Thursday 6 August 2015

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (11)----Jersey Social Services " Out on a Limb"

It has been a good week for supporters of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) and after weeks of hearing evidence from those abused, the COI is continuing to question those people who held positions of responsibility when the abuse and neglect was taking place. As each witness is questioned it is becoming abundantly clear that not only were some staff incompetent but they used their positions to cover up their incompetence and in so doing covered up allegations of abuse.

Whilst it has been disturbing listening to evidence from the abused it was also disturbing listening to the answers given by Anton Skinner who rose through the ranks to become the acting Chief Executive of the Health and Community Services. This blog will comment on some of his evidence and Marnie Baudains comments about Stuart Syvret.

What I found disturbing about Anton Skinner’s evidence was that he knew the Jersey Care system was working in total isolation and years behind UK good practice. Mr Skinner admitted that Haut de la Garenne was “a total situation of crisis” yet it remained open for years after the publication of the Lambert/Wilkinson Report, why and who was responsible?

The Lambert/Wilkinson 1981 Report highlighted the lack of training and of Child Care Officers in Jersey feeling "out on a limb from colleagues in the UK and working in isolation." However Mr Skinner said that if anyone wanted to attend courses in the UK money was not a problem but from what he went on to say there seemed to be no encouragement given to those who should have been attending courses not only for their own professional enhancement but to share the knowledge gained with their colleagues.

Mr Skinner held senior positions for a number of years so why did he allow the “out on a limb and working in isolation” to continue? I don’t know whether the Panel understood the isolation issue. It was not just that our Children’s Service was working in isolation from the UK but it was more serious than that, because it was working in isolation in Jersey whereby unlike in the UK where there was an inter agency approach, this was not the case in Jersey.

Each Department was working in silos and there was no sharing of information or joint case conferences held when problems arose with children and/or within the family. The welfare of a child with problems should have been paramount but from my experience a child with problems seemed to be an inconvenience. 

If Mr Skinner could not see the need for training himself then it not surprising that he failed to see the need for training for the lower ranks. It is also apparent that there was no appraisal system in place which would have identified the personnel’s strengths and weaknesses. That absence allowed for the incompetent to remain in office and worse still some getting promoted beyond their levels of competence.

When asked how he kept abreast of the fast moving changes in child care outside Jersey Mr Skinner said he read Care related magazines. It could be said that when it came to leadership in our Care system it was a case of the blind leading the blind. It was not that those in authority planned to fail, but they simply failed to plan because they were either out of their depth or blinkered.

Social justice is a long way down the list of most of those who can do some something about it. Guilt by association is still very much a way of life and I was amused by the former Head at Le Rocquier School complaining about having to accept 'grossly disturbed children' from Haut de la Garenne at his school inferring that it lowered its image.

I attended St Martin’s School for all of my 9 years education and during that time I sat alongside boys from Haut de la Garenne. At no time did I ever hear my former Head Teacher Mr Anthony or any of my fellow pupils complain. I would say that the boys' presence enhanced my education and I have a greater understanding of the difficulties young people in care have to endure. 

It was interesting to see that Mr Skinner had amended his original statement; no doubt some amendments were required following evidence given by some of his former colleagues. I thought his written apology was too little and too late and was more of an apology for his shortcomings than for the harm caused by his incompetence. It was not surprising that one of the abused felt the apology was insincere and an insult.

I noted with amusement that an officer who smacked the bottoms of two mischievous boys had the book thrown at him yet a blind eye approach was adopted when dealing with real abusers.

It was also interesting hearing why the Maguires were not prosecuted. To claim it was in the victim's best interest not to prosecute adds salt to the wounds. The prosecution would have highlighted the shortcomings of a Service that was leaderless, incompetent and in parts uncaring and probably that had more to do with the decision not to prosecute.

It should be noted that the Children’s Service was under the remit of the Education Department until 1995 when it was transferred to the Health Department. It is now evident that concerns about the Maguire’s were made known to the Health Committee soon after the transfer. However it was not until May 1999 that the Committee of the day was misled when being told that the Maguires were leaving because of poor health.

I was a member of the Committee and present at that meeting but was denied the full facts. The decision to deceive my colleagues was not just Mr Skinner's so it begs the question as to who else was part of the deception.

