Showing posts with label Jersey Evening Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jersey Evening Post. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

THE RAG: THE SEQUEL 2


Click on any image for a larger version

Various establishment entities are lining up their ducks for the big day. The Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry is due to report on 3 July 2017. It is expected that the report will attract a lot of attention from the UK and international press and these will be sniffing around for stories.

The BBC are "cleaning up their act" by taking offline various of their exposés and reports on what had been going on in Jersey since the Liberation (from Nazi occupation) after WWII.

The Inquiry itself has put vast amounts of witness testimony online. This was redacted before posting in order to protect both the (alleged) guilty as well as the innocent. Some of the redaction was so incompetent that the texts would have been better left alone. But to cap it all, the Inquiry has been quietly carrying out further redactions which have only compounded the incompetence.

In one case, for example, the sacked Chief of Police's evidence was redacted to protect the identity of a Jersey notable who was alleged to have raped a number of adult women. I pointed out in a blog post that the person in question (given the number 737 by the Inquiry) was easily identifiable to anyone with half a knowledge of the Jersey scene, but I did not name him.

The Inquiry quietly returned to the posted text and added further redactions which actually only identified the man definitively.

When I discovered this recently I updated my earlier blog post and wondered what to do next.



My substantive comment to the JEP
Click on image for a larger version

I eventually decided to draw attention to this in a comment to Jersey's only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post (JEP aka The Rag). I did this in preference to commenting on a Jersey blog which would only leave the blogger open to retribution by the Jersey authorities.

The next thing was to find an appropriate news item under which to plonk the comment. The most recent such item appeared to be the Bailiff's Liberation Day speech. In his speech the Bailiff was trying to sanitise the term "The Jersey Way", a shorthand moniker for the many interrelated layers of corruption on the island.

Now, readers of this blog will be familiar with my earlier encounter with The Rag's editor where a comment of mine, made in good faith, was parked in moderation and then deleted. ( here and here ) So I did not hold out great hopes of getting this comment through.

The comment referred to the Bailiff's speech, to people tidying up their online material in anticipation of renewed scrutiny on 3 July, and it gave a link to my blog update.



My second comment identifying myself
Click on image for a larger version

When I realised I had posted it under my Irlpol account, I added another comment under my subsequent Pól Ó Duibhir account to say the earlier comment was mine. I had opened the latter account in the course of my earlier arguments with the editor and as a challenge to an anonymous and malicious troll to do likewise.

Well, the Irlpol ID was clearly on "moderator watch" and went straight into moderation to be carefully scrutinised before publication. The Pól Ó Duibhir ID went straight through.



Meanwhile, while I was waiting for my comment to exit moderation I decided to reply to a tweet by Stuart Syvret, former Health Minister and whistleblower, who had been ruthlessly and vindictively screwed by the Jersey régime.

Stuart was complaining that Commissioner Clyde-Smyth, who was obliged in justice to reveal certain information to him, was not just refusing to reveal it but was also refusing to engage in correspondence with him.

Now, in their second round of redactions, the Inquiry had attempted to conceal the fact that the Commissioner had earlier been acting for person 737 and I decided to reply as above and put a bit of pressure on the JEP to hurry up and do their moderation bit.



And just for good measure, I thought I'd again draw attention to the fact that person 737 had originally been scheduled to be interviewed under caution as a suspect, but, since the sacking of the Police Chief, we had heard no more of this.



Meanwhile the JEP had posted an item deploring how signage was ruining some beauty spots on the island. The piece, entitled Five Jersey Eyesores included signage overlooking the picturesque port of Gorey with its magnificent Mont Orgueil Castle.

It struck me that the picture had been taken from a position just outside Haut de la Garenne the infamous child abuse home. So I did a tweet suggesting an additional sign. I got no reaction to this so far.



Original of Gorey/HDLG photo
Click on image for a larger version.

Just in case you want to see the full picture, I have included it separately above.



Then I got back to reminding the JEP directly about my comment languishing in moderation.



And a little more gentle pressure via Twitter.



