Lenny Harper's Guest Posting - Re-Visited.
Under the last posting, I invited readers to suggest various articles, such as guest-postings - or old blog-entries - they'd be interested in seeing re-posted here. I've had a number of suggestions I'll be considering during the coming days. However, several people have asked me to re-post the guest article Lenny Harper wrote for this blog, back on the 5th September 2009.
One of the things that's very, very clear about citizen media in the Channel Islands is that we bloggers have become the media of record. In coming decades - when historians get around to writing the true modern history of Jersey, it will be to the blog-sites they look for the full, detailed, evidenced facts - by way of contrast to the lame, inadequate rubbish produced by the Jersey Evening Post, BBC Jersey and Channel Television.
So much hard, documented evidence - so much primary-source material - has been published on this blog - and VFC - and by Rico Sorda - that it isn't difficult to understand why the Jersey oligarchs decided they had to try and crush blogging in the island.
The blog-entry I reproduce below is a powerful example of primary-source material.
Written by Lenny Harper, former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force - a man who generated fear and hatred on the part of the Jersey oligarchy - it is a powerful and frank record of those days; a record of the struggle he and Graham Power waged against ingrained corruption.
Written after he had retired, but when he was being subjected to a campaign of propaganda by the Chief Minister's department and spin-doctors - Lenny describes the "culture" he was fighting against - and some of the hard, documented evidence concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
I recommend readers to visit the current posting on VFC, here:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-body-remains.html
And Rico Sorda's posting, here:
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/02/committee-of-enquiry.html
Both of those articles make fascinating reading - and juxtapose quite strikingly with what Lenny wrote, re-enforcing - over a year later - his evidenced conclusion concerning just how toxic the Jersey establishment are.
Additionally - another fundamentally crucial read is the recent interview that VFC conducted with Graham Power. It can be found here:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/interview-with-graham-power-qpm.html
This posting, and the three I refer readers to above, amount to a damning, and frankly frightening indictment of public authority in Jersey. But at least as disturbingly - no thinking person could read the materials published in the four postings - and then fail to realise just how inadequate and corrupted Jersey's traditional media is.
For here on these blogs, you may read fundamental, direct, experiences - of the key figures involved; dramatic, first-hand accounts of what can only be described as a breakdown in governance in Jersey; key witnesses, who's testimony is backed-up with documented evidence. Witnesses of the highest calibre.
And why have none of Jersey's traditional media produced this reportage?
Why has it fallen to a few grass-roots bloggers to do this fundamentally important work?
Why only lies from Jersey's only "newspaper"?
Why just spin and propaganda from Channel Television?
Why the deafening silence from the BBC in Jersey?
Read the posting re-produced below - and the other three blog-entries mentioned above - then think about those questions.
Read the facts - the evidence - and think.
Stuart
Saturday, 5 September 2009
LENNY HARPER’S GUEST POSTING.
A GOOD, STRAIGHT COP RESPONDS
TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT’S LIES.
Some “Inconvenient” Conclusions:
Attorney General William Bailhache
Tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.
Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG
Was Justified.
Evidence of Mr. Harper’s Professionalism and Integrity
Destroys Jersey Establishment Smear-Campaign.
Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions
And a Still-born Baby at HDLG.
Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many
Suspected Human Bone Fragments.
Police Had Intelligence of Children
‘Not Being Seen Again’.
Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing
Was Used to Dispose of Human Remains.
Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths
Still Unresolved.
ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.
The Successful Prosecutions
All Work of Mr. Harper’s Team.
Many Serious Suspects Still at Large.
Gradwell and Warcup Fail
To Bring them to Justice.
Political Pressure and Interference
By Jersey Establishment.
Gradwell and Warcup Press-Conference
Discredited.
Spin, Lies and Smear-Campaign by Jersey Establishment
Proves Existence of Culture of Concealment.
To some readers – those, for example, who rely on Jersey’s traditional media for their information – the conclusions listed above will be shocking, and will be at variance with many of the assertions of, and all the ‘impressions’ conveyed by, the Jersey authorities during much of the last 12 months.
To those of us who have had to take a detailed interest in the awful subject of decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey, many of the conclusions written above will come as no surprise - on the basis of personal experiences, documentary information – and a weary understanding of the true nature of the Jersey oligarchy. One way or another - the truth has been known to us.
But regardless of whether you knew the truth – or whether the Jersey establishment’s propaganda had misled you – you should read this posting. Below is a detailed, evidenced response – written by Lenny Harper – in which the necessity, professionalism and integrity of the States of Jersey Police Force investigation into decades of concealed child abuse is robustly established and defended.
I would like to thank Lenny for taking the time to write this guest posting, and remaining committed to justice and integrity. As a retired man, with a family to care for, he could have washed his hands of these issues and simply walked away. Fortunately for the survivors and this community, he continues to be a fighter for justice; a man who’s instinct is to protect the weak from the powerful.
Stuart.
Lenny Harper’s Guest Posting:
I have been away from Scotland for the past two weeks and have therefore missed the intellectually challenged journalistic nonsense from Diane Simon of the JEP, including the interview with Supercop Mick Gradwell. My thanks to those who have updated me.
I began counting the inaccuracies and downright falsehoods but gave up there were so many of them. Mick Gradwell said in a letter a few months back to a Daily Mail journalist that “the best I can say about Mr. Harper is that he is a man who has difficulty in understanding basic facts”. But it seems to me that he and Diane Simon cannot recognise facts even when they are laid out in front of them several times. I will return to Mr. Gradwell later when I yet again make clear how ludicrous and dishonest some of the assertions made by various people are, including his rather nasty and juvenile attack on some senior staff of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). First however, and I am sure all the readers of this blog will understand, I need to defend myself against some of the personal attacks made on me by Messrs Gradwell, Warcup, Simon - and a few others who have reasons to see the Abuse enquiry fold.
When the e-mail from Ms. Simon slithered under my virus defence my initial instinct was to delete it and ignore it. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, she had asked me all these questions on at least two previous occasions, one of them a sunny Saturday at Haut de la Garenne. On each occasion I had not only answered the questions, but I had also e-mailed the answers to her, such was my mistrust of the way the answers would be used. Presumably, she still had those e-mails. My mistrust was well founded as her questions, although not my answers, were to provide the basis of an article attacking me which was posted in a national paper by one of a group of journalists who mentioned her, and who had previously produced books and articles in support of perverts such as the North Wales Care Abusers and Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Child Rapist. Indeed, some of these journalists had even given evidence to Parliamentary Committees in which they said that the above abusers were victims of miscarriages of justice and the “False Recall Syndrome” of victims, or indeed, just made up allegations. Therefore, on this occasion I had no doubt as to what her motives were and this was confirmed when I was told the first story had appeared even before she received my reply. Her plea in the e-mail for me to answer the questions so that she could “tell all sides of the story” was as sincere and believable as the “Trusssst in me” uttered by Kaa the snake in Disney’s version of the Jungle Book. Ms. Simon must be the only person she knows who believes that this type of ingratiating fawning is not totally transparent.
Notwithstanding my absolute belief that the seeking of my views was a total sham, I realised that it would be better not to give her the opportunity to claim that she had sought my views and I had refused. I therefore answered all her questions which meant of course that she just had to ignore most of what I said. To ensure that I did get my point across to the majority on the island who actually wanted the truth, I copied my response to Stuart Syvret and he posted it on his blog.
Ms. Simon and officers Warcup and Gradwell seem to be saying that I became a really bad cop “overnight.” (I will explain why I say ‘overnight’ below.) Ms. Simon is a journalist of course and is at a disadvantage, but her view of me as a cop seems to be only slightly better than my view of her as a journalist. Each is entitled to their opinion, even if it is from a distance. However, the claims from Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell need closer examination and perhaps a more detailed dismantling.
I do not know a lot about Mr. Warcup or the now retired Mr. Gradwell. I do not know the extent of Mr. Warcup’s practical experience; whether he spent his career at the sharp end as I did, or whether all his years with Northumbria Police were spent in departments like Personnel. What I do know is that the only reference I can find on the internet to him relate to allegations (perhaps unfounded) that he hid the true extent of crime from the public through the use of spin, and some other comments of a personal nature criticising him for something which frankly is no one’s business but his own.
However, I do know that he has admitted destroying evidence in the abuse case - which perhaps does give some clue as to his motivation or professional judgement.
As for Mr. Gradwell, again I do not know a lot about him. He is fond of telling people, including one of the journalists I mentioned above, that he is known for investigating the tragic incident when foreign workers drowned on a beach. I believe that manslaughter convictions resulted for some of the people connected with the employment of these unfortunate victims. This must have been a very challenging enquiry for him. I am pretty sure also that he must have investigated some more conventional manslaughters and murders - where the suspects were not known. I cannot speak for him, only myself. I know that I have a number of commendations for “detective ability,” leadership, and other professional skills earned in the investigation of many murders including terrorist murders, gang murders, stabbing murders with multi victims, domestic murders, and huge experience gained in South London in the investigation of Rapes and Child Abuse.
I hope this does not seem like some sort of Lenny Harper ego trip, but when people like Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, and Ms. Simon, criticise my ability, I cannot help but refer to others who have expressed a contrary view. Over the past few years I have worked with and for some of the most respected senior police officers in the UK. Others who I have never worked for have come and independently examined what I have done in Jersey. What they say is in marked contrast to the three above, and what they say illustrates what I mean by saying that I must have become a disaster ‘overnight’. Forgive me for running through some of these professional assessments, but it will show the operational calibre of people with very different views to those which have appeared in the JEP of late and in the public utterings of Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup.
Her Majesty Inspector of Constabulary came to review the SOJP in 2002, two years after Graham Power had taken over and some months following John Pearson and I arriving. They noted huge improvements from the Inspection Report prior to Mr. Power’s arrival and spoke in complimentary terms about the Senior Management Team, its leadership style, and how the force supported the changes made.
A different Inspection team carried out another examination of the force in 2008. It made the following comments under the heading of ‘Strengths’.
“The current Senior Management Team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability.”
“The force has an effective Professional Standards Department which is effectively led by the DCO (who) drives the need for integrity across the force.”
Under the category of ‘Leadership’, the HMI wrote; “The Chief Officer Group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of the development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from UK forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey.” The Report team went on to say that they were “impressed with the receptiveness, drive, and commitment of the Chief Officer Team to make Organisational changes in line with areas of improvement.” They also said “The Chief Officer Team promotes a culture of empowerment, innovation, and learning through various means.”
Finally HMI, in summing up said “there is strong evidence to indicate that the SOJP is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”
As I stated above, I have worked with, and for, some of the most respected and professional police officers in the UK. A number of them have carried out assessments on my performance and ability. Again, apologies for what seems almost self congratulation, but among them Sir William Rae (former Chief Constable of Strathclyde) said in 2002, just before my move to Jersey, that I was currently “serving with distinction.” He went on to say the following.
“Superintendent Harper is an intelligent and articulate officer who is performing his current duties to an extremely high level. Since transferring to Strathclyde Police he has shown himself to be a dedicated and highly responsible team player who maintains a consistently professional approach to his duties at all times. The excellence he has shown since joining Strathclyde Police was mirrored during his time with the Metropolitan Police. In April 1989 when stationed at Peckham his Divisional Commander stated that in his role as Detective Inspector he was ‘one of the most effective I have ever known.’ Praise such as this has followed Superintendent Harper throughout his career and for good reason. A modest individual, he has received five commendations, all relating to the investigation of serious crime including one relating to the arrest and conviction of two INLA terrorists.”
Sir William went on to say that my appraisals in Strathclyde had been of an extremely high standard with senior managers universally praising my diligence and abilities at both the operational and strategic levels. He attached copies of my last three staff appraisals which had been written by two senior officers who are now both Chief Constables in Scotland.
Against that backdrop of unimpeachable professional commendation, the trinity of Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell have made it their mission in life to tell as many people as possible how unprofessional and incapable (and even worse) I am. All this on very little knowledge of me, and bolstered by, to borrow Ms. Simon’s words, “lies and half truths.” She would certainly know about lies and half truths, wouldn’t she? With such a volume of informed and respected professional opinion to the contrary, no thinking person would prefer to believe the nonsense, of Simon, Gradwell & Warcup. So am I bothered?
No.
Now let me turn to the actual substance (an ill chosen word to describe what was in these pieces of journalistic rubbish) of Ms. Simon’s articles. I will start with the interview with Mr. Gradwell. I do feel rather weary at this point as I have made all these points before to Simon and others. At least this time however, I am making them to people who will have the ability and willingness to assimilate them.
The attention seeking headline in the Gradwell article was that the operation at Haut de la Garenne was “a waste of time and money.” According to Mr. Gradwell, as reported in the JEP, the decision to excavate was made without hard evidence or intelligence. Up until then, he said, the enquiry was being run “essentially along UK lines.” Okay – if I understand him then, we were doing OK until we decided to excavate HDLG. It follows then that he would not have done so. He would have ignored all that we found and walked away. Here again are the (much repeated) reasons why we excavated - in chronological sequence.
By the closing weeks of 2007, we had been carrying out the enquiry for some time. A recurring feature of the evidence and information gathering process as we moved into January 2008 was that a number of victims and witnesses had told us they had been assaulted and abused at the former home. There was evidence from one witness that a child had been chased by a member of staff through an upper floor corridor and in desperation had leapt out of a high window. The child had not been seen again. At that stage we had no name. (Mr. Gradwell was to say that over a year later he traced the child – perhaps he did. However at that time we had what we had.) We had non-specific information from a number of witnesses that they had witnessed children being dragged away at night and not being seen again. There was intelligence of illegal forced abortion and of a still born child.
I found all of this highly alarming and worrying but I did not consider at that stage that it warranted a full excavation of HDLG. (This is an important point, because after speaking to Gradwell and Warcup, the Met Police accused me of ordering the excavation on the evidence of a few “disturbed” people. I took issue with this description of the victims and made this clear in a number of e-mails to those concerned.) Mr. Gradwell confirms my suspicion about the origin of this slur on the survivors by his comments to Diane Simon. He and David Warcup at their infamous and discredited press conference last year also peddled this myth about the reasons for digging. The truth is simple to illustrate, because it is well documented.
I arranged to go to the UK to meet experts who would be well qualified to advise us on the way forward. On 5th February 2008, I went to Oxford with our Forensic Services Manager and other staff, and at the Headquarters of LGC Forensics met with Karl Harrison, their lead scientist, National Policing Improvement Agency Homicide Search Advisors, and forensic staff representing Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as a Cadaver Dog Advisor. We had already asked Mr. Harrison to prepare a desk based study brief of HDLG and he circulated this at the meeting.
The decision made at this meeting was that we should carry out an initial reconnaissance of the site over a short period to seek to clarify a number of objectives. It was decided that we would deploy several different assets, to be deployed in a “systematic fashion using best value and best practice guidelines.” In simple terms, we wanted to establish if there was anything there which would need further investigation - or if we could “walk away” from it -without further investigation.
Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps. It was during this process that builders who had worked on the site told us that a few years before they had found bones they were convinced were human but had been told to ‘forget them’ and “let bygones be bygones.” (This phrase became a catchword among my team whenever the subject of attempts at cover up would arise.) One worker was so convinced they were human he took them home to examine them against computer images which only strengthened his fears. (Eventually these bones were examined by a Jersey Pathologist after police had called her to the home. She told the officer “I don’t like the look of this,” but was later to say she could not remember making that comment. She was “not saying it wasn’t made, but just couldn’t remember it.” She took the bones to her boss whose extremely short (five lines) report said the bones were too large to be human but also stated that one of the bones “could not be identified.” He gave the measurements of the bones and our anthropologist took issue with his findings saying that the size of the bone concerned was within the size range of a child. Unfortunately the bones were destroyed by the pathologist without being examined by an anthropologist. Our advice was that they should have been so examined as the pathologist was not qualified to rule on whether or not they were human. The builders told us that they had found two child’s shoes with the bones. The pathologist told us that he had sent them for examination and had been told they were Victorian. The person he said he sent them to remembered no such incident. Unfortunately the shoes too had been destroyed and were unavailable to us.