Having been a Member of the Health Committee for around 5 years I found Mr Skinner to be very pleasant but felt was too laid back to hold senior positions. Counsel for the COI Patrick Sadd had certainly done his homework and did a fine job in exposing Mr Skinner’s shortcomings. It is evident that the Panel was struggling to accept some of Mr Skinner’s answers and selective memory and from time to time sought clarification. The transcript of Mr Skinner’s lengthy time answering Mr Sadd’s searching questions are well worth reading and can be found on the COI’s website by clicking HERE.

Marnie Baudains had worked in the UK where she began her career in various child care and supervisory roles before taking up similar employment in Jersey in 1985. She retired as Directorate Manager of Social Services in 2011. She said that Stuart Syvret’s criticisms of services and individuals were erroneous and his actions increased the risk to those who required protection from abuse. It was not the content but the manner in which Stuart had raised the issues.

Methinks that Ms Baudains should be reminded that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Whilst she was may not have been party to the abuse, she worked for Jersey Social Services for over 25 years and her eyes would not have closed for all that time, therefore she must accept responsibility for some of the failings that are now coming to light.

It is apparent that Stuart does not have a degree in diplomacy and often his message is lost because of his direct style. However evidence now coming to light is proving that his criticism was not erroneous and there is still more evidence to come.


  1. An excellent, authoritative and admirably restrained post.

    Drawing on your own experience in the MET, in the Jersey parliament, and, in particular, drawing on your first hand experience on the Health Committee (later to become the Health Ministry), this post is a milestone in the reporting of the Inquiry and the consolidation of the reputation of the serious Jersey bloggers.

    In passing, you have correctly pointed out that Stuart may be lacking in the diplomacy department, but, I don't think anyone can undermine the good work he has done and continues to do in exposing the rotten underbelly of parts of the Jersey administration over a long period.

    The serious Jersey bloggers have the virtue that they did not set out as self-publicists but rather got involved in response to the increasingly apparent failings and perverse actions of the administration. They have continually stood up for those who were abused, both victims and survivors and they have not let the perpetrators off the hook. They have produced a solid body of work that cannot fail to persuade those who follow it with serious intent.

    Please keep up the good work.

    1. Thanks for your kind words. I did have a lengthy period dealing with Child Care issues and one must have an understanding of the problems to be able to address them.

      I agree re Stuart and its a shame that he wont give evidence

  2. I could not agree more, substantial evidence has been provided so far that Stuart Syvret's concerns were not "erroneous " that is unless you had a vested interest in getting rid of him.

  3. Well done Bob. Direct and to the point. These people had a cushy time on their large salaries and dodged all of the tough issues that real professionals confront and try to resolve.

  4. It would be interesting to list all the evidence that has come to light to show that Stuart was correct in his concerns.
    To start it off;
    What about the police report from Alison Fossey, the police came to see Ms Baudins as the report explains. Did she not take their concerns seriously?
    This report is part of the documentary evidence of the transcript of 16 April

  5. I am not defending Stuart's style nor some of the allegations he has made, however when one looks at the outcome it cannot be said that all of his comments were erroneous.

    If you would like to let me have a list of all the evidence that has come to light that shows that Stuart was correct with his concerns and who you are I would be happy to consider publishing whatever is proven.

    1. RE another commenter, Stuart Syvret and "a list of all the evidence that has come to light that shows that Stuart was correct"

      There is actually rather a lot to compile there so perhaps anyone with a contribution could leave it below (ideally with links/refs. (though sometimes these are very time consuming to dig out from a very long and eventful political carer)

      Ex-Health Minister Syvret is primarily in the island's consciousness (depending which side of the wall you are on) as..........
      ......that upstart who speaks out of turn and does not show and does not show his betters due "deference and politeness"
      .....the whistleblower who publicly blew the lid off Jerseys decades of child abuse and cover up.

      That public consciousness is understandable, but Mr.Syvret is and always was more than that and I think that Mr.Syvret was Health Minister for several years before he saw evidence that he (and probably other politicians) were being comprehensively lied to and mislead by their senior Civil Serpents (the island situation being a goldmine for research into culture and organisations and into individual/group psychology)

      Child protection failure is rightly the focus but I feel that comments should not be restricted to this sphere only so I will kick off with a couple om nuggets from previous decades.

      1a. The danger (& stupidity) of burying toxic incinerator ash on the reclamation site.
      1b. The utter stupidity) of mixing the highly toxic incinerator ash into the rest of the ash before burying it. (Burying stuff may be the Jersey Way but things have a habit of not staying buried (DOH !), and even if they do these covered up things insidiously continue to affect the island's health and economy (tidal leechate and re-concentration into the marine ...and human food chain)

      2. LLP fastracking and the Jersey "Legislature for Hire" scandal.

      No doubt Syvret has made mistakes but these seem remarkably few, especially for someone so outspoken and "straight talking".

