Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (12)---- Culture of Concealment Reigns On.

One of the interesting features emerging from the Committee of Inquiry (COI) Hearings is the variation in witnesses’ ability to recall events from the past. Some had a good memory, some a poor and on occasions it has been evident some had a selective memory.

Selective memory is often a convenient way of temporarily forgetting something which is expedient to forget. It was not that long ago that a senior Minister was unable to recall what he was reading on the plane. Even more recently he was unable to recall a conversation with the former Education Chief who claimed they had spoken about not reporting an allegation of abuse to the police.

In October the COI will be listening to some very interesting witnesses who will be commenting on the collusion between senior civil servants and Ministers and will be questioning the integrity of Ministers and the Council of Ministers in particular.

In the past month it has become evident that not only have other Ministers suffered from selective memory but the Council of Ministers is suffering from collective selective memory.

During my 18 years in the States I took a particular interest in the Licensing Law and successfully lodged a number of amendments which included approval for pubs to remain open all day on Sundays and for shops to sell alcohol after 1pm. Also at my instigation I conducted a review of the Island’s Licensing Law and among the recommendations was that anomalies in the fees charged for liquor licences should be addressed. Despite my offers to assist the Economic Development Department to conduct a review and to advance a new Licensing Law they were rejected.

In 2007 revenue received from license fees was around £272K per annum from over 600 premises and around £15 million received from Impôt Duties. To seek an increase in the fees requires States approval and until 2007 requests were made in September each year.

There are 7 categories of Licence and 7 scales of fees. However there is the nonsense of large supermarkets paying £114 for their licence which is the same as small corner shops, three times less than local football clubs who normally only open their bar on match days and four times less than the many small restaurants operating around the Island. There are a number of other anomalies which can be found in the link at the bottom of this blog.

In 2007 having again failed to persuade the Minister to agree to my request I lodged P117/2007 which sought States approval to request the Minister to review the structure of the current liquor licence fees with the view to introducing a more equitable licensing structure. Also and of equal importance was part 2 which requested the Minister to finalise the review within 12 months OR before any requests were made for further increases in Licensing fees.

The debate took place on 26^th September. The Minister, Senator Ozouf agreed that his assistant Minister Senator MacLean should act as rapporteur and on his behalf accepted my proposition and I quote part of his speech “First of all, I would just like to thank the Deputy of St. Martin for liaising with the Department in such a constructive manner over this issue. We clearly welcome his proposition. We support it, just so that Members are not in any doubt whatsoever, and we will be moving forward to ensure that an appropriate review is carried out, not only in the narrow constraints of this particular proposition but certainly in a more wide-ranging review.” The full Hansard Report can be read via the link below.

What has this got to do with selective memory you may ask?  Well since the 2007 debate no review has been conducted and no increase has been sought until a couple of weeks ago when the Minister for Economic Development lodged P94/2015 asking for a 17% hype in the license fees The reason given for the increase is because fees have not risen since 2007, they need to be rectified and brought up to date in line with inflation. How ever there is no mention as to why there has been no increase or of the 2007 States decision, why?

This brings me back to selective memory because it’s difficult to accept that not one current Minister or civil servant can remember the 2007 proposition or asked why there has been no annual request. Senator MacLean is now the Minister of Finance, has he forgotten the proposition? The same could be said of Senator Bailhache who as Bailiff would have given consent for my proposition to be lodged and presided during the debate which was unanimously approved via a Standing Vote. Have fellow Ministers like Gorst, Ozouf, Routier and Pryke also forgotten or asked why there has been no request for an increase for long? Have none of the newer Ministers asked questions or are they so bound to collective obedience. 

Before a proposition can be lodged it has to be approved by the Bailiff who by coincidence also heads the Licensing Bench. I am surprised that he has not insisted on a rescindment of the 2007 decision before approving P94/2015. It is common knowledge among the Licensing trade why fees have not been raised since the 2007 decision yet that fact seems to be unknown to Ministers, their civil servants and even the head of the Licensing Bench. I found this memory loss hard to accept so did a bit of research.

The Minister’s report in P94/2015 which can be read in full in the link below says “following consultation with key stakeholders it has been agreed that whilst the up-rating is long overdue, in order to reduce the financial burden on licensees, the increases will phased over 2 years.”  As the report makes no mention of the 2007 States decision I thought it was wise to check with some of the key stakeholders seeking information as to what the consultation entailed.

