AN INNOCENT ABROAD

Mont Orgeuil Castle
Click on any image for a larger version

I am very proud of that photo of Mont Orgeuil which I took in Jersey (CI) in 1961. It's not perfect. This is the digital age where you can see your results as you go along and correct any mistakes. In those days you worked out what you thought was the appropriate exposure and prayed to the God of the Celluloid that you were right. You found out soon enough when your film came back in the post from Hemel Hempstead.

I was attracted to Mont Orgeuil because it was an imposing building overlooking Gorey harbour and it was floodlit at night.

To me then, Jersey was a romantic location with its Jersey cows (whose milk carried a premium from Hughes Bros. dairies in Dublin), its Jersey Royals (potatoes to you) and its French patois, reflected in names all over the place. It had been occupied by the Germans in WWII and many of their efforts to fortify the island, to ensure that this British trophy remained a part of Hitler's dominion, can still be seen all over the island.

At that time, my only connection with Jersey was that I was there, but over time elements of Jersey history, and life in general, threw up other connections, however tenuous these may be.

Major La Chaussée

I lived in Ballybrack/Killiney for about twenty years and took an interest in the local history. A character who popped up in 1797 was French Royalist, Major La Chaussée. He surveyed Killiney Bay for the British military with a view drawing up a plan for its defence against an expected French invasion. You can read about him here.

He went on from there to act as an intermediary between the British authorities and Royalist French rebels attempting to overthrow the post-Revolution French state. In this he had extensive dealings with Philippe d'Auvergne in Jersey.

Source: Gorey Castle, by Major N V I Rybot, DSO,1962 edition

You will see from the above extract that Philippe occupied the Corbelled Tower of Mont Orgeuil Castle at the time.

Source: Gorey Castle, by Major N V I Rybot, DSO,1962 edition

The tower is the dark area in the top right hand corner of this sketch. I have included this particular sketch as it gives an idea of the vastness of the place. You may need to click on the sketch to get a better view. The sketch is an aerial view from the south.

Source: Gorey Castle, by Major N V I Rybot, DSO,1962 edition

The tower (C) is more clearly seen in a sketch of part of the castle, viewed from the north-east.

This may help.

Source: Gorey Castle, by Major N V I Rybot, DSO,1962 edition

This window, which goes way back, would have had a nice view over the bay. But by the time Philippe arrived it had been blocked up with the construction of the Newer Keep. Panelling put up in the recess, when Philippe moved in, was poor compensation for the missing view.

Colonel Benjamin Fisher

This is not the only connection between Mont Orgeuil and Killiney in the Napoleonic era. Col. Benjamin Fisher, who was responsible for constructing the Martello Towers in Killiney Bay and the rest of Dublin Bay, came to Dublin around 1800 direct from Jersey.

Source

Fisher was also a painter and this is his take on Mont Orgeuil.

Mauyen Keane

I had been working with Dermot Keane in the Department of Finance for a good while before I discovered that his aunt had been a nurse in Jersey in the early 1940s. She had arrived a relatively short while before the Germans. When those on the Island were given an opportunity to evacuate to the British mainland in advance of the German invasion in 1940, Mauyen Keane opted to stay on.

Mauyen and Dieter in Jersey

As it turned out she fell in love with, Dieter, a German soldier-doctor and followed him back to Germany where they married. This was still during the war. When the war was over, she suffered the privations of the German people, but eventually the couple managed to make their way back to Ireland.

In 1984 Mauyen published a book on her adventures. Dieter, meanwhile, had changed his name to George, to lower his German profile.

Mauyen was not only Dermot's aunt, she was the mother of Gabriel Rosenstock and grandmother to Mario.

Haut de la Garenne

Back to my photo of Mont Orgeuil. Little did I realise when I was taking the photo that some distance behind me was the children's home, Haut de la Garenne, where many children were then suffering appalling physical and sexual abuse.

The area around where the photo was taken from is today cluttered with signs which the local paper suggested should be tidied up in the interest of tourism. The sign in the middle is not one of theirs but is my response to the authorities trying to put the appalling atrocities of the children's home behind them without anyone being properly held to account.

Bergerac

Bergerac (John Nettles) with Haut de la Garenne in the background

In the BBC drama series "Bergerac" (1981-1991), about a Jersey detective in the Bureau des Étrangers, the bureau's headquarters were originally located in Haut de la Garenne. Although there were still children around at that stage, as the home didn't close until 1983 after the beginning of the series, there was no perceptible adverse comment at the time.

One of the main locations of the series achieved later notoriety. The "Bureau des Étrangers" was located at Haut de la Garenne, a former children's home which in February 2008 became the focus of the Jersey child abuse investigation 2008. The building, on Mont de la Garenne overlooking Mont Orgueil and the Royal Bay of Grouville, ceased being a children's home in 1983 and was re-opened as Jersey's first and only youth hostel.
Source

In more recent times, with an increased awareness of what had gone on at the home, both through the 2008 police investigation mentioned above and the more recent "Independent" "Care" Inquiry, a rerun of the original series by BBC was stopped in its tracks.

There is now talk of a remake. Let me be mischievous here.

Why doesn't John Nettles, now a bit long in the tooth to play a young Bergerac, play the role of Graham Power, Jersey's former police chief who was sacked (suspended) as part of a plan to pull down the shutters on child, and other, abuse which was rampant on the Island.

There might even be a part for Nettles's daughter who served as Information Commissioner on the Island, and who was critised, not just by whistleblowers and bloggers, but also by the official inquiry itself. Perhaps she might appropriately play the Queen (ERII), mistress of the Island, responsible for its governance, and deaf to the pleas of those seeking to reform its corrupt oligarchy.

