Thursday, July 5, 2012

Rico Sorda - Truth - Honesty and Integrity

"For anyone looking for a deep drill into Jersey’s ongoing political imbroglios, two outstanding citizen bloggers have been working slavishly for years to lift the curtain: Neil McMurray at Voice for Children and Rico Sorda. On an island where the established media serve as the de facto mouthpiece of those in power, these self-taught journalists, who work for free under grave pressure in thankless conditions, are the only independent press around.)"Leah Mcgrath Goodman

"It is largely due to two tenacious bloggers, Rico Sorda ( and Neil McMurray ( that Power's suspension has remained so high on the political agenda. Both complain that the JEP has failed to investigate what they see as the injustice of Power's treatment." The Guardian

"The Rico Sorda blog is quite extraordinary. Rico is not an abuse  victim or politician. He is a Jersey pipe fitter with a happy upbringing, who was so outraged by the treatment of abused children he began conducting his own investigative journalism. Don't let Rico's feral punctuation throw you; he has almost single-handedly forced a States of Jersey Scrutiny Panel to investigate and take action over the corruption of abuse related "independent official reports" commissioned by the Jersey government. I would not hesitate to call him Jersey's best investigative journalist." - Faithful Reader




In my own humble opinion, I believe it is for a number reasons, the main one being that they wanted to show the world that it was all blown out of proportion. It was so badly handled that they had to suspend the Chief of Police.

This was all about protecting the 'JERSEY IMAGE'

This is still about protecting  'JERSEY'S IMAGE'


The new Chief Minister, Senator Gorst, is failing the Victims of Abuse just like his predecessors 

Chris Swinson, the Comptroller and Auditor General, wrote a report that some did not like. So they discredited him. The result is that Chris Swinson's position became untenable. Senator Gorst finished off Mr Swinson when he circulated an email on the eve of the debate. 

Andy Baker was head of the ACPO team that was called into mentor Lenny Harper and his team during "Operation Rectangle", the investigation into decades long Child Abuse. The establishment did not like these 4 reports so guess what they did? Senator Le Marquand set about discrediting Andy Baker and in doing so tried to call his reports into question.

Wiltshire Police carried out a disciplinary report into Graham Power's handling of Operation Rectangle. They liked this report because they hung it out for 1-1/2 years at a cost of £1 million plus - then dropped all charges - and used the unchallenged conclusions to totally nail Graham Power with the full cooperation of the Jersey State Media. 

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur called in Verita to compile a report into the setting up of a Committee of Enquiry. Certain factions in the Council of Ministers did not like this report so what do they do? They call in Andrew Williamson to come up with something they can handle.

It was quite by accident that courtesy of Blog TV, the fact that Andrew Williamson was coming to the Island to ‘review’ the excellent Terms of Reference of Ed Marsden from Verita was made public knowledge. Of course the very people who mattered most in all this (the abuse survivors) were not made aware, but never mind, as Chief Minister Gorst said in answer to a question from Deputy Montfort Tadier ‘it must have been an oversight on his part’. Rather a large one at that!
Naturally and in the interest of fairness several parties who had given their thoughts, recommendations and input to Mr Marsden requested a meeting with Mr Williamson. One such group were the JCLA who attended, to discover exactly what the issues with the original ToR’s were and exactly what the purpose of Mr Williamson’s involvement was. Many questions were asked, many concerns aired, but it was a meeting at which those in attendance came away feeling that they were none the wiser, nor did Mr Williamson really know what he was there for. 
A couple of interesting points emerged. Firstly the idea was put to the JCLA that it may be better to hold the CoI after the compensation issues had been dealt with. Strangely this had been suggested from a couple of other quarters previously and discounted out of hand by the JCLA. There is really no reason at all why the two should not run in parallel with one another. Ireland did it and with criminal cases still ongoing as well – why not Jersey? The JCLA made it quite clear that it was quite against this which would mean more delay and distress for the abuse survivors. Another rather disturbing point was that at the time of the meeting neither Mr Williamson, nor even more concerning Chief Minister Gorst had had the courtesy to contact Ed Marsden from Verita to make him aware of what was happening. Indeed CM Gorst has had no contact with him at all since coming into office.
The JCLA (and I suspect others) have absolutely no issue with the Verita ToRs, which appear to be fair to all concerned. Having been told that Mr Williamson’s report would be in the hands of the CM by the end of June, it is now learnt that he is coming to the Island yet again, conveniently meaning that all the prevarication will result in yet more delays and the chances of any proposition being brought before the States until after the summer recess.
The letter below was submitted to Mr Williamson at the conclusion of the meeting with the JCLA to make it quite clear where they stood. Let us hope that this is taken on board.
Meanwhile…… all rumbles on!



