Author Topic: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.  (Read 23737 times)

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2009, 01:23:39 AM »
If thats the case then where was this logic when they were printing the stories panning Jersey over this back in 08? I guess they were feeling a bit flush back then and weren't as bothered...

The point is that they may have been paid to stop printing the sensationalist stuff about it.   It's all a game, and newspapers know exactly how to play it.

While I don't doubt that newspapers are as self serving as any other business, or that a lot of what they print could be quite accurately be described as rubbish, Jerseys poxy advertising income isn't going to set their stance on this stuff. Surely the more reasonable answer is that the Mail is an inflammatory rag that prints whatever sound the most sensational at the time - be that we have a island full of child murderers, or, now thats agreed a bit unlikely, that the whole thing was a bodge.

Guess that doesn't fit in with the grand conspiracy though.

I agree, most news stories are rubbish, if only because they're biased and full of half-truths.

There is no conspiracy, in as much as this is all normal practice and no secret.  It's no great revelation to say that newspapers are biased, or that people can be influenced by money.

Offline stoofa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2009, 07:02:36 PM »
Quote
There is no conspiracy, in as much as this is all normal practice and no secret.  It's no great revelation to say that newspapers are biased, or that people can be influenced by money.

Agreed, but its a minor bound of logic to go from a generalised statement such as the above to a conclusion that, as this behaviour happens, any reporting (or lack of) is bound to be the result of a pay off in this specific case.


Not to pick on your comment (this is a more general comment on this and associated writings on the topic), but every time anything is reported that doesn't support the conclusion that the Jersey authorities are harboring a ring of child killers in their basements, a chorus of voices ring out that its obviously biased/in collusion with the perpetrators/paid off etc etc. Currently (according to some) we have the Jersey authorities, police past & present, half the rest of the island, a chunk of the UK judiciary, the local press and a good chunk of the national press who are all apparantly tied up in this. Reasonable? No. This is classic irrational conspiracy theory type assertions - its hard enough to get that many people to work together on something above board, let alone while having to keep something secret.

To the vast majority of the public not directly or emotionally involved with this issue (of which I am one) - irrational is exactly how it appears.

In my view, the sad thing in this case, is that it would appear that the zeal of a few people in maintaining that all and sundry are complicit in a mass cover-up is preventing closure on the slightly less dramatic (but still deplorable) wrongs that are known definitely did occur, and investigation of smaller incidences of self interest and negligence that may have been in point.


Offline iruka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2009, 07:53:58 PM »
I see the problem now - a lack of understanding of the difference between FACT / EVIDENCE and OPINION.

.......

The profitability of the Daily Mail is, in any case, completely irrelevant.

Who ever turned away easy money, on the basis that they don't need any more money?

Also, I don't know where this figure of £40K has come from?

Jersey Tourism has spent millions on marketing in the last 12 months.

Erm... no it does not.  This is a well known established fact.  Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean squat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising#Dependency_of_the_media_and_corporate_censorship

“Journalists have long faced pressure to shape stories to suit advertisers and owners …. the vast majority of TV station executives found their news departments ‘cooperative’ in shaping the news to assist in ‘non-traditional revenue development.”[50] Negative and undesired reporting can be prevented or influenced when advertisers threaten to cancel orders or simply when there is a danger of such a cancellation.

Referenced from:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Economy-Media-Enduring-Emerging/dp/1583671617

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2009, 08:43:16 PM »
I see the problem now - a lack of understanding of the difference between FACT / EVIDENCE and OPINION.

.......


And RPG'S  ;D

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2009, 02:11:08 PM »
Danrok is not spot on at all , simply repeating his assertion that newspapers print stories for or against any particular subject on the basis of who provides the most advertising revenue are shite and do not make it a fact. It is in fact rubbish, but fairly typical of the pro syvret types who come in here spouting nonsense claiming it to be fact.

One day you might manage to argue your point by posting some useful information to back it up, rather than just spouting garbage and insults.

Try reading some books.

Offline GeeGee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2009, 02:57:05 PM »
Spartacus - please read and digest my comment properly. As I am a 'pro Syvret type' you probably don't bother to take a lot of stock of what we write, but I was not, and never have been aware that we are not welcome to comment on here.

What I was trying to point out was that it is advertising revenue and not stories that keep papers afloat, and I gave an example of just this with our local paper.

Furthermore I suggest you read the following link, where the very journalist who was responsible for the latest anti Harper rubbish is mentioned.

www.bjr.org/data/2008no1_leigh

Article called 'Time to climb out of the sewer'

Offline iruka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2009, 10:10:42 PM »
And RPG'S  ;D

rs

So Rico

Do you assert that the knock back (being polite here) that Lenny experienced over his attempts to bring in a Firearms Act on the same lines as the mainland (can't recall his exact words, but do have the interview recording with the BBC4) did NOT in any way shape or form influence his decision to go after the HdelaG stories with a vengeance?