Original post here

A JERSEY COW ATE MY HOMEWORK

Robert MacRae - Jersey's Attorney General
Click on any image for a larger version

This is a story, staggering in its simplicity but shrouded in mystery nonetheless.

Candidates for the Jersey parliament (States of Jersey) are supposed to submit their expenses returns by a certain date following the election. In the past, compliance was seriously deficient, so the Attorney General sought tougher legislation with significant fines and possible loss of seat for successful candidates. This legislation was passed by the States a few years ago.

You would imagine that this would have ensured 100% compliance, particularly among successful candidates. Well, following the 2018 election the Attorney General recently decided to prosecute three candidates for non compliance. Two of these were successful in the elections and risked losing their seats.

Meanwhile a former States member, but unsuccessful candidate this time round, decided to do a bit of investigating and found that half the States members, including the Council of Ministers, were non compliant.

As soon as this was revealed the Attorney General abandoned the existing prosecutions.

This has raised a number of questions:

• Why did the AG decide to prosecute?
• How did he pick the particular three to prosecute?
• Was he not aware of the extent of non-compliace?
• What was the real reason he failed to prosecute other non-compliant candidates?
• And why, precisely, did he abandon the prosecutions

Now, it could be argued that this is a minor infringement and has been tolerated for years but, if the AG decided to proseute anybody, he must have considered it a serious offence. So why the selectivity?

Despite this being a serious constitutional crisis, Jersey's main stream media have ignored it until their feet were put to the fire, and ITV and BBC (local branches) have now interviewed the researcher, Nick Le Cornu, and the blogger who published his research, Mike Dunn (alias Tom Gruchy).

Meanwhile another blogger, Niall McMurray (alias Voice for Children) has videoed the media interviews and these will ultimately be compared with the transmitted versions to see how the media are handling this. Jersey's main stream media are very, very, slow to criticise the authorities particularly on any matters related to the good, or otherwise, governance of the Island.

Nick Le Cornu

You can hear Mike's interview with Nick here.

Original post here.

JAYNE HARRIS

Archbishop Welby's New Year Tweet
Click on any image for a larger version

Into my mailbox came a long email from Jayne Harris. For a moment I'd forgotten her real name and wondered what it might be about.

Then I remembered. Jayne formerly went under the handle HG and she was the lady, who, coming from an already troubled family background, had been abused twice over in Jersey (CI) in 2010 and had, since then, been condemned to live a most appalling life on the mainland.

The occasion of her email was a remark by Church of England's Archbishop Justin Welby in the course of his New Year message and which you see reproduced in his tweet above.

Openness my arse, if you'll pardon the crudity. Jayne's story is testimony to the absolute reverse in her case. While she had been abused before coming to Jersey and after her brutal deportation off the Island, it is her experience in Jersey that I am most familiar with and it is enough to give you a flavour of this poor woman's misfortunes.

Briefly, this is the sequence:

a churchwarden in Jersey abused a vulnerable young lady. When she complained to the Dean he effectively ignored her complaint and when she made a fuss he had her arrested. She was then deported from Jersey and dumped penniless on the mainland where she was mainly homeless for the following three years. The then Bishop (Scott-Joynt) was a waste of space but when the new bishop (Dakin) came in he suspended the Dean. His feelings in the matter are no doubt to his credit. However, as he was badly advised and exceeded his powers, he had to reinstate the Dean who immediately, and falsely, claimed that he had been exonerated of the bad behaviour of which he had been accused. Relations between the Bishop and the Dean deteriorated to the point that the Bishop (Dakin) dumped the Dean on another Bishop (Willmott) who is now supposed to "supervise" him.
Source

The critical pivot in this story is the then Dean of Jersey, Bob Key. He was in charge and he fell down on two counts. The churchwarden was under his jurisdiction and this same churchwarden was not supposed to be unchaperoned in the company of a woman. This stricture was ignored in Jayne's case and when she complained about the churwarden's inappropriate behaviour he was not appropriately dealt with and she was not taken seriously.

A factor in the Jersey church's inadequate treatment of the churchwarden was probably not unrelated to his being the brother of a Jersey VIP, who had, incidentally himself been accused of abuse and whose identity the Jersey Abuse Inquiry had tried to hide (but that's another botched story).

You can read more background on the saga here and here.

Anyway Jayne's current letter is taking Welby up on his offer of openness and spelling out for him the consequence that should follow if he really means it. I have reproduced a few critical passages below and you can keep an eye on the news to see if there is any follow up. I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Jayne's long letter was addressed to the Jersey administration, parliamentarians, Deanery and Press. She also circulated a copy to three bloggers, including myself.

And as the Archbishop spoke about Openness, then it is assumed that he is resigning for his actions in my case and handing himself in to the police, it would be assumed he would expect Bishops Willmott, Dakin, Hancock and Butler to do the same, along with those in the Jersey Deanery who destroyed me. Good. This means it is time for an independent investigation into my case, from Bob Key to the police and the conflicted dignitaries to the subversive and openly criminal safeguarding partnership.

I would like to remind the Bishop of Dover, Diocese of Canterbury and Deaneries of Jersey and Guernsey that, a decade on, there has been no investigation into my case and no apology for the openly conflicted million pound whitewash of my case by John Gladwin, Heather Steel, Jan Korris and Jersey Safeguarding Partnership from their conflicted positions.

There has also been no criminal or disciplinary action against Philip and William Bailhache, Ian LeMarquand, Ian Gorst, Bridget Shaw ...

