Sunday, October 24, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 1

This is just a recap over the Madness of the Chief Minister and Home Affairs Minister

With all that is going on and the performance of these two during the Committee of Enquiry debate its good reading back 

Rico Sorda
























TERENCE AUGUSTINE LE SUER



2nd Chief Minister of Jersey


Took up office in December 2008


One simple question


"WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON"


This is the man that represents Jersey on the World Stage, our glorious leader, but a question that keeps raising its ugly head is why he is prepared to stand up in the States and make a complete and utter fool of himself in his protection of Chief Executive (Teflon) BIll  Ogley.


Now this is just my opinion and I am open to others.  I believe he is hopelessly conflicted; so conflicted in fact that I am amazed he can even comment on the Napier Report. 


This is the man that stopped Graham Power from obtaining the dates of when the original suspension letters were drafted for 9 months. Why did he do that if there was nothing to hide?


This is the man that was former Chief Minister, (Shaft International) Frank Walker's, number 2.  Who could ever forget that memorable press conference held at St Martin Parish Hall when the then Senator Stuart Syvret  turned up. What is interesting about this video is the main players in shot: Frank, Terence and, standing just behind trying to conduct the show, CE Bill Ogley.  You see Chief Minister Le Sueur has always been involved in "Operation Damage Limitation": Save Jerseys reputation at all costs.








We now have Chief Minister Le Sueur standing up in the states and saying it is OK to suspend someone even if there is not enough evidence to do so, as long as you can come up with something later that justifies it.  He even sits on the States Employment Board.  How crazy is that?  We have an Home Affairs Minister, ILM, who is saying the same thing.  What is happening to these two people?  But more about ILM later.


Chief Minister Le Sueur and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand are using the Wiltshire Report as some kind of get out of jail card but, as we all know, the Wiltshire Repot was a disciplinary report and was meant to be used in accordance with disciplinary proceedings, but this never came to fruition.  Home Affairs Minister spat the dummy in the States, dropped all disciplinary proceedings against Graham Power, did not even have the decency to inform Graham Power and then, by using our ever obedient media, proceeded to find Graham Power guilty of all charges.  I am sorry, but for me that makes the Home Affairs Minister a complete and utter disgrace and to think he was a former magistrate; quite scary.


This is going to be the first of a few blogs concentrating on these two characters.  In the case of Terry Le Sueur, if he is prepared to stand up and make a fool of himself, then he must be prepared to take whatever criticism comes his way.  Now, if someone doesn't have the same opinion as me then I have no problem with that, but could they please point it out on comments how I have got it so wrong also backed up by facts and evidence as it is facts and evidence that have caused me to form my view.  The whole shut down of the historic child abuse investigation was to protect Jersey's image and the protection of Jersey Finance.  I have no problem against Jersey Finance and many of my friends work in that industry but, if the industry is all great and powerful and absolutely key to Jersey's future, how is it that we now find ourselves in a mess after emerging from a period of huge growth.  But is it the same little clique of leaders who just can't seem to get anything right.  Whether you're left, right, green or in the middle, we should all be very worried.


Over the years Jersey's social and moral conscience has been eroding and this cannot be a good thing.


This is the first exchange I will be looking at and like I say if i have it wrong then back it up with some evidence


4.10   The Connétable of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the delay in his publication of the Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

Will the Chief Minister explain the reasons for the delay in his publication of the Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The reason there was a delay in the original publication of the report is due to the difficulty of some of the individuals who were involved in the original suspension process not being available to meet Mr. Napier when he was first in Jersey.  This also coincided with the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud that delayed travel arrangements.  As soon as this had passed arrangements were made to complete the interview process.  By that time Mr. Napier had other work commitments that further delayed him in completing his final report.  When I received the final report on 13th September, I had to carefully consider the conclusions and, given that there was some criticism, I decided that I had to take advice.  Upon receipt of the relevant advice I decided to release the report forthwith, which was done on Friday, 8th October.

4.10.1         The Connétable of St. Helier:

Could the Chief Minister advise us of the cost of the report, what he plans to do with it and what he plans to do about its findings?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The cost of the report has not been finally determined but it will be between £40,000 and £50,000.  What I am doing with it is digesting carefully the findings in it and seeing what action, if any, needs to be taken as a result.

