Senator Sir Philip Bailhache----------A Man of Influence---Part 1.

I had been going through a number of my files when I came across one about Victoria College. The contents reminded me of how the States was duped into making a decision which it later had to overturn. The contents also revealed the part played in the shenanigans by the now Senator Philip Bailhache who at the time was Attorney General and soon to be Bailiff. Also and very interestingly he became Chairman of its Independent Governing Board during the period when Mr Jervis-Dykes was teaching there and was later sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence for sexual assaults on a number of pupils.

One will have to go back to 1991 when Jack Hydes had been appointed Head Master at the College but was denied membership to the Head Masters Conference (HMC) which is a bit like an old boys club where one of the perceived benefits is that their pupils are able to shoot at Bisley.

A way had to be found to allow for Mr Hydes’ acceptance and it was perceived that if the College’s Governing Board was independent it would pave the way for Mr Hydes. This perception was inaccurate because membership is determined by the Head Master’s credentials and not the School’s nor the Governing Board, but this fact was not made known to States Members.

At that time the Education Committee of the day was also embroiled in a debate about the introduction of a 6^th Form College for the Island’s non- fee paying students. It was also intending to lodge a proposition to establish Governing Bodies for all the Island’s schools but it required Law drafting time which would be some way off.

I had been elected at the end of 1993 and on 12^th April 1994 the States debated the Education Committee’s proposition to amend the “Loi 1960 au sujet du College Victoria" to establish a new Governing Body. This in affect was jumping the queue ahead of all the other schools.

I still have a vivid memory of the debate and felt like Oliver Twist asking Mr Bumble for more porridge when I rose to speak. The late Sir Peter Crill was in the chair and apart from being an Old Victorian (OV) was known to have little patience for new members particularly if he considered them to be wasting time. The Education President Connétable Iris Le Feuvre had outlined the proposition which was expected to be approved on the nod because she asked whether it was necessary to go through the Articles. Sir Peter said the simplest way was for them to be taken as read and just answer any questions should any arise. His tone was such that none or speeches were expected.

I was first to speak and said the proposition was more to do with the Head Master’s acceptance to the HMC than providing for a democratically elected governing body in line with Education’s own guidelines. It was establishing quango which was independent of the States who was still expected to pay the College’s maintenance and educational costs. I remember Sir Peter being very agitated by my speech and moved from one cheek of his backside to another. In conclusion I suggested that the proposition be taken back to the drawing board.

Sir Peter was clearly upset with my suggestion and instead of calling for the vote had to ask whether it was necessary for anyone else to speak. There were but it was a short debate with questions mainly answered by Sir Peter who at one time said “I shouldn't be doing this, the President should being doing this.”  There were a couple short speeches from former students (OV’s) reminiscing on their school days and the pleasure of shooting at Bisley which would be denied to current students if the head master was excluded from the HMC.  Although this was untrue it would not have made any difference as the Articles were accepted en bloc on a standing vote.

Law drafting time is important and the order of precedence in those days was approved by States Members. In normal circumstances the Draft Loi would have been put to the end of the queue unless the President sought States approval to move it up the list. However this was not necessary because unknown to States Members the necessary drafting had already been done thanks to the intervention of the Attorney General who was Philip Bailhache and soon to be appointed Bailiff and Chairman of the Victoria College Governing Board. 

On 4^th January 1994 some 3 months before the debate a memo was sent by the Law Draftsman to the Assistant Director of the Education Department stating that by way of a “farewell gift” and because of Attorney General’s personal interest in the matter the 1860 Loi had been drafted.

The memo was subsequently leaked to the JEP whose reporter Phil Falle later published a report in which the explanation for the “farewell gift” was described as a characteristic joke by the Law Draftsman and the likelihood of such a thing happening again had been reduced.

.

It is evident that Senator Bailhache was able to use his influence to arrange for the law drafting for which he had a personal interest to the detriment of other laws which were higher up the queue. It is sometimes said that “rank has its privileges” but should it extend to using one’s position to further one’s means?

The Governing Board was later established with the newly appointed Bailiff Sir Philip appointed its first Chairman. This was subsequently to lead to further complications, conflicts of interest and abuse of position.

