Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 2













Terrance Augustine Le Sueur


So in our second part we will carry on looking at what has happened to our Chief Minister concerning the suspension of Graham Power , why he is playing the role of Teflon Bills lapdog, and our very short ,sharp, swift email exchange.


What I thought I would start with is part of his speech when he stepped up to be our new Chief Minister. It says all the right things, but as you can see, it doesn't  me Jack at the end of the day.  




1.       Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I would like to start by echoing your welcome to all the new Members to this first sitting.  I remember how immensely proud I felt on my first day, honoured to have the opportunity to represent the Island.  The responsibility that the public have entrusted upon us is enormous, and although Members may have differing views, the one thing that unites us is our passion for Jersey; and more than that, a determination to make Jersey an even better place, with a greater emphasis on social integration and family values.  While the next 3 years are likely to be challenging, I am confident that this House can and will reach a new consensus on how we can achieve that.  One of the things that I am most proud to have achieved in my political life is long-term planning.  At Social Security, I planned to safeguard the future by a gradual increase in contributions before it was strictly necessary.  That secured our pension scheme for years ahead, and today we have one of the best social security schemes in the world.  As Minister for Treasury and Resources at a time when we had strong economic growth, I promoted the setting up of the Stabilisation Fund to cope with a possible future down-turn.  Well, that down-turn may be on our doorstep, but with a healthy economy, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, balanced budgets and money safely tucked away in reserves, we are in a better position to deal with any challenges ahead, and that has not happened by accident.  So, just as I have left a lasting legacy at Social Security and Treasury and Resources, I should like to make my mark as Chief Minister.  The period ahead calls for experienced leadership.  I believe that is what I offer Members in their important choice of Chief Minister.  Calmness and long-term vision are not by themselves enough.  The Chief Minister also needs to engage, listen, respond and lead, and although I am clear where my priorities lie, as Chief Minister I would continue to work with all Members in a consensual way for the good of the Island community



So thats a little intro into the fantastic 3yrs we had before us. You can make your own conclusions on how its gone. 


There have been some really good comments on this subject and I thank you all for taking the time. On my last posting i asked for comments that had views different to mine but backed up with some evidence based facts,  so far none have been forthcoming.


The next item up is a very brief email exchange with the Chief Minister ,in fact very brief.


In the one excuse he gave me for his actions, he managed to get that wrong. He is under the impression that the ruling on Graham Powers Judicial Review in some justifies the suspension. The ruling was that the current minister carried out the correct procedures.




Here is the email i sent him after he had that exchange with Constable Crowcroft & Deputy Pitman on 13th October. 


From: rico sorda [mailto:ricosorrda123@yahoo.co.uk] 

Sent: 13 October 2010 21:36

To: Philip Ozouf

Cc: Terry Le Sueur

Subject: I want answers




Hi Senator & Chief Minister


Chief Minister 


As a voting member of the Jersey Public and an avid listener of the States of Jersey could you please explain to me how you came up with your answers concerning the Brian Napier Report. Are you now telling me that, in Jersey in the year 2010,  it is now ok to suspend a member of staff, let alone a Chief of Police, as long as you find something later. Are you now taking the Jersey public for complete and utter fools. I have read the Napier Report many times and it gets worse after every read. I have never ever herd of Conspiracy headed note paper but I know exactly what i,m reading in the Napier Report.


The Chief of Police was suspended on the 12th November 2008 ( This suspension is now seriously flawed )


The Chief of Police was offered no chance of reply to the accusations 


Wiltshire Constabulary were called in and worked under Terms of Reference not Applicable in Jersey


They Missed ever Deadline and Cost the Tax Payer over a Million Pounds


The Home Affairs Minister then spurts out in the States that all Disciplinary Charges have been dropped 


He then fails to inform the then suspended the Chief of Police 


He then releases a Heavily Redacted version of the Wiltshire Report with the full force of the local Partisan Media. This is  a Disciplinary Report and is open to challenge, hence a Disciplinary Report.


Can the Chief Minister or the Treasury Minister please explain to me where the former Chief of Police has had any chance of a fair hearing. I want a proper serious answer.


