Tuesday, November 6, 2012


So, the Council Of Ministers lodge the proposition into decades long Child Abuse. 

It's a good start. But lets not get carried away. We need to have a good look at it and scrutinise the wording.

The big problem is this. They need to look at what  happened to 'Operation Rectangle'. 

The Committee of Enquiry must also look at what happened to the illegally suspended Chief of Police Graham Power and the denigration of lead investigator Lenny Harper.

This proposition is not up for debate until January 2013 

We will be having a very good look

Im also waiting for the audio from todays States of Jersey sitting where I believe our Home Affairs Minster accused Leah Mgrath Goodman as  a liar.

#FreeJersey: Please Help Us Restore Democracy To Our Beautiful Island.

Today is not a day to focus on right-wing versus left-wing politics, but the difference between right and wrong. 

12m 30sec for the Interview with L McGoodman

When a democratic government abuses its substantial legal, legislative and financial powers to crack down on journalists’ freedom of speech, force policemen and elected officials from their jobs and systemically dismantle its own checks and balances so as to deny each of its targets due process, clearly it is a government that has lost its way.

Jersey, the jewel in the crown of the Channel Islands, may be one of the world's leading offshore financial centres, but it has begun to use its clout against its own people – and it is keeping the rest of its population in the dark about it. This is now a place where court and legislative records – those that are public anyway – can now be redacted. This is an island where secret trials are now allegedly taking place and elected officials are forced to debate key issues in secret. Web content is banned and journalists booted out. This is not the way a democratic government is supposed to be run.

Again, this is not about politics. It is about standing up for truth, honesty and integrity. It is about restoring the good name of our beautiful island whose reputation has been dragged through the mud by those attempting to cover-up the facts surrounding some of the most heinous crimes known to man – crimes of violence against children. Crimes the vast majority of islanders would never defend, yet most of those who stand accused of committing them have not been brought to justice and continue to walk among us and our children. Worse, these alleged perpetrators remain entrenched in some of the very highest echelons of Jersey’s government – working in departments that focus on children! It is beyond comprehensible.

On an island where children in need of care have been let down by the government for decades – and continue to be let down – we cannot afford to ignore or repeat our mistakes. More broadly, challenging the government’s current decisions, particularly when not made in the best interest of the public, should not require bottomless financial resources and friends in high places. We are supposed to be a democracy, right?

With our checks and balances hamstrung, the international and independent media may be our last chance at reclaiming our democracy and re-establishing rule of law.

Today, Jersey politician Deputy Trevor Pitman launched an e-petition on Change.org in support of the return of U.S. investigative journalist and author, Leah McGrath Goodman, to the island to continue her research into decades of child abuse at Jersey’s state-run “care” homes and allegations of cover-ups in the wake of the government’s removal of the chief of police and shut-down of the entire investigation.

One year ago today, Ms. Goodman was banned from the UK and Jersey for two years after revealing to the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service during a voluntary meeting that she was writing a book on atrocities against children at Haut de la Garenne. According to the UK Border Force, she was flagged by Jersey Immigration authorities for removal upon her next border crossing – and that is exactly what happened. After the intervention of UK Member of Parliament John Hemming, the ban was reduced to one year and it expires today, 11 September 2012. That said, the UK and Jersey have so far declined to restore Ms. Goodman’s visa or allow her cross the border to continue her research. In order to do so safely, she will need to have her Tier -1 visa status fully restored – hence, the reason for Deputy Pitman’s e-petition today.

Leah McGrath Goodman should be permitted to complete her work in order that there is an accurate record based on the available facts and evidence. Jersey needs to confront the failings of its past so it can redress them and, most of all, ensure the safety of our children’s future.

We ask readers who care about the island’s children, who care about the island’s reputation, who believe in a free press and who want the truth to be told to sign Deputy Pitman’s e-petition. We also ask fellow bloggers to copy and paste this blog onto their own Web sites so that we may show the world that Jersey wants the best for its future and its children. It is time to leave our island’s culture of secrecy behind and demand the kind of free and open society our island deserves. Those who would do otherwise are not representative of the majority of islanders.

