis not difficult to surpass that singularly low boundary!

      Delete
    5. The in camera debate was first given to the Committee of Inquiry by ex Deputy Trevor Pitman within his statement and supporting documents. Possibly partly explains why it all went missing for so long?

      Don't know who originally leaked it. Was it Pitman himself? Was it Deputy Higgins? maybe Deputy Tadier? Doesn't really matter does it. The cat was out of the bag for all to read. And look where it has thankfully got us! Some degree of vindication for Graham Power at last.

      Delete
  36. I intend doing a blog post on the Report when I have read more of it and have reflected on it.

    Meanwhile I was very taken aback at the brazen way the Inquiry regretted that Stuart Syvret had not appeared. They made no mention of his request for legal representation nor of their refusal to accede to it and then hide their decision in the cobwebs on their website.

    I heard Stuart on BBC Radio Jersey earlier today and while he did acknowledge the value of much of the Inquiry's work, if I heard him right, he did say that they funked the broader issue of the power structure in Jersey, and if this was not dealt with there could be no sustainable solution to the island's problems. He has been consistent in this line since the beginning.

    The Inquiry will no doubt argue that such things are outside their remit. But they claim that, while Victoria College was also outside their remit, they would deal with it as it might be an indication of the underlying attitude of the authorities/SOJP.

    Then they ducked any finding that Graham Power's suspension had anything to do with abuse and coverup saying that he was not in control anyway and the police investigation continued uninterrupted without him.

    Given that Graham Power specifically mentioned Person 737 as possibly behind his suspension, and given that this was very relevant to the authorities' attitude to abuse and cover up, you would think that the Inquiry would have checked if following Power's suspension, Mick Gradwell went ahead with his scheduled interview with 737 under caution as a suspect, or not. And you'd have thought the Inquiry would include this vital piece of evidence in their report.

    As I have not read the full report I cannot say 100% that there is nothing in it, but it is not mentioned in the police chapter.

    So ,as said in the comments above, go ahead with the excellent and badly needed recommendations in the report.

    But don't stop there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I heard Stuart on BBC Radio Jersey earlier today and while he did acknowledge the value of much of the Inquiry's work, if I heard him right, he did say that they funked the broader issue of the power structure in Jersey, and if this was not dealt with there could be no sustainable solution to the island's problems. He has been consistent in this line since the beginning."

      Polo, stop the bus just a second, if you don't mind.

      That matter was not in their terms of reference, correct?

      Delete
    2. Point 10 of the TORs:

      "Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with
      concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in
      line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate."

      It could be argued that the enquiry did have a remit to delve a little further at Victoria College.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
    3. tdf @ 22:48

      If it was part of the problem they could and should have dealt with it. And it clearly was.

      Delete
  37. I along with no doubt hundreds of others have bookmarked the Final report of the CoI to read through. Having said that it surely must now be time to clean out the pig sty of all that is wrong with the feudalistic BS that is called 'The Jersey Way'. I was born in this beloved Island as were my parents and grand parents and I have no liking for red cloaks, ermine collars and pork pie hats. WE the ordinary people have been treated like the serfs we are considered to be by the almighty PTB. It is long past time that the Queen (via her appointed Governor) took heed of what is happening here in the so called Crown Dependancies. The irony of all this is that the establishment idiots in being so determined to crush all those who would stand against their collective tyrany have by their own actions brought about (hopefully) their own demise. No more ducking and diving, get the Constables out of the chamber, get the separation of powers in place but perhaps more than anything else get rid of the crown officers and their letters patent and let us, the Jersey people have true democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep.

      Cosign.

      It's as plain - as simple - as that.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  38. Lets not start getting soft on Lewis.
    He has been named as a liar in the most important Report in Jersey's history and has to go period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is just a scapegoat to deflect attention from the big hitters

      Delete
    2. Bet he wont go. The big hitters have probably allready worked on their play of words Lewis

      Delete
    3. The long game must be to get Lewis in court, on a criminal charge if possible. Is perjury a criminal offence? And is lying to a Committee of inquiry perjury?

      If a criminal charge is not possible, then a law suit. Power would win this the burden of proof is lower, at a guess - however in Jersey it would need a JURY trial.

      But then, if it was NOT a jury trial, and if he lost, then with enough appeals you get to a real court, and you win.

      Could be expensive though. Anyone any comments on this line of thinking?

      Delete
  39. Its not just the Porky Pies at the In Camera Debate its this meeting as well -

    "10.345 On 18 October 2008, Senator Wendy Kinnard met her deputy Minister, Andrew Lewis, at her home. Her husband, Christopher Harris, a lawyer, was present for some of the meeting and shortly afterwards drafted a handwritten note of the main points. According to Senator Wendy Kinnard, Andrew Lewis told her of steps being taken to remove or discipline Graham Power. He told her about “extracts" from a Metropolitan Police report and said “for God’s sake don’t tell Frank what I’m telling you”. She advised Andrew Lewis not to do anything until he had full information. She was reassured when he told her that he would stand up to any pressure to invoke suspension. Senator Wendy Kinnard had no further discussions with Andrew Lewis about the proposed suspension of Graham Power.255 On 20 October 2008, she resigned as Minister for Home Affairs. She was succeeded by Andrew Lewis.

    10.346 Andrew Lewis denied that there were any discussions about Graham Power’s suspension and asserted that Christopher Harris’s note was fabricated. He claimed to have known nothing at all about the proposed suspension until 11 November 2008, despite the fact that, as Home Affairs Minister, he would have been the only person with the power to suspend the CO.256 Both Senator Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris gave evidence to the Inquiry, attesting to the accuracy of the note. We accept the account that they gave to us about their meeting with Andrew Lewis.

    10.347 Dr Brian Napier QC, an expert in employment law, subsequently investigated Graham Power’s suspension. Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier that, between 22 and 28 October, he had discussed with Mr Crich (Director of HR) and Bill Ogley the possibility of Graham Power being suspended. Andrew Lewis said in evidence to the Inquiry that he may have got “muddled” when talking to Dr Brian Napier. However, we find that Andrew Lewis was not muddled. His account to Dr Brian Napier provides confirmation of the accuracy of the evidence of Senator Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris about their meeting with Andrew Lewis; he clearly knew well before 11 November 2008 of the plan to suspend Graham Power."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good spot exposing more Andrew Lewis lies.
      He is bang to rights so how can he sleep at night?

      Delete
    2. VFC please get this altogether and do a fresh Blog.
      Lewis is ****ing liability in the States.

      Delete
  40. Can I just make a general observation? Very obviously - as has been long-expected - people on our side feel vindication - rightly - and a certain catharsis - the relief, of being shown to be right - after such a long, hard, battle against toxic corruption; against the Currency-of-Concealment.

    As was always going to be the case, yes, as others have described, the CoI report is far from perfect. It has deficiencies, errors, lacunae. But - essentially - it shows that we were right.

