Thursday, February 10, 2011

DONT FORGET "HEATHFIELD" OR "BLANCH PIERRE"



Home Affairs Minister & Chief Minister

Heathfield & Blanch Pierre must not be forgotten when talking about a committee of enquiry


I thought I would post the Chief Ministers speech from Hansard when he informed the house that the COM had decided against  a Committee of Enquiry . 


Senator Ian Le Marquand seems to be the main Establishment man on this subject if the Napier debate is anything to go against. I hope everyone has had a chance to listen to his BBC Radio Jersey interview on The Jersey Way. 


The are many reasons why this Government would not want a Committee of Enquiry here are some of them: To begin with, there is the matter of the lines of professional and political accountability at the time or put another way, who allowed this to happen?   There is also the question of the significant number of allegations which have some credibility but which were not subject of criminal prosecution.   Do these add to the "big picture" in any way? and significantly I think does anyone who had a professional or political responsibility at the time still have a comparable responsibility?   If they do what has been done?   What is the risk and who has assessed that risk?   What arrangements now exist for the reporting of concerns  by many people who do not trust the official mechanisms in Jersey?   Is it accepted that a consistent theme in the history of these events is a lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the system of justice wether this is justified or not, is it accepted that in matters of justice PERCEPTION can be as important as reality.   What has been done to address this? These are just some issues that must be addressed. 



The children of "Blanche Pierre" must not be forgotten 


The children of "Heathfield" must not be forgotten


Here are some links to the "Blanche Pierre" Cover up



BLANCHE PIERRE 1


BLANCHE PIERRE 2


NO CHILD ABUSE IN JERSEY


INSIDE OUT 


Lets not forget these  ACPO Reports


Have you wandered why our lot cling to "WILTSHIRE" like its some kind of life raft in their sea of lies? 


ACPO 2


ACPO 1


And I include this link that shows the Home Affairs Minister trying to rewrite History but getting caught ou


ILM REWRITING HISTORY


When looking at the speech from the Chief Minister there was a 10 minute question period, this is also reproduced below. The one sticks out is from Senator Perchard as reproduced here. 


http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/01/home-affairs-minister-senator-ian-le.html


8.1.7  Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Chief Minister outlined the Council of Ministers’ decision not to hold an inquiry.  He explained that due to the circumstances having changed since the original statement - the statement by his predecessor that there should be an inquiry - and, as I say, that circumstances have changed and that there is no need for an inquiry subsequently.  Does the Chief Minister then share my concern that the conduct of the original investigating team does lead to these circumstances having changed?  Does he agree that the conduct of the senior officers involved with the original investigation should be inquired into?


So, What is the Senators Problem with Power/Harper?


This is something that is bugging me and I cant quite put my finger on it. Senator Perchard seems to have a problem with Power and Harper maybe he should explain how the circumstances have changed and why he thinks it is they that should be looked into and not the paedophile playground that existed in Jersey for Decades. 


Some of our politicians cant support the work done by Power and Harper because these two cops smashed the "SOJP COZY CLUB"  The easy life came to an end.


Political interference was rife during the investigation


Here is The Statement from the Chief Minister



8.       Statement by the Chief Minister in respect of the Historical Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry

8.1     Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

My apologies for this not being on the order paper earlier but it has been circulated to Members a little while ago.  On 6th December 2010 I made a statement in the States in which I apologised unreservedly on behalf of the Island’s Government to all those who suffered abuse in States residential care.  In that statement I also mentioned that the current Council of Ministers were considering the previous Council of Ministers’ proposal to commission a Committee of Inquiry.  As promised on 6th December, the Council of Ministers has now lodged a report following its deliberations, which concluded the Council believes that with the passage of time and events a Committee of Inquiry is no longer appropriate.  The Council of Ministers is firmly of the view that because of the number of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken, while there may be questions there are no unresolved issues that would benefit from investigation through a Committee of Inquiry.  The report is necessarily long and factual but the Council of Ministers has had at the forefront of its consideration those who may have suffered abuse.  The Council firmly believes that the Island will be best served by concentrating on the steps that have been taken to improve services and to focus on continuing to meet and support the needs of those affected.  I am pleased to announce that further support to those affected will continue in 2011 with Mr. Andrew Williamson agreeing to provide an independent point of contact to help those needing support to receive the most appropriate assistance.  The Council of Ministers is aware that some people will not agree with this decision.  I hope that those people will realise that the Council has taken this matter seriously and sensitively.  The Council believes that there is nothing further to be gained from yet another investigation into these matters and has sought instead to find a sensitive way forward.  We hope that the majority of States Members and people in Jersey will agree with our judgment.  Finally, I think it is also an appropriate time to thank the staff in our departments, those in the voluntary sector and everybody who has worked together over the past few years to help those who may have suffered abuse in the past.