This will be explained in a further Blog which I shall publish shortly.

Jersey's Dean--Laity's JEP Advert

When I published my previous Blog, due to technical difficulties, I was unable to publish the advert which appeared in the Jersey Evening Post on Saturday 10^th August, thanks to the assistance of fellow Bloggers I am now able to publish it in full which should be helpful to readers outside the Island.

THE STEEL INVESTIGATION

Following the advertisement placed by the Rt. Rev, the Lord Bishop of Winchester on 3rd August 2013 a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey wish to affirm their confidence in the love of God made real in the faith and lives of those who make up the Church in Jersey, and in particular their trust in all those who offer pastoral care in their name. We wish to affirm our reliance upon the whole Church in the Island as it tries to live out the love of God made tangible in Jesus Christ and made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who respond to that love.

The love of Christ, expressed through the Church, mends broken lives, brings hope to the hopeless, purpose to the wounded, and forgiveness to those in need of it.

The Church in Jersey has a long record of living out this love and providing a safe space for those in need.

We retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. It has fed the hungry, housed the homeless, comforted and tended the sick, and called the powerful to account. Countless lives have been transformed by Christ’s presence in a caring Church in Jersey.

Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.

The Church is not, and cannot be perfect, and sadly, from time to time, confidence and hope can be damaged by people getting things wrong.

INVITATION TO GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

Many in the Island may feel that the Bishop of Winchester’s response to one ‘safeguarding issue’ has been disproportionate, has caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

The launching of two simultaneous and unco-ordinated inquiries, apparently aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese.

Some may have experienced that relentless public assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.

Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants, and two extensive inquiries; they may be worried about this expenditure of money raised by sacrificial giving from people who have generously sustained the mission of the Church.

The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by clergy in relation to events of the recent past.

The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy.

If you have experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, please write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com (End)

Since the advert was published it has been revealed that members of the laity from both Jersey and Guernsey held a private meeting organised by Senator Bailhache. The information coming to hand is that the meeting enabled attendees to raise concerns emanating from the Bishop’s Visitation and their relationship with the diocese of Winchester.

I would put a few pence that if safeguarding was on the agenda it was way down the list. I would put even a few more pence that the Dean's handling of HG’s complaint or concerns about her welfare was not even on the agenda.

The Saga began with concerns over safeguarding and the alleged failure of the Dean and others to deal with a complaint against a Church Warden, those concerns now seem to be forgotten and is more about the clergy's self preservation than caring for the vulnerable.

Given that Senator Bailhache was involved it is likely that the subject of a break away from Winchester was high up on the agenda. The Senator not content with political independence appears to be looking at religious independence, is he using the Winchester farce as a trial run for greater events to follow? 

We don’t know whether those behind the publication of the advert are the same people involved in organising the meeting but it is interesting to note that the advert contains the following: “The Church is not, and cannot be perfect, and sadly, from time to time, confidence and hope can be damaged by people getting things wrong.”

Those responsible for the advert have got things badly wrong, they have done so anonymously and are asking members of the public who have experienced inappropriate or unbecoming conduct of their Bishop to write to Dame Heather and copy them in. If they do not have the courage to disclose their identity, how can they expect people to have courage to submit their comments to an anonymous group?

One wonders whether Bishop Dakin is aware of his revolting clergy or whether he really cares. Apparently he was not available but when asked for a comment but a “spokesman” on behalf of the Diocese of Winchester released the following statement.

"The Bishop of Winchester is fully committed to the historic relationship between Jersey and the rest of the Diocese of Winchester. The current safeguarding inquiries are focused purely on ensuring that vulnerable people in the Island, and the Diocese as a whole, are given all the support they need. The Church of England's recent General Synod made clear that safeguarding is of paramount importance throughout the Church. Every single Diocese, including the deaneries and parishes that form them, is expected to take safeguarding equally seriously. 

"Significant concerns were raised around the handling of a serious abuse complaint by a vulnerable young woman in Jersey in 2008. It would have been wholly irresponsible for the Diocese and the Bishop to have ignored these concerns and the current independent inquiries have been given the full support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of Jersey and the Chief Minister. The central Church of England is also funding a significant proportion of the cost of the inquiries because of its wider commitment to safeguarding. 