Please spread the word and sign this petition (ten seconds). The Internet is the one thing Jersey authorities have not been able to lock down.....yet! The petition can be signed HERE

For those who tweet this campaign, please use the #FreeJersey hashtag. While Jersey may try to keep journalists out, it cannot keep us for letting the truth in. 

Rico Sorda






THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

(a) to agree that a Committee of Inquiry should be established in accordance with Standing Order 146 to enquire into a definite matter
of public importance, namely historical child abuse in Jersey; and that the Committee should be comprised of a senior legally qualified
Chairman of significant standing from outside Jersey and 2 other members from outside the Island with suitable skills and experience;

(b) to approve the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry (asset out in Appendix 1 to the Report of the Council of Ministers dated
5th November 2012);

(c) to agree that the Chairman should be selected by a Panel comprising the Greffier of the States and 2 independent persons from the United Kingdom, with the selection process being overseen by the Jersey

Appointments Commission   (d) to agree that the 2 members of the Committee should be selected by a Panel comprising the proposed Chairman, the Greffier of the States and 2 independent persons from the United Kingdom, with the selection process being overseen by the Jersey Appointments


(e) to agree that the proposed Chairman should be requested to recommend any final changes to the Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry referred to in paragraph

(b) above for approval by the Assembly, and also to set out the proposed process for
conducting the Inquiry having consulted with interested parties where

(f) to request the Chief Minister to bring forward to the States the
necessary proposition relating to the appointment of the Chairman and
members and, if necessary, to the approval by the States of the final
Terms of Reference if changes have been recommended by the
proposed Chairman;

(g) to agree that the Committee of Inquiry should be requested to
complete its work within 12 months of commencing the Inquiry    


Historical Child Abuse: Establishment of Committee of Inquiry


This proposition, seeking the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry into Historical Child Abuse in Jersey, reflects both the belief of the Council of Ministers that this course of action is the correct one for the whole community and that it is the will of the States, following the approval of P.19/2011 (Appendix 2). The Council of Ministers also believes that it is in keeping with the intention of this proposition to reiterate the apology made on 6th December 2010 by former Chief Minister,

Senator T.A. Le Sueur –

“On behalf of the Island’s government, I acknowledge that the care system
that operated historically in the Island of Jersey failed some children in the
States’ residential care in a serious way. Such abuse has been confirmed by the criminal cases that have been before Jersey’s courts. To all those who suffered abuse, whether confirmed by criminal conviction or not, the Island’s government offers its unreserved apology.”

In making that apology, the States of Jersey acknowledged failings in the Island’s historical residential care system and, as a consequence, the Council of Ministers agreed the details of a Historic Abuse Redress Scheme for those who were in the States of Jersey’s full-time residential care between 9th May 1945 and 31st December 1994. Detailed discussions with claimants’ lawyers concluded that individuals concerned would prefer to settle matters, if possible, outside of public and adversarial court proceedings. Under the Scheme, which began in April 2012, claimants provide the relevant details and Mourant Ozannes (the Scheme lawyers) assess each claim. They will then determine whether the claim can be admitted into the Scheme, and assess the amount to be paid within agreed financial bands. Those bands have been arrived at following advice from expert UK counsel and feedback from specialist lawyers acting for claimants. All claims for financial redress were to be received by the States of Jersey’s legal advisers by 30th September 2012. Late claims would be considered by the Council of Ministers on a case-by-case basis. Since 2008 there have been a number of independent reports relating to Children’s Services.

These have included –

· Williamson Report: An Inquiry into Child Protection in Jersey – June 2008

· The Howard League for Penal Reform – Jersey Review: November 2008

· Williamson Report: Implementation Plan – January 2009

· Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel Review – July 2009

· Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – July 2010

· Youth Justice in Jersey: Options for Change – August 2010

· Action for Children – Review of Services for Children and Young People with Complex and Additional Needs – September 2012

· Voice of the Child Report – July 2012   The recommendations and actions contained in these reports are reported to the Children’s Policy Group on a quarterly basis and are contained in the Health and Social Services Department’s Service Improvement Plan. Since the approval of this Plan by the Children’s Policy Group at the end of 2011, significant progress has been made in implementing many of the recommendations.