 Look at the points laid out below


Stop Treating the Jersey Public as Complete and Utter Fools


Thank You


Rico Sorda



RE: I want answers

From:

Terry Le Sueur

View Contact

To:

rico sorda ; Philip Ozouf



**********************************************************************

If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.

**********************************************************************



Dear Mr. Sorda,

 

This matter is not the responsibility of the Treasury Minister, so there is no need to write to him.     I note your views, but do not share them.    The Royal Court reviewed the suspension in 2009 and found it to be valid.     I do not propose to respond further.

 

Terry Le Sueur



Now the reasons i included the Treasury Minister was because i was under the impression that he was the Deputy Chief Minister/ Chief Minister and he could well be the Chief Minister in December 2011,this will will still be going.


And the Treasury Minister is excellent in replying to my emails and put some back benchers to shame Jeune/Dupre come too mind.


Now back to the Chief Ministers answer. The royal court said the original suspension was seriously flawed, no surprise there, but ILM'S was carried out correctly. The original was seriously flawed. They must have remembered their own advise on the heavily qualified "Interim Met Rpeort"





And who could forget this Video






So we move onto the next exchange with our Chief Minister



4.13   Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding disciplinary action arising from the Napier Report:

Given that I and several other Members have continuously maintained that there was evidence of malpractice within the process underlying the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and in light of his recent email correspondence to all Members regarding the delayed Napier Report, will the Chief Minister advise whether an employee is now facing disciplinary action and, if so, outline the reasons for this?

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

Members have now received the report from Mr. Brian Napier Q.C. (Queen’s Counsel), which provides a detailed analysis of the suspension process and in the conclusions Mr. Napier does level some criticism of a procedural nature.  I believe it is only right that I act on that criticism even though I am satisfied, and subsequent events have shown, that the suspension was justified.  In my email to Members on 6th October I stated that I was taking advice on whether it was appropriate to release the report when there were grounds for considering disciplinary action.  It was on receipt of this advice that I decided to release the report as I felt it was in the public interest to do so.  As far as disciplinary action is concerned, it is a matter that will be dealt with through normal procedures.  Any individuals must be treated fairly and with respect and I will apply the same level of respect and confidentiality as would be given to any other States employee.  This being the case, I do not intend making any further statement of the outcome of any such procedures.

[11:30]

4.13.1         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Contrary to the impression the Chief Minister seems to have, the finding that the original suspension was not correct is quite clear in the Napier Report.  Thus I have to push the Minister and ask: why is the States C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) not already suspended if we are at all committed to consistency, never mind justice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I think because the Deputy and I have different points of view.

4.13.2         Senator T.J. Le Main:

Will the Chief Minister confirm that I was also a member of the C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) together with the Minister for Home Affairs of the time, who confirmed at all times that he took professional advice from the Crown Officers, H.R. (human resources) professionals, the Chief Executive and Council Ministers?  Is it also correct that Deputy Lewis then, as the Minister for Home Affairs, often challenged the advice given to him and it is unfair and incorrect that procedures were not carried out correctly by him as the Minister for Home Affairs?  Will the Chief Minister confirm that is the true fact of what happened?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I confirm that the Senator was indeed a member of the Council of Ministers at the time in question and that the former Deputy Lewis was the Minister for Home Affairs.  In view of the fact that I am continuing with my consideration, I do not intend to make any public comment.

4.13.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Chief Minister confirm to Members that the terms of reference were not to inquire whether the suspension was justified; it is whether it was carried out in a professional manner?  So I would ask the Chief Minister to withdraw his comments saying that Mr. Napier’s report says that the suspension was justified because that is a fact it does not say the suspension was justified.  What the report says was the suspension was carried out unfairly.  In actual fact it could be said also unlawfully because the particular Discipline Code comes under the States of Jersey Police Law; so, therefore, also unlawful apart from being procedurally incorrect.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I hope I did not give the impression that Mr. Napier had said that the suspension was justified.  I said that subsequent events had shown beyond doubt that the suspension was justified.  Mr. Napier was commissioned to examine the suspension process and, in his view, there were certain procedural errors in the suspension process.  He did not comment on whether the suspension was correct or not.  I simply said that the suspension has subsequently been shown to be fully justified.  While I am on my feet, I omitted, in responding to Senator Le Main, to point out that the investigations that I am continuing to look at have no bearing on the actions of the former Minister for Home Affairs.

