Monday, September 5, 2011

Senator Le Cover- up?????????





Senator Le Marquand 




His Reply to Lenny Harper




This was first reported here



http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2011/08/never-mind-mr-bean-heres-e-mail-truly.html




What you will see is Senator Le Marquand totally side stepping the questions he's been asked asked by Lenny Harper. He also is playing dumb again by mentioning Scrutiny so I reminded him today about the questions raised in the states.



This is what happens when you have been found out. The good Senator Le Marquand knows that his name is forever going to linked  with the Cover- Up of the Historical Child Abuse Investigation. Can he still do the right thing or is it to late for him?



This is not some wild allegation or something that should be suggested on a whim it's backed up with reams of facts. He, just like the Editors with the Jersey Main Stream Media chose a path, their path was to conceal & cover- up the Historical Child Abuse Investigation with whatever means possible.  To think that Andrew Lewis can now  run for Deputy & Philip Bailhache can run for Senator shows you just how toxic things have become.




The Media have not reported a single word about Gradwell




How can that be in the best interest of the Abuse Survivors?? or the integrity of the HCAE investigation??




Who is fighting the corner of the Abuse Victims in the MSM???




No one thats who - makes me sick - the last 3 years has made me feel sick. 




There are many people like that Astrid lady in Jersey - no compassion  - socially and morally dead -  it's people like her and that fecking lunatic who walks up to his computer like he's bloody Elton 'John' at Madison Square Garden, clicks his fingers  kicks his dodgy smoke machine, waits for insanity  to cue the lights then attacks that keyboard like a demented fool - 0 to 150 comments in 3.2 seconds with no time stamp - fecking pricless..



In fact no giving up - not now - not ever..



Here is the email exchange



Rico Sorda



Team Voice





-----Original Message-----

From: Lenny Harper  

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:11 PM

To: Ian Le Marquand

Subject: Allegations


Dear Mr Le Marquand,

 

I was disturbed to see in an exchange between yourself and Deputy Pitman an allegation that despite the well evidenced and probably unlawful leaks to the Daily Mail by Senator Perchard and Mick Gradwell that you were more concerned by the fact that I purchased a meal and other hospitality for the Chief Crime Reporter of the News of the World, thus inferring that I had acted in some way improperly and, if it concerned you more than the other stated leaks, possibly illegally.

 

I have sought advice on this matter and have been instructed to firstly, make a few points to you, and then to seek an explanation from you.  The points I wish to make are,

 

*  In stating that you find my conduct to be more concerning than the unlawful leaks mentioned above you are seeking to infer some wrongdoing on my part.  Either you are in possession of "evidence" to base this on which can only be false, or you are deliberately trying to infer I have behaved worse than this with a view to smearing myself and drawing attention away from the transgressions of  Mr Perchard and Mr Gradwell.

 

*  I have been instructed to counsel you against repeating these falsehoods without the protection afforded to you in the States.

 

*  The News of the World reporter was one of at least eight people at that meal, which was a continuation of what Sir Hugh Orde called the other day the "proper and necessary" interactions between senior police officers and the media.  Somewhere between £70 and £80 would have been spent on this journalist.  This is a far cry from the sums being talked about in the NOTW/Met Police scandal which, you will well know, relates to officers RECEIVING hospitality from suspects and possibly other payments for information.  If you are inferring that I have done this you should be clear and state it.  I can tell you now there is no truth in that particular allegation which three of your colleagues are also trying to infer without any evidence and without the courage to say it clearly.

 

I would like you to answer the following questions;

 

1.  Why do you find the fact that I used a legitimate hospitality budget to spend around £70 -£80 on a reporter in an attempt to control some of the wilder allegations the paper had been given more disturbing than the unlawful leaks of Messrs. Gradwell and Perchard?

 

2.  What evidence do you have to support this slur, or are you simply plucking it out of thin air?

 

3. Why do you pretend that the only mention of the Perchard leak is the one by me in Scrutiny evidence?  You will be aware that the SOJ made a formal complaint about it but the Chief Minister refused to investigate.  You will also be aware of the tape recording of David Rose stating that Perchard did indeed leak the police e mail to him.  There is also other evidence to support this.  Why do you ignore this?

