Friday, June 4, 2010

THE BUNGLING MINISTER 2










Not my words but the words of a sitting senator.


Mine would probably be a lot worse 


What is happening to the Suspended CPO Graham Power is a total 'SCANDAL' 


The 'MET INTERIM REPORT' & the role played in it by Brian Sweeting and DPC David Warcup must be fully examined.


 The Letter written by David Warcup backed with the INTERIM had far reaching implications for the Abuse Survivors, Graham Power & Lenny Harper


IT shows us  how  'ROTTEN & CANCEROUS' the higher reachers of our Government really ARE.


We are now going to look at 2 oral questions that were asked in  the States on the 25th May 2010


What you will see in the questions are the reply's given by Sen ILM, they really are quite staggering. 


The first question is about the 'THE MET INTERIM REPORT' the second question is about 'OPERATION BLAST'


Remember Suspension is a Neutral Act and has been since 12th November 2008 


Remember ' OPERATION BLAST' is ILM's baby he came to the house with it in June 2009 with great excitement. He is responsible for it. When you read his answers they will leave you shocked there is no getting away from this.


DPC David Warcup gave ILM 'OPERATION BLAST'


Graham Power is being hung out to DRY 


He was hung out to dry by the Walker Administration 


He was hung out to dry because of 'CHILD ABUSE'


'DISMISSAL BY STEALTH' 


Sen ILM is looking stupid because he has got to keep this charade going 'WHY'


Here are the two questions first up is the Met Interim Report


Is there anybody out there who can help Sen ILM save his political carer?



3.6     Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’:

Given that the Minister has consistently advised the Assembly that he has not personally seen the Metropolitan Police interim report relating to the process leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will he advise whether he has now been able to obtain a copy and confirm that the report does exist as a physical document?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Minister, is this a question you are content to answer in the public ...?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

Yes.  The position is that I have not seen the contents of the relevant document.  I have twice made inquiries in order to check the existence of documents.  On the first occasion I saw an email and I saw an attachment to the email which purported to be this very document but I did not look at the contents.  On the second occasion, I saw a document but I cannot remember whether that document was the interim report or the final report.  I have, since the asking of the written question, been attempting to obtain access to the document because I accept that I should now look at its contents.  Unfortunately, I have been utterly thwarted by the fact that the Acting Chief Officer has been away on holiday and only he has access to the safe where the document, I understand, is kept and access to his private computer area but I will look at it as soon as I can.

3.6.1  Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I would like to refer to my answer to written question 15 if only there was an answer.  But can I then put it to the Minister that the Metropolitan Police Interim Report does not, and has never, existed in the suggested official form?  Could I further suggest that all that does exist are some rough and preparatory notes without any such official title Metropolitan Police Interim Report; that does not exist and perhaps they were, as has been suggested, purely to legitimise suspending the Chief of Police?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

What is being suggested to me is completely contrary to what I have been told and what I have previously set out in written answers, namely that a document was requested for reasons which I set out previously in written answers prior to the completion of the full report.  There was, as I understand it, one additional witness to be seen before the production of the full report.  There was great concern, as I have set out in written answers before, with the current acting leadership as to risks of whole cases being dismissed for abuse of process.  It was felt necessary to correct impressions which had previously been given in the public arena and for that reason an earlier report was requested.  That is my information; that I stand by.

3.6.2  Senator J.L. Perchard:

One report that we know does exist is the Wiltshire report.  When will the Minister be releasing the Wiltshire report into the public domain?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

As soon as possible but I cannot say in precisely what form because the reports contain names of individuals; those names may need to be deleted.  I have not yet had an opportunity to take advice on the precise form but the answer is: as soon as possible.  I would hope to do so at the end of July after the expiry of the term of office of the current Chief Officer of Police.

