Sunday, December 12, 2010

MARCH 31ST : CHIEF MINISTER AND THE MISSING PART D -2



Graham Power QPM - A man who has conducted himself with Integrity and never been offered due process.





Chief Minister Le Suer-  Lies? Misleading the house? Incompetence? Just a puppet?. lets look at the evidence.


So as the Chief Minister says: "I stand by my statement".  Well lets look if it stacks up

On my last blog posting where I was asking the question "is the Chief Minister misleading the House", I published a letter from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, where he categorically states he would be willing to meet Brian Napier, but could not do so until certain points of clarification were obtained from the Chief Minster's department and the Home Affairs department concerning confidentiality clauses contained within the suspension code.

One of the main things I have noticed since I have been listening to the States is the inability of the Council of Ministers to give a straight answer on anything.  This was highlighted for me, when I started investigating the dropping of Part D in the terms of reference for the Napier Report.  The Chief Minister was asked a simple question by the Deputy of St Martin as to why Part D of the terms of reference was dropped.  The Chief Minister said that the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, had confirmed in a letter to the Deputy Chief Executive of the States of Jersey ("DCE") that he would fully participate in the Napier Review but, as I have shown,  this was not the case.

What I want to do is just look at this based on evidence and facts.  I will leave it up to my readers to judge whether the Chief Minister is misleading the House, lying or just plain incompetent.  Surely between the Chief Minister and the DCE they can understand the meaning of a simple letter and the conditional nature of Graham Power's words.  Also, I have discovered since investigating this issue, is how the Chief Minister has simply forgotten what oversight he gave to the Deputy of Martin.  Again I will lay this out with evidence and facts and I will leave it to my readers to decide whether the Chief Minister is misleading the House, lying or just plain incompetent.

I mean, really, you just couldn't make this up.  In the space of 8 months the Chief Minister has either totally lost his memory or is hoping that everybody else has lost theirs.  I am getting increasingly worried about the incompetence and general standard of governance in Jersey.  The budget debate truly showed the divide in the Chamber, the hostility, the cheap amendment trick from the Council of Ministers and the Bailiff telling a certain deputy how long he could speak for.  To top it all off, I really knew the game was up when one deputy started quoting "Mistletoe and Wine", a bloody Cliff Richard song, on a closing Christmas speech.  

So before I start laying out the evidence and facts, I have become very intrigued as to where the real balance of power lies in Jersey.  As in all nations, or even a forgotten Peruvian tribe, there will be a balance of power or a power structure.  I have also become intrigued in the role played by the Jersey Evening Post and its very close alliance with the "Establishment Elite".  They have been full on in their character assassinations of Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret and anyone who may dare to question the "Jersey Way".  Without the Jersey Evening Post, BBC Jersey and Channel Television, the Establishment Elite could not have attempted covering up the historic child abuse investigation as they would have had no reliable outlet through which they could run their smear campaign.  Again one must ask oneself, how was Senator Ian Le Marquand able to character assassinate Graham Power without the help of the Jersey Evening Post, BBC Jersey and Channel Television and hold a kangaroo court with a heavily redacted Wiltshire report, which he released after dropping all disciplinary charges against Graham Power.  These questions must be asked and answered.

I believe William Bailhache is the real power in Jersey and control stems from him through the law office.  There cannot be any other answer to how things have been allowed to go on.  As in all jurisdictions there is always someone who wields the power.  As I now lay out my case against the Chief Minister, if I could have one wish or Christmas present, it would be to have all the dropped cases from the historic abuse investigation examined by a fully independent lawyer.

I would also like to thank the former Chief of Police, Graham Power for answering my emails and questions that Team Voice have put to him and I thank him for allowing me to publish his statement.  I would also like to add that Team Voice and a select few politicians have tried to contact Brian Napier QC without success.  As I understand it, he is gagged by either a confidentiality agreement or the Jersey Way. 

Let's now look at the evidence concerning the missing part D of the terms of reference.  


This is from the 30th November 2010




2.9     Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the alteration of the Napier terms of reference:
It is a case of third time lucky; maybe this time.  Given that the explanations given as to why and when the Napier terms of reference were altered to 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 those discussions?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):
In answer to the Deputy’s questions in October and November of this year, I referred to the changes that were made to the terms of reference and to the confirmation received from the former Chief of Police that he would fully participate in the investigation.  I do not recall making any reference to decisions being taken after R.39 was presented to the States.  The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010 that he would fully participate in the investigation, that date being well before R.39 was presented to the States.  Because there was agreement between Mr. Power and Mr. Napier concerning participation that would enable Mr. Napier to gain full access to information, there was no need to involve either myself or the Deputy of St. Martin.
2.9.1  The Deputy of St. Martin:
From the answers given I cannot understand the logic of removing part (d).  Surely if the former Police Chief was going to assist with the review then part (d) should have remained as part of the terms of reference so those people mentioned in the Chief Officer’s affidavit could all have been interviewed.  Does the Chief Minister agree?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Yes, Mr. Napier had access to all the information he required and had it not been the case then I agree with the Deputy that the part (d) could have been left in there.  But as there was the categorical assurance from the former Chief Officer of Police, it was no longer necessary.
The Bailiff:
The Deputy of St. Mary and then I will come back to you.
2.9.2  The Deputy of St. Mary:
Does the Chief Minister not agree that there a difference between making a document available to Napier - namely the affidavit of the former Chief Officer of Police - and including in the terms of reference that Napier will consider that affidavit and what flows from it.  There is a world of difference and in his answer on 19th October the Chief Minister said he no doubt considered the allegations referred to in that affidavit and he treated them accordingly, not if it was excluded from the terms of reference.  Would the Chief Minister like to comment on the difference between giving someone a document and asking them to look carefully at that document?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
There is a difference between receiving an affidavit and acting on it.  What was being quite clear from reading the report of Mr. Napier is that not only was the report received, it was acted upon and there was full dialogue between Mr. Napier and the former Chief Officer of Police in order to elaborate any matters which were not adequately disclosed in that affidavit.
2.9.3  The Deputy of St. Martin:
The Chief Minister will no doubt have looked at all the documents that were circulating between the respective people and he will have known that there was a letter dated 21st April from the Deputy Chief Executive to Mr. Power asking him if he would agree.  So therefore that was a week after R.39 was published.  As the Chief Minister has agreed that I could have oversight of the Napier review but I never did, will he agree that maybe I and one other States Member could be party to have a look at the exchange of documents between the various people at some time in the near future?
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I do not have the details of any letter on 21st April to hand.  I stand by my statement that the former Chief Officer had confirmed in a letter dated 31st March.  This matter has been going on for some months now and I do not see any point in the Deputy or any other Member trying to rake through correspondence which, by its nature, is correspondence between individuals and does not form part of the terms of reference.  We have a full report from Mr. Napier, I have committed to bring forward the recommendations approved by the States at the last sitting and that should suffice for all Members at this stage.
2.9.4  The Deputy of St. Martin:
Could I just press, the Minister did not answer the second part, will he allow me to have the sight of the exchange of documents as per our agreement that I would have oversight?
The Bailiff:
I thought he said no.
Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
The agreement was that the Deputy and myself should be kept fully informed of the outcome of the proceedings, I do not think it is extended to seeing every single item of correspondence going in all directions from all parties.  That would strike me as being totally unnecessary and cumbersome.

