LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM
“PIERS BAKER alleged he was unable to provide any information but made an outrageous comment that DYKES had abused the pupils in payment for the time he provided in taking pupils sailing.”
Police Officer Anton Cornelissen
How Difficult is it
To Investigate Child Abuse In Jersey?
The Abusers and Concealers of Abuse
Claim They’re Being “Bullied”;
The Investigators are Oppressed.
Under the previous posting we’ve had quite a discussion concerning the facts as revealed in the sworn affidavit of the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, QPM.
A fundamental truth distinguishes that document – from the reams of guff churned out by the Jersey oligarchy, their spin-doctors, and their Friends at Court at Whitehall.
It is a sworn statement – willingly made to court – and based upon a constellation of hard, supporting evidence; of facts.
Just how many sworn statements have the Jersey oligarchy politicians and their corrupt senior civil servants been prepared to produce?
None – so far as I am aware. Instead, it has been sophistry, half-truths, spin and out-right lies.
Mr. Power is – plainly – a man of the utmost integrity, calibre and professionalism. He is also a nationally respected Chief Constable and recipient of the Queens Police Medal.
Yet – there he is; unlawfully and corruptly suspended from his post by a halfwit politician and a corrupt, politicised civil servant.
And with no remedy or protection available to him from any part of Jersey’s public administration.
Mr. Power has been bullied. Just as the last decent Jersey Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard was bullied.
Just as have been so many other decent people in Jersey – who try to do what is right.
Yet – in a Kafkaesque inversion of how things should be in a decent society – it is the victims of bullying – of oppression – who are labelled and damned as ‘bullies’ – whilst those who claim to be victims, are, in fact, the real bullies.
This woeful phenomenon is not, of course, unique to Jersey; one finds it, to an extent, in all societies.
But in Jersey – just so Orwellian has been the hi-jacking of the phrase – that to try and protect children from being battered and raped – to try and bring the perpetrators to justice – is to be dammed by the island’s public authorities for “bullying” the attackers and those who have concealed the attackers’ crimes.
And so pernicious is this culture – so ingrained and maintained by a culture of fear – that it permeates all levels of public administration.
The Jersey oligarchy have – for so long – enjoyed a sense of utter invulnerability, that they have never felt deterred from oppressing and bullying even highly placed individuals; indeed – all the better to make an example of a few high-profile people – to keep the rabble in line.
So readers of this blog will be very familiar with the bullying and oppression visited upon people such as Mr. Power, Simon Bellwood, John Day and me.
But if it’s that bad in Jersey for those of us who have at least been in a position to fight back – just how bad is it for the average, decent person trying to do a good, ethical job?
I scarcely have the words or space to begin doing justice to that question.
It is so bad – you simply couldn’t make it up.
And in this posting I’m going to produce yet another item of evidence which illustrates that fact.
I reproduce below an e-mail which was written by a decent, honest Jersey cop, in which he recounted to a senior Officer his experiences of attempting to investigate and deal with the many years of concealed child abuse at Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.
That whole, disgusting and wretched episode is examined in detail in the Sharp report – which is on the web. There is a direct link to it from my blog.
The e-mail I reproduce below was written by Detective Constable Anton Cornelissen to help the more recent historic child abuse investigation understand just how so much of this foulness can have been tolerated and concealed – the victims gone unprotected – and the crimes unpunished – for so many decades.
The e-mail speaks for itself. However – certain points deserve particular note. The fact that certain senior Officers at that time socialised with the abuser, Andrew Jervis-Dykes; the fact that they failed to declare that conflict of interests; the fact they refused to permit DC Cornelissen to even view the Yacht Club log book.
The fact that – “the Police were under pressure to drop the investigation as it was harming the reputation of the College”.
The fact that DC Cornelissen – “personally received threats and promises that [his] career would be hampered.”
The fact that – “certain exhibits went missing from the file”.
The fact that DC Cornelissen – “felt very uncomfortable. [he] would protest that the information was confidential but would be met with threats of rank.”
The fact that his – “secondment to [the] Child Protection Team was terminated and [he was] returned to shift. This caused such a surprise [to] the duty Sergeants”.
