Police chief dismissal notes ‘were destroyed’

THE hand-written notes taken during the meeting to suspend Police Chief Graham Power were shredded or burned, it was claimed during a secret States debate yesterday.

The papers’ existence was at the heart of yesterday’s in camera debate over the procedures used to suspend Mr Power, who has been in charge of the States police for eight years. States Members voted by 29 to 21 not to adopt a proposition to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the matter, but Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand – a former Magistrate and lawyer – said that he would conduct his own review, having taken over the responsibility for the police since the suspension was made.

Although yesterday’s debate was held in camera, in accordance with the Police Force (Jersey) Law, some Members have spoken to the JEP to talk about what was said. They said that the two main points were about the whereabouts of the original notes from the meeting on 12 November, when the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, suspended Mr Power (58) over the handling of the historical abuse inquiry, and the rules setting out suspension procedures for Jersey’s senior policeman.

Although Mr Power (pictured) has kept a low profile since being suspended two months ago, a set of ‘briefing notes’ that he sent out to States Members ahead of a previous debate were leaked to the JEP. In the notes he claimed he had been suspended unfairly and against the set rules, and that his suspension was politically motivated and were an attempt to ‘publicly humiliate and demoralise’ him.

Article posted on 22nd January, 2009 - 2.59pm

Source

Police chief dismissal notes ‘were destroyed’

THE hand-written notes taken during the meeting to suspend Police Chief Graham Power were shredded or burned, it was claimed during a secret States debate yesterday.

The papers’ existence was at the heart of yesterday’s in camera debate over the procedures used to suspend Mr Power, who has been in charge of the States police for eight years. States Members voted by 29 to 21 not to adopt a proposition to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the matter, but Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand – a former Magistrate and lawyer – said that he would conduct his own review, having taken over the responsibility for the police since the suspension was made.

Although yesterday’s debate was held in camera, in accordance with the Police Force (Jersey) Law, some Members have spoken to the JEP to talk about what was said. They said that the two main points were about the whereabouts of the original notes from the meeting on 12 November, when the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, suspended Mr Power (58) over the handling of the historical abuse inquiry, and the rules setting out suspension procedures for Jersey’s senior policeman.

Although Mr Power (pictured) has kept a low profile since being suspended two months ago, a set of ‘briefing notes’ that he sent out to States Members ahead of a previous debate were leaked to the JEP. In the notes he claimed he had been suspended unfairly and against the set rules, and that his suspension was politically motivated and were an attempt to ‘publicly humiliate and demoralise’ him.

Article posted on 22nd January, 2009 - 2.59pm

Source

Police chief dismissal notes ‘were destroyed’

THE hand-written notes taken during the meeting to suspend Police Chief Graham Power were shredded or burned, it was claimed during a secret States debate yesterday.

The papers’ existence was at the heart of yesterday’s in camera debate over the procedures used to suspend Mr Power, who has been in charge of the States police for eight years. States Members voted by 29 to 21 not to adopt a proposition to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the matter, but Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand – a former Magistrate and lawyer – said that he would conduct his own review, having taken over the responsibility for the police since the suspension was made.

Although yesterday’s debate was held in camera, in accordance with the Police Force (Jersey) Law, some Members have spoken to the JEP to talk about what was said. They said that the two main points were about the whereabouts of the original notes from the meeting on 12 November, when the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, suspended Mr Power (58) over the handling of the historical abuse inquiry, and the rules setting out suspension procedures for Jersey’s senior policeman.

Although Mr Power (pictured) has kept a low profile since being suspended two months ago, a set of ‘briefing notes’ that he sent out to States Members ahead of a previous debate were leaked to the JEP. In the notes he claimed he had been suspended unfairly and against the set rules, and that his suspension was politically motivated and were an attempt to ‘publicly humiliate and demoralise’ him.

Article posted on 22nd January, 2009 - 2.59pm

Source

Police chief dismissal notes ‘were destroyed’

THE hand-written notes taken during the meeting to suspend Police Chief Graham Power were shredded or burned, it was claimed during a secret States debate yesterday.

The papers’ existence was at the heart of yesterday’s in camera debate over the procedures used to suspend Mr Power, who has been in charge of the States police for eight years. States Members voted by 29 to 21 not to adopt a proposition to force a full independent inquiry into the handling of the matter, but Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand – a former Magistrate and lawyer – said that he would conduct his own review, having taken over the responsibility for the police since the suspension was made.

Although yesterday’s debate was held in camera, in accordance with the Police Force (Jersey) Law, some Members have spoken to the JEP to talk about what was said. They said that the two main points were about the whereabouts of the original notes from the meeting on 12 November, when the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, suspended Mr Power (58) over the handling of the historical abuse inquiry, and the rules setting out suspension procedures for Jersey’s senior policeman.

Although Mr Power (pictured) has kept a low profile since being suspended two months ago, a set of ‘briefing notes’ that he sent out to States Members ahead of a previous debate were leaked to the JEP. In the notes he claimed he had been suspended unfairly and against the set rules, and that his suspension was politically motivated and were an attempt to ‘publicly humiliate and demoralise’ him.

