Sunday, February 27, 2011

What is that "MOUSE" and what could it mean?

As you can see from the above picture the "MOUSE" scares people in power. 

The Internet is changing the world. Truth, Honesty and Integrity must be allowed to breathe. The "MSM" have let the people of Jersey down for far to  long.

I have said on more than one occasion; Can you name me the Stories the Main Stream Media have broken since 1948 that have been of benefit to the people of Jersey and held our Government to account.

Exam Results and it's let crack open the Champagne 

I thought I would do a quick blog on this rather miserable Sunday afternoon about the forthcoming States of Jersey debate on P19 lodged by Senator Le Gresley and amendments lodged by Deputy Tadier and Deputy Hill asking the Council of Ministers ("COM") to reconsider their decision on having a Committee of Enquiry.  The debate should be a fascinating one and if I could point out some of the speeches that I think you should be listening out for.  They are, in no particular order:


Deputy Ann Pryke, Minister for Health and Social Services;

Deputy James Reed, Education Minister;

Senator Ian Le Marquand, Home Affairs Minister;

Senator Philip Ozouf, Treasury Minister; and

Our Chief Minister, Terence Augustine Le Sueur.


I believe that these politicians will try and swing the Chamber into voting against a committee of enquiry.  Now, you could call me cynical, but you cannot discount that the COM will try and pull a flanker and derail the debate at the 11th hour.  This is something they have shown themselves to be quite good at, because, let's face it, they do not want a committee of enquiry; not now and not ever.  What they will try and do is use the classic States of Jersey stalling tactic.  One only has to look at the Graham Power suspension to see this tactic in action. 


So, as we come into March, what the COM may try and do is stall the debate.  The reason for doing this is that we are in election year.  If they can delay it until the summer recess then there's a good chance that nothing will happen this year.  I could be wrong and let's hope I am.  We'll have to wait and see what happens on Tuesday 1 March, but for all the survivors of the Jersey Child Abuse scandal, I hope a committee of enquiry will be delivered and that this can be the first step on the road to securing some form of closure.

The next Issue I want to post for people to see is this one from the BBC about Bloggers in the UK and the filming of meetings. The Secret Jersey Government don't want their Scrutiny meetings filmed, they put everything on the "B" agenda. Secrecy, Secrecy, Secrecy 

23 February 2011 Last updated at 00:02

Share this page

Let bloggers film meetings, Eric Pickles tells councils

'Online broadcasters' should get the same access as traditional media, says Mr Pickles

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

Councils should allow bloggers to film their meetings, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said.

His department has contacted councils to ask that they adopt a "modern-day approach".

It follows reports that some bloggers were stopped from using Twitter or filming during public meetings.

Mr Pickles said it was important local bloggers were given the same access as professional journalists at a time when budget decisions are being made.

He said: "Fifty years ago, Margaret Thatcher changed the law to make councils open their meetings to the press and public. This principle of openness needs to be updated for the 21st Century. More and more local news comes from bloggers or citizen journalists telling us what is happening at their local council.

"Many councils are internet-savvy and stream meetings online, but some don't seem to have caught up with the times and are refusing to let bloggers or hyper-local news sites in."

He added: "Opening the door to new media costs nothing and will help improve public scrutiny."

Data protection

Mr Pickles said a decision by Tameside borough council, in Greater Manchester, to accredit professional journalists to use the micro-blogging website Twitter meant "local bloggers, the public and even councillors are not permitted to 'tweet' because they are not considered members of the press".

And he pointed out that Windsor and Maidenhead borough council had "raised concerns about videoing, citing 'Data Protection'." Blogger Chris Taggart published footage on his own website of his unsuccessful efforts to film the council's meeting.

Windsor and Maidenhead said a motion to allow people to film their meetings "provided anyone wishing to record them complies with obligations under the Data Protection Act", was expected to be approved on Tuesday.