So we know by looking at this that the Chief Minister and Graham Power have different interpretations of what has been stated.  I must ask myself:  Has the Chief Minister gone out of his way to actually look at the letter from Graham Power dated 31 March because, if he had, he surely wouldn't have given the answers he did to Deputy Hill's questions.  I am struggling with the logic of what has gone on here.  Is it lies, misleading the house or pure incompetence.  I would like your views on this.  Let's remember that the Chief Minister says: "I stand by my statement that the former Chief Officer had confirmed in a letter dated 31 March that he would fully participate in the Napier Review."  He said no such thing.

I will now publish the Statement by the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM 


Statement issued by Graham Power QPM.   Retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

I have recently been contacted by a number of parties and requested to provide information regarding my knowledge of any changes to the terms of reference for the review of my suspension from duty in 2008.   The review was conducted earlier this year by Mr Brian Napier QC who subsequently produced a report, commonly referred to as the “Napier Report.”   I have been told there have been some political exchanges relating to an apparent change in the terms of reference for Mr Napier’s review, and that a dispute may have arisen in respect of when and by what means I agreed to participate in his work.   Against this background I have agreed to provide further information in order to assist the democratic process.

The following account has been put together from my recollection of events, copies of correspondence which I have kept on file, and notes which I made of telephone conversations and meetings.   I hope it is of assistance in bringing clarity to whatever issues are currently in dispute.
I have a copy of a letter dated 25th February 2010 from myself to the Deputy Chief Executive of the Chief Minister’s Department.   The letter is headed “Reports of some form of enquiry into my suspension.”   In the letter I say that I have heard indirectly that the Chief Minister has commissioned some form of review in respect of my suspension.   I draw attention to the fact that there has been no communication with me about this matter and I ask for clarification as to the relationship between any enquiry and the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police.   In particular I draw attention to paragraph 1.2 of the Code which places a requirement of confidentiality upon all parties.   I suggest that the proposed review appears to be contrary to the confidentiality requirement of the Code.   I also raise the issue of whether any evidence gathered during the review will be liable to disclosure during any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.   (In the event all disciplinary proceedings in my case were abandoned in July 2010 which was after Mr Napier had completed the interview phase of his review but prior to the publication of his report.

It might be helpful at this time to draw attention to what I saw as the two principal difficulties arising from the proposed review, and how these difficulties arose from what appeared to be the incompatible requirements of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs.   As arrangements for the Napier review progressed I was in possession of two sets of correspondence.   One set, issued on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, warned me that I was bound by strict rules of confidentiality in relation to the suspension and the disciplinary process.   It also told me that anything I said may be used in evidence against me.   Subsequent correspondence, issued on behalf of the Chief Minister, suggested that I should meet with Mr Napier and tell him everything.   I believe that it was entirely legitimate for me to seek to reconcile these conflicting expectations, and to withhold any agreement to participate in the Napier review until these matters were resolved.
I did not receive a reply to my letter of 25th February until 30th March 2010 when a letter from the Deputy Chief Executive, dated 29th March 2010 was received enclosing the terms of reference for the Napier review.   The terms of reference contained what I now understand to be the disputed part (d) which relates to aspects of my first affidavit.   This is the only copy of the terms of reference I have in my possession.   I received no correspondence or any contact whatsoever in relation to any proposal to remove part (d) from the terms of reference.   Any consent which I subsequently gave to participate in the Napier review was based on the assumption that the terms of reference were those set out in the correspondence from the Deputy Chief Executive 29th March 2010 which included part (d).
In his letter dated 29th March 2010 the Deputy Chief Executive seeks to address the apparent conflict between the review and the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code by stating that parts of Mr Napier’s report will remain “confidential” until after disciplinary proceedings are concluded.  He then asks me to state whether or not I will participate in the Napier review.
On 31st March 2010 I replied to the above letter.   I stated that I wished to assist Mr Napier with his review provided outstanding issues are resolved.   I then listed the issues which I considered to be outstanding.   In my letter I acknowledge what has been said regarding part of the Napier report being regarded as confidential while disciplinary proceedings are live, but argue that this position is flawed on the basis that in any proceedings conducted under a statutory process there can be no such thing as a “confidential report.”   (It would for example be open to either side in the process to apply for all of the report to be disclosed in the interests of a fair hearing.)   My letter asks that the Deputy Chief Executive bring clarification to the outstanding issues in order that I can give further consideration to the matter.   I am aware that a copy of my letter dated 31st March 2010 has entered the public domain.
My view of the above letter is that it makes it clear that any participation in the Napier review is conditional on outstanding issues being resolved to the satisfaction of myself and my professional advisors.   I can think of no other reasonable interpretation.   In particular I cannot see how it can be taken as giving an undertaking that I will participate in the review.   Moreover, I note from subsequent correspondence that my interpretation of what my letter of 31st March 2010 is saying appears to have been shared at the time by the Chief Ministers Department. 