 

4.  Seeing as you deplore leaks to the media so much, can I now assume that you will authorise a full, independent, and rigorous investigation into leaks during the HDLG enquiry which will cover the Perchard leak, the Gradwell and Warcup leaks, and of course, the "leaks" for which there is no evidence, but which you, Shenton, Perchard, and Power, all seem to be trying to infer, without having the courage (or in reality, the evidence) to actually come out and say, that I am supposed in your imagination to have instigated.  I would remind you that, despite the relentless attempts by you, Gradwell, Perchard, Power, Shenton, and the JEP to dig some evidence of wrongdoing up by myself, you have come up with nothing.  I now demand that you come clean with the evidence you are pretending to have when inferring that I passed information to the NOTW in the same unlawful manner as Gradwell and Perchard did to the local media and the Daily Mail.

 

I would hope, that unlike my last e mails to you, I receive an answer to this one.  It is time you put up or shut up.

 

Leonard Harper

 




From: Ian Le Marquand

To: 'Lenny Harper' 

Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011, 9:47

Subject: RE: Allegations


Dear Mr. Harper, thank you for your e-mail of 29th July, 2011.

I stand by the precise wording of what I said to the Scrutiny Panel. It should be obvious to you in the light of the criticisms of your handling of media matters generally in both the main Wiltshire report and in the judgment of the Commissioner of the Royal Court as to why I take this view. That view is fully justified by the facts. However, I have become aware that you may be concerned that my original statement contained some innuendo or imputation which went beyond the actual words which I used. If that is so then can you please indicate to me the precise nature of any such alleged innuendo or imputation. I will then consider as to whether I am able to confirm to you that I had no intention of making any such imputation or innuendo going beyond the words which I said. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand. 





From: Lenny Harper 

To: Ian Le Marquand

Cc: voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren ; ricosorda

Sent: Mon, 5 September, 2011 10:16:59

Subject: Re: Allegations


Very good Mr Le Marquand.  A nice attempt to divert attention from the corrupt mess you find yourself in the middle of.  Please answer the questions I have posed below and numbered 1 - 4.  Those are the specifics of what I take issue with - not the generalities what you might or might not have said to the Scrutiny Panel.  Interesting though that you seemed to say something different to VFC - one of the crooked cartel has obviously stiffened your spine - did they threaten your aspirations to be Chief Minister?

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you missed the questions so here they are again;

 

1. Why do you find the fact that I used a legitimate hospitality budget to spend around £70 -£80 on a reporter in an attempt to control some of the wilder allegations the paper had been given more disturbing than the unlawful leaks of Messrs. Gradwell and Perchard?


2. What evidence do you have to support this slur, or are you simply plucking it out of thin air?


3. Why do you pretend that the only mention of the Perchard leak is the one by me in Scrutiny evidence? You will be aware that the SOJ made a formal complaint about it but the Chief Minister refused to investigate. You will also be aware of the tape recording of David Rose stating that Perchard did indeed leak the police e mail to him. There is also other evidence to support this. Why do you ignore this?


4. Seeing as you deplore leaks to the media so much, can I now assume that you will authorise a full, independent, and rigorous investigation into leaks during the HDLG enquiry which will cover the Perchard leak, the Gradwell and Warcup leaks, and of course, the "leaks" for which there is no evidence, but which you, Shenton, Perchard, and Power, all seem to be trying to infer, without having the courage (or in reality, the evidence) to actually come out and say, that I am supposed in your imagination to have instigated. I would remind you that, despite the relentless attempts by you, Gradwell, Perchard, Power, Shenton, and the JEP to dig some evidence of wrongdoing up by myself, you have come up with nothing. I now demand that you come clean with the evidence you are pretending to have when inferring that I passed information to the NOTW in the same unlawful manner as Gradwell and Perchard did to the local media and the Daily Mail.