Click image for a larger version
Original tweet

And then, I got the biggest surprise of my life. The JEP actually published my comment. I couldn't believe it. I was convinced it would be too hot for them to handle. But here they were becoming complicit, in a sort of a way, in revealing the Inquiry's revealing of the identity of the Jersey notable.

On the assumption that they knew what they were doing, and that their left and right hands were fully coordinated, I have to take my hat off to them on this one.

Check if the Irlpol comment is still there

[Update 13/1/18: I have just noticed that the comment referred to above is no longer there. The JEP recently "upgraded" their site in the course of which operation the comments have conveniently vanished.]


Friday, January 27, 2017

THE RAG : THE SEQUEL


Click on any image for a larger version

In an earlier post I outlined how I had submitted a comment under the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) online report on the Lord Reginald satirical video. The video had been published in the Voice for Children blog. My criticism was that the JEP's online report did not include a link to the video either in the original blog post or on Youtube. I provided a link in my comment to the original blog post which contained the video.



My original comment
Click on image for a larger version

My comment was not published. So I wrote to the editor of the JEP complaining about non-publication and pointed out that comments from a known toxic troll on the island had been published both before and after submission of my comment.

In his reply, the editor conceded that my comment should have been published, and not deleted by the moderator. He also conceded that the actual satirical video should have been embedded in the original JEP online report.

While that would certainly have allowed JEP online readers to view the video without leaving the JEP page online, it would seem to have avoided facilitating those who might want to checkout the original blog post. That is why in my comment I gave a link to the blog post rather than just to the video.

In his reply, the editor seemed to be at a loss to understand my "troll" reference and he also wondered who I was.

In my reply, I said I was pleasantly surprised that he considered that my comment should have been published as submitted. I expanded a bit on the identity of the troll I was referring to. I told him who I was and that at the end of the day I was not anonymous as a few clicks would have shown up my email address. Though I did add that I could see why some people in Jersey would see the need to post their comments anonymously.

I gave a link to my earlier blog post and asked if he'd have any objection to my publishing our correspondence.

In his reply, the editor said my comments were reasonable and he would have no objection to my publishing our correspondence.

He correctly deduced that the troll I was referring to was the infamous Jon Haworth who comes onto his radar really only because he suspects that Jon writes spoof letters to the JEP for publication under false names and addresses.

Finally, he assured me that no one gets any protection as suggested on his watch. "If you read the paper I edit, rather than our website, I think you'd struggle to argue otherwise."

Unfortunately, not being on the Island, I am not really in a position to read the print rather than the web version of the paper but I would invite any resident who wants to pick up on his challenge to do so and let me know the result. I realise this could prove a problem for some people who on principle do not buy the JEP. However there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

In any event I can assure the editor that the Skibbereen Eagle will be keeping an online eye on him.

In the interest of openness, transparency, and all the other virtues that the Jersey administration are accused of lacking, I am publishing our correspondence below.



But first a amall diversion. You will see below that the editor wonders who I am and why I am interested in Jersey. And now Jon Haworth, in comments submitted under this post, is effectively challenging my commeenting in the Jersey Evening Post under a pseudonym. As explained in one of my letters below this was in no way intended to hide my true identity.


My challenge to Jon in the JEP

So I have now opened a Jersey Evening Post account under my full real name and challenged Jon to do the same. Let's see how this pans out.





Andy Sibcy, editor JEP


My initial letter (12/1/2017) following
deletion/non-publication of my comment

Dear Editor

On 6 January 2017 I submitted a comment on your piece about the Lord Reginald video.

I pointed out that you neither indicated the source of the video nor gave a link to it. I found this unusual in an online article. Leaving aside your reasons for behaving thus, and I can only speculate on what they might have been, I was surprised to find my comment (attached), which I thought reasonable and to the point, was detained in moderation and then deleted.

Both before and after submission of my comment, you published comments from a source you know to be a life threatening troll who has been implicated in various unsavoury manoeuvres to suppress criticism and challenge of the Jersey establishment in the context of its cover up of child sex abuse on the island.

I am at a loss to understand the rationale behind this regrettable and inconsistent behaviour and would appreciate an explanation of why my comment, made in good faith, was deleted.