You claim to have listened to the Fergal Keen interview... did you actually "listen" to it, or was it filtered through the SS and Lenny worshipping "lah lah lah - I'm not listening to anything negative - fingers in my ears" filter?

Look at my posts. I have always asked questions not made sweeping claims, unlike some people.

Question! Question!

I don't think you question enough.


Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2009, 05:07:01 PM »
So Rico

Do you assert that the knock back (being polite here) that Lenny experienced over his attempts to bring in a Firearms Act on the same lines as the mainland (can't recall his exact words, but do have the interview recording with the BBC4) did NOT in any way shape or form influence his decision to go after the HdelaG stories with a vengeance?

You claim to have listened to the Fergal Keen interview... did you actually "listen" to it, or was it filtered through the SS and Lenny worshipping "lah lah lah - I'm not listening to anything negative - fingers in my ears" filter?

Look at my posts. I have always asked questions not made sweeping claims, unlike some people.

Question! Question!

I don't think you question enough.



Hi iruka..

Im not sure on the timeline between when the gunlaw and the start of the abuse investigation.....

But im sure he went after both because well thats his job as a copper is it not..

Now dude this where you let yourself down. You said did i listen through lalalalalal ears..

Right if you new me you would know thats not how i go about issues i do try and look at both sides.. You dont think i question enouth well i do but not on here i prefer getting out and about and asking questions...

One last thing and this is just my opinion..

I dont think you really give a toss about the abuse survivors or what happened to them.... This has more to do with lenny and stuart you have a grudge with them and the abuse scandal is just a perfect way to go about it..

Not sure how lenny and stuart pissed you off but i will bet you all of terrry's missing euros its got nothing to do with the abuse scandal

rs

one ban away from oblivion rsx

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2009, 08:11:51 PM »
Conjecture, opinion, unmitigated shite! Rico ,instead of second guessing someone ,why not send them a personal message and try to ascertain the reasons?
You and I have had such correspondence and i think you are better than this woeful tit for tat crap.
 

Offline iruka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2009, 10:17:36 PM »
Im not sure on the timeline between when the gunlaw and the start of the abuse investigation.....

He was not clear on that point in the BBC interview, but it was mentioned elsewhere as being not that long after Lenny arrived on the island (see below). It may have been around 2006. I am sure a bit more work on the court records will clarify. I'll get back to you, but in the meantime, some related content which points to 2006:

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/27/police-bullied-me-says-ex-officer/

Then this in an interview about HdelaG:

“Some arms licenses had been granted in the knowledge that the applicant had criminal convictions, and Harper launched covert surveillance of some colleagues. Following a tip-off, he raided the home of a police civilian employee.
“I recovered a huge number of firearms lying unsecured in a bedroom, including an RPG7 rocket launcher,' recalls Harper.’Among the weapons were some that had been handed into the police previously for destruction. On the floor were 7.62mm rifles, machine guns, Magnum revolvers and a large quantity of ammunition.' A Sea Cat missile launcher - usually carried on warships - was kept outside the home.”

Oh - hang on a minute... That was in the Mail on Sunday. That's odd given what's been said about them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171744/The-alleged-victims-Jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-expect-justice-reveals-detective-centre-case.html

I wonder why Stuart reproduced it on his blog...

Hmmm.

Oh - I'm not going to answer your other question here - yet. We have traded personal messages on this topic before Rico.


Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2009, 10:40:08 PM »
Conjecture, opinion, unmitigated shite! Rico ,instead of second guessing someone ,why not send them a personal message and try to ascertain the reasons?
You and I have had such correspondence and i think you are better than this woeful tit for tat crap.
 

Hi sparty

I say what i think and if i thought it was a pm then i would have sent one but lets just keep it in the open... Must of my pm's is when it cant go in the public domain...

Iruka.

 in My opinion  your problem is with harper and syvret not so much about how the abuse scandal was handled but more the players..

Now im always free for a beer if you would like to discuss this over one or about whatever feel free to meet me.

rs
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 10:50:01 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline iruka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2009, 11:51:23 PM »
Iruka.

 in My opinion  your problem is with harper and syvret not so much about how the abuse scandal was handled but more the players..

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.

Neither man was of any interest to me, until they decided to whip up the world's media into a feeding frenzy, totally ignorant (or uncaring) about the collateral damage this would inflict.

This was not a surgical strike, it was a carpet bombing, and as such was indefensible.

For that I cannot forgive them. Apart from that, I couldn't care less about them.

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM »
A propos newspapers and politics, I found this an intersting read:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,655522,00.html

"It was just one single word that Berliner Zeitung editor-in-chief Fritz Wengler inserted into my story. For me, it was betrayal. For him, it was an attempt to put the brakes on history."