A Committee of Inquiry

Public Inquiries are generally established to investigate specific and often
controversial events that have given rise to public concern and are followed by calls for a ‘full and public inquiry’. The common factor in every Public Inquiry is the pressing public concern that something has happened that must be investigated openly and fairly by a body that is independent of the problem. In Jersey, the first test for a Committee of Inquiry, as set out in Standing Orders, is that it must be about a ‘definite matter of public interest’.
In general, there are 6 main objectives of a public inquiry –

(1) Establishing the facts – providing a full and fair account of what

(2) Learning from events – distilling lessons and preventing their recurrence through changing practice.

(3) Therapeutic exposure – providing an opportunity for reconciliation and resolution between different parties.

(4) Reassurance – rebuilding public confidence in whatever service or issu has been the subject of the inquiry.

(5) Accountability – holding people and organisations to account, sometimes  indirectly contributing to the assignment of blame and mechanisms fore retribution.

(6) Transparency – demonstrating that ‘something has been done’ or

transparency in government.

A full Committee of Inquiry is a significant undertaking which will require the

appointment of individuals of sufficient stature and experience to act impartially and  judicially in order to safeguard the interests of all involved. Experience of other Inquiries, such as that of the Ireland Commission, is that many of those who wish to engage with it, whether as witnesses, those named by witnesses or other organisations would require legal support. This would be in addition to the legal support provided to the Inquiry team itself. All legal representation would be paid for by the States.

The framework for a Committee of Inquiry

The previous Council of Ministers commissioned Verita to seek the views of
interested parties about the purpose, manner and conduct of a Committee of Inquiry, to propose Terms of Reference, to forecast likely costs, and to make a written report with recommendations. The key tasks were to –

· seek the views of interested parties about the purpose, manner and conduct of the intervention/inquiry;

· research the various options, including restorative justice, in order to be able to advise the Council of Ministers and the States Assembly;

· propose Terms of Reference for the intervention/inquiry building on those resulting from the debate over P.19/2011;

· suggest ways of conducting the intervention/inquiry taking account of

previous undertakings and current views;

· model costs of the options – so that Ministers and other States Members

understand what they are committing to spend;

· set out the practical implications arising from the decisions they take.g. appointment of Chairman, Panel, recovery of documentation, etc.;

· set out a timetable for the commissioning and conduct of an


This report was considered by the former Council of Ministers in 2011, subsequently published and is attached as Appendix 3.

In view of the passage of time since Verita’s initial work, the Chief Minister requested that Mr. Andrew Williamson, a specialist in childcare services, review both the Terms

of Reference and the recommendations of the Verita report. This review is attached as Appendix 4.

These 2 reports raised a number of issues which the Council of Ministers considered in preparing this final Proposition and Report for presentation to the States for approval. These included the following issues, which are dealt with, in turn, below –

· the Terms of Reference;

· the composition of the Committee;

· the process for gaining States approval · Composition of Committee

The Council of Ministers recommends that the Chairman should be independent of Jersey and of all interested parties and should have a legal/judicial background. In order to ensure that the recruitment process is handled in an independent manner, it is proposed that the selection Panel should be comprised of the Greffier of the States and 2 independent persons with appropriate experience from the United Kingdom. It is further recommended that the Jersey Appointments Commission should oversee the appointment process of the Chairman. The Greffier has indicated his willingness to undertake this role if requested to do so by the States, and has suggested that he would seek to select one independent panellist with experience in dealing with public inquiries of this nature, and one with experience in working alongside victims of abuse, to form the Panel.

It is also recommended that the Chairman should be supported by one or 2 panellist also recruited from outside Jersey, with at least one lay member from an island community, and that one panellist should have childcare experience

· Process for gaining States approval

The Council of Ministers asks the States to approve the establishment of a Committe of Inquiry, a set of Terms of Reference and a process of recruitment for the Chairman and members. Following appropriate consultation, the proposed Chairman would then recommend any changes he/she deemed to be appropriate to the Terms of Reference.

