Sunday, November 7, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 5

























Ian & Terry with their laughing Ass ( This picture will remain until these two clowns start acting in a manner that we should be able to expect from persons in their positions.) 



On Thursday we had the most amazing Q&A in the Jersey Evening Post with Diane Simon asking Chief Minister TLS  11 questions concerning the Napier Report the answers he gave or, rather, didn't give were staggering.  


Now some people would say I have been harsh on TLS & ILM and that I shouldn't call them clowns and I should respect them and the office they hold.  Don't make me laugh.  They are seriously dangerous clowns and it gives me no pleasure in saying it but I'm only judging them on their actions and nothing else.


One of the questions asked by Diane Simon was this



Why wasn't Mr Napier

informed before he agreed to

carry out the report that he

would be required to present it

in the Island to States Members

and the media so they could

question him about his

findings?

'I wanted an independent report

from a suitably qualified person,

and was more interested in

getting the right person who

would address the key terms of

reference. The presentation of

that person's findings was of

secondary relevance. Mr Napier

was invited to present his report

in the Island, but preferred

not to.'



Now the Chief Minister might very well be right on this and we will be finding out but one thing that is very clear to all is that Brian Napier should have presented his report and answered questions. TLS and ILM have both queried Napier's findings and how he reached certain conclusions so lets get him over here and let him explain them.  We are paying £50,000 . I will now reproduce an email between TLS and Deputy Hill



From:    Terry Le Sueur 

Sent:   20 August 2010 08:31

To:     Bob Hill

Cc:     All States Members (including ex officio members); Channel 103; Channel TV; JEP Editorial; JEP Newsdesk; BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV; Spotlight (Spotlight)

Subject:        RE: The Review into the suspension of the Chief Police Officer.

 

 

Dear Bob,

 

Thank you for your further e-mail.       I should just point out that the timescale of 4 to 6 weeks was one stated by Mr Napier (as reported in the JEP), and all that I said was that I hoped it was achievable.       I suggest that you ask Mr. Napier in due course (rather than me) why he has found that the process took longer than he first thought.

I note that you are shortly to go on holiday ( as am I) and I am advised that the final report is not expected to be produced until 10th September at the earliest.      I have asked that Mr Napier be invited to present his report to States members, and again I am advised that he will not be available until the week of 20th September.    I confirm that I have not received Mr Napier's Report, and do not expect to do so prior to 10th September.     I presume that you will be back in the Island by then.

As previously stated, I intend to follow proper practice and await the (first and final) report of Mr. Napier, rather than interfere with the integrity of his findings, and I suggest that you do likewise.

 

Terry Le Sueur



So as you can see Mr Napier has been invited to present his report to states members and has been advised that he is not available until the week of 20th September, so what happened? Did the man who conducted one of the most important reports in recent Jersey History just turn around and say no thanks not my bag work it out amongst yourselves I just find this very hard to believe. We are talking about the suspension of the Chief Police Officer in the middle of a huge Child Abuse Investigation and just weeks after the Attorney General has dropped about 15 Abuse Cases ( hang on have I just answered that). We are trying to find out the exact reason as to why Brian Napier didn't present this report. 


He was free then preferred not to


Also we must take another look at this email between Bob and Terry as it  shows just how crazy it was getting. Napier was onto his second draft and it was the third draft that was made public What got changed and Why. Napier could answer all these questions if he presented his report


rom:    Bob Hill 

Sent:   16 August 2010 11:21

To:     Terry Le Sueur

Cc:     All States Members (including ex officio members); Channel 103; Channel TV; JEP Editorial; JEP Newsdesk; BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV; Spotlight (Spotlight)

Subject:        The Review into the suspension of the Chief Police Officer.

 

Good Morning Terry,

 

Further to our previous emails regarding the review into the suspension process of the Chief Police Officer. Thank you for your letter, the hard copy arrived on Saturday morning.

I am afraid that the letter's contents do not provide the answers to my questions. Also the fact that you now inform me that a second report has been forwarded which you claim you have again not seen is just not acceptable. You and I should be seeing what is being submitted. I again remind you that you agreed that I would be involved with the ongoing work of the Commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report. The fact that you now say that a second report has been forwarded which you have not seen or informed me of is turning your promise to me into a farce. The perception of openness is paramount, the fact that the reports are being sent to and acted upon be a civil servant who is directly answerable to his boss who is apparently deeply implicated in the suspension is just not acceptable because of the civil servant's conflict of interest,I have asked that when the Commission is next in the Island he should avoid the period when I am on leave. He should now be close to finalising his Report therefore it is imperative that we meet him to discuss it and ensure that it is line with the Terms of Reference as shown in the Council of Ministers Coms (3) to my P9/2010 and agreed upon by the States on 24th February as an alternative to my Committee of Enquiry. Therefore his review should include the information relating to Mr Power's Affidavit and whether the Commissioner should highlight any areas where, in his opinion, sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the interest of open government, a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner of Mr Power's suspension. I am concerned that those parts of the review may be omitted as they were not included in R39/2010.

I have asked for copies of the Interim/Progress or whatever name you choose to give to Mr Napier's reports and the dates when the copies were requested. I also ask that when the Commissioner returns to the Island he does so when I am not away. I look forward to a positive response.

States Members, the public and the media are concerned about the delay in the publication of Report which you said would be a much quicker and simpler process than that required by formation of a Committee of Inquiry. Clearly this has not been the case, therefore in the public's interest I am copying this email to all States Members and the media so they are updated.