I have checked with key stakeholders who have confirmed that they met a minister and civil servant but only to be informed that the fees would be going up, but to ease the burden they would be raised in two rather than one year. They maintain that they raised the issue of the States decision in 2007 and why the increase was sought before the outcome of the review. However they were told that the increase was going ahead irrespective of the States decision."

I have no reason to question the stakeholder’s version of events because asking about the 2007 decision is probably the first question anyone including States Members would ask.

What is now evident is that Ministers and civil servants are aware of the 2007 decision but have chosen to omit that fact in the report. The States has had 8 years to conduct the review but has failed. Not only does it hide the truth but the anomalies still exist because the promised review has not been carried out.

The Council of Ministers is desperate to fill the black hole it created and via the Economic Minister is seeking an increase in Licence fees; however the manner in which it seeks the increase does little for its integrity or reputation. It is evident that by concealing the truth the Ministers and Civil Servants are being underhand and unprofessional. What ever reason it chooses to deny that fact it will do little to persuade the "thinking public" that the culture of concealment and collusion still exists in Jersey and should not go unnoticed by the Committee of Inquiry.

If the Council of Ministers can go to such lengths to conceal the truth for such minor matters like increasing Licence fees than it begs the question what has it been concealing in relation to abuse allegations, Operation Rectangle, the Graham Power suspension and many other related matters.

I shall be forwarding this blog to the relevant Ministers suggesting that P94/2015 be withdrawn and the States decision of 2007 be implemented before any rise in fees is requested.. 

The original Proposition P 117/2007 can be read by clicking HERE

The Minister's Proposition P94/2015 can be read by clicking HERE

The 2007 Hansard report can be read by clicking HERE and scroll well down until reaching Paragraph 11

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (7) Mounting Cost-- The Cost of Success?

The Independent Panel enquiring into child abuse in Jersey is coming to the end of its first year and it is quite clear that it is far exceeding the estimated cost. It is now evident that the estimated cost of £6 millIon was very much a poor guesstimate and Panel Chairman Frances Oldham made the Council of Ministers aware of the potential costs in May last year. Please see pages 24/25 of proposition 20/2015 which can be opened by clicking HERE.

It is evident that little attention has been given to the COI’s progress or resultant cost and it is only now that Chief Minister Senator Gorst has lodged a proposition asking the States to agree that up to a further £14 million should be made available in order to provide additional funding to allow for the Committee of Inquiry to complete its task.

One of the difficulties in setting a cost for the Inquiry was that no one really knew of the extent of the abuse or of its covering up. What is becoming abundantly clear is that as confidence in the Panel has grown further witnesses have come forward. That in itself is a success; however it comes at a cost.

What should be noted is that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) has yet to get its teeth into the Terms of Reference relating to Operation Rectangle whose spiralling costs were so heavily but unfairly criticized and was one of the excuses given for the unprecedented suspension of our police chief. As confidence in the police grew more witnesses, information and evidence became available and like the COI is now experiencing, this led to spiralling costs.

Sadly certain irresponsible and mischievous sectors of our community took pleasure in ridiculing the police investigations by questioning the cost of flights and menus of some of the inquiry team rather than expending their energy on supporting the police and encouraging witnesses to come forward. Fortunately the COI has not yet suffered that indignity however it does not mean that it has a licence to print money.

In her response to Senator McLean’s concerns about the spiralling cost Mrs Oldham quite rightly reminded him “of the extremely serious matters relating to the history for care of children in Jersey which must be explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole Island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years.” Mrs Oldham is clearly not enamoured by the Minister’s protestations nor will she be diverted from her goal. 

Goodness knows how much money was spent on covering up allegations of abuse and malpractice and those costs are now coming to haunt us. Whilst I abhor wanton waste and a tight reign must be kept on expenditure, particularly legal fees it is not acceptable for the Chief Minister to attempt to put a cap on the cost of establishing the truth.

It is interesting to note that Senator Bailhache who did not vote in support of the Committee of Inquiry is now suggesting that the final bill could be in the region of £50 million. Whilst I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t have a hidden agenda either and to curtail the Inquiry or to pull the plug on it because it’s getting expensive would be nonsense. There are some who might think that citing cost and putting caps on expenditure is not only scare mongering but another attempt to stop getting to the truth.

I note that the Chief Minister is proposing that the Inquiry and the States publish jointly on their websites details of their expenditure on a monthly basis. It was my understanding that that proposal had been agreed at the outset so the sooner more sets of eyes are looking at the costs the better.  

As mentioned above the proposition relating to the request for future funding is P20/2115 which also be reading by clicking HERE.