At the same time as we were digesting this deeply puzzling sequence of events, we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again. It beggars belief, and I am at a loss to imagine why, Mr. Gradwell and David Warcup should say they would have taken a different decision. To me that would be gross negligence. My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.
I will deal in more detail later with the charred bones found in the cellar areas, but for now will concentrate on the reasons for excavating that area. We had evidence from victims who said they were confined and/or abused in what they described as cellar areas. We could not find them until a local builder who had worked at the area came forward and said he knew where the entrance to these ‘cellars’ were. He showed us and we were eventually able to uncover them. Before excavating further we put the dogs into the area. As we did so, the Chief of Police arrived with the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard. They were actually present when the dogs reacted strongly in the cellar and where we were then to find the charred bones and teeth. So, the question is obvious when one thinks that Mr. Gradwell is still claiming that we should not have searched HDLG. At what point should we have walked away? Should we have not started at all - and therefore not found anything – and left the remains (because that is what they are) where they were? Should we have stopped at the wing where the dog initially reacted and, instead, ignored all we knew about the bones found by the builders? Or should we have ignored the dog’s possible corroboration of the victims in the cellar area?
Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said there was no evidence of murder and that my team was wrong to say there was. They are not telling the truth, deliberately or otherwise - because I had never said there was evidence of murder - only evidence that there was something that needed investigation. A subtle, but crucial, distinction which people could be forgiven for not understanding, given the utter nonsense that’s been peddled recently. There are many, many examples of what I did, actually, say, to be found still. Check the BBC News website on 31st July 2008. Read David James Smith’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. (Reproduced in Stuart Syvret’s blog on Sunday, 10th May, 2009). They all state - clearly and unequivocally - that I was saying ‘we did not have evidence of murder’. Why would Ms. Simon and the two senior cops say otherwise? I and many others know why. However, we still do not know how, where, or when those children died and probably never will. We think we know how the bones ended up where we found them, and that was expertly laid out by Karl Harrison in his Archaeological Theory of the Burnt Debris including Human Bone Fragments and teeth found in the East wing. His view was that the Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains and they were then transferred to the East Wing around 1960-1970. We included his report in the document we posted on our website. Strangely enough when the Sunday Times journalist David James Smith attempted to access this document it had been removed under Warcup’s leadership. David James Smith was told by the Press Officer that there had been a problem with the computer. Of course there was! In any event, I reproduce a quote from the report by Karl Harrison below. You might ask the question that if an independent expert such as Karl Harrison is giving us this information, what kind of police officers would we have been to walk away and ignore it? As I say, it beggars belief. Unless your name is Diane Simon, David Warcup, or Gradwell that is.
Here is a quote from the report by Karl Harrison:
“With regard to the human remains recovered from cellars 3,4 & five. Karl Harrison, LGC Forensics lead archaeologist explains :
Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building. Phase I – area above the cellars is a School Room - Victorian styli and slates are dumped in large quantities on the cellar floor. These are in such quantities that it would suggest the floors were being taken up when they were deposited. Although they are mixed throughout the cellar deposits, many slates are lying on the base of the earthen floor, suggesting an early fall. A number of dateable Phase I items (Victorian coinage, Napoleon III coin, Victorian Jubilee medal) have been found in close association with this material.
Phase II/III - At the extension of the building following the major works over the bathhouse directly south of the School Room, educational activities move southwards to our Press Room (as was). The School Room becomes a Play Room in the early 20th C. This would explain the lack of pen nibs such as those in the cisterns entering the record here.
With the exception of a few coins of the period, native Phase II/III material seems to be in short supply. Instead we seem to have imported material - masses of shoe leather and heel irons relate to the shoemakers that functioned through the 20s and 30s, along with buttons and thimbles from the neighbouring dressmakers room. This is closely associated with concentrations of kitchen waste (bottle glass, jar glass, plain domestic ware, patterned ware and charnel), which seems contemporaneous based on design and scraps of printed labels remaining.
All of this is mixed with two distinct non-native soils - a virgin 'potato' soil which provides much of the compressed material, and a concentration of charred material - coke, clinker and some charcoal (in very small fragments) - whilst the charred material is associated with smoke stained masonry, none of the goods in the cellar have been burned (as opposed to cooked in the case of animal bone) - other than some of the bone fragments.
Phase IV - Phase IV is characterised by sweeping, evidenced by changes in texture of the cellar fills and the presence of large numbers of plastic bristles and brush head fragments stuck through lower elements of the contexts. In terms of depositions in phase IV, these are (with the exception of a single coin) native in character - the room above the cellars remains a Play Room, and we have a profusion of glass marbles, toy soldiers, play money, farmyard animal figures)
Phase V - Access is gained through the floor by hatch cutting for the 2003 refurbishment - some of the outlying bone and teeth fragments perhaps owe their position to cable laying. What I now think has happened is that a mass of material has been imported from the west wing at a time when the floor of the Play Room was up. This would explain the mix of material from north to south along the wing (glass and ceramic from kitchen larders, leather goods from the shoemakers, buttons from the tailors and high-temperature char from the bake house foundations) These renovations to the west wing have been carried out since 1960 (the brush bristles relate to sweeping of floor surface elsewhere and have been incorporated into the fill elsewhere, rather than someone bothering to sweep a cellar's earthen floor) - they have involved cleaning, but also significant digging into underlying soil (we have small concentrations of Phase II/III pot sewer pipe, as well as the mass of potato soil). Whilst some of the material might have been taken off site, some has been ditched in barrow and bucket loads on the cellar floor, hence the complex lensing of charred and virgin soils, especially along the footing trenches.”
Fairly significant is it not? Yet, we should not have been in there according to Gradwell, Warcup and Simon. We should have walked away and left the remains there. It was, supposedly, all a waste of time and money, not to mention professionally inept. We may not have found the answers but I am in no doubt that we had to ask the questions. That is what we were police officers for.
Let me now move on to other criticisms levelled by Warcup in his “interview” with Ms. Simon. Firstly, his strange allegation that I was offered the services of a top Senior Investigating Officer and his “matrix” but refused and ordered him to leave the island. Well, I must have had powers I didn’t know about. I was not aware I could order or ask anyone to leave Jersey. The truth here is that I was asked if an officer from the UK could come and talk to some of my staff as he had experience of child abuse investigations and in particular in a number of administrative areas we were utilising. Whatever his experience as a senior investigating officer it was nowhere near that of the ACPO Homicide Detective who was mentoring me and reviewing my work. There was never any suggestion that he should usurp what the ACPO man was doing. Apart from anything else, it would have been duplication. The officer did speak to my staff and I recall they did get some useful stuff from him. However, he came up with this “points system” or matrix in the new, intellectual, politically correct police world of jargon. It was explained to me that it helped prioritise crimes by giving, for example, ten points to a rape, seven for an assault, and one for a towel flick. Now, that might be helpful in a case where you are looking at many dozens of different types of offences, but here although we were dealing with a large number of offences, the types of crime were few and similar. Mr. Gradwell might need a points scoring system to help him tell the difference between a rape and a cuff around the ear. I do not. That is why we said no thank you. It is just another example of how the abundance of talent in today’s police force is hamstrung and prevented from doing their jobs properly by bureaucracy introduced by people frightened of their own shadows and the effect that mistakes may have on their progress up the ladder.
Mr. Gradwell makes the comment that some journalists saw through me and others did not. Well, that depends on whether you are in the camp that wanted the enquiry to fail or not. At least one BBC journalist was in the camp Gradwell felt had not got it right - judging from the abusive text message he sent the journalist.
Mr. Gradwell says he inherited an ill managed mess, that there were no proper papers left behind. Here, he is in conflict with the ACPO Review team, who said, in their report, the policy books were properly kept and maintained. Gradwell’s assertion about the team’s “embarrassed looks” and comments that “we told them so” are bizarre, but sadly predictable, given the propaganda campaign that has been waged to falsely depict a divided team.
I wouldn’t choose to provide the following evidence of the team’s cohesion, and appreciation of my leadership, but as it’s important to combat the lies being fed to the people of Jersey, I do so. All of the team wrote messages to me on my leaving the island. They did not have to. They could not have been forced to as I no longer worked there. Below I reproduce an e-mail sent out by one of my team to all those working for me. I had already said I did not wish to have a retirement function, and knew nothing of these plans until asked to be available for an evening. Would the team have done this if Gradwell was correct in what he has said? I have removed the name of the sender for obvious reasons.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 June 2008 16:06
To: All HAT Officers
Cc: Coupland, Vicky; Nibbs, Louise; Bentley, Fraser
Subject: SIO Lenny Harper's Retirement
Greetings to you all,
As you are aware Lenny Harper is fast approaching his last few weeks as the Deputy Chief Officer here in the States of Jersey Police and will be putting his hat and coat on for the final time in August 2008. Most of us have only come into close contact with him as the SIO on 'Operation Rectangle' where we have found him to be extremely professional, affable and a thoroughly good 'Governor' to work for.
We don't have a 'Social Club' for our group of investigators but having chatted amongst a few of us we have taken the decision to book a restaurant for an evening meal where we as a group can see Lenny off in style. Lenny has agreed to be available on the evening chosen and we will ask him if he would like to bring his wife too. This is not going to be a leaving function linked with the States of Jersey Police who may well organise their own function to mark his departure, as too, may the Politicians and Government ministers on the island.
The arrangements are to meet at The Tenby Public House at St Aubin Bay at 19.00hrs on Wednesday 6th August 2008.
Then to move on a few steps to the Bon Viveur Restaurant , Le Boulevard, St Aubin to sit down at 20.00hrs.
Travel to and from the venue can be organised by getting private hire Taxi vans in different groups.
I am assured that the food at the venue is excellent and for a 3 course meal with wine you will be paying £30 to £40 dependant upon how much you want to eat and drink. Bills can be organised separately.
I have a selection of menus and a wine list to view should you so desire.
Should you wish to participate in this function I would like you to reply to me by 'email' ASAP in order that we can confirm numbers with the restaurant owner who has booked us in as a group of 30 to 35. Do bear in mind that we have chosen to go out mid week so that the maximum number of us are available. Additionally it will be in the middle of the Tourist season so we have had to book early.
If you do wish to attend please give me a deposit of £20 ASAP. We would also like to present Lenny with a gift to remind him of his work with the 'Operational Rectangle' team so if anyone has any ideas please see me too.
Kind Regards,
xxxxxxxxxxx
As further evidence of just how ‘reliable’ super-cop Gradwell is, I reproduce below the comments written by the team on my retirement card, after I had finished working. These are not the kind of comments which get written by the members of a team of the kind depicted by Gradwell; a fact which indicates just how little weight should be attached to his words.
"Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you."
"Enjoy your retirement - it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket."
"Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it."
"And don't forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils - well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it's been a pleasure working with you, all the best."
"Mr. Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement."
"Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future."
"Best wishes from the Dorset contingent."
"You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement."
"Mr. H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won't seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement."
"Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement."
" I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss - enjoy the rest." xx
"Mr. Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future."
"All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am."
"All the best. Happy retirement."
"Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed."
Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip - ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I've had a ball. Enjoy the trip - you have not seen the last of me."
"Good luck, best wishes."
"Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx"
"If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best."
"Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-"
Mr. Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family."
"Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best."
"Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?"
"To a fellow scouser - enjoy your retirement."
"Mr. H - thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best."
"Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement."
"All the best."
"Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest."
"It's been great working with you. Have a great retirement."
"Have a wonderful retirement."
"Good luck."
All the very best - enjoy your time."
"Have a wonderful retirement."
"Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit."
"Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards."
"Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you." x
As I said, I would prefer not to publish these personal messages, but as so much effort has been expended by certain people in trying to portray me as some deeply unpopular and isolated figure, I feel the people of Jersey deserve to see the true picture. (Some may recall that the above messages were part of what the Attorney General insisted I hand over as he felt they constituted “unused material” critical to the case and warned me I might put the victims at risk of not getting justice if I refused.)
Which brings me to another very inconvenient fact for Mr.Gradwell, which is this:
All three convictions so far have resulted from the work done by my team’s enquiry.
He looked very proud and self-important as he stood on the steps of the court after the Wateridge conviction. It must have crossed his mind, surely, that all three convicted had already been charged and made their first court appearances before he’d even arrived in the island?
And, as the lawyers had made it clear they would not take a job to court unless there was a good chance of conviction, the evidence must have been pretty good from the outset. However, the papers, evidence, and files I left him on the priority suspects – including the Maguires - were obviously not much help to him as he has not been able to charge any of them. Though perhaps Mr. Gradwell’s inabilities were not the sole cause of this?
One has to wonder why the Attorney General, William Bailhache, sent instructions to me not to charge Wateridge? It is fortunate indeed that I was a rather thick cop and “misunderstood” the instructions conveyed to me by a lawyer. Otherwise it is possible the now convicted Wateridge may never have even been charged.
A few other things about that Gradwell JEP interview: He said in it, when referring to the disgraceful case where the lawyer changed ‘his mind’ after telling us to arrest the ‘lovely’ pair - who delighted in hitting children in the back of the head with cricket bats - that it was one of my own team who told the lawyers there was not enough evidence. I find this rather unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my team were very angry at the late changing of the decision. They had been told by the lawyer that subject to interview this pair should be charged with serious assaults. We of course had an agreement that we would arrest no one unless we got the go ahead from the lawyers appointed by the AG. We adhered to this. It was forced on us after the Establishment became worried we were arresting people they would rather we didn’t - and after they’d lost control of the Wateridge process. The team arrested this pair - only to have the rug snatched from under their feet. After a rather strained conversation with the AG’s lawyer, who was sitting on a platform in a railway station in the North of England with trains running in the background, I ignored his instructions and called the Centenier into the police station to charge these two. Mr. Gradwell of course would not have done this he says. In any event, the Centenier stated that although he agreed that there was ample evidence to charge, he did not want to go against the lawyer’s ‘revised’ instruction. Never mind justice or the victims!
This left me with a dilemma. I knew word would get out in minutes that we had released these two without charge and that it would confirm the worst fears of the victims of a cover up. I therefore put out a press release making it clear that it was not our wish and that it had been imposed on us. The Attorney General was not happy and demanded a report from me explaining why I had issued the press release. I did the report - but put in it a little more than the Attorney General wanted - by going through a whole catalogue of events where I felt we had been let down by his office. Someone gave that report to the media, and it can now be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog of the 27th August, 2008. Mr. Warcup has instigated a very expensive investigation into who leaked it, he and Mr. Gradwell telling journalists ‘off the record’ that Stuart Syvret and I were being investigated. Compare that with my failure to get the Attorney General to prosecute corrupt cops for leaking intelligence off police systems!
Mr. Gradwell says that the problem was I promised the victims £1m too much and he only had £1 to give them. In some respects he hasn’t even given them that. I promised them that I would believe them and that I would do my best to get them justice. It seems to me no one else had ever done that before. I never promised huge numbers of convictions and the victims never demanded that. I promised them I would do my best, and the officers who went and saw them achieved that. The numbers of letters, e-mails and phone calls from victims who said that they felt as though a weight had been lifted from them by the officers who spoke to them was incredible and a great testimony to those officers. If promising to believe them, making my belief obvious, and doing my best to get them justice is the equivalent of £1m then so be it. The world now believes in what happened to them. And the evidence is there against other abusers. It is those in power in Jersey that are refusing to use that evidence. They are indeed offering the victims £1 or even less.