What is that – if not a regime of bullying?
Worse – a regime of bullying that actually involves criminal acts and motivations?
And – worse yet – a regime of bullying that is expressly designed to protect foul individuals who have abused children?
Just how much worse does “bullying” get – than adults sexually molesting children?
Certainly, bullying and oppressing those who are trying to protect children must get pretty close.
If the weakest and most vulnerable members of society cannot be defended without their protectors running the gauntlet of oppression themselves – then we have a system which actively generates elevated levels of danger for already vulnerable children.
It cannot be anything other than inimical to the public good that in Jersey the dangerous are protected. And by ‘dangerous’ – I do not mean only those who actually attack children; I also mean those who would – and do – conceal such crimes.
They, too – are dangerous – in that they protect the abusers.
And in that context, we must ask what – in the name of all that’s good – can any civilised person make of Piers Baker’s response when asked by DC Cornelissen to assist in identifying the boys who were being sexually abused in the video footage seized by the police from the house of Jervis-Dykes?
“Towards the end of my secondment, the DS in CPT was DS Roger PRYKE. I invited Mr. Piers BAKER the deputy headmaster of Victoria College into the CPT in order to view certain images previously seized from DYKES; this with a view to identifying the pupils obviously being abused. BAKER alleged he was unable to provide any information but made an outrageous comment that DYKES had abused the pupils in payment for the time he provided in taking pupils sailing.”
People will need to read the Sharp report to really fully understand just how reprehensible and dangerous was the conduct of Piers Baker – his repeated, pro-active and wilful obstructions of the police investigation.
But even without that reading – any decent person will find it staggering, as did I –that Baker – a man who was the head of the junior school – could blithely quote a colleague – who regarded sexually abusing children as, somehow, a kind of “payment”, for the time he was providing.
And bear in mind – this was not some information speedily volunteered to the police – to warn them of the dangers Jervis-Dykes posed. This was the infamous, casual, “teachers’ perks” observation – finally made by Baker at one point, during months of obstructions and refusals to co-operate with the police.
These events have, naturally, been denied by Baker. Nevertheless, he had to resign from the school in disgrace.
But – whom do we believe?
Piers Baker – a Jersey oligarchy man – supported by the full might of the conflicted Jersey judiciary – and a load of powerfully–placed bent cops?
Or a decent, honest police officer – who had no motive to invent such things – on the contrary, a person who – by doing the right thing and being honest, knew perfectly well all he would incur would be the wrath, bullying and oppressions of his bent seniors?
As DC Cornelissen remarks in this e-mail, “The only person who supported me in the action was Barry FAUDEMER.” And, ” I have no doubt that if it were not for Barry FAUDEMER supporting me, then I would have been in hot water.”
Here is the full e-mail:
“From: Cornelissen, Anton
Sent: 6th August 2007 15:17
To: Fossey, Alison
Further to our earlier conversation, as requested I confirm in writing what I have alleged.
In 1996 I was deployed to B shift under Derek UPTON. I was seconded for a time to the Child Protection Team where Barry FAUDEMER was the DS and John DE LA HAYE the DI.
I took on an investigation concerning Mr. Andrew JERVIS-DYKES a Teacher at Victoria College who had allegedly assaulted students whilst either on Combined Cadet Force (Navy Section) outings or when taking pupils sailing either in and around Jersey or Greece. DYKES was later convicted of numerous indecent assaults committed on the pupils and possession of indecent images of children (pupils at Victoria College.)
During the investigation I had cause to conduct enquiries at the St Helier Yacht Club situated at South Pier. It was alleged that Dykes took pupils to the Club to socialise and teach them navigation. He would also supply them with alcohol. Unfortunately having made my intentions known, I was prevented by DE LA HAYE to attend at the Yacht Club without his presence. On attending there, DE LA HAYE viewed the Club log book/register and provided me with certain dates that DYKES had attended there. I was not allowed to attend at the Club without his presence, or to view the log book.
