Sunday, November 28, 2010

Chief Minister & Home Affairs Minister 6



Chief Minister Le Sueur


Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States.


Now is this Bozo meaning Child Abusers or Lenny Harper. That Statement sums it up for me. We all know he means Lenny Harper.




The conduct of the Chief Minister has been firmly thrust into the spotlight over these past months, some would say these past years.

I believe that leadership should be a baseline expectation for someone in the role of Chief Minister, but what has been coming out of the Chief Minister's mouth over the past 6 months goes completely beyond the ridiculous.  Now I am not sure who is researching or writing the Chief Minister's replies to questions from various States members, but my guess is when they hand them over to the Chief Minister they all have a good laugh in the back room because they can't believe he's just gone and read them out in the States assembly!

I am finding it increasingly difficult to come to terms with the total ineptitude of the Chief Minister.  This is not borne out of some dislike for the Chief Minister but purely on researched and evidence based fact.  I have noticed now in the States assembly one has to be very careful when questioning the Chief Minister because, as standing orders state, you cannot just stand up and call him a liar across the chamber.  It now seems that the Chief Minister has misled the house, so  how do you say it: He's lying; he's been misleading; he's being economical with the truth?

Below is the speech that the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, stood up and made in his defence of P166/2010.  What stands out from this speech is the complete garbage contained therein and the reason I say it is garbage is because, put alongside facts and evidence, it does not stand up.  In fact, he offers nothing.

I believe the question that must be asked is "how or why did so many States members back the Chief Minister on this complete waffle"  and then to compel matters even more he asked States members to check his comments on P166, which in themselves make even less sense than the speech below.

The local media have really got to step up their game.  They simply cannot let the Chief Minister come out with such complete waffle and get away with it.  They should be applying pressure and keeping him to account on behalf of the public based on proper facts and evidence.  Their role is essential if we are ever to achieve anything like good governance in Jersey.  Everyone has got to step up to a new level.

I have noticed a distinct change in BBC Jersey since the arrival of the new editor.  One day he'll have a knock on the door.  It could be some time soon.  He will have a simple decision to make:  Does he ruffle feathers and go against the grain in bringing BBC Jersey up to the standard of an independent media broadcasting outlet? or it's champagne and caviar and not much else.  We know that Channel/Rankin TV is coconut crazy and Shipley and Bright up at Five Oaks, AKA the JEP, is the Establishment paper through and through.  So it looks like it's up to the BBC to start holding people like the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, and not forgetting the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to account, because let's be honest here, a former magistrate, in fact a man of the law, who is meant to be able to spot injustice cannot spot injustice when he is the cause of it!  How crazy is Jersey in the year 2010?

So, back on to the speech of Terry Le Sueur on P166, a speech so lacking in any coherent evidence based fact inspired 30+ members of our States assembly to vote with the Chief Minister, as opposed to the speeches of Trevor Pitman, Daniel Wimberley, Simon Crowcroft and Paul Le Claire.  Make no mistake, and I do believe it's great that people hold rallies, call meetings and lobby politicians, but the real problem, and it's the most glaring problem, meaning that very few decent propositions will get through the states is because of the 30+ States member who decline to show any freedom from the influence that they are under.  If anyone doubts who the 30+ States Members are, and they are being named and their photos will be going up, then go into the States website.  On the left hand side is members and votes.  See how Philip Ozouf voted on the proposition and from there you can just tick off the names.

The Jersey historic abuse investigation has blown the lid off this Island and totally exposed the toxic cancer that lies beneath the surface. 

P166 and a fully exposed Chief Minister:





3.1.1  Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Members may well be relieved to learn that I do not intend to speak very long in response to this proposition.  The impression I get from most Members is that this subject has been done to death in recent weeks.  The proposition originally called on the Chief Minister to do 3 things, now 2 of them.  Firstly, to provide more comprehensive information on a range of issues which the Deputy of St. Martin, and others, feel to be deeply significant and worrying.  Secondly, to provide a formal apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for a failure to deal with the suspension in accordance with the disciplinary code relating to his position.  The third request has now been withdrawn.  

I believe that I have dealt with the first point in the presenting of my comments to this proposition.  I have outlined my answers to the questions and concerns raised by the Deputy of St. Martin.  I have tried to keep my answers succinct and to the point but I hope that they do, indeed, deal with these issues in a complete and satisfactory manner. 

I am sure there will be a few Members who may disagree with one or 2 of my views.  That is human nature, but I cannot change my opinions.  I have arrived at my opinions only after detailed consideration of a number of papers and reports from a variety of people.  I could embellish my answers.  I could make each one take up half a page or more, but it would not alter the fundamental thrust of my views; views, which I have already expressed in this House on numerous occasions in response to written questions, oral questions and questions without notice.  I took the view that less means more and I indicated, quite clearly, my views to all the issues raised by the Deputy, not just in my written comments here today, but in the numerous questions which I have answered and which the Deputy acknowledges have been numerous. 