4.10.2         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given that a number of we Back-Benchers have been proven 100 per cent correct in the reality of huge flaws (whether through gross incompetence or otherwise) in how the suspension process was initiated, does the Chief Minister agree, upon reflection, that justice is not meant to operate by suspending an individual and then hoping you can come up with the evidence to warrant those actions afterwards?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts.  [Approbation]

4.10.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Possibly I would remind those foot-stampers maybe they would read the Napier Report before stamping.  Headlines are not reports.  I would ask the Chief Minister- it is customary, indeed good practice - that when a report has been commissioned that report is then made known to States Members and the media so Members are able to ask questions.  Can the Chief Minister inform Members when there will be a press conference to enable Members not only to question the Chief Minister but also the author on the findings of that report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I see no reason to hold a press conference for this or to involve Mr. Napier.  We have already incurred enough money on this report.  The matter, as far as I am concerned, should now be put to bed.

4.10.4         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Sir, could I just ask again of the Chief Minister, maybe he could give us a reason as to why he feels it is unnecessary to have the author present his report to enable Members to question him on it?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The report is sufficiently detailed.  It is a matter for the author if he chooses to or wants to elaborate on it.  He may wish to.  He has indicated no wish to elaborate on it.  He believes the report speaks for itself.

4.10.5         The Deputy of St. Mary:

Does the Chief Minister not see that by answering in that way he has given a very good impression of a man with something to hide?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I do not.

4.10.6         Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Without provoking a facetious answer from the Chief Minister, could I ask the Chief Minister what lessons he has learned - or the human resource function in the States has learned - from the findings of the report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

4.10.7         Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would just like clarification from the Chief Minister.  When he said that he would not hold a press conference to enable the report author to give his findings, has he asked Mr. Napier whether he would like to have a press conference or is he just speaking for him?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, I have asked Mr. Napier because I had originally intended, as in discussions with the Deputy of St. Martin, that Mr. Napier would be present at a conference.  He chose not to attend.

4.10.8         The Deputy of St. Martin:

I find that answer quite astonishing really.  It is the States who are paying the author and I think the States deserve to have the author present to be questioned.  I really am disappointed with that answer.  The Minister knows full well that I have been asking for some weeks why the terms of reference were altered and a very important part was taken out.  Can the Minister inform Members who was responsible for removing that part of the terms of reference and why was that part taken out?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The terms of reference were clearly given to Mr. Napier.  The report contains all the information relevant to the report, whether in the form set out in the terms of reference or in the form set out in the previous proposition.  As to the cost of the report, the money paid was to produce a report not to attend a press conference.

4.10.9         The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Minister has said on a couple of occasions this morning that he believes that the subsequent disciplinary investigation was fully justified and correct.  Could he explain how this can be, given that the initial suspension has been shown by Mr. Napier to be fundamentally ill-conceived?  [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, Mr. Napier suggests that there could have been procedural errors in the suspension process.  He says there was no conspiracy or anything there.  The courts have subsequently looked at this; the new Minister for Home Affairs has looked at it as well and found the suspension process is fully justified.  The evidence that we see from the Wiltshire Report and elsewhere further amplifies, if any further proof were needed, that that suspension was totally valid and justified.


And then the Classic


4.6     Deputy M. Tadier:

Earlier in question time the Chief Minister said he agreed with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty in Jersey and in common law, I guess, as a principle.  Will the Minister, therefore, confirm that as Mr. Power has not been found guilty of anything that he is, in fact, innocent?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

It depends on how one describes the term “innocent”, in that it is certainly the case that he has not been proved guilty.  He has not had the chance, or no one had the chance, to determine that situation.  On the basis that until one is proven guilty one remains innocent in law, then clearly Mr. Power, the former Chief Constable of Police, was, on that basis, innocent and is.

4.6.1  Deputy M. Tadier:

Given the fact that we have heard from the Chief Minister that he was and is innocent, will he be asking the Minister for Home Affairs to make an apology, or will he be making an apology, to an innocent man?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No.



And there you have it


Rico Sorda

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

Get a life rico sorda.

Ian Evans said...

It amazes me that Le Sewer did not get suspended for withholding information in a criminal case!

Did any of these liars make known, in a formal statement, that the date on the suspension letter was as first stated?

If so, they are guilty of knowingly making a false statement, and are liable to prosecution.

Perhaps they could employ Ian (I cannot here anything on the recording) Le Marquand to stand in judgment....