Article posted on 22nd January, 2009 - 2.59pm

Source

Jail for man who raped daughters

One of the daughters on beach
The court heard the man had abused his daughters over almost two decades

A man who fathered two children with his daughter during years of sexual abuse against his family has been sentenced to 14 years in jail.

The 72-year-old, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, abused three daughters in Dundee and Fife between 1976 and 1993.

He started raping the eldest girl when she was 12 years old.

Now 42, the daughter had a baby girl by her father when she was 17 and gave birth to a son six years later.

The father started raping a younger daughter when she was eight years old. The abuse lasted until she was 16.

He was convicted last month of repeatedly raping two daughters and using lewd and libidinous behaviour towards a third.

'I was blackmailed'

During sentencing at the High Court in Kilmarnock, judge Lady Dorrian told the man that his daughters had "suffered in silence". She said they had all been vulnerable and had attended special schools.

The accused showed no emotion as he left the court and did not look at his daughters who sat in the public gallery.

The older woman, who now lives in Aberdeenshire, went to the police after telling the truth to her son during an argument.

She had been too afraid to speak out before because her father had threatened to shoot her.

In an interview with BBC Scotland, the woman - known as Miss D - said: "I was blackmailed by him, saying that I would go to a home, my wee baby brother would go into care and my others sisters would go into care as well.

"And when I had my own children that they would be taken into care as well, so I just left it.

"I was so frightened I'd lose my daughter."

Source

Jail for man who raped daughters

One of the daughters on beach
The court heard the man had abused his daughters over almost two decades

A man who fathered two children with his daughter during years of sexual abuse against his family has been sentenced to 14 years in jail.

The 72-year-old, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, abused three daughters in Dundee and Fife between 1976 and 1993.

He started raping the eldest girl when she was 12 years old.

Now 42, the daughter had a baby girl by her father when she was 17 and gave birth to a son six years later.

The father started raping a younger daughter when she was eight years old. The abuse lasted until she was 16.

He was convicted last month of repeatedly raping two daughters and using lewd and libidinous behaviour towards a third.

'I was blackmailed'

During sentencing at the High Court in Kilmarnock, judge Lady Dorrian told the man that his daughters had "suffered in silence". She said they had all been vulnerable and had attended special schools.

The accused showed no emotion as he left the court and did not look at his daughters who sat in the public gallery.

The older woman, who now lives in Aberdeenshire, went to the police after telling the truth to her son during an argument.

She had been too afraid to speak out before because her father had threatened to shoot her.

In an interview with BBC Scotland, the woman - known as Miss D - said: "I was blackmailed by him, saying that I would go to a home, my wee baby brother would go into care and my others sisters would go into care as well.

"And when I had my own children that they would be taken into care as well, so I just left it.

"I was so frightened I'd lose my daughter."

Source

Jail for man who raped daughters

One of the daughters on beach
The court heard the man had abused his daughters over almost two decades

A man who fathered two children with his daughter during years of sexual abuse against his family has been sentenced to 14 years in jail.

The 72-year-old, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, abused three daughters in Dundee and Fife between 1976 and 1993.

He started raping the eldest girl when she was 12 years old.

Now 42, the daughter had a baby girl by her father when she was 17 and gave birth to a son six years later.

The father started raping a younger daughter when she was eight years old. The abuse lasted until she was 16.

He was convicted last month of repeatedly raping two daughters and using lewd and libidinous behaviour towards a third.

'I was blackmailed'

During sentencing at the High Court in Kilmarnock, judge Lady Dorrian told the man that his daughters had "suffered in silence". She said they had all been vulnerable and had attended special schools.

The accused showed no emotion as he left the court and did not look at his daughters who sat in the public gallery.

The older woman, who now lives in Aberdeenshire, went to the police after telling the truth to her son during an argument.

She had been too afraid to speak out before because her father had threatened to shoot her.

In an interview with BBC Scotland, the woman - known as Miss D - said: "I was blackmailed by him, saying that I would go to a home, my wee baby brother would go into care and my others sisters would go into care as well.

"And when I had my own children that they would be taken into care as well, so I just left it.

"I was so frightened I'd lose my daughter."

Source

Jail for man who raped daughters

One of the daughters on beach
The court heard the man had abused his daughters over almost two decades

A man who fathered two children with his daughter during years of sexual abuse against his family has been sentenced to 14 years in jail.

The 72-year-old, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, abused three daughters in Dundee and Fife between 1976 and 1993.

He started raping the eldest girl when she was 12 years old.

Now 42, the daughter had a baby girl by her father when she was 17 and gave birth to a son six years later.

The father started raping a younger daughter when she was eight years old. The abuse lasted until she was 16.

He was convicted last month of repeatedly raping two daughters and using lewd and libidinous behaviour towards a third.

'I was blackmailed'

During sentencing at the High Court in Kilmarnock, judge Lady Dorrian told the man that his daughters had "suffered in silence". She said they had all been vulnerable and had attended special schools.

The accused showed no emotion as he left the court and did not look at his daughters who sat in the public gallery.