  As I indicated in questions yesterday, we have to distinguish between the suspension process, which Mr. Napier found to be flawed, and the decision to suspend the former Chief Officer, which I and others find to be entirely justified and which has, indeed, be borne out by subsequent events.

  So that leaves part (b) of this proposition, the issue of an apology.  On that, I have made my position abundantly clear.  I have expressed a view verbally in answer to oral questions and in written form including my comments to this proposition.  My opinion, my robust opinion, is clear and I hope understood by all Members, even if I know some may disagree with me.  I do not want to go over the events of the last 2 years.  I am sure that all Members have had ample opportunity to reach their own conclusions and I am sorry to see that even last night, the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police was writing to the local media attempting to justify his actions.

  An apology to the former Chief of Police could well be seen as a slap in the face for the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Chief Minister, the Chief Executive of the States and the current acting Chief Officer of Police.  It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey, many of whom hold the former Chief Officer, and his deputy, responsible for portraying a grossly misleading image of the Islands. 

 So in saying that, I am not in any way condoning any child abuse which may have occurred at Haut de la Garenne, or anywhere else; nor do I wish to offend any members of the Jersey Caregivers Association or any other victims of abuse.  In the pursuit of justice the police have my full and unwavering support.  But, that is not the issue here today.  The issue today is whether we consider that I, or the States, should give an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for his suspension.  I accept that the Deputy of St. Martin sometimes gets carried away in his strong views on this matter.  I have to say, nonetheless, I deplore suggestions that I was either misleading the House or that others were guilty of a conspiracy theory.  I believe that that is an unwarranted and unjustified allegation.  I also, even more so, deplore the fact that the Deputy has chosen to disclose the content of a confidential email, even though that content may be relatively innocuous, a document which contains confidential information is marked confidential, should still remain confidential.  So, I hope, we are not lowering the standards of this Chamber.  But to come back to the proposition, I hope that Members are in no doubt about my view.  I hope that Members share my view and I hope that Members will reject this proposition.



So there we have it. Now if someone wants to defend that speech then feel free but all I ask is that you back it up with some evidence.

And what of misleading the house? Below is an exchange that highlights what Im on about . It concerns a question by the Deputy of St Martin about the removal of part d of the Napier TOR 


 

2.4     The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding alterations to the Napier Terms of Reference:

I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers.  [Approbation]  [Laughter]  In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about altering 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 when this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when was it received?

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

I am advised that Mr. Napier himself contacted the former Chief Officer of Police and ascertained that the former Chief Officer was indeed willing to participate fully in the investigation.  He did indeed participate and Mr. Napier has also had access to a copy of the affidavit prepared by the former Chief Officer of Police in connection with subsequent appeals in the Royal Court.

2.4.1  The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not like to prove that the Chief Minister is not telling the truth in this Chamber, but what I have here is a letter dated 21st April to the Deputy Chief Executive informing the Minister about his ability to take part, however the terms of reference were published in R.39 on 14th April.  Can I ask the Chief Minister if he maybe would reconsider his answer, in actual fact that Mr. Napier did not make contact with the Chief Officer of Police before the terms of reference were altered?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The terms of reference are a fluid arrangement.  At the time of the agreement in this House of those terms of reference the disciplinary process involving the former Chief Officer was still in place.  Accordingly, it was questionable whether the Chief Officer would be willing to participate in such an inquiry.  After Mr. Napier had established that the former Chief Officer of Police was prepared to assist in these investigations, that particular aspect of the terms of reference was no longer relevant.

2.4.2  The Deputy of St. Martin:

I find the answer astonishing because quite clearly the evidence I have to hand really shows that the Chief Minister, I am afraid, is misleading the House this morning.

The Bailiff:

Be careful with your language.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will, but it is rather frustrating when you have evidence in your hand, and I know the fact that what the Chief Minister is saying is maybe incorrect and I would ask him maybe he would check to ensure that what I have - the evidence that we have at hand - is really the evidence which we should be hearing or study it this morning. 

The Bailiff:

That was your question, Deputy.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

If the Deputy is prepared to give me the evidence he has, I will investigate it myself.  I said in my answer, and I was very careful to say, that I was advised that Mr. Napier had contacted the Chief Officer.  I do not have the information first-hand, and I do not have evidence to do that.  If the Deputy has evidence to the contrary and wishes to share it with me I will happily look into it.