The Bailiff:

Does any Member wish to ask any questions?

8.1.1  Deputy S. Pitman:

The Chief Minister said that some people will not agree with this decision that there will no longer be a Committee of Inquiry.  A few years ago the former Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, categorically assured the public that there would be a Committee of Inquiry.  Would the Chief Minister tell us if there has been any consultation with those affected by the child abuse, such as the Care Leavers’ Association?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

There is ongoing support with the Care Leavers’ Association in terms of the continuing support that they may require.  When the previous Council of Ministers brought a report to the States - and it is attached to the report that we have here - in March 2008 it was in a very different background.  We had a background, as the report says, when there were suggestions of a massive situation of great relevance, which was subsequently of course found to have changed considerably.

[12:15]

Given that the circumstances have changed since that time, the Council of Ministers also took the view that with the activities that have gone on in terms of reviews of what has taken place there would be no further benefit in having the sort of inquiry which was envisaged at the time when far different circumstances were likely to happen.

8.1.2  Deputy S. Pitman:

A supplementary.  The Chief Minister has not answered my question.  I am talking about in terms of the decision not to have a Committee of Inquiry, has the Chief Minister consulted with these people who are affected, specifically the Care Leavers’ Association and, if so, what response has he had?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision as to whether to have a Committee of Inquiry or not was taken by the Council of Ministers on the advice of professionals who have been acting over the period since 2008 in supporting people, be they members of the Care Leavers’ Association or not, who may have been involved in the allegations of abuse.  It is on the basis of that advice that the Council of Ministers has come to the view that it has done.

8.1.3  The Deputy of St. John:

Is the Chief Minister aware that by not having a Committee of Inquiry, the public will never get to the bottom or will never know if any Minister or number of Ministers of the day acted with disregard or otherwise in what happened over this particular case?  Therefore, does the Chief Minister not believe that the truth does need to come out in a full inquiry?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I understand the Deputy’s concerns but it is questionable whether any Committee of Inquiry however constituted and with whatever terms of reference would be able to categorically review what happened or may have happened 50 or more years ago.  In many cases people who might have had memories of that time have now died.  With the passage of time there seems little merit in trying to have that sort of inquiry.  What we need to do is to see whether the circumstances in the current situation are appropriate for children in care and that, I believe, is well in hand.  We have had a report on that matter from Mr. Williamson and recommendations which are in the process of being implemented.  We have a Child Statutory Group working together to deliver those outcomes.  I believe that we should be far more focused on that aspect rather than trying to ascertain, almost certainly unsuccessfully, what might have happened many, many years ago.

8.1.4  The Deputy of St. John:

A supplementary if I may.  Does the Chief Minister believe that his former colleagues from this House who have had fingers pointed at them should not also see justice?  Justice works both ways; for those who were harmed and those who have had the fingers pointed at them.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I suspect in this sort of situation no matter how many inquiries you do, some fingers will still be pointed and there will still be allegations.  The fact is that one can go on having inquiry after inquiry and some people will still never be satisfied.

8.1.5  The Deputy of St. Martin:

With reference to R8, page 6, subparagraph 3(9)(c), it says: “Concerns about how the police inquiry was conducted in the period leading up to November 2008 have been addressed through the publication of the police report and the implementation of key actions by the States Police.”  Will the Chief Minister accept that that is an error because the Wiltshire Report was commissioned for the purpose of reviewing the suspension of the chief police officer and for discipline purposes?  In actual fact the review of the way in which the inquiry was conducted was carried out by the Metropolitan Police and also with the information given to them by A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers).  Will the Chief Minister please ensure that there is a correction made to this particular draft and also make available both the Metropolitan Police report and the A.C.P.O. reports?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am satisfied and I stand by the comments, which I make on page 6 and indeed every page of this report.  It has only been presented after careful consideration by me and my fellow Ministers.

8.1.6  Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I, for one, do not accept that there are no unresolved issues, and I believe that there should be a Committee of Inquiry.  There were a lot of unanswered questions that came out of the police investigation and some of the reports that have come forward.  I have even questioned the Minister for Home Affairs who could not give me an answer.  For example, lime pits.

The Bailiff:

You are going to come to a question are you, Deputy?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, Sir, I am.  There are lime pits which were dug one day, filled with lime - and we know lime dissolves bones - and they were put back again.  No explanation whatsoever.  There has been no discussion about the oversight of the board of management of Haut de la Garenne, which in the past had politicians on it.  There are a lot of issues that I think have not been answered in any way whatsoever.  Would the Chief Minister not agree that the public would like to have answers to some of these unresolved questions?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Public expectations may not be capable of being delivered in the way that the Deputy would like.  I appreciate that Members only got this report on their desks this morning and they may not have had a chance to read it in full, but I just point out there are normally a number of objectives in any public inquiry, which is to establish the facts and to learn from the events, to get reassurance, accountability and transparency.  To that extent we have judged whether there should be a Committee of Inquiry against those criteria because we believe that that is the sensible course to take.  On balance although I appreciate, as I said in my statement, that some people may disagree with us, we believe that that is the correct course of action to take.

