Sunday, May 18, 2014

SCRUTINY REVIEW FINDINGS - THE MYTH OF THE 20 MILLION SHAMBLES.










TAKEN FROM PRESS RELESE BY THE  STATES OF JERSEY POLICE IN DECEMBER 2010:

"The total policing costs of the Historical Abuse Enquiry to date is £7,574,636, of which £5,088,328 is staff costs and £2,486,308 comprising non-staff costs (e.g. accommodation, travel and forensic costs)."


Where the hell did DAVID ROSE GET 20 MILLION POUNDS FROM when he wrote his article in October 2009. 




COVERING UP THE JERSEY HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION


LET US NOW LOOK AT THE ROLE OF THE JERSEY STATE MEDIA


FIRST UP CTV


THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN CTV, JOURNALIST DAVID ROSE & D/SUPT MICK GRADWELL


As you might be aware D/Supt Mick Gradwell declined to give evidence to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel (HASSP). Quite remarkable really when you see what he gets up to during this posting.  CTV also declined to give evidence to the 'HASSP'.  One of the main reasons these two didn't come and give evidence is simple (in my opinion).  They knew they had been caught out. Someone started asking questions.  How could they explain the 2 programs  they aired in September 2009. I want to explain to my readers exactly what is going on here hence the interview with VFC.  


First up you must remember that the HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION  was still  live in 2009.  In fact it didn't get closed down until the end of 2010 


That's what makes the actions of Mick Gradwell & CTV appear even more despicable than they already are.


LET US BEGIN 


First up a timeline. 


The 2 programs


1.  Ist September 2009 -   CTV ran with - Abuse inquiry has cost £20m




2.  3rd September 2009- CTV ran with -How was £20m abuse investigation bungled




3. 4th October 2009 - Daily Mail article appears with the Headlines 20million Shambles -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz1eGPYfGOP






So there we have the two programs.  What jumps out at me straightaway  and differs from the normal CTV offering is how professionally the Gradwell Interview is conducted. This is a properly staged interview. Gradwell has his Sunday best on - he is sitting in a nice studio - he has moody lighting - two camera angles and a very high opinion of himself. 


 One very important factor is that we don't hear who is conducting the Interview. We only hear Gradwell talking.  Where was the challenge as to what Gradwell was saying? There isn't any. This is shambolic. The whole two episodes are nothing more than "OPINION MANAGEMENT"     The two programs were brilliantly done. Lets be honest here. There can be no doubt that people believed the waffle coming out of Gradwells mouth. The reporter even talks about findings that was in the BDO Report.   This was all staged. I just cant see how it was done without the full co-operation of CTV.  .

On the 4th October 2009  one month after these programs were aired Journalist David Rose wrote an article in the Daily Mail called "Bungled Jersey Child Abuse probe branded a £20million Shambles".

This is the infamous article where Mick Gradwell was leaking drafts of Police Consultant Mike Kelletts work to David Rose. This is not a coincidence . The CTV and Rose articles all in the space of one month is not a coincidence. This was a properly managed media blitz on Opinion Managing the people of Jersey's take on the 'HCAE'.   Who organised this? There isn't a chance that Mick decided to do this all on his own. Now do you see why he stayed away from the Scrutiny hearings. What could he say? How could he justify it? He would have to take the  blame. That is why it's important that CTV get dragged before the 'COE' and explain their reporting on such an important issue.  They are not alone in their trashing stance. I will leave the JEP till last . 

D/Supt Mick Gradwell was the Senior Investigating Officer of the 'HCAE'


The Abuse Survivors trusted this man to do the best by them. He gives it large with CTV and leaks to the man trashing the 'HCAE'. Have any of our local media tried to track him down and get an interview? He has got to explain himself on his abhorrent actions. 


Remember what Karin Rankine said in her letter to Ben Shenton




"An increasing number of online community sites, blog sites and other content sources will unquestionably find their place within society. However the fundamental principles which underpin the delivery of authoritative and credible news are unlikely to change. 

Those principles of quality journalism which encompass accuracy, impartiality, fairness and legal knowledge underpin the role that the ‘traditional’ media plays in our society and is the basis of those news services provided by existing public service broadcasters and which remain highly valued within our society."

