So before Deputy Bob Hill's P166/2010 proposition I thought I would look at another example of our Chief Minister protecting the Chief Executive Teflon Bill. What is happening really is quite staggering and, not only that, but it's right in front of everyones faces. In some ways we are truly lawless over here. There is no one who can hold the executive to account; not our politicians that's for sure.
The weakness in the States Chamber is a real factor in this. We have some states members who are quite happy sitting at the foot of the COM table looking for scraps. They vote on propositions that they have no idea about. They never ask questions nor do they submit questions. They just vote with Team Ozouf.
Back to our Chief Minister
What's the crack with this chap? I know he has been likened to "Comical Alie" the Iraqi clown but I think we have gone well beyond that with our Chief Minister. Why can't the Chief Minister and even the Home Affairs Minister do the right thing? Why, with so much information in the public domain, can't they do the right thing. Everything must fall away, 'common sense', 'integrity', 'truth', 'justice' and much more in the total protection of Jersey's reputation.
The Blog Posting that will be up tomorrow by VFC will again demonstrate the crazy world of Terry Le Sueur. I think one question that must be asked of him is: "Does he actually believe what he is saying?" My guess would be NO. The reason I come to that conclusion is after researching and reading so much hard evidence in the public domain, we know he surely can't believe the rubbish he is peddling in the states.
4 ACPO REPORTS
3 Suspension Reviews
3 Sworn Affidavits - Graham Power, Lenny Harper & Stuart Syvret
1 Napier Report
1 Judicial Review + Skeleton Argument
1 Wiltshire Disciplinary Shambles
1 P30 Home Affairs Scrutiny Transcripts
50 + Questions without answers from the states
And much more on the way.
Yet our Chief Minister is trying to brush it all away.
If I could have one wish this Christmas it would be for the Local Media, and I don't care which outlet it is, to hire an Investigative Journalist, just one would be a start.
So, to the question . This is from the 3rd of February 2010 and is a truly classic TLS moment. When you think of the ridicule heaped on Lenny Harper the suspension of Graham Power, the political oppression of Stuart Syvret the sacking of Simon Bellwood, but look what happens when the issues concern Chief Executive Ogley
1.15 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE
STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:
In the light of the serious and detailed allegations against the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers outlined in the sworn affidavit, signed by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, recently released into the public domain by the Deputy of St. Martin, will the Chief Minister clarify why he has not, as a ‘neutral act’, suspended the Chief Executive until the allegations of engaging in political activity wholly outside of his remit can be fully investigated?
I have not suspended the Chief Executive because he has denied categorically the allegations of the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Further, an internal investigation carried out in November 2008, when the suspended Chief Officer first made this allegation, demonstrated that the weight of evidence suggests that his recollection of what happened at the meeting in July 2007 is not accurate.
I should also add that before the allegations were made public, I had already undertaken to commission an independent investigation into all aspects of the suspension process, given the known concerns of some States Members.
So, Graham Power states what happened in a Sworn Affidavit.
Our Chief Minister asks the Chief Executive. He says "no". They then hold an internal investigation LOL has no one yet realised why we are heading into such a dark period. There are zero checks and balances. Look what has happened to The Abuse Survivors, Harper , Power, Syvret, & Bellwood some would say its double standards
Now this is from Graham Power's Sworn Affidavit. I believe the above question relates to the meeting below.
