Social > Child Abuse Enquiry

Committee of Inquiry

(1/5) > >>

iruka:
So, now that we seem to be going to have an inquiry, does anyone have thoughts on what it should look into, who it should call as witnesses etc.?

Also, any views on whether or not the power to subpoena will have any enforceability outside the island? For example, if Lenny Harper cocks a snook (again) can he be dragged back to give evidence?

When is it likely to kick off, and how long will it take and cost?

Malachi:
I do not know how much it will cost, but I would happily offer my services for nothing if I had any services to offer...

Chevalier Blanc:
Completely open!
Let the public find out who the people were who covered up things and did nothing. Every avenue should be explored to get to the full truth and picture.
This includes the Victoria College saga as well. It is funny in away that you usually find that the guilty people are normally the well off and high in society holding high profile jobs. Take for instance the high judges who are the ones that are caught using brothels and doing kinky things.
It needs to be sorted out for once and all so that Jersey can hold it's head up high.

Calimachon:
I am happy that the right to have an Inquiry has been won thanks to a few vociferous bloggers and to some brave politicians.

I think the time has come to allow the Jersey Care Leavers Association to take over and hash out the Terms of Reference and who should be called as witnesses.  After all they are the ones that know!

So happy to take a back seat here and watch how things are going on but always ready to come to the defence of the abused should things go awry for them.

I do agree with the ex-Police Chief, Graeme Power (who was appointed the Queen's Medal by the way) that the whole abuse matter has in fact been deflected by the spin doctors regarding the need for an Inquiry and we should get back to the real issues which are not over - finding and charging the perpetrators of the abuse.

Cali  :'(

iruka:
Interesting perspectives, and what I thought would come out.

Surely the purpose of the inquiry is not to re-hash the criminal investigation, but rather find out why that investigation seemed to be somewhat flawed.

I cannot imagine that this should be the forum for the Care Leavers Association to revisit every single complaint again? Hasn't that been done, and in any event, wouldn't that harm their claims for compensation (which I presume they are pursuing courtesy of mainland lawyers).

Surely the purpose ought to be to establish why the investigation seemingly got out of our control, why the media seemed to be "tuned up" to spin a story of deviance and murder which couldn't be delivered?

Should it seek to identify what political motivations (if any) were behind the approach and (alleged) suppression of allegations previously?

Should it not seek to understand why, despite the hype from Lenny Harper, so few convictions were actually secured, and what role the media played?

Should it look at why the BBC was happy to repeat innuendo and gossip as fact and cause this to be repeated and amplified around the world, causing untold damage?

What about the actual substance of those allegations? Do they stand up to examination or is that why the trials were not as stellar as Lenny predicted?

Why wasn't Lenny forced to come back and finish what he started?

Why did he leave part way through?

What was the Blessed Saint's role and motive in all this?

Or, is it an inquiry into why care services where the way the were in the 1950s? (bit complex that one - "because that was the state of the art then")

As an aside; on the subject of judges in brothels as brought up by Chevalier Blanc - are you forgetting Lillie Langtry who is alleged to have said, "It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses" (if, of course, that it is legal)?

Just a thought....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page