Yours sincerely,

Pól Ó Duibhir



The editor's reply (19/1/2017)

Dear Pól,

Thank you for your email of 12 January. Please accept my apologies for not responding sooner.

The simple answer is that your comment should have been published as the points that you raise are entirely reasonable. I think that the original jep.com post should have been embedded with the Montfort Tadier video, a solution that would have made more sense from our perspective as it would have enabled readers to see the video without leaving our site.

The reasoning outlined above also partially explains why your comment was not published by the moderator. The other was that the link it included is to a blog site which routinely includes comments which attack the JEP in ways which can be ill-informed and unreasonable. I have to say that I would have been happy to publish your comment as submitted.

It was detained in moderation by default because you have not commented often enough to have been given the right to comment live (commentators have their first few comments checked before being given that right). It remained in moderation because a combination of sickness and holidays (including mine) meant that the moderation folder was not managed as efficiently as it would normally be. Other commentators will only be flagged up and their comments held in moderation if they use unacceptable language as they are free to comment live as regular contributors.

Your ‘troll’ comment leaves me a little baffled. I am afraid that the JEP site, like many others, attracts a great many commentators who do not offer very much in the way of constructive input. I have no idea which of the anonymous people you are talking about on this occasion, or indeed who those people are behind their pseudonyms.

On that score, I wonder whether you would be good enough to enlighten me as to who you are? As you know, I am aware of your twitter feed and have no idea whether your handle is an abridged version of your real name or not.

If you are in Jersey, I would be happy to sit down and have a chat. I say that because I suspect you are keen to show how your unfortunate experience as a commentator on the JEP site somehow validates views which you have about the JEP. I am not sure whether you have ever discussed those views, or indeed whether you have any interest in hearing an alternative viewpoint, but I would be happy to provide one. I am also intrigued as to the reason for your interest in the Island.

Best wishes and in good faith,

Andy Sibcy


My reply to the editor (26/1/2017)

Dear Mr Sibcy

Thank you again for the courtesy of the reply.

Regarding its content.

I am glad you agree that my comment should have been published as submitted and that the video should have been available directly to your readers so that they could make up their own mind about it.

I am not sure what exactly the embedding would have involved. Would it have been stand alone or would it have contained a link to the video's location either in The Voice's Youtube account or in the blog post? That was an element of my comment, namely, that your readers should have been able to also go to the source of the video. These videos are an integral part of The Voice's posts.

As far as the content of The Voice's actual blog posts are concerned, I find them well researched and generally moderate in tone. In fact I recollect, from memory, that the blog made a number of positive comments about the JEP after you took over and I think there were high expectations there of a more robust approach to the administration under your stewardship.

As far as comments on that blog are concerned, they vary. I am aware that the comments are moderated, nevertheless the moderator does let through some very critical comments about the blog itself and its readers/supporters. The net effect of this is that I follow the blog assiduously and consider myself fairly well informed as a result.

In recent times I have had to take to moderating my own blog which has been un-moderated since around 2007 and this is purely because of abusive comments from the well known toxic Jersey troll. In fact the only comments I have blocked are those coming from this horrible person. In passing, I note that you are quite happy to entertain him in your own comments section.

In referring to why my comment was not published you quote "the reasoning above" in your reply, but this hardly seems relevant as you are telling me it should have been published anyway. Your second reason is my inclusion of a link to the blog post in which the video occurred. But you are telling me that my comment should have been published as submitted, ie with the link.

I have no problem with my comment having been detained in moderation. All that you say about that is perfectly acceptable. My only gripe is its ultimate non publication and rejection/deletion from moderation.

I didn't really see the deletion of my comment as some sort of validation of my already relatively low opinion of the JEP. I more or less expected it. But your view now that is should have been published as submitted is, admittedly, a pleasant surprise.

Perhaps I can assist you a little further with my troll comment. It is widely known in Jersey that Kaz81 is just one of the many monikers used by the toxic troll I referred to above. If you are not aware of this, it does not speak very highly for the investigative prowess of the JEP. I do appreciate that blocking him would cause a row and with God knows who, given the support he was given in the gang hounding of Stuart Syvret through the courts. I don't mind his comments, I can take it. But it was pointed out to me that they were of such a nature that they meant some (reasonable) people were reluctant to link to my blog posts.

