Sunday, October 31, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 3













Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand




What the Hell has happened?


A brief History


"I have just retired as the Island’s Magistrate after 31 years of experience as a lawyer and 18 years of experience in public service as a Chief Officer, a manager, a rules draftsman and a judge.

My legal career has taken me into public service in three distinct phases as follows:-

  1. I worked in private practice with Advocate Mike Backhurst as Le Marquand & Backhurst from 1977 to 1988, which led me into occasional work as a Relief Magistrate from 1987 to 1990.
  2. I was the Island’s Judicial Greffier from 1990 to 1997 - here I was the Chief Officer of a States Department, the chief clerk to all the courts and a judge of procedural matters in the Royal Court.
  3. I was the Island’s senior Magistrate, with oversight of the Magistrate’s, Youth and Petty Debts Courts, from 1999 to 2008.

My previous work has involved me leading teams of people, managing projects, making difficult decisions, drafting rules of court and overseeing changes to laws and court procedures. Examples of these include the new Probate and Stamp Duty Laws, numerous improvements to the Royal Court and Petty Debts Court rules and procedures, Stage 1 of the computerisation of the Public Registry and involvement with the building of the new Magistrate’s Court complex.

I believe that I have a reputation for fairness, honesty and directness. I am passionate about my Island home and community and its historic culture and traditions but I have always been a reformer, seeking to take what we have and improve it gradually."

That was from his Election Manifesto


Now i must state that these are not personal attacks on defenseless members of the public . 

The Chief Minister and Home Affairs Minister have an awful lot to answer too. I find it unbelievable that no local journalist has dragged these two over the coals for what they have been saying and doing. On 'Talkback'  this morning Christie Tucker the host had no idea that the Wiltshire Report was a Disciplinary report or what that entails,now that is coming from BBC Jersey's political reporter.

I had hopes that Senator ILM would be a breath of fresh air back in 2008. I had no idea who he was or what he did it was only through the hustings that I got to hear him speak. He won the election and became the poll topping Senator what happened from that moment onwards will surly be recorded in Jerseys History as a very dark period.

Over the coming blogs I will be looking at what this Senator has done and it will be based as always on fact. I will be looking at when he first realized he had been caught out, it was an email I sent him explaining the suspension reviews were online . That was the moment Senator ILM felt exposed, that was the moment he realized the difference between being a Magistrate and a Politician, he was now answerable to the public and was being asked questions from the public. One of the main traits of Senator ILM is that there is no telling him he is wrong , does that come from being a Magistrate? there is an arrogance about the man that continually shows its head.

I applaud the honest hard working Deputies like T Pitman who stuck to his guns and was proved right, yet the arrogant one calls him malicious, says he spreads lies and so on. Like I say these next couple of blogs will be looking at TLS and ILM two people who should be removed from the states and that is based on FACT.

This is a question from Deputy of St Martin  


2.15 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding disciplinary action against the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

In light of the criticism in the Napier Report of the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will the Minister be undertaking disciplinary action against this officer in order to demonstrate consistency, and does the Minister still have confidence in the said officer’s integrity and suitability to continue in office despite his imminent retirement?

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

The Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer of Police acted at all times honourably in an extraordinarily difficult situation.  Neither his motivation nor his integrity is questioned.  Both of those statements I deduce from paragraph 110 of the report.  Indeed, the subsequent reports of the Wiltshire Police have shown that all the areas of concern which he raised in relation to the performance of the Chief Officer of Police were fully justified.  There were very serious failures by a former Chief Officer and the consequences were very serious.  Furthermore, the Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer waited for independent written confirmation of his concerns from the Metropolitan Police.  In the light of those major considerations where the Acting Chief Officer is fully vindicated, the criticism of Mr. Napier is very minor, and so my answers directly to the questions are firstly, no, of course not; there is not a disciplinary issue here.

[11:15]

Secondly, that consistency is best served by proportionate responses to all issues.  The issues raised by Mr. Napier are very minor, whereas the matters relating to the Chief Officer of Police were very serious.  I have full confidence in the integrity of the Acting Chief Officer and so does Mr. Napier.  The Acting Chief Officer is an excellent officer, and if he had not been driven to withdraw his application by the hostility and persistent inaccurate accusations of certain States Members, then I would have had great pleasure in proposing him to this Assembly as an excellent future Chief Officer.  [Approbation]


2.15.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

It is surprising how people who read a report come to a different conclusion.  No doubt if all those footstampers read the report they may well have seen something different.  I would particularly refer the Minister to paragraphs 99 and 100, where the actions of the Acting Chief Officer certainly to my mind make the man totally unfit for the job.