I shall also send a copy to the Commissioner




How many of you read the Q&A with Diane Simon and thought the Chief Minister knew what he was talking about and came out with flying colors? ( Dude don't bother you have your own blog ). I will now publish some Anonymous comments left on the VFC blog because I thought it nailed the Q&A 



Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP, where she asks the Chief Minister relevant questions and where the responses often evade the questions altogether.

Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

DS: The suspension of former police chief Graham Power was carried out in a way which the Napier Report said was unfair to Mr Power, was against the advice from the Law Officer's department, and led to the spending of £1 million in taxpayer's money. Why do you believe that the Island should now move on without taking any further steps?

TLS: 'One can't get back the £1 million which was spent as a result of the delay in the Wiltshire Report (into Mr Power's supervision of the historical child abuse inquiry) coming out with its findings. I remain convinced that the suspension was carried out at the time for valid reasons ( He really must start explaining this). Subsequent events have confirmed this.'
------
The relative question was 'Why do you believe that the Island should now move on without taking any further steps', in the context of taking action against any civil servant for errors in not following the correct procedures proceeding the suspension of Graham Power.

- NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

a) One can't get back the £1 million which was spent
b) I remain convinced that the suspension was carried out at the time for valid reasons
c) Subsequent events have confirmed this

My conclusion: Question was not answered.


Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP, where she asks the Chief Minister relevant questions and where the responses often evade the questions altogether.

Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

DS: Do you not think that Islanders are entitled to be told what steps are going to be taken in view of the report's findings?

TLS: 'I think the public are above all disappointed that the reputation of the Island may have been unfairly tarnished. However, the police officer in overall command at the time is no longer a
member of the force, and no disciplinary process could usefully be pursued against him. I acknowledge that it was not Mr Power's fault that time ran out. It is disappointing to me that although the Wiltshire Report was thorough, it took so long to finalise. As we have seen with the Napier Report, reports often take longer than first envisaged.'
---------
The relative context was within the procedures leading up to Graham Power's suspension.


- NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

a) I think the public are above all disappointed that the reputation of the Island may have been unfairly tarnished.
b) the police officer in overall command at the time is no longer a member of the force, and no disciplinary process could usefully be pursued against him.
c) I acknowledge that it was not Mr Power's fault that time ran out.
d) It is disappointing to me that although the Wiltshire Report was thorough......

My conclusion: Question was not answered - furthermore (b), the report was no about whether disciplinary action should be taken on Graham Power and the question wasn't aimed at that.

This one really sums up where we are and the protection be offered to Teflon Bill by the Chief Minister and Team Law Office.


Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

DS-Q4: As States chief executive Bill Ogley is the Islands most senior civil servant, would it not be appropriate if Islanders and States Members were informed whether he is going to be disciplined for mistakes which Napier pointed out he made over the suspension?

TLS-A4: 'I said in my response to the States that any disciplinary inquiries are carried out in a way which preserves the integrity and confidentiality of the process. I have taken such action as was necessary in light of Mr Napier's findings, and I appreciate the independent external review which Mr Napier brought. I have considered the disciplinary issues which arose from the report and taken all such actions as were appropriate in the light of those findings, but I do not intend to comment publicly on that issue in the same way as I would act for other public employees. The States chief executive deserves the same respect as other States employees, and even more respect. He is in charge of the whole civil service, and has respect for other States employees. Equally, States Members have a particular duty of responsibility and courtesy to him.'
----------
My conclusion: Question was answered, although it poses other questions, such as why was Graham Power suspended making it very public, rather than given the 'even more respect' as he was in charge of the entire police force

.............

I would like to thank Anonymous  for the above breakdowns and will be putting more in my comments section.

Now the question that should be asked is has Diane Simon been back in touch with the Chief Minister and pulled him up on his answers? There is something seriously not right with the Law Office.  They are giving advice out left right and centre.  The left hand has no idea what the right is doing.


The Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister cannot offer an apology to the Abuse Survivors or Graham Power and I mean a proper heart felt apology.  No they are hell bent on protecting the stinking cesspit of corruption that is taking our Island into a very deep underpass from which it may never emerge.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

88 comments:

rico sorda said...

I have had some comments come my way about the threats to my Job. If that is all people have then it shows them up for what they are. I have offered people the opportunity to fight their corner on here backed up with evidence and facts I have received nothing. Threats to your place of work was an old trick used my a very well known Jersey Troll in fact I know it did work in some cases...

I mean really what is that going to achieve I will be doing this come what may. I think it says more about them and his blog than it does about the work I do here.

So there you have it.

In a Nutshell

I don't give a Shit, but I know a man who does.

rs

Anonymous said...

"I have asked that Mr Napier be invited to present his report to States members, and again I am advised that he will not be available until the week of 20th September. I confirm that I have not received Mr Napier's Report, and do not expect to do so prior to 10th September"

Did Napier really refuse. Can you let us know what you find out concerning this as it sounds very strange indeed.The email on Talkback was well funny and I think the blogs are doing a great job

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There can be no other option other than to get Brian Napier over here to explain his Report. What the e-mail exchange between Terry Le Sueur and Bob Hill appears to demonstrate is just how much Bob Hill was kept out of the loop, contrary to Terry's promise that he would have complete oversight of the Napier Report(s) and investigation.

A possibly highly conflicted Civil Servant gets to see the original drafts, and the politician who is supposed to have complete oversight doesn't! How does that work?????????

