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.


INTERVIEW WITH GRAHAM POWER


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


From:

"rico sorda"

View contact details



To:

i.lemarquand@gov.je


Cc:

t.lesueur1@gov.je, t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, "Francis" , f.cohen@gov.je, s.ferguson@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, "Sean Power" , "Ben Shenton" , A.Breckon@gov.je

, "Paul Routier" , "roy herissier" , a.dupre@gov.je, a.green@gov.je, a.jeune@gov.je, mr.higgins@gov.je, m.tadier@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, p.leclaire@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, "Jim Perchard" , "Deirdry" , "Daniel Wimberley" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "ben queree" , "Bob Hill" , c.egre@gov.je, g.southern@gov.je, i.gorst@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je

... 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.


ILM REWRITING HISTORY


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

Professionals

Friday, 11 February, 2011 14:09


From:

"rico sorda"

View contact details



To:

t.lesueur1@gov.je, "Bob Hill"


Cc:

"Francis" , m.tadier@gov.je, michael.higgins@jerseymail.co.uk, i.lemarquand@gov.je, i.gorst@gov.je, "Sarah Ferguson" , p.leclaire@gov.je, "Paul Routier" , p.ozouf@gov.je, r.duhamel@gov.je

, "roy herissier" , t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, A.Breckon@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, f.cohen@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, jsycareleavers@jerseymail.co.uk

... 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:

No.


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


43 comments:

rico sorda said...

I would like to say a very big thanks to Ian Evans. You have been a legend cheers mate

rs

rico sorda said...

This is not something I normally do but I have a friend who I think takes fantastic photos and they can be found here. If you have the time please check them out

GREAT PICS

We all need a little advertising

rs

Anonymous said...

Would ILM ever have gone into politics. If he had known the total mess he would get himself into ?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A good post that yet again demonstrates the inadequacies of our "accredited" media, or their complicity in this startingly obvious charade of a cover-up.

The fact that Terry Le Sueur and Ian Le Marquand ignore e-mails that might help put the record straight is very telling.

Ian Le Marquand wants to run for Chief Minister? The poor chap is completely dilusional. He has no sense of "natural justice". He publishes a redaction of a redaction of the prosecution against Graham Power QPM, not a single word of the defense, holds Kangaroo Courts with the "accredited" media, doing all that he can to trash a man's otherwise distinguished career. He spends over a million pounds of tax payers money on the Wiltshire debacle, that he, and everybody else knew, would be a waste of time and money but he carried on regardless. He took out all the "juicy bits" from the Wiltshire Report that would help trash a man's reputation and career, paraded it all over the media and calls that justice?

Ian Le Marquand is nothing but a liability to the States now, even if he can't see it. Like you have said, he's the last man standing, Warcup GONE Gradwell Gone Lewis, Walker, Ogley, Crich all gone. Le Marquand, if he remains in post he will be the weak link, he's served his purpose, they'll need to get rid of him next.

He won't be the next Chief Minister either. The "powers that be" will be all too well aware of his ego and his "alleged" knowledge of the law. It will only be a matter of time before he crosses swords with the real power behind the throne, and that's the Law Office(r)s. Ozouf is a much safer bet for them, he'll do as he's told without trying to pretend he is equal to the Law Office(r)s.

Le Marquand is a spent force, and in my opinion, a disgrace to his former "legal" profession, an utter disgrace.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Forgot to mention, could I ask your readers with a facebook account, who believe there should be the PROMISED Committee of Enquiry into the Child Abuse scandal, to go to this LINK and press "like"?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rico for showing us what is going on and revealing what a bunch of hillbilly crooks are running this island.

Anonymous said...

What ILM did in that interview was condem an innocent man, shame on you mr Le Marquand

rico sorda said...

This is the reply the Home Affairs Minister sent Gee Gee concerning the allegations ref a "Bullying culture" in the police Force

From: I.LeMarquand@gov.je
To:
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:44:29 +0000
Subject: RE: Rico Sorda blog

**********************************************************************
If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.
**********************************************************************


Dear Mrs. GeeGee, thank you for your e-mail. I am now in the final year of my current term as Minister for Home Affairs. There are 8 priority items which I need to deliver this year all of which are of great importance. I am therefore almost totally focussed on these. I have already made it clear to VFC that I will not respond to any further correspondence in relation to Mr. Power, Mr. Harper or the Historical Abuse Enquiry from him or from any other of the individuals who categorise themselves as Citizen's media but who are in fact merely individuals who have a fixed and firm idea as to what has happened notwithstanding the weight of evidence in the opposite direction. The States of Jersey Police now have a new and excellent leader and need to move on. Frankly, the speculation on these blogsites is going nowhere and I am simply not prepared to give any further time in this area. It is my judgment that it is in the public interest that I now concentrate my time on my 8 priority items and that is what I am going to do. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand.