      Conversely a list of Stuart's errors will I suspect ultimately prove to be a rather short list ......unlike the list of 'errors' by the JEPeado-led Jersey electorate LOL.

      According to the establishment narrative Stuart Syvret remains a "conspiracy theorist", a "sideshow", someone best ignored or better still "laughed at". (the expensive PR gurus, astroturfers and trolls all have an understanding of the most basic human psychology)
      [see also very interesting research project on "how politics makes us stupid" demonstrating how people can cling even more desperately to erroneous belief and attitude when confronted by challenging evidence!]
      Those of us with reasonably long memories will recall that Syvret was only narrowly defeated by Frank Walker to become the island's first Chief Minister on the changeover to ministerial government. Syvret is patently not a stupid man and one can contemplate how much different (and better off) the island might be if Frank Walker had not won that vote, and hoe many tens of £millions (probably 100s actually) the island would have saved sensible steering and spending in the right places and controlling the power of the self protecting and self bloating civil service.......

  6. Hi Bob,
    Indeed an excellent, authoritative and admirably restrained post, as described by the not always so restrained Póló :-)

    Regarding publication:
    I submitted two comments yesterday (3 if you include the first which was for deletion please, because of the typos).
    Did you not receive these or were they judged unsuitable for publication?

    I hope it was obvious that these comments were intended to satirise the inevitable trolling attacks which Jersey's child protection blogers are subjected to.
    "These blogs never do anything else but moan........But when it comes to self titled Whistle Blowing bloggers wiggling out of giving evidence to a Multimillion Pound Inquiry into Child Abuse that's got to be the biggest laugh of the lot. 8 years of filling Blogs with messages of corruption, cover ups and judicial manipulation to silence people and when the man of so many words gets a chance to show his evidence he scurries away like a gutter rat. Priceless!"

    This was left unchallenged but it is pretty obvious that it originates from what could be colloquially known as "the house of worthless".

    Regarding ex Health Minister Syvret; 'Politeness' and 'diplomacy' are indeed laudable ideals but they are not in all circumstances appropriate reactions ......say to decades of unchallenged abuse, rape and even torture of children.
    Particularly after 'diplomacy' and 'politeness' have had no effect?

    When faced with entrenched inaction to extreme circumstances there surely comes a time for 'cracking heads together' and biblically for 'tiping over the money lenders tables' ?

    I am happy to tone down and resubmit my comments of yesterday if you can identify the parts you particularly objected to. I can reference all the points I made including the Iris Le Fevre quotes which I wrote from memory (and got slightly wrong but correct in substance)

  7. From 2007 to 2012 failure by the States child protection system.

    Our ref: JMP/LAW

    Dear Colleague

    Child Protection Services and our Children's Services More Generally

    On Wednesday last, I wrote to you following the dismissal of Senator Stuart Syvret as the Minister for Health and Social Services, which became effective the previous day.

    The Jersey Evening Post reported the dismissal and included in that report the following statement:

    'Members backed Chief Minister Frank Walker's move by a 35 to 15 margin, effectively deciding that his attacks on his own staff, other civil servants and politicians over the recent rows have been unjustified'.

    You will also be aware that Senator Stuart Syvret as Minister, invited people to come forward to him with any details of any incident of child abuse or any untoward incident of this nature. as a consequence of his call, he asked me to investigate two alleged incidents.

    The first concerns the circumstances surrounding the departure of a member of staff. Following my investigation into this matter, the Senator accepted that this had been handled correctly. The second concerns alleged incidents which occurred in the mid 1980's which of course is over 20 years ago.

    The truth is- as if we did not know it- that these are highly respected, caring professionals who work in one of the most high risk sectors of public service.

    In addition to the investigations (referred to above) which Senator Syvret asked me to investigate, you will appreciate that the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey have also asked me to investigate some allegations which were brought to their attention. What I expected to find in undertaking all of this work was that the vast majority of such allegations were groundless and could be easily rebutted. To be perfectly honest though I did expect - because this is the way the world usually turns - to find that one or two instances had not been handled as they could have been. What I actually found, without exception, was that every instance and every matter I looked into had been dealt with to the highest possible standard.