"So while the internet has challenged the idea of journalism, the need for in-depth research and reporting does not disappear. Our role as a public service broadcaster carries with it responsibilities to our viewers and to those involved in our reporting.  And it is those responsibilities which distinguish our service from certain new types of ‘citizen media’ or blog sites that we see emerging at both a national and a local level."


These are some of the findings from the Scrutiny Sub Panel


The Whole Report can be read here. It is a must read for anyone who has an interest in the Jersey Historical Child Abuse Investigation




  • It is clear from the evidence we have received that Mr. Gradwell was responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. The information was published in an article in the Mail on Sunday in October 2009 but it also appears to have been made available to Channel Television for a programme in September 2009. Mr. Gradwell also gave an interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he voiced extensive negative comments on the investigation carried out by his predecessor which he labelled ‘a poorly managed mess’.  The disclosure of information from the review of financial management was then part of a broader criticism of the investigation by Mr. Gradwell.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s views on the investigation were already well known. As Senior Investigating Officer he had been a key figure in the press conference on 12th November 2008 which had called into question the previous direction of the investigation. 
  • Mr. Rose had previously written a number of other articles critical of Mr. Harper’s conduct of the investigation going back to May 2008 (18.05.08; 24.05.08, 15.11.08). In May 2008 he made a reference to the ‘leaked’ cost of the investigation (£6.5milion) but did not develop any criticism. In his article in November 2008 in which he interviewed Mr. Gradwell he stated that the police were said to be concerned at the enquiry’s profligate spending (eg decision to send two officers first class to Australia and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog). In the course of the article he stated that he had obtained confidential documents including an email from Mr. Harper and the official log book kept by the forensic science team. 
  • Channel Television also appeared to have access to information from the review into the financial management of the HDLG enquiry.  In their two programmes in September 2009 they interviewed Mr. Gradwell on his retirement and referred to a number of specific details from the BDO Alto report such as dinners in specific London restaurants, overnight stays for one hour meetings and the failure to appoint a finance manager.


Below is the 3rd part of the CTV Interview with D/Supt Mick Gradwell. It is a must watch. His little smirk at the end is very telling. 




My first Interview can be watched here -RICO SORDA


All im doing here is looking at the evidence and forming an opinion.  I believe that this was a proper orchestrated piece of 'OPINION MANAGEMENT'. This was not just the work of Mick Gradwell.  The States Communication Unit could well have had a hand in this.  This was about trashing an Abuse Investigation and protecting the image of Jersey. The most important people in all of this - The Abuse Survivors-
have been treated with utter disdain. When and where have the local media come out on their side? When and where have our local media done a balanced piece of reporting?



The evidence speaks for itself


The ruling elite don't want a Committee of Enquiry 


You don't need to be Einstein to work out why


Rico Sorda


Team Voice

48 comments:

rico sorda said...

Last Wednesday I gave evidence to the Committee of Enquiry. It lasted about 5 hours and I have another 5 to go. Hope to have a posting up about it very soon.

Look at how CTV ran with the 20 million shambles when the real shambles was the journalist declaring it.

rs

Anonymous said...

Thank you for telling us how it is Rico with evidence. I hadn't realized Gradwell was leaking to Channel Television who now have questions to answer and will be the reason they didn't give evidence along with Gradwell to the scrutiny enquiry.

Anonymous said...

Karen Rankine's words deserve repeating.
"So while the internet has challenged the idea of journalism, the need for in-depth research and reporting does not disappear. Our role as a public service broadcaster carries with it responsibilities to our viewers and to those involved in our reporting. And it is those responsibilities which distinguish our service from certain new types of ‘citizen media’ or blog sites that we see emerging at both a national and a local level."

She helped to trash a child abuse investigation while the blogsites reported - and continue to report - the truth of how it was all covered up with the help of her "public service broadcaster".

Anonymous said...

This proves to me Channel television was part of the cover up beyond any doubt. The paid journalists in Jersey haven't got a touch on the bloggers. RESPECT!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Karin Rankine's having a laugh! wasn't it her husband who leaked a confidential email Stuart Syvret had sent her to Frank Walker?

rico sorda said...