The older woman, who now lives in Aberdeenshire, went to the police after telling the truth to her son during an argument.

She had been too afraid to speak out before because her father had threatened to shoot her.

In an interview with BBC Scotland, the woman - known as Miss D - said: "I was blackmailed by him, saying that I would go to a home, my wee baby brother would go into care and my others sisters would go into care as well.

"And when I had my own children that they would be taken into care as well, so I just left it.

"I was so frightened I'd lose my daughter."

Source

MPs' expenses must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

*****************************************************************
We interrupt your normal email alert for an important message
*****************************************************************

On the 16th of May 2008 the High Court ruled that MPs' expenses
must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

This Thursday, MPs are voting to change the law to keep their
expenses secret after all, just before publication was due and
after spending nearly a million of your pounds and seven months
compiling the data.

Your MP may not even know about this proposal (it was sneaked out
under the Heathrow runway announcement). Please take a few
minutes to alert them to this attack on Parliamentary
transparency and ask them to vote against the measure.

The outcome of this vote will be prominently displayed on every
MP's page until after the next General Election.

What can you do?

* Write to your MP to protest:
http://foiorder2009.writetothem.com/

* Join this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50061011231

* Blog about it, call a local newspaper - our unfinished site http://news.mysociety.org/ might help; text, email, and instant message your friends to let them know that about this campaign.

Read more detail about mySociety's thoughts on this issue.
http://www.mysociety.org/2009/01/17/6-days-to-stop-mps-concealing-their-expenses/

MPs' expenses must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

*****************************************************************
We interrupt your normal email alert for an important message
*****************************************************************

On the 16th of May 2008 the High Court ruled that MPs' expenses
must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

This Thursday, MPs are voting to change the law to keep their
expenses secret after all, just before publication was due and
after spending nearly a million of your pounds and seven months
compiling the data.

Your MP may not even know about this proposal (it was sneaked out
under the Heathrow runway announcement). Please take a few
minutes to alert them to this attack on Parliamentary
transparency and ask them to vote against the measure.

The outcome of this vote will be prominently displayed on every
MP's page until after the next General Election.

What can you do?

* Write to your MP to protest:
http://foiorder2009.writetothem.com/

* Join this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50061011231

* Blog about it, call a local newspaper - our unfinished site http://news.mysociety.org/ might help; text, email, and instant message your friends to let them know that about this campaign.

Read more detail about mySociety's thoughts on this issue.
http://www.mysociety.org/2009/01/17/6-days-to-stop-mps-concealing-their-expenses/

MPs' expenses must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

*****************************************************************
We interrupt your normal email alert for an important message
*****************************************************************

On the 16th of May 2008 the High Court ruled that MPs' expenses
must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

This Thursday, MPs are voting to change the law to keep their
expenses secret after all, just before publication was due and
after spending nearly a million of your pounds and seven months
compiling the data.

Your MP may not even know about this proposal (it was sneaked out
under the Heathrow runway announcement). Please take a few
minutes to alert them to this attack on Parliamentary
transparency and ask them to vote against the measure.

The outcome of this vote will be prominently displayed on every
MP's page until after the next General Election.

What can you do?

* Write to your MP to protest:
http://foiorder2009.writetothem.com/

* Join this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50061011231

* Blog about it, call a local newspaper - our unfinished site http://news.mysociety.org/ might help; text, email, and instant message your friends to let them know that about this campaign.

Read more detail about mySociety's thoughts on this issue.
http://www.mysociety.org/2009/01/17/6-days-to-stop-mps-concealing-their-expenses/

MPs' expenses must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

*****************************************************************
We interrupt your normal email alert for an important message
*****************************************************************

On the 16th of May 2008 the High Court ruled that MPs' expenses
must be published under the Freedom of Information Act.

This Thursday, MPs are voting to change the law to keep their
expenses secret after all, just before publication was due and
after spending nearly a million of your pounds and seven months
compiling the data.

Your MP may not even know about this proposal (it was sneaked out
under the Heathrow runway announcement). Please take a few
minutes to alert them to this attack on Parliamentary
transparency and ask them to vote against the measure.

The outcome of this vote will be prominently displayed on every
MP's page until after the next General Election.

What can you do?

* Write to your MP to protest:
http://foiorder2009.writetothem.com/

* Join this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50061011231

* Blog about it, call a local newspaper - our unfinished site http://news.mysociety.org/ might help; text, email, and instant message your friends to let them know that about this campaign.

Read more detail about mySociety's thoughts on this issue.
http://www.mysociety.org/2009/01/17/6-days-to-stop-mps-concealing-their-expenses/

Voice for Children bringing the real news

Source


Karen Huchet believes suspension is Not a neutral act and now Deputy Roy Le Herissier agrees.

Are standards on suspension different for a chief of police to a senior civil servant,or a bus driver? Can there be a common standard for everybody or are some people more equal than others?

I am totally confused! Did the States of Jersey suspend Chief Police Officer Graham Power because they believe he is guilty of something, or is it a neutral act? Can suspension ever be justified? What is the purpose of suspension? Why can't Graham Power or any of these people remain in post pending inquiries?