Another whitewash

rico sorda said...

There you go. I start laying out my case and asking for comments on how im getting this wrong and the above turns up. These are the comments that keep me going because it tells me they have no come back, yes they can rip, slag threaten jobs but they cant hit you with any hard evidence oh the lunatics in the chamber can stamp their feet but even those days are coming to an end.

Onwards we go

rs

Anonymous said...

I think TLS is saying, As long as he can justify it to ''himself''

He has not justified it yet or even attempted to justify it even when asked in the States under his position as Chief Minister.

He states it is fully justified by the facts has still not provided any facts.

As far as he is concerned this should now be put to bed?.

My thoughts are he stepped in someones shoes. How can he, step out of them?

Anonymous said...

Your doing a fine job Rico
Keep it up,

David Rotherham said...

But Napier was careful not to say that there was no conspiracy, only that he didn't see the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Is there a chance that the original Draft of the Napier Report will become public. It would be interesting to see what changers were made. I do believe Brian Napier should have presented his report and explained his findings.

rico sorda said...

Hi David

Like i have said before can you get conspiracy headed paper.I think Brian Napier has spelt it out, that is one of the reasons for keeping him the hell away from these shores.

How much would it cost to remove Bill Ogley from office? could he name his price? he knows everything about this sorrry mess.

The evidence is all over the Napier Report lets get him over here

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There is no feesable excuse not have Napier over here to present his Report and answer questions.

Ian Le Marquand, by his own admission, doesn't understand part(s) of it. TLS says the suspension was justified, where Napier says the complete opposite. I'll not go on too much right now, as you know we will be reporting on this indepth very soon.

After a comment left on your last posting, I/we would like to share with readers our struggle on bringing balance to our postings.

Anonymous said...

The first comment is nowt short of a classic. Keep going Rico my boy, you're getting these shysters on the run

Anonymous said...

A fund could be started to pay Mr. Napier flight and hotel accommodation if that is one of the issues with him defending the report.

THE GOLD GROUP said...

That video still makes me laugh they are all in it and the guy removing the screen is just the best. How much does the communication unit cost the Jersey Taxpayer?

Anonymous said...

The original Napier report is Mr. Napiers trump card.

There is always a chance this will surface at the moment Mr. Napiers reputation is not coming out of this favourably.

Anonymous said...

All eyes are on Mr. Napier. He is reportedly unwilling to defend his report. Mr. Napier and Deputy Chief Minister removed the TOR paragraph according to TLS Prior to the investigation commencing.

Anonymous said...

4.10.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given that a number of we Back-Benchers have been proven 100 per cent correct in the reality of huge flaws (whether through gross incompetence or otherwise) in how the suspension process was initiated, does the Chief Minister agree, upon reflection, that justice is not meant to operate by suspending an individual and then hoping you can come up with the evidence to warrant those actions afterwards?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts. [Approbation]

And there you have it in a nutshell. The Chief Minister is totally banged to rights, game set and match. So what facts are they then? He surly cant be hedging is euros on the Wiltshire Report a disciplinary process that was discarded by ILM.

What facts could the Chief Minister be on about

Anybody?

Anonymous said...

The facts he is trapped into.

Anonymous said...

Its the overpaid bloke from the communications unit that gets me going aswell. Especially when he tries to remove The Father Of The House, Senator Stuart Syvret from his chair.
Syvret had far more reason for being there than he ever had.

And the other Communication units spinner in that footage the female in orange mouthing off, is she not the wife or relation to someone high up in the establishment?
Can someone name her?

Anonymous said...

"I have no problem against Jersey Finance and many of my friends work in that industry but, if the industry is all great and powerful and absolutely key to Jersey's future, how is it that we now find ourselves in a mess after emerging from a period of huge growth"

Very good question, where did it go wrong?

I think everyone agrees that the finance industry has a huge part to play in the islands future but so much trouble so soon. It must be a huge worry for every person on this island and one that will grow over every passing month. What Jersey requires is very strong leadership built on your principles of TRUTH, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY

Anonymous said...

"With a combination of informative presentations and carefully targeted exercises, Nigel provided a valuable insight into how to cope with the media when they're on the trail of a big news story."

Cathy Keir, Communications manager, States of Jersey government

This is from Nigel Kay media training and crises management

Anonymous said...