4.13.4         The Deputy of St. Mary:

Will the Chief Minister be making a statement, when he has finished his digesting, as to what lessons have been learned so that we can hear what is going to happen and, as I say, what lessons have been learned?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

At this stage I cannot say.

4.13.5         The Deputy of St. Martin:

The Chief Minister mentioned earlier that the cost of Napier was somewhere between £45,000 and £50,000, which is 3 times as much as my open public committee of inquiry.  Will the Chief Minister inform Members, is he satisfied that his quick, simple, inexpensive review has now turned out to be an absolute farce and has cost the taxpayer 3 times as much to have an inquiry that was closed and in camera?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

All I would say is that the cost of £45,000 is 3 times what the Deputy suggested that his committee of inquiry might have cost.  The original estimate for the Napier Report was in the region of £5,000 or £10,000.  Events have proved that wrong.  I suspect that had the committee of inquiry been set up, the Deputy’s estimate of £15,000 would also have been wrong because the similar sort of requirements would have come through and the same level of costs or even greater costs would have been likely to have been incurred.

4.13.6         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Does the Chief Minister agree that, like his Minister for Home Affairs, perhaps sometimes it is better to just eat your humble pie and admit you were wrong?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

That may be the case sometimes.  This is not one of them.

The Deputy Bailiff:


Rico sorda


 

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Do you ever feel like the player who held all the aces

Anonymous said...

In a nutshell his reply is your all fools.

Anonymous said...

Will there be more follow up by Deputy Hill and others on the change in the terms of reference?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that pearl of wisdom from the esteemed Deputy for St Clement Ann Dupre.We need to hear more of these gems.I seem to recall her making some crass comment about the visual apperance of the incinerator,did she not vote for it?
How many in St Clement voted her in again?
I am genuinely scared of what these idiots will do next.
God help us all

Anonymous said...

Whichever, crisis communication specialist is training the minister, it is not working the justification and facts cards is not working when justification and facts are not given.

It is not coming over convincingly nor with confidence. In a crisis you want to Respond immediately. Tell it all tell it fast and tell the truth. Reputation is valuable ignoring the situation will make matters worse.

You just do not keep stating the facts justify the decision without giving those facts.

Anonymous said...

So TLS confirms "when there were grounds for considering disciplinary action."

He could only be considering two people then as he ruled out Lewis, that leaves Warcup and Ogley.

ILM has recently reiterated his praise for Warcup, although he was the one that neither informed Ogley or Lewis of the heavily qualified comments, whereas Ogley appears to have escaped such detailed criticism.

It would appear that he has to be Warcup, if so where does that leave ILM? but if it's Ogley where does that leave TLS (he previously took Ogley's word as gospel)

Why would Warcup jump out so quick, the criticisms laid in his direction cannot be to blame when Napier points out a failing that could be deemed to be of critical substance.

I conclude Warcup jumped when he saw (IMHO) he had been stitched up, but allowed to collect a pension for saying nothing!

mac said...

Rico,
I hope you don't mind me posting this here as well.

A poster on VFC commented on ILM slagging off Graham Power and Lenny Harper on BBC radio Guernsey

Here's the link it's at approx 1:31

BBC Guernsey ILM

Anonymous said...

"I do not propose to respond further."

You may want to point him towards his obligation to respond to the electorate according to the ministerial code of conduct.

Anonymous said...

He really is out of control Power has gone to his head. How can he state ''I do not propose to respond further''

Zoompad said...

Rico,

Your blog is getting from great to even better, so much info. Please keep up the good work xx

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Terry Le Sueur, and others, notably Ian Le Marquand, should be thinking very carefully of the legacy they are leaving their children and grandchildren.

When all this comes out, it is they who will have to carry the family name and the burden and stigma created be these couple of clowns.