The Deputy Bailiff:

Your question please.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think it is totally unfair - totally unfair - for Members to level allegations at people like myself and other bloggers who ...


The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy of St. Martin, please sit down.  Please sit down.  Deputy, the purpose of question time is to ensure that questions are put and speeches are not made.  Will you please put a question to the Minister for Home Affairs if you wish to do so.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

Allegations have been made against myself and other Members of this House that we have made allegations against or questioned the integrity of the Acting Chief Police Officer and I think I am entitled to an opinion, just indeed as the Minister has, and I disagree with his opinion, and that is what I am saying.  I do not believe for one moment, in light of the evidence that we have now received in the Napier Report, that ... I am entitled to my opinion based on what we have now read in the Napier Report.


The Deputy Bailiff:

If you do not have a question you have to sit down.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I have a question, sir.


The Deputy Bailiff:

Well then will you please put it?


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will put it, I was in the process of putting it, Sir.  But I think, again, I was entitled to respond to allegations made against myself and other Members of this House.  In light of the paragraphs 99 and 100 of the Napier Report, will the Minister agree that there are serious criticisms here about the way in which the Acting Chief Officer produced the interim report without any reservations or any qualifications to the Chief Executive Officer and the Minister for Home Affairs?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I am very happy to analyse the nature of the criticism.  I would have done earlier except I would have been told off by the Chair.  The nature of the allegations or the criticisms, were that the Acting Chief Officer did not sufficiently explain that the findings of the interim report were heavily qualified.( WELL THAT OK THEN LOL What he wrote in his letter of 10th November 2008 was: “On 10th November 2008 I received an interim report detailing the initial findings.”  Therefore, made it clear that the report was both interim and initial( AND SHOULD NOT BE USE IN ANY SUSPENSION PROCEDURE AS IT IS A REVIEW... OH DAVE).  Now, I am not quite sure why Mr. Napier criticised that because I am not sure what he means by “heavily qualified” ( WHAT ).  The findings of the Metropolitan Police report, the interim report, were understood to be interim and initial because they had not yet spoken to the former Deputy Chief Officer who had been the senior investigating officer( THERES YOUR ANSWER AND ANDRE BAKER OF ACPO)  But once they had done there was no material change in the full report which was received in December 2008.  That is why I categorise these criticisms as mine, I am not even sure they are right at this point in time.  But even if they are right they are most certainly very minor.  


2.15.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am surprised at the statement made by the Minister that the failures relating to the suspension are minor.  Mr. Power was denied natural justice in the way that he was initially suspended.  Can the Minister justify, on the basis of the information available at the time of the initial suspension, that it was justified and the process was correct?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Deputy Higgins may have misunderstood my answer in relation to the criticism being very minor.  That was an answer which related to criticism of the Acting Chief Officer, which of course is the subject matter of the initial question.  The fact is now that Mr. Napier has criticised the initial suspension and the basis of that criticism is different from the basis of the criticisms which I had made earlier, and I believe which the Royal Court have made earlier.  What is apparent is that there was extra information available which could have been made available to the then Minister for Home Affairs, which provided overwhelming grounds for suspension (DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THIS COULD BE?).  It is unfortunate that he was only provided with partial information and the criticism of Mr. Napier in that regard relates to the decision based upon partial information (WHAT LIKE A HEAVILY REDACTED WILTSHIRE).  But there was lots of other information of which I am aware which was not provided to him at the time.


2.15.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am not sure if the Minister is aware that the Acting Deputy Chief described the criticism as being par for the course.  But is he aware that it was under the watch of the same current Acting Chief of Police that emails given to the police in relation to a complaint by a States Member allegedly somehow ended up in the hands of the former Bailiff, and is he happy that this should happen?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It was mentioned in a court case only the other week that somehow emails handed to the police by a Member of this House were passed on to the former Bailiff.  How could that happen?  Is that standard police procedure and is he happy with the Acting Chief’s handling of that matter?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am simply not aware of the circumstances.  I would need to have a specific question so that I could find out the appropriate information.  I do not think, with respect, that is a follow up from the question asked originally.


The Deputy Bailiff:

It is broadly related to confidence in the Acting Chief.  


2.15.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Minister confirm that as all the allegations in the Wiltshire Report have been withdrawn, therefore, there is no substance at all to them because obviously they have been withdrawn?  Will the Minister therefore agree that the Chief or the former Chief Officer’s character is unblemished?