    Never before in my 30 years of practice have I found a service that has got it so right, so well and so often to such a high standard

    I trust therefore that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record.

    I will not take kindly to anyone who seeks to make mischief with these hard working staff on these matters...."

    Chief Executive Health and Social services,

    Mike Pollard.

    Dated 14/9/2007

    BBC Friday 26 March 2010.

    Jersey authorities failed to protect three children from physical, sexual and emotional abuse over a 12-year period, a review has found.?

    The report, by the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC), found there were serious failings in the quality of care from the authorities.??

    It identified a number of failings in various agencies, including Children's Services, Health and Social Services and the Law Officer's Department.


    The information was revealed at the inquest into the unnamed 16-year-old, who died in May 2013.

    The court heard authorities became aware of the boy's tendency to self-harm at the end of 2012 and felt he was at risk of taking his own life.


    Will Mr Bill Ogley, Mr Pollard, Mr Lundy and other States members including Health Minister Anne Pryke, be called before the Child abuse COI, regarding their failure in public office and as head of their departments which were clearly lacking in the protection of children ?


    1. Thanks for the researched info above. Mr Lundy has already given evidence and I hope the above will also do so.

  8. Comments on here against witnesses at the Inquiry are worthless.
    If people have something to say then they should go down to the Inquiry and get it put on record. This on-going spectatorship from Blogs form no part of this Inquiry.

    1. Thanks @10:42 That's funny!

      Thank you for sharing your opinion. You see; comments on these quality blogs are not generally "worthless" LOL.

      I think you will find that most of the references on the reputable blogs will ultimately find their way to the CoI.
      We are paying for a very expensive public inquiry, supposedly so that it can be done 'properly' and so that these dark deeds and failures can at last be 'put to bed'.

      Analysis of the opinion you express is interesting, as follows.....
      Should this extremely expensive CoI fail to find evidence .......that is whose fault exactly?

      ....the blogs' ?
      ....the commenters' ?
      ....the CoI's ?

      If the CoI fails to find critical evidence, particularly that which is in plain sight, then it does so because it is intended to, designed to. In short a testament to their failure to find the truth and their failure to engage with witnesses as they were supposed to. Their failure to answer reasonable concerns, their failure to provide equity of arms and even to set themselves up on a properly legal and human rights compliant basis?

      Due to it's foolish failure to engage and to also allow collaboration with the establishment the CoI members now finds themselves between a rock and a hard place. Mr.Syvret is still subject to superinjunctions and that he and other witnesses are currently holding back gives good people stout braces should the "belt" of the CoI otherwise leave us and our children with their "pants down".

      Any CoI members who do not make enough out of the CoI in order to retire find themselves having to make a sufficiently incisive final published report (under difficult circumstances!) or face the considerable career damage when the rest of the truth comes out it surely will.

      Have you presented to the CoI yet, or did you just think it would be helpful to take pot shots at other readers?

      Please don't be depressed or downhearted. There is only one way this is going to end, it is only the timescale which is uncertain.

    2. I think it would be helpful if you read my previous blogs because you will see that I was probably the first to make a statement and am waiting to give evidence.

      You will also have noted that without receiving narrow States support for my amendments to Senator Le Gresley's proposition there would not be a COI.

      Having had over 50 years of ignoring idle and silly remarks I am pretty thick skinned, but I don't see why I should publish comments from people who make rude and offensive comments anonymously.

      I always try to publish blogs which are fair, balanced, constructive and supported with evidence. I welcome comments from people who share those principles.

  9. Sorry, but am I reading an attack on a witness of the Inquiry?
    I thought you were into Human Rights?

    1. Q. at 12:01 "Sorry, but am I reading an attack on a witness of the Inquiry?"
      A. No (probably not even by the widest interpretation of the word)

      Q. Was comment @12:01 brought to us by the aforementioned "House of Worthless"
      One of my favourite comments off the above link includes
      "This is just the tip of the iceberg and he [Mr. Death threat Troll, in his phone call] boasts of his protection by the Jersey authorities and was only prosecuted because of ex Health Minister Syvret’s complaint about WITNESS INTIMIDATING during a live court case.

      The Jersey authorities should give Mr. [Trolly] the mental health help he desperately needs but they would rather use him as a useful fool. Bizarrely they have even awarded him and a group including some even more unpleasant and dangerous characters over £300,000 of public money in part of a multi million legal campaign to silence political dissent and opposition on the island.