Tameside council argued at the time that it was complying with the Local Government Act 1972, which states that councils are not required to allow photos to be taken of meetings "or the use of any means to enable persons not present to see or hear any proceedings".

It argued that it was "obliged to consider specific requests to use media such as 'Twitter'" and had allowed the Manchester Evening News, Tameside Advertiser and Tameside Reporter to do so "as duly accredited representatives of the press, as defined in the Local Government Act 1972".

Local government minister Bob Neill has written to local councils to "remind" them that meetings are already open to the public. It also "reassured councils that giving greater access will not contradict data protection law requirements" in most cases.

The move was backed by Mr Taggart, who founded the website, who said "hyperlocal" bloggers were doing some of the best council reporting in the country and it was "crazy" for councils to stop people "videoing, tweeting and live-blogging their meetings".

Recently journalists have been allowed to "tweet" from some court cases. The Supreme Court, the highest in the UK, has ruled that journalists, the public and legal teams can use "live text-based communications" in its courtrooms, although some exceptions remain.

But MPs were warned last month against using Twitter during Commons sessions.

 Lets finish this Blog Posting on the issues this Blog has been fighting for a very long time "The Jersey Child Abuse  Cover Up"

First up we have Mick Gradwell showing evidence on TV while the Child Abuse Investigation is still live. The other thing I noticed in this Clip is the Bed Spring. Now, was there only one Bed Spring? The one taped up in the box looks nothing like the one presented at the November 12th shafting of Graham Power. Look for yourselfs. Do you notice the difference. Just listen to what Mick Gradwell says. He starts sounding like some dude from Antique Road Show. Also, if there are witness statements  that corroborate the use of 'Shackles' why is he showing them on TV?  What happens if someone walked in 3 days later and says I was Abused in those restraints? 

The Second Video is of David Warcup at the November 12th 2008 press conference and the shafting of Graham Power. Listen to what he says. 

Just opinion  and not much else: Also check this posting out 


Lenny Harper said in July 2008 that there was unlikely to be a Homicide Investigation. 

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Ministerial Government; At best a Disaster at Worse Catastrophic


What a Shambolic experience it has been over these long hard months listening to our Chief  Minister trying get himself and the Deputy Chief Executive out of jail concerning the deliberate removal of part D in TOR of the damning Napier Report.

Read the postings Tony's Musings did on Napier 

In an earlier JEP  report on Deputy Hills question to TLS in which he admits to an error. It was not an error and that is why Deputy Hill has had to continually ask questions so he can then find the  truth which some believe came out during the last States Sitting. There was no error because if you look at the answers which Deputy Hill has had to squeeze out of TLS you will see that part (d) was pulled on 9th April but no one was told. If you look at the TOR in the Napier Report  you will see that the original part (d) has been replaced by the original part (e). How can there be an error when part (d) was pulled before people started signing and publishing documents.


The Chief Minister has now circulated a document  in an attempt to show that there was an error, but either he is pulling the wool over our eyes or the wool has been pulled over his.


If you look at R39/2010 you will see that part (d) and (e) are not there but it is now claimed that due to an administrative error, the second page which contained parts d and e were not printed. It is now claimed that no one noticed that part (d) and (d) were missing, but that seems to be too much of a coincidence.

When the final Napier Report comes out part D is missing but what has turned up like a rabbit out of a hat is part E ( How the Hell did that Happen if they were both left off?)


No one is ever told that part (d) was pulled. Graham Power received the original TOR on 29th March but was never told by Richardson or Napier that part (d) had been pulled. When Napier interviews Power, Napier thinks that Power is aware of part (d) being pulled but Power was never told. What a carry on.


You will recall that on 25th February last year the front page of the JEP headlined that Deputy Hill said they were trying to sweep things under the carpet and the review would be a cosy house affair. Ben Shenton complained to PPC about his remarks Bob said that you "could not trust TLS". He would not agree to his request to select the Commissioner but after another request he agreed,following TLS agreeing that he would get oversight of the review. That never occurred he was never party to the discussions to pull part (d) which he would never have agreed to because it was to inquire into Mr Power's Affidavit. Deputy Hill never had sight of any of the documentation until he was given the Final copy. So perhaps he was accurate with his concerns.


