Setting Bad Examples

Oliver Finegold: Mr Livingstone, "Evening Standard." How did tonight go?
Ken Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
Mr Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
Mr Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism

In a previous blog, and on his site, I asked Stuart Syvret to make an apology for his anti-Semitic remark. See:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/apologies-please-stuart.html

Now this is Stuart's response to my call for an apology.

My e-mail exchange with Freddy Cohen, in which I had accused him of gross hypocrisy for his betrayal of an unambiguous election promise to support exempting medical services and supplies from the Goods & Services Tax. He responded by, essentially, arguing that he resiled from his election promise because he was "a team-player". [The "team" being the Council of Ministers] To which I responded that the "need to be a team-player" may well have been used as an excuse by Nazis on trial at Nuremburg. He responded by saying he had never been so insulted in his life - and would never speak to me again (great). What - of course - one won't read in The Rag is the rest of the correspondence. I replied by saying that my remarks were intended to be insulting; as I knew exactly what such things meant. This because my mother's maiden name was Gould, and she was borne in a Nazi internment camp following my grandmother's deportation by the occupying Nazis. So, unsurprisingly, this latter part of the correspondence has still not appeared in The Rag. And people think I'm paranoid about that wretched journal? So, Tony - you want me to apologise to Freddy Cohen?

Yes, how you act gives the lead to others. Behaviour has consequences, and other people may not have what you see as a very nuanced approach to these matters. Look at one effect of Ken Livingstone's comment.

A concerned primary school teacher who, after telling off one of her pupils for who calling a Jewish child "a Nazi", was given the excuse that "The Mayor said it was OK, so why can't I do it

Also part of the exchange with Cohen is now fairly public, and sounds as presented like a general anti-Semitic remark, which must cause offense to members of the Jewish congregation in Jersey. They have good cause to feel touchy about such matters. Neo-Nazi movements are still around, and a recent Channel 4 Dispatches showed London newspaper vendors selling "Mein Kampf" - in Arabic. It doesn't take much to set the ball rolling, and when a culture exists in which remarks like that are taken as acceptable, we have gone a long way back towards the kind of culture which was a fertile soil for anti-Semitism.

Why use an anti-Semitic insult, when Philip Zimbardo, in "The Lucifer Effect" shows how situations shape the way people respond, which is what may well have happened in Cohen's case? A better case - might be to argue that as an outsider, being Jewish, he may have been desperate for acceptance, to the extent of betraying manifesto promises for existential gain, that of being part of the "inner ring".

C.S. Lewis comments on this kind of desire

I believe that in all men's lives at certain periods, and in many men's lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside. This desire, in one of its forms, has indeed had ample justice done to it in literature. I mean, in the form of snobbery. Victorian fiction is full of characters who are hag-ridden by the desire to get inside that particular Ring which is, or was, called Society. But it must be clearly understood that "Society," in that sense of the word, is merely one of a hundred Rings and snobbery therefore only one form of the longing to be inside.

This is a slippery slope, and notice how well it fits as a motivation for betraying manifesto promises. It is not to do with illegality but with a moral decay, with the gradual erosion of those ideals for which people enter politics. I think the following passage fits very well the phenomena which we have all observed, of a high minded individual going into politics, with the best of motives, and then - a year or more later - we wonder where those ideals have all gone, and why.

Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as a triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still... the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which is not quite in accordance with the technical rules of fair play: something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which "we"-and at the word "we" you try not to blush for mere pleasure-something "we always do." And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man's face-that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face-turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude: it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

In his reply to my comments, Stuart commented:

Firstly, as explained elsewhere, I have Jewish ancestry myself - and my maternal family suffered internment by the Nazis. So "anti-Semitic"? Sorry - it just won't wash.

That is a nonsense. Some Jews have even set up an anti-Semitic cartoon contest (http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-anti-semitic-cartoon-contest/): "Amitai Sandy, the publisher of Tel-Aviv, Israel-based Dimona Comix, and founder of the contest jokes, "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!" So, I'm sorry, your argument won't wash either!

More seriously, consider also the case of the Irène Némirovsky controversy - a Jewish writer, who tried to dissociate herself from other Jews in her life as well as being extremely unpleasant about Jews in her work, at least in the early novels she wrote and which secured her fame. The idea that somebody Jewish cannot be alienated from their roots to the point where they made anti-Semitic remarks about other Jews is quite possible. It has happened before. Look up "internalised oppression", for a good start on Google!