Voiceforchildren has recently published a blog on the funding and can be read by clicking HERE

Plemont Headland---A Contrived Debate?

Next week the States will be meeting as per schedule and Members have over 30 propositions plus amendments to debate. Some years ago the States approved my proposition which was to publish a schedule of States Sittings in the summer for the following year and should States business not be completed on the scheduled Tuesday then business would continue through that week. The 2014 schedule was published on 15th July via R87/2013

The reason for my proposition was to help States Members with their diaries. They would know that whilst they could be in the States for some days in the scheduled week, there was good chance that they would be free the following week so they could arrange meetings, particularly those out of Island, with a degree of certainty. Therefore States Members had almost a year's notice that there would be a States meeting on 1st July which could sit for several days as there is always a build up in July.

Due to the large number of propositions the States has agreed to meet at 230pm on Monday 30th June for Question Time which will mean that debates on the propositions can get under way after prayers on Tuesday 1st July. Normally propositions are debated in the numerical order in which they are lodged. However if a good reason can be found it is possible with States approval for a proposition to be moved up or down the Order Paper.

On 3rd June Senator Philip Bailhache lodged yet another proposition on the Plemont Holiday Village. P107/2014. In his election manifesto he was critical of States Members stating " The reputation of the States in the Island has seldom been lower. Too much time is wasted by the discussion of trivial matters." He may be right but what is a trivial matter and how many times must a matter be recycled? There have been several States debates on Plemont and on 13th December 2012 the States debated P90/2012 lodged by Chief Minister Gorst which asked whether the States should buy the headland and sell it on to the National Trust for Jersey. The States by 25 to 24 decided against the purchase. Planning Consent has since been given and work is underway, however the friends/members of the National Trust have continued their opposition.

The latest twist in the saga is that the Developer, probably because he can not longer afford the time or money fighting the Trust's big guns is offering to sell the property to them. However not only is the price well over the top, see Treasury Ministers Comments in 2012 but is considerably more than the Trust can afford. However with friends in high places money is not a problem. The Developer is asking for just over £7 million pounds and to walk away leaving the States and the National Trust with responsibility for clearing the large site and returning it to nature.

What is alarming is that Senator Bailhache only lodged his proposition on 3rd June and it is being debated one month later with no Comments from the Treasury or Planning Ministers or the Council of Ministers, nor being subject of a review or Comments from the Scrutiny Panel. If the proposition had been lodged by an "ordinary" back bencher all sorts of obstacles would have been found let alone requests for deferment until the financial implications had been addressed. 

When a proposition is lodged the proposer is supposed to disclose the financial and manpower implications. If a particular proposal does have financial implications he/she must identify what savings can be made elsewhere to fund whatever is being proposed. Finding £3m can be difficult however Senator Bailhache is requesting that the Treasury Minister should identify the appropriate means of funding. Can you imagine what the Treasury Minister's response would be if a lesser mortal should make such a request?

To add insult to injury and to expose States Member's soft under belly they have not only agreed that Senator Bailhache's proposition should jump the queue but should be debated as the first item when the States sits on Tuesday morning. This will be really convenient for the Trust's supporters who are being encouraged to attend the debate. How is this possible and how could Members be so naive. The answer is simple and is explained below.

The Overseas Aid Committee has an annual trip to the UK to meet various bodies who have applied for Aid. It has had a year's notice that the States was sitting on 1st July and given the usual build up of propositions, the Sitting was likely to continue through the week. Senator Paul Routier who apart from being an Assistant Chief Minister is also Chairman of the Jersey Overseas Aid Committee and he should  have been aware that the States was likely to sit for several days. It should be noted that he and fellow members Connetable le Troquer and Deputy Labey all voted in support of the proposition to purchase the Plemont property in 2012, but unless Senator Bailhache's proposition was able to jump the queue all three members would be in the UK and unable to vote.

Normally it is the proposition's proposer who asks for a variation in the running order. However it appears that Deputy Labey was deputed to make the request. One can understand the request because it is likely that the proposition would have been debated later in the week when the 3 committee members were in the UK. In my view the States Members should not have supported Deputy Labey's request. The Overseas Aid Committee had ample knowledge of the States Sitting and should have avoided that week. Among the 30 proposition are matters which relate to a number of important laws which affect the well being of ALL Island residents and deserving the support of ALL States Members. To agree to the Plemont proposition jumping the queue is an insult to All Island residents and no wonder that the reputation of the States in the Island has seldom been lower with leader of the culprits being none other than the statement's author.