So, he can find time to reply to Gee Gee but cant find time to reply to the points I raised with him. What is this weight of evidence the Home Affairs Minister alludes to? Not the10% Wiltshire Report is it?

He talks about moving on yet only 2 weeks ago was on BBC radio Jersey doing an unchallenged interview "Still wanting his cake and eating it comes to mind". The reason im pursuing this is simple, It doesn't stack up.

Look at the way he disregards Citizen Media. The Home Affairs Minister has no concept of what the Internet is doing "Exposing this Sham" comes to mind. The blog sites are going nowhere yet

Warcup gone

Ogley going

Rude awakening me thinks

rs

Ian Evans said...

Your welcome, and thank YOU mate.

I so love that exchange with Monty and Le Sewer at the end, tickles me every time....

Anonymous said...

The internet is bringing down the arab dictatorships how much longer does ILM think he can go on ignoring blogs and citizens media?

rico sorda said...

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

My apologies for this not being on the order paper earlier but it has been circulated to Members a little while ago. On 6th December 2010 I made a statement in the States in which I apologised unreservedly on behalf of the Island’s Government to all those who suffered abuse in States residential care. In that statement I also mentioned that the current Council of Ministers were considering the previous Council of Ministers’ proposal to commission a Committee of Inquiry. As promised on 6th December, the Council of Ministers has now lodged a report following its deliberations, which concluded the Council believes that with the passage of time and events a Committee of Inquiry is no longer appropriate. The Council of Ministers is firmly of the view that because of the number of investigations and reviews that have been undertaken, while there may be questions there are no unresolved issues that would benefit from investigation through a Committee of Inquiry. The report is necessarily long and factual but the Council of Ministers has had at the forefront of its consideration those who may have suffered abuse. The Council firmly believes that the Island will be best served by concentrating on the steps that have been taken to improve services and to focus on continuing to meet and support the needs of those affected. I am pleased to announce that further support to those affected will continue in 2011 with Mr. Andrew Williamson agreeing to provide an independent point of contact to help those needing support to receive the most appropriate assistance. The Council of Ministers is aware that some people will not agree with this decision. I hope that those people will realise that the Council has taken this matter seriously and sensitively. The Council believes that there is nothing further to be gained from yet another investigation into these matters and has sought instead to find a sensitive way forward. We hope that the majority of States Members and people in Jersey will agree with our judgment. Finally, I think it is also an appropriate time to thank the staff in our departments, those in the voluntary sector and everybody who has worked together over the past few years to help those who may have suffered abuse in the past.

rico sorda said...

8.1.1 Deputy S. Pitman:

The Chief Minister said that some people will not agree with this decision that there will no longer be a Committee of Inquiry. A few years ago the former Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, categorically assured the public that there would be a Committee of Inquiry. Would the Chief Minister tell us if there has been any consultation with those affected by the child abuse, such as the Care Leavers’ Association?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

There is ongoing support with the Care Leavers’ Association in terms of the continuing support that they may require. When the previous Council of Ministers brought a report to the States - and it is attached to the report that we have here - in March 2008 it was in a very different background. We had a background, as the report says, when there were suggestions of a massive situation of great relevance, which was subsequently of course found to have changed considerably.

[12:15]

Given that the circumstances have changed since that time, the Council of Ministers also took the view that with the activities that have gone on in terms of reviews of what has taken place there would be no further benefit in having the sort of inquiry which was envisaged at the time when far different circumstances were likely to happen.

8.1.2 Deputy S. Pitman:

A supplementary. The Chief Minister has not answered my question. I am talking about in terms of the decision not to have a Committee of Inquiry, has the Chief Minister consulted with these people who are affected, specifically the Care Leavers’ Association and, if so, what response has he had?

Senator 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.

8.1.3 The Deputy of St. John:

Is the Chief Minister aware that by not having a Committee of Inquiry, the public will never get to the bottom or will never know if any Minister or number of Ministers of the day acted with disregard or otherwise in what happened over this particular case? Therefore, does the Chief Minister not believe that the truth does need to come out in a full inquiry?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I understand the Deputy’s concerns but it is questionable whether any Committee of Inquiry however constituted and with whatever terms of reference would be able to categorically review what happened or may have happened 50 or more years ago. In many cases people who might have had memories of that time have now died. With the passage of time there seems little merit in trying to have that sort of inquiry. What we need to do is to see whether the circumstances in the current situation are appropriate for children in care and that, I believe, is well in hand. We have had a report on that matter from Mr. Williamson and recommendations which are in the process of being implemented. We have a Child Statutory Group working together to deliver those outcomes. I believe that we should be far more focused on that aspect rather than trying to ascertain, almost certainly unsuccessfully, what might have happened many, many years ago.

