Sunday, May 20, 2012

VERITA -1- A REPORT- WHAT ARE THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS DOING?








VERITA




IMPROVEMENT THROUGH INVESTIGATION



REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS;



HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY



NOVEMBER 2011




Over the coming weeks we will be examining the contents of the Verita Report and why this current Council of Ministers are finding it so difficult to deal with its contents.  When the Committee of Inquiry into 'Historica'l Child Abuse  was passed through the States of Jersey on the 1st March 2011 Verita was called into help formulate recommendations including terms of reference, cost forecasts and notes of actions needed to get commissioning underway. 


SO WHAT IS GOING WRONG!!!!!!!


Verita handed their report over in November 2011 


As we come into June 2012 we have nothing.


We have now had it confirmed by a Minister that the Council of Ministers cant agree on what Verita proposes and that the Chief Minister, Senator Gorst has called in Andrew Williamson, leader of the Jersey Child Protection Committee to help with proposed Terms of Reference. Just what is going on? More on Williamson in the next posting. 


This is just incredible.


The Verita Report is a very well written piece of work. It is a great starting block for the Committee of Inquiry. So why cant the Council of Ministers handle this report? Are there people inside the Council that don't want this inquiry? I would say YES. 

It is my belief that some people in Jersey see the Abuse Survivors as 

"UNTERMENSCH"


There cant be any other reason for all the stalling tactics that has anything to do with Child Abuse in the Jersey Care System.  


In 2011 I  went to Auschwitz - Birkenau.  I learnt a lot about the suffering of innocent people. I learnt a lot on that trip.  It makes me so angry as to what is going on in Jersey. Why are victims of Abuse treated so badly by this and previous 
Governments??? They have never willingly done anything for the Victims of Abuse.


There is no excuse.  There is simply no Excuse. None.  This has got to stop NOW. 


It's so important that everyone reads the Verita Report


It is an excellent starting point for a Committee of Enquiry


But some don't want a Committee of Enquiry - or, if we do have one, it must be so diluted as to be not fit for purpose.


The next posting will deal with Verita's proposed terms of reference 


Rico Sorda


Team Voice


Part Time Investigative Journalist



Ministers in Jersey have asked Verita to provide independent advice on the setting up of an inquiry into historical child abuse on the island.

Child abuse

Verita was asked to seek the views of interested parties about the purpose, manner and conduct of an inquiry; to propose terms of reference; to forecast likely costs; and to set out the practical implications of a decision to commission such an inquiry.
Managing partner Ed Marsden who led the work explains: "As with all key inquiries, particularly one as complex and emotive as this one, it's important to agree a clear purpose right from the outset. The terms of reference need to be appropriate, neither too narrow nor too broad, and the panel has to have the means to carry out the work that is being asked of it.
"Getting these basic steps right underpins the integrity of the entire inquiry process and its potential to ensure that lessons are learned."
Verita is experienced in providing independent professional advice to clients on how best to commission investigations that stand up to external scrutiny and are timely and cost effective.
For more information, please contact Ed Marsden on 020 7494 5670 oredmarsden@verita.net.






















































VERITA


IMPROVEMENT THROUGH INVESTIGATION


Report to the Council of Ministers:


Historical Child Abuse Committee of Enquiry



November 2011


Introduction

This paper sets out for the Council of Ministers a summary of our visit to Jersey in September 2011 and proposals for and recommendations about commissioning a Committee of Enquiry (CoI) into historical child abuse. The report appendices contain draft terms of reference, cost forecasts and a note of actions needed to get commissioning underway. 

Purpose of our consultative work

The Council of Ministers asked us to seek the views of interested parties about the purpose, manner  and conduct of a CoI; to propose terms of reference; to forecast likely costs; to set out the practical implications of a decision to commission such an enquiry; and to make a written report with recommendations.

Ed Marsden, managing partner of Verita, and Patricia Wright, an associate, carried outthe work. Verita's finance team calculated the likely costs of any inquiry.

Structure of this Report

The paper is in three parts. Part 1 summarises what we have learned during our visit. Part 2 contains our analysis and recommendations. Part three contains the appendices.

Preface

Operation Rectangle and recent criminal prosecutions involving the physical, mental and sexual abuse of children in residential care in Jersey have raised serious concerns. A total of 533 alleged offences were reported and recorded by the States of Jersey Police Operation Rectangle between September 2007 and December 2010. Of these 315 were reported as being committed at Haut De La Garenne children's home. Eight people have been prosecuted for 145 offences and seven convictions secured. Police identified 151 named offenders and 192 victims. No more prosecutions are proposed.

The States Assembly asked the Council of Ministers earlier this year to propose terms of reference for a possible CoI. Ministers in turn asked Verita to report on how such an inquiry might be framed. 

We are satisfied that we have heard the views of those with an interest in this matter. We set out as requested our suggestion about the terms of reference that should govern the inquiry. We make proposals about the nexxt steps in commissioning it.

Part 1

The first part of this paper summarises what we learned during our visit.

Who we met and the overall outcome of our discussions 

1.1 We came to Jersey between Sunday 4 September and Friday 9 September 201. We prepared for our visit by office-based research. We held 21 meetings and heard from a range of people including victims and their representatives,  States officers and politicians, including backbenchers and ministers. Most of our interviewees had responded to our invitation to contribute to the development of the ters of reference. we visited the Jersey Archive and asked the head of archives and collections about the documents held concerning historical child abuse. We met representatives of States of Jersey Police who were familiar with Operation Rectangle.

1.2  Some interviewees provided information and opinions in response to our questions. Others expressed views without prompting.  The following summary represents an overview of the main points.

1.3 Overall, we found clear agreement that the CoI should take place. Its purpose would be to:

. Understand what really happened to children cared for by the States and private foster care systems by; allowing victims of abuse to describe what happened to them; allowing those accused of abuse (but not charged with crime) to have their say and collating information from the range of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken over the last 20-30 years with a particular focus on those carried out since 2007.

. set this information in the context of social norms across the period to be reviewed 

. understand what went wrong, what was done at the time and who was accountable.