3.6.3  Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

I can understand Deputy Pitman’s frustration about the lack of information about the police interim report because I do believe it does not exist and I am disappointed that the Minister cannot say so.  Just to get back to the Wiltshire report with the answer we have just had, does the Minister not think it important that that Wiltshire report is available as soon as possible and preferably before the suspended police officer retires?  Can the Minister give really justified reasons as to why it is not presented now and also ask when he received the report?  So how long has he had it and why is it not now available to States Members?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The Deputy of St. Martin should well know, as he purports to represent the Chief Officer of Police, that there is a confidentiality clause in the Disciplinary Code.  That I have sought to abide by as far as I have been able so to do and to release the reports at this stage would be a blatant breach of that confidentiality clause.  I am afraid I have now forgotten the ending part of the question.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Could you repeat the end of the question, Deputy?

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Minister now accept that there will not be any disciplinary action because the Chief Officer will have retired, resigned, whatever, but he will not be here?  So does it not make sense for the States Members to have that part of the report which deals with the actual suspension and forget the discipline because it is a non-starter?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

If the Deputy of St. Martin could prevail upon the Chief Officer of Police to agree to that, then I would be very happy to agree to that.  The fact is what I have said is that a full-run disciplinary process would take a great deal of time - it is clearly not going to be sufficient time in relation to the first disciplinary matter - to achieve a final completion of that.  That I have known for some time.  In terms of the dates of receipt of reports, in relation to the first report I received the interim report in November, I think.  I am not certain whether it was October or November.  [Aside]  Autumn.  [Laughter]  I have to anticipate questions on this point; the final report a month later.  I then had to wait a further period until February until the relevant documents were produced.  I then had to wait a further month until the report of the Deputy Chief Executive was produced.  I then had to read and consider the documents and I have since then been trying to arrange a date to meet with Mr. Power.  I have not been delaying things in any way whatsoever.

3.6.4  Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

As the Minister knows, and I am not blaming him, there is among the public a state of obviously considerable confusion about the sequence of events.  Could the Minister clarify perhaps yet again, did the interim report play a crucial role in the suspension, and if that were the case, would he revisit it in order to examine that role?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have agreed in the written answer to the written question of Deputy Trevor Pitman that I would now look at the document.  Clearly, that is what a significant number of Members would like me to do.  I tried to avoid doing that in the past because of the danger of this impinging upon the disciplinary process on the one hand and, secondly, because the information I have is that that document contains a great deal of information and advice about individual prosecutions.  Now I, as the Minister for Home Affairs, try to distance myself from the operational side of matters and therefore do not really want to do that.  Those are purely the reasons why I have not looked at detail.  I accept that I now need so to do and I am frustrated by the fact that I have not been able to do it despite all my efforts in the last few days.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

A final question, Deputy Trevor Pitman.

3.6.5  Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I have to say as a States Member I find it really appalling that we can laugh about issues.  This is a man’s life and his reputation.  The Chief Officer was, I believe, suspended under 2.33 of the Disciplinary Code; this demands a serious breach of conduct, as I understand it.  Will the Minister clarify what this breach is or confirm that, in fact, nothing in the notes previously spun to the public as the Metropolitan Police interim report match this action at all?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The suspension of the Police Chief on both counts is fully justified both in relation to the information I had at that time and also in relation to subsequent information.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I said that was the final question; I did see the light of the Deputy of Grouville.  Perhaps we will allow one more supplementary.

3.6.6  Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

The Minister spoke about a disciplinary process.  Could he expand on this?  What disciplinary process and when is this going to take place?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The disciplinary process in this case started before my time.  It started with a process by which the Chief Officer was suspended before my time.  At that time a report was requested from Wiltshire: this is the first Wiltshire report; I have just given dates as to when that was produced and so on.  That is the disciplinary process.  The process which follows through from the stage where the report of the Deputy Chief Executive is received is that the Minister then has to consider the matters.  He then has a meeting with the Chief Officer of Police and subsequently, and only subsequently, can the Minister decide what, if any, disciplinary charges are being faced.  That is the point that we are at in relation to the first set of disciplinary matters.  I am at the point of arranging dates for such a meeting.  I think I have altogether given details of the total thing but I have answered many questions in writing before where I have set this out in great detail.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I just seek clarification from this?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Briefly, Deputy.