Although not directly linked to the Abuse case, we must deal with Mr. Gradwell’s little snide remark about the senior team above the rank of Inspector. Mr. Gradwell is obviously (perhaps) basing his remarks on his experience in the Lancashire force, although as politicians in Jersey kept pointing out to me, policing in the UK is totally different from Jersey. And, whilst I know that Stuart has some differing views on some of those we are talking about, I think I can claim to know those individuals better than either Stuart or Mr. Gradwell in both the professional and personal contexts. I have worked in all the jurisdictions in the UK and I found almost all of the senior officers in SOJP at least the equal of their counterparts in the UK. They had as much skill, professionalism, commitment and integrity as anywhere. In respect of integrity and courage they probably had more than most. I watched two of them, despite having to live on the island, stand up to and continue with a course of action which they felt to be correct and which brought them into conflict with senior figures in the political and legal establishments. This would of course be something Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup would not be comfortable with. One of these officers who had a hugely successful period tackling corruption and misconduct later filled my post more than capably when I was involved in the enquiry. For some reason Mr. Warcup curtailed this and brought someone in from the UK. It would seem that Jersey politicians are now backing away from their previously stated aim that we should be training and preparing local officers for most of the senior posts in the force. Mr. Gradwell was in Jersey for a specific purpose. He played no part in the everyday policing of the island. Just what qualifies him to make critical comments about people he knows little about? It seems to come easily to him.
Of course, Mr. Gradwell didn’t just sound off to the JEP. On the BBC he asked the question why, if I had evidence or intelligence about rapes 20 or 30 years ago did I then dig for human remains? I think that question is answered clearly above. He said there were no human remains found. I beg to differ. For a start, there were approximately 70 children’s teeth. Of course, Mr.Gradwell thinks they are down to the Tooth Fairy. Forget what two experts said. But let us look at his claim that “only one human bone was found and that was from the ‘Plantagenet’ era.”
It is useful to look at what I was being told by the Anthropologists we had on scene. There are two documents which detail this. Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup quoted selectively from them at the Press Conference and since. One of these documents is the Workbook of the Anthropologists and the other is the Bone and Teeth Summary.
There are numerous entries in the Bone and Teeth Summary which relate to bones found and identified as human by the Anthropologists working at HDLG with my team. It is worth bearing in mind that Anthropologists go through many years training to be considered as experts in the identification of human bones. Those that we used were highly experienced, committed, and ethical. Here are some of the entries they made during the course of their work at HDLG. They are reproduced exactly as written. They are not my interpretation. These are the words of the experts. The entries made by the Anthropologists are a record used by them, and formed the basis for the advice I was given. The reference number which each entry begins with is unique to each fragment, and the accompanying information for each exhibit describes archaeological phase and date, as well as possible origin. I have not mentioned all the teeth in the list as there were just too many. The comment below, in brackets, is mine.
KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone. (These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old. His report, strangely enough, has never been mentioned by Mr. Warcup or Mr. Gradwell. When the bones were sent for carbon dating we got two results back for the batch. The first, as I recall said the bones examined dated between the 14th and 17th century. The next day we were told the rest of the bones were of a person or persons who died between the 1650s and 1950s. This led to me giving all those press briefings, even reported in the JEP, in which I said the evidence was contradictory and made it unlikely there would be a homicide enquiry. Again, all this seems to have escaped the radar of Messrs Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell. Furthermore, when David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist spoke to Andrew Chamberlain he said he had never heard me say anything which contradicted his findings and revealed to David he had even waived his fee so impressed was he with the way we were going about our business. In an e-mail to me I was told that Mr. Chamberlain “stressed over and over again that everyone he dealt with, especially you, showed great care and professionalism.” This has obviously not reached the ears of our trio either.)
KSH/158: Archaeological Phase and Date. 3-4. 1940s to 1980s.
Single fragment of bone resembling KSH/137. Submitted to Sheffield University.
JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.
JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.
Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)
JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process
JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.
JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs.
The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.
One thing is a certain fact: the document quoted above proves – unambiguously – that there was sufficient evidence to justify digging – and that the digging did find concerning artefacts, thus further justifying the process.
We might not have found all the answers - but as police officers we had to ask the questions. At least that is my view.
Mr. Gradwell puzzled me somewhat with his rant about “noble cause corruption.” I know what it is – one example of it was when the Guildford Four were arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and were then wrongly convicted. But what on earth has that to do with HDLG? Mr. Gradwell said this was like an example of it – we had decided on guilt and then went on a ‘fishing expedition’. He went on to ask if this was what people wanted – a return to the days when police decided guilt and the era of miscarriages of justice? Now this takes me back to Mr. Gradwell’s comments about me that I “could not understand basic facts.” This is maybe why I can’t figure out whose guilt we had, supposedly, made our minds up about when we went into HDLG. We did not even know what crimes may have been committed in relation to the human remains there, never mind who the guilty party may have been. Bizarre!
There was also, of course, his comments about the Media Strategy. ‘When’, he asked, ‘did you ever see routine daily briefings on a police enquiry?’ Plenty of times would be my answer. However, I did not give daily routine briefings. As I am sure the Press Officer would confirm I faced the Press when I did because they were there in numbers and besieging her office with interview requests. On one occasion they even knocked the system out.
So there we have my perspective on what Mr. Gradwell said together with Mr. Warcup. Lies and half truths was the phrase that Diane Simon used. Make your own mind up. Which brings me to Ms. Simon.
“Harper lied about the fragment” seemed to be the gist of her recent story. I have already gone through this with her two or three times, personally, face to face, and a couple of times on e-mail. It seems I am not the only one with difficulty in grasping what I am told. She continues to peddle the myth that this fragment was identified as coconut very early on and that I lied about it. I will come to that. Let me once more relate the facts about this fragment known in the media as JAR/6.
The fragment was found on the morning of 23 February 2008. I was telephoned and went to the scene. When I arrived I was briefed as the entry on the Anthropologist’s worksheet reproduced below dated 23 February 2008. I was also told that a News of the World journalist had been caught with a camera in the bushes outside. I knew therefore that someone had leaked our work to the media and I also knew that it would only be a matter of time before the JEP found out about the fragment. Over the previous couple of years we had mounted several enquiries to find the source within the force who kept leaking details to various journalists of the JEP. My view was that if the media reported it before we did we would lose credibility with our vulnerable victims and witnesses. The entry below is quite clear. Note that it was found in Trench 3.
“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”
Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.
“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.
On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”
Note also what Julie Roberts says about the fragment. Gradwell and Warcup told the media she had changed her mind and now thought it was something else. That is not what she is saying, even after examining it again and reporting changes to it. She clearly says that she cannot be sure without conducting further chemical analysis.
Furthermore, Miss Roberts says that she discussed it with myself and the Forensic Manager and that we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed. She then says that “our” conclusion was that as we had already ruled it out of the enquiry, no further work would be conducted on it. “Our” obviously includes her in the decision. According to Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup, I rode roughshod over her opinion. More misinformation.
It is the same also with the myth that this was identified as a coconut during my time in the island. I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.
We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.
On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.
At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”
In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.
I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?
I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.
The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.
The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.
I am aware that this is a long and pretty dry document so I will try and be brief with the rest. Ms. Simon casts scorn, along with Mr. Gradwell, on the shackles we found. No matter what he may have found someone to later say about what they could be, the facts remain as follows.
I did not introduce the term shackles to the media. When builders heard that we were searching the area they had been working in, they went and told reporters that the police would find the ‘shackles’ they had found several years before when they were working there. Without knowing this, and with the evidence of victims in our minds, when we recovered these artefacts we all felt that the items were shackles. This means that the builders and ourselves, several years apart, came to the same conclusion; these items were shackles. I do not know what Mr. Gradwell showed to the media when he described them as something to do with roofing. I do know that never have I seen anything on any roof or gutter with a length of chain and a bracelet type affair at each end. When I emerged after being told of the find I was careful not to mention shackles. However when the media asked me what I had found and I replied that I had found some items which corroborated the victims evidence, one of them said, “Ah, so you found the shackles then?” It was to be several weeks before I admitted that we thought they were shackles as by that time it seemed rather daft to keep denying it.
Something else which caused me some angst, and consternation among a large number of journalists, was the pronounciation by Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell at their press conference that they had to now contradict me and say there was no evidence of murder and no murder suspects. They must have somehow missed all the press conferences and media interviews that I gave in which I said exactly the same thing. Why they should try and give the impression that I was saying something different I do not know. They only have to look at the BBC News website for the 31st July 2008, to see that I was saying that in view of the contradictory evidence from the experts in respect of the evidence of the age of the bones, unless things changed there would be no homicide enquiry. Even clearer, the Sunday Times on 10th May 2009 made it plain that I was actively discouraging their journalist from believing the more lurid headlines. A large number of journalists from television, radio, and print contacted me on the day of the Gradwell/Warcup press conference, to ask what on earth they were talking about. They all said they had checked their records and I had never said that there was evidence of murder. Why did Gradwell and Warcup get it so wrong? Why did they sit there and smugly tell the public something that was simply just not true?
Let me deal with some of the other allegations and mud that has been thrown. Diane Simon, Mr. Warcup, and Mr. Gradwell have criticised the use of Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs, pointing to the case in Portugal as evidence of their lack of usefulness and criticising the cost, including the cost of the accommodation at the hotel we used for him. Firstly, they fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all. David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist summed it up by saying that the difference between my team and the police in Portugal was that we knew the limitations of what the dog was telling us. That said, I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it. Again, it was telling us there was something there to ask questions about. Nothing else. Ms. Simon asks why we had to use Martin Grimes for so long. The answer is simple. At the outset we had Homicide Search Experts from the National Policing Improvement Agency with us. (Incidentally, they recommended our operation at HDLG as an example of good practice), but they could not stay indefinitely. The expert who was there was called to Australia to assist with a high profile murder of a British subject in which the body was never found. With his agreement and advice, Martin Grimes acted as Search Advisor in his absence, a role that he filled with skill and dedication.
As for the hotel costs which Ms. Simon criticised, what were we to do? Put him in a tent? We received excellent rates for bed and breakfast way below what the hotels would normally charge. Not only that but Steven Austin Vautier at the Home Affairs Department, and the Treasury, were well aware of the rates, and at frequent meetings agreed that they were good value. Mr. Grimes himself reduced his rates and did not charge for many expenses. All costs were known to the Treasury as they were incurred, and of course the Chief Minister continually assured us that we should use whatever resources were necessary, even to the extent of criticising me for daring to suggest to the media that cost was an issue. “Cost is irrelevant” said civil service chief, Bill Ogley in an e-mail, “the investigation is the important thing.” How then can they now criticise Graham Power or myself for the cost of the enquiry?
I keep seeing criticism of our actions which mention that there were no bodies and no reports of children missing. I have dealt with the findings of the human remains above. In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again.
There is also, of course, the alleged book deal which the Jersey Evening Post and Ms. Simon seem to be fixated with. I wonder if some clue can be gleaned from the fact that Elaine Byrne of that paper telephoned at least one member of the literary world in London and told him that they had been told he had signed me to a book deal. She told him that they were interested in serialising the book and asked how much he had paid me and what the arrangement was? The person quite correctly said there was no such agreement. He had contacted me, he said, (as have many others) but I had refused, saying I could not consider it until I finished working. She then asked how much he would offer in such a case. She was given short shrift and the man contacted me. I have to say I was grateful for the call. However, it shows that either the JEP are hypocritical in the extreme in wanting to serialise such a book by me, or Elaine Byrne was lying. Which would you bet your money on? Now, of course, Diane Simon is talking about a £200,000 book deal. I wish! No, it’s simply more literally incredible nonsense from the JEP.
In any event, there is no book deal, and as yet, no book. But, who knows? One sure thing, money will not be the motivation if I do. Besides, with the circulation this will get on Stuart’s blog who needs to write a book?
Another thing which Gradwell has criticised me for in the media, was the fact that relations with the lawyers and the Attorney General’s office were abysmal.
Yes.
And his point is?
They were abysmal because I refused to accept a shoddy service and constant moving of the goal posts. Anyone in any doubt as to what I mean should read the report I produced to him, on his instructions, as to why I issued a press release disclaiming responsibility for the release of two sadists who liked to hit children with cricket bats, and which someone leaked to the media. As already mentioned above, it can still be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog. That report illustrates exactly why relations were bad. What would he or Mr. Warcup have done if they had been in charge of the investigation when we arrested the now convicted Wateridge - and the AG told me not to charge - shortly before we were going to do so? I think I know. Relations were not helped either by him trying to control my dealings with the media, as shown in a number of e-mails.
Which reminds me of another criticism by Gradwell and Ms. Simon – that of the media policy and the high profile of it. I thought the Daily Telegraph summed it up well, way back in February when one of their columnists said that she saw three reasons for the media policy. Firstly, it was to reassure the victims that this time someone believed them. Secondly, to attract witnesses - and thirdly to protect myself and my enquiry from the same forces that had covered up everything before.
Exactly.
Make no mistake about it. If it had not been for the National media I would have been shunted off the island long before I found anything. I have a number of e-mails which detail how Frank Walker was continually saying that he was under pressure to sack or suspend me. I know for a fact that Graham Power told him, “Just you dare!”
A couple of years back a valued and trusted senior colleague caused a furore by describing the JEP as “a comic” in an e-mail to one of its journalists. The journalist ran to the Editor Chris Bright who wept, wailed, kicked up a tantrum, and then made a complaint against the officer. He did not like being called the editor of a comic. The matter was resolved without my colleague apologising. It is clear to me now that he was doing Biffo the Bear, Corky the Cat, and all those other endearing characters a gross injustice.
Oh yes, one more thing which I need to defend myself against. Several journalists have told me that Mr. Gradwell and indeed his boss in Jersey, have alleged that I was a bully, and that I aroused fear among officers. I certainly hope I did arouse fear among a small minority of officers. Let me explain.
Within a week or two of arriving in the island I had been approached by a number of officers who were obviously sounding me out. I was asked by both male and female officers how I would deal with bullying. My answer was always the same. Ruthlessly. And so, officers started coming to John Pearson, I, and other members of the Senior Management Team with complaints of bullying. There was a confidential reporting line run by a company in the UK but it was rarely used. Our staff preferred to come to us. We investigated all allegations and did so with the overwhelming support of the majority of the force. There were some unbelievable instances and I reproduce below part of the affidavit which I gave to the High Court in London for a recent court case. I have left the first paragraph in to show the type of tensions there were with some of the politicians.
"In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connétable of one of the country parishes. He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to enter his parish. This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.
During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill. I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying. A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies. I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.
Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force. I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to. Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask. A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying. “Ruthlessly,” I replied.
The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK. The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question. We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing. When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.” The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.
I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers. One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.” That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant. The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.
On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself. The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.” A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo-copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her. These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer. After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer. He at first denied it but changed his story. I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.
In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer. A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office. We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming. The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch. We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.
It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.” At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there. They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers. The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings. A second Inspection a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation."
The arrogance of the small minority who were carrying out this type of unprofessional behaviour was illustrated by the example of one senior member of staff who was the subject of several complaints to me from female colleagues. They complained about sexual innuendo and worse. Eventually I had him in my office one afternoon and warned him that another similar incident would result in disciplinary action. That night he took a visiting police staff member from the UK out to dinner and continually ran his hand along places he should not have. She complained and he left our employ soon after.
There was no doubt we did deal firmly with the bullies and the few corrupt members of staff. All of the allegations of bullying made against me seem to have come from those who were dealt with in this fashion. Bullies do not take kindly to being stood up to. Several of the corrupt cops that we removed from the force complained about their treatment. Without exception their complaints were found to be malicious or unsubstantiated. Several of them even tried to damage the historical abuse enquiry. The sister of one local businessman, who twenty police officers admitted taking favours or services from, even wrote to most of the news desks in London accusing me of abuse myself. Stuart Syvret was contacted and told not to trust me or my deputy in the investigation. Of course, being Stuart, the first thing he did was pick-up the phone and tell me about the approach. Again, I should emphasise, the bad and the corrupt were a small minority in a force brimming with talent and commitment.
I have been asked to explain what the ACPO reports were. Gladly. The evening we found the first fragment I contacted ACPO in the UK and asked them to appoint a team to oversee the enquiry and quality control it. This was something I readily agreed with Graham Power. I did so because I already knew the hostility that existed among many politicians and other areas of the establishment. I had my first taste of this back in 2007 the day I went public with the enquiry. I was ordered to attend at the office of Frank Walker, the Chief Minister. I went there with Graham Power and found that also present with Walker, were Bill Ogley and Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. Let me make quite clear now, that Wendy Kinnard was a staunch supporter of this enquiry and had to endure some difficult times because of it. An early example came at this meeting.