Note book entry made of 25- th July, 2007
Some additional words have been inserted in italics to assist with clarity
16.00 I am at HQ having just returned from a meeting of the CMB
(Corporate Management Board.) During the meeting Bill Ogley (BO} said that he would wish for some of us to remain afterwards to discuss the comments of the Health Minister Senator Syvret in relation to Child Protection issues. He told the full meeting that it was possible that the COM (Council of Ministers) would pass a notice of "no confidence" tomorrow and ask this to be confirmed by a full meeting of the States especially convened for that purpose - This would result in Senator Syvret having to leave office. It was also mentioned that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was meeting that afternoon and I was asked if we would be represented. I got the impression that those present saw that meeting as particularly significant and felt that "something was going on" which others knew about but I did not. I said that I did not know about the meeting (I would not usually know) and that I assumed Insp. Fossey — (Detective Inspector Alison Fossey) who BO knows and we both referred to as "Alison" would be representing the force. After the meeting myself TMcK (Tom McKeon, Chief Officer, Education, Sport and Culture,) andMP (Mike Pollard, Chief Officer,^of Health & Social Services,) and Ian C (Ian Crich, Director, States HR Department,) remained behind. I was handed a copy of a report to Ministers and associated papers which I have stamped and initialled. The discussion was led by BO who disclosed that the C.P.C. would this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister. MP and TMcK did not seem surprised at this. MP seemed to be fully signed up to this course of action. Attempts were made by BO to draw me into this. I was, told that my people were "part of the islands arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticisms of the Minister. I was taken aback by this but responded in two ways. Firstly I said that leaving aside issues of style and manner the questions raised by the Minister were valid. Particularly in respect of the time it had taken for the abuse of a boy in a recent case to come to notice of the police and the apparent failure of Child Protection to give it priority. I said that the Critical Case Review (SCR?) was a poor effort which missed the hard questions and I was not surprised that the Minister was not impressed. I conceded that all of the questions might have answers, I just thought that they were good questions and ones which a Minister could validly ask. There was also some discussion of the Victoria College and Holland cases which was not central to the issue. BO and others were persistent and I was left with the clear in my impression (sic) that they were attempting to draw me, in rny capacity as the Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from office. Having concluded this I then moved on to my second point which was that even if I agreed with everything they said I would still have nothing to do with it. They were engaging in what I saw as political activity and it was entirely inappropriate that I should be involved one way or the other. The fact that "I will have nothing to do with this" was made clearly. At this BO said "in that case goodbye" or something very similar. I picked up my papers. There was no bad feeling or bad words, we just disagreed. As soon as I was outside I rang SDV (Superintendent Shaw Du Val, Head of Operations) and alerted him to the possible problem at the C.P.C. AF rang me not long afterwards and told me that she had abstained. I told her to put this beyond all doubt by a follow - up email to the Chair. I made this notebook entry then walked over to Ops for it to be timed in the relevant machine
Now what concerns me here is we have an independent witness as to what's going on, Detective Inspector Allison Fossey. Has she never been asked about what happened at her meeting, I mean, you would think that would be a good idea?. This was all about the removal of the then Heath Minister Stuart Syvret. Again we have a Chief of Police giving a Sworn Affidavit which contains so much information, that I wish Andrew Lewis would take a leaf out of his book and also do one.
You can read that debate by going into the States of Jersey Greffe and looking up the 11th September 2007 debate.
I have pulled this question out because it shows you just what is going on here. People say the real Chief Minister is Philip Ozouf. That might be so but the man with all the power is Chief Executive Bill Ogley.
A former Chief of Police makes a Sworn Affidavit and our Minister says "So what, not in Jersey"
This is a bit of information about a Sworn Affidavit. You can see why none of the others have made one, you are required to tell the truth.
A sworn affidavit is a written statement made by a person who is under oath to tell the truth about the facts and information contained in the statement. Additionally, the person signing the affidavit, called the affiant, attests to his or her identity. Usually, the affidavit must be witnessed and signed by a person who is legally authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary public. The notary is generally required to place a notary seal on the statement.
When a person signs a sworn affidavit, he or she is promising that anything contained in the statement is accurate and true. Effectively, it is the same thing as orally presenting testimony in court. If a person lies about the information contained in the statement, he or she could be prosecuted for the crime of perjury, which is lying under oath. If convicted, the person may be ordered to pay significant fines or may even be sentenced to time in jail.
A sworn affidavit is most commonly used in a court case for the purpose of providing evidence about facts pertaining to the case. It may also be used to validate documentary evidence, such as an official record. In some circumstances, a sworn affidavit is entered into evidence at a court trial in lieu of the affiant’s sworn testimony. This is typically done when the affiant is unavailable to come to court for some reason or when needed in order to save time. When an attorney files a motion or pleading on behalf of his or her client, the attorney may also submit affidavits for the purpose of establishing facts and lending credibility to the legal arguments made in the filing.
A person may sign a sworn affidavit for events that occur outside of a court. For instance, the seller of a piece of real estate is generally required to submit an affidavit of title to the prospective homebuyer. The affidavit usually states the seller’s marital status and certifies that there is no defect in the title. In addition, the affidavit may indicate that the seller is currently in possession or the property
What our Chief Minister must now be asked to do is show the evidence that backs up his assertions that all was justified. Saying "I Believe" and "to the best of my knowledge" is not cutting it when it goes against all the evidence now in the public domain.
What is happening with the Child Abuse Cover-up and the subsequent suspension of Graham Power should worry everyone on this Island as these are the people that have taken Jersey to where it is, same management same shambles yet most people didn't care because the good times were rolling, these type of issues where of no consequence. But like I have said before the good times have left the building ( for now?) and there are some hard times coming up.
Are these Clowns leading us down the Garden Path
I will leave you with the Keyboard Cat, take it away.