A further Proposition and Report would then be presented to the States to approve –

(i) any changes to the Terms of Reference recommended by the proposed
Chairman; and

(ii) the appointment of the Chairman and the 2 Committee members   Financial and manpower implications

The Council of Ministers recognises that this Inquiry will be complex and will need administrative support as outlined in the Verita report. The estimated known and quantifiable costs of the Inquiry are put at some £2.04 million and are considered in detail in section 2.12 – 2.15 and Appendix 3 of the Verita report. Andrew Williamson considers these to be a fair reflection of the costs involved. However, it should be borne in mind that this estimate does not include the legal fees, which could be significant. These may be incurred under legal advice for the Panel, legal costs of interviewees and the legal costs for a review of the decisions on whethe to prosecute. Verita has advised that the legal costs of similar Committees of Inquiry may account for some 70% of the total overall costs.

The magnitude of legal costs will necessarily depend on the size of the Inquiry and the   number of witnesses and their requirement for legal representation, all of which makes it difficult to precisely quantify the full costs at this stage. However, the best estimate of the total costs of a Committee of Inquiry, including legal costs, is likely to be in the region of some £6 million. Costs will need to be met from year-end carry-forwards and the Contingency for Emerging Items.

There are no permanent staffing implications for the States as a result of this

Proposition, although a number of temporary staff will need to be recruited. The cost estimate does not include officer time in departments which have dealings with the Committee – for example – for liaising with the Inquiry team, recovering documents,taking legal advice about disclosure and supporting those who are witnesses. This means that temporary staff may be needed, either to assist the Inquiry or to backstaff who are assisting. This, in turn, could have further cost implications.


It is the united view of this Council of Ministers that a Committee of Inquiry is the right and proper way in which to proceed. It provides a clear acknowledgement that things have gone wrong in the past, and that now is the time to learn lessons from past failings in childcare provision.

Ministers believe that by establishing a thorough, trusted and independent process of the inquiry, the experiences of all witnesses will be accorded their rightful importance and

play a part in ensuring that Jersey has the correct framework to protect all Islanders, especially its most vulnerable.

It is the sincere hope of the Council of Ministers that this Committee of Inquiry will be the first step in the healing process for all who have suffered and for the whole

community.   The Council of Ministers urges Members to support this Proposition.

5th November 2012    
Terms of Reference

The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –

1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.

2. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes.

3. Examine the political oversight of children’s homes and fostering service the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

4. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during this period, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the  period under review

5. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in  response to the concerns raised in 2007 and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.

6. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be a matter for the Committee to determine the balance between privacy for the witness against the requirement for openness in a Committee of Inquiry. The Committee, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.

7. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing.

8. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Department dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, and whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day.

9. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the

appropriate bodies including the States of Jersey Police; and what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day

10. Establish the process by which files submitted by the States of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought, were dealt with by the prosecution authorities and establish whether or not that process –- enabled those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute to take a consistent and impartial approach;

- was free from any political influence or interference at any level.

If, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it is necessary that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision should be examined, those files shall be examined by an independent expert or experts in criminal law from outside Jersey, appointed by the Committee, who shall prepare a confidential report to the Committee maintaining the anonymity of witnesses and persons against who accusations are made. Any such expert or experts shall ensure that they are fully informed of the relevant Jersey law at the material time, and shall carry out any such review on the basis of the
reasonableness of the decision in question in all the circumstances
11. Set out what lessons can be learnt for the current system of residential and

foster care services in Jersey.

12. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care. The Inquiry should make full use of all work conducted since 2007


Anonymous said...

Police later said that what was first thought to be a skull fragment was identified as a piece of coconut by experts from Kew Gardens

Rag online tonight & the spin of coconuts goes on & on & on & on.....

Anonymous said...

I noticed the J.E.P. today are still claiming "experts" found the skull fragment to be a coconut.

Ian Evans said...


Zoompad said...


Anonymous said...

I too was incensed by the JEP article and posted the following comment more than 2 hours ago. As yet, it has not appeared but I live in hope -

Why do you keep raising the so-called coconut? As you should well know, this whole issue is shrouded in uncertainty. As far as I am aware, the UK scientists never said officially that it was coconut. Indeed, this was simply a comment made by a laboratory technician.
In any case, surely the main story is that Jersey is, at last, embarking on a proper inquiry into a matter that should have been investigated independently and thoroughly a long time ago.
You should concentrate your efforts on the need for victims of abuse to be given the simple courtesy of being believed and ensuring that such horrors cannot be repeated. It’s time to stop taking cheap shots at the original investigators and start supporting wholeheartedly efforts to achieve justice for the victims.

rico sorda said...