Making me out to be mad has very very seriously affected my mental health and added to the already unhealable and eventually fatal harm to me, the church are archaic in behaving in such an appalling manner when faced with autism and trauma, so I am glad that the disgraced and soon to be imprisoned archbishop is agreeing to be open, he is stating that it is time for Butler Sloss and Bursell, Steel and Gladwin and the rest to be exposed for their criminal corruption and abuse of power, systemic whitewash of high profile cases, and face sentences, of course that is what he means by being open and honest, he means Shaw and Bailhache, Birt and Steel and the rest, right down to Satan's Priest, Mike Taylor, whose actions in facilitating abuse and vilifying me would have cost him his job a decade ago in a normal organization. Good. I am glad I will die knowing that these wicked people will be punished.

There are quite a few people in those extracts who Jayne implicates in her extended abuse, but in my view it was the Dean's involvement which set off the disgraceful train of events which led to where Jayne is now. She had finally settled in Jersey, was involved in the local community, and had a potentially bright future ahead of her, that is until the Dean panicked in a most un-Christlike manner.

The Dean has left Jersey and has now been made the Church of England's Global Evangeliser promoting a programme called Thy Kingdom Come (or as Stuart might paraphrase it There's a Train Coming Down the Track). In this role he has been happily travelling the world.

I caught up with him giving a pompous interview to the New Zealand church and it's here if you can stomach it without throwing up.

The (former) Dean uses a very interesting phrase in the course of the interview when referring to his time in Jersey. He says

"... after I stopped being her majesty's Dean of Jersey a year ago ..."

Not the bishop but the Queen herself. Apart from the name-dropping involved, this carefully modulated reference cleverly conceals the fact that his bishop suspended him for his mistreatment of Jayne but it was Her Majesty herself that got him reinstated.

This resulted from a constitutional quirk. Jersey is a Crown Dependency directly answerable to the Monarchy and the Monarch herself, who is also head of the Church of England, had also effectively appointed the Dean. He actually had a (non-voting) seat in the Jersey parliament.

So, short of the Queen sacking him he could hang in there and he shamelessly did. The bishop then had to re-instate him and that was trumpeted by the local mafia as him being "exonerated" and the half-apology he had previously offered was wiped clean off the slate.

So it is quite sickening to see him pull the Holy Joe on a poor unsuspecting New Zealand church and interviewer.

Anyway, back to the letter. I have not been following Jayne's plight for some time, principally since we fell out a few years back. But her awful situation, to judge from the letter, has just been getting worse and the fact that she is still in the land of the living, she herself puts down to her being a tough cookie at the end of the day. We should not forget that many survivors do eventually throw in the towel and become simply victims passing seamlessly into the land of the willfully forgotten.

Lest I get attacked for naïvely taking her side, I have to say that she can be awkward, including for her champions, but this is not an excuse for mistreating a human being, particularly one whose awkwardness is born out of trauma. And I think I can claim some objectivity from having been in both her good and bad books over the years.

For her, I wish justice and nothing less. As for the Dean ...

I'm sure the evangelysing/proselytising former Dean does not lose any sleep from a fear of meeting the same fate as John The Baptist, so I'll leave you with a final meditation on this weak and venal man. With due apologies to Charlie Hebdo which so often gets so much right.

Original post here.

SINS OF OMISSION

Click on any image for a larger version

I haven't posted on Jersey for a while. This is mainly because not much has been happening. Yes, I know there has been an election and a new Chief Minister, and the "leader of the opposition" has become Children's and Housing Minister and so on. But it is too early to assess the significance of these changes, if any.

What has provoked me into print is a development relating to the Abuse Inquiry. I know I will be accused of being obsessed with this feature of Island life and that does not worry me one whit.

How the authorities react in this area is a litmus test of their sincerity across the board and it is a simple one that is easily accessible.

People will remember that, earlier this year, the Inquiry's web site was taken down pending further redaction to protect the innocent (and maybe a few of the guilty as well). Not everyone believed the reasons given for the take down as it conveniently (for some) deprived researchers of the raw material necessary for an in depth evaluation of the Inquiry and of the authorities' response to it.

Fortunately, some of us had already lost trust in the Inquiry and in the authorities so this may not prove to be as serious an obstacle as it first appeared.

We were promised that the site would be gradually restored as appropriate redactions were made to the content, and, lo and behold, the first phase of the restoration is now finally upon us.

Before I go any further, a technical comment. I would have imagined that the first redaction would have been to upgrade the site's security in line with what is happening generally, including in the case of my own web site and my blogs (at Blogger). However when I try to access the partially restored site under the security protocol (https) my browser tells me:

The owner of www.jerseycareinquiry.org has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

This is a serious omission for an Inquiry which has already had its security lapses when in session.

I have had neither the time, nor the inclination at this stage, to examine what has been put back up in any great detail, but there is one glaring omission which screamed out at me.

In the section on Key Documents, there is an index to the "rulings" of the Inquiry on various matters such as media accreditation (of which more another time) and provision of, or funding for, legal advice/representation.

The Inquiry unjustifiably rejected Stuart Syvret's application for such funding despite the fact that he was a key witness and had been put in a very tricky legal situation by the Royal Court.

That ruling was always absent from the index though the ruling itself could be found on the site if one knew how to look for it. The partially restored site not only continues to omit the ruling from the index, but the ruling itself has now been taken down.

In the face of this unjustifiable and provocative piece of vandalism, I have posted the ruling on my own web site so that people can judge this matter for themselves.

I have referred to the restoration as partial. By this I mean that only part of the site has been restored. The word also has another meaning which may also be relevant, we'll see.