As to who I am, it's really no secret. My name is Pól Ó Duibhir and I live in Dublin. I holidayed in Jersey in the late 1950s and worked a summer there in 1961. I sort of fell in love with the place and with its people and that fondness has remained with me. That is why I find it so heartbreaking to see what it is becoming. The fact that I post under a variety of pseudonyms is really just coincidental and reflects the thrill of adventure when I first started posting some two decades ago. Póló, as you will see, is a contraction of part of my name and was my nickname in school. Irlpol was to distinguish me from the rest of the family and so on. However, my profile in blogger links to my website and that has a facility for emailing me. So I'm not really anonymous.

And while we are on the subject of identity, I fully appreciate the necessity for some of those on island to post/comment anonymously.

I have already published my original letter to you on my blog and I wonder if you mind me publishing your reply and mine and any relevant subsequent correspondence. I will in any event be dealing with the points in a promised updating of the blog post.

http://photopol.blogspot.ie/2017/01/the-rag.html

In good faith,

Pól Ó Duibhir



The editor's reply (26/1/2017)

Dear Pol,

Thank you for your reply. The comments you make are entirely reasonable.

I have no objection to your publishing my email.

In my response, I tried to distinguish between my thoughts re the publication (I would have published as submitted) and the reasoning of my colleague who was moderating at the time in question. If that was not clear, I apologise.

As far as 'the troll' is concerned, my ignorance is more a consequence of my not being terribly interested in the often pathetic online bickering which seems to be the obsession of many than a lack of investigative prowess. Frankly, I have far more constructive things to be getting on with than working out who is who.

Equally, while I am sure that followers of various blogs and others (including some who use our comment forum) are well aware of the identities of those who use pseudonyms, I think it a stretch to suggest that they are well known in Jersey more generally.

I suspect that you are referring to Mr Haworth, who comes onto my radar really only because I suspect he writes spoof letters to us for publication under false names and addresses.

I can also assure you that no one gets any protection as suggested on my watch. If you read the paper I edit, rather than our website, I think you'd struggle to argue otherwise.

The offer of a coffee or beer stands if you ever visit. I think that we'd have an interesting chat.

Best wishes,

Andy


Friday, January 13, 2017

THE RAG


Lord Reginald's New Year Message on Voice for Children
Click on any image for a larger version

The Jersey Evening Post (aka The Rag) is Jersey's only newspaper. In general it is an organ of the establishment. It supports the authorities and, where humanly possible, avoids giving any publicity to dissenting views. The lack of balanced reporting and discussion has led to the emergence of a number of bloggers on the island who have attempted to fill the gap, speak truth to power and give citizens a platform to debate current issues and air their grievances.

Voice for Children is one such blog. It is a very serious blog. It's posts are well researched. Comments are moderated, but moderation is light except in the case of trolls and abusive comments where it is absolute. I need to clearly state the foregoing to establish the context, because the blog sometimes carries a lighthearted or satirical post, as in the image above.

Lord Reginald, whose identity is clearly now known to everyone in Jersey, occasionally gives a spoof commentary on behalf of the non-formally-existing Jersey Tory Party. The States (parliament) is not structured on a party basis as such. There is a majority establishment clique which effectively functions as an extremely conservative party and it is this clique whose collective mickey Lord Reginald is taking.

The Rag decided to turn it into a news item, with the above image and the text shown below.



Text of JEP online article accompanying the image
Click image for a larger version

A careful reading of the text reveals that it mentions neither the name of the blog on which the video appears nor does it give a link to it. You might consider that was the least they might have done having got a free news item.



My comment
Click image for a larger version

Well that's what I thought and I submitted the above comment. Unfortunately I cannot give you a link to the comment itself. It appears to have been held in moderation for some days while the powers that be mulled over whether or not to publish it. Following which it was simply deleted.

There are two features of the comment which may have led to this unfortunate, but probably predictable, result.

In the first place it criticised The Rag for omitting the blog's name and not giving a link.