Napier said he found no evidence of a conspiracy, I think he found plenty as his report shows, but it would have been interesting to see what he would have reported had he interviewed Wendy Kinnard and Co. I bet she was unaware of the steps being taken to suspend Mr Power whilst she was still Minister. Because part (d) Wendy and other witnesses were never interviewed.


If one looks at the Napier Report  which was circulated by John Richardson on Friday 8th October it shows that it is the Final Report, it implies that there were other drafts which were never shown to Deputy Hill.


It would be interesting to know what discussions if any Bill Ogley had with John Richardson about the TOR.

So, lets look. First up the original TOR as drawn up in February 2010

Now, you will notice that part D is there. Now keep your eye on the magic trick between D & E.

2. Terms of Reference 

The purpose of the Review is to – 

(a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department 

and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the 

suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008. 

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information 

and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to 

the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police. 

(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original 

suspension was correctly followed at all times, including – 

(i) the reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer 

of Police; 

(ii) whether there were any procedural errors in managing the 

suspension process. 

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, 

including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the 

suspended Chief Officer of Police. 

(e) The Report should highlight any areas where, in the opinion of the 

Commissioner, sufficient evidence exists that would support in the 

interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the 

manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 

12th November 2008. 

 Now, We have R39/2010 a report lodged by the COM ref Napier Report on the 14th April 2010

The purpose of the Review is to – ( Not drop part D & E)

So, the Chief Minister is blaming this on a clerical error. Ok, so we give him the benefit of the doubt, they notice the mistake inform all parties and the TOR is back to the original... No Baby (This is Jersey). Part D is the killer. BO knows it, everyone with an ounce of (Common Sense) knows it.


 (a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department 

and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the 

suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008. 


 (b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information 

and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to 

the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police. 


 (c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original 

suspension was correctly followed at all times, including – 


  (i) The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer 

of Police. 


  (ii) Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the 

suspension process. 


  (iii) The recording of material relating to the primary events of the 

suspension process. 

So, we now come to the Napier Report. Just look at the TOR that Napier uses; Part E has turned up but where oh where has part D gone???????? It's not like some data lying around waiting for a PDF Scan oh know  part D has done a Lord Lucan

Let us look at Napiers TOR for the Final Report; They have used part E from the original TOR and are now using it as Part D. What a little magic trick. Highlighted in Red

Terms of Reference 

The purpose of the Review is to:- 

a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and theHome Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008. 


b) Review the manner in which senior officers managed the assembly of key information used in the decision making process that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.  

c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the suspension was correctly followed at all times including:- i. The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of 


ii. Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the 

suspension process. 

d) The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of 

the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the 

interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the 

manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 

November 2008.

So, there we have it. Its what this Government can do. Yes, Napier mentions the Affidavit but he doesn't investigate it, thats what they wanted and thats what they got..

On the issues raised, I think TLS was in the dark and just signed the report on the 14th. I don't think he had a clue as to what was going on. The Chief Minister would have had a huge shock when the questions from Deputy Hill started coming in.....

This Ministerial Government  is a Shambolic Disaster just like the Walker one

No Truth, Honesty and Integrity

Its all Spin, Lies, and lets be honest, complete and utter Bullsh*t

The Civil Service

The Hospital


Home Affairs

 Enough Bullsh*t   to last a lifetime 

Rico Sorda


Sunday, February 20, 2011

When will this Madness End? Guess who is left holding the Baby?