On 21st April 2010 I received a letter from the Deputy Chief Executive dated 16th April 2010 which begins “I reply to your letter dated 31st March 2010.”   The letter then goes on to refer to the issues which I raised in my letter and states “In your letter to me, you asked two specific questions which I will now answer in the order in which they were asked.”   The letter then refers to matters which I have previously identified as obstacles to my participation in the Napier review and concludes “I hope this clarifies the points raised in your letter and look forward to receiving your confirmation that you will be in a position to meet Mr Napier during the course of his current investigation.”   The meaning of this appears to me to be plain and obvious.   The writer is seeking to resolve my concerns and is asking whether I am now willing to meet with Mr Napier.   I can think of no other reasonable interpretation.   
I replied to the above letter the following day (22nd April 2010.)   I stated that although my concerns had not been fully addressed I am prepared to meet with Mr Napier, and I ask that he be given my contact details.   My position is that my letter dated 22nd April 2010 constitutes my agreement to participate in the Napier review and that no agreement was given prior to that date.
It transpired that my letter of 22nd April crossed in the post with a further letter from the Deputy Chief Executive dated 21st April 2010.   In that letter the writer appears to be under some pressure to resolve, one way or the other, whether I will agree to meet with Mr Napier.   Among other things the letter states “I must now set a deadline for you to agree to interview.”     I am asked to provide confirmation that I will attend for interview prior to 7th May 2010.   I am told that if I do not confirm my agreement, Mr Napier will proceed on the basis of such information as is publicly available.  It is clear from the tone and content of this letter that on 21st April 2010 the Chief Ministers Department remained unsure as to whether or not I would participate in the Napier review.   I sent a reply dated 23rd April 2010 which drew attention to my letter of a few days previously.   I also took the opportunity to draw attention to my prompt management of correspondence relating to the Napier review which contrasted with the delays and confusion emanating from the Chief Ministers Department.
I recall that this exchange was followed by some email contact with Mr Napier.   I have a note of my first telephone conversation with him which was on the afternoon of 28th April 2010.   The note indicates that we discussed arrangements for a meeting which were subsequently confirmed.   I met with Mr Napier on 13th May 2010.
My meeting with Mr Napier was in the form of an interview in which he asked questions and I provided answers.   In previous exchanges, and during the interview, he told me that he was in possession of all relevant papers relating to the issue, including the affidavit.   I understood from our conversations that while he saw the written material as useful background reading, it was probable that his report would be largely based on material gathered during interviews.   The questions asked of me during the interview were mostly about the matters which subsequently appeared in his report.   I had some further exchanges with Mr Napier but these were entirely about corrections to a typed draft transcript of the interview which he had provided.   There were no subsequent discussions of matters of substance.

I have been asked if I will comment on what I see as the consequences of the removal of part (d) from the terms of reference.   It is not possible for me to know how Mr Napier would have approached his task had the original terms of reference been in place.   It is however possible that had part (d) not been removed there may have been a need to comment in more detail on the events described in my Affidavit which took place some time prior to my suspension, but which may nevertheless have been influential in the decision to suspend.   These include my refusal to participate in what I saw as a Civil Service led attempt to remove a Minister from office, and other incidents, described in the affidavit, which were a cause of tension between what I saw as my professional obligation to maintain a politically independent Police Service, and the priorities of some of those in senior positions who had a more politicised agenda.   Investigation of these incidents may have created a need to interview additional witnesses.   However, without knowing the views of Mr Napier it is not possible to be certain on these matters.

I hope that the above information is helpful in assisting those who have an interest in the Napier review, its terms of reference, and the process by which those terms of reference were changed.

Friday 10th December 2010.
North Yorkshire.




I believe the evidence speaks for itself but I would like to hear  other views if you have them. 



The next puzzle I would like your opinion on is how, in the space of 8 months, did the Chief Minister  lose all recollection of the oversight granted to Deputy Hill with regard to the Napier Review.  The reason that this part is so important will be played out in the emails I reproduce below. So, what was in the first original draft of the Napier Review, why wasn't Deputy Hill allowed a view of this original draft?, and why did the Acting Chief of Police hand his notice in around the same time?

Chief Minister Le Suer states on the 30th November 2010 . 


Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
The agreement was that the Deputy and myself should be kept fully informed of the outcome of the proceedings, I do not think it is extended to seeing every single item of correspondence going in all directions from all parties.  That would strike me as being totally unnecessary and cumbersome.

So the key part being "Kept fully informed of the outcome. Now putting this alongside the dropped TOR part (d) do we have a conspiracy? or is it Lies, Incompetence or a little bit of both. But lets be absolutely clear here it's not looking good for the Integrity of the Chief Minister or his Deputy Chief Executive . Lets now look if the Chief Ministers answer stacks up


From: Bob Hill 
Sent: 01 March 2010 12:01
To: Terry Le Sueur
Subject: FW: Power enquiry



Good Morning Terry,

Thank you for your email. You will recall that I had expressed my concern as to the transparency and effectivness of your proposal  because your Expert would be reporting back to you and your Department. Those concerns remain, however I am willing to assist in the selection process once it is known who has responded to your advertisement and that I can have the same oversight as you in the selection, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that are received prior to the publication of the Final Report.

Regards
Bob.


From: Terry Le Sueur 
Sent: 01 March 2010 18:23
To: Bob Hill
Cc: John Richardson (CMD)
Subject: RE: Power enquiry


Dear Bob,

Thanks for this.    I am happy that you and I should have the same oversight in the selection, although technically the person to make the decision has to be the Chief Minister.     However I would not want to appoint anybody with whom you were not comfortable.      Fortunately we have a wide choice and I hope we can agree a name quite quickly, since I would like this work to commence a.s.a.p.       I gather you could be available at lunchtime tomorrow, and would be happy if you could meet me (and John Richardson) at my office at 1.00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. 
I also confirm that I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States.   
I look forward to hearing your comments tomorrow lunchtime.