 

As for your comments about the Wiltshire report, well I think that this particular report is long discredited.  Not by me alone but by plenty of others.  Even now their legal advisor is trying to get to the bottom of the unsavoury question of whether they are telling the truth in respect of leaking confidential statements.  Furthermore, the abuse victims certainly don't share their view that publicising the abuse was the wrong thing to do.  In the eyes of you and others who did not want the truth to ever hit the public eye it certainly was the wrong thing to do.  Mind you, isn't it fortunate you are not judged on your public performances, especially at Scrutiny?  As for the Commissioner of the Royal Court, he could have given no other view considering the blatant and deliberate lies he was fed by your cronies in the Law Officers Department about witness summonses and refusals to give evidence.  Simply contact the Crown Office at Edinburgh to get the truth of that one - but then again, seeking truth is not your strong point is it?  You are a bit careless also with checking valid dates on letters before you support the authors!  Never mind - "lets judge someones performance in financal decision making. We'll get an audit firm one of whose staff we struck off and who might be vulnerable in to do it but don't bother speaking to the person whose decisions we are judging.  In fact - don't even tell him we are doing this."  Now - there's integrity for you Mr Le Marquand!!

 

So do me a favour Mr LM - I am not the one who has been caught out by Napier.  I am not the one who has been exposed time after time as a liar.  No cellars? (Ask Bob Hill.)  No Juvenile bones which were fleshed and freshed when burnt? (Ask Prof. Chamberlain and look at the documents which seem to have gone missing on your watch.) Harper stirred the media up about shackles? (Look at the article in the JEP by Diane Simon in which she clearly states that she had been told of the shackles by someone else and that Lenny Harper had refused to comment!)  These are all stories you have supported Minister.  They have all been found to be lies.  Your idol, Mr Warcup, left Jersey with his tail between his legs giving the pathetic story that the blogs had intimidated him.  Truth has a way of doing that.  Perhaps it is time you acqauinted yourself with it.

 

So, despite the fact that you seem to have difficulty in understanding what I am asking, I think the four questions are simple enough.  Would you please have the courtesy to answer the four without trying to lay down a smokescreen?  Make it really simple and head them 1 to 4.  If you cannot answer them just say, as you did at Scrutiny, "I don't know."


 

Lenny Harper




From: rico sorda

To: Lenny Harper ; Ian Le Marquand

Cc: voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren

Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011, 16:39

Subject: Re: Allegations


Dear Senator

 

Just to refresh some minds.

 

This is taken from Hansard on the 18th July 2011. The first is a written question from Senator Shenton the next is an oral question from Deputy Pitman.

 

We had better get some answers as im working on an email that will go to every States memeber, the Press & Law Office concerning the Cover- Up of Child Abuse in the care of the States of Jersey.

 

This has got to stop and it has got to stop now.

 

The only people getting trashed are the 2 officers who smashed the veil of secrecy on decades long abuse and the people who suffered horrific abuse.. Gradwell really had their interests at heart whilst singing like a canary to David Rose on the 15th November 2008 and September 2009

 

Senator the cat is out of the bag, the rabbit is out of the hat, the genie is out of the bottle..

 

All was not what it seems under the dream team of Warcup/Gradwell - Gradwells use of a journalist infamous for protectecting convicted paedophiles, this should have you very worried. The same journalist who it's alleged that Senator Perchard leaked to in 2008 - but no one cares about this why????????????

 

Senator, why would a former SIO Mick Gradwell be leaking information during a live investigation to a Journalist who was trashing the Child Abuse investigation? Let me say again, he was the 'SIO' of the 'HCAE'..  That is simply horrific. THIS calls into play everything that happened under the watch of Gradwell & Warcup. Mick Gradwell is refusing to give eveidence to Scrutiny, Senator do you ever feel like you might have been cheated of the full facts and now find yourself in the middle of an horffic Child Abuse cover-up. 

 

Police consultant Mike Kellett called Gradwells actions abhorrent

 

You will have to explain yourself sometime in the future - on that there cant be any doubt

 

Rico Sorda

 

2.5          SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING JOURNALISTIC PRACTICES.

Question

Given the revelations in respect of journalistic practises of the News of the World, coupled with the disclosure that a journalist from the newspaper was entertained at a top London restaurant at the height of the Haut de la Garenne investigation by the then Deputy Chief Officer, is the Minister satisfied that all future dealings with the media will be handled in a professional manner.  Does he have any evidence to show whether any underhand practices were undertaken by the News of the World when investigating the Haut de la Garenne allegations?


Answer

I am very concerned that the News of the World is referred to twice in the independent reports which I have received in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation.