"The Bishop of Winchester and Dame Heather Steel agreed that her investigation should be carried out as openly and transparently as possible. As such, she placed a public notice in the Jersey Evening Post, calling for anyone with information or evidence that could aid her work to come forward." (End)

If one reads Dame Heather’s TOR (below) they will note that it states that she is going to conduct her investigation in private, therefore why is the “spokesman” saying the investigation should be carried out as openly and transparently as possible.

Also why did the spokesman not take the opportunity to comment on the advert and more importantly confirm whether Dame Heather is content to receive evidence of the Bishop’s perceived inappropriate conduct.

As there is no comment I  have written to Dame Heather asking what part if any she has had in publishing the advert and has she agreed to receive evidence of the Bishop’s inappropriate conduct. As her TOR are unclear I have also asked whether she will be investigating HG's arrest, detention and deportation from Jersey in line with the Korris recommendation? As yet I have not received a reply. 

Dame Heather Steel's Terms of Reference can be read HERE

The Korris Report can be read HERE

The following Blog by Tony the Prof is well worth reading please click HERE

Jersey's Dean and the Silly Season.

It is often said that the month of August is the silly season for news and readers of Saturday’s Jersey Evening Post will doubtless be scratching their heads at the sight of an expensive full page advert inviting witnesses to give evidence about the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester.

The advert makes reference to an advertisement placed in the same newspaper the previous Saturday by the Bishop of Winchester inviting members of the public to offer evidence in relation to the investigation being conducted by Dame Heather Steel. The advert also published Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference (TOR).

This Saturday’s advert cites a number of the Bishop’s failings in relation to one safeguarding issue which is deemed to be disproportionate, caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

Included in the failings, “is the launching of two simultaneous and uncoordinated inquiries aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, which may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese. Some may have experienced the relentless assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.”

“Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants and two extensive inquiries. The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by the clergy in relation to events of the recent past. The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy. If anyone has experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, they should write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com “

The advert appears to have been paid for by a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey “who retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.”

Given such a powerful statement one wonders why those members of the laity did not have the courage to state who they are, who at no confidence in Winton will receive the evidence and what is its purpose? Also why should the evidence be forwarded to Dame Heather is she part of the laity, why no explanation? On reading her TOR it seems to be stretching things to claim that the Bishop’s alleged failings come within its remit.

I have questioned the Bishop’s handling of the matter ever since he suspended Jersey’s Dean Bob Key. If ever there was case of failing to plan there can be few which would surpass the Bishop’s. The advert placed by those claiming to be concerned members of the laity are no better and is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Goodness knows what the ordinary members of the congregation up and down the country are thinking about their supposed leaders.

Those who have been following my Blogs will know that I believe the Dean and others have a case to answer, but they are entitled to expect the investigation to be conducted in an efficient and timely manner. This has not been the case and those questioning the conduct of the investigation are entitled to do so because there is ample evidence.

However what is distressing about the advert is that the concerned laity have made no mention of the real victim, that being HG, the lady whose suffered so badly at the hands of those who profess to care for the vulnerable and for giving courageous support.

Do they wish to continue turn a blind eye to those responsible for the abuse, do they wish to turn a blind eye to those responsible for HG’s arrest, detention and deportation. Do they wish to turn a blind eye to those who left her destitute in England whereby she lost her Jersey home, job and friends? Do they not care about her wellbeing and that her complaints are properly addressed?

Instead of petty squabbling among themselves, they should be united in pressing for an efficient and timely investigation and ensuring that HG receives tangible support and personal apologies. There may have been only been one safeguarding issue, but the way it has been mishandled and the fallout that followed is not down to HG but the incompetence of those tasked with the care of the vulnerable. They failed five years ago and are failing once more.

It looks to me that the advert is more about the concerned members of the Jersey Laity protecting their cosy and closed group so as to continue doing things the “Jersey Way.” Unfortunately the Bishop is playing into their hands.