I am glad you used the anonymous comments that were on my Blog with the analyses of the Diane (Shackles) Simon and TLS Q&A. It is a great analyses and deserved to be highlighted on a Blog of their own.

Hopefully the anonymous author of them will leave us a screen name so he/she can take some credit.

Anonymous said...

TLS-A4: ''I said in my response to the States that any disciplinary inquiries are carried out in a way which preserves the integrity and confidentiality of the process''

The process of Napier was concluded with the final report we are past confidentiality with regard disciplinary action being taken against Mr. Bill Ogley. Disciplinary action cannot effect the outcome of any process concluded. Is TLS not giving more respect to Mr. Ogley than he deserved for his actions as reported in Napiers conclusion?

Anonymous said...

This statement from TLS is designed to make people think Brian Napier was going to be presenting his report after sept the 20th. " I have asked that Mr Napier be invited to present his report to States members, and again I am advised that he will not be available until the week of 20th September."

Then we get Le Sueur saying Napier doesn't want to come over. Its all smoke and mirrors and certainly no way to conduct an open goverment. TLS has to go and he can take that Ian Le Marquand with him. The pair of them are a disgrace to democracy and a disgrace to justice.

Anonymous said...

Why is Terry so scared of bill ogley? Has Ogley seen the Blast files? Terry is hell bent on sheltering Ogley from any blame WHY? and GET NAPIER OVER HERE

THE LAW OFFICES said...

Nice to see the politicions taking the rap for our dirty work. WE ARE UNTOUCHABLE.

rico sorda said...

"I wanted an independent report
from a suitably qualified person,
and was more interested in
getting the right person who
would address the key terms of
reference"

So the Deputy Chief Executive and Brian Napier decided to drop part (d)
of the terms of reference. Are we now saying that its ok for civil servants to change propositions passed in the house without bringing it back to the States Chamber? Now this is a serious question and must be answered.

Is there anybody out there who knows the Law on this. Can a civil servant change TOR that have been passed in the house

rs

Anonymous said...

Ogley's position is wholly untenable if Le Sewer doesn't get rid of him by way of sacking and not the Pollard golden handshake then Le Sewer will have to go although he should be gone just for what he has done to Grahame Power and Skippy should go with him.

Anonymous said...

Put simpler. Is it ok to lie in the States Chamber.?

Anonymous said...

This is from VFC blog site and it regards the TOR being changed. Nothing of what TLS is saying is making any sense. How can the DCE be handling reports that contain damning evidence on his boss and others.


I was able to talk with Deputy Hill briefly and this was the gist of our chat.

On 14th April, R39 was lodged, no one noticed that the part with reviewing the Affidavit had been taken out, Deputy Hill was never consulted.

In Mid July after Warcup had indicated his retirement and Chief Minister’s Department had published the redacted Wiltshire Report, Deputy Hill thought there must be something going on with the Napier Report so started checking.

Anonymous said...

He went through R39 and was annoyed that he had not noticed the deletion of part (d). He circulated a number of emails to Terry Le Sueur (that I am in possession of) which was before the Napier publication asking if Napier was working to COMS (3) or R39. I.e. the original TOR or the doctored TOR. Terry continued to ignore this question. On 17th September when Deputy Hill was given the Napier Report he noticed the deletion and tackled both TLS and John Richardson who said that it must have accidentally left out of the TOR as he (Deputy Hill) had not had time to read the Report at the time and said he would be in touch when he had read it. On reading it he has continued to ask via emails but has been ignored. Readers might have seen the answers given to Deputy Hill’s Oral Question. The Chamber has been mis led because the TOR were published on 14th April which was a week before Graham Power QPM had confirmed that he was willing to participate. Whether Mr. Power QPM had agreed or not there was still no need to delete part (d). One can understand it being deleted because it narrowed the scope of the Review and reduced the need to interview, Lenny Harper, Wendy Kinnard, Paul Le Claire and the Civil Servants who were mentioned in the Affidavit and might have been able to give “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust Mr. Power QPM and possibly much more.

Ian Evans said...

( This picture will remain until these two clowns start acting in a manner that we should be able to expect from persons in their positions.)

We sure are going to be seeing a lot more of this picture then!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"On 17th September when Deputy Hill was given the Napier Report he noticed the deletion and tackled both TLS and John Richardson who said that it must have accidentally left out of the TOR"

"Accidently left out"!! This is the sheer contempt that these people show the public, not only of Jersey, but the public at large. This is the sort of sh1te that we are expected to swallow.

"Accidently left out"!! priceless..............just bl--dy priceless.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion Blatent cover up. Keeping it simple.

Anonymous said...

http://www.hastiestable.com/Advocates.aspx?Id=8

Link should anyone want to contact Mr. Napier.

Anonymous said...

Rico, in an earlier comment that was taken from the VFC blog that said this. "One can understand it being deleted because it narrowed the scope of the Review and reduced the need to interview, Lenny Harper, Wendy Kinnard, Paul Le Claire and the Civil Servants". What has Paul Le Claire got to do with it? Is that the deputy or senator le claire? I have trouble with keeping up with everything so sorry if its a stupid question and hope you can answer it.

rico sorda said...

So this is what Terry said on the 19th October 2010

.9 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference relating to the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police’s sworn affidavit:

Will the Chief Minister inform Members why part (d) of the Terms of Reference relating to the former Police Chief’s sworn affidavit and published in the comments to P.9/2010 and in the Jersey Evening Post on 26th March 2010 was removed from the Napier Report, and who was responsible and, given the affidavit’s relevance to the suspension, why Members were not party to the decision to amend the terms?

