They do it differently in Iceland

Iceland do a few things differently. They read more books per person per year than anywhere else. They jail bankers when they crash the economy. They hunt whales (boo!) and they call elections over a breach of trust, see  child molesters scandal  "Icelandic PM calls snap election due to child sex abuse scandal. Bjarni Benediktsson has called for fresh elections in November after one of his coalition partners withdrew from the government due to a 'breach of trust' All so very not the Jersey way......

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'

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/

London survivor lobby

 I cannot go to this.  Some interesting names listed though.

 

Survivors Return to Parliament: June 23rd 1pm-5pm

WhiteFlowers “Child Abuse: Action & Justice Now” Lobby of Parliament
Book asap at https://eventbrite.co.uk/event/17137292102

Speakers Include –
John Mann MP
Michael Mansfield QC)
Tom Lloyd (ex-Chief Constable, Cambridgeshire Police)
Nigel O’Mara (East Midlands Survivors)
Delma Hughes (co-Founder Care Leavers Association)
Muhammad Al Hussaini (Church Reform Group)
Liz Davies (whistleblower)
Georgina Halford Hall (Whistleblowers UK)
Phil Shiner (Public Interest Lawyers)
Sam Stein QC
Chris Tuck (Survivors of Abuse)
Terri Thatcher (Secondary Survivor)

Why would anyone do that?

If you havent heard it I recommend the World At One programme broadcast 5/5/2015 which covers child sexual abuse allegations from 40 years ago and the involvement of politicians.  It also explains why the broadcast media refuse to cover these stories, as their internal rules require two witnesses.   It is on iPlayer at World at One starting at 27.5 minutes in.

Rather more significantly to my mind however is that the parties were photographed and filmed. Even the presenter queries  the claim of being photographed and filmed, and why the abusers would allow it given the potential consequences for them.  The victim showed the evidence of photos he had found with him in it. The former head of the metropolitan police paedophile unit confimed that it probably was the victim in the photo.

Why would important public people like politicians allow themselves to be recorded in illegal and career destroying acts?  It makes no sense unless they believed they were invulnerable.  If they really believed they could and would be protected and the evidence would never be made public.  That is the chilling aspect from a public safety and order perspective.  People in very senior positions must have been active in covering up and suppressing evidence of what was happening.  As the victim in the piece says he was given the strongest of warnings what would happen to him if he went public or informed.  Again something that would require at the very least collusion from senior people.  

Once that sort of evidence exists, whoever has control of it also has  leverage.  The threat of it being released or leaked would be enough to ensure compliance in lesser criminal or illegal acts.  The evidence and knowledge of what someone has done then becomes a currency in itself, something that can be traded for influence and  protection in other matters.

The World at One series continues today.  But be warned; what is described happening in the UK it not unique and the evidence is the modus operandi of these evil people in using knowledge, recordings and evidence for power is similar everywhere it occurs.  

The same old story

I am old enough to remember the Guinness affair.  I recall having quite a falling out with a work colleague when I derided the reduction of Ernest Saunders' sentence because he claimed he had pre-senile dementia.  The evidence was far from conclusive about that diagnosis - a precursor of Alzheimers - and sure enough he subsequently made a full recovery from the incurable condition.   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders.  It was not the last time I was to read about someone accused of serious offences falling desperately and seemingly incurably ill, only to make a later miraculous recovery. Check out Allan Maguire. 


You will not be surprised then that I am deeply skeptical about the fortuitous timing of Greville Janner's dementia.  He was attending and claiming expenses at the House of Lords and had just the week before signed a letter to the effect he wanted to continue in their Lordship's House.


The really scandalous part though is the way the  decision  was made not to prosecute a well founded case  as 'not in the  public interest', and against advice. There had been at least two previous opportunities that had been passed up or botched.  That phrase 'not in the public interest'  will be familiar to those who followed local  child abuse  news.  It was that  clause that enabled our then Attorney General to drop a number of cases.


It is a wonderfully convenient  term for those in power.  It can only of course be deployed by those in power as, in general, only they can know what the public interest impacts of a prosecution might be.  What is difficult for me is there seems to be no testable definition of criteraion for what constitutes public interest.  A legal dictionary  gives

Public Interest

Anything affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large.
Public interest is a common concern among citizens in the management and affairs of local, state, and national government. It does not mean mere curiosity but is a broad term that refers to the body politic and the public weal. A public utility is regulated in the public interest because private individuals rely on such a company for vital services.

There was another instance  this week in the USA that raised several doubts in my mind.  David Petraeus former General commanding forces in Iraq and Afghanistan shared highly sensitive intelligence information with his mistress and biographer.   He had initially denied that accusation.  He was sentenced this week to two years probation and a $100,000 fine.  Effectively a slap on the wrist.  Contrast that with the treatment of Chelsea Manning, whose was sentenced to 35 year's imprisonment.  

It is the same old story at almost every turn - those in positions of power and with  powerful connections  are treated far more leniently than the ordinary citizen.  It is the wrong way round.  Those who are well paid and regarded because of their 'position of responsibility' should be expected to be an example and to hold even higher ethical and moral stance than the ordinary public.  The law should if anything be more stringent with those that breach that trust with the public.  The exact opposite of what all too often appears to be the case.

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.