Secondly, "giving offence"? Just what & why should that be any big deal in societal discourse - at least if one comes at things from a post-enlightenment perspective? Sometimes offensive things need to be said - as part of debate - as part just getting at the truth. Indeed one of the banes of Jersey politics is that people attach so much importance to "politeness" - rather than the truth.

If by "post-enlightenment perspective", Stuart means "an excuse to be insulting when I feel like it", then I am sure he can do this very well. Postmodernism - which is what I assume he means by post-enlightenment - is really often little more than rhetorical posturing which avoids argument. In fact, a good deal of debate is conducted today at a shallow and trivial level... We are all used to, and tired of, the heated exchanges which consist simply of name-calling. If one wants an Occupation analogy, debate is avoided because the combatants merely want to dig into worn out positions and lob shells at "the other side" from the safety of their own bunker. I'm not saying that everything Stuart says is like that, but when he descends into insults, it is a case of out with the hand-grenades and mortars, and fire them off in the hope of provoking some response. To paraphrase him, I think he often writes a lot of sense, but it is obscured, because one of the banes of Stuart Syvret's politics is that he attaches so much importance to "insults" rather than the truth. He should consider how Leavis attacked C.P. Snow with a vicious ad hominem attack, and how the dignified way in which Snow responded left Leavis looking almost pathological in his insult.

Thinking about it - how could any sensible person look to politicians as a specie for "moral guidance"? Isn't "morality" and "politicians" an oxymoronic concept?

A good joke, but don't always paint the picture too black. Look at those politicians who have actually made changes which have benefited ordinary people's lives. At random, in no particular order, Nye Bevan, William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftesbury, Phillip Le Feuvre, Norman Le Brocq, Abraham Lincoln - to name a few.

Now let me give you a joke. I've yet to find a local politician apologise - even Stuart resolutely refuses to do so - "Isn't "apology" and "politician" an oxymoronic concept?

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm

London's mayor has been suspended from office on full pay for four weeks for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
The Adjudication Panel for England ruled Ken Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute when he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive" manner.
The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which had not called for the mayor to be suspended over the comment he made to the Evening Standard's Oliver Finegold outside a public-funded party. The chairman of the panel, David Laverick, said it had decided on a ban because Mr Livingstone had failed to realise the seriousness of his outburst. He said: "The case tribunal accepts that this is not a situation when it would be appropriate to disqualify the mayor. "The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the GLA code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office." Mr Laverick went on to say that the complaint should never have reached the board but did so because of Mr Livingstone's failure to apologise. In a statement, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it regretted the guilty result, but said Mr Livingstone had been "the architect of his own misfortune" by failing to recognise the upset caused. It added it had never sought anything more than an apology and an acknowledgement that his words were inappropriate for the "elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs".

The Inner Ring, C.S. Lewis
http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Article on Irène Némirovsky
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/22/secondworldwar.religion

Books:
The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo
The Two Cultures, C.P. Snow

Apologies Please, Stuart

It appears Stuart Syvret has sent an email in which he made some rather foolish comparisons. The JEP has it that "he compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST", but in fact what he has done is to compare the excuse made by the Nazis at Nuremburg - they were only "obeying orders" - as an interpretation of what Freddie Cohen means by being a "team player". This is what is called the "Nuremberg defense, and is often used as a shorthand - as for example in this newspaper cutting from 2004

A split opened up between Manchester fire chief Barry Dixon and councillor Fred Walker about who was responsible for the decision to suspend staff. Barry Dixon has adopted the Nuremberg defence and told the union and reporters that he is only obeying the orders of the fire authority councillors.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=123400

In fact, this is widely accepted as a shorthand because of its historical antecedence, see for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

In fact, it goes back much further than that. Samuel Pepys notes that Colonel Daniel Axtell (1622-1660), Captain of the Parliamentary Guard at the trial of King Charles I at Westminster Hall in 1649 used this defense. After the Restoration he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 19 October 1660 for his part in the Regicide. His defence at his trial as a Regicide, that he was only obeying orders!

What is clear is that given the sensitive nature of the phrase in these circumstances - Freddie Cohen being Jewish - this was an appalling misjudgment on the part of Stuart Syvret, even if idea behind it was accurate, as it obviously carries anti-Semitic overtones. I think Stuart should do what Frank Walker has been unable to do (after the "shafted" incident), and show how he can apologise unreservedly and admit he made a gross mistake and should have taken more care. He should also apologise for to the Jewish congregation for any upset publicity of this sort has caused. A gracious apology I am certain would be acceptable.