It should be noted that there were requests for P102/2014 Civil Marriage-same sex couples lodged by Deputy Sam Mezec and Maternity Leave- Rights of employees lodged by Deputy Geoff Southern to jump the queue but neither were approved and among those voting against were Senator Bailhache and Deputy Labey.

Supporting the proposition is short sighted. The Holiday Village is a brown field site where the Developer intends to build 28 homes which we are told are much needed. The cost to the States will be in excess of three and a half million pounds for these reasons. Building the homes will provide work for a large number of people who will pay income tax and social security and the sale of the homes will lead to a considerable amount of stamp duty to the States and 28 rate payers to the Parish of St Ouen. The Developer has said that he will give the States a large area of the headland which can be enjoyed by future generations. 

I submit that if the States has over £3m spare money it would be better spent on helping the Island's needy and vulnerable residents who probably have no idea where Plemont is and like the majority of Island residents are unlikely to visit the headland.

Jersey's Dean----- The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a Whitewash?

Last Thursday after submitting 7 emails and waiting for over 2 months I finally met Dame Heather Steel. The meeting was due to be held at Church House which serves as the headquarters of the Church of England. However on learning of HG’s attendance the administrators asked that the meeting be held elsewhere so an alternative venue was found.

Winchester is reported to have committed approximately half a million pounds on a Visitation/Investigation into the Dean’s handling of an allegation of abuse on HG by a Church Warden. The investigation which is in 2 parts is headed by the former Bishop of Chelmsford John Gladwin who is looking into the Constitutional position between Jersey and Winchester. The other part is headed by Dame Heather Steel a High Court Judge who is tasked with investigating the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint and whether he and another member of the clergy should face disciplinary proceedings.

It had been suggested by the Dean’s supporters last March that the investigation is not about HG’s complaint but more to do with a “spat” between the Dean and Bishop Dakin and a power struggle between the Winchester and Jersey hierarchy. Having been involved with the matter since last March it is becoming evident that the Dean’s supporters are correct and HG is again a victim of another cruel and serious mismanagement by the Diocese of Winchester.

Dame Heather’s appointment was announced on 15^th May but surprisingly no Terms of Reference were published. Questions were asked of her perceived conflict and of her relationship with Senator Sir Philip Bailhache who has played a leading role in supporting the Dean. Dame Heather was also to be assisted by a member of the States of Jersey Police who HG claims were less than professional when investigating her abuse allegation and later when they arrested her in her pyjamas, refused her bail which led to her being held her in custody for two weeks and then left destitute at a UK airport on a cold October evening when still in her pyjamas.

In May after reading several of my Blogs HG contacted me and we agreed that I would act as her mediator. HG now lives on the street and our only means of communication is via email and only when she is able to gain access to broadband at libraries etc. HG had been unaware of the Korris report and the Visitation. I contacted John Gladwin, informed him that I was in regular contact with HG and if he felt it helpful HG would be prepared to see him provided I accompanied her. I was of the view that she needed support not only during the Visitation process but also in her every day life. Also steps should be taken for the public apologies to be given to HG personally.

John Gladwin wanted to see her and a date was agreed for us to meet with sufficient time being given for HG to get the meeting. We all met in June which was the first and only time we met; ironically it was on Methodist Church premises. We all felt that it was a productive meeting and that we should meet again. Very importantly it was agreed that steps would be taken by John Gladwin to provide support for HG and that all communication relating to the investigation would be through me. This was to avoid HG further distress and for good management.

In early August Dame Heather’s TOR was published but it was unclear whether they included HG’s arrest and deportation. A few days later a large advert appeared in the JEP which gave the impression of having been paid for by the Dean’s supporters. It called on members of the public who had complaints about the Bishop of Winchester to submit them to Dame Heather.

To the best of my knowledge neither Dame Heather nor the Diocese has ever clarified the matter so there is a presumption that Dame Heather is supporting both camps. On 15^th August I wrote to Dame Heather for the first time seeking clarification of the advert and whether her TOR included HG’s arrest and deportation. I also said that I wished to meet her. I wrote a further 6 times and copied in John Gladwin and eventually the Bishop’s Chaplain asking that they would forward my emails to Dame Heather because I was not receiving replies.

Until I met Dame Heather last Thursday I had been of the belief that the Visitation and investigation was being conducted in a timely and coordinated manner and the left hand knew what the right hand was doing, but alas this is not case. Rev.Gavin Ashenden has publicly questioned Bishop Dakin’s handling of the Visitation and has called on him to apologise to the Dean and HG for the suffering they have endured as a result of it. I can understand where he is coming from.