[Interruption]  [Laughter]

[10:00]

2.4.3  The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I ask the Chief Minister why it was felt necessary to remove part of the terms of reference because the Chief Officer of Police said he was happy to partake?  Surely they should have been left in if indeed he was happy to partake.  Would the Chief Minister not agree?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

It strikes me as being totally irrelevant whether it was left in or not.  The fact is that Mr. Napier did have access to Mr. Power, both to ask him questions and to read his affidavit.  The whole question of whether they are in the terms of reference as published is totally meaningless when the reality is that Mr. Napier had full access to all evidence provided by the former Chief Officer.

2.4.4  Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Would the Chief Minister be prepared to put his evidence and Deputy Hill’s evidence to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee)?  We obviously have here allegations that the House has been misled and I think it is time that the information is put out by both sides to P.P.C. and be adjudicated on.  Would the Chief Minister agree?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot see that this is a matter of relevance to the P.P.C.  The question relates to the ability of Mr. Napier to access information from Mr. Power.  As I have said, and Mr. Napier has said, he had full access to that information.

2.4.5  The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Chief Minister appears to believe that the truth does not matter too much as long as the right answer comes out ...  [Members: Oh!]

The Bailiff:

No.  Deputy, please do not make improper assertions against other Members of the Assembly, as required by Standing Orders.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I shall restart, Sir.  The question was about whether the terms of reference were altered after the Chief Officer of Police agreed to participate or before and the Chief Minister is then telling us: “Oh well, it does not matter too much because what happened in the end was that the Chief Officer of Police did co-operate with the inquiry.”  But that is not the point of the question.  My question to the Chief Minister is does he believe the process that doing things in the right way, that doing what you said you did, and it is true, matters?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes, process is important.  But getting information is also important.  As I said, the reality of the situation is that whether it was in the terms of reference as published or not, the instructions to Mr. Napier were received by Mr. Napier, acted upon by Mr. Napier, he had access to the information from the former Chief Officer of Police and so whether it was done before or after that, the fact is that the outcome… the reality is that full access was obtainable and obtained.

2.4.6  The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Chief Minister accept that the affect of watering-down the terms of reference meant that it narrowed the terms of reference, thereby certain crucial witnesses did not need to be interviewed?  Will the Chief Minister agree to that?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I do not think that is correct at all.  The fact is that the terms of reference referred to access to information.  That information was available.  If Mr. Napier felt the need to have information from other sources he was totally at liberty to do so.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I seek clarification from the Chief Minister, Sir?

The Bailiff:

No, I am sorry, Deputy.  Not at this stage.  This is question time. 

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It would be nice to understand what was said.

The Bailiff:

There will be an opportunity, Deputy, if I may say so; the questions without notice, the Chief Minister will be asked today, and of course Members are free to take up any point then.

 

Im sorry for such a long posting but its one that must be done. Bob Hill has the Chief Minister here , what does the chief Minister say "I said in my answer, and I was very careful to say, that I was advised that Mr. Napier had contacted the Chief Officer." he was advised. Is the Chief Minister getting advise on everything? 


Someone is lying here, its very simple. TLS says that (part d) was dropped because Graham Power had agreed to see Napier , that was on April 21st 2010 but (part d) was dropped on R39 on the 14th April 


Someone is getting it very wrong.


Before the Keyboard Cat plays TLS out I will clear this little bit up


Deputy of St Martin

"I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers.  [Approbation]  [Laughter


The reason for the footstamping 


Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States.




JERSEY 2010


RICO SORDA


56 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Terry said.

“I believe that I have dealt with the first point in the presenting of my comments to this proposition. I have outlined my answers to the questions and concerns raised by the Deputy of St. Martin. I have tried to keep my answers succinct and to the point but I hope that they do, indeed, deal with these issues in a complete and satisfactory manner.”

“I hope that they do, indeed, deal with these issues in a complete and satisfactory manner.” ??????? Your readers can be the judge.

Anonymous said...

2.4.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Would the Chief Minister be prepared to put his evidence and Deputy Hill’s evidence to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee)? We obviously have here allegations that the House has been misled and I think it is time that the information is put out by both sides to P.P.C. and be adjudicated on. Would the Chief
Minister agree?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I cannot see that this is a matter of relevance to the P.P.C. The question relates to the ability of Mr. Napier to access information from Mr. Power. As I have said, and Mr. Napier has said, he had full access to that information.

2.4.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Chief Minister appears to believe that the truth does not matter too much as long as the right answer comes out ... [Members: Oh!]

oooooooooh!!!! That was an obvious avoidance there to have the matter looked into...the question is why?

rico sorda said...

P166

RS

Ian Evans said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

"It strikes me as being totally irrelevant whether it was left in or not."

There's that phrase again! This is virtually what 'King Birt' said to me when I questioned my trial tapes being doctored. He told me that even if my trial tapes had been doctored, it would have had no bearing on the outcome of the trial?

Clearly, the Establishment regard the interference and manipulation of the evidence in cases, to be fair and just, and with NO comeback on themselves!!!

TRUE CRIMINALS & LUNATICS....

