Wednesday, June 19, 2013






Remember the panel is yet to be chosen. Let us not forget the States Greffier, Michel Dela Haye, who has the utmost respect of States Members, across the board, is overseeing the appointments of the panel. Team Voice has faith in Mr De La Haye and believe he is the right man for the job. 

The very fact that that this COI is going ahead in the first place is testament to the cooperation and determination of abuse survivors, a handful of politicians and the Jersey Bloggers. Let's not forget that it was not that long ago that then Chief Minister, T Le Suer, said that there would not be a COI at all. The then Council of Ministers lodged a report that scuppered the COI promised by the previous Chief Minister Frank Walker. It is important to note that the report brought to the house by Terry Le Suer and agreed by the then council of minsters could not be amended or challenged as a proposition could have been. 

This is just a small snapshot as to how we got a COI. Senator Le Gresley acted straight away when the report was read. The Senator lodged a proposition that we should have a full COI which was passed in the states on March 2nd 2011.

Rightly so people are sceptical. Victims/survivors and witnesses might view the enquiry with scepticism and after all the corruption and cover-up who could blame them. The spotlight is fully on Sally Bradley QC and this COI which comes on the back of the Savile, Stephen Lawrence and the Hillsborough cover-ups. The corruption was eventually exposed and victims and families are finally receiving the hard fought justice they sought. 

The evidence that was gathered in the original enquiries was what brought the inevitable justice even if it was achieved many years later. Without that initial evidence justice would/could never have been obtained.

Every scrap of evidence, we suggest, should be submitted to this COI. Let history record this evidence. At first glance, with the appointment of Sally Bradley QC, it does appear that Mr De LA Haye has chosen well. Ok, the rest of the panel members have yet to be chosen but we believe it is far to early for it to written off as a whitewash. The Victims/Survivors their families, friends and supporters have been given a chance and some much needed hope that their horrific ordeals can now be documented to a COI purposely set up to get to the truth about decades of failure, corruption and abuse in "THE CARE" of the States of Jersey where the innocence of childhood was so cruelly taken from them. 

Team Voice will be submitting all the evidence we have. We encourage all our readers to get behind us and this Committee of Enquiry. It deserves a chance as do the victims / Survivors and their families.

Team Voice


Ian Evans said...

A whitewash may well be on the cards if OLD SPINELESS has anything to do with the C.O.I.

Anonymous said...

Will she be permitted to take evidence from witnesses based in the UK?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous, I have no doubt that anyone living in the UK will be able to give evidence.

Anonymous said...

"Will she be permitted to take evidence from witnesses based in the UK?"

Under the Jersey Regulations governing Committees of Inquiry, they may invite anyone to give evidence, irrespective of their location. It is up to the individual whether, or not he/she decides to accept such an invitation.

However, a Jersey CoI cannot use its power of summons to compel anyone who resides outside Jersey to give evidence.

Anonymous said...


On behalf of the victims of abuse and all right-thinking people, you're due a huge vote of thanks and congratulations for your decision to offer as much evidence as you can to the COI.

Let's hope that others - particularly Stuart Syvret - have the courage and vision to follow your shining example.

Ian Evans said...

"However, a Jersey CoI cannot use its power of summons to compel anyone who resides outside Jersey to give evidence."

Hmmm? Graham Power springs to mind :)

Anonymous said...


You've won me over given what the COI could mean to the survivors, and to all of you who supported and fought hard for this inquiry. I will set aside my pessimism about potentially heavy lawyer involvement and acknowledge that important additional evidence still should come from this inquiry, especially if survivors and other witnesses add new information to the pool.

I am very optimistic overall about the eventual disclosure of the fuller story of abuse and cover-ups in Jersey because of overall exposure through social media and citizen media, but this COI may be another tool for the enlightenment of those who need to see what happened to vulnerable children, what happened when survivors were not listened to.

Coming on the heels of the disclosure that abuse compensation payouts were tied to gagging orders, I am curious about the restrictions left on their testimony for the COI. Does anyone know if all have full rights of disclosure? Can the compensated survivors be certain their original statements will be provided to assist the COI? I feel sure their testimony could substantiate or add to the fuller COI findings.

I always find gag orders disturbing and suspicious, but then, they have a way of seldom holding up over a life time, with truth finding ways of wrestling free.

All power to full disclosure in every form it takes.


Anonymous said...