It is now evident that Dame Heather was unaware of the June meeting with John Gladwin or of the promised support and line of communication. How can that be, that elementary mistake has led to unnecessary hurt, delay and expense, none of which can be levelled at HG’s door.

In mid August Dame Heather emailed HG asking to meet and also instructed an Advocate to request her former Advocate to seek permission of HG for access to the police and court papers. I was not copied into Dame Heather’s email exchange but now know that HG objected to her participation on the grounds of perceived conflict. HG also saw the request for her documents as an intrusion by a person with whom she had no confidence, with a foot in both camps and as a betrayal of the John Gladwin agreement.

As mentioned above I continued sending emails to Dame Heather seeking clarification and requesting we meet but to no avail even though I copied them to John Gladwin and the Bishop’s Chaplain asking that my emails be forwarded to her. However on Friday 18^th October in the late afternoon I received a phone call from Dame Heather saying that she understood that I wished to see her. We had a lengthy conversation and in summary she told me that her report was almost complete and did not want to delay its submission to John Gladwin. I asked how she could submit a report if she had not seen one of the key witnesses to which she replied that HG had refused to meet her. I explained the circumstance outlined above and it was eventually agreed that we would meet on Thursday at Church House in London. I said I would contact HG asking that she attend. I also asked for an independent note taker because the promised notes of our June meeting had still not been received and I wanted a record of our meeting.

I was able to make email contact with HG who agreed to attend and although without funds she said she would find her way to the meeting.  Unfortunately due to travel difficulties she did not arrive. At Thursday’s meeting I asked that another date be arranged because there were extenuating circumstances as to why we had not met. Also although I had HG’s case papers, I would not release them without her consent. Dame Heather initially said that to arrange another meeting would incur further expense and she really wanted to complete her report because so many people were waiting for it.  I asked what price justice and that the Korris report had been criticised because neither HG nor the Church Warden had been interviewed. I was surprised to hear Dame Heather say that she has not interviewed the Church Warden either. 

Dame Heather clarified her TOR and that the arrest and removal issue were not included but she was addressing the matter at Bishop Dakin’s request, so one may ask why they were not in the TOR?  What is without doubt is that Dame Heather does not believe that HG was arrested in her pyjamas, the police did not allow her to get dressed, that she twice attended court and was eventually left destitute in the UK whilst still in her pyjamas. The arrest/deportation issue is clearly a major embarrassment to Winchester so it will be interesting to see how the issue is covered in Dame Heather’s report given that she has refused to see HG or seen the case papers.

My meeting with Dame Heather lasted 3 hours, I asked that I be given a transcript of the meeting but was told that I could but only if I was prepared to pay for it. The meeting was tape recorded and I have asked both Dame Heather and Bishop Dakin for a copy of it. There was no independent note taker but notes were taken by Dame Heather who has sent them to me. They are simply notes which are sketchy and some of the writing is hard to decipher.

Dame Heather has made it clear that even though she has not seen HG or heard her evidence or read the documentation, she is adamant  that nothing will be gained by seeing  her now and thereby delaying her report. If she does not need to see HG why did she want to see her in the first place and why did she go to the expense of instructing Advocates to contact HG for the case papers?

I have written a lengthy letter to Bishop Dakin, not only for record purposes but to explain why I believe that Dame Heather has not satisfactorily conducted her investigation. I have said that the investigation should be impartial, it should expose what is wrong, commend what is right and make recommendations to ensure that when a highly vulnerable person is abused by a church officer, their complaint will be investigated without fear or favour and they do not end up at a UK airport in their pyjamas and left destitute.

There were gaps in the Korris report and lessons should have been learnt. However there will be gaps in Dame Heather’s report because lessons have not been learnt. The witnesses not seen by Korris have not been seen by Dame Heather how can that be? 

It would be totally wrong to claim that HG refused to see Dame Heather because that is not the case. It is now Dame Heather who is refusing to see HG. It could be because Dame Heather has already reached her conclusions and does not want HG’s evidence in case she has to change them.

What is becoming abundantly clear is that the Visitation is a waste of time and money, the guilty will be found innocent and the innocent condemned. What sort of message is the Church of England sending out to the poor, needy and vulnerable members of our society?

Last Friday Dame Heather informed me that my emails had been traced. It is said that God moves in mysterious ways and now my emails have been traced but will He now ensure that we get an honest report or will it be a whitewash?  

Jersey's Dean-----HG's Guest Posting--An Open Letter.