Source

Voice for Children bringing the real news

Source


Karen Huchet believes suspension is Not a neutral act and now Deputy Roy Le Herissier agrees.

Are standards on suspension different for a chief of police to a senior civil servant,or a bus driver? Can there be a common standard for everybody or are some people more equal than others?

I am totally confused! Did the States of Jersey suspend Chief Police Officer Graham Power because they believe he is guilty of something, or is it a neutral act? Can suspension ever be justified? What is the purpose of suspension? Why can't Graham Power or any of these people remain in post pending inquiries?

Source

Voice for Children bringing the real news

Source


Karen Huchet believes suspension is Not a neutral act and now Deputy Roy Le Herissier agrees.

Are standards on suspension different for a chief of police to a senior civil servant,or a bus driver? Can there be a common standard for everybody or are some people more equal than others?

I am totally confused! Did the States of Jersey suspend Chief Police Officer Graham Power because they believe he is guilty of something, or is it a neutral act? Can suspension ever be justified? What is the purpose of suspension? Why can't Graham Power or any of these people remain in post pending inquiries?

Source

Voice for Children bringing the real news

Source


Karen Huchet believes suspension is Not a neutral act and now Deputy Roy Le Herissier agrees.

Are standards on suspension different for a chief of police to a senior civil servant,or a bus driver? Can there be a common standard for everybody or are some people more equal than others?

I am totally confused! Did the States of Jersey suspend Chief Police Officer Graham Power because they believe he is guilty of something, or is it a neutral act? Can suspension ever be justified? What is the purpose of suspension? Why can't Graham Power or any of these people remain in post pending inquiries?

Source

100,000 hits

100,000 achieved on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:43:00 o'clock GMT



Stuart Syvret blog

100,000 hits

100,000 achieved on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:43:00 o'clock GMT



Stuart Syvret blog

100,000 hits

100,000 achieved on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:43:00 o'clock GMT



Stuart Syvret blog

100,000 hits

100,000 achieved on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:43:00 o'clock GMT



Stuart Syvret blog

Book Description
A harrowing account by one of the survivors of the Haut de la Garenne children's home Robbie was born in Jersey and when he was five years old his mother placed him and his siblings in care. They were collected from their home by the police. It was the same day that the children had witnessed their father's suicide attempt by hanging. The children were separated; Robbie and his younger brother were taken to The Sacre Coeur, an orphanage for children under twelve, while their elder brother was placed in Haut de la Garenne. Robbie and his three year old brother were bewildered and frightened by their surroundings. Their world as they had known it had disintegrated in just a matter of a few hours. They had sobbed as their eldest brother was taken away from them; they had never been apart before. Sacre Coeur, run by nuns, was a place where unimaginable abuse was committed against defenceless small children. The nuns gave them no explanation. Just gave them their scratchy uniforms and showed them their dormitory. They had joined the tribe of lost boys; the ones who no one cared about.The two boys were eventually transferred to Haut de la Garenne, a place where sick twisted minds had devised even more tortuous methods of sexually abusing the helpless. There were suicides there. And of course there were the children who simply disappeared. Gone somewhere better Robbie was told. After all in a children's home there was a lot of coming and going. Today Robbie holds down a full time job and looks after his brother who he has loved and cared for since they were those little frightened boys. He wonders what happened to his friends who disappeared.

About the Author
Toni Maguire lives in the UK and has lived in Ireland. Robbie Garner was born in Jersey in the 1950s. After his father tragically comitted suicide he and his three siblings were sent to live in children's homes. His older brother was sent to Haut de la Garenne and Robbie and his younger brother were sent to Sacre Coeur, but they were later transferred to Haut de la Garenne and were subjected to horrific abuse during their time there. When they were teenagers they finally escaped the horrors of Haut de la Garenne. Robbie's younger brother is now classified as having learning and behavioural difficulties as a result of the abuse he was subjected to as a child. Robbie has a responsible job and is a full time carer for his younger brother.

Get this book

Book Description
A harrowing account by one of the survivors of the Haut de la Garenne children's home Robbie was born in Jersey and when he was five years old his mother placed him and his siblings in care. They were collected from their home by the police. It was the same day that the children had witnessed their father's suicide attempt by hanging. The children were separated; Robbie and his younger brother were taken to The Sacre Coeur, an orphanage for children under twelve, while their elder brother was placed in Haut de la Garenne. Robbie and his three year old brother were bewildered and frightened by their surroundings. Their world as they had known it had disintegrated in just a matter of a few hours. They had sobbed as their eldest brother was taken away from them; they had never been apart before. Sacre Coeur, run by nuns, was a place where unimaginable abuse was committed against defenceless small children. The nuns gave them no explanation. Just gave them their scratchy uniforms and showed them their dormitory. They had joined the tribe of lost boys; the ones who no one cared about.The two boys were eventually transferred to Haut de la Garenne, a place where sick twisted minds had devised even more tortuous methods of sexually abusing the helpless. There were suicides there. And of course there were the children who simply disappeared. Gone somewhere better Robbie was told. After all in a children's home there was a lot of coming and going. Today Robbie holds down a full time job and looks after his brother who he has loved and cared for since they were those little frightened boys. He wonders what happened to his friends who disappeared.