Anonymous said...

Why the hell do you think Warcup is getting out of dodge. Work completed pension secured & gave Ilm the next Chief.

rico sorda said...

I found TLS's email reply quite funny. His answer was wrong, and the reason for saying ''I do not propose to respond further'' is quite obvious, he hasn't got a bloody clue.

TLS & ILM

How the bloody hell did we end up with these two clowns. The fact ILM is a former Magistrate Court judge is quite simply frightening.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I hope I did not give the impression that Mr. Napier had said that the suspension was justified. I said that subsequent events had shown beyond doubt that the suspension was justified.

For Gods sake where Terry where oh where because it sure as hell cant be wiltshire he is referring to

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mr. Napier had words with him I certainly hope so. Mr. Napier did not say the suspension was justified.

Come on Mr. Napier release the original report.

Ian Evans said...

Let's all be NICE TO LENNY letter.

Anonymous said...

The royal court found the suspension to be valid in 2009?

rico sorda said...

Yes, the current Minister carried out the right procedures according to the royal court. Graham Power was suspend on a letter written by David Warcup at this stage, nothing else.

rs

Anonymous said...

The court accepted that the terms of reference not applicable in Jersey were applicable?

Anonymous said...

ILM has always been a company man

whats more, being a lawyer, he knows just what the company is.

rico sorda said...

Secondly, the Royal Court in a judgement given on 8th September 2009 expressed its “serious concern at the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister. He was dealing with the person holding the most senior position in the police force who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr. Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr. Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and, if so, whether he should be suspended during that investigation.” (Judgement paragraph 19.) In considering the implications of the Royal Court judgement members
may have been misled by a statement which sought to imply that the Court had in some way found that the current Minister was “right” in maintaining the suspension. In a Judicial Review a Court will determine whether a Minister acted lawfully and within his powers. One test of this is “procedural fairness.” Courts do not pass judgement on the wisdom or cost-effectiveness of Ministerial decisions, only their
legality. Thus the Court found that “the procedure adopted by the Minister in conducting his review was procedurally fair, in contrast we have to say, to the procedure apparently adopted by his predecessor in November 2008,” (paragraph 63.) Having considered all of the evidence the Court finally concluded that “there has been no abuse of the Ministers powers,” (paragraph 65.) It is suggested that members do
not become distracted by the decision of the Court in the Judicial Review. This proposition is about the actions of the then Minister and others in November 2008 and what may have been done subsequently to conceal the truth of those events. The finding that the current Minister acted within his legal powers at a subsequent review
is not relevant to the purpose of this proposition.

ILM also gave the royal court assurances that mr power would have a full disciplinary hearing.

KANGAROO COURT IS WHAT HE MEANT

rico sorda said...

ps

does that help

Anonymous said...

Rico thanks for trying. Let me sleep on it. I cant get past the suspension on a letter from Warcup WITHOUT Mr. Power being given an opportunity to answer ANY allegations or defend himself? That can not be fair? And if the Royal Court also expressed its concern at the fairness of the procedure of the Minister at the time 8th Sept 2009.
Then we have Mr Napier also expressing procedural concerns about the suspension.
Sorry for writing this out but it helps to get clear in my head.
When, we get the justifiable facts Mr. Le Sueur is keeping to himself things may become clearer ;)

Anonymous said...

Rico I cant sleep on it. Whats the name of that place people go to when they get made redundant etc sacked and the correct procedures have not been follow I think it is in Charles Street.

That means there will be no need for this business in Jersey if you dont need to follow contracts or legal guidelines? They can suddenly say we were following English TOC or vice versa if it suits?

How the heck Graham Power sleeps is beyong me this is so blatantly wrong.

Anonymous said...

Rico

Keep up the good work. Without your efforts- and those of Stuart, Team Voice and a few deputies - to continue pressing for truth, the ruling cabal might well have successfully buried this by now. Look at the massive investment they have made in undermining virtually all the facts about Haut de la Garenne, and then consider the power of a few people with integrity and the internet who have been able to counter all the spin with facts.