The Deputy Bailiff:

That is not related to this question.


Now, im not totally sure if Senator ILM has read the Napier Report going from some of his answers, it is these points I will be looking at over the coming Months. Also one must not forget Wiltshire and very alarming expenses all signed off by Steve Austin Vautier under that very special Gold command group.

I thought I would also share with you readers Brian Napiers reply to Lenny Harper 

 

From: Lenny Harper
Sent: 08 October 2010 12:57
To: bwnapier
Subject: Criticism in Your Report

 

Dear Mr Napier;

 

Please excuse me taking the liberty of writing to you - you do not know me, but I am Lenny Harper, the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

 

I was disappointed to learn that in your just released report to the Jersey government, that you accepted and re-stated the criticisms of myself that were used as one of the reasons for the attack on Graham Power.  I particularly regret that, unlike those that are also criticised in the report, that I did not receive a letter from you giving me the opportunity to rebuff, as I have on many occasions, criticisms which have been proved over and over to have no substance.  Whilst I have no doubt that it was not your intention, I seem to have been given less of an opportunity to clear my name than those who seem to have supplied mis-information about Grahams suspension.

 

I am aware that Bob Hill asked you to interview me but you declined as you did not wish to get bogged down.  Whilst I understand that, given the criticisms of me that you repeat in your report, it would have been only fair to have given me the opportunity.  I would have answered those criticisms.  I would have supplied you with the two documents I have attached to this e mail, one, an affidavit I made for the High Court in London, and secondly, a rationale for the operation at HDLG.  I will not bore you with the details in this e mail but would ask you to read the documents even though I know you must be very busy.  As an example, in relation to criticism of my Media policy, criticism you make mention of on several occasions, one of the main criticisms was that I whipped up a media frenzy over the "shackles" found at HDLG.  As I explain in my Affidavit, this is untrue.  Builders who had found these items five years before and left them went to the media and told the media that "the police are going to find shackles."  I refused to confirm this and refused to say that I had found shackles.  The main source of the criticism against me in this respect was a Jersey Evening Post Journalist by the name of Diane Simon.  Yet, she originally ran a story in which she clearly stated that she had been told by outside sources that the police would find shackles.  Her story clearly has me refusing to comment on the fact that we had found shackles.  Yet, months later, the same journalist was writing a story blaming me for introducing shackles.  Both stories were run together on one of the many blogs supported by the victims.  I would have pointed all this and more out to you.

 

Similarly, another criticism was that I entered HDLG and dug it up on a whim.  Read the Op. Rectangle Summary and decide yourself if that is so.

 

Another thing I would have told you is that I formally complained to the Met about the Interim and further report they had allegedly carried out.  I would have told you that the author of the report has now been served with Misconduct papers as a result of my complaint that submitted the first report without even interviewing me, and that he then ignored completely, evidence I gave him which showed criticism to be unfounded and that he failed to interview witnesses, including Anthropologists and Archaeologists who would have corroborated my evidence.

 

As I stated earlier, forgive me taking the liberty of contacting you, but I feel that you would have been at more of an advantage if you had been given the full facts.  Please read these documents.  Not only do they counter the criticism made, but the Affidavit gives a flavour of the corruption and obstructions that Graham Power and myself had to work with.

 

From: Brian Napier 

To: Lenny Harper 

Sent: Friday, 8 October, 2010 17:46:04

Subject: RE: Criticism in Your Report


Dear Mr Harper

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I hope you will appreciate that I cannot at this stage enter into any discussions about the content of my report, but I assure you I will read the material you have sent to me.

 

Perhaps I can just quote from para. 9 of the report where I said “Where I have ascribed views or opinions to others, I have done so only on the basis of information that was provided to me in interview or in documentation I have read.”  I have not sought to go beyond the terms under which I carried out my investigations, and it certainly was no part of my brief to make any judgment on your conduct.  It would, as you rightly point out, be unfair for me to do so when I had not spoken to you.  I had to  take account of criticisms that were made of you because these criticisms formed part of the background to Mr Power’s suspension, but that is the only concern I had with your part in the whole affair.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Brian Napier QC

 

                 

Rico Sorda 



59 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

From the Napier Report.

"There should have been a more sustained effort made by Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley to get access to the contents of the report itself (even if
only in redacted form) in order to evaluate the criticisms of Mr Power which Mr Warcup referred to in his letter to Mr Ogley of 10 November 2008. Mr Ogley and Mr Lewis should not have relied upon a summary provided by Mr Warcup (whose negative views of Mr Power were already well known) in a matter of such importance. The Interim Report could and should have been redacted by Mr Warcup for the purposes of removing any operationally sensitive material that it would not have been appropriate for persons outside the Police to see."

