Thursday, February 24, 2011

Ministerial Government; At best a Disaster at Worse Catastrophic


BRIAN NAPIER QC


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 If you look at the TOR in the Napier Report  you will see that the original part (d) has been replaced by the original part (e).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 

Police


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


Education


Home Affairs


 Enough Bullsh*t   to last a lifetime 


Rico Sorda







 

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great work Rico. So who is telling lies? It is either Terry Le Sueur or John Richardson. Also great work from deputy Hill he has been like a dog with a bone and thanks to his persistence he has caught the buggers out. Soon be time for the people to take to the streets and oust this corrupt dictatorship.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This is spelt out in an easy to follow fashion. To think, that much admired and stalwart of political "journalism" Ben Queree from the equally admired and stalwart of "journalism" the JEP wrote a column telling his readers what a waste of time Deputy Hill's questions were on Napier.

You have not only blown Ben Queree clean out the water, for being, at best, ill researched, at worst an "accredited" establishment lackey. But you have shown either Jon Richardson or Terry Le Sueur have been telling porkies.

Just by sticking with the facts and documented evidence, this COM, and in particular the chief Minister and Senior Civil Service are being exposed for the bunch of Hill Billy amateurs that they are........and liars.

Anonymous said...

Nice one rico doing the job that should be done by the mainstream media. Credit to Adam Fowler for showing us the contradictions made by Andrew Lewis Graham Power was done up like a kipper how does Andrew Lewis sleep at night? Bob Hill for chief minister!

Anonymous said...

The whole Napier review was a sham from start to finish bob Hill was supposed to have oversight and didn't. John Richardson was conflicted because if part (d) remained his immediate boss would have ended up knee deep in the brown stuff, strange part (d) went AWOL eh John? And Shreddie Bill Ogley running off into the sunset with a lovely big fat Jersey pension? The bloke should be doing bird.

Anonymous said...

North African and Arab country's have shown what people power can do why do Jersey people carry on putting up with this corrupt government?

Anonymous said...

Just wait till ILM makes his speech next week on the CoE. He still thinks no one knows. Will someone tell him?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Ian Le Marquand has probably been told that part (d) fell through a gap in the floorboard and that will be good enough for him! Terry will call it a "procedural error" and Richardson will get the pension. Christ what a bl--dy (not funny) joke these lot are.

Anonymous said...

That just reminded me, Our new police chief on the radio today mentioned people not believing in the tooth fairy i nearly choked I just cant remember exactly what it was in relation too.

Anonymous said...

Will Mike Bowron be arresting John Richardson? He's seen what they did to Graham Power so somehow I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

I believe these people are so out of touch with reality. Clerical error. Oh really.

They were on a mission, Jerseys reputation had to be saved. Get rid of Graham Power and rubbish the Haut De La Garenne investigation using what ever means.

Job done.

rico sorda said...

Now you can see why Deputy Hill is asking the Chief Minister this question on tuesday. How did part E in the original TOR turn into the missing part D in the final report lol cant wait for his answer on this one.


6. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister -

“The Chief Minister has stated that paragraph (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference was included in the Ministerial Decision he signed on 13th April 2011 but this paragraph was not part of the Terms of Reference set out in the final report; would the Chief Minister therefore give precise information about when this paragraph was removed?”

rico sorda said...

Deputy T Pitman will be asking this very important question

16. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

“Does H.M Attorney General make decisions on prosecutions under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 in place of the Data Protection Commissioner when that individual is conflicted, and could he explain what the difference is between a 'regulatory' and a 'criminal' breach of the Data Protection Law?"

This is to do with Deputy Power stealing Data. Look forward to the answer on this one

rs

rico sorda said...

This is a real beauty


18. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister -

“It has been announced that in accordance with the terms of his contract the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister have agreed to a mutual termination of his employment. Will the Chief Minister inform Members whether the recent findings in the Napier Report influenced the decision?”

rico sorda said...

This is a written question

6. H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour -

“To what extent, if any, are the provisions of Article 3 of the Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 replicated in procedures that apply to lawyers in public service and, if there is no replication, what disciplinary provisions, if any, exist to deal with complaints from the public?”

8. The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour -

“When does the Committee propose to lodge the draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 201- and the proposition governing a code of conduct for the media (Media relations – Code of Conduct) in the Assembly?”