      Mr. [Trolly] has remained a highly active agitator in the shadowy world of Jersey politics and bloggers and [even] their wives still remain under attack.

      .........[& many more recent examples of this behaviour]"

      Though it is difficult to believe and to come to terms with, it turns out that [Mr. Death threat Troll] boasts of protection by the Jersey authorities and police is one of the rare occasions on which he was NOT lying. Interestingly he specifically mentions "DATA PROTECTION" long before that particular fraudulent card was brought out from under the flaccid Bailhache sleeve, which indicates that he was well in the loop (another of his regular boasts!)

      This individual and his associates have even been known to impersonate abuse survivors in order to get where he wants to go. We know some of his handlers but as yet can only make educated guesses of the rest.

      Will [Mr. Death threat Troll] and the LOL Pan-CI Data Protection Racket commissar be brought before the CoI, as they both appear to be parts of the abuse cover up

      Are you @12:01 a "witness of the Inquiry"? If so are you giving evidence only under one true name?
      And BTW the above could be interpreted as an "attack" or alternatively as pertinent re-presentation of existing evidence and opinion.

      There is more it of both if you want it, but let's not divert Mr.Hill's blog onto this (relative) irrelevance. This disturbing-but-funny "sideshow".

  10. "Mr.Syvret is still subject to superinjunctions "

    How, they cannot be issued from a Jersey Court?

    1. RE: "they [superinjunctions] cannot be issued from a Jersey Court?

      Really? What's this then??? (there may be others which remain unpublished):

      and why would this commenter determinedly litter your child protection blog with distractions and untruths?

      Who are those 4 "gentlemen" refered to as AB, CD, EF, and HG.

      A very dangerous precedent, basically making it illegal to report things which are true (actually in contravention of the letter and the intent of the Jersey Data Protection Law as passed by the States.

      Why was over £300,000 of this multi million pound cover up campaign directed to these unsavoury individuals, and why did the Jersey Establishment Data Madam seek out and bring these 4 together with shedloads of public funding?

      An unbelievable waste of taxpayer's money on these low-lifes. And ultimately futile as their real identities have been revealed under parliamentary privilege in the UK

      Several of these individuals (possibly all) should be dragged before the CoI into child abuse and cover up..
      One already has been before the CoI, BUT under two (possibly 3) different identities!

    2. Thank you for your comment in which you make some valid points.

      Whilst I can accept the right of any individual to complain about material published about them. I do question why the States and the Public were party to the prosecution and cost and why the matter was held in camera.

      There is a mechanism to cater for people feeling aggrieved, but that process was not followed. It would be interesting to see if the States would provide the same level of support should some one else feel aggrieved.

      Thanks for the link to the Judgement which is well worth a read. Just a small point, there is a typo re the 4 gentlemen it should be GH and not HG.

    3. I still can't understand why the blatant abuse of data protection legislation to get at Stuart and the further blatant misuse of the judgement to get his blog taken down has not been adequately publicised, analysed and dealt with.

      Does Her Majesty concur with these abuses? Why has she not instructed her crown officers to rectify matters? Silly question really?

    4. Thanks Bob,

      It was probably a "braino" because "HG" is of course the Jersey CoE abuse and cover up victim who was prosecuted, criminalised and 'constructively deported' by the Jersey courts in response to her allegations about a very senior Jersey Establishment connected abuser who lured her into his home.

      After her complaint this young woman was dumped destitute at a UK airport without even being allowed to collect her belongings from her home. She then spent several winters homeless and sometimes living rough on the UK streets!

      She was particularly vulnerable because she is autistic/aspergic.
      She was diagnosed relatively late in life due to being female and due to being marginally more intelligent than most "normal" people.
      Some aspergics/autistics are profoundly disabled but some have utterly phenomenal intelligence or abilities -particularly if they have a safe childhood and access to any education, tho many are self taught. Sometimes this intelligence is matched by utterly uncompromising integrity or determination. I would not be surprised if Stuart Syvret was on this spectrum (a personal view, I stress, if I am allowed to make this observation).
      While potentially a "disability", it should be noted that many of the world' top scientists and even business leaders etc. are thought to have been aspergic.
      Jersey (if I recall correctly) has several times the UK incidence of aspergers/autism spectrum. Jersey parents should watch out for signs, particularly amongst girls who use their intelligence to blend in with social skills that are learned rather than instinctive. Diagnosis is more helpful before puberty but unfortunately is more difficult to spot in the early years.