There have been swastikas daubed on the Synagogue at Tabor, and I know (from eyewitness sources) that Freddie Cohen certainly would have been in a culture at Victoria College where schoolboys made anti-Semitic jokes, although anti-German ones were more common. But the stock Jew in jokes of the time, like that of the Scotsman, or even the Jersey born individual, was that of a very greedy and selfish individual. Freddie would have also not attended the School Assemblies - in those days certainly very Church of England - Catholics were also excused, and this did mark out these individuals as different. Schoolboys can be very cruel in such circumstances, and it is not surprising that Freddie's antenna for any kind of discrimination is very fine - note he was the only States member to come out in support - on the Facebook site - of the Havana club protest.

So I hope Stuart does apologise, and show he is not above admitting he can make mistakes. It is people who cannot admit mistakes - the so-called "strong men" - who actually demonstrate their own insecurities in their posturing, all the time deludedly thinking that other people see them as strong.

If you want to know how Stuart replied to this, see my blog entry at:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/setting-bad-examples.html



http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/08/senator-sparks-nazi-e-mail-row/

Senator sparks 'Nazi' e-mail row

SENATOR Stuart Syvret has compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST.

Attacking Senator Freddie Cohen over his changing position on sales tax exemptions, Senator Syvret ridiculed the Environment Minister for saying that he was 'a team player' and that he had only backed GST on food after ministers agreed to exempt medical supplies.

Senator Syvret wrote: 'So, you are a "team player", eh? I expect that's exactly what Nazis on trial at Nuremburg would have said by way of mitigation.'

Senator Cohen has made a formal complaint about the e-mails to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, who are responsible for States Members' conduct. The committee do not have the power to discipline Members themselves - they can only recommend a censure or suspension to the States. The e-mails were copied to the Council of Ministers, some States Members and States chief executive Bill Ogley.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/11/jewish-communitys-distress-at-nazi-jibe/

Jewish community's distress at 'Nazi' jibe
August 11, 2008 - 3:00 pm
From Stephen Regal.

I AM writing to you in my capacity as president of the Jersey Jewish Congregation and particularly in respect of the article in the JEP headed 'Senator sparks Nazi e-mail row'.

Commentary on the issues underlying the report are not within my remit. However, I feel that it is necessary to write to you to express both my and my community's distress at the reported comment made by Senator Syvret.

I find it difficult to consider that any individual as apparently erudite and educated as Senator Syvret could have innocently used such emotive phraseology in comparing the action of any Jew to that of a Nazi.

A more offensive or odious comment would be difficult to find. Irrespective of the context, the term Nazi is abhorrent to any Jew.

Unfortunately, memories of the Holocaust are still fresh in every Jewish mind and such intemperate comments from our democratically elected representatives can only cause tension and uncertainty in our minds.

Regrettably, anti-Semitism is on the increase around the world and negative comparisons tend to aid stereotypical visions that individuals who wish to interpret remarks in other than the context they have been made.

My plea, therefore, to all is please consider our words on all sections of the community. This should be particularly emphasised when committing oneself to print.

Armon,
Rue de La Croix,
St Ouen.

The Day of the Lukewarm Apology

I know what you have done; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were either one or the other! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth! (Rev 3:15-16)

The BBC has a report on the Wendy Kinnard affair, as does the JEP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7459001.stm

"Senator withdraws detention order.

Jersey's home affairs minister has withdrawn an order on detaining suspects that have not been charged. It was reported the order would give the police powers to indefinitely detain suspects without charge. Senator Wendy Kinnard said that was not the case, but has withdrawn it anyway after objections by States members. She insisted that the order made on 5 June was a "minor change" to the law on detention and police would not have powers to detain indefinitely. "

The JEP notes that she says:

"I apologise to Members and the public for the concern that has been caused by the misinterpretation of the effect of the order and the way in which it entered the public domain."

In other words, I don't really apologise at all. It is all the fault of the nasty lawyers and policemen who misinterpreted it (and who clearly stated that to the JEP), and whatever nameless individual failed to check it before it was released.

Why can't we ever have an honest apology? I made a mistake, and I realise now that the poor wording made misinterpretation highly probably, and I am sorry I didn't see that. The buck stops here.

But "I made a mistake" or even "I apologise to Members and the public for my mistake..." is not something that local politicians seem able to do easily.

Here is Senator Jim Perchard

I would like to apologise to Deputy Baudains and to the House for making statements which were unintentionally misleading during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter last week. I made those statements in good faith, as I thought the information I had was correct at the time I addressed the Assembly. Since it transpired that this information was out of date and therefore incorrect, I would like to apologise unreservedly.

