Author Topic: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?  (Read 3955 times)

Offline onejersey08

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« on: April 03, 2014, 05:26:46 AM »
The Inquiry into decades of child abuse in Jersey starts tomorrow but.... will it be thorough, or will it be limited and selective? Will it serve the intersts of the survivors or will it serve the interests of the States of Jersey? Will it address the concerns raised by Graham Power when he was suspended or will it avoid such issues at all costs?
The Waterhouse Inquiry at the Bryn Childrens Home in North Wales was a 'selective' report, likewise the original Hillsborough Inquiry served to lay blame on the fans and not the authorities. So, will Jersey's inquiry be similar? 
Let's not forget, in Jersey, TOR's can 'slip off the page!!'
My concern is this Inquiry is unlikely to bring real closure to the survivors. If this is so, I suspect many  of the perpertrators will be dead before we ever get to the real truth of this terrible matter and only then, will the survivors be able to close this and move on.  Am I alone in this thinking? 

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2014, 07:00:25 PM »
Just image for 1 minute if Stuart had been made Chief Minister when he stood against frank walker.
The whole dirty child abuse saga would not have happened because Stuart would have an enquiry right then and no cover ups would have dirtied the island. G.Power would not have been got rid of and Bellwood would have been still employed in the children services.
We would not have had t. le sueur or gorst as CM.
Just maybe the states would have been so much cleaner and more helpful to the people instead of just looking after the money people.
How different history would have been.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2014, 11:16:59 PM »
Daily papers today about Cyril smith and the abuse that he carried out on children when he was a MP.
It shows the cover ups and how it was done.
Well Jersey is in the same boat with the high and mighty doing the cover ups for decades.
I only hope it all comes out in the enquiry. I want to see the faces of though that I still alive being brought to justice.
Would love to see the bailhache brothers and all the others that covered it up.

Offline ageofaquarius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2014, 10:39:26 PM »
Is it only me that's a bit outraged that the JEP's headline today asking victims of Jimmy Saville to come forward so they can have some compensation from His Estate - what about all the ones that weren't abused by him but by others who do not have an estate.

Oh Jimmy was only a 3rd bit DJ with friends in high places.  So lets concentrate on him, its too late for him to talk and name names, he took them to the grave, how convenient.

I really would be interested to know exactly who are being protected - and the more I learn the more I believe its someone big.

Offline gladiator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2014, 03:28:30 AM »

Read this alarming report on voiceforchildren today and picked up on the below report regarding the mental health service for children in Jersey.

Report from

Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Presented to the States 16th June 2014


Services need to be tailored to meet the need of the individuals in the same way as we provide for those suffering with physical conditions

I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT as the children in Jersey with physical conditions still have to wait a long time to see a paediatric specialist (consultant) and their parents have to pay £38 for each GP visit which lasts in average 10 min and half of GPs never trained in paediatrics which is a very poor deal especially for those children. There aren't enough Paediatricians in Jersey's General Hospital compared to the same type of isolated district general hospital in the UK. This is due to poor senior management support and decision.

This standard of care is certainly not acceptable for children with mental health problems. Mental health problems mean conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, personality disorder etc. There are children out there who do not have mental health issues but psychological health issues and how are they provided for?

At the end it shouldn't matter as all children should be considered as important for the government and in particular health and social care as the children are our future. What deal are they getting from this wealthy island which is proud about their international finance centre but not providing the same excellent standard of care for their children and the most vulnerable ones.

Mrs Anne Pryke and team have a lot to answer for!
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 04:18:26 AM by gladiator »

Offline gladiator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2014, 03:52:43 AM »
Jersey is in the international news again!

Jerseys voters and Jersey people  who are not considering their democratic right of voting for their government should read this article from Leah McGrath Goodman and start thinking quickly before the 15th October. No human being with morales and compassion can accept a white wash with no accountability for child abuse victims in a so-called democratic island. This is the chance for Jersey to get clean but are they going to use it?