This is a letter from the JCLA to Andrew Williamson. 

The Chief Minister is stalling the Committee of Enquiry. 

Just like Terry Le Suer before him - Chief Minister Gorst  is the puppet  

We can all guess who the Puppet Master is!!!!!!!

14th June 2012

Dear Mr Williamson,

We are aware that you have been brought in by Chief Minister Senator Gorst to review the good work of Ed Marsden from Verita. Quite why we have not been informed, but we have to say that having seen the contents of the Verita Report, we are very satisfied with it, and must say that it seems to be an excellent ‘starting block’ for the Committee of Inquiry, with recommendations that appear fair to all parties.

It is imperative that after decades of abuse at the hands of the States of Jersey that those survivors who so wish are able to have their voices heard. Some of our members will not accept anything less, more-so as a lot of cases that should have been taken through the courts were not. Sadly it would appear from words spoken by our Chief Minister Senator Gorst in the States on 29th May 2012 in answer to a question on the Committee of Inquiry, that he is not too keen for the COI to go down that route (see ‘Tony’s Musings’ where highlighted in green). However, we are quite adamant that abuse survivors who wish to do so should be allowed their input into the CoI as their right.

We also attach the recommendations we initially put forward. These were partly a result of input from members who were all invited to make a contribution. We are pleased to see that Verita has used some of these in his report and are adamant that they should remain.

Below we would like to point out some of the concerns we have surrounding this whole affair, and which must play a part in all this and any subsequent findings by a fully independent Committee.

The political and judicial hijacking of potential and justified cases of abuse ever reaching court. This matter already forms part of Verita’s terms of reference and must remain unchanged.
The alleged illegal suspension of the ex-police Chief Graham Power which was clearly a politicised move. This ultimately resulted in the premature closure of the Child Abuse Enquiry when the new incumbent(s) to the Force were in situ.
The role the local MSM played throughout the Child Abuse investigation, and subsequently still appear to be doing. Their ‘downplaying’ of the issues, the investigation, the misinformation that has been allowed to be published without correction from our States Members has been unedifying, unprofessional and distressing for survivors.

The involvement of Sir Philip Bailhache in the formation of the Terms of Reference because he is very conflicted in this matter and should refrain from any part in the decision making.
The inclusion of one very neutral member of the Committee who has knowledge of local laws/policing etc. This may prove difficult because it would require somebody that abuse survivors can trust, and this by its very nature and the trust issues that survivors have, means the utmost emphasis must be placed on the selection of the right person.
In a letter from the Chief Minister, Senator Gorst states ‘the Committee of Inquiry is required to bring closure and it must be conducted in such a manner to ensure that those who want to tell their story can, but at the same time I do not believe it should re-open events which have already been thoroughly investigated and concluded’. This begs the question – why not? Surely the whole point of an Inquiry is to examine all aspects of an issue, and we would most certainly want to know which ‘events’ he is referring to. As we see it the only cases that maybe would not require re-opening are those that have actually been to Court and succeeded in convictions. There are however, a lot of cases that should have reached the Courts and did not, hence the reasoning behind the amendment by Deputy Montfort Tadier which has been accepted by the previous States Assembly. The survivor’s evidence is vital to this Inquiry, legal representation or not. Survivors whose cases did not proceed to Court have been informed that their cases will never be re-opened, and their only interest is telling the truth of what happened to them, and the truth it will be. It may be that the legal representation mentioned would be for the abusers, in particular those still in the employ of the States of Jersey. As far as we are concerned legal representation is necessary in a Court of Law, and a Committee of Inquiry is not a trial, but a forum to establish all factors surrounding this whole sorry story, historically and to the present day. No pussy-footing - no ‘Terms of Preference’ as they are now being called, no watering down of Verita’s recommendations, just a full, honest and open Inquiry.
In the States Assembly on 12th June 2012 our Chief Minister, in answer to a question regarding your involvement, said it was thought Verita’s recommendations were too ‘open-ended’. We have to disagree with this sentiment as this can only be a positive. If the Chief Minister can explain to us how and where he sees Verita’s report as such we would be grateful for a detailed explanation when we meet with him. Until then – so be it. It was also suggested the cost of this came into play. Cost should not be an issue at all – the States never seem to fall short when it comes to finding funds for frivolous unnecessary projects. This is not one of them. 