About the Author
Toni Maguire lives in the UK and has lived in Ireland. Robbie Garner was born in Jersey in the 1950s. After his father tragically comitted suicide he and his three siblings were sent to live in children's homes. His older brother was sent to Haut de la Garenne and Robbie and his younger brother were sent to Sacre Coeur, but they were later transferred to Haut de la Garenne and were subjected to horrific abuse during their time there. When they were teenagers they finally escaped the horrors of Haut de la Garenne. Robbie's younger brother is now classified as having learning and behavioural difficulties as a result of the abuse he was subjected to as a child. Robbie has a responsible job and is a full time carer for his younger brother.

Get this book

Book Description
A harrowing account by one of the survivors of the Haut de la Garenne children's home Robbie was born in Jersey and when he was five years old his mother placed him and his siblings in care. They were collected from their home by the police. It was the same day that the children had witnessed their father's suicide attempt by hanging. The children were separated; Robbie and his younger brother were taken to The Sacre Coeur, an orphanage for children under twelve, while their elder brother was placed in Haut de la Garenne. Robbie and his three year old brother were bewildered and frightened by their surroundings. Their world as they had known it had disintegrated in just a matter of a few hours. They had sobbed as their eldest brother was taken away from them; they had never been apart before. Sacre Coeur, run by nuns, was a place where unimaginable abuse was committed against defenceless small children. The nuns gave them no explanation. Just gave them their scratchy uniforms and showed them their dormitory. They had joined the tribe of lost boys; the ones who no one cared about.The two boys were eventually transferred to Haut de la Garenne, a place where sick twisted minds had devised even more tortuous methods of sexually abusing the helpless. There were suicides there. And of course there were the children who simply disappeared. Gone somewhere better Robbie was told. After all in a children's home there was a lot of coming and going. Today Robbie holds down a full time job and looks after his brother who he has loved and cared for since they were those little frightened boys. He wonders what happened to his friends who disappeared.

About the Author
Toni Maguire lives in the UK and has lived in Ireland. Robbie Garner was born in Jersey in the 1950s. After his father tragically comitted suicide he and his three siblings were sent to live in children's homes. His older brother was sent to Haut de la Garenne and Robbie and his younger brother were sent to Sacre Coeur, but they were later transferred to Haut de la Garenne and were subjected to horrific abuse during their time there. When they were teenagers they finally escaped the horrors of Haut de la Garenne. Robbie's younger brother is now classified as having learning and behavioural difficulties as a result of the abuse he was subjected to as a child. Robbie has a responsible job and is a full time carer for his younger brother.

Get this book

Book Description
A harrowing account by one of the survivors of the Haut de la Garenne children's home Robbie was born in Jersey and when he was five years old his mother placed him and his siblings in care. They were collected from their home by the police. It was the same day that the children had witnessed their father's suicide attempt by hanging. The children were separated; Robbie and his younger brother were taken to The Sacre Coeur, an orphanage for children under twelve, while their elder brother was placed in Haut de la Garenne. Robbie and his three year old brother were bewildered and frightened by their surroundings. Their world as they had known it had disintegrated in just a matter of a few hours. They had sobbed as their eldest brother was taken away from them; they had never been apart before. Sacre Coeur, run by nuns, was a place where unimaginable abuse was committed against defenceless small children. The nuns gave them no explanation. Just gave them their scratchy uniforms and showed them their dormitory. They had joined the tribe of lost boys; the ones who no one cared about.The two boys were eventually transferred to Haut de la Garenne, a place where sick twisted minds had devised even more tortuous methods of sexually abusing the helpless. There were suicides there. And of course there were the children who simply disappeared. Gone somewhere better Robbie was told. After all in a children's home there was a lot of coming and going. Today Robbie holds down a full time job and looks after his brother who he has loved and cared for since they were those little frightened boys. He wonders what happened to his friends who disappeared.

About the Author
Toni Maguire lives in the UK and has lived in Ireland. Robbie Garner was born in Jersey in the 1950s. After his father tragically comitted suicide he and his three siblings were sent to live in children's homes. His older brother was sent to Haut de la Garenne and Robbie and his younger brother were sent to Sacre Coeur, but they were later transferred to Haut de la Garenne and were subjected to horrific abuse during their time there. When they were teenagers they finally escaped the horrors of Haut de la Garenne. Robbie's younger brother is now classified as having learning and behavioural difficulties as a result of the abuse he was subjected to as a child. Robbie has a responsible job and is a full time carer for his younger brother.