    Now what we have to do is begin a new task - the next phase - which was always going to face us - of now challenging, and scrutinising, the failures in the rule-of-law in Jersey. God knows, the report of the CoI gives more than enough ammunition, and grounds, for justifying such an inquiry, such scrutiny.

    Now that the truth of Jersey's child-protection failures is established - validating what so many of us have been saying for a decade - now, we challenge the "system" which permitted such failure.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with this wholeheartedly.

      I believe that Oldham was constrained by many pressures internally and that what has been allowed to be transmitted should be understood in this context.

      If you will allow me to indulge my perceived understanding of this scenario, I offer this;

      If you (Oldham) in this scenario wished for change to actually happen and not just talk about certain implementation over a certain time within a certain budget with all the baggage that goes with political opposition and indecision. Bearing in mind that the government has been asked to change preceding the war and subsequently repeatedly by many experts in every decade following. Perhaps she has a plan?

      The plan is this: if we put the government in a critical strategic position where clearly a member had lied. This is an important word that is not in keeping with the report and not an error of judgment or frustration at an individual, no she is too intelligent and professional. I believe that she is purposefully pushing this in order to force the government to out one of their own. It's a lose lose situation for them. If they don't they look bad and complicit. If they do the question remains why didn't they do it before? But they still appear complicit; the reason for this being can all this be blamed an one individual? I think not.

      To sum up, If there is a will out there and enough external pressure from the public (a big ask) and the media (an even bigger ask) then the government has nowhere to go at least politically if we look at the logic here. If I'm right, then perhaps behind the scenes there is discord with the present governing system with the higher powers (our overlords) and they are disquiet about this behind the scenes.

      Perhaps there is an opportunity being presented to us to take up this challenge and bring about complete change in the system. There may be more support out there than we know. Believe me when I say there is real concern out there in our power structure; Phillip apologising after such a long time...

      A last word here that I also believe that there is a reward in history for you Stuart and maybe after you are gone, but I predict a statue of you will appear in or near the royal square in the future.

      I would support mass peaceful demonstrations in the royal square. Sit ins until they all go home forever.

      LH

      Delete
    2. Who is LH ...?
      It sure ain't Lenny Harper so why pretend?

      Delete
    3. Time for a reality check.
      Until people in the States actually agree and promote the things you say it's going nowhere fast.

      Delete

    4. Indeed it is time we gave people in the States a reality check.

      I don't think "sit-ins" cut it. Too time consuming and sure to get a "meh" reaction
      (besides they forced through Tazers to deal with any such inconvenience)

      I think the states should be given a month to put things in motion
      (cancelling their own summer break would start to recognise their own decades of failure)
      Then the "paint protests" can begin. Or maybe something more imaginative.

      What makes 07:22 make think that "LH" is pretending to be Lenny Harper.
      It is a demonstration of the continued "climate of fear" that most commenters use "Anon"
      ......like yourself.

      Delete
    5. In house discord on a subject that there appears to be general agreement is counter productive.

      If you believe my text to be lacking in suggestions please feel free to provide counter suggestions that could better suit the outcome we appear to agree on - CHANGE.

      It is 5 decades too late to see what the government will or will not do and sit back and listen to the rhetoric that would certainly be considered in past record terms unlikely to be implemented in any functional manner. The system is broken the report makes that clear. If we are to fix anything we need to change everything. I can hardly suggest a violent island wide takeover it just would be irresponsible if anyone got hurt; so I suggest peaceful. Sit ins may not be the answer but complaining is not the answer either. Solidarity in the face of this disaster is more than enough moral reason for regime change.

      Just a last note here I am not pretending to be anyone. These are my given initials.

      Please let's listen to one another and remove this defunct system whilst they are clearly floundering

      Delete

  41. Highly experienced and independent professional reporter’s give a lesson in report reading, and come to the conclusion that:

    “ This report is a cover up of enormous proportions. “

    Must see video starting at 7.25m running through to the tower block fire, don’t get it yet, you will. This makes BBC, ITV and JEP Jersey's Accredited Media look like amateurs.

    http://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-4th-july-2017

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am in agreement with Stuart on the next phase. However I think there is an urgent job to do today, ahead of the in committee debate. Simply most States members will struggle to read the whole report in time, let alone observe the deficiencies, errors, lacunae as Stuart puts it. It is a massively tall order, but what is needed is a briefing paper to the 'shocked' States members to cover these points. What isn't there is as important as what is, and they wont see it - of course. I dont have a solid proposal of how to achieve that, but perhaps someone here can.

    ReplyDelete
  43. “There are people working in the states of Jersey and some of them in childcare today who should be in prison,” the former senior officer who launched the police investigation claimed when we spoke to him today.

    TheLondonEconomic, well worth a read.
    Please do the link VFC.
    Thank you.

    http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-original-whistleblowers-say-abusers-still-large/03/07/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate to say how true this is. I know for a fact it's true. When abusers and rapists who escaped justice due to the Jersey Way are still allowed to work in child protection, even to this very day, will make a mockery of the inquiry and its recommendations if Gorst doesn't put his money where his mouth is and get shot of unsuitable staff, I'm afraid nothing is going to change. How can it when rapists are still employed in child protection posts to this very day? I'll be watching closely...

      Delete
  44. The backtracking has started.This morning on BBC Jersey Radio,Ian Gorst was asked specifically ' and what about the Enquiry stating that Andrew Lewis had lied to the States and to it".His answer was " yes we were all surprised that they took that view".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure whether it is that easy to take him out and PPC will probably give him a slap on the wrist if found guilty. He's a stubborn smarmy man who believes he is Minister material.

      We at least have an election in 10 Months time and everybody will have to remind his constituents that they are voting for a proven liar.

      Delete

  45. It is as clear as day to most interested people. If the States do nothing about a confirmed lier in Andrew Lewis as stated in the report, which the Jersey States after many debates already new about, then outside intervention as ex Police Chief Graham Power writes is essential.

    A clear out of Government and senior civil servants becomes closer. Gorst talks about a culture change, well start now and instigate action.

    Words are cheap.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The lies of Andrew Lewis ....
    Quote from chapter 10 of the COI report:
    10.373 Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not;
     Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008;
     Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Constable Len Norman is the Chair of P.P.C.

    P.P.C are looking into the Liar that is Deputy Andrew Lewis.

    Do you know, and I stand to be corrected, that Constable Norman attended one hearing at the C.O.I.

    Guess which one.. Yup Deputy Andrew Lewis

    Was he there supporting a friend or was it by chance.

    He should make it clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are quite right Rico. Constable Norman attended on one day of Lewis giving evidence on oath. Whether or not he was there on the first or second day when Counsel McGahey made mincemeat of him, I can't remember.

      I also made a complaint to Constable Norman, so shocked and dismayed was I about Lewis's behaviour. He told me he could do nothing until the Report was released. Well - it now have been and the resultant findings should leave P.P.C. in no doubt at all.