Anon,

I have taken it to the Committee of Enquiry.

rs

rico sorda said...

The problem with you (Anon) is that you cant be bothered to read the evidence and never have.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

ITV/CTV have a track record when it comes to misleading the public and "opinion management."

Notwithstanding its shameful "journalism" trashing the Child Abuse Investigation, it was also ITV/CTV who (contrary to the English Language/Dictionary) EXONERATED THE DISGRACED DEAN.

Anonymous said...

Rico.
You must be reasonably confident that your 5 hours of evidence to the COE is going to be taken seriously, considering that you are coming forward again to give another 5 hours?

Do you feel that they are listening, taking note, and will be researching your very reasonable claims?

Ian Evans said...

"I know I'm an idiot"

Far from it my friend, far from it....

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Another great example of simple, evidence-base reportage - of the kind that - again - puts what passes for the traditional media in Jersey to utter shame.

And, yes - I can confirm that Karin Rankine's husband, Glenn Rankine, was leaking my e-mail's to ITN/ITV in Jersey, to the then Chief Minster Frank Walker - client of spin-doctor Glenn Rankine.

You can read that e-mail in an important blog-posting here: -

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-vulnerable-child-in-jersey-vs-the-crown-2/

So, for as long as UK ITN/ITV keeps Karin / Glenn Rankine involved in the organisation, then we know UK ITV/ITN is no better than the BBC, re Savile.

And, in respect of the present public inquiry - it has long been my estimation that it would take at least two weeks - two weeks - at least - for me to give my opening evidence-in-chief - before cross-examination or recall.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

In the public interest..........A WITCH-HUNT.

Anonymous said...

I have read on a Facebook group that you were a conspiracy theorists who made it all up. How wrong can some people be. This is so easy to follow. I will form my own opinion.

Anonymous said...

Are you Maureen Morgan's most hated or something?

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon @ 1:50,

That's the great thing about the evidenced and independent online Jersey blog journalism. The facts and evidence, with direct quotes and documentation, are generally laid out in a self-epxplanatory way. The reader is presumed to have the willingness and intelligence to go where the evidence leads.

Compare that to the state media condescension and spin, which serve to leave the media consumer terribly manipulated.

There will be only two groups of people who will know the truth about anything meaningful in Jersey - the spin artists and their masters who know they are lying - and that other highly informed group, the bloggers and blog readers who know the difference.

If you believe the saying that "Control of information is power," Karen Rankine and her kind have a great deal to fear from blogs like this.

No matter what kind of manufactured Facebook derision they face, it is not even necessary for bloggers like Rico to deride the ridiculous state media in return. He only needs to do what he does best - deliver the documentation and we can all see exactly how manipulative the state media strives to be. He respects and trusts his readers enough to know they can make up their own minds when he offers them the facts.

Elle



rico sorda said...

As for Maureen Morgan I will say only this. If she would like to do an interview with me that would be brilliant. She can refute all my alleged conspiracy theories with her own evidence. I have no problem with that. Very easy to hide behind ridicule - lets see the evidence.

Elle,

The evidence just speaks for itself. It always has. Hope you are well.

rs

Anonymous said...

Apart from David Rose and CTV who is responsible or was the source for the quoted 20 million figure?

Anonymous said...

Nice one for laying the gauntlet down to Maureen Morgan. All she ever does is spout conspiracy theories and never comes up with any evidence of her own. Her whole life seems to revolve around attacking the blogs who are reporting the truth about the child abuse cover up. What has she got to hide?

So Maureen Morgan if you are so confident the blogs publish conspiracy theories let's see a head to head with you and Rico on camera!?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

RIP Simon Abbott.

rico sorda said...

I once asked the JEP to a head to head debate on these issues and they refused.

rs

Anonymous said...

Respect to all the jersey bloggers. You are well researched and evidenced. The enquiry team will value all you have to offer them.

Anonymous said...

There are always people trying to discredit the great work of the jersey blog community. Some are of the opinion that if they can achieve this then all that is written must be false. Unfortunately that is very rarely the case if ever.

Anonymous said...

Great to Stuart Syvret is still active. Rico, do you know when Stuart will be giving evidence? The amount of evidence the former health minister must have is pivotal to any enquiry. Good luck to all of you.