Anonymous said...

Terry Le Sueur is making a complete fool of himself by reading out that poo that is written for him and the same goes for Ian Le Marquand. Keep up the great work Rico.

Anonymous said...

Le Sewer is well out of his depth and is made to look the clown that he is by what you've posted om here, thanks and carry on fighting for justice in this god forsaken hell hole.

rico sorda said...

I have had a comment why I keep insulting the Chief Minister. Now if Anonymous would like to submit a comment fighting the Chief Ministers corner then I will publish it. So over to you Anonymous, Look forward to reading the defence.

I believe the Chief Minister is insulting the good people of Jersey. I can back that up by publishing his rather strange and bizarre answers in the states. Anonymous, ask yourself are you happy with this level of governance or his your hatred of Syvret, Power and Harper all that matters to you.

So keep on slagging me off

And I will keep searching for the truth

rs

Anonymous said...

'Bozo'sums up the current Chief Minister extremely well. Incompetent, corrupt, or both? Rational people will make their own mind up. He makes the rules and his statements up as he goes along. He still cannot bring himself to admit that horrible abuse took place at HDLG. Not surprising really as he has gone to such lengths to hide the truth. He is quite happy to bring police discipline when it suits him but makes the statement in writing that Warcup and Gradwell cannot be the subject of discipline because "they do not come within the law." When did that change? I must have missed it. He also denies a Freedom of Information request because I no longer work for the States. I must have missed that bit of the policy too. He condones the fabrication of documents, and the misrepresentation of others but when caught out just pretends to be absent minded or befuddled. He has a wonderful capacity to ignore evidence, arrogant in the protection of those really running the island who are more intelligent and devious than him. If they weren't his goose would have been cooked by now. He lashes out blindly at those who are on the side of the victims without realising that no one really believes anything he says any longer. Listening to him is funnier than 'Yes Prime Minister.' Beside him, James Hackett seems like Winston Churchill. Corrupt, incompetent, or both? Make your own mind up. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

Having read the comments on VFC how can the Chief Minister come to this conclusion. "I believe that I have dealt with the first point in the presenting of my comments to this proposition. I have outlined my answers to the questions and concerns raised by the Deputy of St. Martin. I have tried to keep my answers succinct and to the point but I hope that they do, indeed, deal with these issues in a complete and satisfactory manner"

They don't even come close to being answered. What has happened to our states members that they allow this to happen. The beauty of Hansard is there for all to see and leaves no hiding place for our Chief Minister.

Anonymous said...

Thankyou Lenny for cofirming what we all know. The true power lies in the law offices department and the civil service. Terry Le Sewer is just an inept puppet on a string. What those people and their chums at the JEP have done to you, graham power, stuart syvret and many others not least the abuse victims is unforgivable. Time has a habit of catching up with these sorts and I hope I am around to see when it does. The abuse victims speak very highly of you graham and stuart, they too will have their justice one day.

rico sorda said...

19th October 2010

2.9 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.

2.9.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

It is not a good day for the States when we do not really get the answers one seeks, or at least the truth behind the answer. But the Minister will be aware that the affidavit contained allegations of malpractice by his Chief Executive Officer, but because the terms of reference were then altered these allegations were never looked into. Does the Chief Minister agree that by altering those terms of reference the credibility of the Napier Report is now weakened? End quote

So ,we have been told that the reason (d) was removed was because the Chief of Police had informed the Deputy Chief Executive that he would be taking part in the Napier Review.

Now the problem here is that the former Chief of Police informed the Deputy Chief Executive on the 21st April 2010

Yet the report is lodged under R39 on the the States Website on the 14th of April with part (d) removed


TLS Says

"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"

Oh dear

Now is TLS misleading the house? Is it more crap Advice from Team Crap Advise. How much are we paying these guys.

rs

Ian Evans said...

Ian is hoping that Lenny Harper & Graham Power will soon be initiating proceedings against this clown Le Sewer, his sidekick Le Marquand, and their evil puppeteers who are perched on the upper limbs of the tree of Jersey Corruption.

"Syvret, Power & Harper, Sue Those A Lot Less Smarter!" would be a nice headline for my blog in the weeks to come. :o)

rico sorda said...

This is why Deputy Hill is asking this question

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

“Given that the explanations given as to why and when the Napier Terms of Reference were altered refer to decisions taken after R.39/2010 was presented to the States, will the Chief Minister inform Members when this was done and who was party to the decision and explain why he and the Deputy of St. Martin were not party to the discussions?”

Bet the backroom boys will be having a right old chuckle on what they can get TLS to say on this one.

Lets get one thing straight here. TLS and the COM didn't want the Napier Review they only agreed because they didn't want Bob Hils committee of enquiry. This is very serious because TLS could be misleading the house. He had better make sure that his information is spot on the money.