Finally, we (JCLA) have been promised a briefing with the Chief Minister on the final ToR’s before the proposition is lodged. We sincerely hope that this is a promise that will not be reneged on or ‘forgotten’ as others have. This whole affair has gone on far too long, promises have been made and broken, there has been a massive cover-up and alleged politicised removal of the then Chief of Police, the local media have covered this in a most abysmal manner and the abuse survivors have been treated as though they are the guilty parties. Therefore it is essential that regardless of cost, regardless of being ‘open-ended’, survivors now get their justice and answers as per a Committee of Inquiry based on Verita’s recommendations.

Nothing less will be acceptable to the abuse survivors.

Yours sincerely

Carrie Modral 
Chair - JCLA


rico sorda said...

Tuesday 10th July 2012 States of Jersey

9. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister clarify whether Mr. Brian Napier QC had access to the transcript of the States „in camera‟ session where the former Home Affairs Minister informed the Assembly that he had seen the preliminary report that was so damning that he was left no option but to suspend the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?”

16. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Can the Minister advise whether evidence relating to child abuse in Jersey, particularly statements made to the States of Jersey Police by alleged victims, has gone missing and thereby prevented the prosecution of alleged offenders and, if so, what investigations have taken place to find those responsible for the loss of these statements?”

17. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Minister advise why, if there was considered to be a problem with the terms of reference drawn up by Verita for the proposed Historic Abuse Enquiry, this was not resolved with Verita and outline why Mr. Andrew Williamson was engaged?”

rico sorda said...

How ILM does away with the ACPO reports simply staggering


Anonymous said...

Ms Carrie Modral has made clear that no "Terms of Preference" and "Ourchap" shady arrangements will be tolerated. The abuse survivors and those who give a damn about the truth will not be fooled by the spin, and thanks to the publicity this blog is receiving, the eyes of the world will be watching this Enquiry unfold with suspicion. The historic record of the coverup is being written now.

Anonymous said...

Can I just say as an Individual fighting the States we also have a right to know of the TOR's before it is lodged, and sadly it is not just the JCLA in this matter. The JCLA are doing their part for their people which is great, but there are also people out there who are not with the JCLA, so we need to be informed with everything also.
As there statement below says that should "refer" to all parties who are fighting this.

""Finally, we (JCLA) have been promised a briefing with the Chief Minister on the final ToR’s before the proposition is lodged""

voiceforchildren said...


Williamson should now be asking himself how will he be remembered, written about, in the years to come concerning the Jersey Child Abuse scandal?

What Verita did omit from their TOR's is the local State Media's role in all this and the chances of Williamson adding it is very slim.

The BBC has been in possession of the former Police Chief's statement to Wiltshire since Sept 2011 and still haven't reported it although they reported on the case against him. It's time a big light was shone on the BBC's role in all this, as well as the rest of the State Media. The fact that you are now getting personally insulted on Twitter by a BBC employee doesn't bode well for their declining credibility either.

This is all about decades long Child Abuse and the Victims/Survivors WILL have their day.

Zoompad said...

"No pussy-footing - no ‘Terms of Preference’ as they are now being called, no watering down of Verita’s recommendations, just a full, honest and open Inquiry."

Well said Carrie.

Anonymous said...

All survivors of abuse must let Senator Gorst know how you feel. He is letting you down like all before him. They, the decisison makers, are a toxic trash that has blighted this beautiful island for long enough.....

Rob Kent said...

Chief of Police under investigation, but not suspended, continues to work and cooperate with the investigation. Bit different to how Jersey treated Graham Power.

"Sussex police said the decision to investigate Richards was a neutral act and did not indicate an assumption of wrongdoing.

The spokeswoman added: "While the investigation is under way and until the facts are established, there should be no assumption of impropriety or speculation on the outcome of the investigation.

"The SPA and the force strongly support transparency and public scrutiny. It is our usual policy to be as transparent as possible where there are allegations of misconduct and we announce involvement in IPCC investigations proactively whenever possible."

Anonymous said...

Mr Kent.
Your comment @10:18am proves that the British Government has no idea how to run a modern crypto-dictatorship.
Fortunately the NKB (New Kingdom of Bailhache) is here to teach them a thing or two:

Anonymous said...