In the second place it actually gave a link which would have enabled its readers to view this highly subversive video and make up their own minds about it. Worse still, it would have introduced them to a serious blog which was filling a disgraceful gap left by themselves, namely speaking truth to power and encouraging readers to pitch in.

So, on 12/1/2017, I emailed the editor in the terms below:
Dear Editor

On 6 January 2017 I submitted a comment on your piece about the Lord Reginald video.

I pointed out that you neither indicated the source of the video nor gave a link to it. I found this unusual in an online article. Leaving aside your reasons for behaving thus, and I can only speculate on what they might have been, I was surprised to find my comment (attached), which I thought reasonable and to the point, was detained in moderation and then deleted.

Both before and after submission of my comment, you published comments from a source you know to be a life threatening troll who has been implicated in various unsavoury manoeuvres to suppress criticism and challenge of the Jersey establishment in the context of its cover up of child sex abuse on the island.

I am at a loss to understand the rationale behind this regrettable and inconsistent behaviour and would appreciate an explanation of why my comment, made in good faith, was deleted.

Yours sincerely,

Pól Ó Duibhir

At the time of my posting this I have not had any reply. If I hear from them in the meantime I will certainly update this post to take account of their reply. [Update: I have since been engaged in correspondence with the editor and have reported on this in a sequel to this blog post.]

I should mention that my experience here is in no way unusual. The Rag frequently suppress comments which don't suit them.

An example is the case of Advocate Sinel, who in a current interview with Voice for Children has described the same experience of having comments refused. He clearly spoke to the editor who apparently advanced absurd reasons for not publishing.

In June 2016 the Rag refused to publish a comment of his regarding the "Jersey Care Inquiry" on the spurious grounds that it was too long. You can read Rico Sorda's blog post on the Advocate's refused letter, including the text of the letter itself, here.

I attempted twice (see here and here) to resubmit it but on both occasions my comment was deleted.

There is another newspaper which serves the Channel Islands, The Bailiwick Express, which is purely online and whose online awareness is much superior to The Rag's. Quite apart from its overall editorial deficiencies, The Rag has clearly never come to terms with its online existence. The Express has just done a piece on the Report from Jersey's Comptroller and Auditor General on the runaway loan fund which is more informative than The Rag's initial online version, and which actually, God forbid, gives a link to the full Report online.

I rest my case.

Thursday, April 09, 2015

Cold Revenge


German WWII Defences, La Corbière (MP2) Jersey (CI)
Click on any image for a larger version

Once upon a time, a long time ago (1961) when I was working in Jersey (CI) I became aware of the Nazi occupation of the island covering the period 1940-45. The signs of the occupation were to be seen along part of the coast in the form of the observation towers and gun batteries which were to provide a "ring of steel" around the island.

Although more had been planned, only three towers were constructed before the end of the occupation: No.2 at La Corbière (shown above); No.3 at the north-west most tip of the island; and No.1 at Noirmont Point, overlooking St. Brelade's Bay.

It was this last one I chose for my suggestion that it be turned into a German museum with a certain amount of bells and whistles. I made the suggestion in a letter to the Jersey Evening Post, the island's only newspaper, and one which came through the occupation in grand style.


My letter suggesting a museum,
and the put down by G C H LE COCQ

I was quickly put down by G C H LE COCQ who was very insulted by my suggestion, and there the matter rested.


My recent comment to the Jersey Evening Post
and C Le Verdic's reply

Jumping forward to today, the Post reported recently that an archeological dig at Grouville had turned up a ceramic plate with a swastika on it. I was reminded of my 1961 suggestion and drew the paper's attention to it anew in a comment on their piece (above).

This evoked a reply from C Le Verdic as follows:
What a superbly penned put down from G.C.H. Le Cocq (not De Dotteville, then?) and what superb revenge has been served cold by Noirmont eventually getting your museum and, as far as I know, Le Cocq not getting his cross.

P.S. Well done keeping the cuttings. I would have done the same!
So I checked it out, and sure enough
The bunker has been restored to a very high standard and provides a unique insight into the sheer scale and thoroughness of German military engineering.
I'm sure it lacks some of my suggested bells and whistles but it is a restoration.