This mantra should be kept at the forefront at all times: It has always been about the cover-up of covering up horrific abuse of children.

Chelloise

rico sorda said...

I have no problem with being asked questions in fact i think its good, The way people like ILM have carried on is truly shocking in any proper functioning democracy he would have been removed from office. We have a cancer that runs through our Government and its able to grow because of our truly awful media and morally corrupt politicians.

I will not give up

ILM you pig headed little clown, as you are well aware, we are not giving up

You are going down in Jersey history make no misteke

rs

rico sorda said...

Ask yourself why the local media don't report any of these facts but support the Abuse protecting government. I think its very strange and one that need a serious looking at.

Yes i can assure you ILM kept GP suspended on nothing more than a letter from David Warcup it is in the suspension reviews that is why he is also now sounding like a complete idiot in trying to justify something that is impossible.

Keep asking me some questions

rs

Anonymous said...

"Abuse protecting government"

Thats your opinion, personally I think you talk bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Then why the big cover up. The facts speak volumes.

Anonymous said...

With ILM giving the Beano.... sorry, .... The Rag the "scoop" on Mr Power indicates to me that they "doth protest too much".

A liar invariably says\does too much to try and cover their tracks\guilt.

Anonymous said...

"Thats your opinion,..."

And very many others, unfortunately for ILM.

Anonymous said...

"The Royal Court reviewed the suspension in 2009 and found it to be valid."

Are you people saying the Royal Court was wrong then? Where you expect to get with any of this by constantly insulting States members past and present is mind bloggling.

Anonymous said...

I would expect to get the truth no more no less. I would also expect States members to want the same.

Keep up the good work The public have a duty to get the truth of why Graham Power was suspended then exonerated of all allegations in the middle of a child abuse investigation.

Anonymous said...

"The public have a duty to get the truth of why Graham Power was suspended then exonerated of all allegations in the middle of a child abuse investigation."

You have the truth, his suspension was fully justified, nailed at the end and Napier said there was no conspiracy. Moaning about this all the time will not change a thing because the end game is over. The CM doesn't want to know, the Public are only interested in other things like GST and School Fees now to just name a few and until you have "actual, proper" proof of matters of conspriracy you in fact owe people like Frank Walker an apology. Unless of course Rico is waiting for a Lawyer to deliver a civil action at his place of work?

Sad but True guys/girls you have nothing and you are therefore in the wrong.

Ole Razzy said...

Well at least he turned his caps lock off this time! PMSL.

Ian Evans said...

It's Official, NO DICTATORSHIP in Jersey?

Anonymous said...

How do you arrive at his suspension was fully justified where does this come from?

Anonymous said...

End game? which game would that be? We are talking about child abuse in Jersey. You may see this as a game I only want the truth and we are not getting it.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

Thanks for leaving a comments I can publish, so much easier all round.

"Proper Proof"

What comes under the heading proper proof? is it the conspiracy headed note paper? not sure you can get it at W.H Smith but will check it out.

We have

4 ACPO reports

3 Sworn Affidavits

1 Damning Napier Report

1 Dropped Disciplinary Case against the former Chief of Police

1 Former Home Affairs Minister that is so confused that at the last count has given 3 different accounts.

3 Damning Suspension Reviews on Home Affairs Minister ILM

And what exactly have we had back from the other side?

A Wiltshire Report that was never concluded because they were allowed to drag it out at the cost of the Jersey Taxpayer. A Wiltshire Report that was meant to be challenged in Disciplinary proceedings seeing as it was a disciplinary report.A Wiltshire Report that has yet to be made public in full. A Wiltshire Report that has totally destroyed any reputation that ILM had.

What we have had from Terry and Ian can best be described as a load of Bollix/Criminal

What we have had from the JEP can best be described as Bollix/Criminal

The Public are only interested in 'School Fees' Yup totally agree. That is one of the major problems Jersey has, no one here gives a crap unless you kick them in the wallet. There was no storming of the Town Hall when on one black day in the States the kids were kicked from pillar to post and lost everything but suggest taking away funding from private schools, my God.

