Thursday, December 27, 2012

END OF YEAR BLOG - PART 2 THE JERSEY CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL









"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 (ricosorda.blogspot.com) and Neil McMurray (Voiceforchildren.blogspot.com) 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






END OF YEAR BLOG -PART 2


Further to my previous posting this is the second part of my interview with leading Jersey Citizen Blogger VOICEFORCHILDREN

I would like to finish the year on the subject of the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-Up that has been the major reason for me in creating this blog site.  2013 will hopefully bring a fully independent - fit for purpose Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse.

These are the links to some of the postings I have done this year as discussed in the Video Interview.










Anybody who wants to know how Jersey got rid of former Chief of Police Graham Power  QPM should start reading from the link below.



I believe this has got to be one of the most complete pieces of investigative journalism that the island of Jersey has seen. His only crime was having the utter cheek to investigate child Abuse Investigation.


Please find the time to watch the Inside Out program on the Jersey Child Investigation



Thank you to everybody who supports us Jersey Bloggers.


The victims of abuse will not be forgotten.


We will fight this to the bitter end


A very Happy New Year to all of you.


Rico Sorda 


Team Voice


Part Time Investigative Journalist




39 comments:

Himself said...

Respect Rico.

Anonymous said...

Top stuff Rico publishing, broadcasting, and investigating what the media should be instead of covering it up.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

As mentioned in the video; yourself and Ian Le Marquand on STATE RADIO Where the JEP and Channel Television didn't turn up.

Ian Evans said...

RANK TV at it again!

Anon said...

Keep up the good work.

Happy New Year!

- Aangirfan

GeeGee said...

Arise Sir Rico! - thanks for all you do and the happiest of New Years to you and yours.

The same sentiments to VFC as well.

Anonymous said...

A fantastic year indeed Rico! You are a rock for many who otherwise would have remained silent, hiding in their dark corner. Respect to you for all that you and VFC have done over the years and for keeping this alive.
Happy New Year
Carrie

Anonymous said...

In relation to comments made in your video, but is this an example of the JEP style of reporting?

The Beano is not the Rag

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

VFC News Review 2012 PART ONE

Ian Evans said...

Bailhache, the ENEMY of Democracy

Anonymous said...

Hi, we've been drilling down into the famous HdLG photo with So-Vile.. at DI forum. The photo that Vile was so keen to have removed from The Sun newspaper. You probably know much more than we - but we are intrigued by the presence of Leida Costigan in that pic. Her link with Henlow Grange/Champneys and back to Vile -again. We date the pic as 1976 - from t-shirt logo and superspike campaign to fund Volleyball trip to Canada. Does this info concur with what you know? Can you confirm we have dated pic accurately?
We have unearthed numerous links and leads - which are being tied together bit by bit.

Welshwitch from DI and all who are digging for the truth salute you.

rico sorda said...

HI Anon,

I haven't done ay research into the Saville HdelaG photo. I have been assured that it was in fact taken at HdelaG but that is about as much as I know. Not sure if there are other that could shed more light on this.

rs

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the feedback re photo. We have positive photographic ID of the location as HdLG.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222773&highlight=Garenne&page=1765
plus this is interesting too
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/the-big-bang-theory-the-heath-savile-confluence/
WW

Zoompad said...

Leida Costigan, fascinating!

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/men-seek-beauty

The Yorkshire connection again:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNorman_Mitchell&ei=TkrgULHEK8uW0QXp64HQCQ&usg=AFQjCNF0z7kInGMpliW5eUKnHZz6wpKXpA&sig2=3lFpgXZuswRUjxHo8svEaw

rico sorda said...

2.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding missing witness statements made by victims of child abuse:

Will the Minister advise Members whether any written statements made by victims of child abuse that were made to and in the custody of the States of Jersey Police were subsequently lost? If so, have these statements now been recovered and if not, what are the implications for victims making claims for compensation under the Historic Abuse Redress Scheme?

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

I am aware of one individual who says, as I understand it, that he made statements in both 1980 and 2000. That is some years prior to Operation Rectangle. I am also aware that that individual and Deputy Higgins have met fairly recently with a senior police officer who has been allocated to examine this and a related matter. The police have been unable to locate any statements made in 1980 or 2000. They did make contact. There were 2 names of police officers mentioned, one of whom has died, the other of whom has no recollection of this and they have been unable to locate these items. I simply do not know whether these have been lost or not but I am aware that this individual made a complaint as part of the Historical Abuse Inquiry and that is clear. Although this is strictly outside of my Ministerial remit, I am willing to express a view on the effect in relation to the redress scheme and that view is that because the individual made a complaint to Operation Rectangle, the Historical Abuse Inquiry in 2008, I would not expect that the failure to find these previous statements would have a material effect on whether his claim would be accepted or not. The decision on whether or not to accept the claims, of course, is being made by lawyers on behalf of the Council of Ministers.