The question was raised at one of the meetings with CM Gorst on whether it would be possible to have the CoI take evidence outside of Jersey with a view to facilitating participation by witnesses no longer resident here. I do not think a definitive response was ever given.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

The evidence must be given and heard for me it is as simple as that. What they do with it is for them to decide. The world is a different place. We have the Internet now. The evidence that has been published on the blogs is so numerous to mention.

I have no doubt that anyone who wants to give evidence no matter where they reside will be able to in this modern age.


Anonymous said...

Mr Power and Mr Harper could only be requested to appear before the COI. but, as long as they are not in Jersey, could not be compelled to do so.

The COI might consider documentary evdience in the form of sworn affidavits with supporting documentary evidence from them, but, without the COI being able to question and explore such evidence, this would be nowhere near as effective, or telling as face-to-face trstimony.

The same applies to Bill Ogley, who, I believe, left Jersey after his "retirement."

If the COI were to summon someone resident outside Jersey and that person refused to appear before them, they would, technically, be guilty of a summary offence - akin to Contempt of Court - and could face prosecution for such if they subsequently returned to Jersey.

However, the COI and Jersey courts could not compel people to come to Jersey to give evidence, nor could they use the extradition laws, which are limited to indictable (aka "serious" offences)

Zoompad said...

"The corruption was eventually exposed and victims and families are finally receiving the hard fought justice they sought."

Are they though? Because throwing a bit of money over to them with gagging order conditions and crafty lawyer jargon legal threats of prison and/or big fines attached if they commit "Contempt Of Court if they break the illegal and unjust gagging threat isn't really what I would call justice.

Anonymous said...

If Mr Harper & Mr Power were to give evidence in Jersey they would need to be assured 100% by the enquiry that they would be safe to do so.This lot would probably arrest them.

Anonymous said...

Will Gradwell & Warcup give evidence to the Committee....Lets see who doesn't give evidence.

Zoompad said...

"Anonymous said...
If Mr Harper & Mr Power were to give evidence in Jersey they would need to be assured 100% by the enquiry that they would be safe to do so.This lot would probably arrest them."

Why? They'd have to think of a good excuse to do that, and Mr Harper and Mr Power both have families who would support them, and everyone would see what happened now.

Unlike Stuart, because his family has been deliberatly smashed up by the gangsters.

Anonymous said...

Sally Bradley would surely be empowered to hear the evidence of Mr Power, Mr Harper, Ogley and others at a location in the UK?

GeeGee said...

Rico - getting to where we are at this moment in time has been a long, tortuous process, but thanks to Carrie Modral, bloggers and some decent and determined States Members we have arrived at a place we should be thankful for.

Michael de la Haye, as the honourable man he is, along with Ed Marsden and Belinda Smith have done an excellent job in identifying a well qualified lady to chair this COI, and importantly some-one with NO Jersey connections. A lot of thought was put into this and the considerations of the survivors of abuse in Jersey.

Personally, I have a lot of faith in this choice, and as I have said before negativity and the words 'whitewash' are not conducive to encouraging the more vulnerable victims to come forward to give evidence. A lot of thought also has been put into the process for them to give evidence, where the Inquiry will take place etc., to make it as easy as possible for them.

Let's build on this, and again I think it will feel like a big let down if Stuart decides he will not appear at the Inquiry. Come on Stuart, it was thanks to you that this whole sorry story became known. Your concern for the victims was 100% which I am sure it is still is. Therefore you are vital to this process and should be there at its finality surely?

Just think of the strength and encouragement that this would give
to the survivors. We have all been used to negative thinking over the last 5 years, but for once I feel that should now be turned to a positive for the benefit of all.

I have shed tears over some of the what I have heard over the last 2 and a half years and believe you me nothing, but nothing would stop me making my contribution, however small, to this CoI. We all need to play our part.

Anonymous said...

"If Mr Harper & Mr Power were to give evidence in Jersey they would need to be assured 100% by the enquiry that they would be safe to do so.This lot would probably arrest them."

As far as anyone is aware, there are no outstanding warrants which would call for their arrest.

As far as Mr Gradwell & Mr Warcup are concerned, since they have both left Jersey, they cannot be compelled to return to appear before the COI - they can only be invited to do so.

One interesting thing to remember is that, if anyone does appear before the COI, anything they say in evidence, including anythng which is self-incriminatory, is protected by Privilege and no action can be taken against them.

Nothing they say, or produce as evidence could be used against them in either civil, or criminal proceedings.