10. The Chief Minister will table an answer to the following question asked by the Deputy of St. Martin –

“On 6th December 2010 when the Chief Minister made his statement in relation to the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry, he stated that in the very near future the Council of Ministers would formally consider whether any unanswered questions remained and report to the States. The Chief Minister said he would take note of the Deputy of St Martin’s suggestion to consider inviting some of those Members who had shown a keen interest in the matter so there could be a combined way forward, but it would depend on the outcome of the Council of Ministers' views.

Will the Chief Minister inform Members whether the Deputy’s suggestion was considered by the Council of Ministers and if it was, why it was not taken on board? If it was not considered will the Chief Minister explain why it was not considered?”

Anonymous said...

So this can be blamed on clerical error? Then why the refusal of an appology to Graham Power?

Bearing in mind the eventual prosecutions that were a result of the investigations.

This was not a clerical error or one of numerous errors it was the deliberate attempt to cover up child abuse.

rico sorda said...

11. H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“Will the Attorney General clarify whether a judge/magistrate having a link through family members to an individual who was a witness; a police complainant; or perhaps stood to gain either financially or otherwise in the event of a conviction would have to excuse him or herself from presiding over a case; further still, under what aspect of which law is this outlined, and does Jersey legislation on such matters differ from that in the UK?”


14. H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“Would the Attorney General advise whether any of the 2008 election candidates, successful or otherwise, failed to comply with the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 2008 requiring that they provide full details of their campaign expenses, and if so, would he specify which roles they were standing for (e.g. Senator, Deputy or Connétable), who the candidates were and what sanctions they faced, having failed to comply? If none, what was the reason for this?”

rico sorda said...

This is from the 15th of February



5.8 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference of the Napier report:

Was part (d) removed from the terms of reference on 9th April 2010 following a discussion between the Deputy Chief Executive and Mr. Napier, and, if so, was that fact made known to the Chief Minister when he signed the Ministerial Decision on 13th April 2010 approving the appointment of Mr. Napier and for his C.V. (curriculum vitae) and the terms of reference containing the original part (d) to be included in R.39/2010?

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

The simple answer to this question is no. I have already supplied the Deputy of St. Martin with a full explanation on how the paragraph was omitted from the published terms of reference in my written answer on 18th January 2011 and again in my written answer today. I believe it is time to draw this matter to a close. Mr. Napier had access to all the information he requested, all the people he wished to interview and made reference to the affidavit in his final report, which demonstrates that he had it and made use of it. Mr. Napier has also confirmed he did not see that the particular paragraph to which the Deputy of St. Martin continually refers had much relevance following Mr. Power’s agreement to participate fully. There is simply no further information I can add and my department is now repeating answers to the same question. If the Deputy of St. Martin has any new concerns that have not been addressed I would be happy to meet him, but I do not feel that we are making the best use of question time simply by repeating answers.

5.8.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am not surprised, given the answers I have received, that the Chief Minister wants to push this under the carpet. Can I just ask the Chief Minister, does he not think he should have been made aware that the documents he was signing were not correct, because in actual fact part (d) had been removed on 9th April? Therefore, the officer who gave him the document to sign either failed to inform the Minister or he did inform the Minister. I just find it so hard for the Minister to continually say that he was unaware that such an important part of a document, the terms of reference agreed by this House, was removed and he knew nothing about it.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Deputy is misrepresenting the facts and also saying that I hid this under the carpet. It has been fully documented in written and oral questions. The fact is that the Ministerial Decision I signed at the time did include the relevant paragraph. It was subsequently omitted when it was sent to the Greffe for printing, and I have tried to explain that in my written answer in January and again today.

5.8.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

part (d) was omitted in the actual Napier report which was subsequently produced in October 2010?
If the Chief Minister is accepting that it was an administrative error that part (d) was not included in R.39, will the Chief Minister explain why

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Mr. Napier’s report was compiled by Mr. Napier and I did not interfere in any way what he put in. I did not interfere in any way with what Mr. Napier wrote.

The terms of reference that he understood and that he worked to were fully open. He had all the information he required, as I have said in numerous answers. There was no question of withholding any information from Mr. Napier or withholding access to him from any person that he wished to see in those discussions.

LOOK AT 5.8.2 TLS doesn't answer the question

"The terms of reference that he understood and that he worked to were fully open"....... What does that mean?

rico sorda said...