2.4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I take it that the Minister is confirming that witness statements were lost… that is a fact, really, because all know that there were records showing that statements were taken but they have subsequently not been revealed. Will the Minister also confirm that other evidence relating to the child abuse scheme also went missing from the States of Jersey Police and the 2 police officers were suspected of removing evidence from the States of Jersey Police?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am not confirming whether or not the statements have got lost because we simply do not know. What we do know is that there is a gentleman who says he made such statements. I am not trying to impugn his honesty but we simply do not know the answer to that. In relation to the other matter raised by Deputy Higgins, I am completely unaware of this. I do not know whether he discussed this with the senior police officer at the meeting which took place but if he has information to that effect, it most certainly should be provided to that officer so that an investigation can take place.

rico sorda said...

2.4.2 The Connétable of St. John:

I have got some concerns here, given that we have lost statements and historically I am aware that we have lost drugs and lost cash from secure keeping at the Police Headquarters. I am also aware of firearms having gone missing after having been delivered to Police Headquarters and that is a real concern. Would the Minister please tell us how these statements and all things kept by the police, what kind of secure archives do they have and are they held on premises or away from the premises, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It is not surprising to me that over a lengthy period of time, items might get mislaid or lost. Also there would be a weeding out process that would normally take place in relation to what was held and what was not held. That would be perfectly normal. Absolutely nothing has gone missing from the Historical Abuse Inquiry. We are talking about some statements which were allegedly made from an earlier period. I am satisfied that the police now have appropriate processes and appropriate storage. I am not precisely sure where all that storage is. I think some of it is off site and some of it is on site in practice. The armouries in relation to guns - if that is the concern - are most definitely on site although there are 2 different sections to that.

2.4.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just for the record, I have seen a letter from another member of the public whose evidence, not to do with the Historical Abuse, was conveniently apparently destroyed by a flood at the police station. However, my question to the Minister is - and I am not a lawyer I am pleased to say - the Minister says that he cannot see any problem with the fact that statements have been lost. However, surely if something can be seen, it was done in 1980 and 2000 and it has been done again recently, then that would have added weight to what the abused victim is saying. Could the Minister just explain that to me, how he can say that is not going to be a problem, because surely that building up and that repeating of the same evidence is very valid and very important?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

In general, the fact that someone may say the same thing on a number of occasions does not necessarily increase the force of that. I have to say that I second a decision that has been made by the lawyers dealing with this on the basis of the inherent credibility of the allegations that are made and that the fact that a previous allegation may have been made would only be part of that. I am not aware of exactly what the conditions were going back to 1980. As I say, if the police are unable to find something, they do not know if it has got lost, they do not know if it is still with them, they do not know if the statement was ever made as a formal statement. That is why I am being cautious about the matter.

2.4.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am absolutely amazed at the final statement of the Minister because there is a record in Police Headquarters showing that a statement was made by this individual in 1980. That is why we know it is missing. I am also surprised that the Minister for Home Affairs is not aware that those police officers who were under suspicion and investigated at the time for loss of evidence and tipping off potential abusers I think took early retirement. So if he wants to talk later, I will tell him the names of the people that I am aware of. But what I would say is surely…

The Deputy Bailiff:

Can you ask the question, please, Deputy?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am coming to that now, Sir. Does the Minister for Home Affairs think that it is good enough that evidence is going missing and what steps is he going to take to make sure that future evidence does not go missing on the part of statements and other things submitted to the police?

rico sorda said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am satisfied that we now have proper systems in place in relation to all these things. If I may say so, when the Deputy met with the senior police officer, who was allocated to the matter specifically at my request, he was asked to come back with more detail. I would ask, would he please provide that detail to that officer so that he can conduct a proper investigation in relation to the matter because clearly there is detail in the possession of Deputy Higgins which is not to the knowledge of this officer who is my source of information for these answers.

rico sorda said...

2.7 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the Historic Child Abuse inquiry terms of reference:

In view of concerns raised by a number of States Members and stakeholders, will the Chief Minister ensure that the issues of both the police handover of investigations and the actions of those in political power will be fully covered in the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry terms of reference?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

The Deputy is aware that I have received correspondence from a number of stakeholders, including himself, asking that the terms of reference be extended. I have confirmed to those stakeholders that I will consult with Verita and the Council of Ministers before making any decision.