Get this book

Bloggers campaign for peace in Gaza

Bloggers campaign for peace in Gaza

Bloggers campaign for peace in Gaza

Bloggers campaign for peace in Gaza

The Cost of War

The Cost of War

The Cost of War

The Cost of War

Letter from Lenny Harper

Borrowed from Senator Stuart Syvret's Web blog

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

Letter from Lenny Harper

Borrowed from Senator Stuart Syvret's Web blog

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

Letter from Lenny Harper

Borrowed from Senator Stuart Syvret's Web blog

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

Letter from Lenny Harper

Borrowed from Senator Stuart Syvret's Web blog

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

Sark:No island is an island

Events on Sark can seem like the stuff of an Ealing comedy. Last week the 474 adult inhabitants of Europe's last bastion of feudalism, ruled by a seigneur since the 16th century, held a democratic election to choose a 30-member government. The campaign was as ostensibly low-key as you would expect on a two-square-mile island with no tarmac road, motorcars or street lighting. The outcome, though, has been anything but quaint. When their preferred candidates were rejected by the voters, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers - sole owners and inhabitants of neighbouring Brecqhou - pulled the plug on their investments on Sark, throwing 140 workers on to the dole. What next? A peasants' revolt?

It is too easy to treat all this as an island-that-time-forgot soap opera, but in truth the saga is more disturbing than silly, and Sark's inhabitants deserve respect for standing up to the Barclays. At the root of the row is a modern issue that must be taken seriously - the continuing anomalous relationship between the UK and its offshore tax havens, notably the Channel Islands (including Sark) and the Isle of Man. For decades at a time, these anomalies exist without causing more than a theoretical difficulty. Then something occurs that concentrates minds. The global financial crisis - rather than the Sark election - is such an event.

Buried away in the pre-budget report was the announcement of a review by Michael Foot (no, not that one) of bank regulation in crown dependencies from the Channel Islands to the Caymans. It was needed, the chancellor said, because taxpayers cannot be guarantors to investors who have specifically chosen to avoid UK tax by putting their money in such havens. On the face of it, finance expert Mr Foot has authority to address the big questions - transparency, tax policy (but not rates), crisis management and international frameworks. Ministers have followed up with tough language. Offshore centres "must play a responsible role", says the City minister Lord Myners. But Mr Foot is a creature of the system and the real test for the Treasury will come in responding to the review.

Constitutional relationships are excluded from the review. This may prove short-sighted. Such relationships are already being rethought by some offshore centres - Jersey recently published a review of the possibility of declaring full independence. International pressure to clamp down on tax havens has begun to build, not least because of the support of Barack Obama. In today's global economy, not even an island is "an island, entire of itself". In any collision between tax havens and the modern world, the world must prevail every time. British policy must move with the times.

Source

Sark:No island is an island

Events on Sark can seem like the stuff of an Ealing comedy. Last week the 474 adult inhabitants of Europe's last bastion of feudalism, ruled by a seigneur since the 16th century, held a democratic election to choose a 30-member government. The campaign was as ostensibly low-key as you would expect on a two-square-mile island with no tarmac road, motorcars or street lighting. The outcome, though, has been anything but quaint. When their preferred candidates were rejected by the voters, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers - sole owners and inhabitants of neighbouring Brecqhou - pulled the plug on their investments on Sark, throwing 140 workers on to the dole. What next? A peasants' revolt?

It is too easy to treat all this as an island-that-time-forgot soap opera, but in truth the saga is more disturbing than silly, and Sark's inhabitants deserve respect for standing up to the Barclays. At the root of the row is a modern issue that must be taken seriously - the continuing anomalous relationship between the UK and its offshore tax havens, notably the Channel Islands (including Sark) and the Isle of Man. For decades at a time, these anomalies exist without causing more than a theoretical difficulty. Then something occurs that concentrates minds. The global financial crisis - rather than the Sark election - is such an event.

Buried away in the pre-budget report was the announcement of a review by Michael Foot (no, not that one) of bank regulation in crown dependencies from the Channel Islands to the Caymans. It was needed, the chancellor said, because taxpayers cannot be guarantors to investors who have specifically chosen to avoid UK tax by putting their money in such havens. On the face of it, finance expert Mr Foot has authority to address the big questions - transparency, tax policy (but not rates), crisis management and international frameworks. Ministers have followed up with tough language. Offshore centres "must play a responsible role", says the City minister Lord Myners. But Mr Foot is a creature of the system and the real test for the Treasury will come in responding to the review.

Constitutional relationships are excluded from the review. This may prove short-sighted. Such relationships are already being rethought by some offshore centres - Jersey recently published a review of the possibility of declaring full independence. International pressure to clamp down on tax havens has begun to build, not least because of the support of Barack Obama. In today's global economy, not even an island is "an island, entire of itself". In any collision between tax havens and the modern world, the world must prevail every time. British policy must move with the times.

Source

Sark:No island is an island

Events on Sark can seem like the stuff of an Ealing comedy. Last week the 474 adult inhabitants of Europe's last bastion of feudalism, ruled by a seigneur since the 16th century, held a democratic election to choose a 30-member government. The campaign was as ostensibly low-key as you would expect on a two-square-mile island with no tarmac road, motorcars or street lighting. The outcome, though, has been anything but quaint. When their preferred candidates were rejected by the voters, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers - sole owners and inhabitants of neighbouring Brecqhou - pulled the plug on their investments on Sark, throwing 140 workers on to the dole. What next? A peasants' revolt?