Lawmakers Blast Child-Abuse Inquiry on Tax Shelter Jersey Island
By Leah McGrath Goodman
Filed: 9/10/14 at 11:27 AM


In a letter written August 20 to Oldham and obtained by Newsweek, the victims’ group noted that the island’s “bloggers have been very instrumental in supporting all abuse victims, uncovering many facts which would otherwise have remained hidden from the public.” Meanwhile, it noted that the island’s mainstream media “have been very economical with their facts and in some instances been damning of the whole abuse investigation from the outset, as clearly demonstrated in the bundles of newspaper clippings submitted to the inquiry team and which has been upsetting for the victims.”

The inquiry is seen as potentially important to a wider inquiry now underway in the U.K. into decades of what appears to be widely reported but under-apprehended child abuse.

This past summer, 15 members of Parliament signed an early day motion submitted by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat member of the U.K. Parliament from Birmingham, Yardley. The motion requested that Jersey and other Crown dependencies be included in the U.K. inquiry.

“[This House] recognizes that the dangers of such cover-ups occurring are even greater in small, quasi-self-governing communities than at a national level, where even though checks and balances are more extensive, child abuse and cover-ups by the well-connected have still occurred,” Hemming said in the motion.

What a a scandal as well! You can't make it up!

9 October 2014

Jersey Care Inquiry: Lenny Harper details leak fears

The details of child abuse victims may have been leaked after the Jersey Care Inquiry failed to post sensitive documents securely, a former senior investigator fears.

Ex-Jersey police chief Lenny Harper looked into reports of child abuse on the island in 2007 and 2008.

Officials sent him his 200-page confidential statement to sign, but he said it appeared to have been opened and was not sent by recorded delivery.

The inquiry said it was investigating.

With no doubt The Jersey way of white wash is finished as international media is catching on to the hard work of the Jersey citizen's media which is showing up the public paid mainstream media by recognising as an example Neil McMurray's Voiceforchildren as an influential blog.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 06:25:41 AM by gladiator »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2014, 04:20:57 PM »
Thought I would take a look at the COI web site to see if there is any formal response regarding a confidential documents flimsy packaging, being ripped open in Jersey before it arrived in the UK ( as confirmed by Royal Mail ) possibly being read or even copied. I may be wrong but who would be so very keen to see such a document by the ex police detective in charge of a child abuse while in the care of Government. People in high office named as suspects maybe ? As long as you are under eight years of age, or incredibly thick, you might well believe the statement as also reported word for word by BBC Jersey.

This is the consideed response from the Committee of Inquries own web site.

Latest Updates

9 October 2014

There has been no security breach over mail sent by the Inquiry.  Here is its statement:

"The Inquiry is in contact with a wide range of witnesses, some of whom are on the island and some are not. Much of our contact with witnesses is by telephone or electronic, but sometimes it is necessary to send documentation through the post, particularly to witnesses who are not on the island. The Inquiry has deliberately chosen not to draw attention to post, which is sent in plain, non branded envelopes or plastic document bags in the normal post. The Inquiry by necessity has to use the postal service on the island. The Inquiry views with concern the reports from Mr Harper that his private mail has possibly been tampered with and has been in contact with Mr Harper."

« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 06:36:05 PM by boatyboy »

Offline gladiator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2014, 03:51:02 AM »
Jersey's 'secrecy culture' led to my suspension, says former police chief

Graham  Power claims he was punished for daring to investigate allegations against some of the island's power players

Helen Pidd in St Helier

The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2012 19.00 BST


As Power sees it, his suspension was a punishment for daring to challenge Jersey's "secrecy culture" by investigating serious allegations made against some of the island's power players. Worse, by allowing Harper to talk freely to the media during the investigation, both men were damaging Jersey's reputation abroad – a nightmare for a small place with an economy so dependent on foreign finance that it as Power claims, had a "heightened sensitivity to reputational damage". Or as the Liberal MP John Hemming puts it: "I think he was suspended because he was too ethical. That is very worrying."

On Tuesday this week, politicians in the States of Jersey, the island's parliament, debated behind closed doors whether Andrew Lewis, the minister responsible for Power's suspension, had misled States members as to the reasons why he removed Power from office.