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2009, 06:02:57 AM »
Know the backbencher and iruka mention the cost of the historic child abuse investigation quite a lot so i have decided to find some real facts about it. Time to look beyond the myth

I Have searched hansard and found some good info that i will be putting up. Now anyone who is familiar with hansard will know i cant link it as you will get a full page not the bit you want.

pomme i know you have already mentioned that.

But lets look at the facts starting in september 2008

The Assistant Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) in accordance with Article 11(8) of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 to amend the expenditure approval for 2008 approved by the States on 18th September 2007 in respect of the Treasury and Resources Department to permit the withdrawal of up to an additional £7.5 million from the consolidated funds to be reallocated for the net revenue expenditure of a number of departments in order to fund the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry; (b) that funding (up to a maximum of £7.5 million) should only be made available to departments from the allocation to the Treasury and Resources Department by public Ministerial Decision of the Minister for Treasury and Resources based on adequately documented evidence of actual additional costs incurred or to be incurred as a result of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry.

11.1   Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):
This proposition has its origins in a statement made in this House on 26th February by the Chief Minister at the outset of the investigations at Haut de la Garenne.  A statement included the words: “Yesterday the Council of Ministers met and confirmed our fullest support, the Home Affairs Minister, the Police and the Criminal Justice Authorities.  We also confirmed that all necessary resources would be made available to ensure the most comprehensive inquiry possible and to support any prosecutions that lead from it.”  Those were important and necessary words which are still as valid today as they were then.  Certainly expenditure has been and continues to be incurred in respect of the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry; expenditure which, in the main, has not been able to be funded from within existing departmental resources.  I said this morning that it is principally unusual for the Minister for Treasury and Resources to come to the House for a supplementary vote and before doing so it is my duty to inquire of Ministers whether the expenditure can be met from within their existing budgets.  If Members refer to the proposition they will see that some £451,000 of expenditure has been met from within existing budgets.  Nonetheless it is clear there is other expenditure that has been incurred and will be incurred over and above the resources of the departments concerned.  As a result my obligation as Minister for Treasury and Resources was to ensure that that expenditure was properly, rightly incurred and accounted for.  We issued a direction to all departments, which again is contained on page 4 of the report to Projet 91, which says in summary: “Accounting officers will be held accountable for the necessity of all expenditure and for the achievement of value for money.  The Finance Law and all financial directions will still apply to all historic child abuse inquiries related to expenditure.  Public Accounts Committee, internal audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General may at some time in the future investigate such expenditure and report accordingly.  They may express questions requiring justification of the amounts spent.”  That, Sir, is the background to the proposals which are before us today which come in respect of expenditure incurred by 7 departments or committees.  In order to ensure that that money is properly spent and accounted for and in order to make the proposition workable the proposals are that the money should initially be made available to the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Treasury and Resources Department to hold in a pot and monies would only be released from that pot to the departments on presentation of justification of the expenditure having been incurred.  Any expenditure which has not been incurred remains within the Treasury and Resources Department and can only be used for the purposes of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and if not required will be returned to the consolidated funds.  That, Sir, is the background to this proposal.  The original sum of £6 million has been increased, as Members will have observed from my amendment, to a total of up to £7.5 million primarily as a result of increased activity in the police activities and the delay in withdrawing from Haut de la Garenne and the need to excavate a second site.  Sir, as with other propositions of this nature, I act primarily as rapporteur and collector of the information from the spokesman on behalf of various departments.  One of those departments is in fact my own in respect of Property Holdings where there is expenditure incurred in 2 directions.  Firstly from the loss of rental because we have not been able to obtain rental from the Youth Hostel Association while the premises cannot be used for that purpose.  There will be further expenditure in reinstatement of the property in due course.  That is accounted for in the Treasury and Resources figures.  I can leave other departments speak for their own particular requirements, Sir, but in general I do not think we need look at each department in too much detail.  The point is we are here fulfilling an undertaking we gave to the public at the start of the year, that any costs of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry would be met by the States, whatever those costs would be.  Sir, I make the proposition.

So what i will be looking at is if the cost in september 2008 if im right was  to 7.5 million and graham power was suspended on november the 12th how are we getting the 20million number. So many questions how much has been spent under chief warcup

rs
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 06:09:56 AM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a '£20million shambles'.
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2009, 06:11:43 AM »
They said it would be costing £20 Million by the time it is finished so thats an estimate at the end.  But why people are still talking about this is weird, I am not interested in syvret, cover ups, Haute de la Garenne, suspensions, Harper or anything remotely to do with this dreary subject anymore and I am sure I am not alone on this, its just so tiresome to talk about it and perhaps it should be shelved until something newer comes up in the future or otherwise just lay it to rest.