Anonymous said...

Surely if Rico has been allowed to forward 5 hours, and another 5 hours of evidence to the COE. Syvret should at least be allowed the same.

Daniel said...

Rico, you write about Karin Rankine's letter to Ben Shenton.

Can you give areference for this? When and why was she writing to Ben Shenton? Was it in the context of the Scrutiny panels deciding on whether to give bloggers inferior access to Scrutiny than the "mainstream" media?

It would help if her words were put in context like this.

Daniel said...

I repeat below what I wrote a week ago. In a nutshell, what do we do if we become convinced that this COI is not going to do the job?

daniel

_________________

Daniel said...

Dear Voice and Rico and Bob,

I have just had the reply from the Inquiry Panel about my request to them to ask the States for certain key changes to the Terms of Reference. It does not look good.

There are numerous problems with the Terms of Reference (which still allow the Inquiry to IGNORE certain key areas, and which LIMIT the kinds of abuse they are mandated to look at) and with the Protocols for the Inquiry.

A group of stakeholders will meet with the legal team for the Inquiry. What happens if we find, as a result of this meeting that this Inquiry cannot be trusted to be full, robust and independent?

What then?

You guys seem to be full steam ahead, but if the COI is doomed from the start, then the more we play with it the more we legitimise it. And the establishment will be made truly happy. No need to worry for years afterwards, if ever.

If we are convinced that it really will not deliver, we should walk away - now!

I still do not know, I am just warning you.

Anonymous said...

Daniel raises some good points. Rico, you must feel that the Coi is ok if you have given evidence.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Comments above ask whether I will be giving evidence to this public inquiry, and whether they would give me at least five hours.

I simply can't answer those questions at present.

Just looking at timing - the notion of five hours - frankly, even five days - being adequate is laughable. Simply laughable.

But in some ways the more significant point is this: why on Earth would I want to go through this process of what they call "giving evidence" - in covert, non-public, non-scrutinised, non-transparent, non-cross-examined meetings?

I'm simply not doing that.

End of.

If - and it is if - I ever co-operate with this Inquiry & give evidence, it will be in open, public session.

Open - or not at all.

But my position is that I have asked the Inquiry to fund legal representation for me. After over six years of all-out oppressions at the hands of the Jersey oligarchy, including its politicised, corrupted "judicial" system - without so much as £50 to spend on a lawyer - I'm asserting my human rights to effective legal representation. I want legal representation on the same basis as, for example, all of those such as senior civil servants, Crown officers, and bent cops who engaged in, and furthered the child-abuse cover-ups. All of those individuals have had - from the outset - no expense spared state-funding of legal representation - which they have been given unconditionally.

I too, therefore, have a right to unconditional legal representation.

However, the Inquiry has refused to give me unconditional legal representation.

Indeed - it is not even clear from their rejection that they would give me legal representation even if I surrendered my rights and signed-up to their pre-condition demands embodied in the restrictions that attach to becoming an "Interested Party".

So I'm considering my options in respect of appealing against the decision of the Inquiry.

As things stand - I am a threatened, coerced witness - at risk of very serious - further - state-reprisals - against me for any further whistle-blowing. Indeed - I'm under constant harassment and intimidation.

And I can't even get legal representation funding.

For as long as things remain this way - I shall not be co-operating with this Inquiry.

And - in respect of the comments made above by Daniel - yes, he's absolutely right.

Quite aside from my personal concerns - there are a number of very, very serious issues - profound questions - concerning this present Inquiry.

It could very well be the best thing for those of us on the side of truth, accountability and the real protection of children might be to walk away from this particular exercise - and instead look to the future.

Look to real public inquiry.

Stuart

rico sorda said...

Stuart, would you be prepared to give VFC an interview on these serious issues you raise.

rs

Anonymous said...

Stuart Syvret, Graham Power, Lenny Harper, and even Simon Bellwood, should all be demanding to give their evidence to this COI.
With, or without legal representation.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, yes, I would. Of course.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Great news about Stuart agreeing to an interview with vac. His views on this would be much appreciated. Daniel raised some valid points. Jersey blogs bring the truth .