As I mentioned in the main posting I'm waiting for the audio to be published on THEJERSEYWAY blogsite of the quite ludicrous answers given by our Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand.

He was talking about the banned American Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman. Now I have the feeling he told Deputy Trevor Pitman that he hadn't read her file concerning her Visa but was well placed to call her a Liar.

This Minister is off the scale.

He wasn't even pulled up by the Bailiff

Deputy Tadier asked for an apology but none was forthcoming


Anonymous said...

Well said, Zoompad. Simple, straightforward, and honest response to the coconutters. That is still the real message. Well, that and the cover-up of the cover-up.

thejerseyway said...


I'm going to be a while, didn't listen today was there a statement read by chief minister before questions

Thanks just running late


rico sorda said...


No that I heard.

There are some very good questions that need putting up.

Let me know if you need help


Anonymous said...

How on earth did an important skull fragment end up being taken to a garden centre?

rico sorda said...

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

“Under what conditions can confidential counselling and medical information be used in open court and are current procedures consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and Data Protection legislation

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Will the Minister undertake to provide in writing a detailed ‘audit trail’ identifying what items were retrieved during the Haut de la Garenne investigation, advise where they were sent for analysis, who sent/authorized them to go, who examined them, where each item is currently stored and confirm that no items from this investigation have been lost or destroyed?”

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chief Minister–

“In view of allegations of political misconduct surrounding the suspension of the former Chief of Police , will the Chief Minister be proposing Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse that will allow it to gauge whether there was any undue political interference in policing
matters and, if not, why not?”

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

“Will the Minister advise whether foreign writers require a special visa to enter Jersey and write about what goes on in the Island and, if so, under what piece of legislation is this administered and what was the role, if any, of his department in the exclusion of Leah McGrath Goodman from the United Kingdom on her way to Jersey?”

Anonymous said...

Deputy Ryan is turning a blind eye to The Chief Officer of Education.
As The BBC turned a blind eye to Savile

rico sorda said...

11. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

“Will H.M. Attorney General advise members whether statutory powers exist to prevent journalists/tv teams/writers from entering Jersey and, if so, what these are?”

These are the ones. Thanks TJW

Anonymous said...

Verita not good enough

Some people will never be satisfied no matter how much they are given.

Anonymous said...

We are very concerned that one member of the COI should be from a small island community. It is the very nature of small island communities that leads to the sweeping under the carpet of issues that might cause interference or opposition from larger more powerful jurisdictions. This is precisely why Frank Walker, Philip and William Bailhache acted as they did throughout the historical abuse inquiry. We are also concerned that abuse will be considered within the context of the norms during the 60's and 70's. Child abuse has never been acceptable. Sexual abuse of children was against the law just as much then as it is now. The effects of physical or sexual abuse on children was just as devastating for those children then as it is now. The effects on those children should be the focus, not on trying to find some flimsy excuse for abuse on the basis that childcare standards were not as advanced as they are believed to be now. Well done, RICO. You have done much to achieve much improved TORs for the inquiry.Thank you xxx

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

We keep on going. The COI has been lodged. The next battle comes next year when it gets debated. I never underestimate the inner sanctum of halfwits that govern us. There can be no doubt that the pressure asserted over the past months has helped with todays TOR's and a certain toxic cretin called Savile has blown it all wide open.

The Jersey Government is not fit for purpose.

Senator Bailhace says we are buying Plémont and Senator Ozouf does a U-Turn and says ok.

That is the level of our Government

Simple as that. No need for debate

Simply, outrageously shocking.


rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

We keep on going. The COI has been lodged. The next battle comes next year when it gets debated. I never underestimate the inner sanctum of halfwits that govern us. There can be no doubt that the pressure asserted over the past months has helped with todays TOR's and a certain toxic cretin called Savile has blown it all wide open.

The Jersey Government is not fit for purpose.

