Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Mario Lundy Named by Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.





Not for the first time the former Director of Education, Mario Lundy, has been named in an investigation into Child Abuse, this time by evidence given to the ongoing JERSEY CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY. (COI)

Back in February 2009, after going through all the correct channels (and coming up against a brick wall) in order to get some answers I was forced into door-stepping Mr. Lundy (video below) the then Chief Executive Officer at Education. 

At that time, (2008) the then Senator Stuart Syvret, had named Mr. Lundy in the Island's Parliament as an alleged abuser. It was reported by Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) that he (Lundy) was a priority suspect in the Police Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) and a "Notice of Disclosure" was sent to the then Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS among others yet Mr. Lundy was not removed from post.

The Island's State Media has reported on the naming of Lundy today  ITV/CTV. BBC State Radio has it as their headline news but can't find it on the BBC's website, or JEP's.

VFC was questioning these allegations, back in 2008/9 and asking why Lundy was not suspended from duty while he was under police investigation.......Questions NOT being asked by the State Media.

Hopefully some six years later questions will be asked (and answers given) as to why Mario Lundy was able to remain in his post as Education CEO while he was being investigated as part of a Child Abuse Investigation. Who decided NOT to suspend him? Will that person(s) be called to explain his/her actions before the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry?

Was he protected by the then Chief Executive Officer of the States Of Jersey Bill (Golden Handshake) Ogley? This extract from the AFFIDAVIT of the former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, might suggest so.

"The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension."

Will Mr. Lundy's alleged Victims/Survivors finally start to get something that resembles Justice and closure? 


Friday, 23 January 2015

Celebrating Democracy Day.......Jersey Style.


After the success of the YISS CAMPAIGN, and by popular demand, Lord Reginald Hamilton Tooting Rawley Jones III returns to our screens in what we hope will become a regular series of political, satirical, commentary.

As the UK celebrated ‘Democracy Day’ this week, to mark 750 years of the first parliament of elected representatives at Westminster, The Jersey Conservative Party showed how it is committed to scaling back democracy, by making sure that it will now be even more difficult to call a ‘requête for a parish Assembly.

Writing opposing the move, brought by the Comité des Connétables P.173/2014, Former Constable and Minister, Mike Jackson criticised the Comité saying: The requête is the ‘little person’s’ opportunity to get their proposition considered and in view of the numbers that generally attend Parish Assemblies, the requirement for 4 signatories seems reasonable but 10 unnecessarily onerous.
Given that there is little to be gained by this proposition please review your support for it as I don’t believe it does the office of Connétable any favours!’

At the same time, the Conservative majority fought off proposals from the opposition – Reform Jersey – to increase the minimum wage by a further 10p an hour, P.175/2014 and to protect workers from unfair dismissal. It will now be possible to dismiss employees P.169/2014 in an unfair way for 12 months, not just six.

In this video, our good friend and local political commentator, Lord Reginald Hamilton Tooting Rawley Jones III praises the success of the Jersey’s Conservative Party, of which he is the proud patron, and calls on Jersey residents to do more to support this government of the rich for the rich.



Monday, 19 January 2015

Stuart Syvret on the #CSAInquiry.







Former Jersey Senator, Whistle blower and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, as reported in The Jersey Evening Post, was recently invited to, attended, and addressed a meeting at the House of Commons organised by The WhiteFlowers Campaign.

We managed to catch up with him, on his return, and in an exclusive interview discuss the over-arching Child Sex Abuse Inquiry slowly being organised in the UK. How does it affect Jersey, can Jersey be a part of it? What does it hope to achieve that the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry won't/can't?

Mr. Syvret argues that the local Child Abuse Inquiry in Jersey is structurally incapable of investigating the break-down in the rule of law in the island and the corruption of power which has facilitated and enabled decades of concealed child abuse here.
He says that not only has the Jersey authorities acted unlawfully by concealing Child Abuse, but that the authorities in London have colluded with, and protected, the Jersey establishment. For that reason, Mr Syvret says that only an inquiry which examines the conduct of Whitehall,  a Britain-wide inquiry, can ensure the protection of children in the ‘Crown Dependencies’ the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Mr. Syvret says there is no difference, in principle, to the UK authorities undertaking their investigation into Child Abuse in the British Overseas Territories, such as St. Helena and the alleged failure of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to prevent it, and the need for the UK authorities to undertake a similar investigation in respect of the Crown Dependencies such as Jersey, and the alleged failure of the Secretary of State for Justice.





Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Leah McGrath Goodman Discusses Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.




A little before Christmas VFC had the opportunity to talk exclusively with US journalist Leah McGrath Goodman concerning Jersey's on-going Child Abuse Inquiry and related matters.

Regular readers will recall Ms Goodman was previously BANNED from the UK, and Jersey, after it became apparent, to the authorities, that she was investigating atrocities committed against children at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere on the Island. After a hard-fought BATTLE her visa was restored, and indeed has recently been renewed.

In the interview (below) Ms Goodman discusses her observations on the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry, thus far, subjects include; the naming (or not) of living suspects including two alleged prolific offenders on the Island who have been named in the "regulated" media but, contrary to the Inquiry's own RULING, are NOT being named by the Inquiry. We discuss the links between the Jersey Child Abuse and that of the UK and how it should form part of the over-arching CSA inquiry being (or not) formed by the UK government/Theresa May.

For those wishing to give evidence to the Inquiry they can do so by making contact with it HERE.

Thursday, 11 December 2014

Statement From Frances Oldham QC.




The Chair of the IJCI, Frances Oldham, has made a statement on the progress of the Inquiry. Mrs Oldham was speaking at the close of hearings this year.