. ensure that current and future services are arranged so that children are protected

. ensure trust in children's services and the States supervision of them 

. ensure the reputation of Jersey with respect to child care


1.4 We found widespread agreement that the CoI was needed to close this chapter in the islands history and that the inquiry must be comprehensive.

1.5 We found general consensus that the CoI should;

. accept that abuse occurred and undertake a review within this context

. focus on systemic issues, although it was clear that individuals would want to have their say

. cover a period from 1960 - 2005, though some people thought it should be able to go back to the post-war period.

. take a historical perspective rather than review current services 

. deal with residential care and fostering services, state and privately provided

. focus as a minimum on all seven proposed terms of reference debated in the States Assembly earlier in the year.

1.6  Most people we heard from recognised that the inquiry was likely to be expensive. Some felt the money would be better spent on providing continuing support for the victims of abuse and improving services for children and young people.


People who have been in care


1.7 People who have been in care (care leavers) supported a systemic review and wanted individuals to have the opportunity to tell their story, even if it was traumatic. They felt the inquiry should work in public with the discretion to hear evidence in private. Some Wanted the opportunity to ask questions.

1.8 Care Leavers raised concerns about:

. Transparency of process for appointing the inquiry panel and the conduct of its work 

. Lack of trust of the Jersey 'Establishment'

. A perception that their concerns are not important

The inquiry process 

1.9 Our brief was to concentrate on what an inquiry would consider but the question of how it should be conducted was raised in many of the interviews. This section, therefore, highlights a number of points that Council of Ministers/States Assembly, the chair and panel will need to take into consideration if a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

Process of agreeing the terms of reference 

1.10 Everyone we head from appreciated that their views had been sought but some were sceptical about whether the full range of views would be incorporated into the proposition to be submitted to the States Assembly later this year. People recognised that the draft terms of reference would be discussed by the Council of Ministers before submission to the States but felt that care leavers and backbenchers should se the Verita report (including the draft terms of reference) before any proposition was laid in the States.

Recruitment of the chair

1.11 We found overwhelming agreement that whoever chaired the inquiry should not be connected with Jersey. The care leavers sought assurance that the chair would be independent and that they and others could play a part in the recruitment process so as to be confident of this.

1.12 We found mixed views about whether the chair should have a legal background or a caring background. People recognised that this may be determined by the availability of individuals interested in undertaking the role.

1.13  Most felt that the chair would need the following qualities;

. an appreciation of the historical and sociological features of the island 

. empathy

. trusted (by the people who had been in care)

.understanding of how to run an inquiry

. independence 

. unimpeachable integrity 

. strong but fair

. judicial background


Recruitment of the Panel

1.14 Views about whether panel members could be Jersey residents were more mixed and no consensus was achieved. Some thought that recruiting from the local community would give rise to concerns about independence.

Part 2

This part of the paper sets out our analysis and recommendations


Terms of Reference 

2.1 We took as our starting point the outcome of the States Assembly debate earlier this year. We reviewed the seven terms of reference the States debated. We also took into account views we heard during our visit and in particular we tried to reflect what victims and their representatives told us.

2.2 We suggest the inquiry focuses primarily on historical events but also considers lessons for services today ( see appendix 1 for terms of reference)  We propose that the inquiry should consider the 'system' of services rather than investigate individual allegations of abuse that might more properly be matters for  Jerseys criminal justice system.  The period to be covered is primarily 1960 to 2005. However, we drafted the terms of reference  with scope to consider the post-war period because abuse victims from that period are still alive.  We suggest that the inquiry considers the organisation  and supervision of services, how complaints of abuse where dealt with and what the government could learn from their handling of the matter following the events in 2008.

2.3 An inquiry is by nature inquisitorial but a number of people we met stressed the importance of the work being conducted in a non-adversarial way. The chair should set the tone of the inquiry.


Statutory basis of the Committee of Inquiry

2.4 The Committee of Inquiry would be commissioned under standing orders. It would have power to compel witnesses to attend and to have documents disclosed to it. The presumption is that most of the committees work would be in the public but the chair would have power to decide whether some proceedings took place in private in the interests of justice or in the public interest.

Scope of the Inquiry

2.5 The inquiry would gather evidence from interviews and documents. The evidential challenges are considerable because the inquiry would span about 50 years or more. However, our initial impression is that the CoI would have enough sources of information to meet its terms of reference.

2.6 We tried during our visit to establish the scale of the inquiry. We estimate that it would take evidence from between 60 and 100 victims (This figure cross refers to the number of civil claims and accords with views of the Jersey Care Leavers Association) We estimate that 100-125 other people may also be required to give evidence. It would take about six months to speak to this number of witnesses, assuming between three and four interviews a day.

2.7 A substantial amount of documentary evidence is available. The Jersey Archive holds about 500 boxes of documents, including admission registers, client files, staff and foster parent files and minutes and reports from oversight committees  (see appendix 2 for a description of the material) The education and law officers departments hold relevant material. States of Jersey Police hold information associated with Operation Rectangle, some of which the inquiry would want to see. Some of this is on paper, some of this is on paper, some is held on the Home Office  Large  Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) and only trained operators can retrieve it.


Logistical needs of the inquiry

2.8 The inquiry would need a secure base in Jersey and access to a neutral venue for conducting interviews. It should have its own confidential email and electronic document storage system.

2.9 The chair would be likely to need the services of a project manager/ inquiry secretary and a part -time legal adviser (we allow for four days a month in the costs). The legal adviser would need to be an advocate qualified to practise Law in Jersey. The chair might also request the servces of council.

2.10 The administrative burden asssociated with the inquiry is likely to be daunting. It would include, for example, establishing administrative system, receiving and responding to correspondence, organising and scheduling 200 or so interviews and making arrangements for travel and accommodation. A small dedicated team would need to carry out this work. This would be in addition to current resources available.

2.11 The chair would need a small team to gather, sort and read the available documents. This team would serve the documentary needs of the panel and liaise with the administrative team once hearings began.



Cost of the Inquiry

The costs of the inquiry are driven by a number of factors. The main ones are;

. The size of the panel - clearly the larger the panel the higher the costs 

. Whether the panel has counsel and witnesses are granted legal representation

. the number of interviews to be conducted 

. the quantity of documents to be reviewed 

. the organisation of the inquiry - robust management will help to ensure that timetables are adhered to and prevent unnecessary costs being incurred.