Ogley and Williamson both have somethings in common.

They have both sussed out The States of Jersey as easy money and no accountability.

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...


Readers will not be surprised that the mouthpiece of the Jersey powerbase; the JEP and its "this is jersey" website continue their policy of censoring "unaccredited" opinion.
This CENSORSHIP is at its worst in the month or so pre-election but we may be getting a current upturn in this vile activity.
Yesterday I submitted about five comments which they have decided the do not wish to publish.
Below is one of them:

reply at :
TITLE : Arab Spring & Jersey Summer ?
SUBMITTED : July 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm

Joker 2:28 pm, I'm glad you mention the "Arab Spring" because the "Jersey Summer" is mainly a web based phenomenon.

I'm also glad you mention "the likes of Philip Bailhache" who, not content with succeeding in the already rigged electoral system, is now hell bent on rigging it further via the supposedly independent Electoral Commission.

Chilling !
Even the weather knows that it shall be Forever Autumn in the New Kingdom of Bailhache.


I resubmitted it at 07:23 this morning -let's see if they wish to let some fresh air into their midden.

Anonymous said...

well done Carrie,once again you have stood up for the abuse survivors.Your letter was direct and to the point.If anyone wants to check out the credibility and ability of Andrew Willianson then read his report on hansard,poorly written and full of innacuracies, he is laughing all the way to the bank.

Deputy Montfort Tadier said...

'It is quite clear that, at the moment, it is virtually impossible for the Assembly to hold Ministers to account.' - Senator Sarah Ferguson speaks out HERE over the ongoing Sen. Ozouf saga.

Anonymous said...

Speaking out and doing something to break the stranglehold the establishment have on you, is another matter.

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

Anyone notice Wiltshires Brian Moore now runs the shambolic UK Border Force at Heathrow.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone been able to establish a link between Brian Moore's shambolic UK Border Force at Heathrow and the harrowing detention there and subsequent banning of the American journalist who is writing the book about Haut de la Garenne?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up 3 Questions without Answers from today, which you & your readers can listen HERE

will put up the ones about Senator Ozouf & the Independence thing that's not about going Independent in a day or so.


Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

Eye on the States
The chief danger to our philosophy, apart from laziness and woolliness, is scholasticism, .. which is treating what is vague as if it were precise. -F. P. Ramsey

I've been looking at the Hansard record for 12 June 2012. Some interesting bits and pieces, with a growing use of vague phrases by the Chief Minister.

Deputy Montfort Tadier asked Ian Gorst, Chief Minister about when the 'Vulture Fund' legislation would be introduced:

Will the Chief Minister explain if there has been a delay in introducing "Vulture Fund" legislation and inform Members when the promised changes are likely to be implemented?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister): There has been no delay in consulting on or commencing drafting of
legislation to limit practices that could undermine international debt relief. To date, the U.K. (United Kingdom) is the only country in the world to have enacted a law of this kind. Alongside Guernsey and the Isle of Man,
we are proposing to join the U.K. as leaders in this field and to do so expeditiously on a timescale in line with that of the other 2 Islands.

Which is a good way of saying absolutely nothing in terms of time scale! It's a really dreadful answer, worthy of Yes Minister's Jim Hacker. Here is a translation of the weasel words:

proposing to join - like an engagement is an intention to marry, this is an intention, not a plan
expeditiously - we'll do nothing until we have spoken to the other Islands

The tone of the reply - the UK "is the only country to have enacted a law of this kind", suggests that the Chief Minister is not wholly in favour of anything like that in Jersey. Jersey is not going alone, unless Guernsey and the Isle of Man join in. This is the morality of the market place. If it's right, we should do it. The UK had the guts to take a moral stand, without waiting for other countries to follow suit. It's about time we did so.

Fortunately Trevor Pitman, like a Pit-bull Terrier (doesn't the image go well!) wouldn't let this stand:

2.2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier: I believe the Council of Ministers discussed this back on, I think, the 15th of December, so could the Chief Minister just assist us perhaps and encourage us by giving us a little bit of indication when this might finally come forward? As I think most Members would agree, it is something that is a bit of a stain on everywhere who fails to act on it.

Senator I.J. Gorst: As I said, the U.K. is currently the only jurisdiction/country in the world that has such legislation. We are proposing to be at the forefront as well of such legislation. Earlier this year in late January,I instructed the drafting of such legislation and I hope that I will be in a position to lodge during September.