And now Deputy Tadier asks a real straight forward question and just look at the answers

5.8.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

We are learning now that it is a reprographic error. Will the Chief Minister explain why if it was simply a typographical error, an omission when it went to printing, why the normal procedure for a corrigendum which would be sent round was not done, because quite obviously the terms of reference are agreed by the House and if one of them has been missed out accidentally it should be the case that as soon as possible that correction is made, and why was that not the case on this occasion?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I quite agree. Unfortunately no one spotted the omission until months after the event, by which time it was irrelevant anyway because, as I said, Mr. Napier still had all the information that he required .(But he didn't have part D)

5.8.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

Just a supplementary. Is it any surprise, and obviously I am not buying into this necessarily, that the conspiracy theorists out there who see it as quite convenient that part (d) should be dropped for political reasons are learning that it is just a typo which has not been corrected and then quite conveniently it influences, perhaps you could argue, the outcome of that report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can understand the Deputy’s view that in his view there might be a conspiracy. There was no conspiracy. It did not, in any way, influence the report of Mr. Napier because he has confirmed that he had access to all the information and all the witnesses that he required. ( But not to investigate the parts relating to the missing part D)

rico sorda said...

5.8.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

My question is quite simple. Was Mr. Napier working to a terms of reference which included paragraph (d), notwithstanding what States Members received through the Greffe, but was Mr. Napier working to a terms of reference including part (d)?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

He was effectively, whether he was in practice or not is irrelevant, because he said he had access to all the information he required and he was quite clear at the time of the discussions what he was expected to do.

5.8.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:

With respect to the Chief Minister, that really is very ambiguous and ambivalent. This highly respected Q.C. (Queen’s Counsel) is working to a document with his terms of reference and then he proceeds to spend a lot of time and a lot of effort in carrying out his inquiry. Was he working from (a), (b), (c) and (d) or was he working from (a), (b) and (c)? It is quite a clear question, and I expect a clear answer.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am sorry if the Deputy finds it ambiguous. The fact is that I cannot enter the mind of Mr. Napier and I cannot judge on what basis he was working. I believe he was working on the basis that he had full access to all the information he required.

5.8.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Will the Chief Minister not accept that he is particularly accident prone with regard to ensuring that the Assembly’s wishes are carried out? Not only have we had this omission, we have also had previously the States decision that the incinerator funds should be hedged against the euro.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not believe the 2 matters have anything much in common whatsoever and certainly any accidental activity between transmitting a document, which I had signed and which was subsequently transmitted, is an accident which is not necessarily attributed to any one particular person.

5.8.8 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not think it was an accident because it is quite clear part (d) was removed and, if it was so, will the Chief Minister accept that it was removed and the evidence is in the fact that it was not included in the terms of reference as produced by Mr. Napier in October 2010?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, I refute the fact that it was removed. The Ministerial Decision which I signed, which the Deputy will have already seen, which is publicly available, makes it quite clear the decision that I made and which I signed.

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

''He was effectively, whether he was in practice or not is irrelevant, because he said he had access to all the information he required and he was quite clear at the time of the discussions what he was expected to do.''

Gosh I am glad Mr. Napier was clear of what was expected from him.

''What he was expected to do?'' Now what was that then? That, that he was expected, to do? To ignore (d\0\ or include (d)

rico sorda said...

Why did TLS Say this if it was just a clerical mistake?


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.

All lies. When you start with a lie the rest looks very stupid.

You learn that as a kid

rs

Anonymous said...

A straight question.

You have been writing about this subject for the best part of 6 months and its tiresome because its doing loops. But what you never tell your readers is what you expect to achieve out of doing all of this writing and can you tell us what thanks have you receievd to date from Mr Graham Power himself?

Incidentally, if the Curtis Warren case is thrown out Graham Power will be well and truely put back into the spotlight.

moral-rightness said...

Remember the Verita Report and in particular the proposition lodged by the Deputy of St Martin - VERITA INVESTIGATION: EXTENSION TO COVER EXCLUSION OF CONSULTANT OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNAECOLOGIST

Verita Report Proposition

Check it out and you'll finds things like this:-

'However, 2 weeks later on 19th February, the Minister announced that following advice he had commissioned Verita, an independent organisation, to undertake a thorough investigation of the incident. The Terms of Reference for the Verita investigation were developed after discussions with the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Health and Social Services legal advisor and the Medical Director and the Director of Nursing and Governance.