States of Jersey foot stamper dance tips.

follow the leader and keep an eye on the footwork.
1. Figure out whos dance they are doing.
2. Keep an eye on where they are.
3. Dont cling.
4. Follow.
5. Smile and talk.
6. Stay on their toes.(Spinning best done on toes)
7. Dont jerk around.
8. Dont overdo the spinning.

Anonymous said...

This is all so very, very sad. More spin and more lies all wrapped up by our local media. Have our local media forgotten that this is all about children that were systematically abused whilst in the care of the States of Jersey, children who were battered and raped by the very hands of the people who were employed by our government to protect them from harm. Once again, the Jersey’s mainstream media fail to report all the facts. They have overwhelmingly failed in their duty to provide objective and compassionate coverage of the issues, proving themselves, for the most part, to be unquestioning mouthpieces for the ruling class. Meanwhile, those politicians and bloggers who do speak out have been marginalised, as the media swallow the lies and half-truths of the government spin doctors.
As well as the horrendous ordeal the abuse survivors were put through, those who try to bring them anything close to justice are also put through a horrendous ordeal of their own. There are several people who have tried to do the right thing by the survivors and have been discredited, had their reputations along with their careers absolutely trashed, not only by our government but by the most Senior Civil Servants who we all now know are the real power base. Simon Bellwood, former Senator Stuart Syvret, former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper, Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power, a man decorated by the queen have all felt the wrath of our government and their ever obeying media for trusting abuse survivors and attempting to bring their abusers to justice. As an abuse survivor, I am deeply ashamed of the way our government has behaved and I for one would like to offer my sincere apologies to these people for the appalling way in which they have been treated.
To date the abuse survivors have had no [official] apology from Jersey’s government; save for a bumbled statement from the current home Affairs Minister ILM, which once again prioritised the reputation of Jersey, before the interests of survivors. This is perhaps not surprising in an island which is essentially run for the wealthy few, and not for its citizens. Unlike our government, the abuse survivors have remained dignified throughout this entire debacle and they are to be commended. And as for the foot stamping lackeys in the States, just what is it that they are so afraid of? If I had not witnessed their behavior with my own eyes and ears, I would never have believed that some of our most senior politicians could behave so disrespectfully. To quote George Orwell “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Sums it all up really!!
With the help of many to include Stuart Syvret, Rico Sorda and Team Voice, we will continue to fight and continue to expose the truth. This is not over yet, not by a long chalk.
One last thing, Warcup before you leave Jersey, there are many people and in particular the abuse survivors who are still waiting for you to answer the 37 questions put to you by Stuart Syvret on 13th November 2008 and in case you have misplaced them, can someone do that link thing please from Stuart’s blog.
Thanks Carrie

Anonymous said...

OK, 50 grand for a few weeks work is nice easy money for a report that he [Brian Napier QC], was told by the current Chief Minister that: The whole affair of the suspension will be put to bed soon after we release your report.

But Mr Napier what about your reputation?
Are you happy with 50 grand for it?

Anonymous said...

Napier said he saw no evidence of a conspiracy.... had Bravo zero sero (integrity) Paul Le Claire repeated his statement that he heard Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis plotting against Graham Power - even Napier would have "Seen the evidence"

Sadly Le Claire has no balls or integrity. In years to come, when the facts are presented to his family - even they will be embarassed by him.

Anonymous said...

Who are the females one in orange jacket and the other orange scarf?

Anonymous said...

4.10.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Possibly I would remind those foot-stampers maybe they would read the Napier Report before stamping. Headlines are not reports. I would ask the Chief Minister- it is customary, indeed good practice - that when a report has been commissioned that report is then made known to States Members and the media so Members are able to ask questions. Can the Chief Minister inform Members when there will be a press conference to enable Members not only to question the Chief Minister but also the author on the findings of that report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I see no reason to hold a press conference for this or to involve Mr. Napier. We have already incurred enough money on this report. The matter, as far as I am concerned, should now be put to bed.

It should all now be put to bed

Sorry Chief Minister was that your reputation, or what's left of it, you were referring to

voiceforchildren said...

The 37 questions that still haven't been answered by Gradwell and Warcup

Anonymous said...

4.10.1 TLS: What I am doing with it is digesting carefully the findings in it and seeing what action, if any, needs to be taken as a result.