8.1.4 The Deputy of St. John:

A supplementary if I may. Does the Chief Minister believe that his former colleagues from this House who have had fingers pointed at them should not also see justice

Anonymous said...

What should not be forgotten is those going are doing so with reputations intact.

States protecting them to the bitter end.

rico sorda said...

8.1.4 The Deputy of St. John:

A supplementary if I may. Does the Chief Minister believe that his former colleagues from this House who have had fingers pointed at them should not also see justice? Justice works both ways; for those who were harmed and those who have had the fingers pointed at them.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I suspect in this sort of situation no matter how many inquiries you do, some fingers will still be pointed and there will still be allegations. The fact is that one can go on having inquiry after inquiry and some people will still never be satisfied.

8.1.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

With reference to R8, page 6, subparagraph 3(9)(c), it says: “Concerns about how the police inquiry was conducted in the period leading up to November 2008 have been addressed through the publication of the police report and the implementation of key actions by the States Police.” Will the Chief Minister accept that that is an error because the Wiltshire Report was commissioned for the purpose of reviewing the suspension of the chief police officer and for discipline purposes? In actual fact the review of the way in which the inquiry was conducted was carried out by the Metropolitan Police and also with the information given to them by A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers). Will the Chief Minister please ensure that there is a correction made to this particular draft and also make available both the Metropolitan Police report and the A.C.P.O. reports?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am satisfied and I stand by the comments, which I make on page 6 and indeed every page of this report. It has only been presented after careful consideration by me and my fellow Ministers.

8.1.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I, for one, do not accept that there are no unresolved issues, and I believe that there should be a Committee of Inquiry. There were a lot of unanswered questions that came out of the police investigation and some of the reports that have come forward. I have even questioned the Minister for Home Affairs who could not give me an answer. For example, lime pits.

The Bailiff:

You are going to come to a question are you, Deputy?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, Sir, I am. There are lime pits which were dug one day, filled with lime - and we know lime dissolves bones - and they were put back again. No explanation whatsoever. There has been no discussion about the oversight of the board of management of Haut de la Garenne, which in the past had politicians on it. There are a lot of issues that I think have not been answered in any way whatsoever. Would the Chief Minister not agree that the public would like to have answers to some of these unresolved questions?

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Public expectations may not be capable of being delivered in the way that the Deputy would like. I appreciate that Members only got this report on their desks this morning and they may not have had a chance to read it in full, but I just point out there are normally a number of objectives in any public inquiry, which is to establish the facts and to learn from the events, to get reassurance, accountability and transparency. To that extent we have judged whether there should be a Committee of Inquiry against those criteria because we believe that that is the sensible course to take. On balance although I appreciate, as I said in my statement, that some people may disagree with us, we believe that that is the correct course of action to take.

8.1.7 Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Chief Minister outlined the Council of Ministers’ decision not to hold an inquiry. He explained that due to the circumstances having changed since the original statement - the statement by his predecessor that there should be an inquiry - and, as I say, that circumstances have changed and that there is no need for an inquiry subsequently. Does the Chief Minister then share my concern that the conduct of the original investigating team does lead to these circumstances having changed? Does he agree that the conduct of the senior officers involved with the original investigation should be inquired into?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I certainly agree with the Senator that the circumstances have changed. I share his concerns but I believe they have been looked into in the context of the report undertaken by the Wiltshire Constabulary.

rico sorda said...

Look at the exchange between Senator Perchard and Senator Le Sueur.

They are using the party line: Sen Perchard

"Does the Chief Minister then share my concern that the conduct of the original investigating team does lead to these circumstances having changed? Does he agree that the conduct of the senior officers involved with the original investigation should be inquired into?"

And just check what Chief Minister uses for his answer

"WILTSHIRE" I swear you cant make this up.

What of the children who suffered the terrible Abuse.? No, lets just keep on trashing the Investigating team

rs

rico sorda said...

From my email to Senator ILM:

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.

They don't seem that interested in the ACPO reports

Again look at the exchange between Perchard and Le Sueur

Cant wait to hear the speeches that will be made on March 1st

rs

Anonymous said...