Leading Verita’s investigation would be Dr. Sally Adams, an experienced human factors practitioner, who had a strong background in healthcare and incident investigation. The Terms of Reference were published and it was stipulated that Verita “Would review the main actions taken by the Health and Social Services Department in response to the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Rourke including its own interim internal investigation. This will include establishing whether or not there are any significant omissions to the investigation and, if so, exploring these.”

On 26th March the Minister for Health and Social Services issued another press statement, which again included Verita’s Terms of reference, however it omitted the sentence: “This will include establishing whether or not there are any significant omissions to the investigation and, if so, exploring these.”

----------------------------------------------
The terms of reference are a legal boundary, one can interview many people, but can only base their report on those statements that fall within their remit. Hence, according to Grham Power, Wenndy Kinnard WAS interviewed, but whatever she said must not have been within the remit and therefore was not included in the Napier Report, or perhaps it was, but when the Law Officers reviewed it, whatever she said was 'pulled' because it was not under the remit terms, hence I guess, the original terms (d) were not in the Napier report.

Anonymous said...

"Incidentally, if the Curtis Warren case is thrown out Graham Power will be well and truely put back into the spotlight"

The last thing the Law Office want

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Terry said "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 is an out and out fib. Graham Power's letter on the 31st of March (like the infamous MET Report) was heavily qualified, it was full of caveats. Graham Power had not agreed to participate in the Napier Review because he wasn't sure he could do so without falling foul of confidentiality clauses and such like.

Terry either didn't read the letter of the 31st of March, and was lied to by a Civil Servant, or he did read it and lied when giving that answer.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Rico, it is very refreshing to read the truth behind the 'story', as the msm seems to be paralysed.

'You have been writing about this subject for the best part of 6 months and its tiresome because its doing loops.'

You're obviously interested enough to not only keep reading, but make this post, however, you have not understood the subject, as it is not repeating, it is clarifying what is and is not said by various States Members.

"But what you never tell your readers is what you expect to achieve out of doing all of this writing"

Informing the public, doing the job of the controlled er I mean accredited media.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.
Read the letter from Graham Power to John Richardson where Terry Le Sueur has stated that Graham Power QPM gave his assurance that he would/could participate in the Napier Review. Like I said Terry Le Sueur has misled the house. He has told, either knowingly or otherwise, a big fat lie.

Dear Mr Richardson.

Appointment of Mr Brian Napier QC. Your letter dated 29th March 2010.

This letter is in response to the above letter which I received on 30th March 2010.

Your letter appears to be a response to my letter to you dated 25th February 2010 in which I asked for information regarding reports of some form of review in relation to my suspension, and sought clarification in respect of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code and related issues. I note that it has taken you approximately five weeks to reply.

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, it is my firm wish to assist Mr Napier with his review, provided that I am able to do so with a clear understanding of my position, and the evidential status of any information gathered by Mr Napier, while I am still subject to disciplinary notices.

In particular the following two issues remain to be resolved:

Whether any communication with Mr Napier, in itself, constitutes a breach of the confidentiality requirements of the code.

Given that I have been served with notices informing me that anything I say may be used in evidence, it is important to establish whether information gathered by Mr Napier may subsequently be used in disciplinary proceedings by either party. While I note what is said in Part 3 of the Terms of Reference, I am nevertheless aware that in matters of proceedings conducted under statute, there is no such thing as a “confidential report”.

In addition to the above, there are practical issues relating to my need to speak to Mr Napier in circumstances which allow me to have ready access to all of my files and records. It is also possible that I may wish to be accompanied at any meeting, or at the very least take professional advice before any meeting occurs. It is also possible that my Professional Association may wish to make representations in its own right. This can be decided once more is known of the review.

I hope that you are able to bring clarification to these issues in order that further consideration can be given to how I can most effectively assist with the review.

I recognise that my repeated request for clarification may present some difficulties with your intended timetable. If this proves to be the case then I would regard the problem as one which is entirely of your own making. Had my initial request for clarification been dealt with in a prompt manner such difficulties may not have arisen.

I look forward to hearing from you in order that I can give further consideration to how I can support the work of Mr Napier.


Yours sincerely

Graham Power. (End)

As I stated earlier, it is full of caveats and provisos it is NOT a "categoric assurance" of Mr. Power's willingness or ability to partake in the Napier Review, no matter how one reads it!