8.1.7  Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Chief Minister outlined the Council of Ministers’ decision not to hold an inquiry.  He explained that due to the circumstances having changed since the original statement - the statement by his predecessor that there should be an inquiry - and, as I say, that circumstances have changed and that there is no need for an inquiry subsequently.  Does the Chief Minister then share my concern that the conduct of the original investigating team does lead to these circumstances having changed?  Does he agree that the conduct of the senior officers involved with the original investigation should be inquired into?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I certainly agree with the Senator that the circumstances have changed.  I share his concerns but I believe they have been looked into in the context of the report undertaken by the Wiltshire Constabulary.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  That brings the 10 minutes to a close.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, can I make a statement on behalf of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in the absence of our leader who has gone to London?  It is simply to say that …

The Bailiff:

No, Deputy, you have not given notice of this at all.

Deputy M. Tadier:

It is just in the context of this debate that our panel has decided we are considering looking at lodging a Committee of Inquiry as a Scrutiny Panel.  We are weighing-up the pros and cons and we will be asking for input from Members.


Please watch the Panorama Video Below


There must be a Committee of Enquiry




or History will repeat itself 


Rico Sorda

52 comments:

Ian Evans said...

Clifford Wilson For Chief Minister

Ian Evans said...

It is a bit of a mystery with the Perchard thing isn't it. Just what exactly is going on there? Anything to do with leaked letters!

Great posting Rico, much helped by all the relevant links bringing matters together for the wider picture.

Nice work mate.

Anonymous said...

Great posting. The Laurel and Hardy photo has me in fits every time!. It seems obvious to me what Jimmy P is doing given the leaked email to David Rose. Covering his own arse. Just like the rest of them. How (they) think they can get away with this sort of stuff is amazing. Its like they think nobody is looking.

One sandwich short of a picnic.
Not the full shilling.
He's one of life's great strugglers.
Wants to get into politics!

Anonymous said...

[Would the Chief Minister tell us if there has been any consultation with those affected by the child abuse, such as the Care Leavers’ Association?]

So once gain TLS waffles on but does not answer the question, thereby reducing the amount of time left for the follow up question asking the same question again, so TLS still waffles, still does not answer the question, thereby further reducing the number of further questions.

They ought to introduce a new rule, if a question is unanswered and needs to be asked again and maybe again, then that waffle time (ie: not specific to the question), is not counted as part of the ten minutes.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

How many times have we heard about time wasting in the States? Not to mention the complete cods-wallop that is spoken? It’s a straight question from Shona Pitman. Were the JCLA consulted before the COM decided to break the promise of having a committee of Inquiry?

Terry Le Sueur rattles of a load of old sh1te and still doesn’t answer the question. The answer is “NO” the Care leavers were not consulted, moreover the first they heard there was to be no inquiry was when Terry read out his statement in the States.

I’ve re-produced terry’s sh1te below just to show how much time is wasted when a simple “NO” would do.

8.1.1 Deputy S. Pitman:
The Chief Minister said that some people will not agree with this decision that there will no longer be a Committee of Inquiry. A few years ago the former Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, categorically assured the public that there would be a Committee of Inquiry. Would the Chief Minister tell us if there has been any consultation with those affected by the child abuse, such as the Care Leavers’ Association?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
There is ongoing support with the Care Leavers’ Association in terms of the continuing support that they may require. When the previous Council of Ministers brought a report to the States - and it is attached to the report that we have here - in March 2008 it was in a very different background. We had a background, as the report says, when there were suggestions of a massive situation of great relevance, which was subsequently of course found to have changed considerably.

[12:15]

Given that the circumstances have changed since that time, the Council of Ministers also took the view that with the activities that have gone on in terms of reviews of what has taken place there would be no further benefit in having the sort of inquiry which was envisaged at the time when far different circumstances were likely to happen.

8.1.2 Deputy S. Pitman:

A supplementary. The Chief Minister has not answered my question. I am talking about in terms of the decision not to have a Committee of Inquiry, has the Chief Minister consulted with these people who are affected, specifically the Care Leavers’ Association and, if so, what response has he had?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision as to whether to have a Committee of Inquiry or not was taken by the Council of Ministers on the advice of professionals who have been acting over the period since 2008 in supporting people, be they members of the Care Leavers’ Association or not, who may have been involved in the allegations of abuse. It is on the basis of that advice that the Council of Ministers has come to the view that it has done.

GeeGee said...

'So, What is the Senators Problem with Power/Harper'?

Strange that Rico, because I have had the same sense of unease for quite a long time about the very same person and his issues with this case.