                                                            

Following the suspension of the Dean last March a number of his friends rallied to his support, published letters, called for it to be lifted and claimed that he was victim of gross injustice. I don't have a problem with friends giving their support to the Dean but regretfully when doing so they made derogatory remarks about the real but forgotten victim who is a young lady known as HG.

It is also evident that apart from apparently having no interest in HG's well being they have no appreciation of the difficulties she has to encounter every day of her life. The supporters claim to be Christian but readers might have a different view and I will be interested to learn of them.

Below is an open letter which HG has written in response to remarks made by some of Dean's supporters.

     ****************************************************************************************************

Dear Bruce Willing, Philip Bailhache, Gavin Ashenden and others,

I thought I would write in response to what I see as a smear campaign against myself by you in response to the Korris report that assesses the Dean of Jersey to have done wrong. I have silently endured your very unchristian response to the Korris report for a long time

I am deeply dismayed by your approach to the matter.

I am first and foremost very sad to see how far behind the rest of the world Jersey is with regards to attitude to mental health. You claim me to be mentally ill and you use that against me not only in a way that criminalises me but in a derogatory way that puts your view across in a way that makes it look as if you are removing credibility from all people with mental illness. I have several comments on that, firstly ‘mental illness’ covers a very wide range of illnesses, from mild forms of depression and anxiety/phobia to the more severe forms of psychosis and schizophrenia.

It is important to remember that even people who are seriously mentally ill are still human and have a side to things, and that the attitude you are showing is simply that ‘people with mental illness are not credible’, sadly it is people with mental illness and people on the autistic spectrum who are most vulnerable to abuse, because they are isolated, need care and are vulnerable, can be misunderstood and often isolated lacking in voice and effective advocacy or interpretation.

I am dismayed that you, in your positions, are not enlightened on the subject of mental health, to the point where you are using my supposed mental health condition to scapegoat and vilify me and remove my credibility.

The damage you have done to me by scapegoating me in your efforts to clear the Dean and clergy in Jersey of misconduct is pretty horrifying, firstly because, hopefully you would know better than to scapegoat and verbally bash someone who has a physical disability, I do not understand why you feel that the equivalent is not the case with mental illness but that you feel that you should further hurt someone who is already suffering illness in order to achieve your own aims.

Also, Mr Willing, calling me a ‘poor unfortunate woman’ is the kind of terminology that belongs in the dark ages, it really shows up how Jersey has not moved forward with the rest of the world in understanding mental health, autism and other conditions.

To conclude on mental illness, I am diagnosed as free from it. not only was I diagnosed as free from mental illness in a psychiatric report done in La Moye prison, but again in Winchester five months later, again in Sussex a few months following, and again in a comprehensive report from my current clinical psychologist who specialises in autism and trauma and has been in practice for 20 years.

You need to stop excusing the wrongdoing of the Dean and Church in Jersey by using mental illness that I do not suffer, and if you insist on proceeding to use my ‘mental illness’ as an excuse for the wrongdoers, you need to name my mental illness and back it up not only with clinical proof but with reasons why it is an excuse for the Dean and church’s misconduct.

Most mental illnesses can strike at any time and anyone can suffer rich or poor, believer or non-believer, I ask you, do you expect to lose your own credibility and rights if any of you were to be struck down with mental illness of any kind, be it mild depression or any other form of illness? In this day and age, even though Jersey is a long way behind most of the developed world in many issues such as mental health, human rights and equality, it astounds me that you are, in the media and in front of the world, behaving in this severely prejudiced way. I don’t know how to put this politely but ‘shafting Jersey to the rest of the world’ comes to mind.

And especially in the case of Gavin Ashenden making statements about mentally ill people being demon possessed and driving demons out during services, it is understandable why he was chosen as a Jersey clergyman, and his letters and statements about me when he doesn’t know me and only knows one side of what happened between me and others, he isn’t just showing how unenlightened he is about mental illness, or just how much an investigation into safeguarding in Jersey is needed, he is also showing that despite being an ordained Priest, he does not understand the basics of Christianity.

I am diagnosed as mildly autistic, suffering severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and severely psychologically damaged by my experiences not only of a very damaging upbringing but also of what happened to me in Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester. Those things are not so easy for you to use as excuses I guess.

Let’s move on to the subject of the Church.

Bearing in mind that I did not ask for this hugely disastrous visitation with its conflicts and PR Firms and reports that omit the views of key witnesses, I am astounded at just how unchristian the Deanery of Jersey has been in their smear campaign against me. Even if I did make a complaint, it was five years ago, was disregarded and could have been dealt with in private.