3.6.7  Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Did the Minister clarify when he will have an answer as to whether there is an official document: theMetropolitan Police Interim Report with those words?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I did not.  I am going to get access as soon as the Acting Chief Officer is back and I can get access to the documents and look at the contents which I have not done so far to check that they correspond - I expect they will - with the information I have previously provided.


So we have Sen ILM saying this 


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

'The suspension of the Police Chief on both counts is fully justified both in relation to the information I had at that time and also in relation to subsequent information.'

'SO WHAT THE HELL IS HE WAITING FOR'

 

Now we will look at question 2 'Operation Blast'



3.9     Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding disciplinary action against the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police regarding Operation Blast:

Will the Minister inform the Assembly if any disciplinary action is going to be brought against the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police regarding Operation Blast?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

It is already in the public domain that the Chief Officer of Police is suspended in relation to the issue and investigation in relation to his involvement, if any, in Operation Blast.  The current position is that I have now received the report from Wiltshire in relation to the investigation of Operation Blast, but not the documents in support of that report.  The next stage is that I will receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers.  The stage after that is I will decide if I want to meet with Mr. Power in order to discuss matters before deciding whether I proceed with formal disciplinary procedures against him on this.  That is the procedure set out in our disciplinary code; that is the procedure that I am contractually bound to follow.  It follows from that, in short, that I have not arrived at the stage at which I can properly formally make a decision on that.

3.9.1  Deputy M. Tadier:

In an email sent to Senator Breckon on 1st March, but also copied into all States Members, the Minister did say that he supports the inquiry and he supports it taking place rapidly.  I think this is the very core of the problem here.  We have a Chief Officer who is up for retirement on 21st July 2010, so my question would simply be is it likely that any further action, apart from the suspension, if any disciplinary action likely to be brought before that date?  If that is not the case, what are the implications as to what will happen one way or the other to this man after that date?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

We are at the stage at which I will make decisions as to which disciplinary charges would be appropriate in relation to the matter, but because of the timescales involved and the complexity of matters there is really no prospect of a full disciplinary hearing before the July date.  What I said before in relation to information being put out to Members and into the public domain applies equally for the second disciplinary matter, as it did to the first.

3.9.2  Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

The Minister just told us that although he has received the Wiltshire report regarding it, he did not have the documents that he needs to make a final determination.  He also mentioned the Deputy Chief Executive.  Can he confirm if the Deputy Chief Executive has had the documents and when he received them and when the Minister expects to receive them?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, the Deputy Chief Executive does not have the documents.  If he had I would treat myself as effectively having access to them.  There is a delay pending some discussions with Wiltshire Police in relation to a particular matter which I cannot go into.

3.9.3  Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville:

If ever there was a case for open and transparent government this is surely it.  Would the Minister please confirm that he will release as much data as is possible regarding the contents of these alleged files that were kept on this?  Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is absolutely right.  That has consistently been my position, but I am consistently hamstrung by the contractual arrangements.  If I had attempted to then I would be blatantly in breach of the contract and that is not something that would be proper or appropriate.  As soon as I can the information will go out.  That has always been my commitment.  There is no reason whatsoever why I would want there to be secrecy about anything.  But I have to check exactly in what format it can go out because there are matters, particularly in relation to the second matter, it was not just a disciplinary investigation in relation to the Chief Officer of Police; it was also in relation to other police officers.  Also, there were possible criminal issues that arose as well.  It is a 3-part investigation, which slightly complicates the matter.