2.7.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I thank the Chief Minister for his answer. Could he give us some indication of when we are likely to get an answer because some of those stakeholders are deeply concerned, as I think the Chief Minister will fully acknowledge?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

It will indeed take some time. I will need to understand when Verita can respond to me and I will also probably need to request a special sitting of the Council of Ministers. However, I have indicated that should the answer be in the negative or should we not be able to meet all those requests, then I would be prepared to defer the debate so that those stakeholders could bring amendments.

2.7.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the Chief Minister realise that the stakeholders and we States Members who have been actively seeking amendments do not want the debate to be deferred? We simply want the Chief Minister to sit down with us in the earliest possible course - I know he is busy - hopefully before Christmas though, so that we can agree whether the Chief Minister will accept these amendments and if not, we can put them in without delaying this very important debate which has been delayed too long already.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

It seems this morning I cannot quite get it right. The Plémont proposition, it seems that Members wish I had brought in the name of the Council of Ministers. Now that I have brought a proposition which I think is rightly brought in the name of the Council of Ministers, Members are wishing it was brought in my name so they could simply sit down with me and we could change the terms of reference. It is rightly brought in the Council of Ministers’ name. It shows that the Council of Ministers are supportive of a Committee of Inquiry and as Members know, that is, I think, the right thing to do. Therefore, if there are to be any changes, it is the Council of Ministers which must consider them.

rico sorda said...

2.7.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

I feel that the Chief Minister is being disingenuous. No one is commenting on the fact that this proposition should not be brought by the Council of Ministers; that is understood. But the Chief Minister knows himself that in the past, whenever there have been talks on this, either formal or informal, it has always been conducted directly with him and his Chief Officer, never with the Council of Ministers. I do not see any reason for any departure from that, although I am happy to talk with the whole Council of Ministers if he invites that. Would the Chief Minister explain why he needs to go back to Verita when quite simply we are asking for amendments which Verita had already recommended for the most part to be in there? They have now been removed. There is no need to stall this by going back to Verita for their comments. It is a very simple issue which the Chief Minister can do by sitting and talking to us or even email correspondence so that we can get this in before Christmas without delaying the debate any further. Will the Chief Minister agree to that reasonable request?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I am always happy to meet but that caveat remains that it is a Council of Ministers proposition and therefore the Council of Ministers needs to agree to any changes to the terms of reference.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Pitman, do you wish the final question?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

No, Sir. Deputy Tadier’s was so long and involved and very, very elegant so I will leave it at that.

rico sorda said...

2.12 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Attorney General regarding cases of alleged criminal offences committed by serving officers in the States of Jersey Police:

Yes, but I would like to point out to Members before I do that the original question referred to illegality on the part of police officers rather than criminal offences. The reasoning will become apparent, I think. Is the Attorney General aware of any cases of alleged criminal offences or illegality committed by…

The Bailiff:

No, the question is criminal offences because you refer to prosecution. You can only prosecute for criminal offences, Deputy.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, Sir, I will accept that point.

The Bailiff:

You cannot prosecute for illegality. So your first question was wrong and this is now the correct question.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

If that had been communicated to me, it would have been helpful. It was not. Is the Attorney General aware of any cases of alleged criminal offences committed by serving officers in the States of Jersey Police and if so, what action, if any, will he be taking to prosecute such officers to maintain or restore public confidence in the police and to show that no one is above the law?

rico sorda said...

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

The rule of law requires that, subject to any immunity or exemption provided by law, the criminal law of the land should apply to all alike. A person is not to be singled out for adverse treatment merely because he or she holds a high or dignified office of State but nor can the holding of such an office excuse conduct which would lead to the prosecution of one not holding such an office. The maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice requires that it be, and be seen to be, even-handed. So said the Privy Council in the 2007 case of Sharma v Brown-Antoine and I respectfully agree. It follows that there is no special or different test when it comes to considering a prosecution decision that concerns a police officer. The same tests that are applied to a member of the public are also applied to the police officer. Finally, insofar as this question invites discussion between the Law Officers and one or more States Members as to the merits of a particular prosecution, then I decline that invitation. It goes without saying that prosecution decisions must be taken on a consistent and independent basis, free from political pressure.