But should it take a supplementary question to get a more exact time table? Why couldn't he have replied with that information in the first place? There seems to be a culture of vagueness. People complain about the time taken up with questions, but if they were answered succinctly and accurately, this would not be necessary.

Now we come to the strange case of Verita, where having paid a professional and independent body to do some work, that is apparently scrapped and another party brought in to deal with the matter. Verita was brought in to provide terms of reference for the forthcoming inquiry into historic child abuse at Haut de La Garenne and elsewhere. But they were sidelined, and their proposed terms of reference put on one side, and Andrew Williamson was brought in to do the job they had already done.Cont

Anonymous said...

2.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the terms of reference for the historic abuse enquiry as proposed by Verita: Will the Chief Minister clarify precisely what the perceived problems are with the terms of reference for the Historic Abuse Inquiry as proposed by Verita? Would he state whether Mr. Andrew Williamson has been engaged to review the terms of reference and, if so, what the cost of his engagement is?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister): There is no question in my mind that a Committee of Inquiry is needed to provide help with closure of this difficult and long-running period. The Verita terms of reference were open-ended as a strategy. I have therefore asked Mr. Andrew Williamson, an experienced Social Services Director from the United Kingdom, who also has much experience of working in Jersey, to review the original terms of reference to see whether they could be set in such a way as to ensure that unanswered questions are investigated and answers are provided without the requirement to reopen individual cases. The cost of Mr. Williamson's work has amounted to £2,000 to date and I expect that the total cost of his work in relation to reviewing the terms of reference will not exceed £10,000.

Does he mean that Verita were asked to provide open-ended terms of reference, or that they were considered open ended? It's not at all clear, and what precisely does he mean by "open-ended", another vague term that is virtually meaningless. Is the sentence - "The Verita terms of reference were open-ended as a strategy" - in any shape or form meaningful English? It reminds me of what Orwell wrote:

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."

So once again, a supplementary question is needed:

2.4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman: Perhaps the Chief Minister could enlarge for me and perhaps a few others what he means by "open ended". More specifically, can he ensure that having decided we did not need independence to do the Electoral Commission, for instance, can he give assurances that we will come up with a format that will ensure closure for those people who were victims and, just as importantly, that those who are ultimately found to be responsible will be held to account?

Senator I.J. Gorst: As I said in answer to questions on this subject before, I will be in a position where I can lodge the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry to this Assembly for Members rightly to decide. At the same time, I will be appending any other work which has been undertaken to get to those terms of reference. Equally I, of course, would like to think that closure could be brought but these are very difficult long-running issues and I think that what we can hope for is that people are able to move on with their lives. I am not certain that for lots of people closure will be found by a Committee of Inquiry but I hope that it will help with the healing process and it will allow some answers to be given. With regard to the open-ended nature, that of course is very difficult because we have a responsibility to ensure that a Committee of Inquiry reaches its findings in an appropriate timescale and within a suitable budget. What I have been concerned about is that every person appearing before the inquiry might feel that if it is too adversarial, they need to instruct legal counsel and that, of course, will change the budget and the cost requirements entirely.

Notice how the term open ended has now moved - previously it was attached to Verita's terms of reference, and now it's to do with the nature of the inquiry, not the terms of reference. But they were tasked with finding something that was clearly not open-ended.


Anonymous said...

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

And in fact Verita dealt with costs of the inquiry. The managing partner of Verita and an associate carried out the work for their report, while Verita's finance team calculated the likely costs of any inquiry. So the only conclusion one can draw is that wasn't acceptable, or considered too high. It certainly wasn't "open-ended”

Montfort Tadier now comes in with some questions about why the terms of reference written up by Verita in their report were not good enough.

2.4.4 Deputy M. Tadier: Would the Chief Minister agree that the terms of reference set by Verita were not faulty? Rather, they were politically unacceptable to certain Members of the Council of Ministers? If they were faulty, would the Chief Minister explain how it came about that it was the Council of Ministers who commissioned Verita and why did they not set their own terms of reference and their own criteria to make sure that what Verita reported back was acceptable and in line with the terms of reference that the States Assembly agreed only recently before that?