      Delete
    2. I've emailed Len Norman a copy of the relevant paragraph in the report just to be sure that he realises that they are talking about a series of lies ... and not just the one!

      Delete
    3. PPC do nothing5 July 2017 at 16:49

      For what it's worth you may as well e-mail Barry Norman.

      Delete
  48. I was reading about the late Jeff Le Marquand in the Report who was well known in the 70's for liking young boys and eyeing them up in his clothes Shop.

    And he is another who everybody knew the rumours about but nobody did anything to stop him.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mystic Meg's prediction for the day: Lewis will resign from the PPC as he feels that, although he has done nothing wrong and was entirely exonerated in the COI report, his continued presence is a distraction to its work. He hopes it will draw a line under the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's the Chair of PAC. Resigning from that will be nowhere near enough. It needs looking in to if he has committed perjury, if he has, he should be sent to prison.

      Delete

    2. Andrew, I seem to have inadvertently dropped the soap

      ......pick it up for me, there's a good boy

      Delete
  50. People seem to have overlooked that Lewis is given statutory immunity for anything he said (1) in the States and (2) in front of the inquiry so suggesting he can be charged with perjury is nonsense

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Yes, scandalous isn't it?

      Never mind. If I recall correctly the bible says something about a donkey's millstone and the depths of the sea

      Delete
    2. As a churchwarden Andrew Lewis should consider if he shall make atonement in this world or the next

      Delete
    3. Indeed, but does lying in the States in order to justify suspending the chief of police amount to misconduct in a public office? While parliamentary privilege affords absolute protection for what you say, could the act of lying (rather than the actual words) be construed as unlawful? Especially when coupled with the fact that the lies in question were part of a criminal conspiracy to remove the chief of police.

      Delete
  51. A question that hasn't been answered is: Why was is so important and urgent to Lewis and Co, to suspend G Power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "emergency" removal of the Chief of Police was not just a punishment for allowing the investigation of child abuse. There were more urgent matters which precipitated the madness as at least two police enquiries were reaching a critical stage

      1. The investigation into "Planning corruption on an industrial scale"

      2. The serial rape investigation into a very senior oligarchy linchpin, who was accused by a multitude of teenage and adult women of brutal and violent rapes and had been above the law up to that point. Mr [737] still holds a very senior position and is again above the rule of law.

      It is not just children who are at risk on this island.

      Delete
    2. 2. At the age of 18 I worked for the States of Jersey. In order to assist my
      mother who was having financial difficulties, I went for an interview for a job
      at  a ########################### The interview took place
      around 6pm on a winter's evening when I went to the interview in ###########
       The man who interviewed me was [737] I didn't know it at the
      time but [737] was a #####  I wasn't particularly interested ######
      at the time, but I do remember saying that ############# The
      interview proceeded normally and towards the end I asked whether he would
      consider paying me a lower wage and paying cash in hand: I wanted to help
      my mother out of her financial difficulties and this seemed like a good
      practical solution. I had no idea that it was not an acceptable thing to say, it
      felt like the right thing to do at the time.

      3. After I mentioned cash in hand  [737] told me that he thought 'we
      could come to some sort of arrangement' and proceeded to violently rape
      me. I mentioned something about reporting it, but  [737 just laughed and
      said 'Who would believe your word against that of a ######### .
      After hearing that I didn't feel confident to report the incident.

      4. I was in a terrible state when I left. My clothes were torn and I was
      bloodstained. I walked to my next door neighbour's house as I wasn't
      comfortable to go straight home and face my parents. My neighbour's name
      was ##### When I knocked on the door her husband answered.
      He exclaimed 'Oh my God' and went to get ######.
      ##### gave me some of clothes to wear so that I could go home.

      Delete
    3. I believe it was the same CoI witness who was flabbergasted to see the Attorney General playing golf with priority suspect Mr K during the live child abuse investigation.

      The AG contradicted expert medical testimony in his "exoneration" of the alleged child torturer, supplier of children and  serial rapist of both boys and girls as young as 8

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      Delete
    4. @ Anon July 5 19.41

      No he didn't contradict that testimony.

      The AG's statement was in 2009, Jason's was n 2014.

      The AG got his information FROM SOMWHERE. The question is - where?


      Delete
    5. Fair enough Daniel. Thanks for clarifying that.
      So it is the other way round:

      expert medical testimony contradicted the AG who "exonerated" the priority suspect identified by multiple victims.

      It does not look good on it's own and in a career of failure it is disastrous.

      Delete
  52. A famous quote from Ex Senator Stuart Syvret, just before he was removed from office in 2008: "The culture of self-supporting invulnerability demonstrated by senior officers is now going to come to an end whether they like it or not". A question for Stuart. You didn't have time to deal with these senior officers, but are they the ones that were suspended yesterday?

    ReplyDelete
  53. This half baked CoI report has become an exercise in stating the bleedin obvious

    "The criminal justice system should take abuse victims' allegations seriously and take all possible steps to bring offenders to justice, The Jersey Law Officers' Department has said."

    The Attorney General, Robert MacRae QC made the comments in response to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry report, published on Monday.

    [BBC News Online]


    Well you'd best give Bow-wow Bowron's leash a yank and get him to bring in Mr K and 737 and .......

    Until then Mr MacRae is talking out of his butt.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yep. No surprise there.

    Ian Gorst is an essentially weak individual - and self-deluded. Actually thinks of himself as some kind "saint" - because of his religious beliefs - just like Ian Le Marquand - but, in truth, is weak, and a sock-puppet.

    I've e-mailed Ian Gorst - on several occasions - including just recently - and never - not once - have I had the answer from a man - from someone with independent thought - courage - ethics - wisdom.

    He is in the position he is in - for exactly the same reason his fellow spiritual fantasist and inadequate Ian Le Marquand was in his position; because he's a "plausible" front-guy - a credible sock-puppet. Of the very best kind - namely the type who believe their own propaganda; so imbued with self-delusion, they can carry-off the act - without acting.

    Any credible Chief Minister would have - publicly - demanded the immediate resignation of Andrew Lewis.

    Hell, Lewis is over. Destroyed. History. Finished. You lie to a parliament - that's it. Game Over. Look up Profumo.

    Were I in Gorst's position, I'd be saying to Lewis and the legislature, "Either Lewis goes - right now - or I do. Your choice. Who's side do you want to be on? Criminals and liars? Or of ethical governance? Well, here is where you make your decision. Choose. Me, or Lewis?"

    Gorst won't do that, of course, because he is, essentially, self-deluding. And weak.

    But the fundamental point remains - and it is not a party-political, nor Left or Right issue, but rather something that should be a simple 'given' to all decent parliamentarians - that no parliament - no respectable parliamentarians - can ever do its job - no collection of elected representatives can ever do their job - if Ministers lie.

    If your politicians cannot ask questions - in your name - in your parliament - and be confident of receiving honest answers - then you don't have real democracy.

    Government can never be answerable to the people - if the executive arm lies to the legislative arm.

