CoM, CoI and coincidence?

As I write at least six of the current Council of Ministers are not seeking re-election to the States let alone as ministers. . Add in a handful of assistant ministers also bowing out at the prospect of another election and one has to wonder what has triggered this unprecedented winnowing of the chaff.

Commonly  social media  messages refer to rats jumping a sinking  ship.  I doubt that is the cause. If the CoM had lost a vote of confidence in the assembly, or serried ranks of protesters were evident outside the latest meetings I might  take that suggestion.  

I put to you another reason - their job is done as they see it.  Is it coincidence that many of those ministers were in the Assembly when the events leading to the Committee of Inquiry into abuse in care was put in place.   Some of them worked very hard to undermine, deflect and eviscerate the terms of reference and the standing and findings of the CoI.  Well the CoI reported  and there is now nothing left to attack.  The findings, however weak, are being implemented and the questions that never were put are now unnoticed.  Questions of no import to anyone except perhaps historians of some future age.

Job done. Arses covered, reputations quickly buffed up again and those who were to be protected have been .  Rewards, titles, and invitations in the post soon....

Utterly perplexed

I heard the Chief Minister's summing up speech in the States of the debate on the committee of inquiry report and I have to say I am totally perplexed.


After decades of abuse of children in care as evidenced in the report the  proposal is to have a  a new Children's Commissioner, set up yet more panels and boards of States members and produce a new strategy document.  That's it.  More talking shops, more bits of paper, one person - a  Children's Commissioner - to change everything!




According to some this is the most damning report from an inquiry they have seen.  With the exception of the Connetable of St John who argued against one item, no one contested the Chief Minister's prescription of signing up to all the recommendations.  Yet many of those same recommendations are exactly the opposite of the States policy and the programme of the Council of Ministers since ministerial government started.  Overnight they collectively volte face and start being the best to implement policies that last month they collectively opposed?


We now have ministers in the CoM who opposed the very set up of the committee of enquiry, ministers who opposed the creation of a Children's Minister in 2009. We have ministers who have derailed or opposed every significant move to reform the States who are now it seems going to support the exhortation in the report to adopt Clothier and Carswell.  Ministers who have spent a decade or more in the Assembly gleefully pushing every opportunity to adopt laws facilitating the finance industry are overnight going to now prioritise social justice measures as the report indicates. 

To quote Jim Royle ,  My Arse!



Where else in the world would you receive such a damning report and wake up the day after a debate on it to find exactly the same ministers and assistant ministers in office. No one accountable, no one taking responsibility in any way that matters.


The Chief Minister quoted Deputy Bree in saying something like nothing can be the same again.  To me it looks like if you are in the magic circle everything is still exactly the same.


Plus ça change.....

Vindicated

A quick scan of the care inquiry report released today.  Of course it will take time to analyse the detail, unpick the cautious language in places and spot the omissions.  One or two online comments describe it as the most damning report they have seen.  I wouldn't go that far, least not until I've read it thoroughly.  But for today, it does one important job. In the fight between on the one hand victims, survivors and campaigners and on the other the  powerful, the conflicted, the deceiving,  and those who tried to avoid having an inquiry at all , it is the former who are clearly vindicated.

So here are a few pertinent clips that stood out to me. 

On Willamson

 


On Skinner and Jouault

 
On  political structure. Clothier and Carswell


On past failures





A couple of bits from others.

Lewis Lied Bailhache political error   Andrew Lewis lied and the former Bailiff's Liberation Day speech was 'a grave political error'

Jersey ££££ post

As the intersted parties  are locked in to hear the Chair's statement of the report of the Independent Care Inquiry, the ever reliable JEP  manages to get its retaliation in first with a front page never mind the damaged lives, dodgy practices, likely illegal activities and  decades of abuse, just look at the money story. 

Bravo JEP,  ever the reliable tool of  the mercantile  establishment.


http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/03/states-failed-to-control-care-inquiry-costs/

More pressing business

I wrote recently of the survey by a PR company of the sources local journalists use for stories.  Well a couple more items have caught me eye.