It is too easy to treat all this as an island-that-time-forgot soap opera, but in truth the saga is more disturbing than silly, and Sark's inhabitants deserve respect for standing up to the Barclays. At the root of the row is a modern issue that must be taken seriously - the continuing anomalous relationship between the UK and its offshore tax havens, notably the Channel Islands (including Sark) and the Isle of Man. For decades at a time, these anomalies exist without causing more than a theoretical difficulty. Then something occurs that concentrates minds. The global financial crisis - rather than the Sark election - is such an event.

Buried away in the pre-budget report was the announcement of a review by Michael Foot (no, not that one) of bank regulation in crown dependencies from the Channel Islands to the Caymans. It was needed, the chancellor said, because taxpayers cannot be guarantors to investors who have specifically chosen to avoid UK tax by putting their money in such havens. On the face of it, finance expert Mr Foot has authority to address the big questions - transparency, tax policy (but not rates), crisis management and international frameworks. Ministers have followed up with tough language. Offshore centres "must play a responsible role", says the City minister Lord Myners. But Mr Foot is a creature of the system and the real test for the Treasury will come in responding to the review.

Constitutional relationships are excluded from the review. This may prove short-sighted. Such relationships are already being rethought by some offshore centres - Jersey recently published a review of the possibility of declaring full independence. International pressure to clamp down on tax havens has begun to build, not least because of the support of Barack Obama. In today's global economy, not even an island is "an island, entire of itself". In any collision between tax havens and the modern world, the world must prevail every time. British policy must move with the times.

Source

Sark:No island is an island

Events on Sark can seem like the stuff of an Ealing comedy. Last week the 474 adult inhabitants of Europe's last bastion of feudalism, ruled by a seigneur since the 16th century, held a democratic election to choose a 30-member government. The campaign was as ostensibly low-key as you would expect on a two-square-mile island with no tarmac road, motorcars or street lighting. The outcome, though, has been anything but quaint. When their preferred candidates were rejected by the voters, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers - sole owners and inhabitants of neighbouring Brecqhou - pulled the plug on their investments on Sark, throwing 140 workers on to the dole. What next? A peasants' revolt?

It is too easy to treat all this as an island-that-time-forgot soap opera, but in truth the saga is more disturbing than silly, and Sark's inhabitants deserve respect for standing up to the Barclays. At the root of the row is a modern issue that must be taken seriously - the continuing anomalous relationship between the UK and its offshore tax havens, notably the Channel Islands (including Sark) and the Isle of Man. For decades at a time, these anomalies exist without causing more than a theoretical difficulty. Then something occurs that concentrates minds. The global financial crisis - rather than the Sark election - is such an event.

Buried away in the pre-budget report was the announcement of a review by Michael Foot (no, not that one) of bank regulation in crown dependencies from the Channel Islands to the Caymans. It was needed, the chancellor said, because taxpayers cannot be guarantors to investors who have specifically chosen to avoid UK tax by putting their money in such havens. On the face of it, finance expert Mr Foot has authority to address the big questions - transparency, tax policy (but not rates), crisis management and international frameworks. Ministers have followed up with tough language. Offshore centres "must play a responsible role", says the City minister Lord Myners. But Mr Foot is a creature of the system and the real test for the Treasury will come in responding to the review.

Constitutional relationships are excluded from the review. This may prove short-sighted. Such relationships are already being rethought by some offshore centres - Jersey recently published a review of the possibility of declaring full independence. International pressure to clamp down on tax havens has begun to build, not least because of the support of Barack Obama. In today's global economy, not even an island is "an island, entire of itself". In any collision between tax havens and the modern world, the world must prevail every time. British policy must move with the times.

Source

Jersey - Growing anger against elite of secrets

GARY MATTHEWS, who was a Jersey Left Green MP from 1993-96, spoke to Jon Dale. Now living in Derbyshire, Gary is still active in the Time for Change group on the island, which has a founding conference on 27 April.
John Dale: What is the background to the cover-up at Haut de la Garenne children's home that has come to light recently?

Gary Matthews: It stems from Jersey's occupation during the Second World War. There was a lot of collaboration with the Nazis by the establishment. The Bailiff signed deportation papers for Jews. The local newspaper that now criticises the left was a Nazi mouthpiece.

There was also a resistance movement that hid escaped Russian and Spanish slave workers.

After the war, the Labour government promised a whitewash. There was no discussion of the occupation, which is where the culture of secrecy comes from.
What is the significance of the child abuse scandal?

There are allegations of child abuse dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. There's been a 50-year cover-up. Some of the worst abuse was in the 1960s.

The Jersey elite that runs the island covered up for their friends and the very top are systematically involved in the scandal. A newspaper claimed that the late Senator Krichefski, a key establishment figure in the '60s, had raped a child.
What has been the reaction in Jersey?