So David Warcup is instumental in destroying the career and reputation of a fellow officer, in Graham Power QPM, and ILM sees that as being "minor".

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Another "minor" criticism of David Warcup in the Napier Report.

"Mr Ogley had not been told by Mr Warcup about the Metropolitan Police report being expressly qualified, and he had given advice on the appropriateness of suspension without having had sight of even a redacted version of the Metropolitan Police interim report."

David Warcup's position, in my opinion, is wholly untenable and that's why he doesn't want the job anymore!

Anonymous said...

lawyers,semantics,£400 per hour,LAW,law,semantics,lawyers,chess with words,
lots of dosh,lawyers,semantics

ILM the game is up

semantically speeking

Anonymous said...

Ian le marquand sold his sole and will forever be remembered for it

Anonymous said...

How does David Warcup sleep at night and what other police force is going to want him after what he has done to Grahame Power.

Anonymous said...

OMG OMG OMG.

Anonymous said...

''Secondly, that consistency is best served by proportionate responses to all issues''

How about honest answers.

Edward the Confessor said...

Rico

I fully commend the work you and Voice for Children have put in on this subject. How you have managed to keep going these past few years is beyond me.

There are many things wrong with the way the Island of Jersey is run at this present time. There is no doubt that we have very weak leadership in Chief Minister Le Sueur and I must categorically agree that what is currently happening with the Home Affairs Minister is beyond reproach. How the local media has allowed this to happen is something that you bloggers really do need to investigate.

The Home Affairs Minister's "use" of the Jersey Evening Post in condemning former suspended police chief Graham Power is quite unbelievable. The question that must be asked is how was it allowed to happen?

One finds it very interesting being on the outside looking in and coming to one's own conclusions rather than simply believing what is spoon fed to the masses.

Do not believe that all the high-society agree with what is happening on the idyllic Island of Jersey. We all live in troubled times.

I will leave you with this...

The former Chief of Police entered into a disciplinary procedure. The said procedure was dropped and the Home Affairs Minister carried out what can only be labelled a total injustice and is, as you say, coming from a Magistrate totally unbelievable.

You chaps keep up the fine work.

Anonymous said...

I find this bit very interesting

"What is apparent is that there was extra information available which could have been made available to the then Minister for Home Affairs, which provided overwhelming grounds for suspension (DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THIS COULD BE?)."

Do any of you bloggers know what Senator ILM could be going on about and if it was so serious why didn't they use it instead of going down the met Interim debacle.

Anonymous said...

And for good measure

"Now, I am not quite sure why Mr. Napier criticised that because I am not sure what he means by “heavily qualified”

Ummmmm thats why napier should have been over here explaining it. £50,000 and the home affairs minister spells it out to our chief minister

Anonymous said...

Napier should get his 50 grand ass over here and explain to the public the home affairs minister the chief minister and everyone else exactly what he does mean in his report.

THE GOLD GROUP said...

Can you please start doing some blogs on the local media and why they are so blindingly partisan towards this shambolic government.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it great that Mr. Le Marquand is giving the opportunity to explain his side publicly yet Mr. Power was given no chance publicly or otherwise.

Wiltshire looked into alleged concerns and found the concerns justified. That is all they were concerns.
Example: I could ring the police with concerns of a neighbour neglecting a child and my concerns could be found justified once listening to my explanation. That does not mean there is no simple explanation that could come for my neighbour that would allay my concern.

Anonymous said...

VFC

Any chance of that warcup letter finding its way online seeing as it was all the home affairs minister had in keeping graham power suspended. They are all covering each others back its so obvious. This is all happening because of child abuse who would have thought that child abuse would expose this government for what it really is.

voiceforchildren said...

“VFC
Any chance of that warcup letter finding its way online”

Sorry to say, I’ve not got a copy of it………..yet. Naturally should one find its way to me then I will do all that I can to publish it, without breaking any laws.

pablo said...

A lot of people are fully aware of the back slapping hand in pocket government that we have. The child abuse investigation has indeed exposed it but only if you are willing to read different views than the JEP.

I dont reckon they have been exposed to be honest until the day that the JEP etc acknowledge and actually put into the public non blog readers the type of information that has been exposed by sites such as this and others.