Senator I.J. Gorst: That is quite a multi-faceted question. I would not wish to use the word "faulty" for the terms of reference but more as I did with regard to open-ended and wanting to limit the need for those appearing before the Committee of Inquiry to have to instruct legal support at that point. I can reassure Members that they will be able to judge for themselves when the terms of reference are before them. That is absolutely right and proper, and not that it is just simply the domain of either me as the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers.

In other words, the terms of reference provided by Verita were not acceptable to the Council of Ministers, probably because they involved the possibility of extra cost because of legal representation. That's reading between the lines, but when the lines are so wavy and blurred, one has to do that!

What won't come out is the comparison between the old and new terms of reference - those revised ones provided by Williamson and those provided by Verita. But what is fundamentally clear is that Verita's own report gave very clear terms of reference, and in no way did they consider what they were doing was either "open ended" or just the preliminary basis - as Ian Gorst suggests.

They stated in their report that:

The Council of Ministers should commission a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse: We suggest that the attached terms of reference form the basis of the committee's work. We advise that these are proposed to the States Assembly.

Are those terms of reference to be superseded and buried? It looks increasingly likely. The Council of Ministers seems to have a bad habit of disregarding professional independent reports if it suits them, or publishing them if they like what they hear. The strategy seems to be to use a report where it is suitable to legitimise a course of action, or to bury the report if it tells them something they don't want to hear.

It's the opposite of scientific method, where the results prove or refute the theory. If science was done on these lines, it would be more like the suspect methods employed by "Doakes Toothpaste" in Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics, where you throw away the results you don't want:


Anonymous said...


But let's get back to how easy it is for Doakes to get a headline without a falsehood in it and everything certified at that. Let any small group of persons keep count of cavities for six months, then switch to Doakes'. One of three things is bound to happen: distinctly more cavities, distinctly fewer, or about the same number. If the first or last of these possibilities occurs, Doakes & Company files the figures (well out of sight somewhere) and tries again. Sooner or later, by the operation of chance, a test group is going to show a big improvement worthy of a headline and perhaps a whole advertising campaign.

When Andrew Williams has completed what is, in fact, a second set of terms of reference, expect the Doakes Toothpaste strategy to come into play, and the first set by Verita to be filed well out of sight! END

What do you think, has Tony got it right? Please discuss

Anonymous said...

Tony has it right, and it would be even better if he would take this further.

This will be a pivotal government decision because so many eyes are on the terms of reference to see how the cover-up unfolds yet again.

For the ultimate interpretation of the label "open-ended", the C.M. really means "unknown outcome."
If the terms of reference do not prevent unknown outcomes, they will be officially unacceptable. "Time to move on" and "get on with their lives" are terms that suggest the abuse victims should forget what was done to them and allow those responsible to move forward without fear of consequences.

That's the obvious goal of bringing in Ourchap Williamson. It will be used to prevent any lessons from being learnt and and justice from being done.

Anonymous said...

I strongly disagree with the word "closure", I think it waters down the reason, surely it is to find out what went wrong, who was responsible and what has been done to ensure it will never happen again, only then can those who been abused have some small amount of closure, as ultimate closure must be to see their abuser pay for their crimes!!

Anonymous said...


What experience, if any, does Andrew Williamson have of running a judicial inquiry into child abuse?

Also, are you aware that the Northern Ireland Assembly are about to conduct their own Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. Their approach is dignified, sensible and sensitive.

The inquiry will be known as the Hart Inquiry. It is currently making its way through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I never thought I would agree with much that Mr McGuinness or Mr Robinson said, but their approach is to be admired. Jersey could learn a lot. Perhaps Senator Gorst could discuss at the next British Irish Council? In particular, they could discuss the terms of reference.

Why does it need Mr Williamson, when the experience of how to do this is right on our doorstep, and available to us?

Res Nullius said...

I fail to see why any person obtaining legal representation would push the budget up.

Surely each witness would be responsible for their own legal bills. It is a matter for each individual to obtain legal advice if they see fit. It is not obligatory. It should not be paid by the taxpayer.

The only people not represented privately by a local law firm would be those publicly represented i.e. advised by the States lawyers from the Law Officer's Department.

There then raises in itself a conflict.

Say, for instance, a Crown Lawyer is representing Mr X, who used to work at Les Cinq Chenes. Perhaps the enquiry reveals that Mr X committed criminal acts for which he should be prosecuted. How can the Crown prosecute Mr X having taken instructions from him, represented him and given him legal advice? In short, they can't.

Also, as an aside, I understand that the Law Oifficers'Dept don't do timesheets in the same way that private law firms do. Neither do they issue internal bills within the States. (can someone clarify?).