SiX HUNDRED witnesses have now come forward and there are 40 suspects. There is outrage in the community. Some survivors joined with a few progressives to call a rally. Within a week of the scandal breaking 400 took part, with placards calling for political change.

This led to the Time for Change group being set up that plans to stand candidates in the coming election. There is anger at the poverty, homelessness and semi-feudal political system that continues in Jersey.

There must be an independent inquiry into Haut de la Garenne. There won't be a fair inquiry or trial by the establishment.
Jersey is known as a tax haven. What does this mean for the island?

The tax haven business is booming. Jersey sells itself around the world on the confidentiality of its banks and its political stability. Dictators, drug barons and money launderers can keep their money there with impunity.

£500 billion is deposited in the island in finance houses and 51 banks. There are 30,000 companies registered, in an island of 90,000 people. GDP per head is the third highest in the world at $57,000.

But at the same time 25% of the population live below the EU poverty line, including 45% of single pensioners and 64% of single mothers and their children. There are 5,000 families in poverty. Many of the poor are Portuguese, who get the worst jobs and have no anti-racist laws to protect them.

Banks and finance houses pay virtually no tax. But the Jersey government is bringing in a Goods and Services Tax that will increase the price of everything by 3%, including food and housing. That will hit pensioners and workers hardest. 19,000 signed a petition against it last year.
Does the child abuse scandal threaten the finance business?

It's the political establishment who make money out of the tax haven. Serving politicians get bank directorships and favourable mortgages. Six of the ten ministers are multimillionaires. They don't want Jersey in the news.

Already there have been phone calls from their clients around the world to find out what's happening. To keep political stability it's essential for the elite to crush any opposition. They have always used personal smears, bullying and victimisation against anyone who stands against them.
How does this affect the rest of us?

Labour and Tories are fighting over who can be nastiest to people on incapacity benefits. But £100 billion is stolen from the Exchequer and deposited in Jersey banks. This money could be spent on public services. Worldwide, $255 billion a year disappears into tax haven

Source

Jersey - Growing anger against elite of secrets

GARY MATTHEWS, who was a Jersey Left Green MP from 1993-96, spoke to Jon Dale. Now living in Derbyshire, Gary is still active in the Time for Change group on the island, which has a founding conference on 27 April.
John Dale: What is the background to the cover-up at Haut de la Garenne children's home that has come to light recently?

Gary Matthews: It stems from Jersey's occupation during the Second World War. There was a lot of collaboration with the Nazis by the establishment. The Bailiff signed deportation papers for Jews. The local newspaper that now criticises the left was a Nazi mouthpiece.

There was also a resistance movement that hid escaped Russian and Spanish slave workers.

After the war, the Labour government promised a whitewash. There was no discussion of the occupation, which is where the culture of secrecy comes from.
What is the significance of the child abuse scandal?

There are allegations of child abuse dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. There's been a 50-year cover-up. Some of the worst abuse was in the 1960s.

The Jersey elite that runs the island covered up for their friends and the very top are systematically involved in the scandal. A newspaper claimed that the late Senator Krichefski, a key establishment figure in the '60s, had raped a child.
What has been the reaction in Jersey?

SiX HUNDRED witnesses have now come forward and there are 40 suspects. There is outrage in the community. Some survivors joined with a few progressives to call a rally. Within a week of the scandal breaking 400 took part, with placards calling for political change.

This led to the Time for Change group being set up that plans to stand candidates in the coming election. There is anger at the poverty, homelessness and semi-feudal political system that continues in Jersey.

There must be an independent inquiry into Haut de la Garenne. There won't be a fair inquiry or trial by the establishment.
Jersey is known as a tax haven. What does this mean for the island?

The tax haven business is booming. Jersey sells itself around the world on the confidentiality of its banks and its political stability. Dictators, drug barons and money launderers can keep their money there with impunity.

£500 billion is deposited in the island in finance houses and 51 banks. There are 30,000 companies registered, in an island of 90,000 people. GDP per head is the third highest in the world at $57,000.

But at the same time 25% of the population live below the EU poverty line, including 45% of single pensioners and 64% of single mothers and their children. There are 5,000 families in poverty. Many of the poor are Portuguese, who get the worst jobs and have no anti-racist laws to protect them.

Banks and finance houses pay virtually no tax. But the Jersey government is bringing in a Goods and Services Tax that will increase the price of everything by 3%, including food and housing. That will hit pensioners and workers hardest. 19,000 signed a petition against it last year.
Does the child abuse scandal threaten the finance business?

It's the political establishment who make money out of the tax haven. Serving politicians get bank directorships and favourable mortgages. Six of the ten ministers are multimillionaires. They don't want Jersey in the news.

Already there have been phone calls from their clients around the world to find out what's happening. To keep political stability it's essential for the elite to crush any opposition. They have always used personal smears, bullying and victimisation against anyone who stands against them.
How does this affect the rest of us?

Labour and Tories are fighting over who can be nastiest to people on incapacity benefits. But £100 billion is stolen from the Exchequer and deposited in Jersey banks. This money could be spent on public services. Worldwide, $255 billion a year disappears into tax haven

Source