The deputy who demanded the debate, Mike Higgins, said disclosure was needed to "right a wrong". He wanted the parliament to agree to release a transcript of a States session held "in camera" shortly after Power's suspension, in which Lewis gave what Higgins believes is a misleading statement relating to Power's suspension.

But at the closed session on Tuesday, States members voted to keep the transcript secret.

Power was never found guilty of any charges of misconduct, and remained on full pay throughout his two-year suspension, which lasted until his retirement in July 2010. Contacted by the Guardian this week, Lewis insisted the reasons for suspending Power were "compelling". He said: "The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and was a neutral act in order to give the chief officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office." He could not go into more detail about the evidence which led him to suspend Power, he said, because he was "bound by the confidentiality requirements in the chief police officer's discipline code." He strongly rejected any allegations of a conspiracy.

Bailache, now an elected politician in the States of Jersey, was one of 19 MPs who on Tuesday voted  " against " holding the "in camera" debate on whether Lewis as home affairs minister misled the States over Power's suspension. He is also known to have opposed the committee of inquiry soon to be set up to investigate how so many children being looked after by the Jersey authorities were abused.

Two years ago, a QC from the mainland, Brian Napier, was commissioned to produce an independent report into Power's ousting. He found no evidence of any conspiracy, but ruled that the suspension could not be justified by hard evidence.

Although this is an old article from the nationally and internationally accredited  Guardian newspaper and the Jersey's citizen's media in particular Rico Sorda, Stuart Syvret  and VFC Neil McMurray researched and wrote about it in detail, in my humble opinion, this article sums it up why the Jersey's Council of Ministers (CoM) have to leave and even been made accountable for their cover ups and lies as they have done everything to avoid to be transparent and honest to the Jersey people.

This article is a quick reminder why this election is so important in order to vote out the CoM which supports the Jersey's secrecy culture and defy the real meaning of justice and democracy.

If you want to see who voted against a transparent debate regarding the suspension of police chief officer Graham Power then see below and you will recognise politicians who want to be re-elected and think again, if you can ever trust them.

Vote date: 21/01/2009 Reference: P.182/2008 Proposition: Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police: review of procedure regarding suspension.(42 kb)

Senator            Stuart Syvret                Pour
Senator            Alan Breckon               Pour
Connétable     Alan Simon Crowcroft            Pour
Connétable   John Martin Refault            Pour
Connétable   Deirde Wendy Mezbourian         Pour
Deputy      Robert Charles Duhamel          Pour
Deputy      Frederick John Hill, B.E.M         Pour
Deputy      Roy George Le Hérissier         Pour
Deputy      Judith Ann Martin            Pour
Deputy      Geoffrey Peter Southern         Pour
Deputy      Carolyn Fiona Labey            Pour
Deputy      Paul Francis Vincent le Claire      Pour
Deputy      Shona Pitman               Pour
Deputy      Montfort Tadier                    Pour
Deputy      Daniel John  Arabin Wimberley      Pour
Deputy      Trevor Mark Pitman            Pour
Deputy      Tracey Anne Vallois            Pour
Deputy      Michael Roderick Higgins         Pour
Deputy      Andrew Kenneth Francis Green, M.B.E.   Pour
Deputy      Deborah Jane De Sousa         Pour
Deputy      Jeremy Martin Maçon                  Pour