The first occasion was on the morning of the day on which the first press conference was held by the then Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer.  On that morning, 23 February 2008, a News of the World photographer was found in the bushes at Haut dela Garenne.  In my view, there must have been some leak of information to that newspaper prior to that date. However, much more concerning is the incident referred to which took place on 1 May 2008 when a female News of the World reporter, together with a number of police officers who were involved with the case were entertained by the then Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer at an expensive London restaurant at a cost of £699.00.  It is very concerning that subsequently a female reporter from the News of the World produced an article which made references a) to “HELLFIRE Jersey Homes dossier to reveal children were murdered ……. then burnt” and b) to “a SHOCK secret police report into the Jersey House of Hell Children’s Home reveals youngsters there WERE murdered then BURNED in a furnace to COVER UP the atrocities”.  The report then goes on to reveal various details which are very likely to have been provided by a Police Officer or Officers.  The full text of the Article is duplicated on a number of websites. 

 

I am satisfied that the current leadership of the States of Jersey Police acts and will act in a proper and professional manner in relation to its dealings with the press.However, I can never exclude the possibility of individual Police Officers improperly leaking information to the press.

 

I do not have any evidence of underhand practices being undertaken by the News of the World in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation but doubt as to whether this would have been necessary in the light both of the nature of police press conferences and other provision of confidential information which characterised the early stages of this investigation


 

3.8     Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding allegations surrounding the leak of confidential information relating to the historic abuse inquiry.

Following recent comments made in evidence to Scrutiny Sub-Panel and in the Assembly alleging that confidential information relating to the historic abuse inquiry have twice been leaked to a Daily Mail journalist, what measures, if any, will the Minister be discussing with the new Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to ensure that police inquiries cannot be undermined in this way in the future?



Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

It has been known for some time that the former Superintendent, who was the Senior Investigating Officer in the Haut de la Garenne investigation, provided confidential information not only to the local press but also to a Daily Mail reporter in connection with that officer’s criticism of the way in which the investigation at Haut de la Garenne had been handled by the former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer.  I have previously publicly criticised the actions of the former Superintendent in so doing.  However, even more concerning in my view is the link between the former Deputy Chief Officer himself and a reporter from the News of the World, some details of which are revealed today in my answer to written question 5.  It is in my view totally unacceptable that a News of the World reporter, who subsequently wrote an utterly scurrilous and destructive article [Approbation] based apparently upon information provided by States of Jersey Police Officers, should have been entertained in London together with other officers involved in the criminal investigation at public expense by the then Deputy Chief Officer.  There will always be a risk of criminal investigations being prejudiced if police officers behave improperly.  [Approbation]


3.8.1  Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could the Minister answer the question?  What is he going to do to try and stop it happening or shall I just move to the next, the supplementary?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not know what I can do to take effective action to stop maverick police officers acting in an improper way.


3.8.2  Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given that the first leak is alleged to have come from a former Assistant Minister for Health at the time when I suppose Senator Shenton would have been Minister for Health rather than originating within the police, how will he be working with his ministerial colleagues to ensure future investigations are not put at risk?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am sorry I am going to ask the Deputy to repeat the first part of the question because I did not hear it.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The first alleged leak has allegedly originated from within the Health Department and the former Assistant Minister for Health rather than the police themselves so how will the Minister, if he can, be working with his colleagues in other departments to try and make sure that does not happen?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


I am aware that an allegation has been made by one witness to the Scrutiny Sub-Panel to the effect of such a leak.  I have to say that I have not understood the precise nature of what was leaked or what was allegedly leaked in that way but, of course, I would also say that as a matter of course in relation to confidential matters, that States Members also should not be involved in leaking such information to the press.


3.8.3  Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I wonder if the Minister would join with me in the abhorrence of the shocking allegations that have been coming out recently regarding the position of News International and whether or not any research has been undertaken in respect of the recent historic abuse inquiry, particularly in respect of the victims to ensure that their phones were not hacked in any way?


The Deputy Bailiff:

I think, Deputy, that does not relate at all to the question, which was about undermining of police inquiries in the future.  Can you reformulate your question in such a way that it is linked to the first question?


Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Would the Minister agree that as well as the confidential information that is required to ensure justice is carried out, it is also imperative that not only the confidential information is not leaked to the media but also the confidential telephone and privacies of the abused are also not undermined by the media?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I absolutely agree with that.  What has been revealed in the U.K. in relation to the practices of the News of the World is utterly disgraceful.


3.8.4  Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was trying to elicit an answer from the Minister in respect of ensuring that the privacies of the abused have also been protected and I have asked if he would at least undertake to investigate whether or not there has been any transgression of those abused.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

If there was any issue which gave rise to a criminal investigation, that, of course, would be an operational matter to be considered by the States of Jersey Police and not for me to give directions





 

From:

Lenny Harper   

View Contact

To:

rico sorda ; Ian Le Marquand


Cc:

voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren


Well, there you are Senator.  Hoisted by your own petard as they say.  Despite your rather childish and obvious attempt to sidetrack the real issues, I think you are now cornered.  The choice is yours.  Do you support the corrupt leaking of information by Gradwell following the lies and misinformation they gave to the public, or do you try and redeem your reputation?  I think I would like an answer to each of my four questions.  Are you on the lide of those who tried to do their best for the victims or for those who have now been shown to have taken the public, and you perhaps, for a mugs fairground ride.


 

Lenny Harper


24 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You will note that Lenny Harper first wrote to Ian Le Marquand on the 29th of July 2011. Ian Le Marquand's reply (but no answers) came, more than a month later on the 5th of September 2011.

As you will know there were e-mails in-between from myself that put pressure on Ian Le Marquand replying (but not answering).

Here's one of the MANY things that just don't stack up. Ian Le Marquand said in the States.

"It has been known for some time that the former Superintendent, who was the Senior Investigating Officer in the Haut de la Garenne investigation, provided confidential information not only to the local press but also to a Daily Mail"

IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR QUITE SOME TIME? Then why did he keep it quiet? Why aren't the "accredited" media reporting on it now that we know that they know?

Why hasn't there been an investigation into the allegations of Jimmy (Potty Mouth) leaking confidential e-mails to the national "journalist?" Why haven't the "accredited" media mentioned anything about it?

Instead of Gradwell and Perchard being the alleged leakers can you imagine if it was Harper and Syvret?

Back to the e-mails. Bottom line is Senator Le Marquand........."PUT UP OR SHUT UP." We are all eagerly awaiting your answers to Mr. Harper's 4 questions.

Ian Evans said...

"Can he still do the right thing or is it to late for him?"

I gave you the answer to that question two years ago mate, the man is a servile imbecile who will do anything he is told.

Funnily enough, I got plans for Mr Forgetful's future, and he ain't going to like em!

haha, Word V "cordless" The clown is a God damned battery operated idiot :)

Anonymous said...

There are many people like that Astrid lady in Jersey - no compassion - socially and morally dead - it's people like her and that fecking lunatic who walks up to his computer like he's bloody Elton 'John' at Madison Square Garden, clicks his fingers kicks his dodgy smoke machine, waits for insanity to cue the lights then attacks that keyboard like a demented fool - 0 to 150 comments in 3.2 seconds with no time stamp - fecking pricless"

Briliant

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

It has been known for some time that the former Superintendent, who was the Senior Investigating Officer in the Haut de la Garenne investigation, provided confidential information not only to the local press but also to a Daily Mail reporter in connection with that officer’s criticism of the way in which the investigation at Haut de la Garenne had been handled by the former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer. I have previously publicly criticised the actions of the former Superintendent in so doing. However, even more concerning in my view is the link between the former Deputy Chief Officer himself and a reporter from the News of the World, some details of which are revealed today in my answer to written question 5. It is in my view totally unacceptable that a News of the World reporter, who subsequently wrote an utterly scurrilous and destructive article [Approbation] based apparently upon information provided by States of Jersey Police Officers, should have been entertained in London together with other officers involved in the criminal investigation at public expense by the then Deputy Chief Officer. There will always be a risk of criminal investigations being prejudiced if police officers behave improperly. [Approbation]

(Approbation) means foot stamping in the States Chamber.

"It has been known for some time that the former Superintendent, who was the Senior Investigating Officer in the Haut de la Garenne investigation, provided confidential information not only to the local press but also to a Daily Mail reporter in connection with that officer’s criticism of the way in which the investigation at Haut de la Garenne had been handled by the former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer"

What has anyone done about this? What did the Law Office do? What if it had been Mr Harper leaking information to Mr Syvret what do you think would have happened then? A police raid?