This poem was written by a friend and I thank them for letting me use it. On March 1st 2011 there will be a debate about a Committee of Enquiry into the Historical Abuse Enquiry (HdelaG). I believe and prey that it's TOR if approved will include all the Children Homes in Jersey

Your hands caress me

Your words soothe me

Gentle exploration

The excitement

The fear of your touch

The secretness of it all

You come to me at night

I trust you

And you trust me not to tell

The darkness holds more than sorrow

It holds the rape of innocence

The taking of childish thoughts

And makes this child into an adult

Before her time

You touch

You kiss

You love

But you are a man

And I am a child

 So Chief Executive Bill Ogley is going aka "Teflon Bill" "BO"

I think that there are some interesting questions to be asked such as when did the Chief Minister first enter into discussions with BO regarding his release? Could it by chance have been in the days immediately after the receipt of the Napier report when, remember, Deputy Hill was told that BO was to be disciplined then it all went quiet.


And what about his leaving package? Just what is going on here? This is the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey


Some serious questions need asking on these issues


It seems to me that the key bit of information is when the discussions on Ogleys departure actually started.   Deputy Hill will have the full audit trail but it well be recalled that initailly TLS said that he was going to discipline BO. He then back tracked, closed down the discussions, and then said there had been disciplinary action and the matter was closed.   I think it reasonable to suspect however that a deal was done which alloiwed for an agreed departure when the dust had settled so BO could say that he had not been sacked and the Department did not have to do a full discipline case with all of the costs and legal pitfalls.   In terms of a "solution" it has some merits.   

What must not be expected to happen is that the Jersey Public; the States Members with some intelligence can not see the connection between Napier and the Syvret order of Justice   Off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone I know daft enough to beleive that. Lets hope we don't  have our intelligence insulted in this way.

 Holes and digging" comes to mind once more.  Graham Power suspension shocked everyone and was widely seen as an "over the top" reaction driven by political motives.   There was a window of opportunity for the new government to put the wheel back on and get things under control while they still could.   Instead they decided to live with the lie.   As is the way of things this necessitated more lies and then more lies to cover up the previous lies and now they are still at it.   Ogley was a key player in a low, dirty and illegal conspiracy to remove a police chief who was asking to many awkward questions and was out of political control.   And he got found out.   And like Warcup he discovered that among his fellow conspirators loyalty under pressure was not a star quality.   When "all stick together" turned to "every man for himself" both were doomed.   So now we have another lie that he is departing by "mutual agreement" for reasons totally unconnected with the findings of the Napier report.   Hands up the person who believes that one.   Now they will lie again.   They will say that the two matters are totally separate and the fact that discussions on both were apparently going on at the same time is just coincidence and one discussion did not contaminate the other.  They might think we are all stupid or they might not care what anyone thinks.  I can tell you that Team Voices sources have told us that a deal had been done in the aftermath of Napier and that when the time was right Ogley would leave under a cover story.   And it happened.


So, who took the lead for the Council of Ministers on this subject and assured his political colleagues that he could make all of the problems go away by March 2009 and then they could move on.   Who led this administration into its "Vietnam" and who appears to be clueless as to how to get them out of the swamp?  Step forward the man who now wants to be the head of the islands government.   Pour me a drink someone.   Best a large one.

Step forward Senator Ian Le Marquand

The Last Man Standing

These 3 left office as soon as the Suspension was completed

Walker Then Chief Minister - Retired

Lewis Then Home Affairs Minister - Retired

Critch Then Head of HR - Retired

Then, after 1year

Gradwell - Retired ( Pension ?) 

Then, after 2 years

Warcup leaves office - He comes out with some pathetic excuses after his position becomes untenable but just long enough to secure his pension.


May 31st 2011 Chief Executive Bill Ogley will leave office 

November 2011 Chief Minister Terry Le Suer will leave office 

That leaves Senator Ian Le Marquand as the last man standing, the man left holding the baby. How long will the Senator carry on with this charade? Does he have a way out? What can he do to save his political reputation and his standing of a former Magistrate Judge? Why do we think the Senator did what he did. Why did a former Magistrate hold a Kangaroo Court?  The Senator is holding onto "Wiltshire" for his dear life. He managed to release an 80% redacted Wiltshire report in 2 weeks so he could shaft Graham Power in May 2010, along with the full force of the local media. As we head towards the March 1st Committee of Enquiry debate ILM said in the States that the rest of Wiltshire  would be made available (History repeating itself). 