2.13

. The inquiry will run for about 1 year - 3 months in preparation, 6 months for hearings and a further 3 months for evaluation and drafting the report.

. the inquiry will have a chair and two panel members

.the panel will have a legal adviser for 1 day a week for the duration of the inquiry

. there will be just over 200 interviewees and the panel will see between three and four interviewees per day

. a project manager will act as inquiry secretary for 3 days per week for all phases of the inquiry ( i.e probably 12 months). He/She will have a small administrative support team working 5 days per week during the three month  preparatory stage; 6 days per week during the hearings and reducing to two days per week during the final evaluation/writing stage.

. a document team to review and identify the key documents for the panel . We have estimated this will take three people nine weeks on a full time basis.

. on this basis we estimate the cost, excluding legal fees, to be approximately £2.040 million (see appendix 3). T his splits into approximately £1.175 million of panel fees and £585K of fees for support to the inquiry panel including some support for the communications unit.  In addition we have allowed for travel and accommodation costs for the panel and support team as well as some travel costs for interviewees and the transcribing of oral evidence.

. The legal fees could be significant. They may be incurred under three headings: Legal advise for the panel (other than as above), legal costs of interviewees (if chair agrees to allow such) and legal costs for a review of earlier decisions about prosecution 
.


This is our best estimate based on the above assumptions and our knowledge to date. If there are material differences the estimate is likely to change 

2.14 There will be other requirements for the inquiry which we have assumed will be met from the internal resources, such as venue, offices for the inquiry team, a suitable room for the hearings , IT , telephones and general office costs.

2.15 From our discussions it is clear that the inquiry is likely to have cost implications foe a number of States departments and States of Jersey Police. For example, these could include liaising with the inquiry team, recovering documents, taking legal advice about disclosure and supporting those who are witnesses. It has not been possible to put a value on these costs

Disclosure of and Data Protection

2.16 Two potential obstacles came to light during our meetings. They concern disclosure and data protection.

2.17 First, it is likely that States of Jersey Police would need to take legal advice before releasing some of the information they hold.

2.18 Second, consent will be needed if the inquiry wanted access to the personal records of someone still alive.

2.19 We have asked the advice of HM Attorney General about these matters. He agrees that the States of Jersey Police will need to take  legal advice before releasing some of the information they hold. It may be appropriate that some of this advice is provided independently of the Law Officers Department 

2.20 We and HM Attorney General suggest that there should be a further discussion between the Jersey Data Commissioner and the Law Officers Department. We also recommended that there should be a discussion between the Committee of Inquiry and the Data Commissioner to ensure that Data is processed in an appropriate manner. This should include developing a protocol in relation to the processing of personal data.

Identifying and appointing a chair

2.21 We strongly recommend that the chair is independent of the island with no relationship or commercial interests with politicians, senior officers or other interested parties. On balance, we think the chair should be a senior lawyer because we think the inquiry might face significant challenges, including those to do with fairness. 

2.22 We advice that we prepare a role description and a person specification for the post of chair. We suggest we take informal soundings of suitable candidates and in doing so explain to them the task and the appointment process. Those interested should then be invited to apply through perhaps through the Jersey Appointments Commission. We suggest that victims representatives have the opportunity to meet the chair. This would be after the formal appointment but before the nomination was put to the States for approval.

2.23 We recognize that recruiting panelists from the island may seem desirable but we think it could undermine the perceived independence of the inquiry and that membership could put undue pressure on the individuals concerned. We favor seeking panellists from outside Jersey, with ideally at least  one from an island community. We suggest our advice is discussed with the chair once she/he is appointed.

2.24 The inquiry will also need access to independent expert advice including from a senior, experienced prosecutor from outside Jersey.

Handling the next steps

2.25 We heard the views of many people. We made clear that the decision about commissioning an inquiry rests with the Council Of Ministers and the States Assembly. Even so, the very act of consultation has inevitably raised expectations. Backbench politicians are keen to keep abreast of developments, while victims and their representatives want to ensure that the inquiry takes place and that their opinions count. We recommend that all parties are informed about progress and engaged in further discussions.

2.26 we suggest two possible ways of handling the commissioning of the inquiry (see appendix 4) 

2.27 The first option is for the chair to be recruited and his/her nomination should put to the States for approval at the same time as the draft terms of reference are debated. This will allow the chair to comment on the draft terms of reference and possibly speak to them before the debate in the states. We think this is an important way of binding the chair into the remit of the inquiry. It may also provide confidence to States Members about how the chair will conduct the inquiry. Approving the terms of reference and the chair nomination is likely to reduce the time needed to commission the inquiry but it is nevertheless only right to point out that this approach could mean that a chair who was already appointed was faced with significantly altered terms of reference as a result of amendments from States members during the debate.

2.28 The second option is for the States to debate the terms of reference and for the the chair to be recruited after this. The appointment would be subject of a further proposition to the states. This will allow the States the opportunity to debate the terms of reference and the likely costs and provide more time for recruiting the chair and panellists. However it assumes that the chair will not want a say in the terms of reference or the resourcing of the inquiry. Given the likely stature of the chair, we think that they are sure to want a say in both matters. This approach is likely to extend the timescale for commissioning the inquiry.

Recommendations

2.29 

1. The council of ministers should commission a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse. We suggest that the attched terms of reference form the basis of the committees work. We advise that these are proposed to the States Assembly.

2. The states should appoint an inquiry chair independent of the island. He/She should be appointed in a transparent and open manner and, ideally, should have the opportunity to comment on the terms of reference before they are finalised. On balance, we suggest that the chair has a legal background because He/She may need to deal with complex procedural challenges. We recommend that a role description and person specification be produced to guide the appointment process. Jersey appointments commission should be asked wether they wish to handle the appointment.

3. We advice that the chair be supported by one of the panellists not from the island: one panellists should have child care experience and a lay member should come from an island community

4. We suggest that the inquiry is supported by independent, robust project-management to ensure that it is conducted efficiently and effectively 

5. We suggest that victims representatives  and backbench politicians are kept informed of the inquiry commissioning plans.