An item that appeared today on the JEP online that superficially looks as though some reporter has been out to doorstep the Environment Minister  over an ongoing local issue - development of glasshouses.  The wording seemed oddly familiar to me so I checked.  Here's the printed piece, Minister envious of Guernsey planning policy  and for comparison the Minister in the States Assembly 20th June answering a supplementary question from Deputy Russell Labey re Warwick Farm. https://statesassembly.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/291867/start_time/8103000 

The odd thing here is the inclusion of the comment about Andium Homes wanting to build there.  You might think reading the piece that the Minister is accepting Warwick Farm is one of the sites that might be built on. Not so .  In the same half hour question time in the States there was a question from Montford Tadier https://statesassembly.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/291867/start_time/8661000 That response seems pretty definitive. There is no potential for housing at Warwick Farm in the short term. How can  a reporter pay enough attention to one answer to quote almost verbatim, and yet include something that is flatly rebuffed in the same question time? Laziness, ineptitude or  calculated political slanting, I don't know - make up your own mind.  

As an aside I would point out the JEP should be aware of at least one of the alternative plans for Warwick Farm, consistent with the current green zoning of the site.  I know because the background paper to one of the expressions of interest in the lease was e-mailed to them by an over zealous supporter of  the plan.

Let me highlight another States issue.  It is of course all public information. It is on record in Hansard there's nothing here not readily available to any reporter.  You might recall the debate on the new hospital funding was delayed 4 times.  18th April the delay was called for by the Treasury Minister to give members time to analyse the little over 100 pages of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel report .  A move was made by others to delay the debate by even more than the two weeks agreed.

Odd then that the same States members who couldn't analyse a 111 page report in April in a day opr two are now confident enough to read digest and  debate in detail a probably (hopefully) much larger report of the Committee of Inquiry in to abuse in less than 3 days.  It just does not stack up.  

What does stack up to my mind is the stage management of the publication of the report. Only accredited press (no interested parties?) will be at the launch on the 3rd.  As I read the information there will be no opportunity of question and the lock in session will only be revealing the executive summary at that stage.  In effect the immediate press coverage will be what the chair and panel are telling the press is the important stuff, the 'party line'. and of course that will dominate the public information available just ahead of the States debate.  

 The ancient Chinese general Sun Tsu wrote

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

and 

Every battle is won before it is ever fought.

There is nothing quite as important in practicing deception than to have a compliant unquestioning fourth estate.

Shades of things about to come Updated.

In the run up to the important date of July 3rd, I was interested to hear a piece on radio 4's PM today concerning the odious Peter Ball. He is the bishop who was convicted in 2015 for misconduct in a public office and for abusing 18 teenagers and vulnerable young men.  It was a follow up to the report yesterday.  The key points of Dame Moira Gibb's report are : 

     "Ball's priority was to protect and promote himself and he maligned the abused."

     "The Church colluded with that rather than seeking to help those he had harmed, or assuring itself of the safety of others"

     "Ball's conduct has caused serious and enduring damage to the lives of many men... Peter Ball betrayed his Church and abused individual followers of that Church." 

The radio piece interviewed Rev Graham Sawyer who was one of Ball's victims in the 1990's.  I've done my best here to transcribe what he said.  It will be on Iplayer for a while at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjm8#play

Many victims of abuse like myself are still being ignored, isolated and vilified today.  I find it (the report) underwhelming. There wasn't much in it that was new to me. A few extra details perhaps but a lot of it has been known to many people who have been seeking to change the culture in the Church in the way that it deals with these matters.  And particularly with the way that it deal with the victims of abuse.  I was appalled Dame Moira Gibb in her forward says we have no doubt the Church has a genuine commitment to meeting its responsibilities towards victims of abuse.

It is simply totally untrue.  The way the highest levels of the Church - bishops archbishops and the National Safeguarding Office  - the way they treat people like me and the other people I speak with can only be described as enduringly cruel and enduringly sadistic.

For balance I assume they also had Bishop Sarah Mullally on.  She was not involved with production of the report. Again I'll try to transcribe her words.

I was disturbed by the contents of the report. Also saddened by the way in which survivors of abuse had been treated.  There was no excuse for that. Frustrated because as a Church (we are) seeking to  improve but (it) demonstrates not doing it fast enough.

The presenter then put a point that one fellow had written 17 times before receiving a reply from the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Bishop answered We are are trying to get a better response and training The Church of England is quite a complex organisation. Whilst that is not an excuse in Devon we have 6,000 volunteers to train.  The report was commissioned by the Church  of England so we are saying we want to learn. We recognise we have failed and we are seeking to try and mover forward.  It has to be an indication the the Church is willing to learn and to change, but not fast enough. 