Anonymous said...

Terry has been caught out as a liar and this is the bloke that's running the show?

Anonymous said...

A straight question. If it's tiresome why do you keep reading it, log on and reply. That's a bigger mystery than the missing part d....

I would say that the work Rico puts in bothers you. Keep going Rico you must be doing something right....

Anonymous said...

After studying the voting pattern of Deputy Hill's failed proposition (P9/2010) for a CoI for G Power's suspension which went 21 to 26 against.
It stands to reason that the voting pattern next Tuesday for CoI for HDLG should go at least 28 to 25 for an enquiry.

How do others think will go?

Anonymous said...

There will be a Committee of Enqiury no doubt about it. What do you think Rico? Do you share my view...

Ian Evans said...

THE ANSWER TO OUR PRAYERS

rico sorda said...

Hi "Common Sense" or whoever you are at any given second.

A straight question.

"You have been writing about this subject for the best part of 6 months and its tiresome because its doing loops. But what you never tell your readers is what you expect to achieve out of doing all of this writing and can you tell us what thanks have you receievd to date from Mr Graham Power himself?

Incidentally, if the Curtis Warren case is thrown out Graham Power will be well and truely put back into the spotlight."

Thanks for your comment

Ciao

rs

GeeGee said...

'You have been writing about this subject for the best part of 6 months and its tiresome because its doing loops. But what you never tell your readers is what you expect to achieve out of doing all of this writing and can you tell us what thanks have you receievd to date from Mr Graham Power himself?'

If it so very tiresome (to you Anonymous)you have the option of not reading it. You obviously choose to carry on doing so, which beggars the question - why?

It is quite clear to anybody with half a brain that what Rico is achieving is obtaining the truth by virtue of examining in minute detail every response (or otherwise) from our CM all of which he has pulled to pieces and scrutinised to prove, as he says, what a shambolic, and catastrophic government we have at the moment.

For that we should all be thankful, and by the very same token he has achieved an awful lot.

Thank you Rico.

Anonymous said...

Lets face it. There will not be any States member changing his/her vote from a yes to a no. But there will be people like Breckon, Ferguson and Rondel, changing their past vote from a no to a yes.

And maybe even Shenton and Perchard?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

One of your readers says:

"You have been writing about this subject for the best part of 6 months and its tiresome because its doing loops."

I too get comments of that nature from time to time.

What they reveal is the deep culture-shock - the palpable fear - on the part of the Jersey oligarchy - the fact they just can't understand why these issues just haven't gone away - and won't go away.

Historically - they're used to taking a little flack - whenever they've done something extraordinarily corrupt and stupid - but with the state media in Jersey - after six months at the outside - it all fades away.

But now - the controlled and increasingly redundant mainstream media - have been supplanted by citizens media.

And the disgusting scandal of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster - and the nakedly criminal attempts at a cover-up - are going to still be a matter of the most profound controversy in ten years time.

The Jersey oligarchy have lost it.

Even now - most of them are too thick to realise - that nothing's ever going to be the same again.

Thank god.

Stuart

Ian Evans said...

A JERSEY TALE, IN PICTURES

rico sorda said...

Hi Stuart

I agree, the Bloggers + the whole Citizen Media concept is blowing the lid right off this little Island of Secrets. Never has the panic been so visible or the stench of fear so noticeable. This and previous Governments have got away with murder because there was simply no checks on anything. I asked on PJ how many stories have the local media broken since 1948, that has been a benefit to the Island, and kept the Government in check: the answer is none .

There is so much going on

We have Civil Servants running for their lives with a sack full of Tax Payers money to boot. That nasty tobacco chewing gunslinger called Syvret ( the bast*rd) is riding into court with 160,000 pages of misery; they know it, we know it and the Civil Servant clear out know it. There are no more hiding places.

The Home Affairs Minister is a classic case of someone turning up to the party just as the last person is just leaving. He thought he was playing in the pre-internet era. I remember his shock horror when he found out his suspension reviews were up online, he was like the schoolboy who just had his shorts pulled down in front of the girls, fully exposed. But what can he do now? Doesn't he have any real good friends who can have a word with him? let him know that the cat is out the bag, the horse has bolted, the rabbit is out of the hat, the game is up, you have been found out, or is his only option to plough on until he runs into a solid slab of Integrity..