6. We recommend that the CoI is conducted in a through and timely way so that this matter is laid to rest. We advise that it is commissioned and conducted properly or not al all.

7. We suggest that the inquiry commissioning actions suggested in the chart at appendix 4 are set in train.

8. We recommend that the attached terms of reference, cost estimate and nominations for chair and panellists are put to the States Assembly at the earliest opportunity 

Ed Marsden                          Patricia Wright 

Managing Partner               Associate




69 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/4-principled-politicians-that-did-speak.html

Reminder of our paid States members answers that were given;

Deputy Noels explanation was not even that. It was a simple statement based on him alluding to one friends experience as a justification for his vote on the committee of inquiry and the problems Jersey have had with institutional child care on the Island historically.

What about family X ?

Anonymous said...

Madame Fifi, Infallible Knower of All Possible Futures, has gazed into the almighty crystal ball and can guarantee a correct prediction: None of the key objectives of the Verita recommendations will be met in any COI.

To do so would bring a functionally unbiased and objective outsider view to the evidence, the honest results of which could only lead to the dismantling of the current Jersey Care System, political structure, Policing Services, including Honoraries, and the entire Jersey Judiciary. The cultural and financial repercussions for well placed child abusers and their enablers, mainstream media reporters and all of those connected to the aforementioned parts of the Jersey system would be catastrophic. High level criminals would be exposed. The City of London would be implicated. The media would be stripped of the last shred of an already shameful claim of practicing journalism, and the BBC might not ever recover.

That is all.

Anonymous said...

On reading this first part one can sense the panic. The old guard will fight this all the way. Gorst is failing. The might of the powerful one is strong in the council.

Anonymous said...

Rico,you stated that Andrew Williamson is the head of Jersey Child Protection Committee,this is incorrect,he is an independent social work consultant and previous head of social service departments.If his previous report into child protection is anything to go by it will be a waste of time
expecting him to be independent and objective,he is a puppet of the government.
the membership of Jersey Child Protection Committee can be found on their website.

Anonymous said...

Rico you made top story at Jersey Today I bet it wont be mentioned in the rag or local TV.

Anonymous said...

"2.20 We and HM Attorney General suggest that there should be a further discussion between the Jersey Data Commissioner and the Law Officers Department. We also recommended that there should be a discussion between the Committee of Inquiry and the Data Commissioner to ensure that Data is processed in an appropriate manner. This should include developing a protocol in relation to the processing of personal data."

Get Sean Power to nick all the data needed call it "regulatory" and Frank's your uncle.

GeeGee said...

Madame Fifi - your predictions I expect to be spot on. Williamson has been brought in to either water down, alter or re-vamp the ToR which Verita put forward in November 2011.

I recommend anybody to read the Williamson report, which is hardly worth the paper it is written on to prove that the above comment is indeed correct.

Mr Gorst, you are a man with no backbone. The decision to involve Williamson was done without any consultation with those who had given their time and effort meeting with Ed Marsden to put their feelings and suggestions forward. Needless to say I doubt this opportunity will be afforded to them again with Mr Williamson.

It is quite clear what the game is, and it is not being played fairly in any way, shape or form. The recommendations put forward by Verita were fair and balanced and, if there is nothing to be hidden, should have been of no concern to the CoM at all. Furthermore if the timescales suggested by Verita had been adhered to, this would have all been up and running by now.

Why the delay, what are the CoM's concerns over Verita's recommendations, why bring in a third party?

These are all questions that need to be answered by Mr Gorst and quickly.

Will the real (very conflicted)Chief Minister stand up please.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Marsden says.

"2.19 We have asked the advice of HM Attorney General about these matters. He agrees that the States of Jersey Police will need to take legal advice before releasing some of the information they hold. It may be appropriate that some of this advice is provided independently of the Law Officers Department"

Damn right advice should be provided independently of The Law Officers Department!

Suspects STILL in positions of authority, 11 Abuse cases dropped in one hit and just a few "show trials. It's Jersey's judicial apparatus that is the biggest problem on this island.....IMO.

If any more proof is needed as to why advice should be sought independently of the Law Officers then here it is IN BLACK AND WHITE

On another note, credit to you for publishing another exclusive and leaving the State Media in your wake.

Anonymous said...

You have landed another exclusive Mr Sorda. You are more connected than the local media outlets by the looks of things. What I like is the way you publish these reports with the absolute minimum redaction. A shining light in this darkest hour.

Anonymous said...

The Verita Report is a very well written piece of work. It is a great starting block for the Committee of Inquiry. So why cant the Council of Ministers handle this report? Are there people inside the Council that don't want this inquiry? I would say YES.

It is my belief that some people in Jersey see the Abuse Survivors as

"UNTERMENSCH"


I believe you are right Mr Sorda. A brave way to use this Germanic Term.

Anonymous said...

"A competition for budding newshounds has been launched today"
Looks like you may have some competition soon Rico (I don't think!) online jep tonight,no comment box of course,frightened there might be some candidates wanting to comment.

Zoompad said...

I know the ones who cover up this abuse see the victims of these crimes as sub human. I've felt that hatred myself in Staffordshire, the same hatred has been shown to the Staffordshire Pindown abuse victims.

I think we were all meant to shrivel up and die. I think that's what they wanted for us. Well it's not going to happen, by Gods grace it just won't. We abuse survivors and whistleblowers are going to hold our heads high and we are not going to be cowed by the unjust hatred for us.

Ian Le Marquand and some of the others who have done this pretend to be Christians. How can they sleep at night knowing that they persecuted people who never did them any harm?

What puzzles me, is why they have covered up for really wicked people. No-one is calling Ian Le Marquand a child abuser, yet he has joined in the conspiracy to cover up for the wicked ones who have committed acts of depravity and cruelty to innocent little children! WHY? Why has he covered up for these people, he's not one of them, yet he's helped them escape justice!