Jersey has a corrupt stinking government make no mistake. We have some very good politicians but the real power lies outside the chamber ask yourself why Teflon Bill struts round like a peacock on heat and Terry is made to look like an Idiot

THAT IS FACT

rs

Anonymous said...

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/

Listen to the second audio down. Re the TOR paragraph.


Is the Chief Minister saying Mr. Napier himself ''Prior to the detail investigation commencing Mr. Napier discussed the revelvance of the Paragraph with the Deputy Chief executive who was overseeing investigation and the agreed it was no longer required?

This does not add up Mr. Napier picking and choosing what he is paid to review? That would make sense if he was looking for a particular outcome.

rico sorda said...

What exactly is the Deputy Chief Executive doing when it's his boss that is all over the Napier Report. All very nicely kept in house. It was at this stage that Napier sent his first draft to the Deputy Chief Executive, Bob Hill did not receive one, nor would Brian Napier return Deputy Hills emails.

I have herd that the first draft sent huge shock waves out and pants were filled. Napier was asked to tone down his report, did this happen? its still a very damning report.

Oh for a look at that original draft

rs

Anonymous said...

Is Mr. Napier a father does he have children. I am hoping he does release the original Napier report.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"Oh for a look at that original draft".

Well, imagine if that got leaked and found its way to the internet! Something tells me that if it does get leaked it won't be to the "accredited" media. mmm!

Edward the Confessor said...

Great stuff keep going. I find it really funny how you guys search for truth and the others just comment on what you guys are doing

Anonymous said...

Rico - Was the first draft sent out prior too, or after, Warcup's resignation?

rico sorda said...

I believe it was prior too. Warcup new the game was up.

rico sorda said...

E-mail from Deputy Bob Hill to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.

Good Afternoon Terry,


Thank you for releasing the Napier Report. Unfortunately due to the timing we did not hold a joint press release or allow for anyone to question Mr Napier on his findings. Perhaps that can be arranged.

I also believe you should make a statement in the States on Tuesday. You commissioned the Report, its findings clearly show that Mr Power was unfairly suspended and is therefore entitled to a public apology. I believe your statement should include the plan of action that you will be taking against those responsible for breaching the requirements of the Police Force (States) ( Jersey) Law 1974 and the Disciplinary Code made under that law. Perhaps you will also wish to consider whether the States were at any time misled in relation to the sequence of events and decision making process which was applied in this case.

Regards

Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Terry's reply

NO

Anonymous said...

Any more info from whistleblowers etc on the secret meetings that took place?

Anonymous said...

Concerning warcup and bowron?

Anonymous said...

We have

4 ACPO reports
OUT OF DATE AND MISS LEADING AS A PORKY PIE WAS HELD BACK FOR 6 WEEKS ABOUT FORENSICS ON THE COCONUT FIND. ACPO IS ONLY AN ADVISORY AUTHORITY FOR ITS PAID MEMBERS. ASK OTHER SERVING POLICE OFFICERS ABOUT THIS ORGANISATION, THEY NEVER BAD MOUTH THEIR MEMBERS NO MATTER WHAT.

3 Sworn Affidavits
ONLY IF PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM. THE COURTS DIDN'T BELIEVE WHAT IT HEARD THE OTHER WEEK.

1 Damning Napier Report
SAYS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRICY TO OUST POWER. THATS THE CONCLUSION.

1 Dropped Disciplinary Case against the former Chief of Police
THEY RAN OUT OF TIME AND HE RETIRED 6 MONTHS EARLIER THAN HE NEEDED TO.

YOUR EVIDENCE IS NOT DAMNING BUT ITS WEAK. CAN'T YOU SEE NOW WHY THE MEDIA NO LONGER TAKES ANY NOTICE?

GeeGee said...

No seems to be the only word Terry can use convincingly!

If it were not so serious it would be funny - sadly it is not.

Anonymous said...

End game? which game would that be? We are talking about child abuse in Jersey. You may see this as a game I only want the truth and we are not getting it.

YOU PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT CHILD ABUSE, THIS IS POLITICAL LOBBYING BY AN OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEW POINT AND NOTHING MORE.