Senator Bailhace says we are buying Plémont and Senator Ozouf does a U-Turn and says ok.

That is the level of our Government

Simple as that. No need for debate

Simply, outrageously shocking.


thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put the Audio from today up,
You & your readers can Listen HERE

Better late then never!


Anonymous said...

Speaking as a mainland resident, but frequent visitor to all of the Channel Isles over 40 plus years, the burying of the Jersey Care Home enquiry speaks volumes about the 'democracy' of all the Bailwicks. The now proven link to Savile, which he denied in life, is reason enough to re open the enquiry. Given also the alleged links to child abusers in former UK cabinets, in my view all of our 'democratic' institutions need a high powered searchlight shining on them: paedophilia itself is inexcusable, but knowingly conspiring to cover it up and so enabling paedophiles to continue their apalling crimes is, arguably, worse. Does the States of Jersey really want to place itself in the sme bracket as the Catholic Church??

Bring abusers to Justice, no matter how well-connected or politically powerful. And re instate the honest policemen hounded out of the island for daring to speak the truth: their treatment was utterly shameful.

And as I said, I'm a mainlander, but my Uncle is a Guernsey Jurat. My links to the Islands are strong, but most of my friends are a lot less charitable over Crown Dependency Status.

If the UK toties can hold their nose and open the alleged can of worms, you CANNOT not follow. Too many coverups, over too long a period, and too many facts in the public realm already

Anonymous said...

And Rico Sorda: great post, far too few in the Channel Isles are prepared to rock the boat and highlight just how undemocratic the Bailwicks' present form of government can be. And I say this because I genuinely love all the Islands (just don't get me started on Sark...)

rico sorda said...

Having just listened to the above link I can only say that Senator Le Marquand is off his head. He hasn't seen the files on Leah but is qualified to call her a liar. He did the same with Lenny Harper, Graham Power. How is he still a Minister?

Thank you TJW


Anonymous said...

Rico, will you be able to give evidence to the (coi) about the cover up of operation rectangle?

Anonymous said...

If anyone has ever heard of or knows details about a convicted abuser by the name of Philip Polanskie (probably changed now) who was in the somerset area in the early 70s then moved to North Wales for a year or two and then on to Germany, would they please share. He had ginger hair and around 6 foot tall.

Anonymous said...

"All legal representation would be paid for by the States."

Why? Is it right that perhaps a network of pedos infiltrate and children's home, then perhaps lie to cover up for each other and then get the public to pay for there legal advice!!!

I do not understand why anyone needs legal advice to tell the truth about what has happened.

Anonymous said...

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Will the Minister undertake to provide in writing a detailed ‘audit trail’ identifying what items were retrieved during the Haut de la Garenne investigation, advise where they were sent for analysis, who sent/authorized them to go, who examined them, where each item is currently stored and confirm that no items from this investigation have been lost or destroyed?”

I loved the answer ILM gave, he has now paved the way for Trevor to make a list of each bone fragment and ask if it is still held as evidence and where all live on air.

Ian Evans said...

A message to THE SHEEPLE.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for sounding like a broken record Rico, but it really is important. Thanks for publishing in previous posts, Stuart refused to do so. Here it is again:

If anyone has ever heard of or knows details about a convicted abuser by the name of Philip Polanskie (probably changed now) who was in the somerset area in the early 70s then moved to North Wales for a year or two and then on to Germany, would they please share. He had ginger hair and around 6 foot tall.

Anonymous said...

'social norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review'

It could be argued that there may have been many accepted social norms, some might say "perks of the job", however this does not make them legally acceptable.

An example: it might have been normal for policemen in the past to give an alleged culprit a bit of beating, that's not to say they could not have been charged themselves, just that they did it because they new it would be covered up, as think of it as normal.

Many children ended up in children's homes, because of a family breakdown where abuse was paramount, it does not make it normal for a State care home to continue the abuse.

An ex-teacher who went on to be a Jurat, considered someone's reputation above that of a child. I guess it could be claimed to have been the social norm, whereas others at the time would say it was a 'cover-up'.

If only Stuart Syvret had not been removed from the States when he stated he was going to instigate an investigation, it would have all been over a couple of years ago and saved Jersey millions in various legal fees!!