I fear for that man's soul, someone on another blog said he is a good man who has allowed himself to be pulled into bad things, and I think that sounds just about right. What I do know, as a Chriatian, is that it is never too late to put right what you have done wrong, until you are dead, and then it is too late, but while you are alive you can repent and try to put right the wrong. I hope and pray that Ian Le Marquand will do that, miracle as it seems, I believe in miracles. It would be a very very hard thing for him to do, but something has got to happen, and the abuse survivors and whistleblowers united simply are not going to fade away! Come on Ian, unburden your soul and lay down that back breaking burden by coming clean and disassociating yourself from those wicked abusers, you know I am speaking the truth. May God forgive you Ian, and help you to repent.

Anonymous said...

1.4 We found widespread agreement that the CoI was needed to close this chapter in the islands history and that the inquiry must be comprehensive.

Reads

The council of ministers have found the Verita report far to comprehensive and must be watered down at all costs. Why can't ministers sort this out? They didn't have any trouble bringing the electoral debate back to the states. The Jersey Abuse Victims are deffinatly second class compared to the kidnapping of electoral reform. The future safety of children in care is second to that of electoral reform.

Senator Gorst really must explain what is going on. Who can't decide on the COM. Is it one or two? Is it all of them? Or is it just Senator Bailhache and Senator Le Marquand? Lets have some truth Gorst.

Anonymous said...

1.3 Overall, we found clear agreement that the CoI should take place. Its purpose would be to:

. Understand what really happened to children cared for by the States and private foster care systems by; allowing victims of abuse to describe what happened to them; allowing those accused of abuse (but not charged with crime) to have their say and collating information from the range of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken over the last 20-30 years with a particular focus on those carried out since 2007.

. set this information in the context of social norms across the period to be reviewed

. understand what went wrong, what was done at the time and who was accountable.

. ensure that current and future services are arranged so that children are protected

. ensure trust in children's services and the States supervision of them

. ensure the reputation of Jersey with respect to child care


The brains sitting in the COM can't get their heads round this so the Chief calls in Williamson. Lets call it for what it is "FEAR" has gripped certain members of the "COM". Fear that all that all the hidden truths will come out and they won't be able to control it. They love control in Jersey. They lost it in February 2008 but regained it not long after. Now you are getting to the business end and the puppet master is in full control. Why do you think he gave up such an easy number? Remember what Ilm gave up?

Anonymous said...

Zoomy: Is Ian Le Marquand et al not playing their part in Deindividuation?
They feel that they and their social peers are so tightly bound together that they are far above the rest of society and, truthfully, couldn't care less about us, well, as long as we are paying our taxes and not trying to upset their golden apple cart.

I know a person who has strong Christian beliefs who, I believe, uses it as mitigation for standing by and watching their spouse beat their children black and blue. Internally asking for forgiveness from the people who turned down a cry of help from one of the said victims.

I believe that you may ask Ian with all your might but Ian's Christianity is a sham. A member of a club where it is good to be seen - nothing more, nothing less.


The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

It stands to reason that their awful plan is to pay out the Jersey victims of abuse, as soon as they possibly can.

Medical checks are being set up as we speak. So as to determine whether the victims, who dare to claim are truly messed up enough to gets the maximum of £60,000.

Then and only then will they be able to say:No need for a Committee of Inquiry now because justice has been done!?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just have to say something after reading your post.

The Council of Ministers are never going to agree with this proper COI.
It is never going to happen, we'll get "if we do" a white wash, one very expensive none event, One with Senator Bailhache at the Chair, one as you said "so diluted as to be not fit for purpose"

If they the COM get there wish people should not attend because if you do, you'll be saying its "fit for Purpose" witch it certainly will not be.

Well done again for bringing this very important Report to your attention.

TJW.

rico sorda said...

Hi Everyone,

The reason for publishing this report is simple. Enough is enough. They are dragging their feet on purpose and Chief Minister Gorst had better explain what is going on. When there is a will to get things done then it gets done like the murdering of the independent electoral commission. It is simply scandalous. The suspension of Graham Power - they dragged the life out of that - it cost us 1.5 million. They don't want this Coi.

I use the term "UNTERMENSCH" because that is how they have treated the victims of abuse for decades. The liberation day speech of 2008 was the beginning of their clamp down. We get a lot pompous rhetoric about how they care about social issues but its all just hollow like when they pop down the harbour for Holocaust day.

They don't care, their actions prove that. It makes me so angry. The committee of enquiry isn't rocket science, its only difficult if you want to make it difficult.

Actions speak louder than words

This attitude has got to stop. Lets hope there is a younger generation coming forward that are blessed with some good old fashioned morals

rs

Anonymous said...

2012 Council of Ministers.

Ian Gorst chief Minister
Philip Ozouf
A Maclean
B Le Marquand
F Le Gresley
R Duhamel
A Pryke
K Lewis
A Green
P Ryan

Madame Fifi could you take another peek into your crystal ball do you see any of the above members not conflicted?

The majority of ministers above at one stage or another voted against the COI

I predict F Le Gresley and P Ozouf to play good cop bad cop in PR to the sheeple

rico sorda said...

2012 Council of Ministers.

Ian Gorst chief Minister
Philip Ozouf
A Maclean
B Le Marquand
F Le Gresley
R Duhamel
A Pryke
K Lewis
A Green
P Ryan

You forgot that the Jersey 'Don" also sits in on these COM meetings. Senator Philip Bailhache the most conflicted one out of all of them.

rs

rico sorda said...

6 of those voted against a committee of enquiry. very revealing. put in Bailhache and you can see why nothing is happening.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/03/p19-eleven.html

I had forgotten about who voted for what.

Disgusting

rs

GeeGee said...

Rico - we can only hope that the publishing of the Verita report and the subsequent 'discovery' about Williamson will now hasten Gorst into action.

Furthermore now he is aware that the report is in the public domain, he must be very mindful that whatever the final ToR are when they are decided upon, comparisons can, and will be made with Mr Marsden's good work.

This is truly an appalling state of affairs, which is yet another kick in the teeth for all those survivors whose patience through all these years has been second to none.

Anonymous said...

All the Jersey Hubris can be found in the CAP Lime Grove Report.

Anonymous said...