As the Club Secretary and Chairman were very much on-side, and not understanding the reasons as to why I was prevented from viewing the log book, I attended at the Club where the Secretary allowed me to view the log book. I then discovered that a group of senior officers frequently attended at the Yacht Club together, and who were apparently sailing buddies. From memory I seem to recall those officers documented were Rolly JONES, Trevor GARRETT and DE LA HAYE. I seem to recall discovering that at times when the officers had attended at the Club, DYKES was also present with students.
It is worthy of note that due to the high profile of the investigation, the Police were under pressure to drop the investigation as it was harming the reputation of the College. I personally received threats and promises that my career would be hampered. In addition certain exhibits went missing from the file. This resulted in the file being locked in the DI’s (then Barry FAUDEMER) office at the end of each day.
Derek UPTON would press me for an update of the investigation at every opportunity, and which I felt very uncomfortable. I would protest that the information was confidential but would be met with threats of rank. Then despite being up to full strength on shift, on the insistence of UPTON my secondment to CPT was terminated and I returned to shift. This caused such a surprise that the duty Sergeants on shift that to make a point they decided to have a shift photograph. The Sergeants Andy CROWEL and Gary PASHLEY could not understand the reasons for my return especially as the investigation into Victoria College had escalated.
Towards the end of my secondment, the DS in CPT was DS Roger PRYKE. I invited Mr. Piers BAKER the deputy headmaster of Victoria College into the CPT in order to view certain images previously seized from DYKES; this with a view to identifying the pupils obviously being abused. BAKER alleged he was unable to provide any information but made an outrageous comment that DYKES had abused the pupils in payment for the time he provided in taking pupils sailing. The Headmaster Jack HYDES was subsequently dismissed from the College and BAKER requested to resign. BAKER and HYDES instigated civil proceedings against me as I disclosed the comment BAKER made to me to PRYKE, and in my report summary. The only person who supported me in the action was Barry FAUDEMER.
It is worthy of note that DE LA HAYE and PRYKE were friends. At no time did PRYKE disclose that he was also a neighbour and a personal friend to BAKER. During the investigation PRYKE denied categorically that I informed him about the comment that BAKER made. I have no doubt that if it were not for Barry FAUDEMER supporting me, then I would have been in hot water.
I provide this information in all good faith, but due to the passage of time, I can not be absolutely certain of the facts.
The e-mail of a man who was intimidated, obstructed, taken off of Child Protection, put on shift – and generally bullied – for trying to expose and bring to justice child abusers.
Child abusers who seemed to find nothing remarkable in the concept that their crimes against children should be regarded as “payment” – for taking them on sailing trips.
As a commenter observed under the previous posting – we never really did find out for sure – just who was holding the camera – and who was committing the abuse.
Another tragically characteristic feature of this disgusting sequence of events – so typical of “The Jersey Way” – is the complete failure of many of those involved to declare their conflicts of interest. De La Haye and others – not declaring the fact they frequented the Yacht Club.
And, in particular, the truly startling failure of DS Roger Pryke to declare the fact that he was a neighbour and close friend of Piers Baker.
The late Roger Pryke being the husband of Deputy Anne Pryke – the current Minister for Health & Social Services – and thus THE politician with political and legal responsibility for child protection in Jersey.
Can a person who is a family friend of a creature like Baker – be remotely regarded as a suitable person to be responsible for child protection in Jersey?
Of course – she cannot. And the concern is not merely theoretical.
Already she has demonstrated herself to be utterly unwilling and incapable of properly addressing the culture of child protection failure in Jersey.
For example – voting against the promised Public Inquiry into the child protection disaster.
It is also worthy of note – that Deputy Pryke exhibited exactly the same failures as her late husband in respect of not declaring the conflict of interest. At the very least – she should have declared to the States assembly that she was acquainted with Baker when she was a candidate for the post of H & SS Minister.
The fact that she didn’t – is yet more wretched evidence of the toxic “Jersey Way” at work.
Why did those children have to suffer?
Why do the interests of the weak and vulnerable in Jersey – always have to come a distant second to various cabals of friends, families, colleagues, and other factions and cliques with shared interests and common purposes?