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

The original terms of reference were drafted at the time when it was not known whether the pervious Chief Officer of Police would participate in the review. As such, paragraph (d) deals in certain terms of reference as this sworn affidavit was a significant document available in the public domain that put across his version of events. When it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, Mr. Napier felt that he would be able to obtain all of the necessary information from the Chief Officer through formal interview. Prior to the detailed investigation commencing, Mr. Napier discussed the relevance of the paragraph with the Deputy Chief Executive, who was overseeing the investigation on my behalf, and they agreed it was no longer required since the copy of the full affidavit was provided to Mr. Napier as part of his original briefing. Mr. Napier makes 3 references to the affidavit in his report, and I am totally satisfied that any relevant detail contained in the affidavit was fully considered by Mr. Napier in compiling his final report.

rico sorda said...

So what we need is the date of the email terry sent bob saying the TOR was left out by mistake.

The date graham power decided he was legally able to speak to Brian Napier.

We have terry telling us this

"Prior to the detailed investigation commencing, Mr. Napier discussed the relevance of the paragraph with the Deputy Chief Executive, who was overseeing the investigation on my behalf, and they agreed it was no longer required since the copy of the full affidavit was provided to Mr. Napier as part of his original briefing"

And then we can ask terry what the truth really is

rico sorda said...

Deputy Le Claire

rs

Ian Evans said...

Time to REMEMBER the halfwits.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Could someone provide a hyperlink to the contact, above, for Mr. Napier? It would be of interest to those students who are still analyzing the local press coverage of his report. If you don't mind, several students have questions of their own to ask Mr. Napier.

By the way, some recent articles in the Jersey Evening Post significantly skewed our students' carefully researched statistics for reporting bias!

O.C.R.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Here is part of a reply I gave to Rob on THIS post.

"But more curiously is where TLS’s answer does not ring true. Terry said “The original terms of reference were drafted at the time when it was not known whether the pervious Chief Officer of Police would participate in the review.”

He (TLS) goes on to say.

“When it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, Mr. Napier felt that he would be able to obtain all of the necessary information from the Chief Officer through formal interview.”

Now the amended TOR with “d” having disappeared were submitted in “R39/2010” and that was on the 14th of April 2010. But Graham Power didn’t speak to Napier until the 13th OF MAY! So the TOR were in fact altered STILL without anybody knowing if Graham Power QPM was going to participate or not. So Terry Le Sueur’s timeline and sequence of events, along with his explanation just don’t stack up.

Hope this helps."

Anonymous said...

OCR

If you post the provided link in the browser address bar the page will come up.

Underneath Mr. Napiers photo is a contact email link.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

VFC has asked if I post these comments here as they were posted on an old posting of his. They are excellent and post them I will

has-the-question-been-answered said...
Copied from Diane Simon's report in the JEP.

Brian Napier QC concluded that there were insufficient grounds for the suspension.

DS-Q9: Do you agree with Napier's findings that more effort should have been made earlier by those involved in the suspension to discuss their concerns with Mr Power to try to resolve the matter?

TLS-A9: 'Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident. However, initial steps were taken to resolve this issue, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy.'

My conclusion: Question was not answered

a) Looking at a situation as it develops is always an issue, not just in this incident.

is it not called employment law, an employee is pulled into the 'office' for a chat about certain conduct etc.., which any company would ensure they held minutes' for, Were there any?

b) 'initial steps were taken to resolve this issue'

I fail to understand what TLS means, as Mr Napier states, 'There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse enquiry. Too much reliance was placed on information coming from one source, Mr David Warcup.'

c) 'with the benefit of hindsight, it is often possible that more should have been done in pursuit of that policy'

Hindsight was not required, not abiding by established procedures or best employment practice was the problem. TLS response, just pure waffle.

Napier Report:
80. It has been represented to me that there was nothing wrong in the administration preparing for possible outcomes, and I accept that is so as a matter of principle. But nevertheless there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October. And as at 26 September there was even less to warrant disciplinary proceedings being contemplated. There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis........

7 November 2010 20:26

rico sorda said...

Napier Report:

80. It has been represented to me that there was nothing wrong in the administration preparing for possible outcomes, and I accept that is so as a matter of principle. But nevertheless there was little objective basis for planning such precautionary measures as at 10 October. And as at 26 September there was even less to warrant disciplinary proceedings being contemplated. There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis. While it is true that DS Gladwell was expressing to Mr Warcup criticisms of how the enquiry had been handled, the main thrust of his comments was directed at DCO Harper, and only by implication at Mr Power. The Gold Group meetings were producing material that could certainly be read as critical of the running of the enquiry but again there was little directly that pointed to what had been done, or not done personally by Mr Power, as opposed to Mr Harper. Mr Warcup himself was expressing his views that things had not been properly done in briefings to Mr Lewis, but if these criticisms were, as Mr Warcup and others maintained, carefully expressed so as not to amount to personal criticisms of Mr Power, then equally they were not a proper basis for taking action which was directly related to alleged lack of competence on the part of Mr Power himself, especially when they any disciplinary action or act of suspension was bound to have serious consequences.

Ian Evans said...

Mr Napier?

Anonymous said...

''There was, apart from a general public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) had been handled, only Mr Warcup’s criticisms of the management of the inquiry contained in his briefings to Mr Lewis''

Where did Mr. Napier get his briefings that there was public dissatisfaction about how things (particularly media policy) from?