A perfect opportunity for people to "come clean."

Given that level of protection - who chooses NOT to appear before the COI when their past involvement in matters is/was highly relevant - e.g Power, Harper, Warcup, Gradwell, Syvret etc - will be highly significant and can only serve to raise doubts in people's minds as to the strength of the position they have taken for so long.

If what they say is the truth and if they can testify to that truth without penalty and have that truth examined by the COI, what is to prevent them from doing so?


Anonymous said...


I think we should be clear about "giving evidence". One can't just turn up at a hearing of the COI and demand to give evidence.

Initially, it's usual for a Committee of Inquiry to do two things

1. Revisit existing official documents and records which are pertinent and draw up a list of witnesses they wish to invite to appear before them. (This research can include what was written/broadcast by media outlets.)

2. Publicly request anyone who feels that they have evidence which may be of relevance to their Inquiry to come forward.

Before the formal COI hearings there may be an initial "sifting,"
by written submission, or informal conversation,of those who do come forward, to select those whose evidence the COI considers IS relevant and needs to be formally heard. Those people will then be added to the list of invited witnesses.

Not everyone who comes forward offering evidence will be invited to appear before the COI, even if their evidence is wholly relevant to the Inquiry. This is usually because such witnesses can do no more than give further corroboration to already corroborated, or firm evidence the COI knows it will hear, or already has in its possession.

That being said, the communication from the witness offering to come forward and summarising their evidence will be acknowledged and entered in the official records of the COI.

Since the Terms of Reference for the Jersey COI are broad and cover a large timespan, it will be interesting to see just how they organise the hearings so as to give themselves as full a picture as possible of all the aspects covered by their Terms of Reference.

However they do it, the hearings, themselves, will take a long time if the COI is to do its job properly.

Since it is to be a Public Inquiry, it should be possible for people to follow the proceedings closely and in detail.

If anyone hears, or reads of evidence given during the hearings which they can prove to be erroneous, they can contact the COI to express their concern and can, then, be called, themselves, as a witness to refute the original evidence.

However, simply disagreeing with a witness's interpretation of events, or doubting his/her stated motives for actions taken is not enough. There must be demonstrable proof that the witness has got it wrong and has, either wittingly, or mistakenly misled the COI.

This, I think is where blogs and bloggers, as well as the MSM, can play a further large part, in alerting everyone as to when the request for witnesses is issued and encouraging people to come forward; and in scrutinising the actual evidence given.

Anonymous said...

RICO, your correspondents raise some interesting points. I will be in touch with the COI as soon as they commence work to discuss the options. One way or another, I will be giving evidence. As for messrs Warcup and Gradwell I hope they make themselves more available to the COI than they have to the Wiltshire officer investigating my complaint against former Chief Constable Moore and some of his staff! Lenny Harper

rico sorda said...

I Anon,

You are bang on the money concerning giving evidence at a COI.


Zoompad said...

I know I live in Staffordshire but can I give evidence?

Can I give evidence about the Blog of Doom and the stuff they were posting on it ie Sean Powers stolen email, and the vile things they were saying, and the guest posting they had by one of the Jersey politicians, and the horrible bullying? This sort of stuff?,d.bGE

Can my FOI request asking the simple question of who nominated Frank Walker for an OBE and the refusal to declare it and the RTS award and can I tell about how similar the abuse in the Staffordshire Pindown was to the Haut de la Garenne abuse, and how kids from the West Midlands were sent to Jersey?

Even though I think that they will only try to cover it all up again, like they did with the Stafford Hospital investigations, (STILL the full horrible truth has not been allowed to be publicly said on record) I hope Stuart gives evidence too, I wish I could but I dont suppose I will be allowed to, but if Stuart chooses not to no-one should think bad of him at all for that, because he's more than done his bit.

Zoompad said...

I am after all a witness to a lot of this, even though I am one of the Staffordshire Pindown abuse victims.

It was Stuart who let me post what happened to me as a child on his blog. Stuart gave me a voice, when so many other people tried to make me STFU. Stuart didn't tell me "that couldn't have happened, so many things couldn't have happened one after another" to me, he actually believed me, and the way it felt for me at the time was like I was dying of not being able to breath and someone opening the window to let fresh air in, thats how it felt to me.
I don't even know if I would have survived all the abuse and been alive today if it hadn't been for Stuart.