Until that day, then I think life will go on and the JEP readers etc that rely upon one sided reporting will be none the wiser. If it looks white then it must be white seems to be the attitude of may people over here these days that have unfortunatly had in the past only one outlet of printed news. If you can even call what they print news.

rico sorda said...

This is from suspension review 1 ILM explaining about the Met Interim Report

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcup's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which

is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey

Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all.

Now ask why didn't Dave Warcup advise team ogley that this cant be used for suspension?

When this is all put together as it surly will there will be no hiding from the truth

rs

rico sorda said...

From Napier

"There should have been a more sustained effort made by Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley to get access to the contents of the report itself (even if
only in redacted form) in order to evaluate the criticisms of Mr Power which Mr Warcup referred to in his letter to Mr Ogley of 10 November 2008. Mr Ogley and Mr Lewis should not have relied upon a summary provided by Mr Warcup (whose negative views of Mr Power were already well known) in a matter of such importance"

There can be no doubt as to what was be conspired by this little group. I say again why didn't Dave Warcup tell them that the met report in any format cant be used in suspension. When Warcup/Gradwell gave thier briefing to ministers on the 11th November did Warcup tell them that the met report cant be used in suspension? The Solictor General also had diffrent reasons for it not to be used but that was overuled why? and by whom? Andrew Lewis said he was getting advice by whom? the AG? HR?

rs

Anonymous said...

I listened to the interview that ILM gave on Guernsey Radio with shock horror,his comments about Lenny Harper were surely libellous.Once again we have a police officer with a distinguished and unblemmished record judged on a public forum with no opportunity to reply.
It appears that ILM has appointed himself judge,jury and executioner ,it would do him good to find himself in the dock defending his recent actions

Anonymous said...

Warcup would've known darn well the met report should'nt have been used to hang his boss out to dry.

Ian Evans said...

A WORD OF CAUTION to those fighting injustice in Jersey.

Anonymous said...

How can Mr. Napier in his reply to Lenny Harper state'' I have not sought to go beyond the terms under which I carried out my investigations, and it certainly was no part of my brief to make any judgment on your conduct'' According to T Le Sueur 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.

I would think moving the TOR paragraph was making a judgement.

Edawrd the Confessor said...

Do you think Mr Napier has any idea of the mess his report has caused? I believe it's a very good report, if a little difficult to follow. Where in the conclusions he states that there was no evidence of a conspiracy, it almost sounds like it was inserted as an after thought and a qualification of the main findings. One could even go so far as to wonder whether, when drafts were circulated, he was asked to include that small element of the report as a conclusion to highlight its presence. It would be very interesting to see the original draft of the Napier report and see what influence was cast between drafts. I am aware through reading of the blogs that Deputy Hill was not in receipt of early drafts at what would have been a critical stage in the review process and that Brian Napier had stopped returning Deputy Hill's emails. If Deputy Hill was meant to have full oversight of this enquiry then its integrity has been lost, particularly in view of the amendment to the terms of reference of which Deputy Hill was not aware.

I am very interested to see to what extent the former Chief of Police will go to clear his name. Forgetting what happened in the abuse investigation, there can be absolutely no doubt, from the information now in the public domain, that the former Chief of Police has still not had his fair say. There can be no argument on this part of the child abuse scandal and the fact that the States of Jersey and the majority of its politicians goes along with the charade played out by the Chief Minister and backed up by the Home Affairs Minister is a truly shocking indictment of Jersey.

There are many people following this story, not only because of its relevance to the Chief of Police and the victims of child abuse but of its highlighting of the state of governance in Jersey. This cannot be good for Jersey on a local or international stage.

These blogs are very important and must keep to the facts. There is nothing wrong with a little humour, but the facts speak volumes. Do not be intimidated, put off or give up. People are watching and reading.

rico sorda said...

Hi Edward

No giving up here thats for sure. I have been at this since mid 2008 and im still in shock at what is being allowed to happen. I have thought about blogging about different subjects but then burnt it off because thats not why i started blogging in the first place. I started posting on the Child Abuse Scandal and i will finish blogging on the child abuse scandal.

Im at a loss as to why some of our politicians and local media behave the way they do. If we had one investigative journalist it would be a start.

Thank you for reading and commenting

The fight goes on

rs

Anonymous said...

Can you just tell us all who are you fighting because the CM no longer wants to know, ILM no longer wants to know, various critics of HDLG past and present no longer want to know and none of the old police involved from the start will be involved by the end of the year so they don't want to know. So come on who are you fighting now?

Anonymous said...