Terrry.


So, as you can see, the evidence has been laid out. I believe, in my own opinion, that the Chief Minister has been misleading the House or, should we say, been very economical with the truth.  We should not believe everything we are told in replies to questions from ministers in the States of Jersey.  I am not an investigative journalist but, along with Team Voice, just want to show my readers what can be discovered when you scratch the surface and dig a little deeper into what is presented as fact.  It leaves me astounded that none of the local media outlets are looking into what is going on concerning Graham Power, Lenny Harper and the historical child abuse investigation.  It is quite obvious to me that they have a set agenda passed down to them from the elite powers that be.  There can be no doubting this.

Voice for Children will also be going to press with published letters from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power.

For all the victims of the historical child abuse investigation, Team Voice will never stop challenging the half truths and will continue to bring the real truth to light.

It is now up to the good States members with honesty and integrity to challenge these points in the New Year in the States of Jersey.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

58 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Terry Said in the States.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
"Yes, Mr. Napier had access to all the information he required and had it not been the case then I agree with the Deputy that the part (d) could have been left in there. But as there was the categorical assurance from the former Chief Officer of Police, it was no longer necessary."

So in there Terry seems to be telling us that the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM, on the 31st March 2010, in a letter gave his "catagorical assurance" that he was able to participate in the Napier Review.

He goes on to say.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
"I do not have the details of any letter on 21st April to hand. I stand by my statement that the former Chief Officer had confirmed in a letter dated 31st March."

So there it is again, "I stand by my statement that the former Chief Officer had confirmed in a letter dated 31st March."
I challenge your readers to read the letter on the 31st March 2010 and see if they can agree with the Chief Minister's interpretation of it?

Anonymous said...

Great post

Where do we start? The Voice is leading the way in investigative Journalism. Any idea when VFC will be publishing the Power letters? I would suggest you put a link to the power letter on your last posting.

Keep Going

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

The key paragraph of what Mr. Power writes is this:

"I have been asked if I will comment on what I see as the consequences of the removal of part (d) from the terms of reference. It is not possible for me to know how Mr Napier would have approached his task had the original terms of reference been in place. It is however possible that had part (d) not been removed there may have been a need to comment in more detail on the events described in my Affidavit which took place some time prior to my suspension, but which may nevertheless have been influential in the decision to suspend. These include my refusal to participate in what I saw as a Civil Service led attempt to remove a Minister from office, and other incidents, described in the affidavit, which were a cause of tension between what I saw as my professional obligation to maintain a politically independent Police Service, and the priorities of some of those in senior positions who had a more politicised agenda. Investigation of these incidents may have created a need to interview additional witnesses. However, without knowing the views of Mr Napier it is not possible to be certain on these matters."

That encapsulates exactly what the Jersey oligarchy were doing - and why.

You know - I'm still not sure to this day that there is any one of the Jersey oligarchs who quite realises just how much trouble they are in.

Perhaps such stupidity and hubris is the automatic product of a stagnant single-party regime - grown ignorant and complacent through a complete absence of meaningful scrutiny and the iron control of all authority?

As I have often remarked on my blog - the Jersey authorities have done things - nakedly criminal things - to people like Mr. Power, survivors, me, whistle blowers and others - that no public authorities in any established democratic country would even have contemplated.

The wonder is - they appear to still be under the delusion that they'll get away with it, if they just keep stonewalling long enough.

No.

These events are not merely just one more traditional Jersey scandal - that will fade away with a few pay-offs here - a few blackmailing oppressions there - and some deafening silences from the island's traditional media.

The Jersey Child Abuse Disaster was the occasion when - after 800 years - the Jersey oligarchy finally went too far.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Here's another one of Terry's, shall we say, "contradictions."

In an e-mail to Deputy Bob Hill Terry said.

"I also confirm that I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States."

And then in the States he goes onto say.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
The agreement was that the Deputy and myself should be kept fully informed of the "outcome" of the proceedings."

Again it doesn't stack up. in one breath he is saying "I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States."

And then he says.

"The agreement was that the Deputy and myself should be kept fully informed of the "outcome" of the proceedings".

So is it "fully informed of the outcome of the proceedings" or is it "I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States."?

It can't be both.

rico sorda said...

Hi Stuart

You are so right. It is one of the things im struggling with. How these things are allowed to just happen with no one saying a thing. The Media need a root and branch clear out. They like the FSLM are a danger to the Islands Children, if they are not prepared to investigate or ask questions then it will all happen again.

The Jersey Child Abuse disaster has blown the lid off this place no doubt about it. We must keep exposing the truth. I know how much this blogging and research has taken out of me ,so i am full of admiration for the work you are doing and how you keep going.

If TLS is misleading the house what can be done about it

rs

Anonymous said...

it should be clear to all by now, that our elected representatives are only there to maintain the illusion of democratic process in this island

and it is an illusion,when an unelected lawyer can dictate what,when,how and by who discussion and questions are allowed in the chamber
(dont lawyers have chambers?)

dont be fooled,it is hugely significant that the 'states' is a corporation, run under commercial and maritime admiralty laws,
what is unlawful in common law (the law of the land),can be legalised in commercial jurisdictions

the blatant disregard for the law of the land is evidenced by the shite spouted by the likes of tls,ilm ozouf and other 'on message' members

if we continue to allow the usurpation of common law,we will all,eventually become indentured slaves of STATES OF JERSEY INC.

#6

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Some more facts and evidence.

rico sorda said...

The Chief Minister says......

"The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010 that he would fully participate in the investigation, that date being well before R.39 was presented to the States. Because there was agreement between Mr. Power and Mr. Napier concerning participation that would enable Mr. Napier to gain full access to information,"

Graham Power says.....