I hope I will be allowed to give evidence, because I would very much like to.

rico sorda said...

Hi Lenny,

I have no doubt you will be giving evidence.

I remember when I busted D/Supt Mick Gradwell trashing the very investigation he took over from you in September 2008. He was working with infamous Dail Mail Journalist David Rose. Mick Gradwell was the only one not to submit any evidence to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Review and even refused to turn up.

This whole sorry affair has unfolded because the Jersey Bloggers got off their backsides and stepped into the shoes left vacant by the Jersey media. A stinking cover-up.


voiceforchildren said...


In fairness to Mick Gradwell, you and the IPCC might have to wait your turn because Mr. Gradwell might be busy being questioned by officers from Operation Elveden.

Anonymous said...

Morier House has excellent video conferencing facilities although the room only seats about 30. It is used for Royal Court trials and Viscount's inquests all the time. The person at the other end swears their oath on camera, all recorded.

Some of that £6million budget should go on video conferencing. Or, how about something FREE like Skype, which can also be recorded.

There is no legal reason why people could not give evidence remotely.

Good to hear from you Lenny. Keep us posted about the complaint. Tell me, have you made an Elveden complaint yet? Has Ian Le Marquand?

Anonymous said...

I think you are missing the point.
This is supposed to be an inquiry into historic abuse going back decades and not the way the police handled things 4 years ago.
People are more interested in the issues that happened up the closure of HDLG and not all these old vendettas which for some reason, keep on getting raked over. As for people not being charged, the whole point of having independence in this is to get a second opinion without interference by anybody in charge at the time. Do you not agree?

rico sorda said...

"I think you are missing the point.
This is supposed to be an inquiry into historic abuse going back decades and not the way the police handled things 4 years ago.
People are more interested in the issues that happened up the closure of HDLG and not all these old vendettas which for some reason, keep on getting raked over. As for people not being charged, the whole point of having independence in this is to get a second opinion without interference by anybody in charge at the time. Do you not agree?"

That comment is simply bonkers



Zoompad said...

"and not all these old vendettas which for some reason, keep on getting raked over"

Because they are relevant. Why would any right minded person in a position of authority ever want to cover up institutional child abuse?

Its like all this stuff now coming out about the NHS cover up. I had heard the name Cynthia Bower before, and couldn't think where at first. Now I know, she was involved in the Stafford Hospital cover up.

Anonymous said...

"People are more interested in the issues that happened up the closure of HDLG and not all these old vendettas which for some reason, keep on getting raked over."

I do not understand what the poster of the above means when they say vendettas, surely they cannot be that ignorant!

Furthermore, people are very concerned there was a cover up, so what happened within the investigation before and especially after Mr Power was suspended, will be of utmost importance.

Zoompad said...

The continuation of the Jimmy Savile cover up, look at this FOI request:

I do take this personally, because my family is still being maliciously harassed by these devils

Anonymous said...


Póló said...


That FOI request is a staggering saga of incompetence and malice.

I dealt with a fair number of FOI requests from the public/journalists when I was in the Irish Finance Ministry. No way would we have got away with that sort of behaviour. We had a dedicated FOI section in the Ministry (Department) which kept a very close eye on all the FOI requests and absolutely hounded sections until they replied to them, and in the correct manner.

That was in the late 1990s when our Act first came in. Things may have changed since, but I doubt they could have got that bad.

We took our obligations under the Act very seriously. FOI requests were on a par with Parliamentary Questions as far as priority was concerned, though the deadlines were much further out for the FOIs.

I must say I felt rightly abused in some cases in my conscientious dealing with FOI requests, which like Mr Salter's, often dealt with high volumes of hardcopy.

I remember one occasion when I suggested to a journalist, whom I respected and with whom I had a good (ie upfront) relationship, that instead of me duplicating and re-issuing a very large volume of paper, he might walk down the corridor of his newspaper and just pick up from his colleague the copy I had sent him the previous week. His reply: "Oh he's probably binned that". I was not amused, considering the work that went into getting the stuff together in the first place.

On another occasion a lot of work was put into assembling FOI material for an Irish newspaper, which I didn't realise was a redtop. The net effect of all that work was the publication of an unrelated photo of the subject of the FOI in a bathing togs. Needless to say that had not been part of the FOI material provided. Very frustrating and wasteful of mine and my staff's time and of taxpayers' money.

But the law was the law and we had to strictly observe it, whatever our feelings about individuals, or their motives (which we were not allowed to consider) or of what, if any, use could be made of the material supplied.

