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

---

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.

Jèrriworld

Philip Bailhache

This is the man who runs Jersey, Philip Bailhache, with a little help from a few others including the current Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins.

Emma Martins

The Channel Islands were the only part of the "British Isles" to be occupied by the Nazis and some would say that the occupation in Jersey never ended, as the island is still governed by a small feudal clique. Emma's father, John Nettles (Bergerac), has just written a book on the occupation, which I hope to get my hands on soon. Meanwhile you might like to check out my review of an earlier book which attempted an objective look at that period of the island's history (1940-1945).

In case you have already got sort of smitten with the lovely uniform you can order the whole kit here.

Back to more pressing matters, namely the small matter of the Resistance. Currently this is being conducted by a group of brave bloggers, who are not only seeking more democratic and open government, but are also attempting to blow the top off the forty year cover-up of horrendous child sexual abuse on the island. The bloggers are on their own, as the mainstream media on the island are as complicit in the cover-up as the governing authorities themselves.

Putting your head above the blogging parapet in Jersey is a bit reminiscent of WWI trench warfare. You stand a good chance of getting it blown off.

Notches on the authorities big guns so far include: (i) sacking the Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, when he got too curious about the deficiencies in the the island's child protection services and official inaction in the face of abuse victim's/survivors' complaints; (ii) sacking the Police Chief, who refused to become involved in various political conspiracies; (iii) smearing the Chief Investigating Officer in charge of the major abuse enquiry, and subsequently closing down the inquiry (though there is supposed to be another one being set up at the moment); (iv) official harassment and imprisonment of the sacked Health Minister, including with the cooperation of the Data Protection Commissioner; (v) while we're talking about the Commissioner, she is alleged to have been involved in instigating and coordinating a recent perverse data protection prosecution of Stuart Syvret, involving some undesirable types and a supergag order; (vi) attempting to bankrupt an awkward parliamentarian/blogger by insulting him and his parliamentarian wife and then ensuring he lost the ensuing libel case and ended up in financial difficulties.

The recent data protection case is of historically mammoth proportions, not only for Jersey itself, but for the UK as a whole. Data protection legislation is designed to protect a person's personal data from release by a "data controller" to whom it is given in the course of official business. It is not designed to protect data in the public domain nor does it have any place in providing redress for people who are libelled. Data, by definition, is true. Libel deals with accusations which are held to be false. The trick here seems to have been that had those people, against whom Stuart Syvret made accusations on his blog, taken a libel action, they would have had to finance it themselves. If it could be construed as a data protection issue (which is a load of cobblers) then the State could finance the prosecution. And this is what happened. My feeling is that the Jersey authorities are now in deep shit as a result of this little stragem of theirs.

Anyway, back to the occupation. I worked in Jersey over the Summer of 1961 and saw many remaining signs of the occupation. There was a military hospital which has now been turned into a museum, and there are a number of concrete watchtowers around the coast.

The people with whom I stayed, in St. John, had been evacuated just before the occupation, but clearly had returned to Jersey after the war. I had a feeling that there was a certain resentment against such people, even still at the time I was there.

Just incidentally, one person who refused evacuation was Mauyen Keane, and Irish nurse who had come to Jersey not long before the outbreak of WWII. She stayed on and, in the course of the occupation, fell in love with a German soldier/doctor. She followed him to Germany and married him. When Germany was defeated, she shared in the deprivations of the ordinary German people and eventually made it back to Ireland where she wrote a book about her experiences. She is the mother of the well known Irish poet, Gabriel Rosenstock, and the aunt of Dermot Keane, with whom I worked in the Irish Finance Ministry.

Equally incidentally, Emma Martin's father, John Nettles was filming the TV series Bergerac, located at the now controversial children's centre, Haut de la Garenne, while there were still children on the premises. I was brought up short by a photo in a recent Daily Mail article on Nettle's book, taken from the centre and showing the port of Gorey and Mont Orgueil Castle in the background.

Below is a night shot of the castle which I took during my stay in 1961,

The castle has been a museum since 1929. In the period following the French Revolution the castle was the headquarters of Philippe d'Auvergne who was in charge of a network of Royalists bent on invading France and restoring the Monarchy. One of these was French Major La Chaussée who had surveyed Killiney Bay, south of Dublin city, in 1797 as part of the British defensive operations against an expected Napoleonic invation of Dublin. The major's work was subsumed in the construction of the Martello Towers in the bay in 1804.

I mention the castle as, for me, it is a conflicted symbol. It was originally built to defend Jersey but is part of the view from Haut de la Garenne, which institution is a monument to the betrayal of trust of huge proportions.

The Bloggers' Resistance: Stuart Syvret, Neil McMurray, Rico Sorda, Trevor Pitman, Bob Hill, Sam Mézec, and many others.

Update 10 April 2016
There have been a number of developments on the blogging front since the above was posted.

Stuart Syvret's blog was shut down by Blogger/Google at the request of the Jersey authorities. After a bit of cyber-travelling his original blog has been restored and newer posts can be read here. Stuart claims not to have any direct control over the current blog and, other than being a source for his earlier blog, where he posted extensively on devlopments in Jersey, he only submits the odd post on the new blog. But he does comment from time to time on Neil's blog.

Trevor Pitman's blog, linked above, is no longer active. Trevor was bankrupted by the Jersey authorities, which meant he was no longer qualified to sit in the States (Jersey parliament) and, as far as I know, his is no longer living on the island.

Bob Hill has recently had a massive stroke and is no longer blogging, but his blog remains up. Both Bob, just before his stroke, and Trevor gave evidence to the current Jersey Abuse Inquiry.

So, of the above blogs, only Neil, Rico and Sam are currently blogging consistently.
Just for the record, both Neil and Rico have also given evidence to the Inquiry.

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.