Walker started off by telling me I was looking at a very angry Chief Minister. I asked why. The conversation then went as follows:
FW. “You have been talking to Stuart Syvret.”
LH. “Yes I have. It was necessary for me to talk to him as not only does he have evidence that I may need, but the victims trust him and he may be able to persuade them to come to us.”
FW. “But you told him that you were going public.” (Stuart had released a press statement that morning to coincide with mine – a move which I have to admit, I did not anticipate!!)
LH. “Yes, but I also told you I was going public.”
FW. “But you showed him your press statement.”
LH. “Chief Minister, I showed it to you.”
FW. “But we’re the Government.”
Bill Ogley then intervened to ask me, “You do realise this could bring down the Government?” I told him that was not my concern. My concern was getting to the truth.
There then followed an argument about my use of the word “victims” in the media release. Walker ordered me not to use it. He explained that there were no victims until someone was convicted. I told him that was not the case. When someone alleged that they were a victim of crime, they were a victim. In a similar manner those who alleged that they were the victims of a racially motivated attack had to be treated as such even where there was not a shred of evidence of a racial motive. Walker argued, Wendy Kinnard spoke strongly in agreement with me and I continued to use the word “victims” for the rest of my time in Jersey.
Anyway, back to ACPO. Three members of the ACPO Homicide Review Group were appointed to oversee the enquiry. The team was led by the former head of the Mets Homicide Teams who now works for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. He was probably the United Kingdom’s most experienced Murder investigator. He was assisted by an expert in the HOLMES computer system on which we were running the enquiry. A female member of the Review Group made up the trio. Their terms of reference were drawn up by them and signed by their leader and Graham Power. Included in the signed terms of reference was the commitment to quality control of the investigation and personal mentoring for myself, my deputy, and the office manager who was responsible for the computer systems used. For some reason, Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup have sought to make people think that it was no part of the ACPO team’s remit to quality control the investigation. This is untrue and can clearly be seen to be untrue by simple examination of their terms of reference and their reports. David James Smith, of the Sunday Times, made this point in his article.
The ACPO team duly arrived and over several visits set about examining all aspects of our work. After each set of visits which lasted several days, they would issue a report and hand that report to Graham Power, the Home Affairs Minister, and onwards to the Chief Minister. Indeed, two members of the team even had an hour long meeting with the Chief Minister, Bill Ogley, and, I think, the HA Minister during which time they briefed them on the way the investigation was proceeding and their thoughts on it. This was in the absence of Graham Power and myself. If there was anything wrong with the enquiry, given Walkers hostility to it, it would surely have been made known after that meeting.
During their visits to the island the team would speak to myself and many other members of my team. They spent many hours examining the computer system and the entries on it. I had to hand over all my policy books to them for examination. They were to comment in one of their reports that the Policy Books were being properly maintained. These are the documents that Gradwell said were a ‘mess’, and led to his comments about taking over “a poorly managed mess.”
Who is likely to be correct? The ACPO Homicide Review Team or Mr Gradwell?
Each report by the ACPO team would give their comments on the way the enquiry was progressing and would make recommendations. In the second report they stated that we were to be congratulated on the speed with which we had implemented these recommendations. The Team leader told me that it was the quickest he had ever seen recommendations being implemented. Gradwell told journalists that one of the team had told him that we had said we implemented things which, in fact, we had not. I asked the leader of the ACPO team about this. “Nonsense, it was never said,” was his response.
Of the two or three ACPO reports made whilst I was there, none contained any serious criticism. As with all such reviews there were things they felt we could do, or do differently, and we always had discussions around those. If I felt that it was not applicable to the Jersey context, I said so.
For example, one of their early recommendations was that I should have a ‘Gold Group’ which would include senior figures from the “caring agencies” in Jersey. I said some of those were among our priority suspects. The ACPO team accepted that it was not a good idea.
Gradwell bitterly criticised my media strategy and one press conference in particular came in for strong criticism where they accused me of brandishing a tooth in front of the media. The truth is simple. It was an excellent idea but it was not mine. I was at HDLG and it was just after we started finding the teeth and were being told that some of them could not have come out from children who were still alive. I was going out to answer questions at the demand of the media. The head of the ACPO team suggested that as a means of showing just how small the teeth were, and of illustrating what a good job the Archaeological and Anthropology teams were doing, I should show the media a tooth. He suggested displaying it alongside a five pence piece. I did so. I was criticised by someone in the States that afternoon for using a Jersey five pence piece and making the island look bad when I could have used a UK coin.
The ACPO reports are of course there to be seen but they seem to have been ignored by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. The Sunday Times has seen them of course and they posed the question as to why Warcup and Gradwell are so intent on rubbishing my work when the man who “made a little boy’s head bob up and down in the water” (whilst sexually assaulting the boy), is still free? A good question indeed.
I think that probably covers most of the allegations made against me, the enquiry, the team and indeed the victims over the past few months. A well known journalist told me he could not understand Mr. Gradwell’s obsession with me and that in other circumstances we would probably have got along very well. I do not think so. Our fundamental beliefs in the purpose of good policing are too different. I believe that police officers are there to protect the vulnerable and to put the bad guys away where they will do no harm. Simplistic I know. Mr. Gradwell tells Diane Simon that a person’s guilt is not a concern of the police. That is one reason I am glad to be out of it.
I am sorry this is such a long and dry document. Of necessity it had to be that way to deal with all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about myself, my team, the enquiry, and most of all, the victims. I hope it has not seemed too much like Lenny Harper congratulating himself, but in circumstances where people who do not know me are labelling me as all sorts of monster, I needed to redress the balance. For those who have persevered this far, my thanks. My thanks also to everyone who has written to me, e-mailed me, or expressed support in other ways. It all meant, and continues to mean, a lot.
Lenny Harper
5th September, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
172 comments:
This is a quote from the linked Sunday Times March 8, 2008 article (Culture of Concealment Divides Jersey) in defense of the care of children at HDLG. The article says, "Yet Tony and Morag Jordan of Kirriemuir, Angus, who were on the staff of Haut de la Garenne from 1971-84, said they had found their time there “a rewarding experience in helping disadvantaged children” and “noticed nothing untoward”.
Amazing that the Jordans were quoted for their pleasant memories of the place!
"The island's Chief Minister, Frank Walker, had a cameraman son at the TV channel where I worked; a senior politician's mistress was a TV reporter on the island. "
From one of the Muirhead articles.
Any names?
Just when you think its going quite the whole Abuse tragedy springs up and punches them right in the face
Well, Morag and Tony Jordan are both now in jail, serving their sentences for the crimes they committed against children.
I was in court with the survivors when the jury returned the verdicts, and again later, for the sentencing.
It was a very important process for the survivors, who finally secured some measure of justice.
Let's hope many of the other survivors still will, one day.
Stuart
Stuart,
This is a truly outstanding compilation of FACTS and merely by reading the flow smacks of TRUTH and honesty.
There is no way Lenny Harper would keep on trying to get through to everyone if he were not being honest, he could just take his pension and forget about us all here in our cess-pit of lies and cover-ups. Well done and thank you to all who are fighting to get the truth out there, the whole Island must read this complete dossier before anyone can really comment on chucking out an enquiry.
Haile Unlikely on JEP online, put a link to your previous Lenny Harper posting, but this covers everyone and everything.
Brilliant and many thanks.
Stuart.
A good post, the truth is out there and ONLY ON THE BLOGS. Our "accredited" media have so much to answer for. With this posting, including the links, the "evidence" is in abundance to show, at the very least, children's remains were disposed of up at HDLG.
But what have we had back from our ruling elite and there media? 65 children's teeth fell through a gap in the floor board, THE SAME GAP! And a piece of child's skull containing 1.6% collagen, magically turned into a piece of Coconut.
The whole world can see what's gone on and they've only seen this through documented evidence from Blogs.
RIP Emile Collins
A true Jerseyman
Stuart.
A few words from Emille
Amazing detail !
Here we are bemoaning the inabilty of the Main Stream Media to put this information out because lets face it, that despite all this stuff being on various blog sites it will never get the widespread coverage that is needed to wake up our sleeping population.
Seems to me that National publicity is what is needed. What if anything is being done behind the scenes to keep them informed as to the corrupt nature of this investigation.
Has Lenny Harpers commentary both on this and the Napier report been forwarded to the UK police governing body for their attention, and are they looking into why Gradwell and Warcup can be rubbishing the work of their predecessors considering the checks and safeguards put onto the investigations by the UK police.
There is i suppose the possibility that the UK Police chiefs would like to wash their hands of all this questionable police behaviour.
These questions are I suppose directed to Lenny Harper so i ask also ,has he forwarded his commentary to other bodies,and/or is he or the UK police looking at taking legal action against anyone.
Will Napier be taken to task for his incompetence or will he simply be promoted in the Jersey Way !
A well written letter in JEP from Mr Wilson who would normally be classed as an establishment person.He is supporting an enquiry into HDLG it is printed the same day as Mr Harpers review of the accusations he faced in the media quite ironic,hope he has read that blog article as will give him confidence in the letter he has written.Well done Sir.
Hi Stuart
HEATHFIELD&BLANCH PIERRE
Lets not forget the suffering at these care homes
rs
Remember, the cover ups and concealment were undertaken by the officers who had formerly held posts in Northumberland Police Force.
This is the same force that appointed a man in 1995 who had convictions in Scotland for a variety of offences, including rape and assaults.
The same man, working as a Police officer in the Northumberland force, carried out a number od rapes and sexual assaults on women who were being held in the Police station where he worked.
The Sunday Post asked Northumbria Police about what had happened to those responsible for his appointment and what checks had been made before he was offered the post. Northumbria Police refused to give details, they then refused a request under Freedom of Information Act.
When the matter was pressed, they said that the people responsible for the appointment of this officer had been advised of their shortcomings but no disciplinary, or other action, had been taken against them.
It says it all.
Brothers in crime.
Frances.
Clifford Wilson?
PC Stephen Mitchell given two life sentences
It's interesting to see the Crown Officers covering ar*e in the Curtis Warren debacle.Things have now moved from nudge nudge Jowitt approaches to balance of probability the the AG was entirely correct and had paperwork to prove it.
The consequences are that Insp. Pashley who is not a bad sort at all is being shafted to save their derrieres.
All of this points to an expectation that low life scum will walk and the sh1t will fall on the monkey below.
How would Comrade Ozouf spin this if asked as Chief Minister in Wanting (sorry typo) Waiting. How about " Mr Warren has to be commended for his commercial dynamism and drive even if he was perhaps in slight error in his product range and offer'
And poor Tel? 'Sunday Times Rich List... welcome him in he will generate money for the island and support numerous charities'.
what exactly has Lenny Harper just had published in the rag
After commenting here at 12.49, I decided to add comments to both articles online JEP and link to this newest blog however as yet nothing has been published- can't think why they wouldn't want that seen.
Also on channelonline I posted that perhaps Curtis Warrens case could pave the way for your case Stuart, but again nothing.
Looks like no-one wants reminding of anything.
Child abuse: We need an inquiry immediately
New call for Committee of Inquiry
Former deputy police chief Lenny Harper
THE Council of Ministers could be forced to reconsider their decision not to hold a Committee of Inquiry into the historical abuse investigation.
Senator Francis Le Gresley has lodged a proposition calling for a debate on the issue.
Meanwhile, former deputy police chief Lenny Harper says that by not holding an inquiry, Jersey would lose the opportunity to expose the ‘full extent of the brutalities’ inflicted at Haut de la Garenne, the former children’s home.
The man who headed the historical child abuse inquiry has reacted to Wednesday’s announcement by Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur that there will not be a committee of inquiry.
In a letter to the editor in today’s Jersey Evening Post, the now retired police officer said: ‘Such a committee would have seen the trickle of truth turn into a torrent and the full extent of the brutalities inflicted on the victims as well as the lengths gone to in attempts to cover it up would have been exposed for the world to see.’
• Full report in today’s Jersey Evening Pos
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/02/03/new-call-for-committee-of-inquiry/#ixzz1Da7N1Up5
Oh don't worry about the Curtis Warren case.
My case is a lot, lot more scary than that.
I know it - and the Jersey oligarchy know it - and they know that I know it.
When all's said and done - they have only two options.
Offer me an extremely large cheque - and pray I'll go way and shut up.
Or - hire an assassin.
The latter is entirely feasible.
Stuart
New call for Committee of Inquiry
On Warcup
JEP Oct 2009
'Professionalism and integrity'
Mr Warcup defended the actions of the officers involved in the investigation.
"I think we always take some risks in carrying out these investigations. They're extremely complex, they're extremely difficult and challenging.
"We are dealing with the most serious types of criminality and people who have lots and lots of experience in terms of committing crime.
"We have to make sure that we use our best endeavours to properly, professionally and with integrity, bring those people to justice."
Says it all. The man is a joke.
'Hire an Assassin'
Though feasible it would be their biggest ever mistake Stuart, rest assured on that one. This supporter and I suspect many others would not allow such an act to go unpunished.
I disagree with you about the Curtis Warren case. I believe that it is very important that the AG of the time even allowed the case to go to trial. He must have known that the evidence was flawed.
It should have been obvious to an idiot that there was no evidence, no drugs, no money and no boat.
It would appear that the only thing that Warren was convicted on was his previous record and the illegal bugging of a hire car whose occupants could have been anyone.
I amazed that Warren's defence lawyer even had the cheek to send him a bill :)
Well if they won't post it there,I'll post my copy of it here
thanks
Posted February 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
41# Haile Unlikely,
Many thanks for posting the link to what reads quite clearly to be the truth or why wouldn’t Lenny just retire gracefully on his pension and forget about us all? It doesn’t make sense and this is probably why so many people think an enquiry is a waste of time. They really need to read all the facts from all involved on this updated link, then come back and say no enquiry, nothing untoward went on. I DARE YOU..
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/
Hi Stuart
If and I think it is a very big "IF" Curtis Warren walked free I have a feeling this would help your OG immensely. The spotlight would then fall on Jerseys Judicial System like never before and you could find your upcoming OJ case get even more coverage and scrutiny. It would be very much harder for a Strike out with the the outside media watching on. But my opinion is he is going nowhere as the Law will look after the Law on this one seeing who he is.
I do believe thou Stuart that the Committee of Enquiry has a lot in common with your OJ and its because of this that the council of minister want it struck out. Everything you are doing in your OJ would come out in the enquiry. Am I right on this?
The issues are exactly the same. Concealment of Child Abuse, No checks and Balances, Concealment of evidence from the Minister, Movement of Abusers sideways or out the door, No police involvement etc etc
The two things are the same. They your case Struck
Out and the COE has already been struck out
rs
Rico
I expect the Order of Justice - that is, my civil action relevant to the illegal oppression I suffered in 2007 - to be struck-out.
I'd find it staggering if the British establishment allowed that to go to a full trial.
When I speak of my case being far more scary than the Curtis Warren case - I'm referring to the combined criminal appeal / judicial review / human rights application I am shortly to complete - all of which arises from the illegally abusive misuse of the criminal justice system to harass and repress an opposition politician.
It is this case that I feel represents 'The End' - the silver bullet that's finally going to take-out the Jersey gangster regime.
And it is scary - really scary - for the Jersey oligarchs; after all - when all's said and done, Curtis Warren is just a drug-dealer, that Jersey's law-enforcement apparatus got a bit too overzealous with.
In my case - we are dealing with a whole nother quantum level of corrupt, abusive - frankly criminal - misuse of policing and prosecution powers - abused against an innocent man who's only "crime" was to seek to hold Jersey's public authorities to account for their malfeasances and failures to protect the public.
An innocent man who was a leading opposition politician and a journalist.
As I've always said throughout this entire saga - the destination here is to - ultimately - confront the UK authorities with their failures to act lawfully in respect of their - admitted - responsibilities for good governance and the rule of law in Jersey.
