Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Questions in the States. 06/12/10.

4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture –

“Following the naming of a senior Civil Servant from the Education, Sport and Culture Department in court by alleged victims within the current historic abuse proceedings, will the Minister give members and parents assurances that the matter has been fully investigated by his department?”

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister inform Members of the dates when Mr. Napier visited Jersey in connection with his review and what the total cost of his review was?”



Anonymous said...

Very well, lets move on.

As per usual!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for making it possible for us to keep up with this overseas.

moral-rightness said...

The fact that TLS has an email from Mr Napier stating, had he thought it appropriate to talk to a wider range of witnesses he would have done so, did not really answer the question, as to why he did not.

The word 'appropriate', can only be deemed relative to the Terms Of Reference. Therefore TLS answer is a sidestep.

As Mr Napier states in his report:

10. On a few occasions I found it impossible to reconcile different versions of events given to me from different sources. Where that has occurred, and the matter is of importance, I have sought to make this clear in the text. Where appropriate I have given an indication of my own view, but given the limited extent to which I have been able to test what I have been told, the conclusions I have expressed in these circumstances should be treated with caution.

17. The recollections which both the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive have of these meetings are quite different, both with regard to the content of the meetings and how they were carried out. Neither accepts that there was any improper conduct on their part. I am not in a position, having heard the competing accounts, to decide which version of events is accurate, or even
which versions are more accurate than others.

Is it not odd, that Mr Napier, did not interview both Wendy Kinnard and Deputy P Le Claire, if only to assist in establishing who was telling the truth!!! I guess he did not need to as the scope was relatively narrow and did not allow him to discover if there was a conspiracy, because surely if he was looking to see if there was any substance, he would have wanted to interview them!!

Anonymous said...

Moral-Rightness makes an excellent point by drawing close attention to the relevant Napier statements. This is something which needs to be investigated further.

voiceforchildren said...


Thank you for publishing this. I shall put a Blog up tomorrow which will explain, just how much this all stinks concerning the Civil Servant at the Education Department and his Minister Deputy James Reed.

voiceforchildren said...


As I commented earlier

Anonymous said...

Following the Court accusations this Civil Servant should be re-examined, period.

Anonymous said...

These important ongoing questions, are obviously taking up a lot of time and must be quite costly.

Surely it would have been quicker and far more efficient (cheaper) to have Mr Napier available to answer questions that TLS has so far been unable to answer satisfactorily.

Why did Mr Napier not want to attend?, is he concerned that his reputation may come under fire by answering questions from the public's representatives on the investigation he carried out on their behalf? What was/is he fearful of?.