Simply the truth. Even more so given the fact people involved do not want to know.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Can you just tell us all who are you fighting because the CM no longer wants to know, ILM no longer wants to know, various critics of HDLG past and present no longer want to know and none of the old police involved from the start will be involved by the end of the year so they don't want to know. So come on who are you fighting now?"


I believe you've made a cardinal error in assuming this is about "fighting".

To my eyes it's about something far more damaging. Raising public awareness.

Anonymous said...

Raising public awareness. Of what? This is why your best mate is in Court today for ill informed raising of public awareness because you are all thick as pigshit.

rico sorda said...

"This is why your best mate is in Court today for ill informed raising of public awareness because you are all thick as pigshit"

How old are you? look, I don't want your name, but im intrigued with your age.


"Can you just tell us all who are you fighting because the CM no longer wants to know, ILM no longer wants to know, various critics of HDLG past and present no longer want to know and none of the old police involved from the start will be involved by the end of the year so they don't want to know. So come on who are you fighting now?"

Dude most of the answers are in your question. Now thats a real talent lol

rs

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Harper

Thank you for your email.

I hope you will appreciate that I cannot at this stage enter into any discussions about the content of my report,

Do you know when we will be able to enter in discussion with mr napier. Sounds like he intended having some discussions some time back

GeeGee said...

Thick as pigshit eh? Well I don't mind being called that, but I was not aware of anyone in Court today who I did not know, hence I assume you did not turn up to the proceedings.

If you had you would really have had your eyes opened and see why some people will always support Stuart, and also wonder what the hell is going on in this Island.

So, before you judge make an effort to find out the full facts because they can be quite worrying.

Anonymous said...

Rico

Were you in the magistrate court today . News is leaking out that it was some afternoon with mr syvret taking a former policeman to task concerning his report. Is it true that people were left open mouthed, and will the media report what was said.

rico sorda said...

No magistrate court for me, wish i could but cant make it. To be honest i don't comment on the subject matter concerning stuarts data protection case for one simple reason, It scares the hell out of me. From what i hear the things discussed today in court would be enough to turn a jersey journalist.

rs

Anonymous said...

''the CM no longer wants to know, ILM no longer wants to know, various critics of HDLG past and present no longer want to know and none of the old police involved from the start will be involved by the end of the year so they don't want to know''

I am not sure Lenny Harper or Graham Power would agree with you. As for the CM or ILM that is a pretty fair assessment worrying none the less. We agree on something.

Ian Evans said...

A VERY GRAPHIC & SHOCKING post about child abuse. Upsetting images contained.

moral-rightness said...

GP suspension review ILM said:-

I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because ... Now my advisors do not want me to see that report...

Napier Report:-
36. The letter from Mr Ogley to Deputy Lewis dated 11 November refers to the report from Mr Warcup as something which “draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation” and states that “He [i.e. Mr Warcup] is taking advice from the Attorney General as to whether it is appropriate to release the full Metropolitan Police report to either me or you.” ......... All that Mr Warcup had been sent on 10 November was an interim report, qualified as previously noted.

45. Further advice from the Solicitor General to Mr Crich on 11 November emphasised the need for there to be objective evidence to support any act of suspension in advance of receipt of the full report from the Metropolitan Police. A file note made in the Solicitor General’s office records Mr Crich as saying, in the course of a telephone call that day, that Mr Ogley had said there would be a précis of the headlines of the [Metropolitan Police] report available on Tuesday and that Mr Warcup had also prepared his own review which would inform the decision making process. The
note taker records a conversation in the following terms: “I said [to IC] that there must not be any provisos or caveats to the Metropolitan Police’s conclusions otherwise it would be potentially inappropriate to act [ask]” and that “I had advised that there must be strong and cogent reasons to justify action at this stage against the Chief Police Officer.”

67. ......Further advice was sought of the Solicitor General and given on 11 November 2008. It is stated in that advice “I reiterate my advice that if this action [suspension] is being considered in advance of the full report [of the Metropolitan Police], there must be sufficient objective evidence available to justify what is proposed. I would urge that particular caution be exercised to check that there are no provisos or caveats to any of the conclusions reached upon which reliance is to be placed and that the reasons for actions are robust.” I would agree
entirely with this view and also with the following passage, which states “…it is usually argued that suspension is a neutral act, but this is arguable, especially given the position of the CPO.”

100. ...............I am surprised that, in circumstances where Mr Warcup did not disclose the primary document to either Mr Ogley or Mr Lewis, he did not see fit to mention the qualifications that were, on any view, of some importance. By not doing so, he gave the document an importance and status which, in my view, it did not merit.