In response to a reader request, Madame Fifi has peeked into her most accurate gazing ball and can announce that none of the following are without conflict in this:

2012 Council of Ministers.

Ian Gorst chief Minister
Philip Ozouf
A Maclean
B Le Marquand
F Le Gresley
R Duhamel
A Pryke
K Lewis
A Green
P Ryan

Indeed, Minister Gorst shall prove to be an effective darkside force behind a rather genial exterior persona, much as Minister Le Marquand has proved to be. All are puppets on the strings pulled by "The Jersey Don". Mr Rico Sorda's descriptive monicker is well suited to the man behind the curtain of concealment, one who will leave no price unpaid to prevent any stones from being unturned by a COI.

This is certain. That is all - for now.

Anonymous said...

Deputy Noels answer to the States on the 5th March 2011 about a very very dear friend who was abused and had people who listened such as family, friends, police and social services.

''In the end it didn't help him nor would a committee of enquiry''

''Victims need help to find closure''

Why did police and social services not help that friend? Were they unprofessional or is it that Mr Noel believes this person could not live with himself if so even more reason for VERITA not to be watered down or sabotaged.

In my opinion the States of Jersey want closure they may have moved on but the problems remain today.

Zoompad said...

A REPLY FROM THE BBC

22nd May 2012
Dear Ms Richards,
Freedom of Information request – RFI20120480
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 30 April 2012, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
“I would like to know why you are not covering the news story of
corruption in the judiciary of Jersey Channel Islands. I know the
BBC are fully aware of how the Chief of Police Graham Power was
suspended with disregard to legal process and the conflict of
interests of those who plotted to bring about his suspension, and
the failure of the UK MOJ to intervene.
This situation is of massive importance in Jersey and in the UK,
and yet the BBC are not coving it, and I would like to know why.”
The information you have requested is out of scope of the Act but we are happy to explain that the BBC both in Jersey and in the UK have reported often on the issues surrounding the historic abuse inquiry in the island, before and after the suspension of the police chief Graham Power in 2008. BBC Jersey continues to investigate new matters as they arise. Its latest interview with Graham Power was broadcast at the end of March 2012 on BBC1 TV and on BBC Radio Jersey.
We hope you find this helpful. Please note that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature” 1. The BBC is not required by the Act to supply information held for the
1 For more information about how the Act applies to the BBC please see the enclosure at the end of this letter. Please note that this guidance is not intended to be a comprehensive legal interpretation of how the Act applies to the BBC.
purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities; however, on this occasion we’re happy to provide the above information in response to your request.
Appeal Rights
The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact details are: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF telephone 01625 545 700. http://www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Stephanie Harris
Head of Accountability, BBC News

Zoompad said...

I wonder how much they paid the media consultant lawyers to answer that question? No wonder most of the programmes on TV are rubbishy tat, in spite of all the licence fee cash they force everyone to pay - or else. Even if you dont watch any BBC programs at all you still get bullied and threatened to pay the British Brainwashing Club.

Please help me, people, to word another complaint, because I do not think the BBC should be allowed to get away with refusing to cover the news in Jersey. The Graham Power suspension scandal is a massive news story, and they must be held to account over this. They do have a duty to properly cover the news, and they are not doing it, but I cannot find the guidelines any more that they are supposed to follow, can someone please help me?

Anonymous said...

Was it not the case that the chairman of committe des connetable used to sit in on the Council of Ministers too. Has this practice ceased under CM Gorst?

rico sorda said...

2.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

Earlier this year, the States approved by a democratic majority decision that there should be a committee of inquiry into historical child abuse. One of the terms of reference that was agreed - again by a majority in the States - was that among others, the role of Crown Officers, including whether there was any political interference with decisions to prosecute, should be one of the terms of reference and it falls to the Chief Minister and his department to implement this committee of inquiry. So, firstly, is the candidate supportive of the committee of inquiry and, secondly, which steps would he take to minimise any perception of real or perceived conflict of interest, given that he was one of the Crown Officers and a member of the judiciary at the time?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

Dealing with that last point first. I am not sure that I had any involvement in any of the issues relating to the child abuse inquiry but if I am wrong in that respect, then clearly I would have to consider my position as to whether I took any part in the decision-making process. So far as the broader question is concerned, it is a sensitive and very difficult matter. The Assembly has agreed to establish a committee of inquiry. The cost of that inquiry was put by the Minister for Treasury and Resources at £10 million. For my part, I think that was an underestimate and I think that the costs could very well mount to £20 million or even more, given the range of the terms of reference that have been adopted by the Assembly. That perhaps is not the most important issue. What is important is that we find a means to bring closure to an issue that has divided the Island and caused anxiety for far too long. What is also important, it seems to me, is to bring reconciliation to those who have suffered from abuse in the past so that at the end of a long process by a committee of inquiry, if we have one, they feel that something has been gained. There is nothing to be gained by creating a tortuous process which does not, at the end of the day, satisfy those who have suffered from abuse. So it is a very difficult issue.

Zoompad said...

"What is important is that we find a means to bring closure to an issue that has divided the Island and caused anxiety for far too long"

YES, BY COPYING WHAT THE STAFFORDSHIRE BROTHERHOOD DID - BY PERSECUTING THE VICTIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS!

AND WE CAN'T STOP YOU DOING IT, BUT BY GUM YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT UNOBSERVED, THE EYES OF THE WORLD ARE WATCHING YOU!

Anonymous said...

Zoompad- I too have a complaint with the BBC on the same subject- Well at least I think it is????

On 20th February the breakfast presenter said he would be discussing a new programme called 'the Truth of the Matter.'
I transcribed the following script from the Listen Again Service. This is what was broadcast.

20/1/12 at 7.28a.m.
After the Met Dept. weatherman is recapping on the weather the presenter Roger Bara says....... ”Thank you very much to Malcolm Fosse. We'll be back with Malcolm in a little while, in an hour to be honest with you.
Now, later on in the programme in a few minutes, we will be launching a series that aims to get to the truth of the matter. There are various views expressed here on Radio Jersey, and indeed around the island, but
how many of them are factual.?....
You know what I’m talking about!!!!
Well wait and see er what we come with
For the 1st of the series... The Truth of the Matter
Coming up right here on Breakfast with Bara, here on BBC Radio Jersey where it is approaching half past seven....."