Who gave that particular briefings to Mr. Napier. This is too close to the concerns for Jerseys reputation for me.

rico sorda said...

.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

I will be asking question 23, which I did not have a chance to ask. Given that the Chief Minister stated that the initial suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, which was heavily criticised in the Napier Report, was justified in the light of the Wiltshire Report submitted a year earlier, can he confirm whether the ends justifies the means is now an accepted principle of his administration and, if so, which other areas will this be applied to?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I believe the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police was correct at the time but I am also pleased that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse that decision. Accordingly, I make it clear that I have full confidence in all those involved in coming to the decision to suspend at that time.

4.8.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

A supplementary, if I may? It seems to me that Napier said that at the time there was not sufficient evidence either way to determine whether or not the suspension was justified, irrespective of what may have happened in hindsight. So can the Minister just confirm or reiterate that statement, because I do not think that is true?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes. I am totally satisfied that on the basis of the information that I am aware of, there was good reason - justifiable reason - for the decision to suspend the Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008.


Sheer madness & no one gives a sh*t lol

Mention school fee's then bloody hell game on

rs

Anonymous said...

O.C.R

What sort of questions are your students sending to Napier?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes. I am totally satisfied that on the basis of the information that I am aware of, there was good reason - justifiable reason - for the decision to suspend the Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008."

The complete opposite to what Napier said. No wonder TLS is in no hurry to get Napier over here to present his Report, that might just get in the way of "the party line".......Just priceless!

Anonymous said...

So TLS wants to ignore the FUNDAMENTAL findings of Napier, re: the suspension and procedures, but hangs his hat very heavily on the area that was not within the remit, CONSPIRACY!

Strange how he believes the part that was never fully investigated, but does not believe what was investigated in detail.

[As previously stated, I intend to follow proper practice and await the (first and final) report of Mr. Napier, rather than interfere with the integrity of his findings, and I suggest that you do likewise.]

However, it appear that TLS is effectively undermining Mr Napier's integrity, by stating as he has 'there was good reason - justifiable reason - for the decision to suspend the Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008.'
because Mr Napier did not believe so.

I join the band that ask TLS to explain what evidence has Mr Napier not been told about that would prove TLS has not been misleading the States and the Public?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mr Napier might wish to come over NOW, if he knew that TLS was challenging the integrity of Mr Napier's report.

rico sorda said...

This is why I will keep that picture of TLS and ILM going until they start acting with some Truth, Honesty & Integrity. Its a joke a complete and utter joke what these two are up to, and allowed to get away with.

I emailed Brian Napier on saturday with an honest and straight forward question I will share any response I get with you. He may or may not reply but we have to ask the question.

Why didn't you present your report

rs

rico sorda said...

"I believe the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police was correct at the time but I am also pleased that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse that decision. Accordingly, I make it clear that I have full confidence in all those involved in coming to the decision to suspend at that time."

When has "I believe" come into it? As far as I know we are asking for statements of fact from the chief minister. Now 'I believe' TLS is a clown but least im backing it up with evidence and fact what is TLS backing his "I believe up with. How the bloody hell does he get to that point is beyond crazy and people ask why we are heading into a black bloody hole.

Can someone please come on here and defend TLS & ILM but please do it with some documented evidence

rs

Anonymous said...

I would like to hear a question in the States along the lines of

Mr. Le Sueur we are all now aware of your beliefs in the suspension of Mr. Power in the middle of a child abuse investigation. Could we now have answers with justifiable facts to questions asked.

has-the-question-been-answered said...

"I believe the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police was correct at the time but I am also pleased that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse that decision."

Okay, lets look at it this way, the Wiltshire report was not about the procedures leading up to the suspension, so as far as I'm aware, it did not endorse the decisions.

As we know the Wiltshire Disciplinary Review was never allowed to be challenged by Graham Power, but TLS has interpreted from that review, that has to be his belief, that it endorsed the suspension. WRONG!!!

It may have given some strong reasons to challenge the ex-Police Chief with, nothing else.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Still searching for The Real Chief Minister

Anonymous said...

Why did Jersey taxpayers have to pay for Wiltshire report and Napier report.

I suppose what I am asking is, if Chief Ministers wanted rid of Graham Power as a fall guy for what they saw as damaging Jerseys reputation and secret meeting had been taking place.

Then, Were these reports a part of the sham to cover up behaviour of Ministers involved in these secret meeting a sort of distraction to put focus onto Mr. Powers behaviour rather than their own actions?

Anonymous said...

We plan to have a third party submit selected student questions electronically to Mr. Napier. We are primarily interested in Mr. Napier's opinion of Jersey press coverage of his report, referencing that of the local BBC and Channel Online. Although less related to our current curriculum, we would be interested in Mr. Napier's take on the Jersey Chief Minister's interpretation of the Report, and will ask him if he believes the Minister requires further clarification of the findings.

O.C.R.

Ian Evans said...

Please pass THIS on, thank you.

Anonymous said...

Rico

We should again clarify that our curriculum is not designed to specifically "study" Jersey. We do use the examples of several countries to demonstrate that in all it's forms, participatory democracy only thrives when there is a high level of critical thinking by an informed and engaged electorate. Nevertheless, our students probably know a great deal more about Jersey's politics than they do about our close neighbor Canada's, and they are quite passionate about your own quest for truth.