"I replied to the above letter the following day (22nd April 2010.) I stated that although my concerns had not been fully addressed I am prepared to meet with Mr Napier, and I ask that he be given my contact details"

Mr Napier Contacts Graham Power by phone on the 28th April 2010

So, what is going on here. I have always said it's about evidence and facts. If the media gave it ago it would go a long way to cleaning up the complete and utter mess we are in.

What is going on between John Richardson and the Chief Minister? I don't believe TLS is so innocent in all this and the reason for saying this is the fact that TLS stopped GP from obtaining the dates of the original drafts of his suspension dates.

Lies, Lies and damn Lies

It is this attitude that goes to the heart of everything in Jersey.

The Incinerator

The Waterfront

WEB

Land Rezoning

Toxic Ash Dumping

You name it they can do it. They can say what they like because no one investigates and when a good Deputy does and brings the facts to the house he /she will be heckled down by the lackies

That is where the problem "LIES"

rs

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

Could you leave a straight forward comment explaining exactly what 'JERSEY INC' is. I would also like to know in a easy to follow comment exactly what is going on

Thanks rs

Anonymous said...

the STATES OF JERSEY INC. is what we commonly call the 'states'

our government and all its departments are limited liability companies

the last report i saw had A.Ridgway and P.Bailhache named as directors (a bit old now)

SOJ inc. was incorporated on 1/1/1892

the 'states' is a business with owners just like any other company

all corporations are chartered by law to look after the best interests of the owners, above all else

rico, you ask for an easy to follow comment on exactly what is going on.
It is not easy to follow i'm sorry to say, we have some of the most expensive lawyers on earth,
making good money advising on jersey commercial law

i'm just a tradesman who has done due diligence
and discovered we live under a corrupt regime that routinely gets away with unlawful acts
(historic child abuse,g power suspension, stuart
debacle and much more)
the SOJ INC. have been screwing jersey locally for decades

I believe that if we can find out who the shareholders of SOJ INC. are,we will have our remedy from these racketeers

Anonymous said...

rico

our remedy

it is my understanding that for SOJinc. to lawfully be our government,then the people must own the company

shareholders have in law the right to vote and collect any dividend,
share holders and owners of shares are not necessarly one and the same, shareholders can and do hold shares for others (ask a corporate administrator)

a shareholder without proxy (instructions from the owner)is obliged by law to do what the shareholder BELIEVES is in the best interest of the owner.

everyone has the right to hold their property

if we know who the shareholders are we can ask for our shares back and hold them ourselves,

It is a criminal offence for anyone,without lawful excuse, to refuse to give back someones property

rico sorda said...

"I believe William Bailhache is the real power in Jersey and control stems from him through the law office. There cannot be any other answer to how things have been allowed to go on. As in all jurisdictions there is always someone who wields the power. As I now lay out my case against the Chief Minister, if I could have one wish or Christmas present, it would be to have all the dropped cases from the historic abuse investigation examined by a fully independent lawyer"

How does this fit in with the Jersey Inc? Something must be going on over here as the total submissive approach of our media demonstrates. There are some untouchables. I remember being in a room with some very brave Abuse Survivors and the local media with the reason being the dropping of the Maguires case from Blanche Pierre. I will never forget a question being asked of our local media as to why they hadn't door stepped the AG for an explanation as to why the case had been dropped, they said they wanted to but had been told that they cant. It was a simple as that.

rs

Anonymous said...

Was the reason for dropping part (d) to narrow napiers remit so less chance of finding the evidence for a conspiracy. Having said that after reading the napier report it's all in there. I can see why he was kept away from our shores and no statement was brought to the states.

rico sorda said...

"including the Final Report to be presented to the States."?

These are the Chief Ministers words so what happened?

Deputy Hill brought p166/2010 asking for a statement to be brought to the states yet the lackies voted against almost every part of it. This is the incompetence that is ruining this Island, it counts for every issue facing us. In the good times the incompetence was hidden from view, the money god covered it all up, but now all is being laid bare.

rs

Anonymous said...

yes W.B. has a lot of power,I wouldn't mind betting he is a director or CEO or somesuch of SOJinc.
the island IS run by the law officers and law society of jersey,Bailhache and his degenerate
mates compartmentalise the running of the 'firm'

sorry rico, but a fully independent lawyer?
yer having a laugh eh!

if you like i could deconstruct an enactment of the 'firm' showing that statutes do not apply to people, and how lawyers are complicit in this subterfuge

keep up the good work

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

Feel free I find it all very interesting. I would love to know where the owners of the Jersey Evening Post fit in. Is John Averty still in control of the JEP

rs

Anonymous said...

So as the Chief Minister says: "I stand by my statement". Well lets look if it stacks up

NO

rico sorda said...

P166/2010

So was it brought to the COM concerning the disciplinary of Bill Ogley? Who would be their delegate? and why discipline someone on a report that the Chief Minister didn't agree with it's findings. I swear trying to work this Government out is a joke




1.1.5 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:

I would like to refer to page 7 of the proposition and the first paragraph after the bullet points in which the Deputy of St. Martin states: “Members may consider it reasonable that the Chief Minister considers whether disciplinary action against the Chief Executive is appropriate.” Then I refer Members to part (6) of part (a) of the proposition which reads: “The Chief Minister has been requested to advise whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update Members on the outcome of those proceedings.” Very briefly I would just like to remind Members that some months ago I was elected as a new member to the States Employment Board and I take the view that all matters that I deal with and that I hear as a member of the board should be treated in confidence. I would just like to clarify for the House that the matter of any disciplinary proceedings to be taken as a result of the Napier Report have not been brought to the States Employment Board for discussion, and the reason is that the disciplinary code for the Chief Executive is set out in an addendum to his contract. The code requires that such matters are dealt with by the Council of Ministers or their delegate and accordingly it is not a matter in which the States Employment Board can be involved.

rico sorda said...