Methinks he protesteth too much! Why?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

More sh1te from our Chief Minister. The predominant question from Deputy Higgins is “what the hell are they doing digging holes one day and filling them in with Lime the next day?”

Terry Le Sueur rattles off a load of old cods-wallop AGAIN and doesn’t answer the question AGAIN.

The Bailiff:
You are going to come to a question are you, Deputy?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Yes, Sir, I am. There are lime pits which were dug one day, filled with lime - and we know lime dissolves bones - and they were put back again. No explanation whatsoever. There has been no discussion about the oversight of the board of management of Haut de la Garenne, which in the past had politicians on it. There are a lot of issues that I think have not been answered in any way whatsoever. Would the Chief Minister not agree that the public would like to have answers to some of these unresolved questions?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Public expectations may not be capable of being delivered in the way that the Deputy would like. I appreciate that Members only got this report on their desks this morning and they may not have had a chance to read it in full, but I just point out there are normally a number of objectives in any public inquiry, which is to establish the facts and to learn from the events, to get reassurance, accountability and transparency. To that extent we have judged whether there should be a Committee of Inquiry against those criteria because we believe that that is the sensible course to take. On balance although I appreciate, as I said in my statement, that some people may disagree with us, we believe that that is the correct course of action to take.

rico sorda said...

VFC

That just jumped out at me. Who the hell are these professionals that TLS is going on about?

TLS says this

"It is on the basis of that advice that the Council of Ministers has come to the view that it has done."

Is that advice in the way of a written report? Does anyone know?

So, did professionals who have worked with the Abuse survivors advised the council of minister that a committee of enquiry would not be in their best interests?

Can we find out

rs

rico sorda said...

GeeGee

I must make it quite clear to anyone reading this blog that I don't in any shape or form think that Senator Perchard has anything to do with any of awful things that went on at HdelaG.

There is an a reason that the Senator has been trashing Power/Harper. Political interference can come for many reasons. The leaked email to Rose the guest posting on the Farce Blog.

I just have that nagging feeling that i,m missing something that will make his actions far more clear. And lets be honest he is not alone

rs

Anonymous said...

Could lenny come on here and tell us about the leaked email to david rose because i'm sure jimmy perchard had something to do with it and it got doctored smewhere along the line.

Anonymous said...

I hope you managed to listen to ILM answer to the question put by VFC on BBC Jersey's phone in this evening concerning body parts found at HDLG. Frightening. Goto to the I-player if not. And check out the deranged laughing at other questions. Like I said, frightening!

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I hope you managed to listen to ILM answer to the question put by VFC on BBC Jersey's phone in this evening concerning body parts found at HDLG."

Do you have a link where to find this, and at what point roughly the question is asked? Thanks.

Ian Evans said...

I am wondering if Zoompad has hit the nail on the head in her last posting that she was investigating???

Perchard leaking emails to David Rose!

David Rose, Bob Woffinden and Richard Webster are journalists that are forever seeking out child abuse cases and then fighting the corner of the ABUSERS.

Why would they do this?
Does Perchard know them?
Was Perchard asked to bring them in to cover up HDLG?

Zoomy is very well up on this subject, and I know survivors on the mainland who know an awful lot about this trio, and nothing good I might add. Webster perhaps being the worst, who has been described as a satanist.

They describe these people as corrupt scum, liars and cover up merchants, and the curse of the abused. They are all members of a certain group, the name of which, escapes me at this moment.

ZOOMPADS LAST POSTING

GeeGee said...

I agree Rico, but, why on earth did he get involved with David Rose? I am sure the fuller story is on Stuart's blog or Lenny's posting. It just seemed a step too far, Likewise his continued vilification of Mr Harper and Mr Power.

There are many good reasons why this Inquiry should be held and the decision not to do so overturned. There are also many good people working towards this end.

Anonymous said...

You have got to remember that it wasnt only Perchard that tried to rubbish Harper and the HDLG investigation.
B. Shenton also did the same at about the same time.
Wernt Perchard and Shenton big pals at the time and incharge(?) of H&SS?

Bet they both are starting to regret their silly actions already?!

Ian Evans said...

Ian Le Marquand on radio roughly at 16.50 minutes HERE

GeeGee said...

Interesting comment on a journalistic web-site ref David Rose and his take on the HdelaG investigation as reported in the Daily Mail.