To my mind the comments of the Bishop are pretty weak as more contrite version of  'lessons have be learned'.  It is also a bit rich trying to play up some merit for commissioning the report when that only happened after Peter Ball had been convicted.  What else could the Church have done?

Why is this of relevance to July 3rd and the publication of our CoI report.  Well it demonstrates clearly that establishment institutions are not above reproach and that collusion in high office is certainly possible. I rather suspect the comments  by Rev Sawyer will be applicable here - no new information and nothing much to commend to victims and survivors.

ADDENDUM

I've just come across this which is a very interesting piece that rather confims the point about treatment of victims, refers to Peter Ball, and involves Dame Butler Sloss who had been  picked to chair the CSA inquiry.  Butler Sloss tape

Must try harder...

I did a piece for ITV Channel News yesterday in response to an item the appeared on the Bailiwick Express site.   I believe it wasn't used.

The original piece was childcare recruitment jersey has serious image problem

I do not doubt they are having problems recruiting, but I am sceptical to say the least about the reason given.  We know other caring professions - nursing and teaching come to mind- where recruitment is also a problem. That indicates to me there is a systemic problem.  Further, I have seen no evidence of a properly conducted survey on the reasons recruitment is so difficult  in social work, let alone the results of any such survey.  

I have one other reason  why I am doubtful.  It is the nature of vocational work  like childcare.  People who have a vocation want to make a difference .  You do that by going where there is a problem or a need, as long as you feel you can change or improve things.  Well Jersey has a need, and any quick online search would confirm that.  It isn't a deterrent, if anything the opposite.

But my real anger is the  use of that tired  meme  the 'Image of Jersey'.   It has been used all along by those who wanted to refute the evidence of abuse in our care system, and by those who wanted to deny having a Committee of Inquiry. And it is the mindset that is at the heart of the problem.,  The moment someone in authority -a manger or a politician decides himself, or instructs a junior to prioritise the Image of Jersey there is a problem. The idea that it would be better to keep this quiet, not make an issue or a fuss, because it would look bad of the island, that is where the canker festers and the cover ups begin. It is the most rotten of mindsets.

I was reminded of a quote of Gandhi - first they ignore you , then they laugh at you , then they fight you , then you win.  Survivors in Jersey were ignored, their claims were ridiculed, they have continued to fight, so the next step....  It may take a long time.  You only have to look at  time it took for campaigners at Hillsborough or North Wales to see justice (http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2012/11/jerseys-coming-30-year-war-what-we.html) Indeed I am coming to the conclusion it will take the passing of a generation of vested interests before the real truth gets out.  Too late for far too many who suffered so much, and denying justice to many.

The piece that ITV did show:  http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-07-28/jersey-social-worker-shortage-blamed-on-historical-abuse-claims/

Unravelling the 'Gorstian' knot

Legend has it that  Alexander the Great attempted to untie the Gordian  knot. When he could not find the end to the knot, he sliced it with his sword.  He solved a seemingly impossible puzzle using unconventional means.  I wonder if the curious mechanics involved in the recent States debate on the successful proposition to increase funding to the Committee of Inquiry might have created a modern parallel.


Like all good mysteries, this play has several sub plots.  It was notable that the six who voted against were ministers or assistant ministers. Add the External Relations Minister's abstention and a couple of ministerial absences and it was clear the Council of Minister must have been collectively against.  We have the tricky position of the Chief Minister in bringing a proposition that, had collective responsibility  been  applied, he would have likely had to vote against his own proposition!   

We also have the curious position of Senator Bailhache who spoke in the debate and then abstained on the vote as being conflicted.  What one wonders does he think is the point of debate if not to influence it? If it is to influence it then surely  if you are conflicted enough to abstain you are conflicted enough to not try influencing the outcome?   There is also the strange item reported on BBC Jersey  saying he said that there was nothing new arising in the Inquiry.  How could the Senator know that unless he was privy to the internal workings of the Committee or already knew the outcome?  


There is a further question that arises from the vote.  When a majority of Ministers present vote together and against the overwhelming majority of the Assembly, one has to wonder about accountability and responsibility.  Imagine had collective responsibility been invoked we should have had the whole Council of Ministers outvoted more than two to one.  In any functioning democracy that sort of defeat would lead to Government resignation or a vote of no confidence. 