      Bob Hill was one of those good enough to take up HG's case, as the archive of this blog will show.

      I found some of HG's writing from just a few days ago:
      "Of course I knew Ian LeMarquand because he was a church of england reader and friend of my abuser as well as being elected Home Affairs Minister, I still have his daughter's excited emails to me about him being elected. But of course my clearest memory of him is how he blocked me for receiving prayers and then lied both about that, and about his knowledge of me being abused, his lie was so blatant because he had previously told people not to touch me because he knew I had been abused, before he knew it was his friend who had abused me, and another memory of him was him trivialising paedophilia and letting someone off an abuse charge when he was a magistrate."

      Well hows' about that then, guys and girls?

      HG. Would you agree that humour is a valuable commodity in human resilience?
      If you don't laugh would cry.

    5. Hello rude person relaying my writing dumbfoundingly randomly and asking me questions.
      I don't know what your question means or if Bob will publish this but I think you mean something like 'I would be dead if I didn't have a sense of humour' which is true :)
      Ian LeMarquand is a norty little man.
      I think I will go and swim in the sea now.

    6. HG has given us access to a report.
      After reading it I would like to correct my opinion of HG
      "being marginally more intelligent than normal" (based on previous measurement of 4 points above average)
      to *significantly* more intelligent than average

      There are aspects of her life, opportunity and schooling that I was previously clueless about.

      Look after yourself sweetheart. x

    7. Mr rudeperson I don't understand most of what you say, especially not the comment above, please can you tell me more simply.

    8. humour can hurt and humour can heal8 August 2015 at 20:57

      Hi HG,
      You have taken the report I refer to offline so I will assume that you don't want to discuss it in detail.
      If you put stuff online people will read it and this helps you get your story across if that is what you want.
      The point I make is that you do rather well, and rather well to score above average considering your unconventional upbringing and education.
      I know that sharing your story has been especially difficult for you but I hope that some of that experience has had a cathartic side for you and you deserve respect for your bravery and determination both in this and in educating yourself.
      The fact that you shared your story and your pain has benefited this island and there are a good deal of people in Jersey and elsewhere who care what happens to you and about what happened to you in the past. There will be the odd troll-type but most islanders appreciate what you have done and think well of you.

      Some of us are both 'rude' and 'norty' :-)

      Nothing I have said in connection with you is meant unkindly so please don't take it that way x

    9. Thank you Mr person, are you actually in Jersey though? The digital trace says you are in the UK.
      Bahaha! :)
      Please can you tell me what report you mean as I have not recently taken any reports off the blog and would prefer to share things as much as I can. I noticed that a post had 'taken itself offline' so to speak and I am a bit puzzled, Are Google being shafted by anyone? There was some sort of error with the blog earlier. Did you mean my psych report or my childhood story? They should still be up. btw, that psychologist was excellent but the Church of England left me so severely collapsed in 2013 that I couldn't continue therapy, the good news is, I am back in therapy.
      I am not misconstruing what you have said, just a bit unsure of what some of it means.
      If you have any suggestions or would like to add 'interview' questions to the ones I have already replied to, the more the merrier, if it helps people to understand things. All printed interview questions have been sent to me by others and I continue to request questions to help me to blog and show who I am, not who the church say I am.
      For example, you probably didn't know about my interactions with LeMarquand and his family until I briefly mentioned it?

    10. humour can hurt and humour can heal10 August 2015 at 00:06

      Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been travelling all day.

      It was the 2013 psych report, and it had brief details of your childhood and education

      The webpage is fine now so it must just have been a poorly timed glitch.

      Like I said 'smarter than the average bear' -and in difficult circumstances without the opportunities and stability most take for granted.

    11. aww. Thank you. Was I right that you were commenting from the UK?
      The psych who did that report was brilliant, sadly he is too far away now but I have another great therapist now.
      The church don't have the ability to understand the impact of the regression and abuse from the churchwarden on top of my unstable upbringing, hence they vilify me, these so-called followers of Christ.

  11. Bob, can you get the gent to say which report he read that he thinks has been removed, so that I can check and make sure it is accessible if appropriate. I have not removed anything recently but I can see his link suddenly goes nowhere, which is a puzzle to me too.
    It may be this link he is talking about, which is still available:
    Anyway, this blog is about your care inquiry and I don't want to detract from that.