Either way, there should be no extra cost involved simply because some might want legal advice.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio from this Morning of Good Old BBC Jersey Radio reporting on the BIGGGG LEAK at the House of discontent.

You & your reader's can Listen to them talking about You & the Lose Fitting HERE


Anonymous said...

Res Nullius @11:46

".... Either way, there should be no extra cost involved simply because some might want legal advice."

You would have thought. But this is Jersey where (apparently) public money is routinely used to protect criminal lords and lankies of the establishment - especially the lords.

Anonymous said...

I wonder wether the JEP censors will publish my comment at

NAME/TITLE: Rohypnol Voter
SUBMITTTED: July 14, 2012 at 10:03 am

It is critically important that we find out who is responsible for this leak !

That way we can warmly shake their hand, thank them profusely and VOTE for them at the next election


(If the Bailhache "Electoral Commission" lets us).


Anonymous said...

There is a PUBLISHED!!!!! comment and question #1 at

So Proud July 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
I personally would be honoured if Mr.Syvert would carry our Olympic Torch for us
The headline rather twisted the truth in that he was proposed and then put forward by a UK selection committee.
Is it happening or did someone with rather large boots stamp on the idea ?

"So Proud" has had better success than me with the CENSORS on the JEP website and I suspect the publishing of So Proud may be partly an attempt to maintain a veneer of credibility fro the JEP site but also to FEED THE TROLLS who live there. I have preempted them with the following reply:

Mushroom Farmers & Touching Evil
July 14, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Is this feeding time at the troll-zoo ?
Posters may first wish to read the comments made by people (who have read the actual evidence) at:
And perhaps avoid making fools of themselves.
Or worse, find themselves Touching Evil, and being co-opted by it so that it is still stuck to them on their judgement day !


I will try to publish a couple of my JEP-CENSORED comments here, and perhaps elsewhere, because they really do not like that :-)

I see July 14, 2012 10:42 AM was published - The JEP do not like being watched :-)

Anonymous said...

Despite being dressed up in the most complementry way possible (well almost), the following comment was not publihed at

NOT PUBLISHED July 14, 2012 at 9:23 am

I would like to congratulate the JEP for a rare occasion on which it published BEFORE the bloggers and with hindsight GOT IT SO RIGHT ! Re. predicting Ogley payoff etc.

Comments #22 & #23 on

#22 "Rent Boy" October 11, 2010 at 9:58 am:

If you have some control over the information that goes INTO an enquiry then you have some control over what comes OUT of it !
But truths begin to seep out at last – Well done Mr.Napier – you have scratched the surface !
Now: Is Andrew Lewis a leader of men or a bit of a “brown noser” ?
Is it likely that Andrew Lewis had the confidence and the authority (intellect?) to do this on his own ?
Did he talk to any of his colleagues in the Council of Ministers or to the chief Minister ? – Apparently not !
AL; You and me have both been “shafted internationally”.
Tell us how it feels.
Better still, Tell us what REALLY happened.


#23 "Rent Boy" October 11, 2010 at 11:21 am:

We have the fall guy:
We have the reserve fall guys:
WARCUP (now he’s cheap{ish})
OGLEY (not cheap)
Now Ogley will get a real good golden handshake – dig deep everyone – YOUR PAYING (again).

Anonymous said...

I have to wonder what the Guardian would say about the leak. Methinks their reporters would not be focused at all on who leaked the evidence of the lying and cover-up, except to extol their virtues! Here you have a BBC interviewer behave like a representative of the liars themselves, with shameless disregard for the questions a real investigative journalist like you or those of the Guardian, would ask. What a journalistic role reversal for real journalists everywhere else to analyze.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with those whose comments are to the effect that, in a normal society, the media would be zooming in on that fact that the former Minister had patently lied to the parliament rather than just blather on about an inquiry to find out the source of the leak.

Quite frankly, if the States honestly thought that this information was not going to leak they are clearly living in their own dream-world!

Anonymous said...

Surely the real story is the fact that Lewis lied!!

Typical Jersey, shoot the messenger unless its Gradwell!!!

Anonymous said...

Why aren't you updating your blog?

rico sorda said...

Limited internet access at the moment but should have a new posting up this Sunday.

GeeGee said...

'Surely the real story is the fact that Lewis lied!!'