“There will be no further hearings in 2014. But the team will still be working to prepare for next year’s sittings. The next hearing will be on Tuesday the 13th of January, when we will hear more evidence about Haut de la Garenne, followed by evidence from former residents of Jersey’s other care and foster homes.

We will then move to the next stage of the Inquiry and hear evidence from people who worked or were involved with the care system. To date have heard evidence concerning more than 90 former residents. We’ve also heard evidence from a number of expert witnesses. I’d like to thank everyone who has contributed to the work of this Inquiry. We have also been in contact by writing with more than 300 potential witnesses. It is still not too late to get in touch with us. The work to trace and prepare documents spanning seven decades is painstaking but essential, concerning as it does more than 150,000 pages so far. All of this evidence we will consider when deciding what went wrong in Jersey’s care system over so many years and making recommendations to keep children safe in the future."

Thursday, 27 November 2014

Open Letter to Andrew Lewis (Part 2)





In continuance of my previous posting OPEN LETTER TO FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS  I’m able to bring readers an update.

I sent Deputy Lewis the open letter on the 11th November where I pointed out the contradictory statements he had made concerning his sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report and its alleged contents.

In that open letter I asked the Deputy to help clear up his contradictions and politely asked him four questions;

"Question 1. Could you please tell me which account is correct? The account you gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review or the account you gave to the in-camera States debate? Did you, or did you not see the MET Interim Report?

Question 2. Could you please tell me (if you did see the MET Interim Report) do you stand by your words “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal?”

Question 3. Could you please tell me who is being dishonest here, is it you or the IPCC?

Question 4. Have you been asked, or have you offered to, submit evidence to the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC, if not, why not?"

After four days of not receiving and acknowledgement of my e-mail I sent him a polite reminder on the 15th November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

Just a polite reminder that I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement of my e-mail and the answers to my questions.”

Another three days passed and I still had no response so I politely e-mailed him again. On the 18th November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

It has now been a week since my original e-mail and this is my third attempt at getting the answers to my questions.

Would you kindly acknowledge my e-mail(s) and supply me with those answers before I am forced to make a complaint to PPC concerning your conduct?”

It then happened that I bumped into Deputy Lewis three days later, which is explained in the e-mail I sent him the same day (9 days and three e-mails since my original e-mail to him. On the 21st November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

After our chance encounter at the Royal Court (Wednesday 19th) where you told me "I have no intention of acknowledging your e-mails" and where I replied "does that mean I have to make a complaint to PPC" you replied "please do."

As much as I have resisted going down the PPC complaints route you have left me no option by refusing to acknowledge/answer my e-mails and the perfectly legitimate questions contained in them.

I have demonstrated that I have done all that I can in order to give you the opportunity to answer my (public interest) questions and you have refused to engage.

With that in mind, and for the purpose of my Blog, you have left me no other choice other than to doorstep you. I very much regret that you have taken the stance that you have and hope that you will reconsider it by answering my four questions?

If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5pm today I will conclude that you are maintaining your stance and I will (regrettably) set about contacting PPC in order to register my complaint against your code of conduct. Regrettably again I will then have to doorstep you.”

Finally this prompted a response Where Deputy Lewis replied;

“Further to your recent emails and our brief encounter last Wednesday. I am happy to give you the courtesy of an acknowledgement to your email. However I have no interest in engaging with you on this subject, it no longer forms part of my remit I would therefore suggest that should you remain so firmly interested in this matter that you make contact with the newly appointed Home Affairs Minister.
This is the last and only communication I intend to have with you so please take no offence if you decide to try and communicated with me any further as you will not receive a reply.”

To which I replied;

“Thank you for your reply.

It could be that I haven’t made my position clear enough and apologise if this is the case.

In basic terms my concern is that you are not displaying the transparency and integrity required by the Code of Conduct for States Members and I do not plan to engage you in long correspondence.   

It is just that statements you have made appear to be incompatible with each other, which trouble many of my Blog readers worldwide, and domestic as well as the Jersey voting public. I am not seeking a general engagement with you but offering you a fair opportunity to answer a specific point. Rather than have a long drawn out correspondence I invite you to end the matter, not by refusing to engage but by providing an explanation to your contradictory statements?  

Deputy you are a paid public servant and your blank refusal to address a specific issue, which has caused a number of people to doubt your integrity, is not acceptable in a democracy and contrary to the Code of Conduct for States Members.

I hope we can clear this up without going down the PPC and door-stepping route and look forward to your reply/answers to my four questions.

If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5:00pm Monday (24th) I will assume you don’t intend answering them and will pursue my complaint to PPC/door-stepping.”

So that is where we are at, that I believe I have done all in my power to get answers to perfectly legitimate, and public interest questions, from Deputy Lewis and he refuses to engage.

Should members of the public, in a so-called “democracy” have to go to such lengths in order to get a straight answer to a straight question from our elected representative(s)? Deputy Lewis’ honesty and integrity will remain in doubt for as long as he refuses to explain his contradictory statements. His (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief will remain surrounded by suspicion until these, and other questions are answered.

Readers are reminded that Deputy Lewis suspended the former Chief Police Officer DURING the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this Island has ever seen with the only significant Ministerial decision he made during his very short tenure as Home Affairs Minister.

There are continuing suspicions that his actions in relation to Mr. Power’s (illegal?) suspension were part of a series of acts calculated to close down the Child Abuse Inquiry. Again these suspicions will remain prevalent until Deputy Lewis explains his actions.

There is hope that the ongoing Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will take an interest in his actions and what impact they had on the (people who really matter here) Victims/Survivors of decades long Child Abuse. 

Readers will be kept updated on the complaint to PPC/door-stepping.