Anyway, what has not been restored is the transcripts of the oral hearings and the vast volumes of evidence submitted by participants to the Inquiry. These would be the meat of any assessment of the Inquiry and of the authorities' response to it.

Had these not been posted in the first place, and subsequently clumsily redacted, I would not necessarily have known the identity of the person referred to as 737 and that they were still in a prominent position in the financial sector despite being scheduled for police interview under caution as a suspect in the rape of an adult female.

So the taking down and continued absence of this material is no small matter.

While I'm in full flight, I'd like to refer to a document which has been brought to my attention. It is a discussion by some legal bods on The Jersey Way in the context of moving on from the Inquiry.

While it is by no means comprehensive, understandably so in a document emaninating from within the Jersey legal fraternity, and while it retains a sloppy reference to the infamous "coconut", it does have some sensible things to say on the subject.

It is something of an academic work, containing as it does many references to other sources, but this may be a useful feature as it brings together some of the current thinking in this area.

A central theme is trust and transparency - how to regain popular trust by operating in a fully transparent manner. While Jersey is still a long way from this, it is worth mentioning here some of the observations in the document.

It has an extensive comment on the Inquiry's dealings with Stuart Syvret:

An obvious hole in the Jersey Care Inquiry Report is the absence of former Senator Stuart Syvret’s evidence. Syvret had been an outspoken critic of the way the Jersey establishment had dealt with allegations of child abuse dating back to the 1970’s. In 2007 he was dismissed from his post as the Minister for Health and Social Services after claiming that child abuse cases were being covered up. When Syvret called for an independent inquiry he was accused by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, of damaging Jersey’s reputation. Syvret was arrested in April 2008 and charged under the Data Protection Act in relation to articles written on his blog allegedly containing confidential information. The Care Inquiry report noted his refusal to assist the inquiry as regrettable. But Syvret himself told the Jersey Evening Post that he wanted to give evidence, but did not because he was not granted legal representation, something he felt he needed to prevent the breach of any of the court orders that were in place against him.

If the States of Jersey truly wanted to draw a line and turn a new leaf, which is what this inquiry sought to do, then legal representation should have been granted to Stuart Syvret. That would have served one of the strongest possible indications yet that the government wants to move forward into an era of transparency and honesty whilst at the same time demonstrating an element of humility, which has been so lacking in the eyes of the victims.

So I am clearly entitled to attach significance to this ruling by the Inquiry and am not surprised they have gone to some lengths to hide it as it is a perverse ruling and, in my view, undermines the independence of the Inquiry itself.

Furthermore, the document quotes

Specifically, McAlinden and Naylor argue, the inherent limitations of public inquiries, like narrow terms of reference, which are primarily focused on recommendations for law reform, ‘may impede the deeper systemic exploration of the context, causes and consequences of abuse that may be necessary in seeking a just process and outcomes for victims’.
A. McAlinden and B. Naylor, (2016) Reframing Public Inquiries as ‘Procedural Justice’ for Victims of Institutional Child Abuse: Towards a Hybrid Model of Justice, Sydney Law review, Vol.38, p.294.

This particular Inquiry narrowed its own terms of reference and then only went beyond them when it suited it. It ignored the term of reference which obliged it to go back to the States (parliament) before it set its rules and procedures in stone. It went outside its terms of reference in commenting on the Victoria College scandal but refused to comment on the significance of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief although this was a critical event in the attempted cover up of abuse and the effective shutting down of Operation Rectangle. There is no question but that this suspension was slap bang in the middle of its terms of reference. It also refused to follow up on the apparent abandonment of the scheduled police interview with person 737 in the immediate aftermath of the Police Chief's suspension.

Clearly the Inquiry itself baulked at any effort to pursue the trail into the financial sector, the reputation of which it put above its own purpose. And there is no point in saying to me that this was an alleged adult victim and so not relevant to the Inquiry. It was a classic demonstration of the psychology behind the whole cover up, and the Inquiry knew this.

So how could one trust this Inquiry to have due regard to the "deeper systematic exploration" referred to in the quote above.

Anyway, this post has gone on long enough. You can read the legal bods document yourself if you are sufficiently interested. It is worth the read and seems to me to represent some small awakening in the legal profession to the need to raise these issues in public if there is ever to be closure in this horrific area.

Just a parting footnote: I would not like to be taken as ignoring the efforts of Philip Sinel, single-handedly among the Jersey legal fraternity, to do precisely this at no small cost to himself.

Original post here

JON COMMENTS

As I have explained elsewhere, I will not tolerate comments on individual blog posts where the nature of those comments, usually crass and insulting, would undermine my ability to refer bona fide readers to my posts.

I am in favour of free speech in society at large and do not fear criticism even when it is such as would strike terror into the heart of a grown man.

I have been subjected to crude and irrelevant comments from Jon Howarth over the years and have been quite happy to ignore them. They have turned up under all sorts of totally unrelated posts and as a result on occasions I have had some difficulty knowing what he is going on about.

However, we are here in different territory. I have actually done a post on Jon, sparked by the Commissioner for Standards finding that Jersey parliamentarian, Sam Mézec's, forthright and perhaps slightly over the top, description of Jon is not out of place coming from an elected representative because it is in fact true.

This is quite a departure for Jon who has been "getting away with murder" for years. Yes he did get bound over in 2011 for making threats but, as Stuart Syvret has pointed out, this case only got followed up by the police because Stuart had raised the matter in a courtroom. Par for the course would have been for the authorities to ignore it as was their wont. After all did Jon not do them a big favour by letting himself be used in the disgraceful official campaign to have Stuart's blog taken down.