3.9.4  The Deputy of Grouville:

Other civil servants who were also involved in Operation Blast, is it the intention of the Minister to also suspend them?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Decisions in relation to matters relating to other police officers involved are not my decision; they are matters for the Acting Chief Officer of Police and the Deputy Acting Chief Officer of Police.

The Deputy of Grouville:

No, not other police officers; civil servants, I said.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I do not think that is a matter for the Minister for Home Affairs, but he will no doubt answer.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am not aware of the involvement of any civil servants in relation to the potential disciplinary matters.  It is only police officers.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish any final question, Deputy Tadier?

3.9.5  Deputy M. Tadier:

I do.  I think we all know who the Deputy of Grouville is alluding to and I am sure that the Minister knows that as well.  [Aside]  No?  I think she is clearly talking about the Chief Executive Officer of the States of Jersey who allegedly has had some involvement in Operation Blast.  I mean, let us not beat around the bush here.  [Interruption]  That is obviously the case.  The final question, if the heckling would stop from Senator Le Main, is that obviously justice must be done swiftly.  Clearly it has not been done here even if under the Minister’s own admission previously the initial process was rushed.  The question is will justice be done either way if the matter is not brought to a close before 21st July?  How can justice be done satisfactorily either way?  Does the Minister agree that in this case we are not likely to get a satisfactory conclusion to this matter?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

In my opinion, whatever procedure had been followed here, even if it had gone to full disciplinary hearings, even if it had gone to appeals, even if it had gone to the States itself, at the end of the day, members of the public of the Island would still continue to argue over this and individuals involved for many years to come.  That was apparent to me right from the start of my involvement in this.  It is regrettable that the formal procedures have not occurred, but the members of the public and Members of the States will receive information and they will then have to make up their own minds.


Now read this exchange very carefully and you will see why i'm saying 'ILM could be doomed'.

Remember this is the poll topping Senator that so many had faith in.

Just look at his Reply's regarding 'Operation Blast' again this is another 'NEUTRAL ACT'

Now Senator ILM is hanging out Graham Power to dry, straight forward and there for all to see.

This part from Senator ILM makes me so Angry. 

Senator ILM you suspended Graham Power and all you can say is this total and utter CRAP 

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"In my opinion, whatever procedure had been followed here, even if it had gone to full disciplinary hearings, even if it had gone to appeals, even if it had gone to the States itself, at the end of the day, members of the public of the Island would still continue to argue over this and individuals involved for many years to come.  That was apparent to me right from the start of my involvement in this.  It is regrettable that the formal procedures have not occurred, but the members of the public and Members of the States will receive information and they will then have to make up their own minds."

'MAKE UP THERE OWN BLOODY MINDS'

'SUSPEND A MAN TWICE AND NOTHING'

'WHAT THE HELL IS ILM DOING'

'MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD CONTINUE TO ARGUE'

Oh ok then Senator lets just let it all fade away, trash a mans carer keep the Abuse Survivors in the dark about the running of the Historic Abuse Investigation.

All im doing is looking at the facts. I do chat with the Senator and we exchange emails.

I believe this is utterly shocking. Now let me take you back to the 31st July 2009 and suspension review 3 Operation Blast and what ILM said.


Dr. T. Brain:

What I may be struggling with, and maybe you could indulge my ignorance of Jersey procedures here, is what does that constitute in terms of a potential discipline or misconduct offence or a criminal offence. It is not that these ... we are not querying the substance of the investigation, what I need to understand is what does that amount to specifically in relation to Graham Power?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well, it could ... and I can only speculate because I have not seen the report, I am not dealing with criminal matters here but my understanding is that there could be data protection offences in relation to this and that is a matter which will be considered alongside the investigation. Those are not matters for me, and indeed the investigation of those matters would be operational matters for the acting police leadership at the moment to make decisions on. Clearly, that is my understanding that there are areas in that direction. I suppose that we would be looking at gross misconduct here, depending on what Mr. Power knew or did not know. I suppose gross misconduct would be a fair phrase for that. Potentially there could be an issue of the police force setting itself up, almost a MI5 type operation, and adopting a role inconsistent ... I am speculating but trying to be helpful. I know you were somewhat taken aback during the last proceedings when I spelt out in my final remarks the potentiality in relation to the initial things so it probably helps to realise the sort of potential we are looking at here.