    And all respectable, decent parliamentarians would agree with that. Regardless of whether they were right, left, or centre.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  55. Sharrock Shellsuit5 July 2017 at 23:05

    Being long-term unemployed I hope this confirmation by the COI that the so called progressives who fought for the victims were right all along I really hope this forthcoming election will see the incompetents and the cover up merchants who have dominated all positions of power for so long will be kicked in to touch. If we are to have a new Jersey way then we need a new start. A new broom to sweep away the gangsters.

    ReplyDelete

  56. In the JEP tonight, Philip Ozouf seeks to impress and gain some ground after his recent disasters.

    " he said Jersey had much to be proud of but, like many places, the authorities from the 1950s to early 2000s did not acknowledge the existence of child abuse"

    ‘The Oldham report acknowledges it was not intentional.

    Ozouf trying to water the report down by the looks of it, on advice from expensive spin doctors probably.

    Of course the authorities new it was child abuse, is raping and hurting kids a different take on blind mans buff or stick the tail on the donkey Philip ?

    Oldham has not gone hunting for all the guilty ( that should start now and has with three being suspended ) but she named the Macquires and others. If it was not intentional then what was it ?

    Another throw away statement from a politician that lives in a vacuum, or is he trying to confuse the issue. Idiot !

    ReplyDelete
  57. The real key to a change of government is in the hands of the young voters in this Island and Reform Jersey should be going all out to get thier votes. There are people here that regardless of what has been shown about the old guard will still vote for them because it is in thier blood. So come on the youth of Jersey, you were given the vote, use it but remember you MUST be on the register to vote and that is a simple matter to achieve, your future is in your hands.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Realistically A Lewis will be gone by the weekend. So will this call for a bi-election?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possibly so. But he will have another chance to spin his lies in the debate on the inquiry report today. Stable doors and all that.

      Delete
    2. http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg61458#msg61458

      "It increasingly seems like nothing will change.
      Already Baillache defending his liberation day speech,Lewis denying he lied and more non reporting from the media.Very little coverage on JEP online and very little on Bailiwick Express with no comments!!!
      Unfortunately the international media interest wasn't sufficient to stop the Jersey Way- and so on it goes."

      Delete
    3. Anybody who believes this knows absolutely nothing about Jersey politics, or Andrew Lewis. How will he be gone? He clearly has no sense of shame, and as part of the island's grifter class isn't going to walk away from an easy £45k. So he isn't going to resign.

      He can't be sacked, since only the electorate can do that through an election. The bailiff can go all syvret on his ass and make up a fictional power of exclusion from the house, which would mean 10 months of paid gardening leave. But that won't happen, will it? I mean, it's not likely that Bailhache junior is going to do anything as rash as take overt action against a fellow conspirator, is it? Some awkward beans might get spilled.

      Delete
    4. "The Bailiff can go all syvret on his ass." I chuckled at this and when I first read the word 'syvreted' too, which I think I read first in this blog. Meaning -political oppression by TPTB on a whistelblower trying to do the right thing. I think it deserves a place in the Urban Dictionary along with The Jersey Way.

      Delete
  59. Bailiwick Express want a 'brilliant journalist' They are going to have a tough time recruitng locally with that requirement. http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/jobs/classifieds/news-journalist/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Recruitment%20Email%20-%20Thursday%2005%20July&utm_content=Recruitment%20Email%20-%20Thursday%2005%20July+CID_24df56c623320855669e1ed5703c0482&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20more

    ReplyDelete
  60. The more I read the more this looks like a £24m whitewash
    A decade's wait and we get a damage limitation exercise which gives us the obvious rent boy Lewis but finds *nobody* else to blame:

    10.42 We cannot be sure why Frank Walker, Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis acted as they did, or why Andrew Lewis lied both to the States and to us. Frank Walker
    described Andrew Lewis as an inexperienced politician, and even appointed a more senior politician to mentor him [REALLY] in his Home Affairs role. While Frank Walker told us that, nevertheless, he did not think that Andrew Lewis would have been influenced by his view as Chief Minister, we believe not only that such influence was inevitable but also that it would have been recognised by all involved, including Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. Whatever the motivation, however, nothing that we have seen suggests that the suspension of Graham Power was motivated by any wish to interfere with Operation Rectangle or to cover up abuse.
    END

    on any REALLY IMPORTANT aspect I challenge readers to find an incidence where the CoI Panel does not give their paymasters the absolute benefit of the doubt.

    Where an issue is truly problematic or might lead to people actually being held to account the Panel concludes that it is just one of life's *mysteries*

    And they take the opportunity to insert a bit of platitudinous spin:

    "Whatever the motivation, however, nothing that we have seen suggests that the suspension of Graham Power was [NOT] motivated by any wish to interfere with Operation Rectangle or to cover up abuse."

    Surely the onus was on the CoI to *inquire* to find a plausible alternative explanation ........... and on failing, to then state the likelihood of the bleeding obvious! ....... rather than it's opposite

    I have tried to help them out by inserting [NOT] which might help them recognise how decades of state sponsored abuse actually occurred, rather than that too remaining a £24,000,000 mystery.


    Take the wrapping off and we realise that they are actually taking the piss!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous ' 6:22

    Careful there. You can be arrested in Jersey for helping people to REGISTER to vote.

    Ask the Pitmans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We must stop using this Report as a means of excusing Political actions when they should have known better.

      Delete
    2. Ture Polo. But not if you are standing in the same district as the best DEputy St Helier 2 ever had, Shona Pitman, but happen to be an Establishment lackey with a beard and a three letter name beiginning with the letter R.

      Politically motivated, selective prosecutions don't just happen with abuse cases we must remember. Two JDA deputies in the district proecuted but not the two non party affiliated ones as Barking Bill was exposed to have done.

      Let off one because in his words it seemed a one off offence. Yet Pitman he did prosecute for helping to disabled people register. No wonder our kids' safety couldn't be guaranteed with AGs like Bailhache.

      Delete
    3. That is so true Polo and I had forgotten about that little gem, never mind I know I can't get arrested for molesting and raping women, oh I forgot that one as well I must be someone of importance to get away with that one.

      Delete
  62. Why hasn't anybody mentioned the Freemasons in connection with the Jersey Way.
    A secret organisation that has political, legal and business connections that has a duty to help it's members without question?
    This organisation is a cancer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear, hear and I have said it before, anyone standing for election should be made to state whether or not they are Freemasons. Cancerous indeed.

      Delete
  63. So here is an article today by the JEP entitled Jersey Care Inquiry: AG to make statement on politician who 'lied'

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/06/ag-to-make-statement-on-politician-who-lied/#34A28brdl6i5CZb8.99

    So... how can the establishment afford to take the risk? Suppose Lewis turns around and says "ah yes, I did lie. But I was asked to do this by Ogley and Walker. They were covering for 737." Surely then the house of cards falls if Lewis adopts this strategy as it will expose the political cover up, an area that I don't think we will find mention of in the report. The only way to resolve this from happening I presume is a pay off and / or a lesser sentence to stop Lewis singing like a canary. My guess is Lewis will remain tight lipped. Reminds me of Jeff le Marchand, or like when paeodophiles commit suicide to protect others. We shoudn't forget the much higher suicide rate in 2008 which the authorities were quick to class as a blip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well your comment comes immediately after a comment about the masonic influence in Jersey. If AG does nothing to Lewis, or indeed says he can't do anything then that could very well of the deciding factor.