But of course that didn't happen. The assembly voted with CM Gorst, so all's well that ends well.  It shoudn't be surprising - he was elected by the Assembly to that post. But so too were all the other ministers, even if they were proposed by the CM.  So to whom are they answerable?  If the Assembly does not act when there is such a disconnect between them and the contres  then ministers are all but unaccountable , except perhaps to the CM when collective responsibility is invoked. That is not good government.  


I see this as the inevitable  consequence of  having a piecemeal patched together set of expediences and compromises rather than a designed coherently underpinned system.  I dont hold out much hope of change.  The Assembly is collectively too supine and those who hold office quite  comfortable with the current arrangements.  Things will rumble on as they are until an Alexander turns up and cuts through the convoluted and unsolvable knot into which the Assembly has twisted itself.

Press release

This arrived too late for me to be able to act on.  It may be of interest to others, so here is a copy of the the press release I received.

______________________________________________________

Islanders are invited to congregate to in the Royal Square this Sunday morning at 11am to mark the 7^th Anniversary of the Time4Change rally which was held on 8^th March 2008 to remember the victims and survivors of Jersey child abuse, past and present.

 

‘Much has happened since that date, and with the help of campaigners, bloggers and former States Members, we were able to secure a Committee of Inquiry to look independently into these serious matters; to shine a light into one of the darkest chapters in Jersey’s recent history, and to seek to bring redress, justice and healing.’ Said Deputy Tadier, a long-time campaigner for Justice for abuse survivors.

 

‘I am very concerned at recent developments to sabotage the Committee of Inquiry, made by some elements that have never wanted the Inquiry to happen – individuals who themselves have questions to answer under the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

‘The Committee is just about to look at some of its key terms of reference, including [No 13. to] Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish – 

Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach; 

Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. ‘

‘It is quite understandable that some people may not want this to happen and will try anything to obstruct the Committee from being able to do its job.’

 

‘For my part, I will resolutely oppose any suggestion that the Committee not be allowed to do its job.

 

‘The meeting brief memorial this Sunday, will allow the focus to be put back where it belongs. On the victims and survivors of abuse.’

 

Anyone wishing to attend is invite to bring a daffodil as a sign of respect. And to observe a minute silence.

Utterly incomprehensible ineptitude

I am astounded that two director level staff from the Health department have been drafted in to collate evidence for the , ahem,  'Independent' CoI.  One of the two is a witness, the other probably should be.  That ought to be enough to rule them out. I cannot figure how anyone in their right mind could think that two people  from the department that back in June tried to deny  the CoI documents and only complied after a summons could in anyway be the people to do this sort of thing.

The very best spin you could put on it is that someone has been very inept thinking about how this presents to the world.  The alternative: there is something explosive to hide and someone is doing their level best to try keep it buried.

Juvenal had the right question.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/09/01/independence-of-historical-abuse-inquiry-could-be-undermined-warns-politician/

Do not blame the victims

Public sessions of the Committee of Inquiry have started. What is clear to me is that a number of potential witnesses have not made submissions. This is a difficult problem. In a detached , logical analysis one would argue that witnesses should make submissions. The only way the COI can get to the whole truth is to have all the facts, and to do that they need the witness testimony. However we are here dealing with people, moreover people who have been in care and abused. The trust issues care leavers have with authorities are well known. One top of that there are various reasons I have come across for non participation in the COI. Some are simply disillusioned with the whole protracted proceedings, others fear that in our small island there will be reprisals and repercussions for them and their families if they tell what they know. Some think the set up is biased and just another level of cover up, while some simply cannot face going through it all again having already recounted their abuse to the police, and then again to the compensation scheme.

Unless you have been in care, suffered abuse or been on the receiving end of an establishment vendetta I dare say those objections might sound far fetched. However evidence that they are not has been in the UK press just this week. It is not comforting reading. I'll start with the death of Frances Andrade, who had given evidence about the abuse she suffered as a teenager at a music school. See http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/frances-andrade-death-mental-health-7508618 The coroner criticised mental health services for failing to provide proper care to her and he demanded that new rules are put in place to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are given better support when they face often traumatic trials. If the recent scrutiny report on CAMHS is any guide, the support here isn't great. See http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReports/2014/Report%20-%20CAMHS%20-%2016%20June%202014.pdf The answer to a question asked April 1^st is also revealing. See http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2014/Deputy%20Tadier%20to%20HSS%20re%20Access%20to%20mental%20health%20services.pdf , where the minister does not refute that there is a significant waiting list for PATS.