So how have we come from that to States Members and the general public making up their own minds. Plus a lot of speculating going on


What the Hell is going here.

This is also from SPR 3 and I quote ILM

I come now to the suspension point itself. I handed out a copy of the suspension criteria which were based upon the notes which I made on the meeting of 5th March 2009. I, in fact, had typed out paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of those notes. I have repeated 5 of those references ... to (5) of those notes in paragraph 5 of these notes because there was no final decision, just discussion contained therein. I will not read them out now because I am going to read them out paragraph by paragraph later on. I have before me as materials to consider, Mr. Warcup’s letter of 2nd June 2009 and Mr. Power’s document of 16th June 2009. I am not being asked to consider anything else. The main points put before me were: (1) that it is premature, prior to the investigation, for me to proceed at this point to a suspension decision; and (2) that such further suspension is unnecessary as Mr. Power is already suspended. There are subsidiary points in relation to this such as equality of arms, which I will also deal with later on.


'The second section: “Is there sufficient credible material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation?” My answer to that also is, yes, clearly there are in Mr. Warcup’s letter of 2nd June. Three: “Is it necessary and proportionate to suspend Mr. Power?” I leave that over because that comes back in under 5(e) and I will deal with that as a final issue before me'


DPC David Warcup is writing suspension letters like his job depended on it


rs




  

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

out of interest, who is this Brian Sweeting
(met police) copper and what role does he play in this?

rico sorda said...

Brian Sweeting

He was called in to do the review of 'Operation Rectangle' for the Metropolitan Police.

On the 10th November 2008 he sent an email to David Warcup which apparently had the now very 'Infamous Interim' met report.

Brian Sweeting on sending that report did so without interviewing the most pivotal figure in the Historic Child Abuse Investigation, Lenny Harper.

The Met have failed to confirm or deny the existence of this Interim report under the freedom of information act.

Deputy Pitman tried to find these answers. ILM now knows he must look at this document.

Was it sent as a favor?

was it on MET headed paper? hope so.

Does it contain such hard evidence that it would then allow the then home affairs minister to suspend Graham Power under 2.3.3 of the code?

Andrew Lewis has not seen the Met Interim Report

The Met and the Jersey Authorities have had a huge falling out over it

Was it just some notes sent over and the 'Jersey Gang' did what they do best ' shaft more people than Ron Jeremy on Viagra'

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This short interaction adds fuel to the fire that this MET "Interim" Report does not exist.

3.6.7 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Did the Minister clarify when he will have an answer as to whether there is an official document: the Metropolitan Police Interim Report with those words?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No, I did not. I am going to get access as soon as the Acting Chief Officer is back and I can get access to the documents and look at the contents which I have not done so far to check that they correspond - I expect they will - with the information I have previously provided.

Big Trev along with many, many others is convinced this MET "Interim" report DOES NOT exist

A commenter asks what role did Brian Sweeting play in all this? All will be revealed in the coming months.......if not sooner.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Is Warcup back from hols yet?

Was he realy on holiday?

If back has he opened the safe yet?

If not when will this be?

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

Look how funny this is getting. We are now talking about keys & safe we are now talking about ILM bringing photocopies of coconut lampshades into the states they are turning ILM into a clown.

This man was being tipped as a future chief minister

Ozouf must be pleased, one less to worry about.