It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold and it is none the less sweet for a wait of over half a century.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Jersey (CI)



This post is intended as a short backgrounder on the current situation regarding child abuse in Jersey (CI).

The Background

Behind its façade as a British holiday resort with a taste of France and without the hassle of the French language, Jersey is actually a very different place.

It is small (about 46 square miles / 120 km2). It is parochial, not only in the attitudinal sense of the word. Its administration is significantly based on the parish (of which there are 12 on the island). It is a Crown Dependency, which means it is not, strictly speaking, part of the UK or the EU. Technically the Queen is in charge, and is responsible for good governance on the island, but she normally delegates her authority to the UK Justice Minister. Jersey has its own Parliament, called the States.

Some years ago, individuals involved with the Jersey Sea Cadets were investigated in relation to child sex abuse. Despite suspicions of more serious crimes, there was only one arrest linked to child pornography. However, links to other institutions, including Haut de La Garenne, emerged in the course of the investigation and these were followed up leading to the wider abuse investigation.

That investigation was initially covert as the leading policeman did not want to alert the island's political authorities. Given their suspected complicity in what was going on, they might have been tempted to stymie the investigation. At a later stage the investigation had to go very forcibly public. This time to reassure survivors of abuse that it was serious in getting to the bottom of the problem come hell or high water, and that unlike in the past, the survivors would be taken seriously if they came forward with evidence.

The intense publicity for the investigation was also intended by the police to make it harder for the island's ruling elite to interfere with, or stop, the investigation. It was also intended to put pressure on them to follow up with appropriate action themselves, such as prosecutions, which they had previously been reluctant to do.

During the covert stage of the investigation, and not knowing it was in train, the then Health Minister was conducting some research of his own in response to approaches from survivors. This put him in a position that, when he was asked in the island's parliament if he was satisfied with the island's child protection régime (for which he was responsible), he had to admit that he wasn't. This admission set the cat among the pigeons and the ruling elite had him dismissed shortly afterwards.

Much to the dismay of the authorities, the police investigation then went seriously public and despite its public protestations to the contrary, the ruling elite did everything in its power close down that investigation. The Senior Investigating Officer (Lenny Harper) was shortly due to retire and that probably saved him from the fate of his boss the Police Chief (Graham Power) who was suspended (effectively dismissed) for doing his job without fear or favour. Every effort was then made to rubbish the investigation, shut it down, and slur the officers concerned. Combined with a policy of procrastination and petty harassment, this seemed to be succeeding, at least for the moment.

Now the revelations about Jimmy Savile have once more turned the spotlight on Jersey and it will be up to the people of the island, and the justice campaigners in particular, to ensure that this opportunity to rekindle the investigation is not missed.

The Cover-up

The original abuse scandal has been enormously complicated by the subsequent cover-up. Many of those in power in Jersey, even where not involved in the abuse itself, have become complicit in covering it up. And some of those still in positions of responsibility are themselves alleged to have been involved in the abuse. This has meant that anyone attempting to get to the bottom of it runs straightaway into a brick wall.

So it is not surprising that there has been a concerted effort by the power elite to suppress any real investigation, slur and harass the investigators, and try and avoid any adverse publicity outside Jersey.

The island is a serious "tax haven", used not only by "foreigners" but also by the UK itself. Reputational damage could have serious financial repercussions for the island and the UK. So it is not hard to understand why it is proving so difficult to get the UK authorities, who are effectively responsible for good governance in Jersey, to take action.

On top of this there are serious allegations of UK celebrities, politicians and other authority figures having availed of the pool of abusable children in Jersey. In a disgusting abuse of language these activities have been referred to as perks. It may turn your stomach but it does reflect an attitude that, to judge from the extent of the abuse, was prevalent in many quarters, in both Jersey and the UK.

The Empire strikes back

The Jersey Oligarchy has made every effort possible to suppress knowledge of the abuse and to thwart any attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice.

A small number of people have, by now, been successfully prosecuted, but these prosecutions were initiated during the earlier investigation where they were aggressively promoted by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. This stream has now dried up.