Indeed it is, but it is far easier to deflect from the real and important issue by 'investigating' the heinous crime of publishing what I would consider a public interest posting of utmost concern.

Leaks happen - they happen everyday, world wide, but Jersey can't handle it!

Ian Evans said...

The "Filthy Rag" not so SHARP after all.

Anonymous said...

Why have you got limited internet access at the moment. Please tell me they haven't got to you ?

Anonymous said...

The larger story of how Lewis lied, and a cascade of terrible injustice which was predicated upon this and related lies, will be exposed to a wider audience soon enough. The cover-up will only continue to unravel, now that a long-awaited tipping point has been reached. But it is a different scandal entirely that two BBC reporters treated the leak to this blog as a greater scandal than the very disturbing corruption story the leak told.

Consider that BBC is foremost known around the globe as a primary advocate for the protection of journalists' sources, lobbying for government anti-secrecy laws, and championing of whistleblowers in general, as the ultimate forces against corruption.

So entrenched is the BBC ideal of respecting and protecting leakers who act in the public interest, as in any case of proving government lies and cover-ups, that the BBC's international reputation could be at some risk if exposure of this local BBC behaviour became better known outside Jersey.

It would be quite strange to many within the BBC organization to hear this interview. It violates the charter many with BBC believe in, and on which many base their careers. Journalism is a calling for those who risk their lives to reveal government cover-ups. Every true journalist with any integrity should have a copy of this appalling BBC Jersey interview.

Agape said...

"So entrenched is the BBC ideal of respecting and protecting leakers who act in the public interest, as in any case of proving government lies and cover-ups, that the BBC's international reputation could be at some risk if exposure of this local BBC behaviour became better known outside Jersey."

What utter nonsense. Who writes this garbage? The BBC has been totally corrupted for the last forty years at least. The lies and propaganda they have been spewing out on behalf of anyone who will pay them is nothing short of astounding. Please educate yourself before attempting to hoodwink the world into believing that the BBC is something good and wholesome.

Anonymous said...

Anon he has possibly lent his PC to somebody else until the dust settles. Am I right RS?

Anonymous said...

When a journalistic body starts to receive money from political entities any impartiality is then considered lost.
The BBC receiving money from the EU and then decrying the UK not joining the EURO is a case in point.

Anonymous said...

At 7:25 this morning I posted the following at
Will the JEP publish ? Sometimes they need encouragement :-)

"Leanne D'Troll" / "Rohypnol Voter"

"GCD" replying to me at # [22]
asserts "No such thing as a Government Troll. So you should stop reading silly gossip on blogs though I guess from your pen name you are some what dazed anyway."

Where is your sympathy "GCD" darling and is your style and message slightly reminiscent of our friend "Jamie" who has posted this thread in reply to #8 @ July 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm & #10 @July 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm & elsewhere.

"Jamie" must be more dazed than me because his gravatar features regularly under an assortment of names (Keith, Matt, Gary etc. and errrr "Sara")

EVEN THE GRAVATAR IS THE SAME ! Just look at a little assortment:
#1 "Keith" October 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm
But there was no evidence of political ousting of the Chief of Police.
Now thats the most important aspect of this independant Report.
#77 "Matt" April 9, 2010 at 9:14 am
Here is an interesting link I was told about last night which clears much of this up:-
#83 "Matt" April 2, 2010 at 6:00 am
Adrian, check out ‘Lenny Harpic Investigates’ on Facebook. I did and had a right laugh.
Oh and the teeth, collected by staff?
#10 "Gary" June 20, 2009 at 12:17 am
From Mr Walkers strong reply I think I believe him. I cannot see a reason for him to demand operation blast if he cant even see the report afterwards. That sounds stupid to me. The wishful thinking anti-establishment conspiracy theorists go off on a dumb tangent yet again.
#19 "JPG" January 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm
A silly thread.
The investigation is closed so for goodness sake move on!

& also at #21 "JPG" January 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Denial of what? If you don’t trust the police to do their work because they ultimately run the show then write a complaint.
#2 "Sara" November 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I am pleased the Government is taking action against the Chief of Police. From yesterday’s press conference it is obvious that the whole murder enquiry has been a farce from the offset, and an expensive one.

Do you think what he wants you tho think ?

Perhaps not a Government Troll but certainly a Faction Troll
And a Faction that should twitch [trouble] any right thinking person's moral compass.

rico sorda said...

I have been a bit quiet.

New Posting today with no redaction