'David Rose has probably been spoon-fed a press-sheet that favours discrediting the investigation. Another lazy journalist happy to re-draft press-sheets in the house-style of whatever paper they are whoring for at the time. Given the same thing happened with the pre-Iraq war reports, he seems to be an easy touch. The press-sheet was probably handed to Rose by lawyers acting on behalf of the Jersey accused (or by his friendly intelligence chums). Seems to me that high-profile cases like this are always handled as pawns in one political game or other - not just one or two players, but several - and more often than not without knowledge of the other's existence. It was inevitable that the dogs would get sucked into this and just a obvious that some discrediting of them would occur. Who knows: perhaps the lawyers acting on behalf of the Jersey accused were contacted by lawyers representing the McCanns. Pooling resources etc. Adversity makes strange bedfellows of us all. It's just a bandwagon that everyone jumps on, I guess. On one side you have a detective looking for a high-profile case to help him up the promotional ladder, others looking to stick the knife in the Social Services, child abuse campigners pimping around for another cause célèbre. The list goes on. I think Keesha and Eddie have the best approach. They just lie back in the sun and lick their own balls. It's a dog's life, ain't it? Whilst there's no reason to assume that Rose is in the pay of the intelligence services, he does seem to be a fairly ubiquitous figure when it comes to these kinds of reports. A bit of a pushover? A cheap lay? Or is something else going on here'?

Anonymous said...

As I recall it Perchard leaked an e mail sent to him by the police in the course of his responsibilities in the States. He leaked it to David Rose who then foolishly (or arrogantly) told Graham Power that it was Perchard who gave it to him. Rose was unaware the conversation was being recorded on the recording system used by many companies and later made the even more foolish mistake of denying the conversation with Power even though it was recorded on tape. The doctored e mail was one sent by Lenny Harper to the Chief Ministers office and also leaked to Rose. Somewhere between the two the wording of the e mail was changed and misrepresented.

Anonymous said...

Ian Le Marquand, Radio Jersey:

"There were a number of milk teeth of children found, but that's hardly suprising in a place that had been a children's home for so many years. There were also some small pieces of bone found which were dated to a very very early period"

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/09/lenny-harpers-guest-posting.html

KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone. (These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old).

rico sorda said...

Look carefully at what the Chief Minister says here

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

- in March 2008 it was in a very different background. We had a background, as the report says, when there were suggestions of a massive situation of great relevance, which was subsequently of course found to have changed considerably.

There was a huge situation in March 2008 and there still is a huge situation in February 2010

During the lifetime of Operation Rectangle:

1,776 statements were taken.

9,874 documents were collated during the enquiry, with 4,620 exhibits seized.

533 offences were reported and recorded under the National Crime Recording Standards.1 Under these standards, one offence is recorded for either a single offence or series of similar offences against one victim by the same alleged offender.

Of the total of 533 offences, 274 were alleged sexual offences; 238 were offences of assault, ill-treatment or neglect, 17 were offences of Grave and Criminal Assault and there were four other offences.

315 offences were reported as being committed at Haut de la Garenne; 66 at other homes or institutions and 152 at places where children were fostered or in private addresses.

43% of all offences allegedly committed at Haut de la Garenne were sexual offences. 84% of all offences in foster care or private residences were sexual offences.

Eight people (seven men and one woman) have been charged and tried before the Courts in Jersey with seven successful prosecutions resulting from these cases.

The eight people were prosecuted for a total of 145 offences (27%).

As a result of the complaints received, 151 named offenders were identified, 41 other offenders were not identified.

A total of 192 individual victims were identified.

30 of the named offenders were identified as having died before the inquiry was undertaken.

BODY N BONES

rs

rico sorda said...

E-mails were leaked, says Harper
By Diane Simon
FORMER deputy police chief Lenny Harper has made formal complaints to the police against former Chief Minister Frank Walker and Senator Jimmy Perchard, alleging that they leaked confidential e-mails about the abuse inquiry to a journalist and newspaper.

However, Mr Walker has strongly denied that claim — and the journalist named by Mr Harper, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday, has also said that the claims are false. Senator Perchard is out of the Island and unavailable for comment. Mr Harper, pictured, is alleging that Mr Rose told police chief Graham Power during a phone call that he had a confidential e-mail leaked to him by Senator Perchard.

He is also alleging that the Mail on Sunday told him that the Chief Minister’s office leaked a confidential e-mail to them in which he updated Senator Walker on the anthropologist’s findings in the UK on items found during the excavation at Haut de la Garenne. However, Mr Rose told the JEP that he had never been leaked an e-mail by Mr Walker, Senator Perchard, States chief executive Bill Ogley or former Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. ‘I have never spoken to Mr Power either,’ Mr Rose said.

Mr Harper told the JEP that he had received a letter from the States police ‘refusing to investigate the allegations.’ Asked about Mr Harper’s allegations, Mr Walker said that they were totally untrue.



Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/12/19/e-mails-were-leaked-says-harper/#ixzz1DbgnzrqS

Anonymous said...