Edward the Confessor said...

You see what i mean hahahah

Anonymous said...

Written question 6, & 4,10 & 16 oral questions could give interesting answers on Tuesday.
Oral question 10 seems particularly interesting.
Which email to Deputy Hill would this be?

Anonymous said...

The truth no more. It should be simple for Mr. Le Sueur to answer questions if he sticks to the facts. He has not answered questions I wonder why.?

''I do not propose to respond further''
Does that sound like someone trying to give the facts and justifications.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Putting something to bed is not the same as brushing it under the carpet.......well for some anyway!!

Anonymous said...

I have watched this BBC Panorama video twice before, but tonight I was struck all over again by how absolutely right Esther Rantzen and Stuart Syvret were. None of those things they said about Jersey's problems back then have ever been resolved in a transparent, just manner. Both Syvret and Rantzen had to remind the vapid idiot Chief Minister that it was about CHILDREN. Same old, same old. Wonder what Rantzen knows about the Jersey abuse cover-up today.

rico sorda said...

Im glad someone picked up on that. Even back in late Feb 2008 it was all about Jerseys Image not about the victims of abuse. The infamous press conference at St Martins public hall was about the way Jersey was being portrayed in the Media and what did they show the international media, a complete shambles.

It's amazing looking back at these videos and listening to what was said. Make no mistake this is a long way from being over.

This goes to the very heart of what we are in Jersey. It questions what we are as a society, it questions where we are morally and socially as a community, are we really just slaves to the money god and nothing else?

I really think we are heading to some kind of crossroads as an island

rs

Anonymous said...

"Im glad someone picked up on that. Even back in late Feb 2008 it was all about Jerseys Image not about the victims of abuse. The infamous press conference at St Martins public hall was about the way Jersey was being portrayed in the Media and what did they show the international media, a complete shambles."

ITS COST THIS ISLAND A LOT OF MONEY FOR WHICH WE ARE ALL PAYING THROUGH EXTRA TAXES. I AM SICK OF THIS SENTIMENTAL ARGUMENT OF YOURS, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LIES TO KEEP A STORY GOING WHICH HARPER DID.

Anonymous said...

Re the written and oral questions that are to be asked in the States on Tuesday, where can I read said questions and will the responses be avaliable to the general public - If so, where ?
Keep up the good work folks !

rico sorda said...

ITS COST THIS ISLAND A LOT OF MONEY FOR WHICH WE ARE ALL PAYING THROUGH EXTRA TAXES. I AM SICK OF THIS SENTIMENTAL ARGUMENT OF YOURS, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LIES TO KEEP A STORY GOING WHICH HARPER DID.

So what evidence based facts are you backing that up with. Please share it with our readers.

Cheers

rs

Anonymous said...

Anonymouse 11.31 am.

Which lies is the poster referring to. If the poster was more specific it may support the post.

Anonymous said...

I have just watched the video and listen to FW at 8.47 How does that tally with the cases not brought to court.

Ian Evans said...

anon said,

"I have watched this BBC Panorama video twice before, but tonight I was struck all over again by how absolutely right Esther Rantzen and Stuart Syvret were."

ha ha ha, Esther Rantzen, don't make me laugh, that disgusting turncoat wants to become an MP now and is being hindered because of her past work for children. So now she is SHUNNING those who fight against child abuse to further her own political agenda!!! What a scummer she is....

Watch on 31 minutes, and be shocked!!!

voiceforchildren said...

Re the written and oral questions that are to be asked in the States on Tuesday, where can I read said questions and will the responses be avaliable to the general public - If so, where ?
Keep up the good work folks !

You can get the written questions and answers from the States website http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/frame.asp under the heading “questions”. If you click on the heading “Order papers” that will give you the list of the days business, questions, propositions etc.

You can also listen to it live on 1026 MW radio. Channelonline also stream the audio live. TJW Blogsite also publishes selected audio recordings of the days sitting, questions, answers statements and so forth.

If you have a particular request of what you want to hear, I’m sure TJW will try and accommodate.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what the email says in oral question 10?

rico sorda said...

No but i hope we find out.

rs