Islanders got a shock many moons ago when ex-RUC man Lenny Harper, coming from off-island, confiscated their bazookas. Now we have another ex-RUC man making it quite clear that he is not going to lend himself to endorsing frivolous and unjustified complaints. Hopefully we will see him upholding those which have substance and lighting a few fireworks under deserving elected backsides.

Lest, as a southerner, I am taken here as unjustifiably smearing/complimenting former members of the RUC, I have to declare an interest. A friendly RUC man, who I had just met, once offered to mind my southern registered car parked outside the Guildhall in Derry at the height of the troubles. No one touched it.

Anyway my Jon post is clearly a special event. I have had 468 pageviews, some 40 printable comments and a further 30 which I have not passed.

So in a spirit of fair play and free speech I intend relaying some of the points (below in bold type) made in comments that I have held back.

So here we go; hold on to your hats till the storm abates.

---

Póló is an off-Island coward


Ever wondered why so many comments on the serious blogs are made anonymously. Normally I would expect anonymous commments to be stupid or insulting and not pay much attention to them. However, Jersey is a different kettle of fish. Serious commenters will feel obliged to comment anonymously for fear of retribution. So it is not only acceptable, it is wise in many cases.

As they say down my way "the proof is in the pudding", and a raft of people have suffered severe retribution at the hands of the authorities, including Stuart Syvret, Trevor Pitman, Lenny Harper, Graham Power & God knows how many others known only to family & friends. Mike Higgins is still battling away from inside the States despite their having tried to bankrupt him at least once.

Now I'm off-island and a little more beyond their reach and I am grateful to Jersey for the wonderful times I spent on the island, so I feel I owe them something in return.

Leah McGrath Goodman

And while I'm on the topic of off-island I'd like to pay tribute to Leah, an internationally renowned financial journalist, who has put herself out to report abuse on the island. She then ran into trouble with UK border control on a return visit and her situation was only "regularised" after intervention by a number of highly placed individuals who supported what she was doing. Hopefully she'll soon be landing an unwelcome book on the desks of a few island worthies.

I would also like to pay tribute to Leigh Lafon (Denver Elle) who for a number of years supported the cause from the US with posts that were always perceptive and to the point. Thanks Leigh for all your encouragement and we hope to see you back sometime.


Your Blog has been reported to the Police for harassment because that's all you are doing. McMurray has also been reported for promoting it. One way or another I will win, because I always win and if all you have is old news to hit people with then you are a fool.

Ian Le Marquand, former Justice Minister
& creature of the City of London

Why does Jon get away with his damaging behaviour while others have been harassed by the authorities for doing their job and attempting to clean up the island.

Former Police Chief Bowron

And at the same time others who have complained about Jon at the highest level of the police are just ignored. Check out Rico's story. There is enough evidence around to give rise to the suspicion that Jon is being protected.


The owner of this Blog must be seriously thick.
This is a member of the Jsy public who you are trying to vilify and re-try over a spent court case I am told is almost 8 years old so is meaningless under the rehab Law.
Any Copper or Court reading this hate campaign would this person is being harassed.


Regarding the court case in 2011 where Jon was bound over for making phone threats, he claims that the lightness of the sentence proves that he never threatened to murder anyone. However, that claim could be stood on its head, and we could wonder, particularly as there is phone evidence of a murder threat, why the sentence was so light. Now there's some food for thought.


I will set the law on you for harassing an innocent and insignificant member of the public.

John can only claim to be an insignificant & ordinary member of the public because he gets away with what he does. In any functioning society he would be behind bars or in treatment.

He complains that I am abusing my off-island position, presumably on the basis that I am acting irresponsibly while I am unaccountable for what I do. In the same breath he is telling me he has reported me to the Police and that they are coming for me as there is no hiding place. Well Jon which is it?


You should be ashamed of yourself putting Rico Sorda's private life up online.


I have simply alluded to matters that Rico himself has put in the public domain. These are matters which, were it not for Jon's evil behaviour, Rico would not have needed to allude to at all in public.

It was in fact Jon himself who, in the course of his nasty gloating comments, attempted to put further aspects of Rico's private life in the headlights.


You know stalking is a criminal offence.


This was posted as a comment under a post of mine that was totally unrelated to Jersey. There have been many of these, while I have only very occasionally referred to Jon and in relevant contexts. So it's really a question of who's stalking whom here.


Stuart is under a court order to leave Nurse M alone. He has broken this and will go to prison, the stupid cunt.

Stuart Syvret

Nobody is sure at this stage precisely what legal constraints apply to Stuart Syvret. It was thought that he was subject to a super gagging order and his behaviour would lead you to believe that this was in fact the case.

His efforts to stop Nurse M in his tracks were a dismal failure, no small thanks to Jon, and they resulted in his blog being taken down. There is unfinished business here but the authorities are running a mile in the opposite direction.


You are a thick Irish dickhead ... so go fuck yourself.

Jon is deluded into thinking he is part of Jersey Royalty.

In with the in-crowd.

But Jon, you will be dispensable when the heat comes on.

So gather ye rosebuds.


The COS [Commissioner for Standards] will be removed for the way he has dealt with this.

I have made my views on this clear above.


Pain in the ass because the Police have read your post and now I have to go and make a statement.

I surely hope they have and might do something about you as a result.


You are also being reported to the police for online harassment and abuse.

Jon, go look in the mirror.

---

Some other comments have been passed on to me from the Voice for Children blog where Jon has left them. I'm just including two below but others have been along the lines of those above.