We also had a critical report this week on the actions of the police in secretly gathering intelligence on justice campaigners. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/24/undercover-police-spying-justice-campaigns-20-years It wont surprise anybody that the UK police were engaged in this activity. The investigating officer said "I cannot justify the way this information was subsequently handled. Quite simply put, unless the information could have prevented crime or disorder, it should not have been retained and certainly not for the period it has been.” It reminded me of Operation Blast where Jersey police were keeping secret files on States members. Is it so incredible to think that witnesses whose testimony reflects badly on the police would be worried?

What of the political angle? Again just this week we have a national paper story “ Cover-up to protect politicians after abuse claims” see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28477179 Nigel Goldie, former assistant director of social services at Lambeth Council, said it appeared "high level decisions" were made not to explore allegations against public figures. Where have we heard that before? 11 cases prepared by police that were not prosecuted by the unchallengeable decision of the AG. We also had an sight into just how brazenly and unabashed the UK can be in looking after its own establishment interests. Baroness Butler-Sloss was eventually forced to step down from chairing the UK CSA inquiry. It is claimed she kept allegations about a Bishop out of an abuse report. The coup de grace however came when it emerged she might have to investigate decisions of her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, who was attorney general in the 1980s. It is widely reported that he actively limited the investigation into sex abuse at Kincora Boys' home. See http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5328/baroness-butler-sloss-faces-another-hitch-in-heading-csa-inquiry Siblings of a judicial dynasty covering the tracks of one of them covering up abuse couldn't possibly happen in Jersey , could it?

That UK inquiry isn't quite the same as ours in that it is focussed on child sexual abuse, rather than all abuse in care. Clearly though there is some significant overlap. If the UK inquiry were to encompass Jersey too some of those witnesses who have not come forward locally might feel more inclined to do so to the UK inquiry. I don't think there would be any problem having Jersey included in the UK inquiry, after all the UK government is responsible ultimately for Justice and good governance of the Island. And there most certainly are links between Jersey and the UK relating to child abuse. We know 5 children were sent here from Birmingham, one of whom has never subsequently been traced. We know that children from Islington, itself mired in abuse, were brought here by Rabet. Jersey born Rabet was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 local boys. Jimmy Savile was a regular visitor here, and we know accusations were made concerning Wilfred Brambell while he performed here. When you see headlines like: “ David Cameron's historic sex abuse inquiries must find out if former prime ministers were involved” ,(

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-historic-sex-abuse-3846678 ) you have to think that other frequent visitor to Jersey, a former UK prime minster, is another link.

When the scale of Savile's abuse finally emerged (perhaps 1,000 victims, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/18/jimmy-savile-abused-1000-victims-bbc ) it must have been quite apparent than a widespread and systematic cover up was happening over decades. That sort of thing does not happen unless it is sanctioned by very influential and powerful people. That's where the real blame lies. Perpetrators are of course the source of evil, but those who turned a blind eye, ignored or covered up the evidence or had investigations stifled and trashed are no less culpable. Had they acted properly the criminals would have been outed and jailed and there would have been far fewer victims. However these inquiries turn out it is not the victims who are to blame in any way.

Is the CoI a bigger issue than you imagined?

It seems we are finally to have a debate in the States on setting up a Committee of Inquiry into child abuse in the Island. It is on the order paper for the sitting on 5th March, see http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyOrderPapers/2013/2013.03.05%20Order%20Paper.pdf . For reference, the original move to request a Inquiry was in 2011 (see http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2011/45258-28763-222011.pdf.  For a detailed run down of why it has taken so long to come about you could take a look at Bob Hill's blog at http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2013/03/jerseys-historical-abuse-inquiry-no.html

There are of course numerous stakeholders in this process.  The victims and survivors, particularly those whose cases were not prosecuted, who deserve and indeed may need a chance to voice publically what happened to them.  There are former staff.  There are the agencies who should have realised something was amiss and either did  not identify an issue, or identified it but ignored or possibly colluded with it.  There are the past politicians and the senior civil servants in the States who could and should have identified and acted on problems. And of course there are the actual perpetrators of abuse and their colluders.

Missing from that list is the Law Officers. Yet I think they have a huge amount at stake in the CoI. In fact I would go as far as to say this CoI has the potential to be as constitutionally significant to us as the reforms of 1948.  I think this explains is why certain statements and comments have been issued to try to shape the debate and the approach of the CoI even in advance of it being sanctioned by the States.

