There has been much talk about the Council of Ministers' stance on not wishing to pursue a Committee of Inquiry. I am not going to rehash the rights and wrongs of this decision, save to re-iterate my firm belief that this is not a decision for the Council of Ministers, but for the States Assembly.
I am supportive of the Committee of Inquiry, and have related some of the grounds below. To summarize, though, it is unfortunate that in all the recriminations that have been fly about regarding alleged mismanagement and mishandling of the investigation, the two things that seem to have been forgotten are (i) the (feelings of) the victims/survivors themselves and (ii) how it was that the abuse was able to occur at all.
The following statement is something I posted on my facebook wall last night in response to someone who was sceptical that the CoI would acheive anything worthwhile and not represent value for money:
'The question, for me, is why and how this abuse was allowed to happen in the first place. These were particularly vulnerable children who were entrusted into State care. When abuse did occur, the victims at the time were generally not belie...ved, punished and so the cycle continued. In order for this to have happened, there needed to be people in key positions of power who either passively or actively facilitated this culture. There were suggestion at the time that senior figures - politicians, police and civil servants were involved. If we are to learn lessons, we need to know what went on.
Much like what happened in Ireland, Belgium and other notable places, Committee of Inquiry did help to expose decades of corruptions and cover-ups (and/or general bad practises, neglect) that allowed those cowardly and sick individuals to get away with what they did.
And it is exactly to stop allegations of conspiracy theories on the one hand and exaggeration on the other that this needs to be investigated.
I will not be able to sleep at night or face future generations, having heard what I have heard, and knowing the vast amount of unanswered questions that still remain, if I do not at least give an opportunity for this Committee of Inquiry.
The message is simple though. If you do not want to incur huge costs (social and financial) as a Government, do not let children get abused in the systematic way they were allowed to be in the recent past. The blame must always rest with the abusers and political facilitators, not the victims or those who are trying to help.
'I will not be able to sleep at night or face future generations, having heard what I have heard, and knowing the vast amount of unanswered questions that still remain, if I do not at least give an opportunity for this Committee of Inquiry.'
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly Monty - this just HAS to happen.
Montfort
ReplyDeleteYou say two things have been forgotten, then, say you will not go on to rehash the rights and wrongs of this decision although you do support a Committee of Inquiry.
(i) the (feelings of) the victims/survivors themselves and (ii) how it was that the abuse was able to occur at all.
I believe, rather than coming out with a statement of support which is great but those who are prepared to rehash the rights and wrongs are showing the two points you numbered, as, not being forgotten
I meant I was not going to rehash arguments here and now on this blog. The time and place to go over ALL arguments supporting the inquiry will be during the related debate. Of course I and other colleagues will use that opportunity to put forward all relevant arguments.
ReplyDeleteMontfort,
ReplyDeleteCan you please explain to me how it is that Cohen last year took a Directorship with a property company (Max Property), without being held to account by the Ministerial Code of Conduct related to conflict of interests?
Surely under the Code of Conduct a resolution in this case will require a resignation from Cohen, either as Planning Minister or from the board of the property company?
Anon. I have verified what you have said and it is correct that Senator Freddie Cohen is an 'independent non-executive director' for Maxproperty Group. However, I do not see how this creates any obvious conflict with his political job as the website quite clearly states that the company makes its money by 'investing in and managing properties in a wide range of real estate asset classes in the UK.' This does not seem to create an immediate conflict with planning matters in Jersey. Furthermore, all States Members must declare their interests in a publicly available document. So long as this is done, all is above board.
ReplyDelete