The Wiltshire report is the only thing that Senator Le Marquand and his cohorts can cling to, they have nothing else, absolutely nothing. The interview with Graham Power on VFC ref Wiltshire is a must read and I link it here.


Senator ILM has been trying to rewrite history. He has been using the Local Media to try and achieve this. He has been trying to peddle the myth that the SOJP under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper was so bad the the Child Abuse Investigation would have had to have been a disaster. I have repeatedly tried to get him to answer a very simple question. The email Is reproduced below


"rico sorda"

View contact details


Cc:,,, "Francis" ,,,,, "Sean Power" , "Ben Shenton" ,

, "Paul Routier" , "roy herissier" ,,,,,,,,,, "Jim Perchard" , "Deirdry" , "Daniel Wimberley" ,, "ben queree" , "Bob Hill" ,,,,,

... more

Dear Home Affairs Minister

Further to my initial email of 2 January 2011 and subsequent email below, I am still researching and I continue to require a response from you.  I know in the past you have been too busy and have indicated that this is not a matter of priority for you, but seeing as you intend to declare yourself in the running for Chief Minister in the coming week, I believe it is imperative that truth, honesty and integrity comes before any formal announcement in this regard.  I have always been open in my approach and the reason for my highlighting these issues is that I believe you are trying to rewrite the history of the States of Jersey Police force under Graham Power, QPM.  This has a huge bearing on the historical child abuse investigation because myself and other researchers are now aware that if the leadership of the SOJP under Graham Power and Lenny Harper can be trashed then people will buy into the view that the flaws in their leadership of the force would inevitably mean that the historic abuse enquiry was equally flawed.

After reading her Majesty's reports into the SJOP, I believe it is imperative that you disclose the reports from which you are quoting in the JEP report dated 31 December 2010 when the allegations had already been dropped in January 2009.

It is no longer acceptable to believe that you can appear on local media channels and remain unchallenged in anything you say.  This is a shocking indictment of Jersey and its local media in 2011.  We only have to look to Egypt and the power of the internet to know that the days of State published propoganda or rubbish to the masses are coming to an end.  Any person putting themselves up for Chief Minister must possess traits such as truth honesty and inegrity.  From what I have seen so far from the Wiltshire Report and the actions that followed, I am not convinced as to your possession of these traits and consequently your ability to fulfill the role of Chief Minister effectively.  I base my conclusions on research and facts.

Kind regards

Rico Sorda

I have yet to receive a reply to this email or the issues raised. One of the reasons for not getting a reply is explained in an email the Home Affairs Minister sent a constituent. He says he is too busy to reply to the issues being raised, but has found the time to reply and explain that ( LOL) this is what we are facing. This man has racked up a bill of over a Million Pounds with the "Wiltshire Report" he then dropped all disciplinary proceedings,tried trashing a mans career and reputation, continues to do so and then thinks he can run as a future Chief Minister. Why are we allowing this to happen? Why doesn't anyone just say Ian enough is enough, the cat is out the bag, the rabbit is out the hat, the game is up.


Now we move onto our Glorious Chief Minister

When he announced in the States that there would be no Committee of Enquiry he took 10 minute of questions. Now, to her credit Deputy Shona Pitman was straight onto the Chief Minister but could the good Deputy get a straight answer? No she couldn't. All she asked was if the JCLA had been informed of the decision. Terry couldn't and wouldn't give a straight answer (Ben Shenton take note... But on him in the coming weeks). I reproduce the email I sen the Chief Minister and have yet to receive a reply. Who are these Professionals he mentions? Is he just bluffing? So I decided to ask, and ask and ask again...