Our course introduction includes a presumption that we humans are often too biased to see with clear eyes what is right before us, that we filter information in a perhaps subconscious emotional manner to cling to our critically unexamined world views. We try to treat our own innate bias and "tribalism" as a given part of the universal human condition, but a part which can be improved upon through careful examination of our prejudices and by learning to think critically about what we are fed by the media.

We hope our students will be better prepared to identify and evaluate facts while living in a world increasingly dominated by a powerful and highly commercialized information industry. Our students are racially, economically and politically diverse, but they all share an exceptional intellectual potential and curiosity about the world around them and see themselves as seekers of truth, even while struggling against their own bias.

They also accept that a similarly close examination of our own local and national government's political "spin" could make our class too controversial for acceptance by parents, administrators and perhaps even some students themselves. We believe we could not view our own political environment as objectively as we can someone else's.

Our entire liberal arts program is multi-modal, which requires us to combine several academic courses, including civics, political science, history and journalism. In our civics unit especially, one secondary theme has repeatedly dominated the Jersey observations, and that is the subject of "remedy." There seems to be no automatic "remedy" available for some types of civic injustice, which appears to be directly related to Jersey acceptance of secrecy in government meetings.

So far, from our research examples of several governments, Jersey stands alone among all but the least democratic countries in the use of secret government meetings to determine so much of the citizen quality of life, even the rather mundane. We understand that the remedy for failures by politicians is the ballot box. But, because the unelected Jersey Civil Service leadership is so closely allied with the political leadership in these secret meetings, we do not yet understand whether or not any theoretical constitutional type remedy even exists against civil service abuses.

When asked who holds the most power on the Island of Jersey, the number one student response was, "The heads of the Civil Service." We have selected the protection of Civil Servants as a "most likely motive" for many controversial secret meetings even though we recognize multiple motives, such as Jersey's international reputation, may be equally significant.

This ties in to the Napier Report because we are discussing the idea that a constitutional "remedy" would, in most democracies, trump what the Chief Minister considers "resolution," as he tries to put the Napier Report and related controversies behind him.

O.C.R.

rico sorda said...

O.C.R

Thanks for your comments.

I have just taken a little step back these past couple of days, put my head into some research and will be ready to go again soon. We will keep the pressure on as this goes to the very heart of jersey society and what we are as a society.

If you would like to forward some questions I will put them in a blog posting and lets see if we can get them answered

rs

Mrs Emily Bakewell said...

WTF's going down? Academics on the other side of the planet are saying that their research shows that Jersey is one of the least democratic countries in the world hen it comes to the use of secret meetings!

Le Sueur - just go home to the wife and put the kettle on. Your'e finished. There is no legacy. You've been an unmitigated disaster. A total let down. An embarassment. Jog on you mug!

Ian Evans said...

Some BAD NEWS for Paedophiles and great news for victims.

Anonymous said...

I am looking forward to the questions from the US students. Thank you for taking an interest in this septic isle.

Hymie said...

Keep up the good work Rico and warm greetings to our American cousins.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to some questions from the US students. But I might not be able to answer them, because I am a very busy man and time is money.

Must dash.

Brian Napier.

rico sorda said...

lol did he have Jersey in mind when he said " time is money" gave me a chuckle thou.

There are so many points that we will be looking at over the coming months, this whole sorry saga needs piecing together.

TLS's blind devotion to Teflon Bill Ogley

ILM'S blind devotion to Dave "the wizard" Warcup

This will be based on evidenced fact.

When I started this blog in April I had no idea how it would go or if anyone would read it, I can honestly say I have been amazed at the response. There is so much work that goes into blogging, one of the main things being "make sure you know your subject matter".

I have never had a problem being challenged on what I blog just as long as its backed up with some evidence. Gone are the day where Im posting jons comments saying " show me the evidence" " no one reads it anymore" "stuart this, stuart that, its all stuarts fault" you get my drift , he has his blog, there he can stay.

Team Voice had a meeting today and we have decided on Zero Tolerance. No comments from that chap unless he backs it up with some facts. The reason for this is simple the issues are just far to serious and we cant be side tracked.

From here on in the real work starts

Research, Research and more Research

Team Voice has never been so committed

No giving up

rs

rico sorda said...

16TH NOVEM STATES SITTING

1. The Deputy of Grouville will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that during Oral Question Time on 3rd February 2009 the Chief Minister said that he would endeavour to find out whether there were written guidelines or policies relating to the taking of notes at suspensions and the shredding of those notes before the typewritten minutes were agreed, will he inform Members whether such guidelines exist and, if they do not, will he state why no guidelines have been implemented?”

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

“Given that on 12th October 2010 the Chief Minister informed Members that disciplinary action would be dealt with through normal procedures, will he inform Members whether disciplinary action has been taken in relation to the Napier findings, and if so, what has been the outcome?"

4. Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about the altering of the Napier Terms of Reference, the Chief Minister advised that they were altered when it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, will the Minister inform Members how this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when this was received?”

GeeGee said...

Good on you Rico/Team Voice. You and Stuart have been very tolerant of the multiple alias man/men, and as you quite rightly say there is never a credible arguement or proof to back up what he/they say.

With a blog of their own to spout their bile and hatred, there is no need to allow any of that on here.

I can only imagine that the collective age of contributors to 'that' blog amounts to no more than 10, excepting of course the oldie politicians who we suspect are involved.

Upwards and onwards Team Voice!

rico sorda said...

10. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister confirm that Mr Napier was invited to come to Jersey to present his report to States Members and, if so, will he state when this was and why he has not yet come over?”



16. Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“In view of the fact that during oral question time on 30th June 2009, the Chief Minister agreed that States Members should apologise when they make allegations against individuals that are not substantiated, will the Chief Minister inform Members whether he has asked the Minister for Home Affairs to apologise for allegations made against the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, and, if not why not?”

rico sorda said...

25. Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“What specific justification does the Chief Minister have for his statement in the Assembly on 12th October 2010 that he was ‘quite satisfied that the suspension was the correct thing to do’ when the Napier report makes it clear that sections 1, 3, and 4 of the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police were not followed?”



This is followed by a 15 minute 'Questions without answers' period with the Home Affairs Minister

rico sorda said...

P.162/2010.

Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force: appointment.
Lodged: 26th October 2010.
Minister for Home Affairs.
(To be conducted in camera)


p166/2010

Napier Report into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police: action on findings.
Lodged: 27th October 2010.
Deputy of St. Martin.

rico sorda said...

Written Questions


21. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Does the Chief Minister accept in full the findings and conclusions of the Napier report which he commissioned and, if not, would he set out in detail the specific elements which he does not accept?”


22. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that the Napier Report states (paragraph 32) “Reports from that group (the Gold Group, on which the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers had his own representative) tended to indicate that there had been serious failings in the investigation carried out under the direction of (the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police)”, can the Chief Minister inform members who that representative was and further provide members with any evidence of the reports mentioned in this paragraph?”


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

“In the light of the Chief Minister’s statement that he believes that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police, can the Minister:

(a) provide members with the press statements released by the States of Jersey Police relating to any one of the major elements disputed during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, in order, and the full recordings of audio and video interviews?

(b) provide members with the 93 page statement provided by the former Chief of Police to the Wiltshire inquiry?

(c) supply evidence for the assertion that ACPO had a “policy of only making recommendations to which [the then Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer of Police] had signalled prior approval?

(d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?

(e) provide members with the final version of the Wiltshire Report, redacted as necessary but with as much as possible of the missing 270 pages, which the Minister promised to issue to me by “early September” in his email of 3rd August 2010?”



23. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Can the Chief Minister explain the inconsistencies between his written answer on 2nd November 2010, in which he stated that there were no notes taken at an informal meeting held 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, and the second ACPO report which states in Paragraph 4 that the said meeting had been convened at the request of the then Chief Minister and a written record of the meeting was available?”

Anonymous said...

Not only good Written Questions form Deputy of St Mary but oral questions 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, & 25 by good Deputies.
Then questions without notice to ILM then TLS.
Then to finish off what should be a history making States Sitting next Tuesday.
P162 2010!

Mr Napier hope you are not too busy to be listening.

Anonymous said...

Rico

Could you or one of your readers please tell us what legal obligation the Chief Minister has to answer the questions by the Deputies and what is supposed to happen if he does not answer them properly?

a student in the OCR

rico sorda said...

OCR

Very good question and will find out for you. Im sure it will be under standing orders somewhere, will run it past some deputies and see what comes up.

Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the suspension of Graham Power and the Child Abuse Cover-Up.

Do we have the answers yet?

Are we any wiser?

Thats why the questions keep coming

rs

Anonymous said...

Are Deputies Labey, Pitman, Hill, Tadier, and Wimbley, going to be accused of making next Tuesday.
GROUNDHOG DAY!!!?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Rico

Could you or one of your readers please tell us what legal obligation the Chief Minister has to answer the questions by the Deputies and what is supposed to happen if he does not answer them properly?

a student in the OCR"



STATES OF JERSEY

Code of Conduct for Ministers

Presented to the States on 10th February 2006
by the Council of Ministers

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members in conducting public business.

Additionally, Ministers will be expected to comply with the following principles of ministerial conduct –

i. Ministers have a duty to the States to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their department and any agencies for which their department has responsibility.

ii. It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the States, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the States will be expected to offer their resignation to the Chief Minister.

iii. Ministers should be as open as possible with the States, scrutiny committees and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and codes of access to information.

These procedural guidelines apply to the Chief Minister in the same way as to other Ministers.

Any infringements of the ‘Code of Conduct for Ministers’ must be reported to the Council of Ministers, and the Council will determine an appropriate penalty. In extreme cases of non-compliance, this penalty may consist of bringing a proposition to the States calling for the dismissal of the Minister concerned.

rico sorda said...

The " FSLM" will be in full swing next week looking over at their bungling leader and waiting for the command to stamp their feet like rabid followers of some crazy occult. It is these feeble states members who pay no attention to evidence that are doing our Island no favors what so ever.

We need and demand answers

Everyone should listen to the debate next week and if you cant im sure the JERSEY WAY will have it up online

rs

Anonymous said...

Deputy of St. Brelade
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Helier
Deputy of Grouville

To all the Deputies asking questions please stick with it we are all waiting on the answers.

Quote. Daniel Moynihan.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Anonymous said...

I am going to treat myself to a new radio especially to hear Tuesdays debate.

Is it channel 103fm looking for ideas for Christmas fund raising ideas?

How about debating partie event. Tea and biscuits invite a few friends. Big radio on table during question time. Will 103 go for it?

Umbika Jesus Masukela said...

One things for sure. Terry's going to have a crap day in the office on Tuesday. Why's he putting himself through this? It could all have been so different. I bet his missus is furious!