Ian Gorst, the AG and the SG were apprised about it today. Hope you know what you are doing.


Lets hope Chief Minister Ian, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are already reading my blog. They are welcome to come on and comment here any time. And that also goes for the next Chief Minister and the Chief of Police.


If he has nothing to do with historic abuse like he says then you are targeting him for the sake of it aren't you?

I don't think anyone has linked Jon directly with historic abuse, assuming he means child sex abuse. His behaviour and the official non-treatment of it does serve as an indicator of a totally corrupt system which we know to have been involved in child abuse and in its cover-up.

Jon cannot distance himself from his, well rewarded, co-operation with this system, for example, in getting Stuart Syvret's whistle-blowing blog shut down.

Equally, Jon's claim to have had sight of Rico Sorda's tax return would, if true, put him in a very privileged and intimate relationship with this corrupt administration.

So, Jon, an ordinary member of the public? My arse.

---

My aim in putting Jon's comments in a separate post is that those who wish to can "enjoy" them and those who don't can avoid them entirely.

I could go on here all night but I'll just finish with this comment from a perceptive observer of the Jersey scene.

What makes me so irate is that he is trying to portray himself as the victim. He has terrorised people online for years, not least Rico's ex-wife who has virtually no online presence herself. He is a nasty vindictive individual and if I, or any progressive Blogger, had acted the way he has (and does) we would be doing a ten year stretch by now.

Original post here

JON

Click on any image for a larger version

Jon Haworth lives in Jersey (CI).

He has threatened to kill a politician's landlord. He harasses victims of child abuse. He is a sick and twisted maniac.

Sam Mézec, States (Jersey Parliament) Member

This description of Jon issues from Jersey parliamentarian Sam Mézec.

Now you might think it a bit extreme. Jon certainly did and he made a formal complaint about Sam to to the Commissioner for Standards claiming that Sam had breached the Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Commissioner for Standards

The position of Commissioner for Standards was established in Jersey in 2016. Previous to that the politicians investigated themselves.

The Commissioner appointed was Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM. Originally from Northern Ireland, he served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary before becoming Chief Constable of Hampshire. This was followed by a spell as Head of Mission for the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories and then as Commissioner for Standards for the UK House of Lords after which he ended up in Jersey.

Parliament already knew Jon's form and I take it that he thought he'd have a go with the new man on the block.

Now, that was Jon's big mistake, because Sam's description is true. The Commissioner effectively acknowledged that and so reported to the Jersey parliament which found that no further action was called for.

So the result of Jon's complaint is that both the Commissioner for Standards and the Jersey parliament have effectively endorsed Sam's description.

The Commissioner found as follows in relation to each element of the complaint:

‘I threatened to kill a Politician’s Landlord’

I am satisfied based on the newspaper coverage of a court case involving Mr. Haworth that he had been bound over to keep the peace in connection with a telephone call he made which involved a threat to the landlords of a Jersey politician. I find it significant that Mr. Haworth sought to explain his actions on that occasion, by stating that they were prompted by a social media exchange to which he objected.

‘That I harass Victims of Child Abuse’
I am satisfied that the JCLA letter dated 25 November 2015 provides justification for Deputy Mézec’s comment. I note that Deputy Mézec referred to other relevant evidence to justify his comment, but I felt it unnecessary to pursue these additional references.

‘That I am a sick and twisted Maniac’
Whilst one could deprecate Deputy Mézec’s choice of language in the light of the requirements of Article 5 of the Code of Conduct, I recognise that social media is a more informal media and that Mr. Haworth’s history, as evidenced in the report of the court case in 2011, may have led Deputy Mézec to feel his comment was justified. I do not believe it was malicious in intent.

There are two references in the above which need further elucidation, the 2011 court case and the JCLA.

Click image for a larger version

I couldn't find the official report of the court case. I have been told that the Jersey Evening Post have taken their original piece on the case offline. I am indebted to Ian Evans for the above copy of the JEP piece.

If you're interested you can hear what I take to be the phonecall cited in the courtcase here. Jon is threatening Stuart Syvret's landlord with death at the hands of Nurse M, a (so far, alleged) serial killer.

The JCLA is the Jersey Care Leavers Association which supports those adults who, as children, suffered abuse while in care. Their letter, referred to above, states that Mr. Haworth had made vitriolic attacks on the JCLA and claimed that he had said that victims of child abuse only wanted compensation.

Jon has since made a phonecall similar to the one above to a disabled Blogger who campaigns for Victims/Survivors of Child Abuse.

I must say, were I Jon I'd be very careful in attempting to pressgang a man as dangerous as Nurse M into service to do my dirty work for me. As we say in Irish Filleann an feall ar an feallaire. However, Jon seems to have survived this unscathed so far, apart from the court case.

Jon, in further phonecalls, has relayed threats against the wife of investigative journalist/blogger Rico Sorda. You can follow this up on Rico's blog.

In addition to all the above, the Jersey establishment is not above using disreputables for its own ends when it suits them. For example, Jon was used by former Jersey Data Commissioner (daughter of Bergerac) to bring, what I consider a spurious, case against Stuart Syvret which resulted in Stuart's blog being taken down.

I have to say that it gives me great pleasure to see Jon hoisted on his own pétard. He has threatened more than the one person cited in the report and he has harassed and trolled a number of people online, including myself. He is the sole reason I had to start moderating comments on my blog. You can get a flavour of Jon's comments in a separate post.

So I'll finish with the immortal words of Jon Haworth
addressed to myself at 9.39pm on 18 January 2017:

Yup, you're just one big thick Irish dickhead.