Flag this message


Friday, 11 February, 2011 14:09


"rico sorda"

View contact details

To:, "Bob Hill"


"Francis" ,,,,, "Sarah Ferguson" ,, "Paul Routier" ,,

, "roy herissier" ,,,,,,,,,,

... more

Dear Chief Minister

During my research ahead of the Proposition being brought forward by Senator Le Graisley P19/2011 I came across a statement you made in the house on the 1st February 2011.  I was hoping you could clear it up for me as it has left me slightly perplexed as to who these Professionals are. The part in question, which I reproduce below, is from your Statement into dropping of a Committee of Enquiry into the Historical Child Abuse Investigation. I have been in touch with the JCLA and they are unable to answer my questions.

As you can see, you state, and I quote 

T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision as to whether to have a Committee of Inquiry or not was taken by the Council of Ministers on the advice of professionals who have been acting over the period since 2008 in supporting people, be they members of the Care Leavers’ Association or not, who may have been involved in the allegations of abuse.  It is on the basis of that advice that the Council of Ministers has come to the view that it has done.

Chief Minister

1.Who are these Professionals

2.Was their Advice based on consultation with all Abuse Survivors and the JCLA

3.Was their Advice in a form of a Report 

4. When did the meeting with these Professionals take place

Chief Minister, This is of upmost importance. If you are making Statements in the House then you must provide the facts behind said statement. 

I look forward to your reply and any other member copied in 

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

As you can see im asking some very straight forward questions but not getting any answers. Who are these "Professionals" the Chief Minister is referring to? Does anyone know? Why cant our Local Media ask these very simple questions? 

Anybody reading this blog is more than welcome to try and get an answer from the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Minister regarding these issues.

And lets not forget this exchange between the Chief Minister and Deputy Tadier. It's one that the Home Affairs Minister should heed as he continues to  attack the career and reputation of the former Chief of Police Graham Power with just the prosecution case. Again I ask how is this being allowed to happen.

Just look at what the Chief Minister is saying here. Why does the Chief Minister allow the Home Affairs Minister to carry on trashing Graham Power? 

Graham Power is innocent of all charges because ILM dropped all disciplinary proceedings.

Why does the Chief Minister allow the Home Affairs Minister to carry on with this.

The Napier Debate; Wiltshire this Wiltshire that

The Committee of Enquiry Debate: It will be Wiltshire again because they have nothing else. Why don't they ever use the ACPO reports?

4.6     Deputy M. Tadier:

Earlier in question time the Chief Minister said he agreed with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty in Jersey and in common law, I guess, as a principle.  Will the Minister, therefore, confirm that as Mr. Power has not been found guilty of anything that he is, in fact, innocent?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

It depends on how one describes the term “innocent”, in that it is certainly the case that he has not been proved guilty.  He has not had the chance, or no one had the chance, to determine that situation.  On the basis that until one is proven guilty one remains innocent in law, then clearly Mr. Power, the former Chief Constable of Police, was, on that basis, innocent and is.

4.6.1  Deputy M. Tadier:

Given the fact that we have heard from the Chief Minister that he was and is innocent, will he be asking the Minister for Home Affairs to make an apology, or will he be making an apology, to an innocent man?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:


The wheels are falling off this elite tier of Government and you can smell the panic as we head towards the coming election. The old guard are dying out and their not being replaced. Not only is the Home Affairs Minister looking increasingly isolated so is the Treasury Minister.

This will be fully looked at over the coming months 

These are must watch Interviews so you can get a feel of what is going on

On the Second Video Pleas go to 1;14 seconds and listen to what Senator Le Marquand says about Graham Power. 

No hiding place Senator 


Your hands caress me

Your words soothe me

Gentle exploration

The excitement

The fear of your touch

The secretness of it all

You come to me at night

I trust you

And you trust me not to tell

The darkness holds more than sorrow

It holds the rape of innocence

The taking of childish thoughts

And makes this child into an adult

Before her time

You touch

You kiss

You love

But you are a man

And I am a child

Rico Sorda