101. ....................Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, ....

So who advised ILM not to read the Met Report?

I doubt it was the AG, unless he had read the Met Report after the suspension, but if he had, surely he would have advised ILM of the heavy qualifications, if he didn't, then surely his SG would have!.

It could not have been by the SG, as he had said "I would urge that particular caution be exercised to check that there are no provisos or caveats to any of the conclusions reached upon which reliance is to be placed and that the reasons for actions are robust."

I doubt the SG would give advice not to read the Met Report, when his reiterated advice meant the Met Report should be read. How fair was ILM in his review of the suspension without being sure!!!

rico sorda said...

Napier Report:-
36. The letter from Mr Ogley to Deputy Lewis dated 11 November refers to the report from Mr Warcup as something which “draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation” and states that “He [i.e. Mr Warcup] is taking advice from the Attorney General as to whether it is appropriate to release the full Metropolitan Police report to either me or you.” ......... All that Mr Warcup had been sent on 10 November was an interim report, qualified as previously noted.


Warcup didn;t get the full review untill late november i think. because on the 11th of november the met had not interviewed the two main players Harper and Baker (ACPO)

Because our clowns used the Met review for a suspension the Met went nuts ( why didn't warcup advise them against this)

One great bloody stitch up

ILM is in it up to his eyeballs

nice work

rs

rico sorda said...

This story needs putting together now from start to finish. It will take some work but it will be done. What a bloody mess this lot have got into

rs

Anonymous said...

The 'advice' given, or not given, relied upon, or ignored, does not make sense, unless you believe that there was a conspiracy to remove Graham Power and another conspiracy to cover up that fact, once things started getting awkward, ie: Mr Power was challenging. Such, shredding notes!!

Back-fitting takes time and needs lots of delays and reviews to ensure it all glues together, but there are enough clues notwithstanding Mr Power's view at the time.

Anonymous said...

"ILM is in it up to his eyeballs"

If you really think so rico sorda.

Anonymous said...

For me, a great indicator of involvement is who is still allowing this to continue.

The Interim report was a big fat proviso of caveats.

Anonymous said...

We didnt get any nearer in finding out what was said in that secret email from TLS to Deputy Hill (oral question 10), except that it was something to do with the CE (Ogley).
The Bailiff was very quick to move on to the next question.

Surely now that a refusal has been given to release this email, Deputy Hill can take it further?

Nevertheless very intriguing....

Lets hear it Deputy.

Anonymous said...

11 abuse cases are dropped by the then Attorney General William Bailhache.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/07/07/abuse-11-more-cases-are-dropped/

Appointed as Her Majesty's Attorney General in February 2000. Appointed as Deputy Bailiff on 2nd November 2009.

From Napier - "Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report"

and then later on in the same para;

"The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself".

getting closer......

THE GOLD GROUP said...

Rico, did you hear the states today? Hope the jersey way has it online later. TLS and ILM were flapping big time.

rico sorda said...

16. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“What was the basis on which the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police commissioned the report from the Metropolitan Police on 27th August 2008, was the advice of ACPO followed in the commissioning of this report, and does the Minister consider that
use of that report, as detailed in the Napier report, was consistent with best practice and has it damaged relations with the Metropolitan Police?”

This was a brilliant question and the deputy of st mary pulled ILM apart. Also today the two clowns started bringing in the gold group as some kind of suspension excuse. Lies, Lies and damn Lies and these two clown are drowning in them

rs

Anonymous said...

I do not recall reading anything about the Gold Group in Graham Power's suspension review, but maybe I missed it.

Does anyone else remember anything?

rico sorda said...

"We didnt get any nearer in finding out what was said in that secret email from TLS to Deputy Hill (oral question 10), except that it was something to do with the CE (Ogley).

The Bailiff was very quick to move on to the next question."

I don't have a clue what is in that email but I don't think it takes a genius to work it out.

TLS wouldn't release Napier because of possible disciplinary action, the only one still in office is Teflon Bill. I would guess its along those lines but lets hope we find out.

What the hell are' Team Law Office' doing lol

rs

rico sorda said...

"I do not recall reading anything about the Gold Group in Graham Power's suspension review, but maybe I missed it."

Like i said its getting very very desperate

rs

Anonymous said...

TJW,

Hope you recorded those most cringeworthy moment today?

rico sorda said...