Original post is here

OLD HAM SOON FORGOTTEN?

Click any image for a larger version

The Oldham Report has now been published for just a month and there has been time for initial reactions from players and commentators. So I thought I should add some reactions of my own given that I have followed certain aspects of the Inquiry in some detail.

The Inquiry's final report can be accessed here.

The Inquiry's home page also gives two links to Frances Oldham's summary statement on the publication of the report which can be accessed here. The page also gives links to the vast trove of documentation which covers both the appearance of witnesses and the documentation supplied by them.

Be aware that the Inquiry's website is a bit of a mess and has been very unsatisfactory throughout. So much so that many people have taken to downloading aspects which are of interest to them for fear they would vanish (as some have) or be further edited (which some were) or become otherwise unavailable, particularly now that the site has been abandoned by the Inquiry team and handed over to the States of Jersey.

How the States intend dealing with it and whether there are any plans to clean up the site and make the material more accessible is unknown at this stage.

What was expected from this report?

Different people had very different views of the nature of the Inquiry and what it might have been expected to produce.

At one extreme, some saw it as a court which would deliver a verdict on the behaviour of individuals, hold them to account and even throw them in jail.

At the other extreme the Inquiry was seen as a PR exercise, or whitewash, by the establishment which would lead to an admission of past failures, limit the apportioning of blame to institutions rather than individuals, and make some recommendations for future improvements.

I did a post in the run up to the publication of the report setting out what I expected to see in it. In that post I referred to a number of negative aspects of the Inquiry's behaviour to date and to my expectation of a very limited outcome.

What was in it?

The outcome is broadly as I expected but with some differences.

The report did criticise people, principally these five: Andrew Lewis, Philip Bailhache, Bill Ogley, Tom McKeon and Mario Lundy.

The criticism of Lewis looks like being the only one which will have any consequences for the individual concerned.

Lewis - Minister

To put Lewis in context, he is a weak man who was catapulted into a ministerial position to do the bidding of the establishment and then hung out to dry when he started digging himself (and others) into a hole and wouldn't stop.

His major gaffe was to have allowed himself to be the fall guy in the suspension (effective sacking) of the Police Chief in a process that broke every rule in the book.

He subsequently repeatedly lied in an effort to redeem himself and scared the pants off the establishment who feared that he might thereby put their corrupt and clandestine hold over the polity of Jersey in jeopardy.

The point at issue was the legality, fairness and reason for the suspension of the Police Chief. The case against Lewis, and his puppet masters, was that (i) they had planned the disposal of the Police Chief from way back but falsely presented it as a spontaneous reaction to a negative report from the Deputy Chief, (ii) they did not observe due process in the suspension, in fact they acted against legal advice, and (iii) the reasons for the hasty and botched suspension didn't hold water.

The Inquiry found that he had lied all over the place.

Philip Bailhache - Bailiff

Philip denied putting the welfare of the financial sector before the safety of children but accepted that his Liberation day speech, which may have given that impression, was unfortunately worded.

The Inquiry judged his words a serious political error but, it should be noted, did not absolve him of the attitude implied in his wording.

Bill Ogley - CEO

Bill was at the heart of carrying out much of the conspiracy. The Inquiry did not accept his version of events, particularly regarding the purported spontaniety of the suspension of the Police Chief.

The Inquiry also alluded to his form in these matters when he had earlier unsuccessfully attempted to involve the Police Chief and another officer in the sacking of the whistleblowing Minister Stuart Syvret.

Tom McKeon & Mario Lundy - Managers

The Inquiry censured these two managers for lying about the frequency of use of secure accommodation and their failure of management which led to inconsistent and at times excessive use of force by adults towards children.

Stuart Syvret

The Inquiry did also criticise Stuart Syvret on two grounds, namely that (i) his public attacks on civil servants were inappropriate and did not assist his cause, and (ii) his refusal to participate in the Inquiry.

The Inquiry (generously!) found that Syvret's actions did not amount to political interference in Operation Rectangle but that the manner of his dismissal was outside their terms of reference.

And in a paragraph that will surely go down in history for sheer brazen neck, it held:

Stuart Syvret has not given evidence to this Public Inquiry. Requests to him were made on a number of occasions seeking his assistance and any relevant evidence he might have. As a States member for many years, latterly as the Minister for HSSD, his contribution to the work of this Inquiry may have assisted. His refusal to assist is to be regretted.

My view is that Stuart Syvret was constructively excluded from the Inquiry and it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

He had been oppressed by the establishment, including through imprisonment. He had been subject to a supergag order (as far as we know) and he requested legal protection before he would bear witness to the Inquiry. In spite of the massive legal bills incurred in other aspects of the Inquiry his request was refused and the refusal was then hidden, unlike all the other Inquiry decisions, in an obscure corner of the Inquiry's website.

It is also significant that the Inquiry, while admitting his relevance, refused to subpoena him, an action which might effectively have led to him getting some degree of legal protection. In fact, he was not the only relevant witness who was not subpoened and this lack of action does not reflect well on the bona fides of the Inquiry itself.

It should be pointed out that Syvret has cast doubt on the vires/legality of the whole Jersey administration and also on that of the Inquiry itself. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that he would have chosen to participate given appropriate legal protection.

Suspension of Graham Power

I have already done a fairly long post on Graham Power's evidence to the Inquiry and don't intend repeating myself here.

I know I run the risk of being accused of being obsessed with this aspect of the case rather than the core matter of the abuse of children. However, one of the Inquiry's terms of reference involves its looking into whether there was any political interference in the earlier police inquiry into abuse of children.