And that was it. So I hung around my radio, and kept tuned in to BBC Radio Jersey as often as possible for about 2 months, hoping to hear the truth! But I heard nothing more. Like it had vanished. So I complained to the BBC about this situation. My complaint was rejected on the basis that complaints have to be made within a month, so I complained about that and requested answers to questions like- Why was this programme withdrawn? What was it about? I had a reply about 3 weeks ago saying my complaint is being dealt with and I will hear from them in a while. I will keep you posted on developments.

As for how to tackle the BBC complaints Dept. to be effective? I don't know. Just keep plugging away I guess and motivate others to do the same. If the BBC received 500 complaints about bias Radio Jersey broadcasting, you'd expect them to take note. If they publish figures on complaints and Jersey is over-represented in terms of population and hopefully on a longitudinal basis too, this could be a footing. Get a petition and protest outside their building in St. Helier. If the BBC fail to bring it up, then we should bring it to their attention. The tide will turn eventually which is encouraging.

Anonymous said...

Ah, so it seems clearer now from the words of P. Bailhache, that the financial settlements will be closely tied to eliminating the COI or watering it down to a useless exercise. I do not need any crystal ball to know that he always planned to trumpet the money paid to survivors as more important and in direct competition with the COI. The money is an insultingly paltry sum, but it will appear threatened if that's what it takes to help render the terms of the COI meaningless. He can muster the resources of all the paid spin artists he can find to make sheeple believe it is time to look forward and to concentrate on the settlements, not to re-hash the past. Of course that means he and the others involved will do what it takes to avoid exposing any hard evidence about child abuse. The most significant abuse evidence will never even be discussed, much less examined, and that is a fair certainty.

rico sorda said...

What is important is that we find a means to bring closure to an issue that has divided the Island and caused anxiety for far too long. What is also important, it seems to me, is to bring reconciliation to those who have suffered from abuse in the past so that at the end of a long process by a committee of inquiry, if we have one,


if we have one,

Bailhache speaks.

Anonymous said...

Is the Don testing the public waters with the phrase, "If we have one" or slowly and steadily lowering all expectations of the agreed upon COI?

Anonymous said...

'' it seems to me, is to bring reconciliation to those who have suffered from abuse in the past so that at the end of a long process by a committee of inquiry, if we have one, they feel that something has been gained. There is nothing to be gained by creating a tortuous process which does not, at the end of the day, satisfy those who have suffered from abuse. So it is a very difficult issue''

IF WE HAVE ONE?

Bailhache speaks.

WHO IS THIS MAN?

Sam Mézec said...

Rico,

If any of your readers care about what happens with the islands Electoral Commission, please read this blog post -

http://sammezec.blogspot.com/2012/05/time-for-action-re-electoral-commision.html

It contains a template email that anyone can send forward to the EC so we can collectively pressure them and let it be known that we need a proper democracy in Jersey.

Anonymous said...

The only reason that they are making an effort to pay out some money to victims, is because two British Lawyers threaterned to take The States Of Jersey to The London High Courts.

Zoompad said...

Please can you tell me who those two British lawyers who have threatened the States of Jersey with the London High Courts are?

Anonymous said...

Rico

Do you think they plan to create a big old false choice between making payments to the survivors and paying for the COI? Will they hold one promise hostage to the other?

Elle

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Tomorrow (Thursday) night at 7pmyou will be live and interactive discussing subjects including the Child Abuse (sabotaged) Committee Of Enquiry, the Treasury Minister's political future (if he has one), the releasing of Reports and generally how things are done in Jersey........Which has got the island into such a mess.

We will be broadcasting from HERE

Anonymous said...

Zoompad.

One of their names is Alan Collins, but don't know the Irish Lawyer's name.

Ian Evans said...

JERSEY POLICE...LEADING BY EXAMPLE!

rico sorda said...

Hi Elle,

They just don't want a COI. They just don't know how to go about telling us. So its lets think up the best excuse time.

rs

Anonymous said...

30 MILLION SAYS BAILHACHE


. on this basis we estimate the cost, excluding legal fees, to be approximately £2.040 million (see appendix 3). T his splits into approximately £1.175 million of panel fees and £585K of fees for support to the inquiry panel including some support for the communications unit. In addition we have allowed for travel and accommodation costs for the panel and support team as well as some travel costs for interviewees and the transcribing of oral evidence.

Not so say Verita

Zoompad said...

Alan Collins

I see he is a solicitor for Headway, Bridget Shaw is also involved in that charity

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.headway.org.uk%2Fcelebration-time-as-annual-awards-honour-inspirational-people.aspx&ei=v0S9T9PYEKWr0QWbguEp&usg=AFQjCNHeN7GzEkvO6O9wiR4lKrAgP0Yt2w&sig2=a-J2D2BZ5bCOguRFS-vrAA

Bridget Shaw - THIS IS A COURT OF LAW YOUNG MAN, NOT A COURT OF JUSTICE

Sorry, but I smell the stench of another stitch up. Can you please find out who the Irish solicitor is, thanks

Zoompad said...

38 victims

Erm ... what happened to all the others? They've whittled them down quite a bit, haven't they? Over 160 people made statements to the police, so why are they not being represented? Where have they gone? I hope they are all ok.

Staffordshire all over again. I expect they will be hoping that some of them will fade away and die before they get any compensation - with a gentle push to help them along, malicious vindictive persecution.

I hope they won't try to make any of them sign the illegal gagging contract that the Irish abuse victims were made to sign.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the gagging contract will not have to be signed by any pay outs.

Therefore the people paid out can wait till after the COI and get another pay out, or write a book.

Anonymous said...

''There is nothing to be gained by creating a tortuous process which does not, at the end of the day, satisfy those who have suffered from abuse. So it is a very difficult issue''

I beg to differ there is nothing difficult around this I can imagine it will be tortuous to listen to the victims have their say but I will not ignore their opportunity or choice to speak of it.

There is everything to be gained from a committee of enquiry into the system that has failed children in that care over such a long time span.

There is everything to be gained from discovery of the truth and why there was an engineered closure of this child abuse investigation.

Nothing will be gained by moving on and pretending everythings sorted we got through that with Jerseys reputation intact.

Zoompad said...

''There is nothing to be gained by creating a tortuous process which does not, at the end of the day, satisfy those who have suffered from abuse. So it is a very difficult issue''

Nothing to be gained by who?