That's the inevitable final reckoning that we're heading towards.
And, unless the Jersey oligarchy are even more stupid then we imagine - they should be an awful lot more worried at that prospect, than the fall-out from a little overzealousness in trying to convict a drug-gangster.
Hell - maybe they are that stupid?
Stuart
loads of JEP online comments over the last two days re Lenny Harper,and The Inquiry. Even read one that had a poke at our media!!!!!!!!!!
Quite a few of the uninformed variety as well
Re: "Loads of JEP comments..." which add to the call for an independent inquiry. This is the first time I have seen the JEP let through so many published anti-establishment comments. What gives? Could be its because the editors know how many reader comments in favor of the truth are being published on the blogs now, and the JEP censorship has become impossible to deny.
Chelloise
Why not add to this call
Stuart
There is no question that your OJ and related actions should be more frightening to the Jersey oligarchy than the Curtis Warren case, because you are calling into question the systematic failure of their entire political and judicial process.
However, there are the laws of three countries which the Jersey Police arrogantly defied in the Warren case, and he is a well known figure in Europe. His case may cement the international image of a Jersey which completely ignores established legal principles.
Wouldn't the collapse of the Warren case provide a precedent for the illegal and warrantless search and seizure of your home? It should show to all higher courts why you claim you cannot receive a fair trial in Jersey!
Warcop given full page "interview" by jep
Dandara now given full page "interview" by jep!!
still waiting for Messrs Power & Harper to be given same
"This is the first time I have seen the JEP let through so many published anti-establishment comments."
As an editor from an Egyptian newspaper said on BBC in the night he has had to change their editorial stance as the freedom to publish the "truth" is now possible.Will it riots in the streets of St Helier to bring about the same in our media or have they seen the light?
Rico
I expect the Order of Justice - that is, my civil action relevant to the illegal oppression I suffered in 2007 - to be struck-out.
That might be the case stuart but don't let Negativity creep in. Always be on the positive because if you keep saying that it will, it could effect your performance on the day. You must be telling yourself I will win this. You must make it so hard for that judge that he will look like a total idiot if he strikes it out. It's not about having a million pages to read out:sometimes less is more.
If you walk in with a defeated attitude the judge will pick that up and put you out of your misery. Positive, Focused and believe you will win this.
I believe the Curtis Warren decision will have a huge effect on your OJ if he walks. I reckon there must be some twitching backsides at the moment.
That Drug Dealer might be the one who starts the ball rolling concerning checks and balances with our Judiciary.
I hate Negativity. You go into everything with one attitude only.
"I Will Win This" and " I will Win this on my own Soil"
You might not need Strasbourg if the Drug Dealer Walks
But give them one hell of a scrap
rs
Rico
The Curtis Warren case is not especially analogous to the civil case that the OJ deals with.
IF he walks, it will have some bearing upon the criminal appeal, as it will show a police / prosecution system out-of-control.
But even then, my case is so different. Indeed - it's actually a great deal more powerful than the Curtis Warren case.
But as I'm trying to explain - remember that I have two separate cases running at present - the civil and the criminal - so don't confuse the two.
What I'm working on at present is the criminal case. Not quite a million pages (yet) - but as it is the document that defines the Strasbourg appeals, it has to consist of a detailed argument.
Stuart
I think Rico should go in for Life Coaching
He'd make a fortune
And I agree keep really focused and positive Stuart
If going to Strasbourg is going to frighten your opponents, is there a possibility that they will be doing their damnest to avoid a strikeout, and allow your case through to the UK legal system in the hope that it will just run out of steam in the beaurocracy of the legal system
PRICELESS, SPEECHLESS, SHOCK, BEWILDERMENT, LUNACY , CANT STOP LAUGHING
Former Housing Minister may try to get his job back
Senator Terry Le Main
FORMER Housing Minister Terry Le Main says he will stand for re-election for his old job next week – if the police conclude an investigation into alleged corruption during his previous stint in charge.
Senator Terry Le Main said that he had been asked by several Members to stand for the role of Housing minister – made vacant by Deputy Sean Power’s resignation over a data protection breach last week – but that he wanted to be exonerated first.
He resigned in June 2010 from the position that he had held since 1997, following allegations that he had tried to have a developer cleared of charges in the Royal Court – an allegation that he denied.
However, the Senator has been advised that the investigation is unlikley to have been completed by Tuesday.
Article posted on 11th February, 2011 - 2.56pm
Taken from the BBC's live feed of the unrest in Egypt:
"1540: Amid the unfolding drama in Egypt and the proliferation of tweeting, live blogging and 24-hour news coverage, the New York Times has an interesting take on the new media reality, from Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel: "Because of technology, and because of the progress made in technology, especially in the field of communication, no one has any excuse anymore to say: 'I don't know; I didn't know; I wasn't aware."'"
Guess Elie has never been on a 'life-enriching' holiday.
So El Tel could be back in the ol job as postman, no sorry they deliver envolopes not collect them sorry postmen/women
Congratulations to the people of Egypt.
What has been achieved is remarkable, in that a tyrant has been overthrown with comparatively little bloodshed, and without civil war.
Success has come about through the sheer numbers of people - the great mass of the population - mobilised, informed, co-ordinated, organised - via citizen media.
Let all tyrants fear the internet.
Oligarchies - for the first time in human history - have lost control of information, communication and knowledge.
From Wikipedia - to humble individuals with a mobile phone - suddenly - the power of truth is in the hands of humanity.
We live in an historic era.
Freedom and truth.
Stuart
And a rathe strange letter in the rag from Danny Wherrys wife
Latest tweet from
Alshaheed Khaled Said:
Uninstalling dictator...
100% complete ███████████████████████████
Yes a very strange letter, and one she could live to regret!
Bring on the Inquiry.
Stuart.
Emille’s Funeral will be held on Wednesday at 10.45 am at the Crematorium followed by a meeting at the Old Magistrates Court (back of Town Hall) from 1145am.Family, friends and former colleagues are welcome to attend.
Either way, D.W. needs to have his day in court.
As a lot of people dont buy the rag and i dint see the letter online has anyone copied it to a website?
Yes - I've read the letter from Danny Wherry's wife in the JEP.
The reader who comments above - and Mr & Mrs Wherry - all need have no fear of Danny Wherry "not getting his day in court" - or of there "not being a formal investigation concerning the allegations" against him.
I'm more than happy to assist.
Here you go:
Danny Wherry - you are a child abuser.
Right - get your Order of Justice in - sue me for defamation - and there we go.
The facts - and the witness testimony - can all be examined in the formal inquiry of an open court case.
Sorted.
I'm waiting.
Stuart
'The facts - and the witness testimony - can all be examined in the formal inquiry of an open court case.'
Unless such witness testimony is deemed to be "inadmissible" of course... I seem to recall that kinda stuff happening before if my memory serves me right.
faces behind the names
KICK ASS!!!
Word V "trite"!
YOUR MATE!
Stuart,how brave are these people of the Arab world to come out en masse for weeks to condemn a corrupt Government.Also to refuse to leave until he left.The only words that I could use to describe the scenes in Tahrir is awe-inspiring.I hope that any entrenched leaders will also get their marching orders.They have much to celebrate tonight but tomorrow many hurdles.Camelia.
For those of us who don't have access to the letters page in JEP would it be possible for Web Guru to post Mrs Wherry's strange letter?
Lorna
when piecing together all the various bits of evidence on the web about the jersey child abuse scandal, a picture emerges of a child sex trafficking operation that had been going on for decades, which also involved the death and possible murders of innocent children.
Its a horror story that beggers belief.
no wonder 'they' want to cover it up.
Stuart,
In an interview yesterday, New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, said of Egypt and other fossilized dictatorships, "With the growth of the internet, young people see top-down power as extremely stupid and slow, and bottom-up, grass roots power as smarter and faster."
Remind anyone of Jersey, where the truth is missing from the State Media, and the most important facts can only be found on the net? I don't think the ruling elite have a clue about how thoroughly discredited they are in the world, but the JEP editors may finally be seeing the writing on the (facebook) wall.
Stay positive!
Elle
'Police Crackdown on Safety' one of this weeks JEP headlines.
One of those carefully badly worded headlines designed to grab our attention,and on reading, it becomes clear that Mike Bowron 's intention is to IMPROVE on Safety.
Yes maybe i am being a little pedantic,but you would expect better from a journalist.
That story in The Northern Echo concerning the rapist cop is horrifying. What a total bastard. And what an excellent judgement by Mr Justice Wilkie. I bet Mitchell wasn't expecting what is virtually a whole life tariff.
People who abuse positions of authority, to harm vulnerable people they come into contact with, are the worst of the worst.
I was struck by this paragraph:
"Prosecutor Paul Sloan had told jurors: "The prosecution case is that the defendant deliberately targeted vulnerable females; that he employed specific tactics to take advantage of and to exploit their vulnerability, whether by flattering them, or by helping them or by pretending to help them, or by blackmailing them."
That could have been written about 'Nurse M' - so closely does it match his behaviour.
The only difference is - Nurse M also murdered people.
But there is another parallel with the Nurse M case - in that the people investigating Mitchell clearly wanted the case to just "go away" at an earlier stage.
Really - people have got no idea just how often it is the response of authorities to just brush series criminality under the carpet - when the crimes in question are embarrassing or problematic for the bosses and managers of the authority in question.
And however bad that attitude is in the UK - it's twenty times worse in Jersey; here - the Culture of Concealment is the entire modus operandi of the island's public authorities.
Stuart
Channel Report celebrates £5.00 makeover by extending coverage to Guernsey
http://www.gsyfutu.com/?p=13886
As there appears to be no Search facility on this blog ,how can i find your original Nurse M disclosure,even a redacted one. ?
That FUTU report on the Channel Television makeover is brilliant. Here's an excerpt:
"“It’s change for change’s sake,” agreed 89 year old Enid Hemorrhage, who has watched Channel Report religiously since the Occupation, when it was launched as a Nazi propaganda weapon.
“I was hooked from the first episode of Channel Report, or Kanal Bericht as it was then. It combined penetrating coverage of British war crimes with reports on accident black spots – much like today, in fact.”"
Yep - more and more Channel islanders are starting to see the local mainstream media for the steaming pile of wretched horse-dung it is.
Stuart
The Nurse M report is in the archive - 19th March 2009.
Stuart
Hi Stuart
How desperate must things be if the Establishment are wheeling out Reg Jeune, Lyndon Farnham and Pierre Horsfall.
These guys are desperate for those two extra Senator seats at the next election. Yes reform is needed but lets get this election out the way and then get on with the job at hand.
Could it be that the Establishment will be seriously weakened at the next election. Like I said before only 4 Senators Seats. Ozouf must build a party. Will his mates be prepared to run for DEputy?
Has Lyndon Farnham been a States Member before? And if so, was he the one the jacked during his term?
And look what Dick Shenton is saying on page 7
5 excellent election hopefuls have come forward and this is what they are united about.
"One thing was to the fore in our discussion and that was to bring back respect to the Island and its people." We were united in our condemnations of those members and their followers who seem to take pleasure in running down our Island locally and Internationaly"
He forgot " Shafting"
All this enemy of the state jargo.
Just hoe desperatre is the Right Wing at the moment? its cringe worthy and so very out of date in this new modern world
rs
For those of a delicate persuasion the comments regarding Guernsey FUTU have nothing to do with the Jersey language phrase 'foutue' or similar spelling (it should be noted that this phrase is normally shouted not written).
An example of contemporary usage was heard this morning when Eli Le Clotte opened the Jersey Evening Post (aka rag ) and saw the picture of Reg Jeune, Lyndon (Senator Pre-elect) Farnham and Pierre Horslips expounding the forthcoming democracy rallies to be held in the Royal Square.
This is precisely where the word ' foutue' applies .
Thanks for the link to the very funny gsyfutu (what does it mean?) site.
I especially enjoyed the Mighty Debatin’ States Members action figures toy range (I think I've got a Kick Ass Shona one somewhere in the loft), and Finance worker unsure precisely what he does for a living - LOL
Saw recently in UK press.
Conservative council to improve knife crime.
Must have trained at the Rag.
Lorna, as requested.
The following article has been reproduced to the best of my ability.
JEP letters page 11th February 2011
SORRY FOR THE REAL VICTIMS OF ABUSE
From Lindsey Wherry
I wish to express my surprise and consternation of the Council of Ministers decision not to hold a historical abuse committee of inquiry.
My Family have been deeply affected by the investigation, as my husband was an alleged abuser and was arrested by the police. He was subsequently cleared as all allegations were totally unfounded.
As a result of this obviously incompetent investigation and the subsequent actions of those in authority, within the police force and other civil service departments, my family and I have suffered ill heath and many months of anxiety.
It would appear that the States of Jersey, whilst accepting corporate responsibility for the victims of abuse, are unwilling to accept this for the other collateral damage caused to it’s former employees, and in particular for the actions of the police force.
I know my husband and many other people who dedicated their lives to the welfare of children in the care of the state have been waiting for the opportunity, promised by the States at the beginning of the enquiry, to have their voice heard regarding the conduct of the inquiry and clear their names of the slur that has been inflicted upon them.
They have been patent, enduring the sideways glances and lost employment opportunities that the investigation has imposed on them, but always believing that the truth would be told eventually.
The States talk of honest and open government. While it is reasonable to expect that an inquiry of this nature will uncover some unpleasant and embarrassing facts, the States should not shy away from these, but should accept and learn from them thereby preventing another occurrence of such an event that hurt so many of its citizens.
A public inquiry would allow, besides the airing of the victims’ concerns, the public to determine for themselves:
• What was the evidence that led to the investigation?
• Did the police always act lawfully during the investigation?
• Was there misuse of public funds?
• Are there as many victims and offenders as originally portrayed?
The JEP is still reporting (JEP 4 February) that there were 151 offenders while only eight have been prosecuted. Are they trying to say that 143 abusers have been let off?
It is clear that some allegations were totally unfounded. While acknowledging that some prosecutions could not be brought through lack of evidence or the accused having died, I think a public inquiry could look at these questions and uncover the truths. Were some of these allegations made in an attempt to gain compensation or encouraged by the police and compensation law firms?
I cannot let this opportunity go without expressing my own and my family’s sorrow for the true victims of abuse. These individuals have, I fear, been let down by the alleged victims who for whatever reason have made false allegations against many hardworking and good people, thereby skewing the whole investigation and causing the subsequent public outcry.
I know my husband and others feel great regret that despite their every effort, they failed to protect the true victims from abuse.
St Martin”
The following letter also appeared in the letters column in the JEP 11th Feb 2011 and once again has been reproduced to the best of my ability:
I feel as though I have been let down over Haut de la Garenne
Name and address withheld
CONCERNING the news (JEP 1 February) that there will be no public inquiry of Haute de la Garenne, doesn’t that just take the biscuit?
The police came to me to ask about my time there and I told them that I did not want to go back to the worst time of my life. At first they respected my wishes and left me alone, but not for long. They explained it could help other people to come forward and give me closure.
So I agreed, explaining that both of my abusers are now dead. The police assured me that at the end of the inquiry there would be a public one so my abusers would be named and shamed. Well, that’s not going to happen now, is it? And there is no closure for me.
I hope all these people who have made these decisions not to go public think of me when they sleep at ease at night. I shall not think of them, because once again they have all let me down.
I am in no abusers group and I am not with any solicitors. I did not think that necessary until after the public inquiry came out with the results.
How wrong was that?
Rico
Opposition to a reduction in the number of Senators is not pro-establishment it’s pro-democracy.
It was proposed by Constable Juliette Gallichan who has never voted against the establishment in her entire ‘career’ and who as chairman of PPC has manipulated that committee’s deliberations so as never to embarrass them, so brazen is her ambition to be a one of them. Poor thing doesn’t realise they’ll never let her in to the inner clique who I suspect see her as a useful ‘head girl’ – but no more.
In the clamour to reduce the overall number of States Members this move takes the heat off the position of the Constables who are 70% rock-solid voting supporters of the establishment and COM no matter the scale of the lunacy proposed.