      My own view is that there will be mild public criticism for not being clear and unequivocal in past and current comments, followed by passing of the buck to PPC, followed by lots of hand wringing, followed by exasperated claims that we can do nothing under the rules, and he will get away with nothing but a bit of humiliation. The only way he will go is if we the public storm the house!

      Delete

    2. I don't agree. Lewis cannot survive but it will take a while. And that in my view is a GOOD THING. Because it keeps this whole area in the public spotlight. The biggest danger to success in the long term with getting adequate child protection and child care services is simply that people lose interest and it falls off the radar.

      The real goal is to get him into a court if at all possible. The more he maintains his impossible position along the way, to PPC or to the Chairmen's Committee for example, the better.

      But also if he was to be fired from PAC in some sudden way,
      (NB Gorst absolutely does not have the power to eject a chairman from Scrutiny, that would be verging on dictatorship. The States voted him into that position, the States must remove him, ideally on a proposition from PPC), or even if he was to be excluded from the States, again in an instant way, then the value of different States members having to face the moral, intellectual and political issues FOR THEMSELVES, is lost.

      The joy of "getting rid of him" is one thing, winning the war is another.

      In the end if PPC duck the issue, then the Chairmen's Committee can be invited by backbenchers to bring the proposition. (Chairmen's Committee is the chairmen and women of all the Scrutiny Committees (PPC is not a Scrutiny Committee) meeting as a body)
      If they duck too, then we shall know that the Jersey Way is pretty deeply entrenched. If they or PPC say - yes of course we will do this, then we will know that TJW is a bit weaker than it was.

      All this is vital information, vital part of the whole campaign, In My Opinion.

      TJW has to be dug up and burnt, bit by bit.

      Delete
  64. What happened with the supposed Attorney General's statement on Andrew Lewis?

    ReplyDelete
  65. So a new commissioner for children has been approved. What difference will that make to the Jersey Way? No one has dealt with the reality of its who, you know that works whether a law maker or breaker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Commissioner for Children is PR hogwash in a system which is structurally broken and conflicted.
      It is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      There have been posts like this In the past and they have been filled by people like Marnie Baudains.

      People who when push comes to shove buckle and don't cause the establishment trouble

      There is no way that they will put a Syvret in the role.

      Yet another expensive post filled with yet another "ourchap"

      Delete
    2. Sadly, that is exactly what will happen.

      Delete
  66. I have 2 questions that I'm not sure about.

    1. Since the report I am aware that a few front line staff have been removed- is there a website where I can go and find out who they are?

    2. How does a super-injunction fit in with the Report? I mean, suppose someone has a super injunction imposed on them in relation to any aspect of the inquiry. Will that be void now or does that individual have to still keep quiet on certain issues?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't help with No.1 and I imagine that such information is confidential but sure to leak out soon
      The facts were out months or even decades ago so how come it was necessary to wait for a "report" before taking essential action?

      No. 2:
      "How does a super-injunction fit in with the Report? I mean, suppose someone has a super injunction imposed on them in relation to any aspect of the inquiry. Will that be void now or does that individual have to still keep quiet on certain issues?"
      There was some apparently expert discussion of this on the blog in the last month or so. If I recall the advice was that in theory the CoI protections *should* trump the superinjunctions but It was impossible to be sure without it being tested in court.
      There was the additional caveat that Jersey Courts are prone to make bizarre judgements when they see fit, like in Syvret's politicised Data Protection imprisonments.

      These are the very issues and uncertainties which would have made it madness for the ex health minister to give evidence without legal representation.

      Delete
  67. BREAKING: Ex-minister will not face prosecution for 'lying' to care inquiry
    Read more at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/06/breaking-ex-minister-will-not-face-prosecution-for-lying-to-care-inquiry/#28hKAcSJ3HyeMZuB.99


    The Jersey Way in full effect

    ReplyDelete
  68. Debate seemed to stop suddenly. Has it finished?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lewis evidence to COI protected by parliamentary privilege ... he knew that before giving evidence and just carried on lying in the full knowledge that he was immune from any prosecution! He continues to maintain his innocence and claims that the Christopher Harris note of their meeting was fabricated!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shocking, and yes after all that has been said today The Jersey Way still rules. I would like McRae to point us in the direction of the law that applies to this. Seemingly politicians can be liars in and out of the States.

      Well now we know in black and white.

      Delete
    2. To be fair McRae said parliamentary privilege extends to COI s for politicians

      Delete
    3. McRae's comments lisled the States in a number of areas.

      The AG is apparently impartial? His advice open to all equally.

      Really? Why is it then that if someone chairing a Scrutiny panel asked him 'Did you advise the Minister for whatever x, y and z the open to everyone equally AG will not tell them what advise he gave. It has happened in the past and will happen again.

      The AG is apparently impartial guaranteed because he is not, for example, a member of the Tory or Labour parties like in the UK.

      This is demonstrable bollox. The AG, like the Bailiff, Jurats are invisible card carrying members of the Establishment party just as they have always been.

      MaeCrae or whatever his name is stated that AGs have always been impartial. Anyone knowing anything of Jersey will know that throughout history AGs have not only been Establishment poodles but even in the days of open party politics here (perhaps our AG doesn't know much about his adopted island?) AGs were often of the same family as the Bailiff and/or a few jurats.

      The AG tell the Asssembly nobody is above the law. Again demonstrable bollox.

      What about the multi-millionaire businessman now deceased who was named in the Donnelly case by both the victim and Donnelly himself as abusing her in the back of a vehicle? This was even said in open court. Yet AG William Bailhache did not proosecute.

      Look at the early copies of the COI witness statement from Dep T Pitman if you don't believe me. Prior to the many paragraphs being permanently disappeared this was made quite clear.

      Also consider further evidence given to the COI. For example the Victoria Cllege Jervis-Dykes cover up. The investigating police officer told the inquiry that the police were prevented from properly questioning let alone bringing charges against a Vice Principle who had since been given a job as a jurat after a a pupil complained about being bullied in to silence after he reported Jervis-Dykes abuse to the Vice Principle.

      The officer also described this indivodual as a pathetic man lacking any integrity and stated that the police could not believe he was ever allowed to become a jurat.

      The Bailiff and AG at the time were Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt. Even after the jurat's retirement, right after sitting on the Pitman's defamation case I seem to recall, he was brought back by William Bailhache to sit on another child abuse case!

      Today the true white elephant in the chamber that actually allowed all of these decades of abuse to happen was and will always remain until we have a true democracy the Crown Officer.