Let’s go back to the very basics of Christianity the ones that are hard for the older, more wealthy and influential people to swallow. Jesus said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, is any clergyman or lay church worker in Jersey who has maligned me at Deanery meetings and in the press without sin? No, and no doubt in their own personal lives and histories, there are sins and skeletons, and yet they forget Jesus’ teaching, or, more horrifyingly, they do not know it or feel that, in this case, they can excuse themselves. Focusing on defending themselves or others who have done wrong.

When I left Jersey, I continued to suffer, mainly because I was condemned by the Church, until the day I was befriended by Catholics, and it was their words that saved me.

My dear Catholic friends, who remain dear to me two and a half years after I met them, taught me these simple things:

We are all accountable to God, the Church members who hurt me may have done wrong but it is between them and God, and I may have done wrong in retaliation but that is between me and God, and ultimately it is between me and God for me to confess my sins and be forgiven, and it is also up to the people who hurt me to confess before God and be forgiven by Him.

And there is no-one in Jersey who hurt me, who I have not forgiven, this does not mean that I am not deeply dismayed by their past and current behaviour.

I confessed my sins, and was provisionally Baptized a Catholic in order to be confirmed, as it was not possible to safely get my Baptism record from the Church of England, and in Baptism, all past sins are forgiven, and since my Baptism I have returned to confession with my sins and struggles regularly, and I love that integrity before God.

I can see that in Jersey no-one who has done wants to admit to their wrongdoing, and instead they are metaphorically stoning me, and using mental health as a rock to throw, which is, although they don’t realise it, tarnishing their image as Christians and certainly leaving them with a lot of wrong between themselves and God.

And I hope and pray that all of this can change, and that these people, Philip Bailhache, Gavin Ashenden and Bruce Willing will have a change of heart, come back to the basics of Christianity and cease to use the Church in incorrect ways.

I have an image of Jesus arriving in Jersey and going to these churches, homeless and unqualified, ‘different’ and saying things that people like Senator Bailhache and Bruce Willing do not like,  I have an image of them rejecting him and yet not being able to get rid of him, I have an image of them venting their wrath on him, I have an image of my own experience of Jersey, and I have an image of the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Pharisees, and you know something? Those three images tell the same story.

I will discuss with you Senator Bailhache’s "campaign" to get the Dean reinstated. I know I am autistic but I do not understand why Senator Bailhache was so keen to clear someone who had done wrong at the expense of the person who had been wronged.

Senator Bailhache has never met me, and no matter what he is told about me, that is hearsay and he should know better, as a church member and as a representative of the States of Jersey, but especially as a church member who presumably professes to be a Christian, than to judge and condemn someone he doesn't even know.

As I said earlier, I know Jersey is behind the times, but Senator Bailhache shows just how seriously behind the times he is, as well as showing just how much wrong there is between himself and God.

Hopefully Senator Bailhache’s new promotion to Foreign Affairs Minister for that tiny Island of Jersey will ensure that his travel and liaison with other, less insular countries will broaden his mind and bring Jersey, and himself, a bit more up to date on courtesy, balanced judgements and mental health.

He has really showed himself up and done himself a disservice in running a campaign that harmed me in order to try and clear the Dean of misconduct that the Dean did commit.

Senator Bailhache makes me out to be a troublemaker and an abuser despite never having met me and acting only on what he has heard, this shows very plainly why Jersey’s Deanery needs a visitation, it also shows him as unprofessional, a judge who judges someone he doesn't know? Writes libellous letters about them to all and sundry and has such letters published as fact and with claims to represent the whole island? Islanders protested about this, but because of the tremendous power that Senator Bailhache has, his was the voice which was heard.

Even the Bishop and Archbishop were made to give way and reinstate the Dean without an enquiry, on the grounds of Senator Bailhache using his political position, his signature as ‘Senator Bailhache’, despite later stating that he was acting as a member of the church and thus had every right to support the Dean.

Let me return to how this fits in with the Church and God, if this behaviour by Senator Bailhache is endorsed, commended or acceptable to the Church, then the Church is not following Jesus and is not of God.

If Senator Bailhache describes himself as a Christian, then he needs to stop and look at what he is doing and has done, and he needs to realise that not only is he behaving in a very unchristian way and very displeasing to God, but he is also tarnishing the Church’s name, image and purpose, and should choose between continuing his unchristian behaviour and leaving the Church or considering how to achieve his aims, including supporting the Dean, in a proper, reasonable manner, without the unspeakable wrong of abuse of power in his political position while calling himself a Christian or his hate campaign against someone he considers to be ‘mentally ill’ in order to clear someone who has committed misconduct against that same person.