Some people have said I have been Harsh, Nieve and a bit unfair with the funny pics, my god, this is politics and our lot have had it easy for far to long .

I call it how I research it

I have been amased at how easy it has been in locating the truth, it is barley a inch under the surface. The clowns that govern us never ever expected anyone to start investigating or asking questions so didn't try that hard in concealing their lies. Only a lunatic of a def-con 5 magnitude would say " There has been no Cover-up" or " Lets not have a CoE.

So, as we move towards the Biggest Debate for a very long time on Tuesday I await with baited breath as to how the COM will disgrace themselves even further.

They didn't want a CoE, they don't want a CoE

What will they do

Rico Sorda

rico sorda said...

"can you tell us what thanks have you receievd to date from Mr Graham Power himself? "

Let me be honest here. I have never met/spoken to Graham Power or Lenny Harper

They don't need to thank me for anything. Im doing what I do for the Victims of the Jersey Child Abuse Scandal. I believe if it wasn't for the work Team Voice and SS have put in this would have been under the carpet a very long time ago. When some excellent politicians started asking the questions in the States I new we were on the right road.

Graham & Lenny

These two ex coppers have been excellent. Any questions we have put to them have come back with good solid answers backed up with hard facts. The reason they feature so heavily on my blog is obvious "except for one person" they are pivotal to the whole Child Abuse Scandal.

I started researching Graham Powers suspension just after his Judicial Review. I sat in on his complaint board hearing from that moment on I new we had a huge story unfolding. Anybody who was in that room new we were looking at the Politicised removal of the Chief of Police.

Like I have said they are pivotal to the whole story and make no mistake what happened to these two policeman is a very dark chapter in Jersey's history. Both have had their reputations dragged through the mud for daring to expose Child Abuse. Child Abuse that went on for decades un-checked by all the local Authorities.

No one owes me any thanks

I just do what I believe is right

I have taken everything that's been chucked at me and im still going. You have scared people off in the past but not me.

In till the bitter end

Only the beginning

rs

rico sorda said...

TRoll

Im not publishing your comment because of the hurt you have caused to so many people

rs

Anonymous said...

Dickhead, you cannot answer the question because you know everything I say is true and States memebers refer to you as creep. This is'nt trolling, this is factual comment. The HDLG enquiry is CLOSED and thats official.

rico sorda said...

I just had to publish that comment it's hilarious.

Well ,he has has taken time out from thisisjersey to comment here.

This is what I have to deal with.

LOL

CIAO

XX

Rob Kent said...

@Anonymous, "States memebers refer to you as creep."

Hopefully, the above statement is true because it means that Rico must be doing something right.

When the people in power whom you are trying to hold accountable for their actions refer to you using derogatory terms, it means you are rattling them.

All of the evidence that has been squeezed out of them by hard-won means (Napier report, questions in the House, bloggers joining the dots together), has shown that the so-called conspiracy theorists were correct after all.

Ogley didn't resign you know: he left by 'mutual agreement'. In polite language that is, 'your position has become untenable'. In everyday language, 'you've been a bad boy and we don't want you here when the shit hits the fan'.

If I had a boss and he asked me to resign by mutual agreement, I would take it as read that I couldn't refuse that agreement and that if I did, he would have to sack me anyway.

Now why would that be I wonder? What did they really 'soften' in the Napier report? Who was it that was 'disciplined' as a result? What evidence is going to be placed before the court in an upcoming court case?

The HdlG enquiry may be dead, as you say. I mean, that was the whole purpose of getting rid of Graham Power. But it doesn't mean that the scandal of the cover-up has gone away.

I know you would like it to be that way, so that you could live in your supposedly secure state. That is, until they come to get you; or maybe your brother. Eh?

Anonymous said...

"Dickhead, you cannot answer the question because you know everything I say is true and States memebers refer to you as creep. This is'nt trolling, this is factual comment. The HDLG enquiry is CLOSED and thats official."

It is a fact that the HDLG investigation was said to be closed by the (resigned - mutual or otherwise) ex-police chief, however, that does not mean it can not be re-opened again, especially if some NEW evidence was to appear, so never say never!!

Interesting that firstly there are some (I assume no more than a couple) States Members who would deem it necessary to comment on Rico's character, but I guess if they do, as described above say he is a 'creep', then he must be causing them great concern, otherwise his name would not even be on their radar, but as I said he probably is only two and perhaps they should not be in the States representing the public.