It does not require much internet research to discover that David Rose has been an internationally discredited reporter for a number of years, now. He is used as a negative example in journalism coursework, warning aspiring reporters against falling into a pattern of parroting the established party line in exchange for favors. He has publicly apologized to his peers and former media employers for his infamously dishonest efforts regarding WMD in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, among other things. He has tried to explain away his misdeeds by blaming his need to provide for his family. Here again, his dishonesty is demonstrated by his denial of his own recorded admission. He remains at risk of being remembered only as a notorious paid hack.

Anonymous said...

Talking of Dianne Simon, she's gone very quiet recently. I have not seen her reporting and I thought she would have been the one dealing with the most recent slap in the face to the survivors by our Government. Instead, we have had a complete turn around by the JEP and many people supporting the need for an enquiry to include the editors column, Helier Clements, Ben Queree, Clifford Wilson and so forth. What gives??

Anonymous said...

This is a must read taken from the JEP on line comments section under the news headline “New call for committee of inquiry dated 3rd February 2011. This is an excellent post and sums it all up in a nut shell.

“Hi “Donald Pond” #38&#40 & others – I think that “Haile Unlikely” has the edge on me&you both with rather post #41 & others.
Donald, your posts too included some relevant points and “Haile Unlikely” should perhaps cut you a little slack.
It might be helpful to step back, take an overview, and mention the relevance of HINDSIGHT :
There can be few things in our island’s history that have polarised opinion as much as HDLG, Harper, Power, Gradwell etc………..
I think this polarisation leads to positions being entrenched and many people viewing “grey-scale” issues in stark black and white, even where the issues themselves are clouded by some uncertainty.
HOWEVER there is probably a significant area of common ground even between some of the more extreme posts published on these threads -most people would agree: BAD THINGS happened at HDLG (and elsewhere)
-just how bad these things were is not entirely clear but individuals with personal or recounted experience may get upset by their experience being belittled. There certainly seem to have been a number of suicides and two murders on the mainland committed by a (previously brutalised) HDLG resident.
WITH HINDSIGHT it would have saved so much pain and money if only things had been done differently historically, -ref. poor staff selection (to say the least), poor supervision of staff, under-funding, the housing of young offenders TOGETHER with other children in care . . . . . ………………..
I would speculate that among the “rotten apples” there were probably some good staff working at HDLG and that caring such a number and range of children would be extremely challenging especially as some would have been damaged even before arrival.
Parts of the HDLG excavation seem to have corroborated witness testimonies but HINDSIGHT would perhaps suggest that the level of excavation was excessive in terms of the usable evidence that it produced. One must remember that the police at the time were apparently under strict instruction from the Chief Minister that cost was no object.

Anonymous said...

CONT:
Gradwell / Warcup (and politicians) rubbishing the investigation of their predecessor was EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL and is one of the reasons why positions have become so polarised – it is not that Harper, or his investigation, should be immune from criticism but there should be a recognition that this criticism was done with the benefit of HINDSIGHT and was not done in a balanced or credible way. The pedantics of whether it was a void, a cellar or a basement and the “tooth fairy” comment sum it up really.
In addition to any other motivations Gradwell & Warcup may have had, I think that they were under political “encouragement” to bury this thing (Graham Power did not please the politicians -and look what happened to him)
Gradwell / Warcup failed to deal with unresolved issues in the investigation -the femur and other bone fragments
- within the vagaries of carbon dating (of damaged) artefacts we hope that the timescale of these items puts them at the edge or beyond useful investigation – but what about teeth ?
There was testimony of lime pits years ago and other bones being removed only a few years ago when found by builders.
In order to be credible perhaps the Harper investigation needed to get a bit over the top.
-The fact that complaints had been hushed up for years and the more recent functioning of departments/ government that engineered the dismissal of the whistle blower, Simon Bellwood and the even more recent shenanigans surrounding the suspension of Graeme Power
- leaves many of us in a position of being rather sceptical of the official position. I am so pleased that no one seems to have died (except if you count the suicides and UK murders mentioned above).
The lack of credibility and completeness in the official position leaves one’s mind to wonder if a murderer could burn a child’s file as well as the body (in the convenient in house incinerator) -and it would be almost as if they never existed (during the times of paper records). Harper’s exhaustive local and UK records check gave a good deal of reassurance on this point, but there is that slight nagging doubt that you can’t confirm someone to be missing if you don’t know who you are looking for in the first place.
If I could make some suggestions/observations with that wonderful thing called HINDSIGHT :
- Harper’s investigation (warts and of all) should have been built upon, not rubbished in a rather childish manner – there was at least a confidence that it had been done properly – the island should have used this not wasted it (~£7,000,000 was it?)
No expensive and unnecessary suspension (£?)
No Wiltshire report (~£1,000,000+ & only partly published)
the (doctored) Napier report would not have been necessary (£?00,000)and there would be far less of a requirement for a public inquiry now (£3,000,000 to £6,000,000 ?)
And the island’s reputation would have been far less damaged by building on Harper’s investigation -even if some considered it over zealous. The post Harper situation has certainly been totally mismanaged.
I would add that the states have perhaps spent an inappropriate amount of money on legal advice focused on protecting themselves rather than prosecuting perpetrators or providing closure to victims ?
How many million are we up to now? – & If the children had been properly cared for ALL of this would have been saved – HINDSIGHT !
(Sorry to make such a long post.)”

rico sorda said...