No Home Affairs Minister we cant just move on. This about many things and the answers must be found

p166/2010

1.1.9 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no doubt whatsoever that it is time for the States of Jersey Police to move on. It is time for a new police chief. It is also time for key players like the former Chief Officer of Police to be allowed to move on into a peaceful retirement, and it is time for the Assembly to move on. The repeated asking of questions and going over of the same ground is taking us nowhere. The Chief Minister is not going to change his opinion of these matters. I am not going to change my opinion on these matters and I expect that almost all of the Members in this Assembly are not going to change their opinions on these matters. I am going to begin with the conclusions of the Royal Court in the judgment in the case of Power v Minister for Home Affairs. This is the decision, the conclusion, the summary in relation to the judicial review hearing in relation to the decisions which I made in relation to continuing the suspension. It is highly irrelevant to the matters that we are considering, and particularly it is highly relevant as to the difficulties in which the Chief Minister finds himself with the opinion of Mr. Napier on the one hand and the opinions of the Attorney General and myself, and indeed the judgment of the Royal Court, on the other hand in relation to various matters. The fact is that this is a complex matter. Mr. Napier has come to certain conclusions but those conclusions are not the same conclusions as come to by other people on other occasions. That is what I believe is causing the Chief Minister some difficulty.

rico sorda said...

I also believe that ILM assured the Royal Court that Graham Power would be offered due process not a Kangaroo Court

rs

Ian Evans said...

Graham Power got "Due Process" it's called a "Cover Up" that is the only due process anyone gets in Jersey, and we have countless examples of it.

Anonymous said...

''The Chief Minister is not going to change his opinion of these matters. I am not going to change my opinion on these matters and I expect that almost all of the Members in this Assembly are not going to change their opinions on these matters.''

The above quote shows an admission we are not getting honest answers we are being being fed opinions.

(I think it is know that the members of the States assembly are not going to change their minds.)

I am certain it is known members of the States assembly will not change their minds.

Anonymous said...

[Mr. Napier has come to certain conclusions but those conclusions are not the same conclusions as come to by other people on other occasions. That is what I believe is causing the Chief Minister some difficulty. ]

Oh I see, the only part of the Napier report that TLS will hang his hat on is the one matter Mr Napier did not follow up on, the CONSPIRACY, strange how TLS accepts that without question, whereas, those matters which were well investigated, TLS has a problem with!!!!

Zoompad said...

"The Chief Minister is not going to change his opinion of these matters"

Oh, he is a slippery little sucker, he will certainly change his opinion on these matters, when he is finally brought to justice and sitting in a dingy little cell at La Moye. And if Mr Millar has a sense of humour he might put him in the same one that Stuart had to spend the night in!

Anonymous said...

How come you are nailing the chief minister with ease yet the main stream media can never find anything.

Anonymous said...

"There is no doubt whatsoever that it is time for the States of Jersey Police to move on. It is time for a new police chief. It is also time for key players like the former Chief Officer of Police to be allowed to move on into a peaceful retirement, and it is time for the Assembly to move on"

What is ILM on about. Ok so we have tried to ruin his good name now lets all move on. A peaceful retirement? Lets all go and put it to be bed, lets all move on, from one toxic waterfront to another toxic cover up.

Zoompad said...

"How come you are nailing the chief minister with ease yet the main stream media can never find anything."

Are you joking? What with Strictly Come Dancing, The X Factor and the Corrie Special surely you don't expect the main stream media to be reporting any news?????

rico sorda said...

Senator ILM

"The Chief Minister is not going to change his opinion of these matters. I am not going to change my opinion on these matters and I expect that almost all of the Members in this Assembly are not going to change their opinions on these matters"

Who is asking for there bloody opinion? it's hard evidence and facts that are being asked for. And people ask why we are going down faster than the Titanic.

Opinion,

And thats a from a former Magistrate

rs

Ian Evans said...

"Hungry Baby Gets LEGS SNAPPED by her father, who will serve only one year!!!

Anonymous said...

Phillip Ozouf has been a naughty boy........more to follow.

Anonymous said...

deconstruction

INTERPRETATION (JERSEY) LAW 1954

article 1. definitions with regard to enactments.
(1)"in this Law and in every other enactment (as hereby defined) whether passed before or after the commencement of this Law, the expression "enactment",unless (a) contrary intention appears, shall mean any provision of any Law passed by the states and confirmed by Her Majesty in Council and any provision of any regulations,orders,rules,bye-laws,scheme or other instrument passed or made in Jersey under the authority of any Order in Council or under any such Law as aforesaid."

please note the (a) is in my brackets

basically this means the definitions in this 'Law' apply to all statutory regulations, legislation, licences, registrations etc.

article 3. application of penal enactments to bodies corporate.
"Application of penal enactments relating to a punishable offence,whether passed before or after the commencement of this Law, the expression "person" shall,unless (the) contrary intention appears, includes a body corporate."

again my brackets around 'the'

and in the schedule,part 1,defined expressions
we find:-
"person" shall include any body of persons corporate or unincorporated."

article3 tells us a "person" shall include a body corporate
it does not include anything else
and this is confirmed in the schedule

so for all enactments a person is a body corporate

there is a qualifying line

art 3 again:-
"unless the contrary intention appears"

here the law society/bar association acknowledges 'the' contrary definition to their meaning of the expression "person"(a body corporate)
it is the definition all us non lawyers know for the word person, eg. man,woman,girl,boy - people -human beings

use of the word 'a' (art 1) implies there could be a contrary meaning

use of the word 'the' states clearly there is the contrary meaning

I have found no enactments where the contrary intention appears, they all apply only to "persons" - (bodies corporate)

all competent lawyers know the legal difference between persons and people

no jersey lawyer would swear under oath with full commercial liability that "for the purposes of enactments a person is a man or woman."

if you look at CHILDRENS (JERSEY) LAW 2002
part 1,article 1 you will find the definition of the word 'child'

why would the law society/B.A. seek to redefine words we all know the meaning of?

lawyers are good with words, they use them precisly, not a commer or capital letter or bracket out of place.

there is a legal maxim:-
" Fictions arise from the law,and not law from fictions"

governments,corporations etc. are legal fictions

by putting the word LAW in the title of enactments SOJ inc. are using devious behavour designed to deceive

(JERSEY) in the title of enactments means SOJ inc. so, (JERSEY) LAW means the laws (rules) of the company

next:- a nice little earner

Anonymous said...