Was the only reason Gradwell was allowed to Leak was that it was discrediting the HCAE?

GeeGee said...

Oh you can be sure that if it were Stuart doing the 'naughty deed', he would have been subjected to the Establishment treatment and the wrath of the media.

The double standards are quite shocking, and Rico has some more information as to how the police/Law Office totally choose to ignore people's concerns.

Naturally they think we peasants should keep well and truly quiet. Not any more!

Love the e-mails Lenny.

Ian Evans said...

RUNNING FOR SENATOR

GeeGee said...

And if I may further add to my comment above Rico - do none of these people including ILM, not realise how very rude and ignorant it is to blatantly ignore people's e-mails and questions.

Obviously not.

Ian Evans said...

GUTTER PRESS - A FILTHY RAG STORY

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with Gee Gee. These politicians, once in office seem to forget that their wages are paid by the public and they should at the very least acknowledge correspondence from the electorate.

Its a case of once your in, you're in so sod corresponding with the public anymore. I bet ILM and many other states members where full on corresponding before they got elected.

Funny thing is though, not many people here in Jersey see them as responsible people or working responsibly so when they don't bother to reply it's a case of never expecting one. It's only when you pressure them that there is the slightest chance they might be bothered to respond. Once in, they dont give a monkeys in most circumstances. It's all about getting in that counts, the rest of the job is just a means to an end.

rico sorda said...

This is Lenny Harpers reminder to ILM. I think he should get one every day

From:
Lenny Harper
View Contact
To: "i.lemarquand@gov.je"
Cc: ricosorda ; voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren

Dear Mr Le Marquand;

Another day has passed without you having the courtesy and/or the courage to answer the four questions I asked of you. Could it be, as someone says in one of the blogs today, that the difference in your eyes between me being open and honest with the media and Gradwell unlawfully leaking confidential material, is that you were happy he was actually discrediting the abuse enquiry and therefore the evidence of the victims?

Surely not.

Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

jERSEY EVENING POSTM TODAY

Name and address withheld.

AS a former resident of Haut de la Garenne I am outraged by the letter from Astrid Kisch (JEP, 30 August) about the care leavers.
Mrs Kisch states that the care leavers have ‘grown up and made their lives long ago’.

Some care leavers have been lucky enough to make something of their lives but many have been so traumatised by their abuse that they have never reached their full potential.

Many have broken marriages and relationships because they find it hard to trust people. Many kept quiet about their childhood experiences for decades and in 2008 when it all came out they had to face the truth and talk to the police to try to get justice for themselves and for their fellow survivors.

Several care-leavers have been so affected by the past that they have used coping strategies like alcohol which has caused further problems in their relationships. This, coupled with anger and frustration about what they suffered, has led some into problems with the law.

There has been a knock-on effect for the children of survivors because everybody in the family has felt the shock waves of these terrible revelations. Some people have developed serious anxiety disorders and severe depression and tragically some have taken their own lives. I fear more will take this route in the future if nothing more is done.

Mrs Kisch states that the ‘alleged perpetrators’ have been convicted. If they are convicted this is not alleged. This is not true anyway. There are dozens of people who have not been convicted of or even charged with extremely serious crimes because the investigation was never completed. Some suspects were released without charge despite strong evidence. Some have escaped conviction by dying before they could be charged. Their crimes still need to be acknowledged.

Mrs Kisch states that those convicted were guilty of ‘discipline’. I think we all know that the allegations against many were far more serious than that.

Mrs Kisch states that these ‘wrongs have been righted’ at the expense of the tax-payer. She also claims that this was done out of ‘revenge’ by the survivors. These wrongs are very far from being righted as only a full independent inquiry into the whole sorry matter can even start this process.

The ‘expense’ she refers to, I assume, is the cost of the investigation. This was a small amount compared to some projects in Jersey such as the cost of the police headquarters, otherwise known as the Green Street fiasco.
Mrs Kisch asks why the tax-payers have to pay compensation to the survivors and what for. Money can never give these people back their childhood but it can provide a little comfort to people and families whose lives have been shattered beyond repair.