This question is for tuesdays sitting

rs

Anonymous said...

If only this was Terrys only malperformance!
Rag on line.
Incognito
Posted November 27, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Well it is coming to pass.
Three primary faith schools will be two by 2012 .50 Years of fantastic community provision wiped out.

Parents at faith schools (not De La Salle by the way so that reduces the options somewhat), should ask Terry Le Sueur ‘What have you done for my daughters education?’.

If the answer isn’t ’sold it down the Swanee, to reside in portacabins at the Grainville site’. Then he is in parliamentary language’ being ‘flexible with the actuality’. Does that make him a sleeping dog?

Anonymous said...

Do you reckon John Richardson is the one advising Terry? if he is and is advising him wrongly will he be disciplined? Do you think John Richardson is allowed to use bill ogley's shredder?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Is there any wonder that our "accredited" media are not trusted over here?.

Terry is at best very much mistaken about when the TOR were doctored and at worst he is lying through his teeth and the local media have NOTHING to say about it....Jersey media setting the standards!

Anonymous said...

"Quote"
Terry Le Sueur is making a complete fool of himself by reading out that poo that is written for him and the same goes for Ian Le Marquand. Keep up the great work Rico.

How I agree with the above personally I not religious but I presume these hypocrites go to church each Sunday to show what upstanding Christian citizen's they are I truly pray that these people who have covered up abuse go to hell and rot there they are scum

Good luck with every thing you do Rico

rico sorda said...

VFC

The media should be all over it. Bad Government is bad government no matter what the issues are.

We have bad Government

rs

rico sorda said...

Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Senator Perchard

Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Connetable Yates
Connetable Norman

Deputy Le Fondre
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.

These people vote how the COM demands or I should say the fixer

These people don't care about good governance or good ethics.

rs

tenonmainous said...

Terry le main shouldn't be on that list...etc he'a a good guy etc.... I think the good people in st helier number 2 etc... should vote for me oops I mean him when oops I mean if I oops I mean he stands for election in that district next time etc...

Anonymous said...

You've missed out deputy kevin lewis

Anonymous said...

Surely as a States Member, Chief Minister even, one cannot hide behind the words of others:-

"I was advised that Mr. Napier had contacted the Chief Officer. I do not have the information first-hand, and I do not have evidence to do that."

When the Chief Minister answers questions from one of the public's representatives, the public expect an answer of such importance to be that the Minister is without doubt, whereas, it appears he will accept anything he is told by Civil SERVANTS. That is not good enough, his answer was one that did not give anyone confidence that he believed what he was saying. Perhaps in those instances, he should be asked whether he believed the second hand information and would resign if it was discovered to be untrue!! Especially as it was a written question which he would have had time to challenge or obtain evidence if need be.

Anonymous said...

Rico
the people who were responsible for HDLG were the abusers,they were committing criminal acts against children AND A VERY BIG AND so were those civil servants who allowed it to go on.I find so many of the comments mage by TLS AND THE RAG offensive in the extreme,

Anonymous said...

"So in saying that, I am not in any way condoning any child abuse which may have occurred at Haut de la Garenne,"

TLS, keep up, it DID occur.

rico sorda said...

And then we have this nonsense. He the Chief Minister who does not agree with the Napier findings then secretly disciplined the chief executive on a report that he does not accept the finding. This is the same Chief Executive who he says

"An apology to the former Chief of Police could well be seen as a slap in the face for the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Chief Minister, the Chief Executive of the States and the current acting Chief Officer of Police. It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey, many of whom hold the former Chief Officer, and his deputy, responsible for portraying a grossly misleading image of the Islands"

Does anyone out there understand or can make out what the hell is going on with the Chief Minister.

Why did he then discipline the Chief Executive?

rs

rico sorda said...

and here is the proof


2.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding disciplinary action in relation to the Napier findings:

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?

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

I believe I have already answered this question, or a very similar one, on at least 2 previous occasions. I have indeed carried out and I have now concluded such disciplinary actions as were necessary in respect of the findings contained in the Napier report. As I have previously indicated, the outcome of those findings remains confidential to the parties concerned.

2.3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could the Minister then advise whether these disciplinary outcomes will result in anyone resigning or being removed from their post?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I said that the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.

2.3.2 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

Does the Chief Minister not realise that by saying that he can respond to a report that took months and months to write and cost nearly £50,000, and he is telling us that he has done it now, it is all done and dusted and he has done the actions and he has done the response and we can all go to bed to sleep peacefully; does he not realise that this looks very strange from outside the Chamber?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Each person will have his own particular interpretation of how it looks outside the Chamber. I am concerned to do what I believe is the correct thing to do.

2.3.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am very impressed by the speed in which the discipline matter was dealt with. Could the Chief Minister inform Members when, in actual fact, the disciplinary procedures began and when they were concluded in this particular case?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

They began very shortly after I received the Napier report, when I read it and decided what actions, if necessary, needed to be taken. It was concluded, I would say, probably about 2 weeks ago.