Rico

In the States Chamber from a former Magistrate it really is disgusting behaviour.

Ministers are abusing and intimidating States Members who want answers not the admitted opinions given so far.

These repeat questions are getting somewhere.

We have learnt that the Napier report was not as TLS would have the public believe.

We have had an apology from States of Jersey for victims of abuse which we would not of got had States members ceased with their questions.

The choice of whether TLS or others change their opinions is entirely up to them, but that is not what they are being asked for is it?

rico sorda said...

CHECK IT OUT

RS

rico sorda said...

"Phillip Ozouf has been a naughty boy........more to follow"

Only interested if it's political and to do with the good governance of Jersey.

Cheers

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

Will you be bloging on todays spin ref Historical Child Abuse shut down. The stats are just staggering and i have just heard warcup on the radio saying that it was 7 million well spent. We have just had 2 years of them saying what a mess it was. They forget what they spin

Anonymous said...

By Diane Simon



A major part of the investigation focused on allegations at the former children’s home Haut de la Garenne between 1960 and 1986
JERSEY’S historical abuse inquiry is officially over, acting police chief David Warcup announced today.

The investigation – the longest and most expensive in the Island’s history – has been officially closed after States police ruled that all lines of inquiry have been exhausted. The final cost will be in excess of £10m.

During the inquiry – named Operation Rectangle – officers investigated 533 offences, took 1,776 statements, collected 9,874 documents and seized 4,620 exhibits. And a total of 192 victims were identified during police inquiries.

• See today’s JEP for full reports

Article posted on 14th December, 2010 - 3.00pm

rico sorda said...

I will be seriously looking at the latest from the spin factory. So much of it today not sure where to start but start we will.

rs

Anonymous said...

Does this mean now that it is officially over. The 1,776 statements, the 9,874 documents and the 4,620 exhibits can now be destroyed?

Or have they already....

Long been gone?!

Anonymous said...

Jersey Police have officially marked the end of the Historic Abuse Inquiry.

The investigation, which to date has cost seven and a half million pounds has seen seven successful prosecutions.

The historical abuse inquiry, known as Operation Rectangle, was carried out by the States of Jersey Police between September, 2007 and December, 2010.

The conclusion of the trial involving Morag and Tony Jordan marks the end of a thorough and detailed enquiry into allegations of historical abuse within the child care system in Jersey during the period from 1941 to 2009.

The scope of the inquiry, the details of which are set out below, dealt with offences committed in childrens homes, institutions and private residences within the Island. A major part of the inquiry focused on matters at the former childrens home Haut de la Garenne, where enquiries covered the period between 1960 to 1986, when the home closed.

During the lifetime of Operation Rectangle:

1,776 statements were taken.

9,874 documents were collated during the enquiry, with 4,620 exhibits seized.

533 offences were reported and recorded under the National Crime Recording Standards.1 Under these standards, one offence is recorded for either a single offence or series of similar offences against one victim by the same alleged offender.

Of the total of 533 offences, 274 were alleged sexual offences; 238 were offences of assault, ill-treatment or neglect, 17 were offences of Grave and Criminal Assault and there were four other offences.

315 offences were reported as being committed at Haut de la Garenne; 66 at other homes or institutions and 152 at places where children were fostered or in private addresses.

43% of all offences allegedly committed at Haut de la Garenne were sexual offences. 84% of all offences in foster care or private residences were sexual offences.

Eight people (seven men and one woman) have been charged and tried before the Courts in Jersey with seven successful prosecutions resulting from these cases.

The eight people were prosecuted for a total of 145 offences (27%).

As a result of the complaints received, 151 named offenders were identified, 41 other offenders were not identified.

A total of 192 individual victims were identified.

30 of the named offenders were identified as having died before the inquiry was undertaken.

The total policing costs of the Historical Abuse Inquiry to date is £7,574,636, of which £5,088,328 is staff costs and £2,486,308 comprising non-staff costs (e.g. accommodation , travel and forensic costs).

Where appropriate, legal advice was obtained to determine if there was sufficient evidence to justify proceedings.

In recent months, the investigating team has also undertaken a detailed and thorough re-examination of all of the evidence to ensure that there were no potential lines of enquiry which remained outstanding.

David Warcup, Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, said: Investigations of this nature are particularly difficult and protracted, especially for the victims, and officers have worked hard to ensure that the needs of victims have been met. Every allegation or complaint has been given full and proper consideration and all possible lines of enquiry have been pursued.

At this point in time, there is no evidence from which it would be possible to mount any further prosecutions.

Should evidence become available then the force will review this to determine what, if any, further action should be taken.

"The States of Jersey Police will continue to investigate all allegations of abuse, whether historical or current, thoroughly and sensitively. The force has highly skilled, specialist officers trained in this area of work, and the States of Jersey Police remain committed to bringing offenders to justice.

Anonymous said...

David Warcup, Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, said: Investigations of this nature are particularly difficult and protracted, especially for the victims, and officers have worked hard to ensure that the needs of victims have been met. Every allegation or complaint has been given full and proper consideration and all possible lines of enquiry have been pursued.

At this point in time, there is no evidence from which it would be possible to mount any further prosecutions.



BULLSHIT

Anonymous said...

How desperate is it l getting? if old man bailhache is sitting on the couch at CTV you can bet its desperate.

Huge Child Abuse Scandal

0/10

Bailiff under threat

And more on its way

Anonymous said...

Yes, thats if they havn't already been destroyed. Just who is in possession of these 16,270 statemens, documents and exhibits. Now?

Anonymous said...

272 alleged sexual offences.

To date only 8 people have been charged?

The States of Jersey Police officially marked the end of the investigation.

Scary. We have some huge problems here.

Anonymous said...

Was it not also said, that there was not enough evidence in the cases that were eventually heard in court?