One of the first people, in recent times, to fall foul of the régime was the then Senator Stuart Syvret. The doyen of the States (Jersey Parliament) he was effectively the Health Minister and, as such, responsible for the child protection service. His refusal to sign a blank cheque endorsing the service led to his dismissal from the States and a subsequent campaign of harassment, including an illegal police raid on his house, which has not abated. He was jailed twice in circumstances where others would have been given a slap on the wrist or not even prosecuted in the first place.

He has purposely contested to the limit any court action taken against him with a view to drawing wider attention to the operation of the system of "justice" on the island, including the misuse of the data protection legislation.

He is currently working on a legal case against the authorities to take to Europe. This will have to have gone through the Jersey and UK systems first, and this is taking huge time and effort on his part. At one stage he "escaped" to London but is now back in Jersey, and, as far as I know, living on social welfare. Major elements in the case he is preparing are the lack of separation of powers in Jersey, the extreme conflicts of interest within the justice system and the sheer perversity with which the law is applied to opponents of the régime.

Then there was Lenny Harper, Senior Investigating Officer in the child abuse investigation. Lenny is something else. A Northern Irish Protestant married to a Roman Catholic, with a previous career in the RUC and the Met, he was originally recruited to clean up the island. Well, at least I think that's what he thought at the time. When he set about his job with objective enthusiasm, all hell broke loose. He conducted arms raids across the island, revealing large firearms stashes rising in seriousness right up to the level of a rocket launcher.

When he got to the abuse investigation he set to it with a will. Initially the investigation itself was not revealed even to the authorities, for the very good reason that many of them were implicated, or at least complicit in the cover-up. When it had gained enough momentum the investigation was revealed in the full glare of publicity. This had two main aims: first, to thwart any effort by the administration to wind it up or suppress it, and, equally important, to convince survivors that, this time, it was for real. They would be listened to and their complaints would be pursued no matter where they led. The strategy was a good one and Lenny gained the trust of all of those who were genuinely concerned to see justice done. Lenny retired before the investigation was fully completed and the authorities have persistently attempted to slur him ever since. Anyone who has read his published commentaries or seen him on video or read the exposés of what is going on, will have no difficulty in concluding that he was an exceptional police officer doing a magnificent job in the teeth of vicious and unrelenting opposition from the island's political elite

Lenny's boss, the Chief of Police, Graham Power, backed him all the way. Graham had also come from the "mainland", and again from reading his affidavits and commentaries, it is clear that he was an exemplary officer. Not exactly what the régime had in mind, however, and when he refused to become involved in the administration's attempt to sack the Health Minister, he was himself sacked (suspended) soon afterwards. Both he and Lenny were replaced by officers who immediately set about rubbishing the abuse enquiry.

One of them even resorted to leaking information, designed to undermine that enquiry, to a hostile mainland journalist. This is a crime without any public interest defence. I mention this because Stuart Syret has been prosecuted for leaking material for which there was a self-evident public interest defence which was refused by the local judicial system. This ended in Stuart going to prison while no action was taken in the case of the police officer.

Just so you get the atmosphere in which a lot of this was taking place, Frank Walker, then Chief Minister, accused Stuart Syvret, on a BBC Panorama programme, of "shafting Jersey" by his revelations. Clearly, avoiding reputational damage took precedence over any idea of justice or compassion. This seems to be a standard institutional response in such cases (vide the Vatican and the RCC hierarchy throughout the world).

Separation of Powers

Jersey probably has more in common with a feudal state than with a modern democratic one. Particular families have long wielded effective power. There is no formal separation of powers such as one might expect in a modern democratic state. The executive, parliament, judicial system, and public prosecutor are all part of the same amorphous mass. This makes for a highly politicised justice system, and it explains much of the tension between the police and the prosecution service during the tenure of Power and Harper, officers who were attuned to the UK system and who were taken aback at the extent of political interference in the judicial and policing areas in Jersey.

It is against this background that Stuart Syvret is attempting to involve Europe in the Jersey scene and that Power and Harper had to resort to stratagems to secure the prosecution of sex abuse offenders.