2.3.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I appreciate what the Minister has said, but does he not appreciate that for the public the big criticism of us as government is no one is held accountable. Does he not agree that the public should at least know who has been held accountable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States.

rs

rico sorda said...

"I have had a comment why I keep insulting the Chief Minister. Now if Anonymous would like to submit a comment fighting the Chief Ministers corner then I will publish it. So over to you Anonymous, Look forward to reading the defence"

Still waiting

rs

Anonymous said...

Far from complete and satisfactory Mr. Le Sueur your views and opinions even if embellished to a full page or more would still be your personal opinion waffle for want of a better word.

TLS''which I and others find to be entirely justified and which has, indeed, be borne out by subsequent events.''

Pray TLS do tell.

rico sorda said...

again I ask where are the media /journalists

this goes to the heart of government

Anonymous said...

I am truly emotionally confused here.

One moment I am laughing my little socks off at the comments made by HMS Titanic's captain (I must give full credit to the comedy team 'backroom boy' writers who write his script.. sorry..answers ) and then I am brought crashing down to Earth again when I read comments such as "...responsible for the Haut de la Garenne incident".

So the detection of the abuse of children within States "protection" and it's cover up is just now summarised as an "incident". Well isn't that just fine and Dandy... {fume}

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

This blog is a surprise to stumble upon two years after I was introduced to the Jersey child abuse scandal by a teacher. I remember reading things by you but not of this investigative level. I have just spent the better part of my Thanksgiving Break catching up on what has been going on over there in Jerseyland and I must say these important new blogs are of outstanding reporting quality for the size of the island population.

It is still disappointing to see that local media and government statements are just as obviously distorted as ever, since most of us thought by now Stuart Syvret and Lenny Harper would be fully vindicated by the outside world media. At least you have laid out the real case in a factual format, and anyone who cares can find out how dysfunctional the government and political insiders still are.

This gives me the motivation to tell more people here about what is happening in Jersey so the work you are doing will reach a larger audience and I wonder if you can find out how many of your readers are American. Doesn't your blogspot info include a breakdown by nationality? If so, it would help motivate more people to spread the word, if results were there to see.

Syvret fan

Anonymous said...

Here are parts of two answers from TLS, to different questions, in the first TLS professes to know what a large number of the public think, but in the second sidesteps a question by believing each person will have their own view. He swings both ways, so to speak!.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey,

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Each person will have his own particular interpretation of how it looks outside the Chamber.


---------------------------
I can't wait for Stuart to have the opportunity to cross question this idiot of a CM. He'll run circles around him.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about your hangover. Take two aspirin and keep up with this investigative blogging. You are quite solid with this. Never give up.

Anonymous said...

FSL should be deeply ashamed.

Mr. Shenton has been an eye opener he comes across as TLS whipping boy desperatly trying to protect the gaffer.

Anonymous said...

"Each person will have his own particular interpretation of how it looks outside the Chamber. I am concerned to do what I believe is the correct thing to do."

In other words:-

"I don't give a toss what it looks like to the public. I've been told what to do"

A very similar arrogant line he took on the 19,000+ petition against GST.

Anonymous said...

To cast any doubts aside, the right thing the lackeyss should of done would of been to vote Yes, to the report being written by TLS which would of cleared up any doubts within or outside the house

Canada Free Press said...

Dear Rico Sorda,

Looking at this story from afar and not knowing the correct procedures for holding politicians to account in Jersey if they are shown to have actively misled your parliamentry members can I ask what steps, if any, can now be taken to have the Chief Minister legally removed from office?

Many thanks,

Claude Sandroff

voiceforchildren said...

Canada Free Press.

In order to remove our Chief Minister from office, a member of our parliament would have to bring, and win, a "vote of confidence" against him.

Unfortunately the majority of the house are as daft as he is and he has already survived one this year already.

In reality there is no budging him so we're bl--dy doomed!

rico sorda said...

sorry for not replying to some comments tonight. I was at a Human Rights meeting and feeling really tired. It's a states sitting tomorrow so loads on t.

I also want to discuss the closing down of the historical abuse investigation.

Why close it down.

rs

Anonymous said...

Claude Sandroff of the Canada free Press asked important questions about the removal of the CM and how politicians are held to account. In our Canadian public schools, and presumably those in US, Australia, N.Z. and The E.U. we are taught that there is no democracy without balance of power and what someone else on your blogs called "remedy."

What is the real remedy? If the only rules in place are the ones which haven't been halfway effective, you have no remedy. It looks like you have no sure ay to fix what is obviosly illegal behavior by elected officials.
- British Columbia

Anonymous said...

