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.

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.