Article posted on 7th September, 2011 - 2.31pm



Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/09/07/comfort-for-those-with-shattered-lives/#ixzz1XHPnb9YB

Ian Evans said...

LUNDY PROTECTS CHILDREN?

Anonymous said...

From the excellent letter, above, to the JEP, "The ‘expense’ she refers to, I assume, is the cost of the investigation. This was a small amount compared to some projects in Jersey such as the cost of the police headquarters, otherwise known as the Green Street fiasco."

Has anyone else noticed how some people place an obsessional focus on how much tax payer money was spent regarding child abuse, and yet express no outrage at all over the vast sums wasted on all those ridiculous government cock-ups?

There must be another reason besides money for Kisch and her (un)kind to be solely outraged by child abuse related expenses. What is she really afraid of?

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Hope you and Lenny Harper keep proding ILM, every day if necessary for answers to your questions.

Because answers will have to happen for the sake of his credabiltiy and because he is being damb rude!!

Ian Evans said...

THE COMMENT SECTION IS OK!

Anonymous said...

Has ILM actually answered the actual questions that Lenny Harper asked, or has he forgotten the answers, or worse still is he under the illusion that he need not do so!

rico sorda said...

As far as I know the Senator hasn't yet replied to Lenny Harpers 4 questions. Im sure Mr Harper will let us know if and when he does.

Team Voice met with Mr Marsden from yesterday.

Mr Marsden is working on recommendations as to what the TOR's should be for the forthcoming Committee of Enquiry. I found Mr Marsden to be very engaging. I came out with a positive feeling. This of course will be judged against what he recommends to the Council of Ministers as to what the TOR's should be.

Then we will check and monitor what the COM do very closely

We must never forget that they never ever wanted this 'COE'

They live in 'ASTRID WORLD'

rs

GeeGee said...

Indeed Rico, Ed Marsden seemed like a genuinely nice gentleman, but the only concern is that he has been employed by the SOJ, and the ultimate decision on the TOR lies with the States members.

He appeared to take the concerns 'on board' and was very patient and interested with what the careleavers had to say. However as you say, the general consensus is that the States did not want this COI, therefore how far are they prepared to agree to the recommendations that he puts forward. This is the very last chance to get honest closure for the victims and get all the facts and answers into the public domain.

There may well be an awful lot of people shite-ing themselves (and quite rightly), but the likes of ASTRID also need to be made fully aware of the reality of it all.

The survivors need JUSTICE - they are the ones who have behaved with dignity and courage through all this.

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Why can't this COE and TOR be safely secured with the new soon to be COMs?

Ian Evans said...

EX GOVERNMENT SCUM

Anonymous said...

Yes, Astrid World is the most apt title for that selfish community of Jersey ostriches who choose to keep their heads buried in the sand!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Will Scrutiny PAY THE PRICE?

Ian Evans said...

EMAILS & CORRUPTION

Anonymous said...

Now the husband is on the attack.
From Robert Kisch - JEP 12th September 2011
Carrie Modal’s stinging rebuke (JEP 30 August) to my wife Astrid’s letter (JEP 2.9.2011) appears to have been written by one of the civil rights specialist lawyers brought in to handle the compensation project (JEP 26 August).
This revolves around the importance of justice. There are always two sides to a case. What was then considered normal ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ to instil discipline, is today a criminal offence. The results are highlighted by media reports of anti-social behaviour associated with an unbridled generation more familiar with electronic devices than schooling. It is this useful energy which needs to be guided from early years. How else do you train a puppy?
Claiming financial compensation for long past events still requires irrefutable proof in the interests of justice. When evidence is merely memory scars, this can be presented by specialist lawyers as necessary proof. But then, what about my wife, whose mental scars include that of a refugee from Russian torture, rape and execution as well as starvation and bombing by the Royal Air Force and American Air Forces. Does she, with thousands of others, have a claim? At that time is was normal to get on with surviving and working to make a new life. Claiming on a benefit system didn’t come into it. So why should she, and I for that matter, pay cash for something we had nothing to do with.

Of course, we now live with a benefit culture paid for by all, whether this is right or wrong. The letter by Simon Wells (JEP 2 September) makes this point.

Villa Martinique, Chemin du Moulin, St Ouen.