      McRae's apologist waffle today not only misled States Members it was a disgrace.

      Delete
    4. Better not criticise McRae and his speech of assurances that was pure fantasy?

      Delete
    5. States of Jersey Law 2005
      34 Immunity from legal proceedings
      No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the States –
      (a) for any words spoken before or written in a report to the States or a committee or panel established under standing orders; or
      (b) by reason of any other matter or thing brought by the member before or within the States or any such committee or panel by petition, proposition or otherwise.

      Delete
    6. Good point at 19:25

      Basically that gutless nest of shysters has put in place laws which place themselves above the law.

      Sheesh

      Delete
  70. Right so Lewis won't be prosecuted (that was a forgone conclusion) but perhaps Chief Minister Gorst will now get some testicular fortitude and sack the lying weasel.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Is the States sitting a recording I heard Tracy Vallois give the speech she is giving now, earlier?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ok I realise what happened I was listening live, then went out and pressed play and assumed it was still live. My mistake

    ReplyDelete
  73. I need to look again at the words he used but I do believe that he tried to con the assembly again today when he was talking about the in-camera debate and he said that he had a report entitled ' the met interim report in front of him' ... and he held it up... giving the impression that that is what caused his confusion during that debate ... then when asked about it he didn't give a straight answer as to whether he had that report in front of him in that debate ... need to look at the recording again ... but he needs to asked again whether or not he had a copy of the met interim report at the time or not... because we now know that he hadn't seen it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and if he didn't what was the point of holding up a report entitled the 'met interim report at today's sitting'
      P

      Delete
    2. its a shame everyone is getting so hung up on Lewis again
      , it really is a distraction. Cut the man a bit of slack after so many years.

      Delete
    3. and if he hadn't seen it then why on earth would he produce a report with the title ' met interim report' at today's sitting and claim that that is what had confused him... it makes no sense at all
      P

      Delete
    4. What about Christopher Harris who Lewis has accused of fabricating evidence against him ... is that okay to?

      Delete
    5. Somewhere between 17:00 to 17;30 Lewis talked in mixed up riddles conning the assembly

      Delete
    6. I think the inquiry simply sought to detract from the general banality of their report - it is on the most part full of platitudes. The two distractions are knocking down HDLG and the Lewis "lie". The Island needs to move on from October (or was it November, who actually knows) of 2008.

      Delete
    7. I believe Wendy Kinnard (a well respected, honest hard working former politician, with real integrity) and Christopher Harris (her partner) long before I believe that weasel Lewis! So did the COI, that is not in dispute. 2 against 1, when the 1 is proven to lie. QED

      Delete
    8. Ain't nothing but a whipping boy

      Delete
  74. I have been watching the States debate today.They have been talking about what happens when civl servants blow the whistle.Talking about the Pitmans and Syvret,we know they asked a lot of questions about perpetrators not being prosecuted by the judiciary and that it actually protected paedos,when they were in the States.They clearly had no protection from talking publicly about their evidence. The Pitmans losing their case by (illegally, as the Jurat had previously been one of those teachers protecting a later convicted paedo) and then being unnecessarily made bankrupt.Then we had Walker and Ogley et al,in my opinion,colluding to get rid of Syvret.No States member has mentioned this-protection for them and their colleagues.Why?

    ReplyDelete
  75. So, States Members can lie under Parliamentary Privilege and not be prosecuted....
    This doesn't stop Graham Power taking him to the cleaner for defamation of character!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it does. Parliamentary privilege extends to civil as well as criminal matters. In any event, any such case would be heard before a Jersey court...

      Delete
  76. What I would like to know is why didn't most of those politicians droning on boringly about the inquiry simply apologise for never having done anything before, all the work to help the victims secure justice being left to a handful of present and former progressive politicians? At worst quite a number of these people droning on all concerned on the surface actually mocked those fighting for justice and the stories of the victims. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I've just begun watching your interview with Ian Gorst, VFC.

    Wow. Just wow.....he disputes - even now - after all this - "that there was a cover-up".

    My God.

    Let me say to Ian Gorst - through your honest and reliable media - "Let me suggest to you, Chief Minister, that the States of Jersey Public Inquiry would have - would have - received - even more - dramatic evidence of the undoubted cover-up - had you required of it, that it comply with the Jersey legislature decision which established the CoI, and it comply with "Part e" of that decision. Had the CoI done so, it would not have adopted ultra vires "protocols" and instead would have complied with the ECHR, and then would have had more witnesses."

    If Ian Gorst disputes the plain - stark - fact - there was a decades-long child-abuse cover-up - perhaps he would care to explain why the "public-inquiry" which has taken place under his leadership - chose to intimidate, harass, and constructively exclude a vital key witness, me?

    If he's relying upon the report of this CoI - as somehow "endorsing" his fantasy denial of the stark decades of overt, disgusting child-abuse cover-up which took place - then he should be required to explain why he chose as the central evidence-co-ordination officer to the CoI, a man who actually screamed - I mean SCREAMED - abuse at me across the boardroom table when I as Health & Social Services Minister required him and the Chief Executive to enact my lawful Ministerial decision to remove the failed Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee, so I could replace her with Professor June Thoburn, an independent external, world-renowned expert?

    I know, I know - "details, eh? - And facts?"

    They're such a pain in the arse.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart

      You'll no doubt be pleased to read this on page 7, chapter 12 of the full report:

      "12.18 The Panel considered carefully, and has given prominence to, the evidence of Jo Olson on the current state of child care services in Jersey, for four reasons. First, she is an experienced practitioner and manager of social work services, with a track record of transforming underperforming services. Secondly, she provided an outsider’s view, having come to the island to undertake a particular role and with no agenda of seeking advancement, residency or later employment in Jersey. Thirdly, her observations are supported by the evidence and contributions of service users, other professionals and organisations in Jersey. Fourthly, and most significantly, her evidence contrasts markedly with the evidence of Anton Skinner, Richard Jouault and others on the performance of Children’s Services in the period from the 1990s to the commencement of Inquiry hearings. While these witnesses described some challenges and issues within services for children, there was no suggestion in their evidence of the depth of dysfunctionality, poor quality of management and absence of basic social work skills that subsequently became apparent to the Panel through the evidence of the SCRs and of some of the interim and current managers in post from 2014 onwards.

      12.19 Had the evidence of Anton Skinner and Richard Jouault not been balanced by the evidence of Jo Olsson and others, and by many Phase 3 contributors, including care-experienced young people, the Inquiry would have been left with a very different understanding of the current condition of child care services in Jersey."

      You have to appreciate the polite but devastating language of the inquiry.

      The panel believed the evidence of Jo Olson over Richard Jouault. End of story.

      Which, given that Richard Jouault's involvement with the inquiry was controversial in the first place http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/09/01/independence-of-historical-abuse-inquiry-could-be-undermined-warns-politician/ is a significant finding.

      Excellent work by the panel, I must say.