2.12.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is not a question of bringing up a particular case so the Solicitor General has no need to worry on that. It is a question of principle and about procedure. The case or cases I particularly wish to raise is a question of police officers entering property without a warrant or lawful cause. Now, any ordinary person who enters someone else’s house would be charged with breaking and entering. If a police officer enters the house he should have a warrant under the Police Powers and Criminal Evidence Law. Equally, he should show a warrant card and yet there are examples of police officers on 3 occasions, and one of these has been confirmed by a former police officer, where they entered without a warrant. They raised the issue with their fellow officer and they were told to keep it quiet, the public do not know. Does he feel that the police should first of all follow the law and if they do not that they should be prosecuted for not doing so?

The Solicitor General:

The Deputy will no doubt be aware from recent events in the United Kingdom involving BBC News Night and the false criminal allegations made on that programme that conducting trials through the media or internet blog is a proven recipe for creating injustice and smearing the name of an innocent person. [Approbation] Trial by States Deputy is not an improvement.

2.12.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I come back on that? First of all, I have no idea what he is talking about, States blogs and everything else, because my question is not concerned with that at all. What I am concerned about are 3 separate occasions when police officers have entered property without a warrant or without lawful cause and, in one case, they were in plain clothes and they did not even show their warrant cards. Is that acceptable behaviour on the part of the police?

The Solicitor General:

As I have already said, I am not going to engage in a trial through question time of particular police officers. The Law Officers will consider any case file that comes to them and will assess it on its merits and no police officer will be treated any differently to any member of the public. I should add in a broad sense that police searches sometimes are conducted without the appropriate warrant. That does not normally result in a prosecution. It may give rise to a civil claim for whoever’s property has been trespassed.

2.12.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

To give a nice direct generic hypothetical instance, if a police officer is accused of doing something illegal or a criminal offence but his defence is: “Well, the Law Officers told me to do it” are those Law Officers then subject to the same scrutiny and investigation as the police officer would be or is there some different code of operation?

rico sorda said...

The Solicitor General:

Firstly, that is not a hypothetical situation, that is a real case, so I am not commenting on it. Secondly, a police officer is responsible for his or her own actions. The fact that a lawyer gives that police officer legal advice does not make the lawyer responsible for the police officer’s actions.

2.12.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am really surprised at the Solicitor General’s attitude on this. What I am seeking him to do is make a statement to the States and to the public at large on the protection that members of the public should have against arbitrary police action. Would the Solicitor General please state clearly for everybody the right of police officers to enter a property, the procedures they must follow and also would he also address the fact of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights where the police are invading the privacy of the people concerned when they do so?

The Solicitor General:

Article 8 of the Human Rights Law provides a person with a right to privacy and that is why the police powers, in terms of search, are qualified and have suitable safeguards to ensure there is a proper balance between the police’s ability to investigate crime and the individual’s right to privacy. As I have said, if the police get it wrong in terms of their use of their search powers, then they are exposed certainly to a civil claim. If a police officer acts in a way that constitutes a criminal offence, then that officer will be considered for prosecution in just the same way as any member of the public. There have been, I should add, previous well-known examples of prosecutions of police officers in this Island. I personally have prosecuted 2 such cases.

Anonymous said...

Jersey is the most corrupt place in the western world. Keep up the good work Rico.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Some more REAL NEWS

Ian Evans said...

The latest failing of BOWRON & BIRT

Anonymous said...

Upon reading your posts about the searching of an individual's property.... I can only presume that Deputy Higgins is referring to the "illegal"raid on Mr Syvret's residence amongst others. Considering the AG's response, the officers in question should now find themselves in disciplinary proceedings with the full backing of the AG? Or have i missed something?

Ian Evans said...

The SCUM OF JERSEY in 2012 :)

Anonymous said...

Anon @5.49p.m.
You can hear the A-G's weak non-answers to Mike Higgins sturdy questions on the Jersey Way blog site- 6th Dec 2012 Questions without Answers (4.12.12) no.13 (the others are worth a listen too).

No. 13 is lengthier than the transcripts Rico has posted at present. Notice the way the A-G doesn't answer, blames bloggers & the SoJ applaude with a foot stamp.....a classic example of group think.

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/12/questions-without-answers-041212.html

Happy New Year Rico and all at Team Voice and TJW.- You're all hero's to us.

Anonymous said...

Wishing you a most joyful and triumphant new year. May this be remembered in Jersey as the era of the important investigative journalist Rico Sorda. Very, very well done.

Elle

Anonymous said...

Rico, this is from the DI Forum. Keep up the good work. The truth is worth fighting for.