The Media

The media in Jersey is a sort of unfunny joke. The Jersey Evening Post, the island's only newpaper, is a creature of the establishment. Full stop. Surprisingly, so is BBC Jersey. The local station seems to have the same relationship with Auntie that Stormont had with Westminster in the bad old days: do what you like as long as you don't rock the mainland boat. Channel TV, part of the ITV network, seems no better.

The extent to which the Jersey authorities take for granted their right to control the mainstream media was thrown into sharp relief recently. They contrived to get the UK authorities to deny access to the UK (and Jersey) to a US financial journalist in good standing, Leah McGrath Goodman. She was beginning to turn her attention to the sex-abuse cover-up. This has seriously backfired as her disgraceful detention at Heathrow airport, and subsequent expulsion from the UK, has only drawn serious international attention to the strange goings-on on the island.

The Bloggers

The lack of proper media has led to the rise of the Jersey bloggers. They are now many but three in particular merit mention.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret, mentioned also above, has been blogging since 2008. His blog is a commentary on the current state of affairs in Jersey with particular reference to the sex-abuse cover-up. He occasionally has a go at other scandals as well. He is well informed and has the confidence of the survivors. He tilts outrageously at the establishment including at individuals, safe (so far) in the knowledge that he is right and that any effort to sue him would do more damage to the complainant than to him. One of his campaigns relates to a nurse who is alleged to have murdered a number of people in a Jersey hospital and who is now in the UK, apparently still operating as a nurse. It is thought that Stuart is currently subject to a supergag order in relation to this case.

Voice for Children has been blogging since 2007 and in recent times has had a serious impact with high quality video interviews with people in power in Jersey (those willing to participate) and others, such as Graham Power and Lenny Harper, currently outside the island. In a fascinating development, VFC has also succeeded in covering sessions of relevant parliamentary committees, such as Scrutiny (the equivalent of our powerful Public Accounts Committee). These videos have been first class and would be a credit to any professional TV station. But of course the Jersey mainstram media run a mile from this sort of stuff. VFC also developed a style in doorstepping which is very effective. The videos are all preceded by a short station identification animation, which equates Jersey with North Korea, and which has yet to fail to make me smile.

Rico Sorda has reluctantly become an investigative journalist and has broken a number of stories, involving leaked documents or the assiduous marshalling of known facts. He has also been doing some live video transmissions including taking text questions from viewers in real time.

The bloggers have the administration worried as hell. They are pounding away on the home front, being leaked material which leakers will not entrust to the compromised mainstream media, and they are building up an international following. They are really bringing home to the administration that "no man is an island", particularly in this internet age. They are engaged in a cooperative rather than a competitive exercise and are quite happy to refer readers to each other or to other local blogs, such as, for example, that of States member Trevor Pitman.

The Savile case

Up to very recently, there seemed to have been a prospect that, despite the efforts of the bloggers and the survivors, the whole thing might just go away. The administration introduced a compensation scheme which they hoped would put the survivors to bed, so to speak, and they have been dithering about a Commission of Inquiry, all the while attempting to dilute its terms of reference to keep it out of harm's way.

Now, hopefully, as a result of the Savile revelations, all this is changing. The UK and international media are once again taking a close look at Jersey. Savile was a frequent visitor to the island. His mother is said to have lived there. He is now beginning to be named in individual complaints and those in which he had been named previously are now being taken more seriously.

The aim now should be not just to document Savile's activities and bring some sort of closure to his victims, but to use this opportunity to root out those, still living and in positions of power, who are guilty of abuse or complicit in covering it up.

Personal

I'll end on a personal note.

I worked in Jersey during the Summer of 1961 and fell in love with the place - more with the north than with the south, but however. I took the night shot below of Gorey Castle (Mont Orgeuil as it is appropriately known). I was proud of the shot and produced it a few years ago in a comment on a Jersey blog. For me it symbolised a majestic and romantic vision of this beautiful island.

It wasn't long before another contributor to the blog revealed that for her the picture had no such benign connotations. She had been an inmate in Haut de la Garenne, a short distance away, and that was the sight that confronted the children as they made their way to get the bus into St. Helier.

A seriously conflicted symbol then.