      Delete
    2. Well said. I couldn't agree more.

      Delete
    3. Yes, on the one hand "Excellent work by the panel"

      on the other, totally cack-handed

      It is a bit unfortunate that they allowed Anton Skinner and Richard Jouault to help gather evidence for the abuse inquiry

      anyone who helps gather evidence can also help filter and cleanse it.

      The panel are experts at odd decisions, even denying unconditional legal representation  to essential witnesses.

      Delete
    4. To be precise, it was Richard Jouault and Tony Le Sueur, not Anton Skinner, who were given this bizarre role of co-ordinating evidence gathering on behalf of the States.

      Regardless, that's a devastating conclusion for Jouault. There have been reports on the blogs throughout the inquiry of how inappropriate it has looked to have him work closely with the inquiry staff. I was expecting a whitewash infavour of Jouault. As it happens, the inquiry nailed him too, with a devastatingly polite sentence about whose evidence they preferred.

      You have to remember that Jouault was 'seconded' to the Chief Minister's department for the duration of the inquiry. What does Ian Gorst do now?

      Delete
  78. Replies
    1. Well - there we have it - they can lie with impunity and get away with it. Truly shocking.

      I hope Graham Power can find a way to do something.

      Delete
    2. No surprise.

      To those eager to embrace the report of this CoI - just reflect - reflect - on a few of key facts we all know:

      There are dozens - and dozens - of toxic criminals active in Jersey. Not only people like Andrew Lewis - who lie to the States, and who commit perjury before "public-inquiries".

      There are gangster - corrupt property speculators, who were able to get away with child-abuse, because of their contacts.

      There are corrupt civil-servants.

      There are civil-servants who engaged in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.

      There are civil-servants who commit misconduct in public office.

      There are politicians and civil-servants who - on the stark evidence - illegally acted against the proper application of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

      Etc - etc - etc.

      But who - by way of contrast - is the only person involved in the polity - involved in all of those administrative matters - to have been rabidly pursued by the "law" apparatus - and to have been repeatedly jailed - and who lives under the perpetual threat - a threat instrumental in preventing him from giving evidence to the CoI - of more, lengthening prison sentences? And who faces routine death-threat?

      A key whistle-blower against child-abuse. Me.

      It is axiomatic, as I've said many times before - that only defective, stupid, weak, unprincipled - fundamentally inadequate - individuals get chosen to be Attorney General. It's axiomatic, that any individual who would be a good Attorney General - would never get chosen for the post, as happens now, by his predecessors - because a good person would have to prosecute his predecessors.

      The community of Jersey are not protected by the rule-of-law.

      We weren't before the CoI.

      And we're not after the CoI.

      The war goes on.

      Now that the CoI report has come, and gone - we must resume the task of fighting for the effective rule-of-law in Jersey.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. voiceforchildren, who is the man in your link?

      He speaks, and dresses, like in English Tory MP.

      Delete
    4. He is the Attorney General. (The real power in Jersey)

      Delete
    5. ^Ok. Thanks.

      Robert McCrae QC. Educated at Victoria College (quelle surprise!), then went to uni in England & practiced at the English bar for 11 years (which explains the English accent) before going back to the rock in 2001.

      Delete
  79. Song for Andrew Lewis.
    Home

    ReplyDelete
  80. If I understood the AG correctly, he said that non-States members could be prosecuted for perjury before a Committee of Inquiry such as the Jersey Inquiry.

    I know that he was talking about perjury and that the ordinary statements made before the Inquiry, once they fell short of perjury, would be privileged and so not subject to action outside the Inquiry.

    However, given the prejudicial way in which Stuart Syvret had been dealt with in the past, would it not be unreasonable for him to have considered that things he might say to the Inquiry might be construed as perjury by a hostile prosecution service? And should he not have been entitled to independent legal assistance in the circumstances?

    On a different point, have we ever seen reliable legal advice to the effect that the Inquiry had the power to subpoena witnesses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo, that is an interesting point.

      The AG, whether intentionally or otherwise, has essentially vindicated Stuart Syvret's decision not to testify.

      Delete
  81. The AG’s presumptuous statement to the effect that Lewis cannot be prosecuted for lying to the Inquiry is clearly designed (and timed) to dissuade Graham Power from following up his recent comment that if no-one in Jersey sues Lewis for perjury, he would be prepared to do it himself. In any event, the AG’s declared view on the matter is of zero practical interest as long as no-one has actually started legal proceedings and presented their case against Lewis – a case which might be based on an interpretation of the Law that differs from that favoured by the AG.

    Assuming that the AG’s pronouncement is based on Section 35 of the Law of 2005 (as posted by Anon, 6th June at 19:25), then it’s pretty clear that para (a) applies to Lewis’ lies to the States Assembly and other parts of the States apparatus, but has no bearing outside the States institutions.

    The same cannot be said, however, of para (b) in respect of evidence given under oath to the independent Inquiry – so much so that I venture to suggest that the AG’s interpretation of that law should be tested in court. At the end of the day, how the law is to be interpreted in a given set of circumstances does not depend on the AG – it depends on the judge.

    Looking at it from a different angle, if para (b) does apply to a States member’s verbal or written statements to the Inquiry, what was the point of having those members swear an oath before the Inquiry?

    The AG has also displayed arrogant presumptuousness in his recent statement, here: http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-05/jerseys-attorney-general-welcomes-care-inquiry-report/ to the effect that he is "committed to improving the criminal justice system".

    It is not the role of the AG to “improve the criminal justice system” – his role is to ensure that the “system” (whatever its qualities and failings might be) is applied correctly, without fear or favour, to all the Island’s residents and visitors. In particular, he is expected to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and properly punished – and that the innocent are neither prosecuted nor punished (as has been seen to happen in Jersey all too often).

    ReplyDelete
  82. Maybe Parliamentary Immunity is not so clear cut after all. Even if the AG reports that it is...

    Breach of Privilege or Contempt of the House

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/22/phone-hacking-lying-to-select-committee

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/contempt/

    http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?tag=breach-of-privilege

    ReplyDelete
  83. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_of_parliament

    ReplyDelete
  84. Today's debate was shocking. Possibly the worst in living memory. Fall of phoney hand-wringing from people who probably never read a single witness statement to the COI, and certainly have never taken the trouble to meet a victim. Take Higgins, Tadier and Mezec out of the equation and what you had left was awful. No focus on the real issues of the Jersey way and those who personify and keep it going. Bailiffs and Attorney Generals. Next to no focus on the wriggling worm that is Lewis. A waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree totally with comment at 22:09 I half wondered if they were on the same planet. There was someone harping on about the old days and minimized the issue by saying that was the way things were done back then. No true feeling or understanding from some members it was just a chance to show faux concern. Talking about authors of books blah blah blah what was that about. The Jersey Way in action with Andrew Lewis There can be no question of a prosecution of a states member for anything said to an enquiry. What about the wrong done to Graham Power as a consequence of those lies? if you are a states member the Jersey Way Law protects States members.