I'm sorry this is such a long comment, but I really feel outraged at the BBC's handling of that FOI, all the more particularly in the light of my own experience at their end of the chain.

Anonymous said...

The "URGENT MESSAGE" comment is so important.

Those in power who are guilty of wrongdoing always adopt a policy of divide and conquer when it comes to their victims.

Victims are so much more powerful when they get together.

Zoompad said...

"That FOI request is a staggering saga of incompetence and malice."

I wouldn't call it incompetence, malice yes. It is malicious to deliberatly cover up after child abusers, and find sly ways (ie their IT partnership with ATOS) to continue to persecute their victims.

Zoompad said...


I don't know, because I still haven't found out the identity of that senior detective that Teresa Cooper told me about who was involved in the Jersey and Staffordshire cover up, the one she had the letter off, basically telling her that we abuse victims were liars. She won't tell me his name!

I strongly suspect that DW was involved.

Anonymous said...

Why would DW want to go back to HDLG with urgency to remove documents, at the start of the first and best enquiry (started by Power and Harper)?

Three questions:
Did they let him enter?

Did he manage to remove those documents?

Why were they so important to him?

voiceforchildren said...


Deputy Mike Higgins' EVIDENCE

Zoompad said...

The Stephen Lawrence murder cover up: I have just read this:


23 June 2013 9:33pm


Actually the Mail was initially colluding with the police to dig for dirt on the Lawrence campaign, and at least two journalists were tasked with trawling for 'evidence' until the Laurence family - unaware of the smear campaign under way - contacted Paul Dacre to ask for the paper's help and reminding him that Neville Laurence had done some work for him at his Islington house.
To his (I grudgingly concede) credit, Dacre remembered Lawrence as a good man and called off his staff and threw the paper's weight behind the campaign (much to the chagrin of the south London are major investigation team)."

I just wondered if anyone knows anything about this, who the two journalists Daily Mail are? I just wondered if one of them might have been David Rose?

Ian Evans said...

A little more COVER-UP from Police and Home Affairs!

Anonymous said...

I just do not get it. You bloggers have made some fantastic posts backed up with compelling evidence over the past couple of years, but when it comes to arguing your points in public as on BBC radio, in the last scrutiny panel review and now in front of this Justice Select Committee, you guys fail to get your points across coherently. The one point that springs to mind is when the guy asked you " Just what is wrong with having the bailiff in the states?" Stuart would of needed 3 hours to tell them exactly what is wrong with having the bailiff in the states, and would of left them in a position where they could of not argued otherwise.

I appreciate that it is very hard to condense years of blogging evidence of corruption into a short sound bite, but in IMHO this is something you really need to work at. The MSN/select committee/european courts/general public will only ever give you a few seconds of air time, so you need to make it count and have a well rehearsed, well thought out, clear delivered message to hand. You need to work at this if you wish to be taken seriously. And until you do, no one is going to take any notice.

Believe me when i say i am 100% on your side, but when i watched that youtube clip, i felt the opportunity that you had to get your point across, slipped away before our very eyes. Prawn cocktail or no prawn cocktail, PB and IG would of done a better job of convincing the select committee that all is rosy in the garden of tax avoidance

Zoompad said...

"You need to work at this if you wish to be taken seriously. And until you do, no one is going to take any notice."

We're all doing our best. If we aren't as glib and word perfect as the ones who persecute us, thats because we haven't had the same training as they have had, we're just a bunch of ordinary people, many of us victims of child abuse, without any educational advantages and special public speaking training.

If you really want to help us please give constructive criticism, show us how we can get our points accross loud and clear. Don't just criticise us for not doing it very well, thats not helpful at all, we are broken reeds you know!

Anonymous said...

Jane, if you complained about mario lundy, were you surprised that he went all the way through education to become chief executive officer? This violent thug should have gone to prison. His mate tom made sure he was well looked after and got all the right promotions. We all know what tom liked to do behind closed doors. Swinging and bashing children was a sport back in the day.

Anonymous said...

Are people really going to come forward to the committee again after what happened last time? I for one barely recovered from being called a liar and dragged through the Jersey courts as if they were taking me seriously the last time! I find it hard to read all this stuff so maybe I am missing something!?!! Does any one truly believe this enquiry will change anything when nothing has been accomplished so far? I'd love to see some justice, but is it really likely?