He is trying to defend the impossible

Look at his answer ref OPERATION BLAST

How much has the suspension and wiltshire cost the Taxpayer? and he then turns round as says ' oh well will have to make our own minds up"

Bloody Joke

This has got to stop

rs

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"In my opinion, whatever procedure had been followed here, even if it had gone to full disciplinary hearings, even if it had gone to appeals, even if it had gone to the States itself, at the end of the day, members of the public of the Island would still continue to argue over this and individuals involved for many years to come. That was apparent to me right from the start of my involvement in this. It is regrettable that the formal procedures have not occurred, but the members of the public and Members of the States will receive information and they will then have to make up their own minds."

WTF

How much has that statement cost us

Anonymous said...

Mid February Deputy Hills proposition on a public enquiry into G Powers suspension was rejected.

The Chief Minister promised/assured the assembly that he would get the enquiry dealt with quicker than Bob Hills six weeks.

Senator Breckon took him on his assurance and voted the Chief Ministers way, but Alan Breckon threatened the Chief Minister and the COMs that if this didnot happen by the end of April he would take a no confidence vote in them.

It is now the beginning of June.

Come on Senator Breckon you have got to be taking action, it certainly will not hinder you getting the Housing Minister position.

In fact it will help.

Ian Evans said...

What has happened to Le Sewer's investigation?

Do we have anything on that yet???

Jacques said...

As I thought, ILM has seen an email with the interim report attached, which he did not look at. ILM could revisit the email open the attachment and read it. Unbelievable.

rico sorda said...

Brian Napier QC is the man leading Chief Minister le suer's investigation

Oh not another delayed report. One good thing about this is Deputy Bob Hill is keeping a close eye on it and with so much in the public domain no doubt Napier will do a fair job.

rs

rico sorda said...

This is Senator Breckons email

Dear Terry / Ian

During the States in Camera debate on Wednesday 24th February re Committe of Inquiry - Suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, proposed by the Deputy of St Martin, I expressed the view, whilst not supporting the above, that those responsible - that is the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister should be given the benefit of the doubt to address issues within their remit.

I qualified this by saying that the outstanding matters can NOT be left to drift, and in my opinion either or both of you should report back positively to the States within 6 weeks

I still believe this is both appropriate and achievable, however, having looked at the calendar for States sittings the 6 weeks is not an exact fit, therefore what I am proposing is that either or both of you should report back positively in a statement to the States on or before 20th April which is very nearly 8 weeks from the above debate.

I wish there to be no misunderstanding as to why I am saying this and putting it in writing.

I believe it has become all too easy for Ministers to stand up and say or promise things and not deliver - in this case I do not believe this is good enough -it is not appropriate and I believe I should give you fair warning that if you don't come back to the States with something that is acceptable to myself, other States Members and the general public, within the timescale above, I will bring a vote of no confidence in either or both of you - you should not see this as a threat - it is a promise - I will do it because I do believe you can not be seen to bungle, dither & procrastinate any longer - vision & leadership is required - so get on with it and hurry up!

A number of allegations are now in the public domain - not to mention that a considerable amount of public money has been spent, however, I do not wish to go in to detail here, or express a view however, suffice it to say that it is your duty to sort this out and be seen to be doing so, not dithering with excuses

The clock is ticking and I hope you will appreciate that it is the issues that I am concerned about NOT the personalities - that is youselves or anybody else

I look forward to receiving positive feedback - from either or both of you - not directly to me - but as a "Statement to the States" where matters can be questioned and made public - very soon - as above.

Regards
Alan

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Brian Napier appears to be no mug. He will be well aware that his reputation hangs in the balance of his report. Like you have said, there is too much "evidence and facts" in the public domain for him to even consider a brush under the carpet job and expect to keep his reputation intact. Also just as you said THE GUVN'R IS ON THE CASE.

Anonymous said...

We look forward to the Napier report.

When is it due ?

rico sorda said...

Brian Napier should be releasing his in the next month, if not there should be some serious questions asked about the delay.

Deputy Hill lodged his p9 proposition at the states greffe on the 2nd of February 2010 it was to take 6 weeks. As we now know Chief Minister le suer headed it off at the pass and set his own up, now we are waiting.