I had a comment from an Anonymous saying Rico cant you just leave it, why are you stuck in 2008? blah blah cant I move on.

Well not a chance, not a Feckin Chance

I have moved back onto the Chief Minister. I have just sent the email below. Also copied in are other States Members lets see what answer I get back. The Issue I raise is a very serious one

-----Original Message-----
From: rico sorda
Sent: 11 February 2011 14:10
To: Terry Le Sueur; Bob Hill
Cc: Francis Le Gresley; Montfort Tadier; michael.higgins@jerseymail.co.uk; Ian Le Marquand; Ian Gorst; Sarah Ferguson (External); Paul Le Claire; Paul Routier; Philip Ozouf; Robert Duhamel; Roy Le Herissier; Trevor Pitman; Tracey Vallois; Simon Crowcroft; Shona Pitman; Alan Breckon; Jacqueline Hilton; James Reed; Freddie Cohen; Kevin Lewis; jsycareleavers@jerseymail.co.uk

Subject: Professionals


Dear Chief Minister

During my research ahead of the Proposition being brought forward by Senator Le Graisley P19/2011 I came across a statement you made in the house on the 1st February 2011. I was hoping you could clear it up for me as it has left me slightly perplexed as to who these Professionals are. The part in question, which I reproduce below, is from your Statement into dropping of a Committee of Enquiry into the Historical Child Abuse Investigation. I have been in touch with the JCLA and they are unable to answer my questions.

As you can see, you state, and I quote

T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision as to whether to have a Committee of Inquiry or not was taken by the Council of Ministers on the advice of professionals who have been acting over the period since 2008 in supporting people, be they members of the Care Leavers’ Association or not, who may have been involved in the allegations of abuse. It is on the basis of that advice that the Council of Ministers has come to the view that it has done.



Chief Minister

1.Who are these Professionals

2.Was their Advice based on consultation with all Abuse Survivors and the JCLA

3.Was their Advice in a form of a Report

4. When did the meeting with these Professionals take place



Chief Minister, This is of upmost importance. If you are making Statements in the House then you must provide the facts behind said statement.

I look forward to your reply and any other member copied in

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Emille’s Funeral will be held on Wednesday at 10.45 am at the Crematorium followed by a meeting at the Old Magistrates Court  (back of Town Hall) from 11.45am. Family, friends and former colleagues are welcome to attend.

Anonymous said...

Well there is deffinately two people who will not be responding in that list, one in the TO and one in the CC.

These two are complete politicians (read into that what you like). Never give an answer in the way of yes or no just utter rubbish beating aroung the bush/skirting the subject. It doesnt even matter what the subject is!

I think once some of them have got on the ministerial board they think they are above everyone including the voting public who rightly or wrongly got them there in the first place.

I know many people dont like Ozouf but, and it pains me to say this but its fair to balance it out, he did answer an email and offered to help me out with something I asked. I wont bore you with it and as it happened I didnt need to uttilise what he offered but it remains to be said, at least he did bother! Unlike the rest of the untouchables.

Ian Evans said...

KICK ASS!!!

Anonymous said...

Re: The JEP online comment reposted above.

Lately there have been other references to the official records of children housed at HdlG, inferring that no residents were ever reported missing. Is it an established fact that complete records were kept of all residents there? When the excavations began, there were official admissions that it might be hard to discover whether any particular child went missing due to the facility's disgraceful lack of proper record keeping. Was that issue really resolved?

rico sorda said...

The records at HdelaG is a little mystery in itself. Lenny has commented on this before. I will try and find it at sometime. I do remember him saying how a women turned up at Police HQ with a bunch of records that a person working for the states had asked her to dump.

I would like to state that a Senator has contacted me and informed me that they will be supporting a CoE. That Senator is Senator Ferguson.

I would also like to thank Senator Ferguson for getting back to me so quickly. She is always one of the first. Senator Ozouf was also very good at his reply's but alas I feel like he has struck me out!!!!!!

rs

Anonymous said...

Well good on her for bothering and also letting you know the way her vote will go if it gets to that as i am sure the glorious ones will either be doing all they can to ensure it wont get to that or at the least canvasing for opinion to check they will win if it does get that far.

Anonymous said...

Where are my records? I finally received my "official" records about three weeks ago and to my horror, they stop dead in 1967, nothing more after that year. There is just one slight problem with that, I left care in 1980! I have also been told that there are no doctors/medical records of me prior to 1980. How can that be?