  12. I cannot see any mention of a Super Injunction in this transcript because they cannot be issued in Jersey. I also see in other transcripts that Mr Syvret never bothered to challenge the case being held in Camera so its his fault.

  13. Why do you keep on hyper-linking attacks on Mr Howarth on here?

    Married man, kids, some of the stuff written about him on that hyper-link is disgusting.

    1. I don't think Mr Howarth has ever been mentioned on my blog until your comment above. Where's the attack?

    2. The post headlined - "Click HERE to listen to Jersey States death threat troll nail itself8 August 2015 at 08:48."

      Its out of order.

    3. You must be blind.
      You know full well what comments are allowed on here.
      I've messaged him anyway.

    4. No mate, it's working fine, I just tried it.

  14. Thanks for another informed blog. Should be essential reading for the COI.

    1. Thank you, as a matter of courtesy I always forward a link to the COI.

  15. On clicking link to find skiners transcript of evidence cannot find the neccesary section.Help!

    1. I have just tried and the link does open.

      The link should take readers to the COI website look for Hearings, when it opens look for Transcripts. You will find the transcripts of Mr Skinner's Hearings.

    2. The three links below should bring you directly to pdfs for each of the three days of Mr. Skinner's evidence.

      Day 87
      Day 88
      Day 89

  16. Thanks Polo for the links which will make access much easier.

  17. This is an excellent blog. Thank goodness we have Bob Hill. Initially when Bob lost his seat in St. Martin I was so disappointed but now I'm actually glad. Glad because it has freed Bob up to keep an eye on the CoI etc. yet still enjoy his life, rather than being burdened down with the stressful, back-biting States. Thank you Bob. And please, could I ask a favour? I would appreciate if you could jog my memory in relation to an aspect of the Child Abuse matters. In 2008/9 (approx) you proposed the CoI (or was that Wimberely) or you made a similar proposition for a relations group or something and despite winning, the CoM basically ignored you and then deleted the important ToR which apparently slipped of the page! Have I got that right? Sorry to ask. I used to be clear on things but as time goes on, some of the land mark events in this long drawn out murky deep water lagoon get cloudy. Thank you Bob and all the best to you and your family.

    1. It was my amendments that led to the establishment of the COI, however it would not have been approved without the support from people like Daniel, Monty, Mike Higgins, Trevor and Shona, plus support from the Voice and Rico blogs. There are others and I apologize for not including them all.

      Daniel played a leading role re the amendments and as we were no longer in the States we were grateful for people like Monty for lodging amendments to the TOR.

      Where do you get the idea that I am finding time to enjoy my self. I am miles behind with my book and as I am now well passed my 3 score and 10 I am not sure that I am going to get an extension to complete it.

    2. ...and still on your bike Bob I hope. Thank you for the explanation and good luck with the book. I'm sure you will get it finished.

  18. Bob, I know you are selective about publishing things but I have done a blog regarding the nonsense by Bishop Willmott, your commentator on my blog may like it:

  19. Philip Bailhache has hit the headlines on BBC Jersey, it isn't very convincing yet.
    But I think there is more to come.

    1. The BBC reports that Sir Philip declined to comment and said that he has not yet been called to give evidence to the inquiry.

  20. Jersey care inquiry: Attorney general 'failed to notify police'

    The noose is tightening on Philip Bailhache

    1. Thanks for the link, well worth opening and reading the BBC Report.

    2. The full transcript is not available yet

      In conclusion [former Director of Education] Mr John Rodhouse said: "I have thought long and hard about my responsibility for what has happened. I trusted the people who worked under me and what I have read so far in the transcripts of this Inquiry indicates that my trust was misplaced. I am truly sorry."

      If a honest and representative, this looks like a well worded apology, without qualifiers or additional attacks tagged on the end.

      "He cited several examples of incidents involving abuse in schools and said if he had received any suggestion of child abuse at HDLG or elsewhere in Children's Services he would have dealt with them in a similar way. He detailed one particular incident about which he still felt very uncomfortable involving a volunteer youth worker who was fired but not reported to the Police on the direction of the Attorney General."

      [the effect of this was that Bailhache's lucky "volunteer youth worker" went on to abuse other children and was eventually convicted!]

  21. Bob.

    ITV/CTV to be banned from reporting at Jersey Child Abuse INQUIRY?