Im becoming more and more concerned with the actions of Senator Le Marquand he has until the 21st July to save his political reputation and career.

OPERATION BLAST is his baby he is the one who brought it to the states and the publics attention he is also the one who has suspended Graham Power for a second time.

Not only is it very rare for a CPO to be suspended but here in Jersey we do it twice to the same man.

Not only do we suspend him twice on full pay and cost to the tax payer and think about reducing the police force we drag it out for years.

Not only do we drag it out for years hoping it will go away we spend millions on outside police forces to investigate this crap, so serious on the 12th Noveber 2008 we are now june 2010 and NOTHING

Not only nothing in June 2010 there never will be anything it's all now to late WHAT A BLOODY JOKE

You see readers do not be alarmed at what levels our Government will go to Covering up Child Abuse its that simple

rs

rico sorda said...

This is what the Met Interim Report is reported to contain.

This is part of the now 'INFAMOUS MET REPORT' Below are the points quoted f

““There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle – given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference.

From a command control perspective, if ex DCO Harper was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at a strategic level.

There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.

A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g., Police only.”

Now that could be it right there.

Just points

Not under any headings saying Metropolitan Police

Not scratching 2.3.3 of the code

Not even meant to be under the microscope in 2010

You see when the hatchet job was completed on the 12th november 2008 Graham Power was meant to do it the 'Jersey Way' and just walk away,if he had done that then it was a job well done.

Oh Dear he didn't

Now it all comes tumbling down

Now they have plebs like me investigating it

Now they have many more states members clued up on it

Now they have many more members of the public clued up on it

I have outside investigative journalists contacting me who are very very clued up on it

You see we suspended the Chief of Police in the middle of the Historical Child Abuse Investigation and when that looked totally iffy we then suspended him again LOL

November 10 2008 Warcup writes to Ogley and power is suspended

June 2 2009 Warcup writes letter 'AGAIN' and power is suspended

Like i keep saying what the bloody hell is going on

And not a chance Warcup will get the full backing of the house which he will surely require

rs

Anonymous said...

There could and realistically should be two no confidence motions put against The Chief Minister this coming Tuesdays States Sitting.

One from Deputy Southern and one from Senator Breckon....

And how could any one of the other members disagree?!

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

I totally agree with you

Do our States members have the bottle to do the right thing. How will our local media write up the leadership of our Chief Minister when he leaves office next October?

A vote of No Confidence must go in against Senator ILM.

It was him who brought OPERATION BLAST to the States it was him who suspended Graham Power over it and it is him who gave that ridiculous answer to Deputy Tadier.

What must be asked is why haven't our local Media been investigating these issues or even asking the questions the local bloggers have its beyond a joke.

rs

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

I totally agree with you

Do our States members have the bottle to do the right thing. How will our local media write up the leadership of our Chief Minister when he leaves office next October?

A vote of No Confidence must go in against Senator ILM.

It was him who brought OPERATION BLAST to the States it was him who suspended Graham Power over it and it is him who gave that ridiculous answer to Deputy Tadier.

What must be asked is why haven't our local Media been investigating these issues or even asking the questions the local bloggers have its beyond a joke.

rs

rico sorda said...

Police chief suspended again – over secret files
By Ben Queree


Suspended police chief Graham Power
SUSPENDED police chief Graham Power has been suspended again – this time over the keeping of secret files on States Members as part of Operation Blast.

Mr Power has not worked since he was suspended in November over allegations that he had failed to properly control the historical child abuse investigation.

The second suspension follows last month’s Royal Court hearing, in which Mr Power tried to get his suspension reconsidered. A judgment has not yet been delivered on the application.
Reconsideration

But even if the court ordered the reconsideration or lifting of the suspension, Mr Power would still not be able to return to work because of the Operation Blast suspension.

And it has now emerged that Mr Power has made a formal complaint against his boss, Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, who is adjudicating over his suspension.

