There are reports that more than a handful of victims have now come forward who have alleged the late Jimmy Savile abused them while in Jersey and up to 60, or more, victims in total nationwide.
Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.
I have been asked by the Voiceforchildren blog to make some comment on the current enquiries relating to the late Jimmy Savile. I understand that there is an interest in any parallels which may be drawn between the Savile Enquiry and the Jersey Abuse Enquiry. I am also told that there are some comparisons capable of being made between the actions so far taken by the UK Authorities and a debate in Jersey concerning a proposed Committee of Enquiry into Child Abuse.
Since I left the Police Service I have not, so far as I am aware, pro-actively engaged in any publicity or comment in relation to my time as a serving officer. I have however occasionally been approached by journalists, both from the Citizens Media and the Paid Media, who have asked me direct questions. On some occasions I have declined to comment. In other cases I have offered honest comment where I felt that was in the public interest.
Against this background it is no surprise that I have been approached from a number of sources over recent days asking for comment in respect of the emerging allegations concerning Savile. For the most part I have said that I know little of any allegations against that person. He was not someone with whom I had any significant involvement. I recall that I met him once at an official gathering and that was about the extent of my contact.
I have however when recently asked, commented on some of the characteristics of the Savile affair and how they compare with some aspects of the Jersey Abuse Enquiry. In particular it appears that Savile’s victims saw him as a rich and powerful person who mixed with Royalty and Prime Ministers. They regarded him as untouchable and felt that anything they said to his detriment would not be believed. These feelings appear to have been confirmed by the experiences of those who did attempt to report the abuse. I have seen a TV interview in which one woman describes how as a young girl, she was living in a residential institution when she was abused by Savile. She protested and reported the matter to staff. The response of the institution was to have her punished for telling lies. The UK authorities have addressed this situation by establishing a robust and independent police enquiry which has made it clear that reports will be taken seriously and properly investigated.
Victims of abuse in Jersey told similar stories. Their abusers were powerful and well connected. Any reports which were made were disbelieved or ignored. Only when the leaders of a Police Enquiry made it clear that they were resolved to get to the truth and would stand no interference from the Jersey Authorities was confidence established and the floodgates, which had held back the truth for decades, finally opened. I have received messages from victims which have said that once I was removed from the Force this confidence was damaged and that some victims and witnesses became reluctant to pursue their allegations. I do not have access to official information which enables me to confirm these reports or otherwise. People living in Jersey are better positioned to judge whether this might be true.
Another common factor in both enquiries is the extent to which the victims were often from troubled backgrounds. Even if a case had reached the Courts, it might have been claimed that the victims were not credible witnesses.
There is another common factor in the two investigations in that Savile is now deceased and beyond the reach of the Justice System. The same can be said for some of the suspects in the Jersey investigation. In both cases victims sometimes gained the confidence to report the abuse only when they felt certain that the abuser could no longer do them any harm. The death of the main suspect does not make the investigation pointless. A thorough investigation may reveal the identities of accomplices. It might also identify those in authority who should have acted but did not do so. In both investigations there is evidence that senior people, who had a responsibility for the protection of the vulnerable, failed to act. They must bear a significant share of the blame for what happened and it may still be possible to hold them to account. It is the lack of any positive intervention, and the failure to prioritise the safety of the vulnerable over the interests of the well-connected and the powerful which is a disturbing feature of both investigations.
I have also been asked to comment about a debate in Jersey regarding a proposed Committee of Enquiry. I find this request harder to address given that I have not been in Jersey for a number of years and I am not a close follower of Jersey news. I do however recall that during the time that I was Chief Officer of the Force the Jersey Government said that a full Committee of Enquiry would be established. I have not followed closely what has happened since with regard to that issue.
I have however noted the actions taken by the BBC in the UK, and UK Government Departments in the comparable circumstances of the Savile case. I have seen media reports which have said that the relevant organisations will be establishing enquiries to investigate, among other things, the culture in which the abuse occurred, who knew about it, and what action was taken by those with responsibility. I have noted that these commitments were given within days of the facts emerging and that we are told that the membership of the enquiries and the terms of reference will be available soon. These actions seem to me to be entirely consistent with the acceptance of responsibility, integrity, and commitment to the public interest which should be expected from credible government bodies in a civilised 21st century democracy.
Jersey residents are better placed than me to comment on whether their own public authorities have demonstrated commitment to a comparable standard.(END)
The former Police Chief makes some interesting points including "A thorough investigation may reveal the identities of accomplices. It might also identify those in authority who should have acted but did not do so."
Who in Jersey could have but didn't act? Who are still in positions of power who either abused or covered up abuse noting the former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper told us there are at least 4 that he knows of.
Who were Jimmy Savile's contacts in Jersey? Who invited him over here? Who invited him to Haut de la Garenne? Who "made things happen" over here for Savile?
How is it that the UK institutions put in place an inquiry within DAYS and the Jersey authorities take YEARS? Has the Jersey authorities "demonstrated commitment to a comparable standard?"
Will the BBC's investigation be fit for purpose? Will (if it ever happens) Jersey's Committee Of Inquiry be fit for purpose? Will the cycle of intimidation and threats against Abuse Victims ever be broken? Will those, as a result of the Committee of Inquiry, be held to account who covered up the decades of Child Abuse on this island?
There is a common factor explained by the former Police Chief and that is how victims are too scared to speak out against those who hold positions of power or authority and inevitably these abusers never face justice, perhaps more so in Jersey.
If anybody knows of somebody who is/has either abused or covered up abuse then we encourage them to phone the Metropolitan Police HERE