4.10.2 TLS: No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts. [Approbation]

4.10.3 TLS: The matter, as far as I am concerned, should now be put to bed.

4.10.4 TLS: The report is sufficiently detailed.

4.10.6 TLS: At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

----------------

Hmm very interesting.

If as TLS says in 4.10.3, why did/does he think that whilst having made statement 4.10.1?

Also after making statement 4.10.4 I think he said something such as, he would find some of the background detail supplied to Mr Napier, in answer to a question from a member. Why, if the Napier report was detailed?
------------------------------------------------

TLS believes the action taken was entirely justified.

That is not the issue with the napier report. The action taken at the time of insufficient evidence shows it was WRONG, if TLS or ILM cannot see that, they should not be in the States!!!!!

rico sorda said...

From Graham Powers Complaint Board Hearing


SPEAKING NOTES.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING.
WEDNESDAY 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009.

These notes have been made to assist the memory of the applicant when addressing the Board. No undertaking is given that they are the actual words used on the day. No responsibility is taken by the applicant for the accuracy of the content of these notes. If the notes are used by any other person as part of an account of what occurred at the hearing it is for that person and not the applicant to take responsibility for the accuracy of whatever is written or said.

1. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. IN THIS MATTER I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF BUT AS YOU CAN SEE I AM ASSISTED AND ADVISED BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST HELIER WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

2. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF TODAYS PROCESS THAT THE PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE BOARD AND CIRCULATED IN ADVANCE CAN BE TAKEN AS READ AND THAT WHAT THE BOARD REQUIRES FROM ME IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. THAT BEING THE CASE I HOPE THAT THE FOLLOWING WILL SUFFICE AT THIS TIME. I WILL OF COURSE ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHICH THE BOARD MAY HAVE IN RELATION TO THE MATTER.

3. TODAYS HEARING RELATES TO AN APPLICATION MADE UNDER THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY THE STATES AND STATES DEPARTMENTS. THE COMPLAINT IS MADE BECAUSE I HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER WHICH THE CHIEF MINISTER HAS REFUSED. THE CODE PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN APPLICANT MAY APPEAL TO THIS BOARD


"THE COMPLAINT IS MADE BECAUSE I HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER WHICH THE CHIEF MINISTER HAS REFUSED"

So like i say is the Chief Minister Conflicted with anything to do with GP'S suspension. He refused "WHY"

rs

rico sorda said...

COMPLAINT BOARD HEARING

RS

rico sorda said...

TLS believes the action taken was entirely justified.

That is not the issue with the napier report. The action taken at the time of insufficient evidence shows it was WRONG, if TLS or ILM cannot see that, they should not be in the States!!!!!

BINGO!!!!!

Now what of the ones who stamp there feet in favor of TLS what does it say about them

rs

Anonymous said...

Their dirty footprints are over the whole sordid mess.

new chief minister said...

Rico

Keep going. You are showing why those good politicians must keep asking the questions and not be put off by those who would rather suppress the truth.

Anonymous said...

I would be prepared to donate to a fund to bring Mr. Napier over.

Anonymous said...

I would contribute more money to a fund to ship ILM & TLS out...

Anonymous said...

Mr Napier.

You have taken at least £50,000 of Jersey tax payers money.

Just don't think it was easy money, with no consequences....

Because the consequences of your misdirected actions has just started!?

Anonymous said...

Maybe this is all getting a bit much for the Chief Minister? A good start would be to tell the TRUTH

Anonymous said...

It was interesting to see again how anti- establishment (or fair, objective and balanced!) was the reporting and analysis by Eric Blakely of that excruciatingly embarrassing "press conference" or, as other may describe it, an attempted, and disastrously failed, managed spin-fest.

The sight of the expensive "just obeying orders" communications unit types and Bill Ogley trying to be smart and catastrophically making a bad situation worse was painful. How much do we pay wormtongues like these?

Anonymous said...

I notice that TLS chose to ignore Bob Hill's question of who and why were the Terms of Reference amended.
This stinks like a bad day in Bellozane.

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Warcup
Lewis
Walker
Ogley
Critch

How many have been interviewed by the local media or asked for an interview?

Rob Kent said...

Re, "TLS believes the action taken was entirely justified."

The Napier report does not cover whether the criticisms of Power were justified. It examines the suspension process itself and whether there was any reason for immediate suspension.