• See Tuesday’s JEP for full story.

Article posted on 4th

rico sorda said...

And lets not forget it has now just be announced that the police will be loosing staff in the cost cutting. Now i find this amazing when you look at how much money they are spending on the Child Abuse cover up. Lets look at how much it was costing us at the end of 2009

Police inquiries costs spiral towards £1.5m
By Diane Simon


Suspended police chief Graham Power
THE suspension of police chief Graham Power will have cost the Island almost £700,000 by the end of the year.

States Members were also informed yesterday, by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, that the investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary into the handling of the historical child abuse inquiry had so far cost £526,000. The sum is likely to rise to £552,000 by the end the year, he said.

In addition, the cost of Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup acting up as police chief to replace Mr Power, and of Barry Taylor, a retired deputy chief constable from Wales, acting as deputy, as well as other temporary cover, has been £118,345 and is likely to rise to £145,057 by the end of December.

The continued cost of this cover in Mr Power’s absence is expected to be £13,400 a month next year. Senator Le Marquand gave the figures after Deputy Bob Hill asked for an update on the investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary into allegations against Mr Power.

Article posted on 18th November, 2009 - 2.57pm

SO 1.5 MILLION AT THE END OF 2009

LETS STOP SCHOOL MILK LOL

We can turn a blind eye like our local media or normal plebs like myself can look at the facts and ask the questions

rs

Anonymous said...

rico

this is being asked again on tuesday


7. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs -

“Given that in response to my oral question on 25th May 2010, the Minister was unable to confirm whether the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ was actually a physical document in the accepted format of a paper report; had this title heading the document; was a collection of preparatory notes; or even existed at all – will the Minister now provide this information to the States?”

rico sorda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

One from Deputy Southern, one from Senator Breckon.

And one from Deputy Hill & Deputy Pitman.

Anonymous said...

What has happened to Monty? Appears to have become like the song "Busy doing nothing". What a let down.

rico sorda said...

Monty will have a full set of written and oral questions for the next states sitting

rs

Anonymous said...

Are you writing them for him Rico? Give you your due you certainly put the work in. Why don't you stand yourself? Why do the work for someone who is turning out to be a complete waste of space, and at a time when we needed all hands to the pumps?

Petrol Bomber said...

Gosh is this blog still going? Yes he puts a lot of work in but only for the handful of people meeting him for a drink. Nobody else in Jersey gives two shits about this subject not even Graham Power.

rico sorda said...

Hi Petrol Bomber

Did Graham Power tell you that?

Im not interested about how many people care about this in jersey and the reason for that is i have no way of knowing how many people care about this.

How do you know? could you inform me

I do this foe my own reasons and will not stop

Once the by-election is over i will have more time and more blog posts

Standing foe election is not for me once i have finished with this i will get on with my life

rs

Anonymous said...

You wanna get on with your life now. Ian Le marquand knows all thats going on so instead of digging up fools gold all the time why not wait for him to release the cat out of the bag and bring this to a close?

GeeGee said...

Well said Rico!

Now we have a Petrol Bomber who appears to know everything, along with a 9mm sniper, a face slasher and an egg thrower! Things are getting heavy...

Anyway Rico, I know there is a lot going on at the moment, and as you say, more time for these matters after next week is done and dusted. But I did just wonder what you thought about ILeM's answer regarding the Met Report in the States on Tuesday.

Also, his U-turn on Gradwell's unprofessional and inappropriate remarks at his leaving press conference. Now it appears that he is defending Mr G saying he was 'baited' by blog criticism!!!!

Ha, ha, ha, ha....pull the other one Ian. As if a hardened police officer could be worried about a blog, and if so he should have learnt constraint. I bet the JEP loved printing that story!

rico sorda said...

GeeGee

That will be my next blog could be tonight
with some luck and time.

So much in ILM's answers

rs