Sincerely,

HG

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 ------Doubting Thomases

Four months have elapsed since Bishop Dakin suspended Jersey ’s Dean. The suspension or removal of the Dean’s Commission had been prompted following the publication of the much maligned Korris Report. The Bishop, shortly afterwards announced that the matter would be the subject of a Visitation which would be led by former Bishop John Gladwin with an Archdeacon, a suitably experienced and independent senior lawyer and a suitable lay person to assist him. The Terms of Reference were published but did not cover the complaint into the Dean’s alleged mishandling of HG’s complaint.

Following the firing of broadsides from the Dean’s supporters led by the former Bailiff but now Senator Philip Bailhache the Dean’s Commission was restored 7 weeks later before the Visitation had got underway let alone concluded. So one wonders why the Dean was suspended in the first place.

Two months ago Bishop Dakin announced that Dame Heather Steel had been commissioned to lead an investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint which feeds into John Gladwin’s Visitation. One is to assume that apart from the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint it will include the decision and manner of her deportation from Jersey. On page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs.”

Unfortunately it is only an assumption because although the whole investigation is supposed to be based on safeguarding and the need for full transparency and accountability, no Terms of Reference have been published. It has been rumoured that Dame Heather wanted a no holds barred investigation which was considered to be too open for the Bishop. Could that be the reason for Dame Heather’s failure to get under way?

I am not the only one who has sought clarification or indeed an update on what is really (not) going on. However apart from notification that the Bishop had personally apologised to HG, which she says is completely untrue, the wheels of the Bishop’s chariot which were never secure appear to have come off.

It seems ironic that Korris who was critical of the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint claimed that all the way along the line everything came too late. It seems that Bishop Dakin has learnt nothing from the report and his apparent lack of leadership and procrastination is now becoming an embarrassment.

It is also unfair on the leading players in the affair; allegations have been made against the former Bishop, the Safeguarding Officer, the Dean, his wife, the Vicar and the Church Warden. They are entitled to know whether the second part of the Visitation is going ahead.

Most importantly the procrastination is most unfair on HG who is the real but forgotten victim of what is becoming a complete shambles on top of the unholy mess created by the Dean and former Bishop. In previous Blogs I have stated that before the Visitation got under way personal apologies and tangible assistance should be given to HG.  These are still awaited.

In addition there are other questions that need answers. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same could be said of perception particularly in small communities like Jersey with its infamous “ Jersey Way .” Therefore one would have hoped that before anyone was appointed as a member of the Visitation Panel any suggestion of conflict whether implied or perceived would deem them, no matter how well qualified to be unacceptable.

If one accepts that principle then one must question whether someone who is a member of the Dean’s congregation at St Helier’s Parish Church and recently listed on its Electoral Role is a wise appointment to the Panel.

By the same token Dame Heather is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey and a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache. Dame Heather accepted Senator Bailhache’s invitation to be a Speaker at his 2010 Conference called “Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take Stock.” A fellow Speaker was Advocate Richard Falle who was the Magistrate responsible for HG’s shameful removal from Jersey. 

If Dame Heather is to conduct her investigation in line with the Korris recommendation on page 41 of her Report, she will be required to question Mr Falle. Dame Heather will also have to investigate members of the States Police who arrested HG but did not charge her until 12 hours later after taking statements from the Dean and former Bishop. They also successfully opposed her Bail. Therefore one is entitled to ask why a Member of the States Police is assisting Dame Heather.

While there must be transparency, witnesses when necessary should be entitled to confidentiality particularly in Jersey where there is a genuine fear of reprisal and/or marginalisation for anyone coming forward with evidence questioning the role of “Establishment” figures. The current composition of the Visitation Panels is deterring at least two witnesses submitting evidence. HG has also made it abundantly clear that she will not appear before the Dame Heather Panel. Unfortunately no one is listening.

The football season has not yet commenced but Winchester is already conceding a number of own goals. The normal remedy is to replace the Manager but no one is holding their breath. It was suggested at the outset by the Dean’s supporters led by Senator Philip Bailhache are calling all the shots. It also lays weight to the belief that Winchester ’s concerns about HG are just a smoke screen as a cover for the real agenda that being Constitutional matters. Regretfully that is now becoming abundantly clear.

I am not the only Doubting Thomas but regretfully am being joined by an ever growing number of sceptics who doubt whether the Church of England really gives a damn about the vulnerable and last weekend’s General Synod Conference at York was just another case of hot air and humbug.