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous,

obviously I'm not publishing your comments. Do not threaten me. Remember this and remember it well. I know who you are. Stay away from my wife.

rs

Anonymous said...

Great blog posting Rico. Don't let the idiots distract you. The person must be very sad.

Anonymous said...

What is going on here is somebody now targeting or intimidating your wife?

Anonymous said...

Don't let these clowns distract you from your work Rico. If Jersey had a fit for purpose - non politicized - police force you could have reported the intimidation to them so in the meantime please take a little comfort in the massive online support you have.

Anonymous said...

Is this the sort of thing you have to put up with for printing the truth about child abuse in Jersey? If it is then you have people worried so keep it up.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @6:18, it is noted that the Home Affairs minister wishes to be granted the power to sack any police officer that he so wishes if he considers them to not be up for the job without having to go through the disciplinary process first.
Well, isn't that convenient ....

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Isn't it a bit self delusional to claim that people fear you for uncovering child abuse?

Surely if anybody thought you were a serious threat to uncovering child abuse then you would you not be getting police protection?

rico sorda said...

I just go about my work. Someone out there who will remain anonymous for now wishes to destroy my wife because of my blog. The question I keep asking myself is why.

The final chapter.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

I suspect you already know why he does what he does.

I very much look forward to the final reveal in the final chapter.

Truth. Honesty. Integrity. Your long term motto mate. As true as the beginning as it is now.

rico sorda said...

Amen to that Anonymous.

I have done my bit. Stood up and was counted.

Rs

Anonymous said...

Rico.
After your last worrying statement at 9:26.
Hope you are still giving the further 5 hours of facts to the COI/E?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous,

Not sure what you mean about Police protection. I certainly don't have any nor have I ever asked for some.

I will be giving the rest of my evidence to the COI you can be assured of that.

rs

Anonymous said...

Tony's Musings
Jersey Historic Abuse Inquiry: Guest Posting - Today, with permission from Carrie Modral to re-post, I have a guest posting from her regarding the Jersey "Historic" Abuse Inquiry.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/05/jersey-historic-abuse-inquiry-guest.html

It is an appeal for all witnesses to come forward.

Like any Establishment inquiry it is organised to minimise the embarrassment (and the effectiveness) and probably skewed to achieve the outcomes favouring the paymasters (vis Hilsborough)

Retired Deputy DW and others have serious concerns regarding the protocols and the terms of reference

It is a very expensive inquiry due to the set up, with culpable officials and the "great and good" being provided with near unlimited legal assistance at taxpayer's expense, but witnesses such as the whistleblower Ex Health Minister being given none, and also still being subject to superinjunctions and much evidence only being taken behind closed doors.

Ex Health Minister Syvret raised some early concerns at:

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

There seems to be a dilemma whether to co-operate with the inquiry given it's faults.
Indeed the shysters write the rules and run the show but my feeling is that a boycott or partial boycott of the inquiry just plays into their hands.

Perhaps bloggers and interested parties should get together with a view to formulating a united front. Perhaps witnesses could ensure that their evidence is not "lost" or ignored by providing a written summary of it to trusted bloggers such as VFC, Rico or Stuart.

Also perhaps the shortcomings of the inquiry can be presented to the inquiry ........ They can ignore this evidence but at least it's presentation can be documented by bloggers.

Something else that bothers me is that my understanding is that those who have been in receipt of compensation are subject to a gagging clause. Is this the case?

In short GIVE EVIDENCE[?] This could be tho last best chance. Discuss..........

Gillian Gracia said...

'Something else that bothers me is that my understanding is that those who have been in receipt of compensation are subject to a gagging clause. Is this the case?'

Just to confirm that is most definitely NOT the case, and is a misconception that unfortunately many who have been in receipt of compensation have read wrongly.

To repeat (lest it is putting victims off from coming forward) the only gagging clause is that 'THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANYBODY'. Apart from this any evidence may be given.

Please excuse the capitals, but it is important to get this across quite strongly.

Emma said...

I completely agree with Anon at 8.51, particularly about playing int Establishment hands by not participating.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A Witch-Hunt........In The Public Interest? PART TWO.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

An Article 6 Human Right Compliant JERSEY?