The Jersey Care Inquiry has hit potential funding problems, and Senator Philip Bailhache has decided to try to exploit that by trying to get the Inquiry closed down as a result.
Senator Bailhache has always been opposed to abuse survivors and proper inquiries into abuse, and that showed in his 2008 LIberation Day speech, where he said that the Island's reputation was more important than the abuse victims.
That is a terrible attitude, but it is also typical of him.
Privately educated at a top school, and never wanting for anything, Senator Bailhache has no empathy for abuse survivors and no understanding of them. This is quite typical of the majority of the Church of England laity and clergy, and he is or was a Church warden.
Paradoxical when you think of Jesus' teaching and examples.
Basically, Philip Bailhache does not like to be probed, oops, excuse my error, he does not like wrongdoing in Jersey to be probed.
It is paradoxical again how Philip Bailhache has been strongly against the Jersey inquiry but so keen on the Steel report being published, but the difference is, he abused his power in the Jersey's Dean case because he had a personal interest, ie, he is part of the church-politician-judiciary clique who support the Dean. So he claims to want the abuse report published there, and yet he voted against the Jersey care inquiry, and undermined and insulted the victims and is now 'calling on members of the public' to support him in quashing the inquiry, with costs as an excuse.
The common denominator in my case and the Jersey care case is that he has insulted and undermined me and the survivors of Jersey care abuse.
Why? Well he doesn't understand abuse, or victims of abuse, or their feelings or reactions to abuse, and he doesn't care, and he doesn't want to care, his main worry is what has not yet been uncovered about abuse and abuse of power in cover-ups, in my case and in the Jersey care case, and he is concerned for Jersey's reputation as he is like a feudal lord in Jersey, and he is apparently concerned for the part he and other powerful people he is close to and mutually supporting, in wrongdoing and cover-up.
I heartily applaud Deputy Montfort Tadier for once again having the courage and integrity to speak up in his letter to the media:
Dear All,
I am very concerned by these latest attempts, clearly led by Senator Bailhache, to close down the committee of inquiry. He was never a supporter of it, in fact, he consistently used his influence to try not to have one at all. This does not surprise me.
However, what does surprise me is that we were told by the Chief Minister that the Committee of Inquiry must be allowed to do its job - and that States Members should stand back and let them do this.
Senator Bailhache is trying to fan the flames of populism by asking a question that seems to invite an obvious answer: should we spend £50m on an inquiry to make lawyers rich?
I would ask the 2 questions: should we let the Committee continue its work and bring those perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes against children to task, including holding former Attorney Generals, politicians and staff to account - as per the agreed terms of reference?
Should we say to the UK - Jersey has run out of money. We would now like your Committee of Inquiry to extent to Jersey and we will give you free access to come over to do that?
Kind regards,
Deputy Montfort Tadier
And Here are Bob Hill and Voice for Children's Blogs on the subject:
What Senator Bailhache is hoping, in 'urging the public to back him' over the inquiry costs is, the majority of non-native workers in the finance industry do not care about Jersey or islanders, and there are many Jersey people who have been dutifully trained to bury and repress, and there are those Jersey people like Bailhache who are too well off to understand or care about the abuse and it's impact.
What he doesn't realise is, each time he abuses his power this way, a growing number of people notice, and write about it.
I just had to copy this comment from Voice for Children's blog. It gives reference to Bailhache's data protection breach regarding my case:
I just had to copy this comment from Voice for Children's blog. It gives reference to Bailhache's data protection breach regarding my case:
Anonymous27 February 2015 at 22:01
Senator Bailhache being an intelligent man, and proclaimed believer in truthfulness is not happy with the rising cost of the child abuse enquiry.
Witness his public assertion regarding the possible costs topping fifty million pound. The way forward is for him to now propose a type of scrutiny Committee with himself as the chairman he also wants it to be impartial so may invite Terry Le Suer, Phillip Ozouf and Mr Mario Lundy and to sit in judgment over the cost of the inquiry. Once common sense and factual discussion has taken place he may then offer three open and reasonable propositions for the states to consider.
Option A) Continue but all victims must be prepared to travel to Barbados at their own expense to give their statements.
Option B) Continue but statements submitted must be read by the inquiry panel in confidence while flying in an airplane.
Option C) Continue and keep the Status quo, and hope that a witness does not come forward regarding a paedophile named as Roger Holland and who was responsible for allowing him to stay in a position able to abuse vulnerable people.
http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/philip-bailhache-and-roger-holland.html
ReplyWitness his public assertion regarding the possible costs topping fifty million pound. The way forward is for him to now propose a type of scrutiny Committee with himself as the chairman he also wants it to be impartial so may invite Terry Le Suer, Phillip Ozouf and Mr Mario Lundy and to sit in judgment over the cost of the inquiry. Once common sense and factual discussion has taken place he may then offer three open and reasonable propositions for the states to consider.
Option A) Continue but all victims must be prepared to travel to Barbados at their own expense to give their statements.
Option B) Continue but statements submitted must be read by the inquiry panel in confidence while flying in an airplane.
Option C) Continue and keep the Status quo, and hope that a witness does not come forward regarding a paedophile named as Roger Holland and who was responsible for allowing him to stay in a position able to abuse vulnerable people.
http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/philip-bailhache-and-roger-holland.html