As far as I am concerned, Graham Power's suspension is a text book case of such interference. It is also a litmus test for such interference. That's why I make no apology for stressing it.

The Inquiry itself went on to

... record our disquiet at the manner in which the suspension was handled and in respect of some of the evidence given to us about it. We refer, in particular, to the following issues:

• Graham Power was suspended with no notice in respect of alleged past failings, when there was no suggestion that those past failings could have an effect on his ability in future to carry out his duties;
• Those responsible for his suspension did not heed the advice of the Solicitor General or Attorney General about the risks of reliance on the Metropolitan Police interim report, the need to show any report to Graham Power and permit him to comment on it, or the wisdom of awaiting the full Metropolitan Police report before taking action;
• David Warcup exaggerated to Bill Ogley the extent to which his own concerns were supported by the Metropolitan Police interim report;
• Andrew Lewis used the interim report for disciplinary purposes, knowing that this was an impermissible use;
• William Bailhache QC, as Attorney General, understood that the decision had already been made by the evening of 11 November 2008 that Graham Power was to be suspended. His evidence to us on this point was at odds with the evidence of Bill Ogley. We prefer the evidence of William Bailhache QC;
• It is clear to us that, when Graham Power attended the meeting on 12 November 2008, his suspension was inevitable. We accept Graham Power’s evidence that he was given time “to consider his position” – in other words, to resign as an alternative to suspension;
• Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not;
• Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008;
• Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect

Nevertheless, the Inquiry came to a very firm conclusion that the suspension was in no way intended to derail Rectangle, that it did not affect it, and that the Inquiry's own terms of reference did not therefore permit it to consider the matter further.

This is a significant funk on the part of the Inquiry and they have no way of knowing to what extent Power's suspension may have affected matters out of the public gaze.

For instance, Rectangle Senior Investigating Officer, Mick Gradwell, had already scheduled, for the week following Power's suspension, an interview with John Averty, as a suspect and under caution. Now John Averty was being investigated in relation to alleged serial rapes of an adult female or females. And John Averty was one of those people who Graham Power identified as possibly being behind his suspension. John Averty is a very influential member of the Jesey establishment.

So, did the Inquiry check whether this interview took place or not? If the interview did take place, what was the result? If it did not, should this not be taken as prima facie evidence of outside influence on the conduct of the Inquiry?

All this was known to the Inquiry as it is contained in the evidence submitted to them by Graham Power and (however incidentally) by Mick Gradwell.

The Inquiry would not have been justified in ignoring this on the basis that the allegations did not refer to children. Interference is interference and would be indicative of a prevailing culture. Over the years many victims/survivors have complained that their complaints were not taken seriously or that they had been intimidated into withdrawing them.

Strangely, the Inquiry took a completely opposite approach when it came to the older Victoria College scandal:

The SOJP investigations into Victoria College, Paul Every and the Sea Cadets are not within the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. We considered evidence about these investigations on the basis that the conduct and attitude of Police officers and others to those investigations might be relevant to the Police response to allegations of abuse of children in care.

This raises the question of whether the Inquiry itself has, despite all its protestations, been subject to interference.

The Legacy

So was there any point to this Inquiry? Were there any positives? What will happen next?

As far as I can see the the main achievement of this Inquiry has been to assemble and record evidence of the widespread abuse which permeated the Island for years. This may have brought some consolation or closure to victims/survivors whose complaints had not been heeded over the years. It may have given others the courage to come forward and bear witness and this may have helped them come to terms with their predicament.

It may just have awakened people in Jersey to what had been done to their children for decades and might, hopefully, lead to them reclaiming Jersey politics for the people - though this bit of wishful thinking might be stretching it.

The Inquiry has been quite hard hitting in those matters it chose to follow through on. But the big omission is in the raft of people it has not held to account. you can see a sample of questions not asked by the Inquiry or in some mainstream media reports here.

It has also ducked some of the deeper questions by just mentioning them in passing. The Bailiff's control of the legislature is one, and perhaps something will be done about that. But the vital missing element is the lack of a firm finding that the UK, or some Higher Power, needs to intervene to ensure that the Island has a properly independent prosecution system and that there are adequate channels of appeal when justice is miscarried on the Island.

As things stand there is effectively no appealing the decisions of the Jersey courts or the actions of its Crown Officers. The Lieutenant Governor is a joke. And the Queen's Privy Council refers all complaints back to the Jersey courts.

The Inquiry has recommended the establishment of a Children's Commissioner and work is in hand to appoint one. There seems to be some confusion in Government as to the degree of independence of such a Commissioner and to whom or to what body the Commissioner would report. Hopefully this will be sorted and the Commissioner will not end up simply reporting to the Chief Minister as was suggested in a recent Government news release.

The Website etc.

The Inquiry's website has been a disgrace from day one. It is not user friendly, particularly when it comes to finding material. It was not used to communicate with the public except in the most cursory way. In fact virtually all of the Inquiry's communication with the public has been one way. Material has come and gone and been redacted and re-redacted without any commentary or explanation from the Inquiry.

Bloggers were denied full press facilities when they constituted the only independent media on the island. Written queries to the Inquiry were either not answered or were acknowledged in a dismissive way. And to cap it all the "press conference" introducing the report to the public resembled a bootcamp Tannoy, with its quasi-stripsearches and no Q&A.

Person 737

To those who may wonder at my cheek in naming John Averty as Person 737, I would simply point out that it is not me what dunnit Gov. It was the Inquiry itself which failed miserably to protect the anonymity it originally conferred on him, as I have pointed out here.

Original post is here