The report finds that the immediate suspension was not justified:

"105. In circumstances where the [Met] report was used as a mainstay in establishing the grounds for the immediate suspension of Mr Power, no one in authority had access to anything more than a partial summary of its contents, provided by Mr Warcup. I do not regard that as a satisfactory basis on which to take a decision of such importance."

What Napier does not say - because it was not part of its remit - is whether, if the correct disciplinary procedure had been followed, it would have still been correct to suspend.

We will never know that because the Wiltshire report was sat on for almost a year and nobody has seen it in full. As Rico says, it was intended to be part of a disciplinary process that never happened. Graham Power said he would have 'ripped it apart' in a formal hearing. I wonder if that is why there never was one?

As Graham Power has also said, he was never subject to a disciplinary procedure, has never been challenged in a formal hearing, and has never been given the opportunity to counter the allegations. Consequently, he has been exonerated and retired without a blemish on his name (other than the slander and libel circulated by Warcup, TLS, ILM, the JEP and others).

For TLS to carry on repeating that they were right, he is effectively saying that Power is guilty without being charged, heard, or convicted. That is nothing short of scandalous.

Meanwhile the Napier report makes it clear that Walker, Ogley, Warcup, and others broke all the rules to get what they wanted, but TLS wants to forget the whole thing and 'put it to bed.'

I'm sure he does. That is what they have wanted to do since September 2008, which is why they got rid of Syvret and Power and tried to destroy the reputation of Lenny Harper.

The annoying thing is, this little baby just won't go to bed, will it.

Rob Kent said...

Re, "I notice that TLS chose to ignore Bob Hill's question of who and why were the Terms of Reference amended."

No he didn't. He answered that question, satisfactorily, I thought.

Also, you can see in the Napier report:

"I also conducted an interview with Mr Power himself who travelled to speak to me in Edinburgh, and this too was recorded. All the official documents I requested to see were made available to me."

Graham Power has not complained about the TOR and it seems that he had opportunity to say everything he wanted to Napier. Neither has he complained about the TOR changing, so I think that pursuing this line is just a waste of time and a diversion.

voiceforchildren said...

Anonymous said...
"4.10.1 TLS: What I am doing with it is digesting carefully the findings in it and seeing what action, if any, needs to be taken as a result.

4.10.2 TLS: No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts. [Approbation]

4.10.3 TLS: The matter, as far as I am concerned, should now be put to bed.

4.10.4 TLS: The report is sufficiently detailed.

4.10.6 TLS: At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

----------------

Hmm very interesting.

If as TLS says in 4.10.3, why did/does he think that whilst having made statement 4.10.1?

Also after making statement 4.10.4 I think he said something such as, he would find some of the background detail supplied to Mr Napier, in answer to a question from a member. Why, if the Napier report was detailed?
------------------------------------------------

TLS believes the action taken was entirely justified.

That is not the issue with the napier report. The action taken at the time of insufficient evidence shows it was WRONG, if TLS or ILM cannot see that, they should not be in the States!!!!!"

That deserved to be repeated. It demonstrates the complete and utter sh1te TLS is talking and how the FSLM will follow this utter nonsense.

The Abuse Survivors and Graham Power QPM WILL get their day.

Rob Kent said...

Re, "Mr Napier. You have taken at least £50,000 of Jersey tax payers money."

The Napier report was very good value for money at that rate. Its subject was complicated and involved numerous hours of interviews, solicitation and reading of documentary evidence, followed by a proportionate period of analysis, digestion, and possible follow-up interviews or emails. Then the report itself had to be written, amended, and passed through the whole process of comment and revision.

Brian Napier is a pretty senior barrister whose normal services would not come cheap (http://www.thelawyer.com/fees-squeezed-at-commercial-bar/100917.article).

Considering the Wiltshire Report was supposed to have cost well over half a million, fifty thousand for a report that met its remit and was published to boot, seems like a good deal.

Anonymous said...

The religous beliefs of Le Sueur & Le Claire are shot to pieces in all this & lots of other so called "christians" in the house with all their lies & lack of character in telling what is known by them (the truth) & my family cannot understand why I do not "believe" follow all this information on the blogs I tell them & you will see why.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how Mr. Napier feels about TLS version of his report being presented as no conspiracy or anything there? Thats quite different to what was in the report.

Anonymous said...