  22. PB has said he has no recollection of the case,,so that's all right then !!! sound familiar

    1. I am sure that if Mr Bailhache appears at a Hearing he will be shown documents to refresh his memory.

    2. Assuming, of course, that such documents have been forwarded to the panel by the inhouse collection team.

    3. Not sure but was he not seen reading the documents on the plane or was it another apparition?

  23. Philip Bailhache should hand himself into the enquiry now as he will be asked to give evidence. He has done everything to stop this enquiry and I am sure we have not heard all of his part yet. I rest my case.

    1. When Senator Bailhache says that he has not been called to give evidence, it does not mean that he won't be called when the COI gets further into its Terms of Reference.

  24. Sir Philip Bailache is Exterior Minister, should he resign?

  25. I think until he has given evidence at the Independent Child Enquiry his role as Exterior Minister is not viable.


    1. It might be too early to jump to conclusions; however I would expect the COI to request Sir Philip to account for the John Rodhouse statement. Anything less would be a “cop out.”

  26. BOB. The COI are requesting the Law Officers to hand over certain papers by a certain date or inform the COI that they don't exist, since they have kept the COI waiting for so long does this mean they can just say these papers do not exist and get away with it?

    1. It is now evident that the COI is starting to understand the “Jersey Way” and full marks to Mrs Frances Oldham for publicly making her concerns known.

      It would be helpful if members of States Departments including the Law Officers would remember that irrespective of their position they are public servants. Their failure to co-operate is not only unseemly but is hamstringing the COI and adding to its costs.

      The COI has some pretty powerful tools to get what it seeks and I am confident that Mrs Oldham will be prepared to use them if necessary.

      Below is Mrs Oldham’s statement.

      “During this phase of evidence, the Inquiry has received excellent cooperation from the vast majority of witnesses, who have assisted the work of the Inquiry. “However, we have been hampered by the late and non-disclosure of important documents, largely by the various States’ Departments, but also from the Law Officers Department. These include HR records, disciplinary and other investigations, policies, procedures, reports and emails, which have either failed to be disclosed, or have been disclosed after the relevant witness has given their evidence. Over the coming weeks, the Inquiry will review the recent disclosure and any documents which are forthcoming and will consider whether witnesses need to be recalled as a result.

      “Furthermore, in relation to specific disclosure requests that have been outstanding for a number of months, the Inquiry will consider setting a final date for the provision of these documents or written confirmation that the documents do not exist. Failure to provide documents may lead to adverse inferences being drawn by the Inquiry in its final report.”

      Public hearings will resume on Tuesday 8 September with four days of hearings to hear evidence from various members of committees of the States of Jersey.
      A detailed timetable will be made available at the beginning of September.
      In the meantime the Inquiry team will continue their intense preparation for the next phase of the Inquiry.

      Hearings will recommence in earnest the week beginning 12 October with the Panel hearing any outstanding evidence relating to Phase 1b of the Inquiry. They will also hear evidence relating to Phase 2 where they will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and prosecutions of alleged abusers.”

  27. The strongest tool that Francis Oldham could use, is to call witnesses under oath who have by law to appear. People like Mr Gradwell, Mr Ogley, Mike Polllard and Frank Walker et al. If these people refuse to attend Bob what is her position ? How much water and weight would her final report hold ?

    1. There is a parallel thread also discussing the delay and withholding of documents from the CoI, the apparent theft of all extant originals and copies of Graham Power's contract of employment, starting a little before here:

      A comment which may answer part of your question is "The Chief Executive of the Jersey States, at the time of Operation Rectangle will not have to give evidence at the COI because he now does not live in Jersey. He also will not give evidence because he was paid £500,000 to keep his mouth shut. Therefore Bill Ogley is in a win, win, situation....
      Where tf is the justice in that!?"

      So, if that is correct, at least 2 of the four you mention have placed themselves beyond the reach of this CoI.

      Being "under oath" has not stopped several witnesses lying, sometimes under more than one identity.

    2. This comment covers the two above.

      Living outside the Island will not be a valid reason for people to avoid giving evidence, failure to attend might require a summons being requested.
      Whilst I know the name of some people who waiting to give evidence I don't know if the four above mentioned people are, but I would be surprised if they are not.

      I agree re the oath, it is already becoming evident that some witnesses have been very economical with the truth and in some cases it is evident that some have memory problems.

    3. Not to mention Philip Bailhache was leaked Lenny Harper's statement to the inquiry so dishonesty and corruption still rules the day.

  28. When senior members of government makes the economy number one objective, the well being of its people end up bottom for priority

    1. Yes and it appears that addressing social issues has been way down on the list for some time.