It also takes the heat off the Deputies and the debate to re-draw constituency boundaries, which would affect them greatly. As a consequence those we once held up as ‘great white hopes’ like Montford Tadier are shown to be just as self-interested as the establishment figures we thought they were there to oppose.
Those Deputies who did vote against this reduction are especially to be praised. Deputy Labey was one, Noel another, I think, Wimberly (total hero as usual) and Gorst – though he wants to stand for Senator and will get in. And Pryke! So maybe not the monumental waste of space we fist thought, shock!
I couldn’t be more anti-establishment if i tried and an election for just four Senatorial places this time will almost certainly see the likes of Jimmy Perchard losing his seat but in spite of this I cannot see this as progress democracy-wise. And at the moment that is dangerous folly even with the opposition of Shenton, Jeune and Horsfall.
I respect your work though, Rico, but you need to rethink this one.
Oh think you'll find my court case is going to have a bearing on the position of the Connetables in the States.
Eventually.
I can't imagine Strasbourg supporting a system that equipes certain members of the legislature with policing powers.
Especially given that half of them are gangsters.
The government you deserve.
Stuart
Hi Anon
Thanks for your comment. I must admit I wasn't looking at this from the Democracy angle but more on Ozouf wanting to keep his numbers up so he can control the house and become Chief Minister. This is his one and only chance of officially being Chief Minister
Thank you for the comment and I admit this is not a subject I have paid that much attention to but one I find fascinating
rs
Lyndon Farnham:
yes previous deputy until as president tourism got him& his pals the royal yacht development then was too busy for politics,however as the s..t seems to be hitting the fan at the hotel he's needed again in the states for whatever they have up their sleeve next.
Did they ever pay the money to the museum for the c..k up on the hotel roof where it was built higher than permission was granted for,one of the boys you see!!
In good company with Reg LLP Jeune & Pierre "the porsche" Horsfall.
I'm afraid Daniel Wimberley - like Montfort Tadier - is just a time-serving - pay-cheque receiving - fake plastic progressive - who will make all the right - meaningless - low-risk noises - in such danger-free ways as using States question time - but when the chips are down, supports the likes of Geoff Southern - a man who had to leave teaching because of his predilection for taking sexual advantage of 16 and 17 year old girls.
You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. That Wimberley could even contemplate supporting Southern - tells us all we need to know about him.
But - the much-needed reform of the system is not going to have to rely on this collection of shysters.
It's strange how things work out.
I always strove to clean-up governance in Jersey - to fight the corruption and complacency - to make it a functioning democracy.
Our gangster regime always made certain that that couldn't be achieved from inside politics.
But - through stupidity and hubris - they've given me the material I need to strike at the heart of darkness.
They are in big, big trouble.
And I think they know it.
Hence the oligarchy campaign by all of these old dinosaur gangsters - in which they're wheeling out that most disgusting of devices - the "patriotism" card - the last resort of tyrants and criminals around the world.
Anyone attacking the Jersey mafia - must be attacking "Jersey" - and thus "an enemy of the state".
I guess it was inevitable that they would go too far - eventually. The arrogance and hubris of these people has known no bounds, so we perhaps shouldn't be surprised that they imagined police-state illegal raids and Stalinistic show-trials against opposition politicians - was good idea - in western Europe - in the 21st century?
Stuart
Thank you anonymous for posting these two contrasting letters with regard to the inquiry.
The first from Mrs Wherry is very interesting. She clearly has to believe that her husband and many others were falsely acuused or she would not be able to stand by her man. She writes "Are they trying to say that 143 abusers have been let off?" Yes Mrs W. Probably a lot more too.
To the person who hoped that coming forward would help them and others to get justice I say don't give up hope. I came forward for the same reason and that is why we have to demand a public inquiry. Some of the people I have named are dead but I firmly believe they need to be named and that the crimes they committed should be recorded. I am not asking for compensation anonymous - like you all I want is proper acknowledgement of what we went through.
Lorna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008#Trials
Anyone fancy helping alter the bias in this Wikipaedia article? Lenny's counterblast ought to be added at least.
A FEW OPPRESSIONS
Hi Stuart
I know Daniel signed Geoff's nomination paper but i'm not sure what else he has done This is just a thought, but one I believe might have happened. Goeff asked Daniel "do you mind signing my nomination paper" and Daniel said "no not at all Geoff" without giving it that much thought. Because, lets face it, if he did stop and think about he probably wouldn't have signed it. Geoff-St Mary-No Brainer
One thing I cannot stand is all this bitching it's just pure negative cr8p. We must move on from this. This belongs in the past if we are ever to move forward. Not everyone is perfect, not everyone is going to be how we want them to be but I will say this Daniel has been a great help...
I don't want to start sounding like some hippy guru tw*t but all this Negative rubbish really must stop
With the up coming battles we need everyone wether they play a big or small part.
rs
Died in the service of freedom.
http://1000memories.com/egypt
Rico
I know why you and Neil and others carry on feeling optimistic; why should you not - when time and time again we produce the facts?
But remember all of those times I've said "do not feel optimistic - do not think things are clear - and progress inevitable."
And I have been right.
Every time.
I'm not pessimistic; merely a realist.
I've learnt the hard way - to see reality.
I'm afraid - as much as you would not want to face facts - no one - I mean no one - makes a decision to support a total and obviously ridiculous - futile - hopeless - and plainly destructive candidacy - that could never, ever be anything other than disastrous for the progressive cause in Jersey - by "mistake".
It was not an "accident".
Did you know his father was a teacher?
So naive, Rico.
So naive.
Wimberley supporting Southern - was no "accident".
Still - at least we'll be rid of him - and Southern - after the next election.
Hell - I'd rather vote for an old gangster like Tel Boy Le Main.
Stuart
Stuart said
"I know why you and Neil and others carry on feeling optimistic; why should you not - when time and time again we produce the facts?
But remember all of those times I've said "do not feel optimistic - do not think things are clear - and progress inevitable."
And I have been right.
Every time.
I'm not pessimistic; merely a realist.
I've learnt the hard way - to see reality."
I have to agree with you Stuart after 23 years of it myself, there will never be any justice in Jersey whilst that shower govern. The stark reality is that, all that is acheivable in Jersey is to exhaust options and gather evidence.
Change will only ever come from the outside....
From 1962 Herbert Wimberley was director of education.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-521531/Ex-Jersey-childrens-home-worker-tried-intimidate-victim-keeping-quiet.html
For Ian Le Marquand to be lying like he is, the stakes must be very high indeed.
There you go:
"From 1962 Herbert Wimberley was director of education. His whereabouts today are unknown."
His name is included amongst a role of dishonor in that Mail article:
"Yesterday the names of those running the home [HDLG] were revealed. Police refused to say if any of them are being treated as suspects, or have been interviewed as witnesses. Among them was Mario Lundy, current director of education in Jersey, who worked at Haut de la Garenne for two years. He refused to comment yesterday. Another was John Rodhouse, who was director of education in 1974. John Le Marquand was president of the island's education committee from 1960. He now suffers from dementia and lives in a care home in St Helier. Reg Jeune was an education president from 1971 to 1984. He now lives in a £4million mansion near St Savior. He refused to discuss the issue yesterday, but his wife confirmed he did work at the home. From 1962 Herbert Wimberley was director of education. His whereabouts today are unknown. Patricia Thornton was the island's children's officer at this time, but there are no records of her current whereabouts. Colin Tilbrook was headmaster of the school. He is now dead. During the 1960s Charles Smith became a children's officer on Jersey. He retired in 1984. His whereabouts are unknown. In the 1970s, a Mr H King took over as superintendent at the home and his wife worked as a matron. Mr King was replaced by John Thomson, who became superintendent in 1979. Tony Jordan and his wife Morag took over as superintendent and matron in 1981. They live in a cottage in Kirriemuir, 25 miles from Dundee. Mr Jordan, a youth worker, described himself as a witness rather than a suspect. Terry Streetle was a children's officer in 1986. He now lives in West London. He has refused to comment until after the investigation is over."
It isn't difficult - is it - to see just why the Jersey oligarchy were quite so desperate to bury this whole investigation.
They would almost certainly have got away with it too - were it not for three fatal mistakes.
Encouraging and supporting bent civil servants to criminally engineer my dismissal.
Illegally suspending Graham Power.
And the illegal police raid, search, arrest and prosecution conducted against me.
It's like Watergate - in that it is the attempted cover-up that has been the fatal loss of judgment.
Now - events have their implacable momentum - like an avalanche.
Stuart
An excerpt from the FUTU article (link above) – concerning the “Mighty Debatin States Members” toy-range:
“The toys were unique: although contemporary action figures boasted intricate articulation, MDSM were phenomenally inarticulate. Some of them, such as members of the ‘Backbench Brigade’ sub-set (all of whom retailed at a low price point), were utterly indistinguishable from one another, being little more than plastic sticks with dots for eyes.
“My first MDSM figure was one of the Backbench Brigade,” recalled Mr Aitch, who was seven when the first wave of figures found their way into tents at the South Show.
“I think it was supposed to be [non-voting member of the 1981 Administrative Decisions and Review Board] D M M de Sausmarez, whose main skill – in the MDSM cartoon, anyway – was interpreting Orders in Council.
“He was OK, but my mate Danny from two doors down had a mint-in-box Deputy Le Messurier [President of the Milk Marketing Board] – he was battery powered, had flashing eyes and could actually rise to his feet in protest when somebody criticised excessive milk subsidies.”
The success of the line led to a fresh wave of figures in 1983, including the sprawling St Peter Port North Playset (which retailed at an eye-watering £14.99) and the mail-order only Hustings diorama.
The must-have toy of 1985, meanwhile, was the President of the Advisory and Finance Committee, Deputy Eric Leale, who came with lifelike hair and realistic frowning action, as well as a note-passing mode that was considered revolutionary at the time.”
The article goes on to report this – which I especially liked:
“The 2¼ inch Deputy Gollop figure, meanwhile, remains a bestseller. “Every toy range needs a quirky, non-threatening character,” says Mr Aitch. “Thundercats had Snarf, MASK had T-Bob, He-Man has Orko – and Mighty Debatin’ States Members has Deputy Gollop.””
All I can think of saying right now - to our odd-toed ungulate cousins on the neighboring rock - is that no matter how bad it feels - our lot are worse.
Stuart
hahaha, "ungulate" !!!
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Health%20and%20wellbeing/R%20Children%20and%20Young%20People%20Strategic%20Framework%20Consultation%2020101215%20MC.pd
Very interesting!
Rico, I agrre with you. I don't believe there was any malice in Dan Wimberley signing Southern's nomination. He may have been naive in doing so but apart from that as you say what has he done other than be supportive of our cause?
Stuart I know you and I will never agree about this because we have talked long enough about it and we can agree to disagree. I have known Daniel Wimberley most of his life and I believe him to be a man of intellect and integrity. He is generally well thought of and I believe he is willing to help the survivors in any way he can. He keeps himself informed and works very hard in a quiet unobtrusive way.
As for his father Charles Wimberley (not called Herbert)I knew him well too and there is no mystery surrounding his whereabouts. he retired from the post of Director of Education some time on the 70's I believe and lived in St Mary's with his family until he died. He was an intellectual man and I believed he was a man of high principles. Daniel was a child at that time and I was too young to know him or to make any real assessment of his personality. I have no idea whether he knew what was going on in HDLG when I was there ir after I left. I never saw him at HDLG although he does appear in the famous sheep photo with the children.
Whether he knew what was going on or not this does not in any way reflect on his son. Stuart you have often said on here we should not spread guilt by association.
However you feel about what happened in the election Stuart I feel sure that Daniel Wimberley will be re-elected and maybe it is time to accept that his motives are genuine even if he made this one grave oversight?
Lorna
X
Anyone know the real story as to why Dr Geller is 'retiring'?
I'm sorry Lorna, I don't agree.
Wimberley is - as you say - an intelligent man.
As a supposed "progressive" - and someone who is "supposedly" on the right side - you simply do not do something as manifestly insane - as stupid - as ridiculous - as support Geoff Southern - against me - in a by-election I had to cause in order to try and bring fundamental matters of the illegal concealment of child abuse and of corruption - to the Jersey public.
Any politician genuinely on our side would have needed but a femtosecond upon being asked - to laugh in Southern's face; indeed - the only sensible action would have been far stronger - not only not support, but tell him plainly you will oppose him.
Wimberley knew exactly what he was doing.
He knew it exactly.
It was no "accident".
But if that doesn't convince you - about him - and most of the rest of the fake plastic progressives - just look at their overall performance in these matters - then ask yourself - 'what have they done?'
'Have any of them taken any of the obvious steps - that would have been taken by an opposition grouping in any respectable democracy under these circumstances?'
NO. They haven't.
We have a situation in which a collection of corrupt civil servants - engineered the dismissal of a Social Services Minister - because the Minster discovered they were concealing child protection failures.
That is a complete breakdown in representative democracy - the rule of law - and of child welfare.
Where has been the letter signed by 15 of them to the UK justice Secretary?
Opposition politicians get subjected to an illegal massed police raid - search without a search warrant - parliamentary privileged data gets take by the police - false imprisonment - Stalinistic show-trials - in which the opposition politician - who was fighting for child protection - gets denied due process, isn't' allowed to adduce evidence - or call his witnesses.
Again - nothing less than the full collapse of democracy and the rule of law - and a lurch into straightforward gangster criminality by Jersey's ruling oligarchy.
Why have the so-called progressives not demanded a meeting with the UK Justice Secretary, and gone en mass - to London to demand intervention?
They haven't - because they are shallow, self-interested, weak, venal - anything for a quite life - spineless and pathetic - more interested in their £44 K careers - than doing what is right for the great mass of ordinary people in Jersey.
Oh sure - they ask a few questions occasionally; got keep up appearances, yes?
But anything serious? Anything just a bit "dangerous"?
Nothing.
They are like the Mighty Debatin States Members” toy-range referred to above:
"Some of them, such as members of the ‘Backbench Brigade’ sub-set (all of whom retailed at a low price point), were utterly indistinguishable from one another, being little more than plastic sticks with dots for eyes."
“The 2¼ inch Deputy Gollop figure, meanwhile, remains a bestseller. “Every toy range needs a quirky, non-threatening character,” says Mr Aitch. “Thundercats had Snarf, MASK had T-Bob, He-Man has Orko – and Mighty Debatin’ States Members has Deputy Gollop.””
"Quirky" - but "non-threatening".
That summarises our fake plastic progressives.
Stuart
Stuart - on the subject of Daniel Wimberley I have to say I agree with Rico and Lorna on this issue.
Firstly as Lorna says, guilt by association is most unfair, and I remember this happened to Monty when it was made known that his mother had worked at Haut de la Garenne.
I do not think that at this particular moment in time we are in a position to be criticising the very people who are going to support the forthcoming proposition and indeed have been supportive throughout all this and the Power/Harper affair too.
Realistically, none of us can hold our hands up and say we have never made an error of judgement or a mistake. Human nature I'm afraid.
Jill
Montfort Tadier is - if anything - worse than Wimberley.
He has never been anything other than a fifth-columnist.
Did you know he's friends with Phil Ozouf?
Stuart
Dep. Tadier never supported Stuart when he needed him the most as it was all hot air and nothing else. Just like all these back stabbing progressives they never fully committed to the end.
Stuart, I agree with rico about DW
...
Actually you also thought highly of him ... I quote from your blog posting oct 2009:
‘4: Daniel Wimberley.
Daniel has a proven track-record of selfless and committed work for social justice and environmental issues. Very intelligent – a person who makes sure to be well-informed before coming to conclusions.
As remarked in my previous blog post – Daniel absolutely nailed the attempts of the Jersey Establishment Party to spin and con the public with the so-called “Imagine Jersey” event. In a devastating and concise (I must ask him for lessons) letter, he exposed the exercise for the attempted example of “opinion-management” that it was.