The news has just spread all over the world about the recent HDLG convictions. All the dishonest spin by the Jersey image consultants was wasted because most of the worlds news followers only remember the initial stories on the House of Horrors and then nothing until the most recent stories on those two convictions. If you ask anyone in the Western Hemisphere about Jersey, they will undoubtedly only know it has off-shore banking and that the government covered up years of abuse in torture dungeons at the orphanage.

Canada Free Press said...

Thank you for those comments regarding the removal of the Chief Minister by the elected members of your parliament. Whilst I can understand the principle of a 'vote of no confidence' is it not possible for those elected officials who have evidence of the Chief Minister deliberating mis-leading the house, to pass this information to the Speaker of the house? I think you call the role that of 'The Bailiff'?

Surely it would then be the responsibility of The Bailiff to impartially inform members of the reality of the situation, after which a vote of no confidence could be brought?

Claude

Anonymous said...

Canada Free Press

You would think so wouldn't you.

In reality the Bailiff should not have to be told he can hear the same excuses views and opinons given by TLS as evidence and facts and allows it to go on.

TLS ''An apology to the former Chief of Police could well be seen as a slap in the face for the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Chief Minister, the Chief Executive of the States and the current acting Chief Officer of Police. It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey, many of whom hold the former Chief Officer, and his deputy, responsible for portraying a grossly misleading image of the Islands"

the above quote could not be any clearer. It is imperative to maintain Jerseys image. Regardless that the decisions of the former Minister for Home Affairs, former Chief Minister, Chief Executive for the States and current acting Chief Officer office of Police have behaved appallingly

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

Why do you come on my blog and then go on about my job? you jerk off about me and my job on your own blog, and thats fine. Hey, why don't you publish the email you sent to my work under the name of Andy James do it as a guest posting. I see you are running out of States Members for guest your guest posting, bloody heath hazard if you ask me.. I have asked you to defend TLS and yet nothing...

Now where was I

I hear TLS was stitched up like a kipper by his backroom boys again. I hope the Jersey Way will post it later. I also hear that as per usual there were zero answers from questions today.

Stuart has posted a really good blog. It has been something I have been trying to convey on my blog that no matter what side of the fence you come down on these Bozos are leading us into the Abyss.

Just pure shocking leadership

But what of the 30+ Idiots in the states who have followed blindly. They ask no questions, they never challenge, they sit there like lemons and vote like lemons. The best thing is that its all there on Hansard.

The Shamed

Senator Terry Le Sueur
Senator Paul Routier
Senator Philip Ozouf
Senator Terry Le Main
Senator Ben Shenton
Senator Freddie Cohen
Senator Sarah Ferguson
Senator Alan Maclean
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Senator Perchard

Connétable Ken Vibert
Connétable John Gallichan
Connétable Mike Jackson
Connétable Graham Butcher
Connétable Peter Hanning
Connétable John Refault
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Connetable Yates
Connetable Norman

Deputy Le Fondre
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy James Reed
Deputy Jackie Hilton
Deputy Ian Gorst
Deputy Angela Jeune
Deputy Ann Dupré
Deputy Eddie Noel
Deputy Andrew Green M.B.E.

rs

rico sorda said...

Canadian Fee Press

Thanks for dropping in. I will be doing a blog posting about the issues you raise. The role of Bailiff is a strange one not least because they are all conflicted in one way or the other.

The former Attorney General William Bailhace who is now the Deputy Bailiff is a classic case.

We are awaiting a report from Lord Carswell into the these roles. I will try and find out what is happening with that.

If Deputy Le Claire is reading this then maybe he could inform us of the progress on this report.

Thank you for coming on this blog.

Anonymous

You asked me how many readers are coming on from America. I very really go into my blog stats and the reason being as that is where the ip's are stored. A long time ago I logged in and some law firms had been on my blog, so I made the decision not to check incase it watered down my approach.

And so far it's working

rs

Anonymous said...

"So in saying that, I am not in any way condoning any child abuse which may have occurred at Haut de la Garenne,"

Can this man even think straight?

Someone needs to ask Terry if he is suggesting that abuse MAY or MAY NOT have occurred, and then if he MAY even accept the convictions obtained by the Jersey courts. This is beyond waffle - it is widdle.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Put up the Audio of Question 9 from today.

Here

Anonymous said...

Still waiting to hear from Mr. Le Sueur the evidence as to why Graham Power was suspended in the middle of a child abuse investigation.

''An apology to the former Chief of Police could well be seen as a slap in the face for the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Chief Minister, the Chief Executive of the States and the current acting Chief Officer of Police. It would also, in my view, be offensive to a large number of people in Jersey, many of whom hold the former Chief Officer, and his deputy, responsible for portraying a grossly misleading image of the Island''

Many of the public who may hold the former Chief Officer and his deputy responsible would of done so from the misleading reportage given that came from the current Chief Minister and that is why the questioned have to be given in the house with evidence and not opinions.