Perhaps the best place to start is what  an inquiry is and is not. Canada makes a lot of use of Public Enquiries similar to our Committee of Inquiry.  There is a good piece discussing a number of important topics such as whether judges should chair at
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/publicinquiries.htm.  The item I would like to take up is the purpose of the inquiry ' Broadly speaking, there are two types of independent inquiries: those that have a mandate to find and report on facts, and those with a mandate to make recommendations for the development of public policy.'  Our CoI has nothing to do with policy formation - it is about finding and reporting the facts. 

Regulation 6 of the CoI regulations http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2007/7471-48374-562007.pdf  is clear. "Because a committee of inquiry can be seen as a quasi- judicial process witnesses can, if the committee wishes, be examined on oath. " The key phrase is 'can be seen as quasi-judicial'.  Quasi means resembling or being akin to, but not actually being.  Can be seen as means it is one possible view.  To put it in other words it is NOT a judicial process.   Indeed point 10 of the AGs comments says 'At the conclusion of its deliberations, a Committee of Inquiry reports back to the States Assembly. It does not, however, make any finding of guilt or innocence in a criminal sense nor does it determine a legal right.'


Last month Tony Musing blog made some important observations on the comments from the Attorney General at http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/02/prejudging-issues.html.  However I think it is worth re-reading the AG's comments (http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.118-2012%20Com.pdf) bearing in mind the points above. This leads to some further questions.   Why in item 14 does the AG refer to people accused by complainants?  There can be no such thing in a fact finding non-judicial process.  There are only witnesses and evidence.

In item 23 we read  'There is a fundamental principle that the prosecution process should be free from any political influence or interference in any way'.  The quid pro quo of that is the prosecution service should not act politically or influence political process. A point missing from the AG's comment. Why?  In fact the whole of section D section could be read so an attempt to head off questioning of prosecution decisions and processes.  However as an independent CoI is neither a political body nor a judicial one, it is perfectly free to question and inquire into the prosecution process without breach of the fundamental principle outlined above.

If the AG succeeds in his presentation of this CoI as a judicial process with accusers and defendants and the use of lawyers to represent the opposing sides, then he wins a much larger point.  He will in effect have established  that the Law Officers are unchallengeable by any format or any body in the Island.  Much as he might tout the fundamental principle of individual prosecutions and processes being free of politics, that situation would violate an even more important and precious principle that none, not even Law Officers, is above the law or public scrutiny.  We have come perilously close to that state.  It is that sort of thinking that got us in a position that a magistrate cannot be relieved of pay and office when found guilty of a crime.

It is imperative that all States members understand the hugely important and significant repercussions of the amendments and the comments of the AG when voting on this proposition and amendments. This is a turf war that the people , transparency, accountability and democracy cannot afford to lose.

Jersey's coming 30 year war: what we didn't learn from the child abuse debacle and cover up in North Wales.

Given the two choices that were available to CM Gorst to recommend  to the States today, he took the clearly better option of the Verita way over the Williamson way. Many will doubtless be relieved about that.  However it is only his recommendation, and the debate on January 15th could yet see the Terms of Reference and composition amended.  (see  statesassembly.P.118-2012.pdf )

As drafted the ToRs probably are sufficient to deal with the immediate abuse of children in care and foster homes and the actions of those directly responsible.  They should enable those whose cases were dropped or never came to light to make their case publicly and be heard.

However the Terms of Reference appear  to exclude systemic possibilities. Do abused children not in the care system eg Sea Scouts and Victoria College come under its remit?.  If not, how shall we know if the same names and  common institutions recur and could be linked.   Similarly there is no mention of the judiciary or crown officers or former States members and their roles. How would the committee know if there were a common theme or failure in these institutions?  Another area that may not be covered, certainly needs clarification, is abuse whilst in care but not occurring at the care premises, or committed by people outside the care system.

The consequences of getting those ToRs wrong are immense.  If you have read the papers recently you should be aware there is a serious problem brewing for the UK government arising from events in North Wales and particularly around the investigation of child abuse centred at Bryn Estyn care home.  Abuse that had happened in the seventies  and eighties was investigated and resulted in the Waterhouse Inquiry in 2000.  However recent revelations have shown just how flawed that original investigation report was, having omitted evidence that pointed to the active involvement of very well placed people, including it is alleged, a cabinet minister.