Come on Mr. Napier release the original report.

Anonymous said...

4.10.2 TLS: No, I am quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do, then and now, and that has been fully justified by the facts. [Approbation

4.10.6 TLS: At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

Mr. Le Sueur does not mention the Napier report as his source for justification Oh no.

We have yet no reasons given for this justification nor facts. Plain and simple spell it out a n s w e r s Mr. Le Sueur just answers.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

How much trust is there in the local "accredited"
media?

Anonymous said...

[Re, "I notice that TLS chose to ignore Bob Hill's question of who and why were the Terms of Reference amended."]

TLS did not tell Bob Hill, why the terms of reference he had agreed with TLS to be included in the remit had been amended, without Bob Hill's knowledge. Graham Power would not have known the terms had been changed prior to Mr Napier receiving the remit.

Mr Napier may well have read evidence that was not within his remit to investigate, which may be why he did not interview some witnesses that may well have supported a conspiracy.

I do expect that we have not yet heard the end of this saga, no matter how much TLS may like it to go to sleep.

Ian Evans said...

What is it with our 'accredited media' and their OLD NEWS?

Anonymous said...

After reading these comments how come TLS & ILM are still in the chamber nice and snug and not being dragged over the coals

rico sorda said...

3.12 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the current use of Haut de la Garenne:

Will the inform Members of the current use of Haut de la Garenne and whether any decision has been made for its long-term future?

"Now the reply's from Le Main and Dupre and so full of caring and compassion I admit i have them all wrong. RS"

3.12.4 Senator T.J. Le Main:

During the police investigation half the building was wilfully destroyed by the police, not dismantled but destroyed by the police. We were told that it would cost something like £300,000 to bring it back to its proper condition again. Could Members be told if work has been done on this? Has money been expended in putting this building back to its original condition and who paid for it? Of course it is the taxpayer that would have paid for it.

Now this takes the biscuit, may i first apologize to all abuse survivors from HdelaG but i really think that this should be shared. Ladies and Gentleman i give you the Deputy of St Clement

3.12.5 Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:

I know it sounds a bit silly but could we just change the name of the building and then it might stop some of the bad memories?

A round of foot stamping please

Scary very very Scary

rs

Anonymous said...

What a joke Ann Dupre is.Taking our money for quips like that.Has she brought any decent propositions,or done anything constructive in her term of office?
She is a poodle,with no original thought in her head.
Disgraceful

rico sorda said...

ASHAMED

ASHAMED TO COME FROM JERSEY>
Dear Editor,

I for the first time am going to write a sentence that I never thought would ever come from my mouth I am ashamed to come from Jersey.

I hope that you will print this letter so that my view can be put across to others and hopefully I am not the only one to feel that way I do.

On Monday I attended the States sitting and listen with interest to the questions put to the AG Tim Le Cocq regarding the prosecution of the Mangers of Blanch Pierre Mr and Mrs Maguire. I have to say that I was disgusted at the way in which certain members heckled the questions put to the AG by Monfort Tadier and Trevor Pitman.

I have a friend who was indeed abused by the said managers and the things that she has had to go through in her life beggars believe. I have listened to the extent of the interviews she and many others had to go through and the questions a child is asked during police videos and recordings was unreal.

I can not get into my mind why these people were not prosecuted,

Why the victims were not given their time in court to sit and tell of the horrific acts that were done to them?

Why Was it that the case was thrown out of court?

Why were the Victims told the accused Mr Maguire was so terminally ill that he could not stand trial?

Why was it later televised that in fact the said man was alive and well and living in France a decade later?

Why were the victims not informed of the fact that the said accused was alive and why was he not brought back to face his doings?

Why did the said accused not get brought back to Jersey to stand trial for perjury as was it not a lie that he was terminal?

What Dr’s were involved and where was the supporting medical evidence to say the accused was terminal. Was the then said Dr not also liable to stand trial for perjury

These are all but a few questions running around in my mind today and having read the report last night about this case has made me very upset and sick in the stomach.

Any decent human being with any heart would allow these now adults the right to have their say but unfortunately our States government is run by weak cowards not able to stand up to those who keep them
quiet.