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd NOVEMBER 2010

Question

Would the Chief Minister confirm whether the ACPO team provided reports from January 2008 on the progress of their mentoring and guidance of the Haut de la Garenne inquiry to the Chief
Executive to the Council of Ministers and the then Chief Minister, and if so, would the Chief Minister advise Members of the dates of those meetings and undertake to publish the minutes?

Answer

The ACPO team did not provide any reports to either the then Chief Minister or the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers.

There was one informal meeting on 7th March 2008 when the Home Affairs Minister invited the Chief Minister and Chief Executive to meet two ACPO officers who were undertaking the review of the Police investigation. The ACPO team provided a brief verbal presentation of their findings. No papers were presented, nor notes taken.

The only written information that was presented to the Chief Minister and Chief Executive about the ACPO review was contained in a letter dated 12th June from the Home Affairs Minister to the Chief Minister. It contained the following information:

“I am not an expert in criminal investigation and therefore have sought advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales (ACPO) who have appointed an independent group of experts to audit the investigation against recommended best practice and to
prepare reports with comments and recommendations. I have already studied two reports and a third is being studied by my Assistant Minister. On the basis of the reports I have seen so far I am
satisfied that best practice is being followed and that recommendations are being acted upon.”

Just for readers

Home Affairs Minister was Wendy Kinnard

Assistant Minister was Andrew Lewis

What letter was that then said...

Wiltshire Police are investigating Graham Powers suspension

A senior UK police officer has raised concerns about the suspension of Jersey's chief of police.

Mr Power was suspended eight weeks ago so Wiltshire Police could investigate how he conducted an investigation into child abuse in Jersey.

But Gloucestershire Chief Constable, Dr Timothy Brain, said there should be a review because Mr Power was not warned before his suspension.

Jersey States said the correct procedures were followed.

Suspending a chief officer in England and Wales is a very rare occurrence... few have returned successfully to carry out their mandate

Gloucestershire Chief Constable, Dr Timothy Brain
Dr Brain, who is representing Mr Power on behalf of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA), claims the disciplinary procedure was breached and wants Jersey States to hold a review of the way the suspension was carried out.

He told BBC News: "Suspending a chief officer in England and Wales is a very rare occurrence.

"When it happens there is a big consequence and if you look at the historical precedence in England and Wales then few have returned successfully to carry out their mandate."

Andrew Lewis, who was Jersey's home affairs minister at the time of the suspension, said procedures were followed to the letter.

Anonymous said...

What letter was that then? Love your user name and What letter was that.

rico sorda said...

Regarding Bob Hills confidential email its not rocket science listening to the question on the Jersey Way

Terry tells Bob that Teflon BIll has will be disciplined, someone tells terry he is laking shit, it all gets dropped, terry says lets all go to bed and let it brush over.

Terry is Teflon Bills lapdog how many times do we need to say it

rs

Anonymous said...

Whether the meeting on 7 March 2008 was informal or not. Minutes should have been taken.

Anonymous said...

Its more than disciple than needs to be taken. Procedures were not followed let alone to the letter.

The public need an explanation, not cover up. I dont want to let this brush over, I am sure those who have had attempts to ruin their reputations would want to see more than someone disciplined they would need to know why?

It is right to want answers. How it happened, who allowed it to happen even who authorised it. all within the middle of a child abuse investigation.

You simply cannot let this be slept on. How about if the reasons are far more sinister? We dont know do we? How about if someone is protecting organised child abuse? who knows Outlandish, maybe. We need answers.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The quest to get the facts into the public domain continues

Anonymous said...

How does David Warcup sleep at night and what other police force is going to want him after what he has done to Grahame Power.

He wont need another job with the payoffs & pensions from here & previous employment he is doing very nicely thank you.

Anonymous said...

Sir, in your post, you said, "On 'Talkback' this morning Christie Tucker the host had no idea that the Wiltshire Report was a Disciplinary report or what that entails,now that is coming from BBC Jersey's political reporter."

Rather astonishing that as a Canadian farmer's wife I could probably do a fairly decent job of explaining it's meaning to your local BBC political reporter! What she may not understand yet is that Wiltshire findings aside, this is about children who were harmed and these reports are part of the attempted minimizing of widespread abuse and the disgusting legal tolerance for corruption. I wonder what she and the other reporters there will say when the abuse and cover up story goes worldwide again. Can the BBC seriously be that blind?

Anonymous said...

"Rather astonishing that as a Canadian farmer's wife I could probably do a fairly decent job of explaining it's meaning to your local BBC political reporter!"

Even more amusing given CT's canuck origins