These quotes from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20182106  are telling.
Richard Scorer, a solicitor with Pannone and Partners, who represented 30 victims at the Waterhouse inquiry: "The terms of reference were an important restriction. It's also fair to say at that time, and we're going back to the mid to late 1990s here, at that time the idea that senior public figures; politicians; celebrities could be involved in child abuse was seen as a bit far-fetched"  "We now know of course from recent revelations that it isn't far-fetched at all - and that's part of the reason why it's important that these allegations are looked at again".

Getting the terms of reference right and being prepared to believe the victims and the testimony of children rather than preconceived prejudices and covering up for friends  are critical in getting to the truth.  Twelve years on two new investigations have been ordered by the Prime Minister into what seems certain to have been a high level widespread cover up. 

There are parallels between what happened in North Wales and here in Jersey.  Clearly the investigation there missed out important suspects.  Here in Jersey  Rectangle was closed down prematurely after suspending the Police Chief Officer. As in Wales, at least one cabinet equivalent (now dead) local politician has been linked to the abuse.  We also know that  , as in Wales, others of official rank and position must have colluded or turned a blind eye to the original event for them to go on so long.    With such parallels we are forced to face the obvious question: did Jersey undergo a similar large scale high level cover up as appears must have happened in North Wales?

If our Committee of Inquiry terms of reference are not wide enough to ask the questions that would have revealed the sort of detail that is only now, 30 years on, coming to public light about who was really involved in the child abuse in North Wales, then it it dubious it is fully fit for the purpose here.  It took the North Wales campaigners thirty years to get the unthinkable truth into the public eye.  Can Jersey face another couple of decades of campaigning should it fail to fully grasp the nettle on January 15th?

Public and private personas.

I would not usually do things this way round, but I am going to cite a couple of references before I start. I hope people will note them, particularly  the first, from The Lawyer 2008, that substantiates a point that some people have challenged me on in the last couple of days.

http://www.thelawyer.com/jimmy-savile-turns-to-fox-hayes-for-action-against-the-sun/131780.article

http://news.sky.com/story/991691/jimmy-savile-investigated-in-2007

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paul-gambaccini-claims-sir-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-schoolchildren-being-exposed-8191761.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210592/Jimmy-Savile-accused-sexual-predator-women-claim-abused-underage-schoolgirls.html

It will have come as no surprise to those who followed events concerning  children in care in Jersey , and particularly Haut de la Garenne, that  Jimmy Savile has both been previously investigated (in 2007), and has now had accusers publicly supported by Esther Rantzen , somewhat backed up by Paul Gambaccini. Nor will it be any great surprise to those who follow such things that it has taken decades for the facts to dribble out, and for those who  knew or suspected, colluded as Ms Rantzen puts it, to come clean.

There will be those who dismiss the repeated accusations simply because they cannot believe that someone can be such a public figure and do a huge amount of charitable good work and simultaneously do such evil things.  To do so fails to recognise an important point.  The public persona is a construct; it may well not be the same as the private persona.  This is obvious for actors, but it often holds for politicians and entertainers, even sometimes writers.   It is one reason why in many of those professions the given name and the performance name differ.

I know barely any professional entertainers or actors personally, but I do know a fair few politicians both local and further afield.   There are those with whom I vehemently disagree politically, but like and trust personally.  There are yet others who are of a similar political persuasion to me, but with whom  I find it almost impossible to work.  Over years I have come to the conclusion that frequently the important distinguishing factor between the 2 groups is  congruity.  People whose actions and views are 'in synch', unless they are fundamentally abhorrent, are easier to  deal with than people who give a compatible impression, but whose actions are at odds to their position.

Unfortunately you generally have to be close to someone for sometime to know if they are really congruent.  The trap it is all to easy to fall into with public figures to assume you know them and therefore that their action are congruent.  In truth you only know the public persona.  Oftentimes a similar error occurs with people in a position of authority.  If they are in such a position it is taken because we know something of the position we know something of the person.   Why is this important?  Because given one voice against another, unless you are aware and conscious of such biases, it is likely you will trust or believe the famous person over the unknown; the holder of office over that ordinary person, the adult over the child.  It is one reason why, unless guarded against, the voice of children does not get heard.  And that is one reason why abuse can get to persist and go unreported and unchecked for so long.