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

Thanks for pulling the Ministers Code of Conduct

Someone pin it to the door of the chamber so it reminds them of their duty to other members and joe public. Lets hope we don't have TLS coming out with his favorite two phrases

"To the best of my Knowledge"

"I believe"

Lets see how many times he uses these. Now as you can see the questions have been passed and are now lodged for the next states sitting that means the Civil Servants now have time to find the answers and brief the minister for tuesday. So, lets have no guess work from TLS lets have proper statements of fact, will we get them?

That is now the job of the politicians asking the questions

Make sure you get the answers

rs

rico sorda said...

Cover-Up Day

November 12th 2008 was the official Cover-UP day in my own humble opinion and always will be. That is the day that these bunch of lawless cowboys officially closed down the Abuse Investigation, trashed all the previous work, showed no compassion for the Abuse Survivors, still haven't shown any compassion for the Abuse Survivors.

This was all done with Advise been given by Team Law office

With the complete backing of a Toxic local media and with certain States Members lacking any kind of moral fiber

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Unhappy Anniversary (2)

GeeGee said...

These are excellent questions by good deputies who deserve straight, honest answers, as indeed we all do.

Terry, please stop taking us all for fools because the biggest one emerging from all this is you.

Truth said...

RICO

Did you hear Gazza on the radio talkback programe yesterday.He was talking about zero ten. Have a listen on the i player will send link later

Anonymous said...

ii. It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the States, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the States will be expected to offer their resignation to the Chief Minister.

Oh dear. Rico can you point out if TLS has Knowingly misled the house.

Anonymous said...

That should be most of them out on their arses then.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the quick answers! You have great resourses.

OK, we have the Code of Maybe VERY Ideal Conduct. It sounds like they have to behave well or either do the honorable thing and resign or their peers will require them to. What if they do not? What then? Who gets to decide the penalty? Is there a remedy? This is our big area of concentration when we compare governments.

OCR student

The Truth said...

Rico

This is the link bbc jersey i player

Gazza comes on at 29mins. The only thing missing from this piece is that he forgets to threaten your job.

Anonymous said...

"Resignations must be offered to The Chief Minister".
But who does the Chief Minister offer HIS resignation to?

It just won't happen will it?

He would survive another no confidence vote. There is absolutely no one to accept his resignation. And there is no chance of him ever resigning....

Think about it?!

Anonymous said...

OCR

Does that stand for Office for Civil Rights?

Anonymous said...

This is far, far more than just a Chief Minister needing to resign.

The hardest part is believing it possible in 2010.

Anonymous said...

That is what is being said: The Chief Minister will not and cannot resign under any circumstances.
It is not possible.

Anonymous said...

Dear TLS

In the context (your favourite words) are given when trying to answer questions please let me help you out.

Opinion a 7 letter word nothing more nothing less.

Facts a 5 letter word nothing more nothing less.

Justification is a 13 letter word nothing more nothing less.

I believe is 2 words containing 8 letters nothing more nothing less.

These words all need something to support them this is what Deputies have been repeatedly requesting from you. Is there a problem in providing answers to support this pointless words.

Anonymous said...

If Jon is so clever he should stand for the States himself instead of attacking people such as the Pitmans who do their best for the Island

Anonymous said...

Yes, but Jon isn't so clever, is he?

Anonymous said...

Why is TLS such a bloody lapdog does the man not carry any self respect or pride ask yourself can it get any worse

Anonymous said...

If CTV keep reporting the facts of Stuart's Data Protection case, reporting about the 2009 Blog Entry and making it so easy to find Nurse M's real name, does that mean that CTV are in contempt of court for making it so trivial to find the name? :)

GeeGee said...

The 'name' is the whole issue of Stuart's DP case. Farcical really as more people are aware of it now than before the court case, not only locally but world wide as well.

Having sat in on most of the court sessions, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the media reporting has been extremely biased against Stuart and I have wondered if I have actually been sitting in the same court room as some of the reporters. Very selective in their reporting.

I have no doubt in my mind that naming Nurse M was most certainly in the public interest, but likewise have equally no doubt that Stuart will be found guilty, because this is what was intended from the outset.

Stuart has made mincemeat of the prosecution and police officers he has questioned. It is just a shame and a travesty that the general public that have only relied on the 'accredited media' reporting have not heard the testimony in full in the Court.

This is why we are where we are where we are!! Now who said that??

IN A HELLUVA MESS.

Anonymous said...

Just saw your posting that says

Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force: appointment.
Lodged: 26th October 2010.
Minister for Home Affairs.
(To be conducted in camera)

Sounds like that means they can legally have a secret meeting to select the head of the police?

Anonymous said...

Why is the debate into a new police chief in camera. why does everything over here have to be a secret.

RICO SORDA said...

There will be a blog going up on VFC tomorrow morning that I think will be well worth a read. I cant say too much about it but for anyone who has been following the whole Abuse Scandal you will want to read it. Every other week or so I always say I cant be shocked anymore, then they do it, im shocked again.

I feel very angry at the moment, I feel very angry that we have a total clown as a Chief Minister, a Chief Minister lacking in any decent political fiber, a Chief Minister who is a total slave to his Master 'Teflon Bill' Ogley, a Chief Minister who is prepared to play the chamber jester.

VFC tomorrow you will be shocked

rs

Ian Evans said...

A JERSEY HORROR STORY

Anonymous said...

“If vice and corruption prevail, liberty cannot subsist; but if virtue have the advantage, arbitrary power cannot be established.” Yes! Great quote for Jersey, Ian!