Now look at what he had said:

"The claims are completely false. They are a reputable company and I urge the states to ignore the slight placed on them by Deputy Baudains. We have at WEB taken these rumours seriously and we have doubled-checked and got PwC to do checks"

It would be nice if he not only apologised for making statements about Harcourt, but also the manner in which he made them, and the slight (to use his own terms) by which he denigrated Deputy Baudains personally.

As G.K. Chesterton once said:

A stiff apology is a second insult. The injured party does not want to be compensated because he has been wronged; he wants to be healed because he has been hurt.

But all the apologising we get nowadays is half-hearted and lukewarm.

It reminds me of a sullen child, caught out by his parents or teachers, mouthing the words while he doesn't really mean them. It is really an excuse dressed up as an apology.

The website
http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8
has a good deal to say about apologies.

Consider it the next time a politician stands up and says - "I apologise..."

---

http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8

Fake Apologies

The Boomerang Apology ~ This apology is characterized by twisting words so that the apologizer ends up blaming the apologizee. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry you feel that way." I am not sure where this type of apology originated, but blaming the apologizee only serves to defeat the purpose of why you are apologizing in the first place.

The Apology Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer stating a reason to justify the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, but..." In this scenario, the apologizer uses excuses to justify and rationalize a behavior they knew was wrong when they did it.

The Confusion Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer attempting to make the apologizee second guess themselves and the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, you must have misheard me." With so many of us overloaded with information, we do start to second-guess ourselves, even when we are fairly sure we heard right the first time.

The "Not-It" Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer blaming something (or someone) else for the situation. These apologies do not even attempt to use the words "I'm sorry," and sound something like "Well, you know, it is not my fault..." This type of apology is commonly heard when dealing with someone who was supposed to provide goods or services.

True Apologies

In order for an apology to be a true apology it must be sincere and the apologizer must feel at least a small amount of guilt for either the situation or the apologizee's feelings.

For further reading:

Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (Suny Sieres in Speech Communication) (Paperback) by William L. Benoit (Author)

Forgiveness of Island Sins

I was trying to explain the concept of "forgiveness of sins" and some aspects of Christianity to some non-Christians the other day.

There were a few easy matters, for example, the Easter idea, mentioned in the creed that Jesus "is seated at the right hand of God". That is metaphorical language, and a local example would be to say that a "high-up official" in Jersey would not necessarily be found on the top floor of Cyril Le Marquand House!

Forgiveness of sins, however, is a very strange idea. How can one person somehow take away the sins of many others? There is no definite understanding of that in history, only various people's attempts to come up with analogies which help to point the way. For what it is worth, here is a modern one, which is presented in a dialogue.

What has happened in Australia recently?

The Prime Minister has issued an apology on behalf of the Australian government and people, for the policies that were in practice against the aboriginal peoples.

How has this been received?

For the most part, with satisfaction that something has at last been done.

Is the Prime Minister guilty of any of these practices?

No, and he was probably also born after they were dismantled.

So he is completely innocent of these offences?

Yes

How then, can he offer apologies to the aboriginal peoples? He is just one man.

Because of who he is, because of the unique position he has, as Prime Minister, he can take on this role, and offer apologies on behalf of others.

Has everyone been happy with this?

No, a few have rejected his apology.

That, in a nutshell, is one way of looking at forgiveness of sins, how one individual can stand in for many, even though innocent himself. Of course, the analogy should not be pushed too far, but it does supply a good way of looking at things, without any convoluted religious terminology.

Why have I headed this blog, forgiveness of Island Sins?

Because, curiously, what has happened in Australia, that kind of model, does not seem to apply to Jersey over the child abuse case at Haut de la Garenne. Time and again those in a position to offer an apology, the Chief Minister, the Bailiff, have said that it is not necessary, that it is not needed, that there is no need to apologise. They are innocent.

All the more reason, perhaps, why they are in the best position to give such an apology?

Healing Wounded History

Reported in the Guardian: at a press conference yesterday Senator Walker rejected the suggestion that the States of Jersey owed an apology to the victims of child abuse on the island.

Compare that with some quotes below. If Jersey is to achieve closure, it must begin with an apology to the victims for the appalling negligence on the part of the Jersey goverment in the past for the fact that these homes could be set up and operated in such a way, without safeguards. How many years will the victims of abuse have to wait before such old wounds are addressed? Part of the process of healing wounded history is for representatives in the present to take responsibility for the past, and that is the step that still needs to be taken towards reconciling peoples and healing places.