There is another strand to this too.  It is what Margaret Thatcher summed up neatly when someone was nominated to her circle:  “Is he one of us?”  People are more likely to believe those who they perceive are more like themselves.  It is another source of bias.  It is also only a short step from there to groupthink: the  psychological condition that occurs within groups, in which the desire for harmony in  decision-making overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.  Nothing better describes a bias.  It also goes someway to understanding how individual group members can go decades knowing or deeply suspecting something is wrong, yet not acting on that.  It is not an excuse, it is not a good reason for not acting or speaking clearly, especially when you know you will have the ear of the media or key decision makers, like Gambaccini above.

This piece is not about whether Jimmy Savile did obtain an injunction against the Sun about involvement at Haut de la Garenne.  Having engaged lawyers and initiated  action, both the publicity loving Sun and Mr Savile go silent.   There is one overriding likely reason for that.  Nor is it about whether Jimmy Savile did or maybe did not visit Haut de la Garenne, though there is a pretty convincing photograph still on the web, and of course dozens of children there at the time who could inform that view.

The real point of this piece is to learn some lessons and see some parallels.Having a high profile and reputations for public good works is not a guarantee or safeguard against atrocious personal actions. Ask yourself  what you really know about the personas of the people involved in the child abuse debacle in Jersey.  How much of what happened and did not happen in the past was shaped or determined by what people thought they knew about others rather than what they actually knew of the private person and the facts?  How will we ever get to the truth of this and learn the lessons unless we get under those public facades and what we think we know and get to the hard facts and the real personalities and motives of the participants. What the recent public 'revelations' regarding  Jimmy Savile means for us now is a proper, full open Committee of Inquiry.

Committee of Inquiry

The reports by Verita and Williamson on the setting up and terms of reference of the  Committee of Enquiry are out.  Both Channel TV and Rico have been hot of the blocks after the embargo date to publish about it.  See http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/displayarticle.asp?id=501560  and http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-williamson-report-committee-of-non.html

It is worth reading Mr Williamson's piece carefully.  It is also worth reflecting on the title that Channel TV put on their piece. For while it certainly is true that the JCLA and other have been forthright in seeking a Committee of Inquiry, it was not for what Mr Williamson and the CITV headline suggest. Yes, of course, many victims and survivors want to know and have recognised what happened to them, may need that if they are to be able to think of moving on.  That is particularly so for those whose cases the police wanted to prosecute but the Attorney General decided to drop. Their voices and cases have still not been heard nor their plight recognised. But there is also a wider public need.

Mr Williamson's note highlights recent changes and improvements that have been made relating to children services. The rationale being the CoI would not need to go over what has been improved. It is true there have been changes and no doubt a deal of modern best practice thinking from the UK and elsewhere has been incorporated. But there is a logical problem here. Jersey has many individual and peculiar features in its structures and organisation. I need only mention centeniers rights to charge, the AG's incontestable right to drop prosecutions, and the system of Jurats to try facts in cases.  It follows therefore that what might be best practice and sufficient safeguards elsewhere on the assumption of modern services and 21st century institutions may not graft well onto our historical and peculiar system.

We have to get to the facts of what happened, which services and systems and  post holders and individuals failed in their duty of care and why, if the public is to have confidence those changes do in fact safeguard against repetition of disastrous mal treatment of children in States care.   It is  not just the children's services, as Mr Williamson repeats in his note, to be considered here.  What about the police who failed to act on repeated attempts of people to run away, what of the health system that failed to note children with injuries to give two examples of other services.

I do not believe the recommendations from Mr Williamson will deliver the sort of CoI I have outlined above.  His proposals will more likely lead to a narrow look at just the Children's Service historically (note the capitalisation in his report).  If the issues and key problems lay elsewhere they will not come to light.  The other separate review he proposes to look at the prosecution decisions would be behind closed doors looking only at evidence available at the time. It will not shed any light on subsequent issues that might have arisen from that eg the multiple suspensions of Graham Power.

Yesterday Mr Gorst was clear he is in favour of holding a Committee of Inquiry. He has not ruled out simply following the Verita report  recommendations.  Now he has a choice. Take the Williamson route and get some specific answers to a narrow slice of the issues, but risk leaving the poison in the system. Or,  go with Verita's approach with wide enough terms of reference to get to the whole truth and maybe finally get to lance the boil and start ridding the body politic of venom.