"
Haut de la Garenne operated as a "school"/home/residential centre from 1867 to 1986, that's 119 years! It's only 27 years since the place closed. That's a hell of alot of ex-staff and ex-residents still out there. Am I missing something, or being unbelievable naive, because to me hardly anyone involved with the place in the past is coming forward publicly with stories of life there, the goings on there, etc. Surely there were people's parents and grandparents working there in days gone by who quietly passed on god-alone knows what lurid tales to their younger relatives. Has everyone involved had the fear instilled into them to such an extent that "no one" dare speak out? So many people, so many stories to tell and - nothing.

What's wrong with that damn island and the god forsaken people on it?

There must be comprehensive lists in existence "somewhere" of all staff and residents right from the earliest days. Private & confidential true. But... Mmm.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Independence for Jersey EXPLORED

Zoompad said...

"What's wrong with that damn island and the god forsaken people on it?"

http://youtu.be/v_mW8mBzmHo

Some would say friends in high places, but I think the problem is really friends in very low places, ie the depths of hell. They are even laughing about it openly now.

Ian Evans said...

Bridget Shaw gets to taste some of her OWN MEDICINE....

Ian Evans said...

Dear Oh Dear....EVEN MORE CORRUPTION!!!

Ian Evans said...

The State Media, A LAUGHING STOCK

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand [FM] might assert in a highly irresponsible, complacent fashion that HE is satisfied that we [who exactly are the "WE"? Fellow Freemasons? Fellow senior legal brethren whose path inexorably leads to the doors of the LOD [Law Officers' Department] - the LOD who think - perhaps due to their dyslexic understanding of "Justice" - they are the "LO(R)D"? (Just as in the Lodge the senior Crown Officers are referred to as Most Worshipful Master?)] now have "proper systems in place in relation to all these things"
- BUT "proper systems" consisting of systems that are consistent with corrupt practices & corrupt characters in the beautiful island of Jersey that has been corrupted at its highest levels of the Executive [politically, legally, economically, & socially] by a Masonic club of toxic scum purporting to dispense "Justice" - yet the same passes as nothing but REVENGE, OPPRESSION TYRANNY, HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, INHUMAN & DEGRADING TREATMENT & PREJUDICE by an out of touch bunch of Despotic Feudal Fiefs (or is it "Thieves"?) masquerading in women's clothes dispensing HIGHLY TOXIC POISON in the most BIASED court in Europe - attached with barnacles - the excrescences known as "Jurats" that is a masquerade for the Autocratic, Unaccountable Bailiff to dispense patronage, nepotism, cronyism from the feudal Oligarchic Autocratic Out of Touch Detested Tyrannical Dictators of Jersey].

Anonymous said...

Jersey is known as a complete charade of "Justice".

Police Officers are open to prosecution & the Law Officers are not? [Double standards - is it?]
What RUBBISH is this?

Law Officers are equally LIABLE!

The Solicitor-General needs to either act with greater propriety or undertake far higher qualifications in law!

I suppose we will discover next that the arrogant, sanctimonious, authoritarian Bailiff will try to assert he is exempt from law?

Anonymous said...

"What's wrong with that damn island and the god forsaken people on it?"

It is called MASONRY - MEN ONLY!
That is the secret of Jimmy Savile [he was an agent for Israel (Mossad) in addition to being a Mason - 2 Knighthoods - (from the Grand Patroness of Freemasonry whose official residence is located at Buckingham Palace + Papal Knighthood "Order of Justice" from the Grand Prior of the SMOM - Duke of Gloucester as representative of the Pope who is a Freemason) this connected him to the late Edward Heath. The late Jimmy Savile was a procurer of innocent vulnerable children that were being held in care - we need to look at the Governor of Haut De La Garenne & the Governor of Victoria College - linkage to the senior level of law in Jersey + LOD (no one asks how Jimmy Savile was to take his mobile home to Jersey to abuse children with ease - "by kind permission of the Bailiff?")(friendship of Jimmy Savile to Prince Charles & Michael Fawcett invite to the very isolated Glencoe Cottage)].

Anonymous said...

The media is as independent in Jersey as it is in Italy under Silvio Berlusconi [the Prime Minister & Freemason].

The Connection is "MAFIA".

What is that?

Mazzini Autorizza Furti Incendi Avvelenamenti [Italian: Mazzini (the Sovereign Grand Inspector General of Italy & Senior Politician - Head of Freemasonry & the Mafia) Authorizes Thefts, Fires and Poisoning].

Is that any different to Senator Walker [a Freemason in Jersey under the authority of the Bailiff - another Freemason] being the chief minister & owning the "Jersey Evening Propaganda" [or is it the Jersey Evening Post?]

Everything gets becomes clearer.