Done to death. Not by a long shot.

rico sorda said...

I have now listened to the audio and I just cant believe what im hearing.

Now, the Chief Minister is seriously out the loop with his Civil Servants or is just plain lying. He says the former Chief of Police gave confirmation that he would participate in the investigation and confirmed this in a letter to the Deputy Chief Executive Jon Richardson on the 31st March 2010.

Now, if the Chief Minister is stating this, one must surly believe that he is 100% certain in what he is saying and has checked with the relevant Civil Servant. He would never just walk into the chamber and read his answer without first checking the facts seeing as Deputy Bob Hill says otherwise. Deputy Hill has said there is a letter dated the 21st April that asks the former Chief of Police if he is taking part in the Investigation.

What is happening with the Chief Minister? This is getting serious especially if he is misleading the house.

TLS says...

Graham Power confirmed he was taking part on the 31st March 2010

Terms of reference changed on the 14th April 2010 ( R39)

Bob Hill says....

Jon Richardson asks Graham Power on the 21st April 2010 if he was taking part. This is a written correspondent.

Someone is telling porkies

rs

Anonymous said...

Oh, Rico & Co, of course he is lying, what baffles me Is the fact that none of you just come out and say it.

Mr Le Seuer is an out and out liar.

rico sorda said...

oral 16th November

2.4 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding alterations to the Napier Terms of Reference:

I would just ask that Members, I know they are entitled to footstamp but could I just ask the footstamping commences after the answer is given, so Members this side of the Chamber are able to hear all the answers. [Approbation] [Laughter] In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about altering 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 when this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when was it received?

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

I am advised that Mr. Napier himself contacted the former Chief Officer of Police and ascertained that the former Chief Officer was indeed willing to participate fully in the investigation. He did indeed participate and Mr. Napier has also had access to a copy of the affidavit prepared by the former Chief Officer of Police in connection with subsequent appeals in the Royal Court.

2.4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not like to prove that the Chief Minister is not telling the truth in this Chamber, but what I have here is a letter dated 21st April to the Deputy Chief Executive informing the Minister about his ability to take part, however the terms of reference were published in R.39 on 14th April. Can I ask the Chief Minister if he maybe would reconsider his answer, in actual fact that Mr. Napier did not make contact with the Chief Officer of Police before the terms of reference were altered?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The terms of reference are a fluid arrangement. At the time of the agreement in this House of those terms of reference the disciplinary process involving the former Chief Officer was still in place. Accordingly, it was questionable whether the Chief Officer would be willing to participate in such an inquiry. After Mr. Napier had established that the former Chief Officer of Police was prepared to assist in these investigations, that particular aspect of the terms of reference was no longer relevant.

2.4.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I find the answer astonishing because quite clearly the evidence I have to hand really shows that the Chief Minister, I am afraid, is misleading the House this morning.

They are protecting Teflon Bill in my opinion

rs

rico sorda said...

My hunch is that once they had a inkling that Graham Power could legally see Brian Napier they crapped their pants and and kicked part (d) into touch. They would of had legal confirmation from the Home Affairs Minister, remember GP was suspended and bound by confidentiality.

Part (d) was a no, no for this lot.

The scope would have been to wide and Mr Napier would of had a better idea of what was going on.

rs

rico sorda said...

"Oh, Rico & Co, of course he is lying, what baffles me Is the fact that none of you just come out and say it.

Mr Le Seuer is an out and out liar."

At this festive period let us at least stuff the goose first lol

rs

Anonymous said...

In Jersey we farmers and people who love animals esspecially dogs with attitude and honest loyality and good breeding know the animal as a Jack Russell Terrier.

Then there is the Heinz 57 variety some of them good dogs but many of them shall we just say completly and utterly mixed up.

Deputy Bob Hill is without doubt the Jack Russell

Where does that leave Terry Le Suer.

Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

''As far as I am concerned, the main problem of accountability rests with the person who is responsable for the Haut de la Garenne incident in the first place, and that person is no longer in the employ of the States''.

Graham Power & Lenny Harper were responsable for the Haut de la Garenne incident? Responsable for bringing guilty parties to justice I give you that.

The accountability for the disciplinary actions with regards the findings of the Napier report & the procedural failings into Mr. Powers suspension would lie with whom?

Anonymous said...

As a St Peter resident I have watched with interest and growing concern the 'voting pattern' of my constable John Refault, sorry John you did not get my vote and just to be clear, never will!, J.R seems to always vote with the C.O.M and is rightly listed in 'The Shamed', I believe here is a shining example of just why the constables (as recommended in Clothier) should be removed from the states, if the C.O.M stated a new airforce consisting of flying Pink Pigs were needed J.R would vote for it, bring on the next elections!