Perhaps the vulnerable have suffered – do suffer – and will continue to suffer – because anyone who tries to do what is right – to stand up to the ‘Jersey Firm’ is – in Orwellian Newspeak – condemned as a “bully”, whilst being bullied into silence themselves?
What hope can the real victims of crime have, when decent cops in Jersey, who try to do the right thing – try to act professionally – are dicing with their careers? When they can’t be free of fear and the threat of bullying – and have to gamble in a kind of lottery that they’ll happen to have a senior Officer on their side to protect them?
Graham Power and Lenny Harper did much to try and stamp-out the culture of bullying in the force when they came to Jersey, which is one of the reasons why they are – and Lenny in particular is – so hated by the old-fashioned bent faction of Jersey cops.
However, the episode described by DC Cornelissen happened before either Mr. Power or Mr. Harper were in post in Jersey. He was lucky – as his e-mail makes clear – in having the support of Barry Faudemer, who – back then, at least, as people have said to me – was one of the good guys. Whether he still is – is open to question given his 2009 statements in respect of the ‘Nurse M’ case. We shall see. But – perhaps then, he too has been bullied?
But – of course – in Jersey, it isn’t only the comparatively powerless who get oppressed and bullied. Such is the entrenched and – hitherto – invulnerable might of the Jersey oligarchy, they’ve been able to oppress pretty much anyone – including the decorated Chief Constable and the senior Senator.
And it is such outcomes which provide the great illustration of what it is we’re dealing with. You doubt the stagnation, the dangerousness, the bullying, the corruption of “The Jersey Way”?
Let us compare and contrast some actual personal cases.
John Day: An innocent man – scapegoated for a disaster caused by gross, management failings at H & SS. Excluded for three years.
Richard Jouault: One of the key, culpable mangers. Escapes all sanction, and promoted to Acting Chief Executive.
Graham Power: Chief Constable: unlawfully suspended – without a trace of proper due process – and in defiance of the evidenced facts – because the Jersey oligarchy needed to bury the child abuse investigation. Remains suspended to this day.
David Warcup: Demonstrable liar, admitted destroying evidence, conspired to pervert the course of justice and engaged in a calculated act of sabotage against the child abuse investigation of such recklessness it remains without precedent in all modern British policing. Promoted to Acting Chief Officer.
Simon Bellwood: Professional and ethical social worker. Objected to unlawful and abusive solitary confinement regime being used against vulnerable children in custody. Bullied, oppressed, unfairly dismissed.
Joe Kennedy: Simon’s manager. Liar, bully, oversaw, endorsed and routinely carried out the psychologically tortuous and criminal coercive solitary confinement regime against children. Interfered in a promotion to give the job to a woman he was having an affair with, over a superior candidate. Restored to post and in receipt of several pay-rises.
Me: Trying to secure improvements in child protection, and trying to prevent my elderly constituents from being murdered. Had to uncover various child protection failings under my own initiative, in the teeth of opposition from my own senior civil servants; was mislead by omission, obstructed, lied to, plotted against, lied about, bullied, oppressed – and ultimately raided, arrested, prosecuted, denied legal representation, and even denied a public interest disclosure defence. Shortly to be unlawfully driven from Office, made unemployed. No official protection. Zero pension.
Piers Baker: Knew of, but yet concealed – for years – complaints of child abuse at Victoria College. Went on sailing trips with the abuser and groups of boys. Allowed the abuser to get them intoxicated and behave inappropriately with them. Not only failed to report the issues to the police – but when the police did become involved – pro-actively obstructed them. Apparently saw nothing problematic in a colleague regarding the abusing of children as “payment” for taking them sailing and regarded it as “teachers perks”. Although had to resign in disgrace from Victoria College, quickly re-habilitated by the Jersey oligarchy – into a bullet-proof, very highly paid job at the Harbours Department – with a gold-plated pension.
And where – amongst other things – he has strategic responsibility for the protection of children at sea.
Just who – in truth – are the bullies – and who are the bullied in Jersey?
George Orwell would see the truth.