The comment that has made me respond to the article was as followed “ some information cannot enter the public domain because it will be frustrating difficult and painful for some people. Should it not be what about the pain and suffering and the difficulties that those abused have gone through if they are strong enough and brave enough and have the courage to speak out as it should be then let the victims decide if it is painful. Never mind the states paying thousands and thousand on a court case for Mr Warren.
A sexual physical and mental abuse case in my eyes is far more worthy of court then one of drug conspiracy


I certainly have lost a lot of faith in the states government and I shall be seriously looking into my votes for the future elections. I can not see how any person can sleep at night when there is more then enough evidence to show abuse went on and more then enough evidence to show there has been cover ups. I will stand behind my friend who has had to suffer to this day because of what was done to her., and I pray that those involved in not allowing her, her time on court never ever have to see any of their family or close friends go through it themselves.

No doubt many reading this will not agree and I know many will it is a shame and I am truly disgusted to say I am from Jersey because of the unfair system we have running us.

Bridget Landers

I hope this gets published as my full letter and I will also be applying a copy on face book on the jersey news section.

rico sorda said...

The people of st clement rejoice with these words of wisdom.

"THE MILK DEBATE"

1.7.7 Deputy A.T. Dupre:

Today there are more and more children who have got milk allergies so therefore they cannot drink the milk anyway. There is also a problem with obesity, if more children drink more milk it does not encourage them to be slim, and also I think they ought to have a good glass of Jersey water instead.

Not even any foot stamping on that one

rs

Ian Evans said...

CHRIST !!!

Who voted that retard in?

rico sorda said...

4.10.9 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Minister has said on a couple of occasions this morning that he believes that the subsequent disciplinary investigation was fully justified and correct. Could he explain how this can be, given that the initial suspension has been shown by Mr. Napier to be fundamentally ill-conceived? [Approbation]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, Mr. Napier suggests that there could have been procedural errors in the suspension process. He says there was no conspiracy or anything there. The courts have subsequently looked at this; the new Minister for Home Affairs has looked at it as well and found the suspension process is fully justified. The evidence that we see from the Wiltshire Report and elsewhere further amplifies, if any further proof were needed, that that suspension was totally valid and justified.

What is TLS going on about here

What courts?

"the new Minister for Home Affairs has looked at it as well and found the suspension process is fully justified"

God help all of us

"The evidence that we see from the Wiltshire Report and elsewhere further amplifies, if any further proof were needed, that that suspension was totally valid and justified"

It really is scary

And yet it carries on

rs

Anonymous said...

The evidence shown to the public by TLS is pure bull sh*t.

Anonymous said...

TLS gets all confused, he mixes up, the Interim Met Report with the Full Wiltshire Report and the Napier Report.

The Napier report was ONLY about the process followed PRIOR to the suspension of Graham Power.

Anonymous said...

Are we to believe these are the same village idiots who want to run an independent country?

Boo

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage I am still digesting it to see what lessons, if any, need to be learned but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing and the course of action that was followed was, in the end, shown to be entirely justified.

now that should get him sacked

we are talking about a chief of police in the middle of a huge child abuse investigation.

"but it is really that you have people you believe are doing the right thing"

How Scary

Anonymous said...

Rico

Have you thought about running a new page of 'Unbelievable quotes' between now and the next election.

People really do forget just how bad some of these foot stampers are and get taken in by the spin around election time.

It might also be worth thinking about someone arranging an "Alternative Hustings" tour of the parishes, where real and direct questions can be put to the candidates (who are brave enough to show up) and not the sterile, pointless general knowledge questions 'allowed' by the Constables - we know what side they are on generally!

I would anticipate that the no-shows would be the ones not to vote for...

Team Voice could even film it!

GeeGee said...

Yes Chief Minister - I am sure the people that employed Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr as caretakers for a school believed they were 'doing the right thing' and look at the consequences from that story.

Le Sueur's 'belief' in the people around him who have made gross errors of judgement is not commendable. It is however extremely worrying, as indeed are some of the other comments from States Members.

We really do need a different calibre of member in 12 months time, and the elections cannot come around too soon for me. At least 80% are well past their sell by dates and need a hefty sling into the nearest bin!

Form an orderly queue please!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Le Sueur the public are still wanting answers. What are these facts that justify the suspension of Graham Power? This will become your nightmare it has not been put to bed.

Anonymous said...

I am not concerned with Mr. Le Suer's beliefs. We all have those, the public want facts and answers. Mr. Le Sueur has a job and he is not doing it.