Senator           Terence Augustine Le Sueur         Contre
Senator           Paul Francis Routier, M.B.E.                Contre
Senator           Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf                 Contre
Senator           Ben Edward Shenton                     Contre
Senator           Frederick Ellyer Cohen                  Contre
Senator           James Leslie Perchard                          Contre
Senator           Sarah Craig Ferguson                           Contre
Senator           Alan John Henry Maclean                 Contre
Senator           Brian Ian Le Marquand                  Contre
Connétable    Kenneth Priaulx Vibert                   Contre
Connétable    John Le Sueur Gallichan                   Contre
Connétable    Daniel Joseph Murphy                         Contre
Connétable    Michael Keith Jackson                         Contre
Connétable   Graeme Frank Butcher                 Contre
Connétable    Peter Frederick Maurice Henning              Contre
Connétable    Leonard Norman                            Contre
Connétable    Juliette Gallichan                       Contre
Deputy      John Benjamin Fox                      Contre
Deputy      James Gordon Reed                     Contre
Deputy      Collin Hedley Egré                     Contre
Deputy      Jacqueline Ann Hilton                           Contre
Deputy      John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré      Contre
Deputy      Anne Enid Pryke                             Contre
Deputy      Sean Power                       Contre
Deputy      Kevin Charles Lewis                       Contre
Senator           Ian Joseph Gorst                    Contre
Deputy      Angela Elizabeth Jeune                 Contre
Deputy      Anne Teresa Dupre                      Contre
Deputy      Edward James Joel                      Contre
Connétable   Philip John Rondel                    Abstained
Connétable    Silvanus Arthur Yates                    Not present for vote
Senator           Terence John Le Main                          défaut

See below vote:  Another revelation or perhaps no surprises here?

Vote for Statement made ‘in camera’ on 2nd December 2008: release of transcript (P.48/2012) - proposition of Deputy Higgins to debate the remainder of the matter 'in camera'.

Vote date: 26/06/2012 Reference: P.48/2012 Proposition: Statement made ‘in camera’ on 2nd December 2008: release of transcript.(17 kb)

« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 04:09:09 AM by gladiator »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
Re: Child Abuse Inquiry - Real or Whitewash?
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2015, 05:34:24 PM »
The Child  " Abuse " enquiry ( why they call it child care enquiry is anyones guess ? ) have decided to arm every civil servant with a lawyer, in which case it follows that they should have armed themselves ( the panel ) with less of a gentle enquiry but more of a legal trial where perjury would be a crime as would with-holding information. This did not happen which will add to the conspirator's view that " The Jersey Way " of protecting your own as in the Mafia is not dead.

ITV Channel - a decent report for a change.

Trevor Pitman ex States Deputy claims corruption, as " some " civil servants hide evidence. The enquiry panel has also had trouble securing requested important documents.


Boxes of ‘missing evidence’ are hindering the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, according to today’s witness Trevor Pitman.

Former politician and youth worker, Mr Pitman claimed some documents that he requested more than a year ago haven’t appeared and told the panel he felt they should be placed on record for the public.

I think it’s important to know, for the public to know, and for history to know.


In response, Inquiry Chair Frances Oldham QC told Mr Pitman, ‘our prime function is to be an independent, transparent and robust Inquiry as I said on April 3rd 2014. We abide by that’.

Mr Pitman also told the panel investigating historical child abuse that the boxes contained important documents from lawyers and parents complaining of abuse at Haut De La Garenne in the 1970s and 1980s.

He claimed they had been signed for by civil servants, but since disappeared. He also stated former Homes Affairs Minister, and current St Helier Deputy Andrew Lewis had ‘misled’ the government over former Police Chief, Graham Power’s suspension.



The judge investigating historical allegations of child abuse in Jersey's care system said States and Law Officers were "hampering" the inquiry.

Frances Oldham QC said there had been "late and non-disclosure of important documents" by various departments.
The inquiry chairwoman explained the lack of key paperwork meant some witnesses may need to be recalled.

Bob Hill,

I was not aware that a number of crucial documents had disappeared but given the comments in the Bull Report it does not take a genius to work out why they went missing or identifying the small number of people who might have been involved with their removal.

Is this really convincing Jersey, and the outside world that this enquiry is robust, when witnesses appear as numbers, to protect them, and testimonies are not cross-examined to see if they are true or false. Is this more of a chat over a cup of tea, with evidence missing because Jersey senior civil servants ( whom may also be under investigation and appear in the witness seat ) are in charge of sourcing States  documents which obviously may or may not appear.

Where are the answers to Ex Deputy Daniel Wimberly's reasonable questions which the panel have not accepted ?

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 01:03:31 PM by boatyboy »