Not one of the very expensive spin-doctors or civil servants would answer Daniel’s critique when I sent it to them. They knew they’d been exposed.
Daniel – as is true of all the candidates I’m voting for – will perform as advertised. Just how many more times do we allow ourselves to be conned at election time with the same old lies from the Jersey establishment? They treat the public with utter contempt – completely disregarding their election promises once in. ‘
Stuart - I know where you are coming from, and this is why you maintain the support of many people, myself, Lorna and Rico included.
It is very true that a lot of our politicians are 'lily-livered', but not everybody has the stoicism, resolve and courage that you have shown.
However, I still maintain that this is not the time to divide, indeed unity is far more important IF we can achieve it from those who have shown support, however weak.
Yep - we all make mistakes.
And that was one of mine.
Really - I so should have known better.
Several different factors made me realise being in politics in jersey was futile; a fool's task.
One of those was Jersey's mainstream media. It is - essentially - state media - with the power of patronage. If you're in politics - you please - or at least don't threaten - the Jersey oligarchy bosses - and their media will be nice to you.
Do anything serious - and you will forever be trashed by the oligarchy media.
Most States members see that - and are running-scared of people like The Rag Rapist.
The other factor - was coming to that hard realisation - that 98% of politicians are just a collection shallow, venal, jealous, posturing wankers - who would rather do down a colleague - than bare to see them succeed in anything.
Especially those who are supposed to be on the 'right side'.
Do you want to know what the major concern was amongst most of the fake plastic progressives during the by-election?
They actually didn't want me to win - "because it was just an ego-trip".
That is the calibre of the collection posturing, bitching non-entities that you place so much faith in.
Serious politics is not possible in Jersey.
Stuart
Its also got to be remembered that Trevor Pitman and the other members of the JDA at the time of, (realistically) your bi-election, could have done a lot more to stop Southern and Wimberley daring to put him in against you.
If they had had any idea of your real motives and believed in what you were doing was right, they should have resigned from the JDA before the bi-election rather than after.
For these reasons you will find that these ex-JDA members credability has gone down hill recently.
And as for Southern....?!
So it's ok for you to make a mistake ... here's another one ...
you said of geoff southern:
'7: Geoff Southern.
Geoff has certain strengths – strengths which also happen to be in short supply in the assembly. Namely ability to research matters on a detailed basis – and produce cogent, well-reasoned propositions, amendments, questions and arguments.
He also has a strong social conscience – having constantly and reliably fought for the interests of pensioners and the less-well off in our society. He is politically reliable – what you see is what you get. He will stick to his election pledges.
He is also regarded as a deep irritant to the powers-that-be in the States – who do not like having to deal with his well-researched arguments.'
Or, did you not know at the time of his alleged improper conduct with school girls
Jill hun, there is more chance of Hades freezing over than there is of Senator Le Gresley and Co winning any concessions to do with the Comittee Of Inquiry, and/or it's inception. Yet, I shall still be supporting it for the obvious reason that is unity.
Though I know, it is simply not going to happen!
For the Oligarchy to give way on this one, is nothing less than to sign their own death warrants....
Stuart, the entire SOJ are IMHO an absolute bloody shower.
We are talking at the moment about an incredibly weak proposition to beg Le Sueur and Ozouf to change their minds about having an inquiry into the whole Historic Child Abuse investigation, which they won't.
In the meantime Ozouf will be laughing his pink socks off that everyone has forgotten about his reneged GST promise.
On the back of all this we have another Le Marquand miracle coming up when senator Farnham will be voted top of the poll at the next election.
Please tell me one states member that is really concerned and going to do something about this disaster that we call the SOJ.
OMG please save us!!!
Its not the case of Le Sueur and Ozouf being begged to change their minds. Its the case of a majority of at least 27 to change their minds. Especially in this election year climate.
Possible surely?
Stuart.
Is Social Networking our only hope.?
As I've remarked before - all talk of an inquiry - and of the proposition asking Ozouf and Le Sueur to change their minds - is largely an irrelevance and a diversion.
A proposition simply seeking the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry is what is needed - but - crucially - it must satisfy three precedent conditions to be of any credibility:
1: The correct and fully enabling terms of reference.
2: The necessary powers to subpoena witnesses, gather evince and cross-examine under oath.
3: The correct membership: no patsies of the Jersey oligarchs.
If those conditions are not met - then the exercise is just going to be another level in the big cover-up.
Indeed - it isn't difficult to see that taking form now - with various people suggesting that there needs to be an inquiry "to examine the performance of the police".
It's all quite obvious what's going on.
But, if people are too naive to see it - there's nothing to be done.
The government you deserve.
Stuart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB8XDk3sQBc
"If those conditions are not met - then the exercise is just going to be another level in the big cover-up.
Indeed - it isn't difficult to see that taking form now - with various people suggesting that there needs to be an inquiry "to examine the performance of the police". "
I wonder if Lord Hutton has a space in his diary?
Hosni Mubarak used the 18 days it took for protesters to topple him to shift his vast wealth into untraceable accounts overseas, Western intelligence sources have said.
Stuart
Who do you suggest we vote for next election? It is very difficult to find one candidate that is 100% "clean". At least GS works hard. You use to support him if I remember. I did not vote for him at the last election but what will I do next time? I do not know. It will depend of who is on the list of candidates. The choice is very limiting. What GS did was very bad but not illegal. Still very immoral!
are there any of our current crop of politicians who would/do give you their support.
Are any sitting on the fence not willing to commit until they are certain which side is going to win
Regarding your bi-election.Were you expecting no one to stand against you or did you want it contested? Do you regard all your challengers as enemies because they had the audacity to stand against you.
Hi Stuart
1: The correct and fully enabling terms of reference.
2: The necessary powers to subpoena witnesses, gather evince and cross-examine under oath.
3: The correct membership: no patsies of the Jersey oligarchs.
Deputy Hill has put in an amendment to the proposition that should tighten it up a bit. Lets see what it contains. I fully agree with the above and any CoE must contain those 3 points
rs
Was I expecting no one to stand against me?
No, not for one moment. The Jersey oligarchy were obviously going to run some candidates.
It was also entirely reasonable to expect some non-oligarchy, none-States members to run - to generate some profile for themselves.
What was not reasonable - what displayed naked self-interested opportunism - or worse - was for a current, sitting States member - who was supposedly on the progressive side - to run against a person who had caused the by-election for reasons of principle - in order to fight for the interest of vulnerable people.
Especially when the sitting States member in question insisted on retaining their existing seat.
And - even worse - when the sitting States member in question - and his stooges like Ted Vibert and the Pitmans - actually make the entire focus of their election campaigns - attacks against me.
If you think for one instant - those people - and those who supported them, like Wimberley - are truly on the side of ordinary people - then you do indeed have the government you deserve.
Stuart
Deputy T Pitman & Deputy Wimberley.
Explain yourselves.
If you can!?
Deputy T Pitman & Deputy Wimberley.
Explain yourselves.
If you can!?
Stuart the troll sent that in to stir things up. Do not feed him. He has already been on VFC
Thanks
I was researching for the P19 committee of inquiry debate, read Lenny's piece. Very very useful to have a lot of the necessary info about the investigation in one place. So thanks to Lenny for taking yet more time to set all this out again.
Then I read the comments, as I often do.
Then came across the stuff about me and signing Geoff's nomination paper.
Rico hit nail on head. The cock-up theory of politics (or any human endeavour I guess) is sometimes right. "Here will you sign this?" "Oh yes" Just didn't think.
I am pretty sure that I apologised to Stuart at the time. If I didn't I apologise now.
Not like me not to think? Gottit in one. I did not campaign ("support Geoff") , did nothing except go to two hustings. iirc
Asked a question on green economics or similar at St. Mary and only Stuart gave a remotely credible answer, as I thought would be the case.
Maybe Stuart never makes mistakes. I did on this occasion, and no doubt others. "It was no accident" (that I signed Geoff's paper) he says, implying some deeply-thought out political gambit.
As others have said it is BARMY to waste time, effort, energy on fighting each other, when so much more is at stake.
Stuart did indeed write those positive comments in 2009 was it? about Geoff and me, and both are pretty perceptive.
But Geoff and Stuart are now "enemies." Stuart and Trevor are now "enemies" too. I suppose Daniel and Stuart must be as well.
Do you think the others are pecking at each other like this?
WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 2008
ANOTHER LAST - EVEN MORE DESPERATE - THROW OF THE DICE?
CHILD ABUSE: IS THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT TRYING TO SABOTAGE PROSECUTIONS?
This blog posting would be a very topical one to reproduce
Daniel Wimberley said...
etc . Yep I can see where you're coming from on that because I have been and continue to be in a parallel situation. In fact I remember Dick Shenton supporting Paul Le Claire at a hustings in the past.
What I get is bemused comments from 'establishment lackeys' Why?,,, and its pointless to explain because they can't hear the argument content.
What has been exposed in this exercise is not the blind enemization (if thats a word but it conveys the feeling) but a second level of cronyism that I was not aware of.
There are a body of 'worthies' who are dragged out to provide behind the scenes 'value for money in (as just one of many examples) hospital services' 'advice' for instance. Remarkably these often work for accountancy firms or Guiton related businesses. In reality they have more in common with the 'Committee for Public Safety' ( historical allusion for the 50 cent army reading this).
It is this diffuse body of unaccountable but influential people that would benefit from exposure in some way.
And thinking of exposure , there is one name that comes up more than most 'Sausageman'.
support the truth
"Do you think the others are pecking at each other like this?"
It makes me think of a story that Jesus told, about some workers in a vineyard. They all clocked on at different times in the day, all agreeing with the owner of the vineyard to work for a set rate, a good rate of pay. At the end of the day, when they all got their wages, the ones who had been working all day were annoyed to see the ones who had clocked on later getting the same wages. But the vineyard owner gently remonstrated with them, and explained that they ought not be peeved at his generosity.
Some of us have been toiling away at trying to expose political corruption for many decades. We should put away any hard feelings we may harbour about people who have only recently begun to pluck up courage to join our voices, and welcome them with open arms. We have to forgive people who may have let us down in the past by keeping their mouths shut when they ought to have said something. We have to be glad that people who previously sat on the fence are getting down and wanting to join us, and refuse to hold any grudges in our hearts. Thats what I think, anyway, others might disagree.
Well done to Daniel. I don't know him but he seems to me to be a thoroughly decent and highly intelligent human being.
I use "human being" for, just like all the rest of us, all human beings are fallible. We make mistakes and errors of judgement. If we didn't, we would never learn anything and would just go on thinking we are right all the time.
I look forward to Daniel's further contribution to this most important debate.
Some "mistakes" are not forgivable.
I, and a lot of readers of this site, know that.
Stuart
Deputy Wimberley has at least come on here and tried to explain himself.
But can Deputy T Pitman find the same courage?
"Some "mistakes" are not forgivable."
Stuart, I think you are the best man I ever met, and you know I think the world of you. You are a bright shining beacon for all of us who were abused in the Pindown children's homes. I have never met anyone as valiant and honorable as you.
As far as I can see, there is only one transgression that is unforgivable, and I may be wrong but I think that these ones who were sitting on the fence have so far not committed it. Remember, to sin is human, to forgive is divine.
But I think we need as many people as possible to help no matter how big or small their contribution is, or wether they were sitting on the fence before, because, until the people who committed those foul crimes are collered and convicted, they will carry on persecuting their victims, and also commit fresh crimes against vulnerable children.
Stuart
Sorry to go briefly off topic, but I have just read Barry Turner's book on the occupation. I have had the temerity to submit a review to Amazon which I did not think they would put up as I have referred to the current administration's illegal harassment of yourself. I wonder if it will stay up?
Hope I have been fair. The book is certainly a good read.
Pól
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R171VUWT9DYSHK/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1845135121&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=
maybe Stuart knows something that we dont, but it seems to me that a public apology is a genuine apology
Has this whole business made you totally hard hearted and inflexible Stuart. I hope not.
Mere apologies are rarely ever enough.
If they were - why would we need a criminal justice system that involved punishment? Criminals would only need to "apologise" to their victims.
One thing I am not, is hard "hearted".
On the contrary - I'm one of the most empathetic people I'm aware of.
But, most certainly, I am tough - and implacable.
So strong and remorseless - that the Jersey oligarchy would do well to be very scared of me - if they're not already.
Because I am going to do every single legal thing I possible can to expose their criminality and clean it up.
And no power on Earth - short of assassination - is going to stop me.
No retreat - no surrender.
Stuart
Well, what do you know?
The fake plastic progressives have copied me in on an e-mail - in which they're discussing the oh so radical step of debating the HDLG issues - at least eighteen months too late.
Here is my reply to them:
"Quite why you collection of clowns have copied me in on this, I'm really not sure - but as you have done - let me give you a clue, as to what the real target - the real issue is here.
When you sit in the assembly - you will be chaired by either Michael Birt - or William Bailhache.
Take a good long look at those two men.
They are criminals.
Misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Both men represent precisely the kind of overtly politicised abuse and perversion of the prosecution system that is at the heart of the gross failure of effective checks and balances - the very rule of law in Jersey.
Jersey is a gangster regime - and for as long as you sit in that assembly - when it is chaired by two men who repeatedly engaged in the politicised decisions not to prosecute child abusers - and the concealers of child abuse - then you are a part of the problem.
A thousand and one of the kind of debates you propose will alter nothing."
You know - it never ceases to amaze me - just how people can find the most convoluted of ways - to simply ignore the inconvenient - stark - obvious - facts.
Stuart
I've never met you Stuart,nor Wimbers,Monty et al,so i don't know any of you,but what i do know, from 30 years of watching and listening to local politics,is that you have always put the people of this island first.
You have consistantly tried to expose the dark heart and naked self interest of authority on this rock.
It is ironic that your blog will have more impact than 20 years in the house
keep strong
many thanks
Good for you Dan. You didn't have to come on here and say what you did. I know from talking to you in September that you have a high regard for Stuart.It is sad that this one incident has caused him to so drastically change his opinion of you. You have tried to meet him half way - can't do more than that.
I have written on here about this and spoken to Stuart directly about it too but he will not budge. Shame because I like both of you very much!
Whatever happens I know that you will continue to support us survivors in whatever way you can.
Lorna
X
Stuart does not come across to me as hard hearted.
He does come over as determined honest and I think it works for him that he has nothing to lose.
100% support your actions Stuart.
Wish we had more of your ilk.
Here is the mighty proposition:
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −
to request the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to reconsider their decision that a Committee of Inquiry to investigate any issues which remain unresolved in relation to historical abuse in the Island would not be appropriate.
I have another one:
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −
that the states of Jersey assembly, its officers and judiciary are incapable of governing or protecting the island of Jersey, that the rule of law in Jersey has collapsed and they have no confidence in themselves to care for and administer to the needs of the people of the island of Jersey.
That they agree to request the Queen to suspend the States of Jersey and appoint a governor to take charge while a constitution for the benefit of the people of the island of Jersey is written and a general election held within two years.
Wimberley made a mistake signing Soouthern's nomination papers. Possibly. Southern certainly would have thought about who to ask. He would have been very well aware of the divisive effect of getting Wimberley to sign. No mistake there for sure.
I don't want followers.
I want other people to start taking the lead.
Stuart
Sorry, the comment above was made in response to a comment that appeared under the previous posting.
Stuart
How right you are Stuart. All the facts are out there on the Internet and all we need to do is look.
For Example:
The JEP editorial today tells everyone about some of Jersey's greatest politicians who are now speaking out against the changes in Senator numbers.
The JEP would have us believe that all of the politicians mentioned below were Jersey's finest:
DISHONEST POLITICIANS BY THE BARREL-LOAD
Advocate Sinel then discusses "The sale of political influence in Jersey", explains how the electoral system works, and exposes the common practice of lay politicians sitting on the boards of the very banks they are supposed to be regulating. He named some of the worst offenders as Senator Reg Jeune (former senior partner of Cantrade's law firm), a member of the FEC; Senator F. Walker, controller of the island's only newspaper, and a director of Barclays Bank while being President of the FEC; Senator R.J. Shenton, a stevedor, whose influence helped the currency fraudster Young to enter Jersey; and Senator Pierre Horsfall, an hotelier, who was head of the FEC in 1994 when it refused to investigate Cantrade Bank; Horsfall never disclosed that he had been a director of Cantrade Bank during the first 3 years of the Cantrade Fraud, or that he was granted a substantial mortgage by the bank.