Carrie

rico sorda said...

Hi Carrie

Record keeping is also another huge issue concerning the Child Abuse Cover Up and is another area for the CoE to look into. Exactly who passed through what home in what year, medical records, all information. I will email Lenny this weekend and ask for his thoughts are these matters. Everyone must stay strong and keep pushing for the truth. The facebook group is brilliant and Im so glad someone started it.

No retreat No surrender

rs

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rico and you are absolutely right. I look forward to Lenny’s thoughts on this subject. One other thing I would like to add, the records that I have received are so heavily redacted they are more akin to the Wiltshire report than they are to my childhood!

Carrie

Ian Evans said...

A FEW OPPRESSIONS

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling the age old excuse of missing records will be lost in transit.

Anonymous said...

Taken from Lenny Harper’s posting currently showing on Stuarts blog:

“In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again”

rico sorda said...

Yes, I remember this. As far as I know they were located but I could be wring on this. I have been told that children were passing through the home with regularity. Some were dropped off there as parents went on holiday. If there aren't complete records then they will never know if all the children are accounted for.

I hope to god no child was murdered at HdelaG. I do know from looking at the evidence that there are still so many unanswered questions concerning bones/teeth and the answers will now probably never be found. Where there is serious sexual abuse and children then a death can never be ruled out.

rs

Anonymous said...

Surely there were civil sevants employed to record keep between 1967 & 1980?

So surely if and when a CoI happens, record keeping accountability for those times and areas will be investigated?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Is Social Networking our only hope.

Anonymous said...

Did childrens services not move from one premises to another in the given time period? I am sure this is where they will say lost in transit.

Anonymous said...

support the truth

Anonymous said...

Julian Assange was not responsible for the wikileaks. He found them in the sates building fotocopied them and sent them on to an unnamed third party. But Julian Assange has no idea how they got leaked on to the internet. If it's good enough for shaun power then it's good enough for julian assange.

rico sorda said...

8. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Was part (d) removed from the Terms of Reference on 9th April 2010 following a discussion between the Deputy Chief Executive and Mr Napier and, if so, was that fact made known to the Chief Minister when he signed the Ministerial decision on 13th April 2010 approving the appointment of Mr Napier and for his CV and Terms of Reference, containing the original part (d), to be included in R.39/2010?”

9. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Will the Minister inform Members of the cost of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Haut de la Garenne investigation and of redacting the Wiltshire Report; advise when the rest of that report will be published in line with assurances made in July 2010 and in R.8/2011 and whether the statements made to the Wiltshire Police by the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police will be published?”

Anonymous said...

It may not bode well for a small island finance center like Jersey if the world knows that official government records of children in Jersey's care were missing entirely, as is so much of the most critical forensic evidence from the HDLG investigation. We all know that such record keeping is highly regulated by law in every western democracy. The problem with Jersey's government records and evidence is certainly not only historic, it has become even more appalling since the excavations.

Where on a small rock does a giant bathtub, like the one exposed to the world on BBC, hide after being allegedly removed? There is always supposed to be a clear chain of custody in any government for records and evidence. What happened to the carefully documented, but not yet completely tested evidence after Lenny Harper left? Weren't we left with the impression that laboratory experts thought further dating and more extensive testing could yet provide more answers?

Jersey must need an awfully powerful incinerator!

rico sorda said...

Hi All

I hope to have a blog up on Sunday concerning a Committee of Enquiry. There is nothing more important right now than this CoE. What I will try and do is look at how the COM are going to get out of this one.

Who will make their speeches and so on

And How "WILTSHIRE" is turning into a redacted report for all occasions

rs

Ian Evans said...

Anon said

"It may not bode well for a small island finance center like Jersey if the world knows that official government records of children in Jersey's care were missing entirely, as is so much of the most critical forensic evidence from the HDLG investigation. We all know that such record keeping is highly regulated by law in every western democracy. The problem with Jersey's government records and evidence is certainly not only historic, it has become even more appalling since the excavations.

Where on a small rock does a giant bathtub, like the one exposed to the world on BBC, hide after being allegedly removed? There is always supposed to be a clear chain of custody in any government for records and evidence. What happened to the carefully documented, but not yet completely tested evidence after Lenny Harper left? Weren't we left with the impression that laboratory experts thought further dating and more extensive testing could yet provide more answers?

Jersey must need an awfully powerful incinerator!"

hahaha, Jersey's records are all intact, filed, and stored, (if they weren't, there would be "NO" liability insurance?) the trick is locating them! thats all....

Ian Evans said...

The same anon

There is always a clear "chain of evidence" too, another statutory requesit for liability insurance....

Ian Evans said...

JERSEY DON'T LIKE PEOPLE WITH PROBLEMS

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Ogley Shredded

Ian Evans said...

WILL HE BE BACK FOR HIS TRIAL?