The people who have been abused have everything to gain by being able to have their voices heard. Being forced to live a lie, pretending that you weren't abused when you were causes ill health. Being able to say what happened in a public arena which will be 100% sympathetic would be a healing experience for the people who were not only abused but forced to smother all their sadness at being betrayed as children. You cannot "get over" child abuse, it is such a big betrayal, children can't understand why someone is allowed to treat them in a dispicable way, why can't you understand the damage it causes? Child abuse can cause clinical depression, because what the abuser and those who pretend not to see the abuse are saying is YOU ARE WORTHLESS over and over again, and if authorities like the police, social services and the government ignores it and punishes you for talking about it, well, do I'm not a psychologist, but you don't have to be one, just a compassionate human being, to understand the effect that is going to have on someone's life. Simply being allowed to talk about the horrible stuff that happened would be the beginning of the healing process for most of these people, and why would anyone want to deny another human being the right to be healed?

Zoompad said...

In Staffordshire, the Pindown abuse survivors have been blocked from contacting each other - they have been deliberatly kept apart. I have found it's dangerous to try to find other survivors of abuse, because so many of what were support groups have been infiltrated and taken over by people with malicious intent. I contacted another self help group a few months ago, for a bit of support (because believe it or not I get depressed and need support too) and found that the self help group I contacted which had been a grass roots concern has been taken over by other people, paid professionals, and they treated me in a creepy way, which was very upsetting, even though I ought to be used to it by now.

If you really want people to heal inside after these horrible betrayals, the best thing of all is to encourage the people who have been hurt to support each other, as they are the ones who know where it hurts, like how cancer patients tend to support each other. But people who have been abused as children by local authorities are always treated in this weird, creepy, malicious isolation way.

You would not do this to any other group of afflicted people! Can you imagine the furore if people who had cancer set up self help groups and they had them busted up by infiltrators who wanted to see all the cancer sufferers perish?

You have to ask yourself, why was MI5 involved in trying to discredit the institutional child abuse investigations? And to anyone who wants to call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist for bringing up MI5, I only have two words to say, DAVID ROSE.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

TONIGHT

Patricia Snellgrove said...

This is not for publication because I'm fully confident that it wont get published anyway, That will only be done by those who no and care about the truth. Here in the UK we are all getting to know the goings on from a couple of sources who bring us the facts and if not why have they NOT been sued?

Hi all you child abuse sympathizers, Very soon you house of ill repute will be taken down. Those in power want the plebs to attack each other and leave them alone, Sorry not going to happen, and when the ssssh hits the fan the high and mighty will have no protection as the police are getting wise.

R.I.P
J.E.P

Anonymous said...

Commenter at 12: 19 is responding to the Jersey Don's words with all the right logic. We can use logical, direct and winning words to defeat his propaganda. For reasons I don't fully understand, the emotions of the abuse survivors have little effect on these monsters like the Don who dismiss child suffering so easily. Taking apart their own political rationales seems more effective because it hits them where it actually does hurt - their image. The abusers and their cover-up merchants can only feel what they are capable of feeling. This blog has opened up enormous opportunities to deconstruct and dissect their spin.

Ian Evans said...

60 yrs of control

rico sorda said...

Patricia, I will publish your comment if you so wish. Just let me know.

Thanks

rs

rico sorda said...

Best speech that Ex Senator Perchard gave in the States. This was on p9/2011 vote for a Committee of Enquiry


1.2.17 Senator J.L. Perchard:

It is true when Members say that many victims of abuse in Jersey’s children’s homes may be disappointed at the conclusion of an inquiry and that the answers they seek may not be found. There are people who have sat in this Chamber in past decades who were aware of these allegations. There are members of our Police Force in past decades who were also aware of these allegations. There are members of the judiciary in past decades who were aware of these allegations. I want to know why these people chose to turn a blind eye [Approbation] and ignore the cries of helpless children. I do not really want to go on a witch-hunt about what happened in Blanche Pierre in 1963 on January 3rd. There are deep issues and it is a terribly difficult subject for us but there are unanswered questions and we need to learn about ourselves and we need to learn moral lessons, and I think we need to have an inquiry to understand what it was that made people turn a blind eye to the cries of helpless children. I see the opposition to this inquiry today being promoted by the same type of people prepared to ignore the cries; not today of helpless children, but the cries of anyone with a conscience about what happened in Jersey in our past. We have to put this matter to bed. We have to ask these questions of ourselves, of our society. I know the questions we ask will pose answers but we need to understand why people in authority chose to ignore and we need to learn that lesson and ensure that it never happens again.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Last night's live and interactive broadcast can be viewed HERE

Anonymous said...

Why are you posting pro-Ozouf stuff on this is Jersey?

Ian Evans said...

GRAHAM POWER suspension & Jersey CHILD ABUSE

rico sorda said...

"Why are you posting pro-Ozouf stuff on this is Jersey?"

For the record. I don't leave comments on "thisisjersey"

The comments give me a good chuckle though. Why someone bothers doing this is beyond me.

There are bigger concerns to be worried about

rs

rico sorda said...

This is Deputy Mike Higgins lodged proposition about what the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis said in an "in camera" debate back in 2008.

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.048-2012.pdf

rs

Anonymous said...

Ed Marsden & Patricia Wright finished their report by saying: We recommend that the attached terms of reference, cost estimate and nominations for chair and panellists are put to the States Assembly AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY....

24 weeks later. And still nothing!?

Anonymous said...

Mr Sorda

This work will be recognised one day.

Ian Evans said...

BRIDGET GETS ARRESTED AGAIN

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Another Citizens Media EXCLUSIVE

Anonymous said...

"Mr Sorda

This work will be recognised one day."

But the only person this concerns is Graham Power and he doesn't do anything. I have to ask why isn't he doing anything?

Web Guru said...

Nurse sues States over murder claims on blog

Ian Evans said...

BAILHACHE on himself & Nurse M on SYVRET

GeeGee said...

Excuse me Anonymous, but what the hell has the Verita report and its recommendations for the ToR for the CoI got to do with Graham Power?

Methinks you have not read Rico's posting properly.