Jersey's finest indeed.
That comment - about "Jersey;s finest":
'DISHONEST POLITICIANS BY THE BARREL-LOAD'
Oh - if only you knew just how topical all of those scandalous examples of criminality are!
Really - quite an amazing co-incidence.
"The rule of law" - in Jersey - about to be subjected to a very - very - close examination.
Oh these people are going to so rue the day - they really are.
They need to be afraid.
Very afraid.
Stuart
Stuart,you are right about 98% of politicians in Jersey and I won't repeat what you said about them.They are just playing at it to extract 44k from the taxpayer.Serious politics is never going to happen here.Offering more money to attract brighter candidates is a good idea,but at the end of the day due to the apathy of voters we could end up paying more money to the incompetents.Camelia.
A reader says:
"Here is the mighty proposition:
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −
to request the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to reconsider their decision that a Committee of Inquiry to investigate any issues which remain unresolved in relation to historical abuse in the Island would not be appropriate.
I have another one:
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −
that the states of Jersey assembly, its officers and judiciary are incapable of governing or protecting the island of Jersey, that the rule of law in Jersey has collapsed and they have no confidence in themselves to care for and administer to the needs of the people of the island of Jersey.
That they agree to request the Queen to suspend the States of Jersey and appoint a governor to take charge while a constitution for the benefit of the people of the island of Jersey is written and a general election held within two years."
Yep.
There you go.
The situation this community faces is as simple - and as clear-cut - as that.
A casual reader of this blog can see just what the score is.
So why - after all these years - can't any of our soi disant 'opposition'?
Stuart.
Stuart said
"When you sit in the assembly - you will be chaired by either Michael Birt - or William Bailhache.
Take a good long look at those two men.
They are criminals.
Misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Both men represent precisely the kind of overtly politicised abuse and perversion of the prosecution system that is at the heart of the gross failure of effective checks and balances - the very rule of law in Jersey.
Jersey is a gangster regime - and for as long as you sit in that assembly - when it is chaired by two men who repeatedly engaged in the politicised decisions not to prosecute child abusers - and the concealers of child abuse - then you are a part of the problem.
A thousand and one of the kind of debates you propose will alter nothing."
That's the one Stuart, how much more plainly can it be asserted?the same horse shit I have received in letters of denial over the last few months! the years, and over two decades....
The Bailhaches and Birts of this world are the puss and grime that oozes through the veins of a festering Jersey.
And more than anywhere on earth that purports to be a democracy, we need some very strong domestos!!!
FOSSIL RESIN
FORMER Housing Minister Terry Le Main says he will stand for re-election for his old job next week – if the police conclude an investigation into alleged corruption during his previous stint in charge.
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/02/11/former-housing-minister-may-try-to-get-his-job-back/
The important part of this small article, confirms indeed that the police are looking into corruption,regarding Terry Le main, with a new police chief giving the leading detectives orders.
If there was ever a time for the new police chief to take charge it is now. Imagine one of two scenarios.
Police chief resigns after six months for personal reasons, and its nothing to do with the AG refusing to prosecute a long term establishment team player.
The second senario, a Jersey politician is charged with corruption.
Which do you think it more likely to happen ?
Anonymous.
"A thousand and one of the kind of debates you propose will alter nothing."
So how do you get a Committee of Enquiry?
By proposing a Committee of Inquiry.
As opposed to just carrying on talking about the issues - and debating extraordinarily lame propositions that do little more than beg Ozouf and Le Sueur to please think about it again.
Stuart
A reader says:
"The important part of this small article, confirms indeed that the police are looking into corruption,regarding Terry Le main, with a new police chief giving the leading detectives orders.
If there was ever a time for the new police chief to take charge it is now. Imagine one of two scenarios.
Police chief resigns after six months for personal reasons, and its nothing to do with the AG refusing to prosecute a long term establishment team player.
The second scenario, a Jersey politician is charged with corruption.
Which do you think it more likely to happen?"
There is a third scenario - which is that the new police chief adapts to "The Jersey Way" - and settles in for a cosy life - does the bidding of the oligarchy - and goes along without any action being taken against these old Jersey gangsters. Basically - taking policing back into the bad old days, before Graham Power arrived on the scene.
However - if the new police chief adopts that attitude, and instead of becoming the new Graham Power - becomes the new Dave Weirdcop - then he'll be committing criminal offences.
He will become a party to various conspiracies to pervert the course of justice - and he will be committing misconduct in a public office - rather like warcup.
So to re-cast the reader's question - which of those three scenarios do we think is more likely?
Given that the days of going along with corruption and getting away with it are now over - I'd suggest the new police chief will end up leaving.
I think the most implausible scenario is the extensive network of gangsters - not just Tel Boy - being prosecuted.
I mean - come along - these people have been doing this for decades - metaphorically, they know where the bodies are buried; just imagine how much dirt they have on so many people - and on 'the system' itself.
These people won't be arrested prosecuted and jailed - until London faces up to its responsibilities.
Stuart
Why don't you just admit that you miss being in Jersey Politics?
DEPUTY Andrew Green has been elected as the new Housing Minister.
A vast improvement on the previous incumbents.
Stuart
Andrew Green better ! Can we class that as a compliment of a local politician. :):)
Not all Jersey politicians are crooks.
The problem is though, that most of them are weak, not terribly well-informed concerning the harsh realities that face this community, and far, far too easily led by the nose by the dominant claque who are crooks.
That's why I do not miss politics. It's a futile exercise.
People will not wake up to just how atrociously and disastrously led this community has been these last four decades until - there are 5000 of them in unemployment lines - and the States are defaulting upon all of the unsustainable and unmeetable pension obligations.
By which time, of course, it will all be too late. Hell - it's too late now.
So whilst there are some honest and well-intentioned States members - their great failing - over the years - has been to be in thrall to the claque of gangsters who have always dominated.
They exhibit unquestioning deference and respect to a grouping of so-called "Elder Statesmen" who - the truth be known, should be in jail.
Stuart
The problem is though, that most of them are weak, not terribly well-informed concerning the harsh realities that face this community, and far, far too easily led by the nose by the dominant claque who are crooks.
Quite, putting nonentities in office keeps power in the hands of the suits as in England.
Sean Power robbed data and should be sacked from the states and today gets put on a scrutiny committtee that handles sensitive commercial data. You are right. This madness has no bounds its brilliant and tragic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/15/condemns-naked-short-selling-not-treasury
read last few paragraphs could be describing Jersey
A reader says:
"Sean Power robbed data and should be sacked from the states and today gets put on a scrutiny committee that handles sensitive commercial data. You are right. This madness has no bounds its brilliant and tragic."
Yes; great, isn't it?
Here's a little taster from my forthcoming appeal / judicial review application:
"Perhaps the most illegal aspect of Jersey’s prosecution system is its susceptibility to political influence – covert and overt – conscious and unconscious.
Indeed, to describe the prosecution system of Jersey as being ‘susceptible to political influence’ does not go far enough. It is actually a part of the political realm and apparatus.
If a person commits some crime – but the person happens to be well-connected with the Jersey oligarchy, perhaps even be a part of it themselves – or they are seen as an ally of the Jersey establishment – or they fulfil some useful role for the power-apparatus – or they know damaging information about people in authority – there is a strong possibility they will not be charged and prosecuted.
If – on the other hand – a person has no such connections or ‘value’ to the Jersey oligarchy – and – especially if they have been irritating or problematic in some way to the Jersey authorities – then they will be pro-actively investigated and ruthlessly prosecuted for the most trivial misdemeanour if nothing more serious could be discovered or manufactured.
Effectively, criminal law enforcement is the foundation of the corruption of power in Jersey; its use is the largess, the patronage, the gift that those who seek the favour of the island’s oligarchy hope to win – like courtiers in some feudal realm – and it is the weapon by which enemies of the ‘court’ – or the enemies of the ‘court’s’ allies – are crushed."
The more examples the Jersey oligarchy churn-out - of the overtly corrupt protection of obvious criminals, the better.
After the introductory quote above - I'm then describing a detailed list of examples of the criminal protection of a number of criminal acts - and citing the relevant national and international case-law as to why such conduct is ultra-vires. I'm then concluding with this:
"It is evident that direct, political intervention into the field of law-enforcement – through policing - and prosecution – and judicial – decisions, is a routine feature of the established, ingrained ‘culture’ of public authority in Jersey.
The improper and illegal use of “the law” by political or quasi-political patrons in Jersey – to either protect their vassals or clients from the law, or to abuse it against the patron’s enemies, is the last remaining example feudal, corrupt patronage to be found in Europe."
Stuart.
Yup...funny you should mention that Stuart, I was just reading this little lotHORSFALL v. SINEL and SINEL AND MELIA (practising as PHILIP SINEL AND COMPANY) and I'm wondering, what did they do to Sinel or did he survive somehow? Horsfall sure as hell managed to wriggle out of the crap he was in.
Hey! - what an amazing co-incidence.
Why, I've just recently been reviewing that whole episode too.
Great minds think alike.
Next you'll be telling us you've been examining the entire criminal LLP law racket?
Stuart
Re: Hey! - what an amazing co-incidence.
Probably not Stuart, I'm just trying to get to grips with what you're doing...at it ain't easy...but like you I think it's the only way...trouble is though as much as I might be able to educate myself, at the end of the day there isn't much else I can do but offer you my support...which you have had for 20 odd years BTW :)
Posted on the Comic on line Editorial .To get through censorship one seemingly has to use big words (preferably non-English) and a token non-criticism.
They wouldn't have printed the sub-text phrases !
'There is no doubt that the removal of these senators is a retrograde step in Jersey democracy. Most observers would agree that that is the case and how current members could have voted for it is a ‘blessed mystery’ to me for certain.
What is even more bizarre is the emergence from the woodwork of ‘elder statesmen’ to support the reversal of this issue and their ‘white knight’ who takes on their mantle.
Dick Shenton was not ‘immaculata’ but at least his heart if not his head was always beyond reproach.
The others give me serious issues. The clear , (now in historical review) subordination of the Assembly for a client , in the LLP issue and that , far from being the saviour of the finance industry has turned out to be a damper squib than Terrys Rockets. Then the UBS Cantrade issue that any internet search turns up the grossly unsavoury background in technicolour detail (on both of them!).
How these, now ‘eminence gris’ have the affrontery to pronounce on ‘democracy’, beggars belief.With reference to the past one must treat their intervention with a very long spoon indeed.'
Dear Mr Syvret,
While you are writing about strange goings on in Jersey, there is truth in stakeholders, ie islanders, being disenfranchised not only from money taken from the treasury's coffers, but also land signed away for 150 years, to tiers of companies who's share holders are made invisible by Jersey Company law. Notice the cost of the pool was covered by the island and an audit of its accounts by Government, is not allowed as it is being run by a private company, who never the less, are accepting a considerable yearly grant.
Some might think this a very strange way to conduct business.
1.2 DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING LEASES SIGNED BY WEB FOR LEISURE FACILITIES ON THE WATERFRONT:
Question
Are there break clauses in relation to the leases signed by the Waterfront Enterprise Board for the swimming pool and leisure facilities on the Waterfront and, if so, what are they?
When do they become available to break and how would the States break these leases prior to the end of the 150 year initial lease agreements debated in the States?
The States of Jersey approved the 150 year lease of the leisure complex site from the Public of Jersey to CTP (Jersey) Limited on 27th July 1999 (P92/1999).
Answer by CM Terry Le Suer.
The Public of Jersey entered a Development Agreement with CTP (Jersey) Limited on 11th August 2000 for the development of the leisure complex and new public swimming pool.
CTP received a capital subsidy of £10.9million from the States of Jersey to cover the construction costs of the swimming pool.
On completion of the swimming pool, the site was leased back to the Public for the remaining term of the head lease (c. 148 years).
On 29th November 2002 CTP provided formal notice of its intention to sell the completed leisure complex development. In accordance with the Overage Agreement, the States of Jersey had the opportunity to negotiate the purchase. On 9th December 2003 the States of Jersey approved P.172/2003 and agreed not to negotiate to purchase
CTP’s leasehold interest (i.e. the completed leisure complex).
CTP (Jersey) Limited subsequently disposed of its interest to Axa Sunlife Plc that is now the Landlord of the site.
The Public of Jersey do not have the ability to break the long term leasehold interest and under the terms of the leaseback must only use the site as a leisure pool and competition pool with ancillary facilities.
The Public does not pay any rent for the swimming pool site. The Public receives an annual financial contribution from the Landlord of £93,000 (indexed annually). In 2008 the contribution amounted to £101,624.
Hansard.
www.statesassembly.gov.je/frame.asp
JEP.
TAXPAYERS’ money is being poured into the loss-making Waterfront swimming pool at the astonishing rate of almost £1,250 per day.
The States’ annual report and accounts have revealed that the 2009 subsidy to the pool, run by UK company Serco, totalled £455,866.
www.thisisjersey.com/2010/06/19/1250-a-day/
Anonymous
Here is the very appropriately titled CANTRADE: THE SCANDAL THAT WON'T GO AWAY
Oh, and this one too THE UGLY FACE OF CORRUPTION BY AN ELITE BAND OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN JERSEY IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL.
My, my - there must be a certain topicality about these issues; I've been researching them myself.
Perhaps an anti-racketeering meme is spreading through society?
Zombie-scandals - back from the grave - to haunt and feast upon the Jersey oligarchs.
Stuart
Stuart,
Pierre Horsefall while being paid as the chairman of WEB also kept himself busy as a paid consultant for Dandara.
No conflict there then.
The Jersey Way.
Anonymous.
Plausibility Pierre.
One those "Towering-Elder-Statesmen" that the Jersey public love so much.
The government you deserve.
Stuart
Health Chief exec on £300k,
Eric Pickles MP (uk) has it right anything over £100k has to be voted in.
Minister Pryke, as an ex nurse you should be embarassed at a pay scale like this how many nurses could you employ for that figure?
We know you're busy working on your court-case, but as you're reposting stuff from the archive, why not do another old one now?
Good idea.
I have quite a few suggestions.
I'll sort something out later.
Stuart
Could you re post the Tom Mackean and Mario Lundy Pinball Wizard one?
"Zombie-scandals - back from the grave - to haunt and feast upon the Jersey oligarchs"
Brilliant, is this the sequel?
It sure is.
And in this episode - the oligarchs get eaten by their own foul creations.
Stuart
In the Horsfall v Sinel link above, it is interesting to see a reference to Mr. Le Main using his might as a deputy to threaten a tow truck operator.
Hi Stuart, could you just clarify something for me as I have gotten confused about your court cases.
What is your next court appearance regarding, is it data protection offence or is it the judicial review? When are you next up against the regime and glorious leaders?
You probably have spelled it out already but just for a simpleminded bean could you put it in a sentance or two that I can refer to. Sorry to be a pain.
Thanks.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/cameron-and-clegg-clash-over-how-to-elect-greedy%2c-incompetent-freaks-201102183555/
Taxi for Ogley - about time too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12507340
Stuart,what has happened to Thursday's Blog?It has skipped from Wed to Fri.Have you been taken to task again?Camelia.
Camelia
I think you must be looking at the wrong posting.
Your comment above is not submitted under the most recent article.
I didn't put up a posting on Thursday.
Stuart
morag and tony jordon were never in charge at h de la g. and montford tadier,s mother was a cleaner there. i can also tell you that morag was a vicious b.... and yes i have spoken to the police at lenght re h de la g
Stuart,I always try to keep up.I would have noticed if you had'nt posted between Wed and Fri.Thursday's post as I recall was to do with with the A.G.Enough said!Camelia.
Post a Comment