"We have waited nine hundred years for this, ten more minutes won't make much difference." These were the words of a rabbi from a synagogue in Bosnia Herzegovina. My friend John Presdee and his wife Yvonne, having been gripped by the power of apology, were leading a walk of reconciliation down the Crusader route on its 900 anniversary. They had been called by the Lord to visit mosques, synagogues and orthodox churches to confess and apologise for the murder and destruction they had received by Western Christians during those times of appalling suffering. Of course they were not apologizing for Jesus, only for what Christians had done in his name. However, when they met the rabbi, John had forgotten to bring his written apology and so he asked the rabbi to excuse him while he went and fetched it from his hotel room. That was when the rabbi reminded John that his community had been waiting for so long for this to happen.

The Australian government has made a formal apology for the past wrongs caused by successive governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised in parliament to all Aborigines for laws and policies that "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss".

On 9 December 1999 Liverpool City Council passed a formal motion apologising for the City's part in the slave trade. It was unanimously agreed that Liverpool acknowledges its responsibility for its involvement in three centuries of the slave trade. The City Council has made an unreserved apology for Liverpool's involvement and the continual effect of slavery on Liverpool's black communities.

TONY BLAIR has moved to heal one of the greatest wounds in Anglo-Irish history by criticising Britain for allowing a million people to die in the Great Famine. In the strongest statement by any Prime Minister on the disaster, Mr Blair said that the Government of the time "failed their people" while the famine ravaged Ireland between 1845 and 1850. His statement, read out to a weekend concert in Co Cork marking the 150th anniversary of the tragedy, was hailed last night by John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister.Mr Bruton said: "While the statement confronts the past honestly, it does so in a way that heals for the future. The Prime Minister is to be complimented for the thought and care shown in this statement."

George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a service in Limerick Cathedral, apologized for 800 years of English domination in Ireland. His words were received with applause because his congregation recognized that an old wound was being addressed.

Book of the Blog:

Russ Parker - Healing Wounded History

Excellent Police Strategy at Haut de La Garenne

I see that an internal (and rather informal and jokey) email sent only to the council of ministers by Ben Shenton has been leaked to the press. At least he had the grace to apologise publically - unlike a certain Chief Minister, whose continual refusal to apologise continues to damage Jersey's reputation, and (for those of us of an older generation) is inconcevable. The sooner he goes, the sooner Jersey has a chance to redeem its reputation, but - as readers of C.P. Snow's "The Affair" would note - some people are so thick-skinned and determined to keep the reigns of power that they never do the honourable thing. But enough of that.

It looks as if Shenton's disapproval of the way the Council of Ministers press conference was "unanimous" without telling him has been damaging, and the knives are out. Hence the leaked email.

The problem is that some serious concerns he raised will now be ignored in preference to the more Sun-Readership issues.

Let's look at one of these.

One question was about the initial press reporting was handled. "Remains of a child" was very ambiguous, and for most of us who heard that police report, it suggested far more that "fragment of a child's skull"; the issue over whether than pre-dates the inquiry was also not made clear at the time.

I imagine that the reason for this was twofold:

a) The police don't want, if they can help it, to release all the information at one time. That way, if a suspect does emerge from the woodwork, they know something that only that suspect also knows, and if they can get him or her to admit that, they are well on the way to building a very credible case. That is true of police work in practice, not just for this inquiry. Admission of "hidden details" is a fundamental strategy; the more that is in the public domain, the more it can be excused by a potential suspect.

b) Lenny Harper undoubtably also wanted to grab a lot of media attention in order to get as large a field of publicity as possible, and spread the net widely. This was so that former residents or staff of Haut De La Garenne, who had left Jersey, and might have pertinent information, would be more likely to come forward. Indeed, some people have come forward from as far as Australia. Also by publicising the numbers of people who had come forward, he hoped to have an escalating effect; as more people came forward, those who had been indimidated by the usual silencing blackmail and threats of the abusers would feel safer speaking out as part of a crowd, and this would snowball. I would say that strategy has been a great success.

I would think that the police strategy has been an extemely good one, and gaining reports from victims before opening the cellar has also led to corroborative evidence coming to light, which again supports the picture what took place there. Once the information about the cellar was public, there is always the danger that a clever lawyer could argue that victims modified stories to take account of that; by taking interviews first, Lenny Harper has avoided that possibility, and can produce a very strong case.

So while Shenton was right to raise these concerns, I think that he should have thought a bit more about why the police adopted the strategy that they did, and even to talk to Lenny Harper directly.