      Delete
  85. 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
    Replies
    1. Thanks Daniel @02:02 !

      Just another example of the Inquiry making life difficult for readers.

      Delete
    2. Hi Daniel,

      Quite so, but the text search on the published documents is a bit glitch and results may depend on which program or browser you are using.

      First of all as it is a long document it takes a while for the search to complete (maybe a minute or more) and the number found will count up in fits and starts.

      Also the devil is in the detail and it is VERY IMPORTANT  to be careful with what precisely goes in the search box if doing this research.

      I find a total of *50* incidences of [Syvret]
      N.B. use the minimum words necessary
      ....Don't include "Stuart " as it will miss Mr Syvret, Senator Syvret etc.
      ....Delete the space after  [Syvret ] or it will miss Syvret. and Syvret's etc. etc.

      Delete
  86. Perhaps we should be thanking the AG for now reducing the TEN commandments down to NINE as we can now ignore "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour". This of course MUST now be part of all Jersey schools curiculam so our children are taken down the right pathway into life. I am truly ashamed to be a Jerseyman after hearing this disgracful crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point ... you'd think that the dean would have something to say about this 'immunity from telling lies under oath' law ... which goes against the fundamental belief system that underpins the states of jersey edifice and which the dean is meant to uphold ... I mean, they start every states sitting chanting some prayer and the oath is taken on the bible ...so a bit of a contradiction here ... so will the dean , who is supposed to be our moral compass, shine a light on this dark practice which condones sinning by our elected leaders. What is the point of him being there if he says nothing in such circumstances? Or does he also condone the breaking of this commandment?

      Delete
  87. Has anyone got a copy of the GP jep article that they could paste on here please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is JEP article? Will Voice's upcoming interview with Graham Power overtake it?

      Delete
    2. I think the GP JEP article (not sure if its online) was GP calling for Andrew Lewis to be investigated for perjury. Hope to get my interview with Graham Power published over the weekend. I have also interviewed Lenny Harper which I hope to publish straight after.

      Delete

  88. READERS PLEASE NOTE
    If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

    If (when) it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

    NB later replies to the first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked

    The way for readers to be sure of reading the whole thread without omissions is to click "Load more..." right at the end, and then read from the beginning

    ReplyDelete
  89. Full credit to Deputy Jackie Hilton for mentioning the elephant in the room and calling for the resignation of Andrew Lewis this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Will the Dean who is speaking in the States of Jersey let us know, Who within the States of Jersey is accountable for Andrew Lewis's lies? or is the protection of Andrew Lewis paramount. The failings shown in the report are within the States of Jersey not society. Our values of the Jersey Way are shown clearly in the support given to Andrew Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The jersey way winded but not out by a country mile nothing will ever change untill the people of jersey rise up and fight it has to start at the very top and work it's way down any one who thinks this coi will change anything is very much mistaken they will change the front of house but the top floor,s will stay the same .

    ReplyDelete
  92. Many others here, have been critical of the judiciary (& the AG) and
    the Inquiry’s findings in regard to the deficiencies and duplicity of
    their roles.

    I do not disagree with these criticisms however; I would bring
    attention to the effectiveness of, if considered so, what may be,
    conscientious individuals being constrained by the law and process as it stands or more importantly, as it stood.

    Just recently, John Chilcott has given an interview with regards to
    the legitimacy of the Iraq war. The key issue here was when he was
    asked: if the war was a legal one and he said (these are my words not
    his) that in the end, it was documented to be fully compliant with the law however, the process of getting to that decision was not, in his opinion, correct.

    Does this ring any bells?

    What I am trying to convey is that when within legal confines that
    process can appear to be fully compliant and stand up to scrutiny as
    it has in the IJCI Report. However, this does not necessarily take
    into account how decisions were reached.

    There are some important factors here, such as meeting the requisite
    legal tests for bringing a case forward to prosecution, namely:

    • The Corroboration Rule (and subsequently abolished in law in 2012)

    • Public Interest Test

    Corroboration requirements were required to validate prosecutions up
    until the year 2012. This meant that without corroboration, there
    could be no prosecution. In the case of historical abuse, victims
    were not considered credible witnesses. (The abolishment of the
    corroboration rule in 2012 and the Inquiry’s conclusion that this was
    a matter of tardiness on the part of the government rather than a way
    to prevent prosecutions of cases of abuse is something I do not agree
    with).

    Public interest tests can be, as we have seen, interpreted in
    different ways by different people at different times. So not simple
    to criticise this with integrity as this is in some cases, SUBJECTIVE.

    It was interesting that during Operation Rectangle that the public
    interest test requirements FOR ALL CASES brought forward would
    immediately pass the public interest test. If you apply all the
    historical abuse cases on their own merits and apply this standard to
    those cases in that they would pass the public interest and
    corroboration tests….. we can see that there would likely have been
    many more prosecutions in the courts.

    More importantly – it can clearly be seen that with these obstacles to
    JUSTICE it is likely why so many cases were not brought forward to
    prosecution.

    The point here is not just a boring technical one but rather a
    rational possible reasoning to why so much of the abuse went on
    continuously with IMPUNITY.
    How could/can this be rectified? CHANGE

    Change in government.

    Not in the first instance a call for the
    judiciary and the AG to immediately change their roles such as being
    advisor to all and everything; this is simply not, and cannot be an
    independent judiciary as described by the AG, as there is clearly a
    conflict of interest. A monopoly on this is an abomination and a
    rejection of logical analysis and does not stand up to scrutiny. They
    (the judiciary) will never see this introspectively and so calls for
    change in this area are redundant.
    Power of a full democratically elected parliament is the only area
    that is even slightly open to reform at this time.

    So let’s do this –
    CHANGE the government! Its open to it and it will not evolve on its
    own – confirmation of this is evident from the ego driven duality of
    the speeches made in the parliamentary debate today.

    Personally I cannot believe that so much is being given to the
    possibility of this reform not being fully endorsed/enshrined in
    legislation. These people are the politicians. Who really cares what
    they think personally – just create POLICY. This is their job and
    sentimental posturing is obscene in the face of a DISASTER of this
    magnitude.

    LH

    ReplyDelete
  93. How can we ever trust a member of the states again, I always thought they promised to tell the truth at all times, however we now find they can tell lies without fear of loosing their well paid job, I will never trust a member of the states again as long as Lewis is part of that membership, It matters not how much of the taxpayers money they waste or how many lies they tell they are not accountable, a law unto themselves, I would like to see a transcript of morning prayers and see what promises they make in these. (Lewis time to go.)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Excellent speach by Rousell Laby in the States of Jersey taking place at the moment. Well done Jackie Hilton on raising the Andrew Lewis issue its almost as though States Members are scared to get to the nitty gritty and skirting around the report.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anyone mentioned the judiciary today and it being unfit for purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Lewis should be on Jackanory.

    ReplyDelete