Anonymous said...

Reports coming in say that David Warcup has a rather large bonfire burning in an even stranger looking bath. Worse still Tinkerbell is shaking her sexy booty to a picture of Mick Gradwell with his big manly rugby chest out. In fact its one large party. ILM is getting down and dangerous playing how many teeth can you get between the floorboards whilst hopping about on a Kangaroo, he is even drinking from the magical cup of Wiltshire. Hang on, here comes TLS, and there he goes. There all here at the closing down party. Teflon Bill has just got in the ring, christ this is one crazy party, he has just bet £100 he can go more than 5 rounds with the chief exec of education. Not a chance says WB , what do you mean says Captain Jersey ( el tel) I have read the fecking reports, they don't call him 'one punch lario' for nothing.

Must go

Anonymous said...

These are the ones charged and deservedly so. But lets look at the list

What happened to all the Abuse that took place in the Care of the States Of Jersey?

Did Vandenborn and Thorne work for the States?

Gordon Claude Wateridge was found guilty of assault on three girls while he was a house parent at Haute de la Garenne between 1969 and 1979.

Claude James Donnelly was jailed in June 2009 for 15 years for rape and indecent assault.

Michael Aubin was given two years probation for various sexual offences at Haut de la Garenne between 1977 and 1980

Ronald George Thorne was spent 12 months in prison for gross indecency between 1983 and 1984

Leonard Miles Vandenborn was ailed for 12 years for the rape and indecent assault of two young girls in the 1970s and 1980s.

Morag and Tony Jordan, former house parents at Haute de la Garenne, were found guilty of assaulting children in their care. The couple, of Angus, Scotland, will be sentenced in January.


If the Jordans ended up in court then what magical mystery kept the Mcguires out of court.

rico sorda said...

6.5 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Would the Chief Minister advise please on what role does the States Employment Board take in ensuring chief officers are accountable, and can he say who carries out performance appraisals of chief officers, how often they occur and to whom the appraiser is accountable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The primary responsibility in respect of the accountability of chief officers if we are talking about financial matters is for the Treasury in terms of accounting officers. In terms of performance, which may be what the Deputy is asking, a performance review and appraisal of all chief officers is carried out on an annual basis. The appraisal of the Chief Executive is carried out by me personally, assisted by an external adviser. I am accountable to this House for that matter. Other chief officers are appraised by the Chief Executive or by his nominee and are accountable through him.


Now you see why no one is accountable they all have each others back

rs

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Le Sueur is accountable to the house he is not doing his job we keep hearing his opinions?

Now is the time we need questions fired at TLS thick and fast, He wants this over put to bed. The man is in a corner.

Please please Ministers do not give TLS what he wants until he gives the answers to your questions.

Ian Evans said...

Last I heard, documents on unsolved cases must be held indifinately....

Anonymous said...

David Warcup is way off the mark. According to the victims/survivors police stopped working hard to ensure the needs of the victims were being met as soon as he arrived and engineered the constructive fit up, sorry, suspension of Graham Power. Now the officers working on the enquiry were substantially the same as those who had drawn such praise from the victims in the preceding months. Nothing changed except the two in charge, the very same two whose spatial awareness led to them mistaking seven foot cellars for floor voids and getting the wrong dates on important letters, not to mention of course missing important bits of the so called Met interim report. It doesn't take much to guess why looking after the interests of the abuse victims suddenly diminished in importance. Lenny Harper

moral-rightness said...

6.5 Deputy A.E June - Senator T.A. Le Sueur - written in a style of a question/answer styled interview


AEJ: Chief Minister, what role does the States Employment Board take in ensuring chief officers are accountable?

TLS: Silence......

AEJ: It's obvious from your silence on that question that you do not wish to answer, so I'll move onto the next one, can you tell me who carries out performance appraisals of chief officers?

TLS: The primary responsibility in respect of the accountability of chief officers if we are talking about financial matters is for the Treasury in terms of accounting officers.

AEJ: Nope you've lost me there, I didn't ask that, I asked can you tell me who carries out performance appraisals of chief officers?

TLS: In terms of performance, which may be what you're asking

AEJ: Not maybe, it is what I'm asking

TLS: The appraisal of the Chief Executive is carried out by me personally, assisted by an external adviser.

AEJ: How often do you conduct an appraisal?

TLS: Well a performance review and appraisal of all chief officers is carried out on an annual basis.

AEJ: and to whom are you accountable too?

TLS: I am accountable to this House for that matter. Other chief officers are appraised by the Chief Executive or by his nominee and are accountable through him.

AEJ: Just one more time, what role does the States Employment Board take in ensuring chief officers are accountable?

TLS: ................................... silence (no answer)

Anonymous said...

If Warcup was responsible for ensuring that cases against abusers were strong enough to pass the AG criteria!, no wonder there were only seven, as this Warcup chap, thought it wise to omit the caveats from the Interim Wiltshire Report, that should have ensured that it could not be relied upon for anything, let alone as the basis of a suspension!! With that sort of acumen how can we be sure the cases were as strong as they could have been!

Anonymous said...

The Chief Minister wants it all put to bed, but then doesn't answer questions, so back it comes again, and so on.

rico sorda said...

Please listen to this. The closing down of the Historic Abuse Investigation has left even more questions unanswered.

2.35

This is telling it how it is. Go to 2mins 35 secs

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

One of the biggest revelations (for me) to have come out of the Historic Abuse enquiry is that of the role that is played by the "accredited" media on this island.

They, in my opinion have been exposed, at best, as inept beyond comprehension, and at worst complicit in the ghastly shennanigans of this out of control and lawless government.

Our "accredited" media question nothing, they get a press release handed to them and they just churn it out, no questions asked. If it wasn't for the "accredited" media our government would not have been able to get away with all this for so long.......in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Rico

Have just been reading the latest on ex Senator Syvret on channelonline but it was the comments section that got my attention. You guys must be doing something right thats all i can say.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Case Closed?

Ian Evans said...

Hope you LIKE the picture.