The interview with ILM is fascinating viewing when you look back at what actually happened with the Wiltshire report. He states that Graham Power has had substantial opportunity to get his points across yet we all know what happened. The Home Affairs Minister used every part of the media to get his point across without even releasing Graham Powers Statement or allowing him to defend himself against the allegations. This is not right. He gave the prosecution case and then said Guilty. When you step back and look at what happened it really is very sad that this can go on unchecked in Jersey. How many stood up and said this is not right. This is why Abuse went unchecked for many years. No one stood up and said this is not right.

Gattuso's on crack said...

Love the picture of skippy but have to ask why has the kangaroo only got one leg? Has it got so bad for him that he drives a one legged kangaroo? Not a very comfy ride for a minister, especially when he's left carrying the baby.

Anonymous said...

I did wonder why the Wiltshire report (redacted)is to be made available on 1st March, the same day as the debate on a public enquiry into the (or should be) management of the homes.

I guess the Wiltshire report will be presented in such a way to say look, everything has been covered so no need for an enquiry as the whole thing was a waste which is why GP has gone.

Hopefully, some of the wiser States members (the ones who can actually think for themselves), will ensure the debate on the public inquiry, is not about the police or the police investigation, is should be about the management. Furthermore, perhaps some should read out a long list of every question left unanswered.

What's the bet, the Wiltshire report will be provided before the debate on the inquiry, will a summary, crafted to tell the story in the TLS/ILM way (ie: ignore the facts, just tell the story as they want it be be heard).

Incidentally, if TLS/ILM where to answer questions rather than waffle or ignore the question, perhaps elaborate to help reduce further questions, the whole costs for questions would be so much cheaper. So when it comes to costs, its TLS/ILM to blame, no-one else as they are acting for the public.

Anonymous said...

Given the previous assurance by Frank Walker for a Committee of Inquiry and Mr. Le Sueurs reference to that assurance, as being in a very different background.

Well we not only have ''suggestions,'' of a massive situation, at the time of the assurance given, The States of Jersey have more, of great relevance.

The States of Jersey have evidence, convictions and perpetrators.

The changes should be in favour of the assurance given then, even more so now.

I see why the Council of Ministers took the view it has done using the no longer appropriate line.

No longer appropriate for whom?

Ian Evans said...

Time for the people of Jersey to harden the F.C.U.K up!

Ian Evans said...

Nice!!!

Didn't think you would publish that going on the last couple of lines at the foot of the page?

Fair play Rico Sorda

Anonymous said...

They are trying to hide something that is for sure. What dark secrets are best left hidden.

Ian Evans said...

"I would like to say a very big thanks to Ian Evans. You have been a legend cheers mate".

rs

The leg-end on, or off, Skippy's Rooo!

Pleasure to be of some small help Rico, kick ass pal xxx

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This deserves repeating.

"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."(End)

A childhood and innocence stolen and destroyed that can never be replaced. These people need some kind of justice and closure.

Anonymous said...

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:

No.

CLASSIC.

Anonymous said...

The above comment says it all really. Why have we ended up in such a mess. Why didn't the politicians of Jersey kick up a stink at what was such a brazen attempt at covering up Child Abuse. There are so many unanswered questions. Where are the people who were running these homes? Why was it allowed to go on unchecked? Why didn't the police act on reports of child brutality? Why have the States of Jersey acted in such an appaling manner towards the Abuse Victims. They have been treated no better than when they were children. On March 1 the States of jersey can take it's first step towards a healing process a step it must take...........

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The COCF "Could" be used.

Anonymous said...

Q. Do you feel that ultimate responsibility for financial oversight should have been laid at your door, if not yours, then who’s?

A. I have dealt with this at some length in my statement to Wiltshire. The short story is that when I took office in 2000 I had a number of financial staff working in the Force reporting to me, and I had control of the Force budget. Gradually, all of the qualified financial staff were removed by Ministers, and responsibility for the budget moved to the Chief Officer for Home Affairs who was made the “Accounting Officer” under the Finance Law. This left me with limited information about financial issues and no qualified staff to give advice. Whenever there was a query I had to ask Home Affairs staff to deal with it. During the abuse enquiry I made sure that Home Affairs financial personnel had access to all financial information and I met regularly with them and checked for any concerns they might have had. The minutes of those meetings show that they had none. That was the best I could do. I am a policeman, not an accountant. I asked the Accountants to keep an eye on things and they told me that everything was fine. It is hard to see what else I could have done. If there is any argument about this then it might be resolved by taking a look at the Finance Law. The Law says that the person responsible is the nominated Accounting Officer. I was not the Accounting Officer for the Force, although if Ministers had heeded my advice on the matter then I would have been. But that is another story. The fact is that Ministers insisted that another Chief Officer be given responsibility for the Police budget. It is they who should be accountable for the consequences of that decision.

Does anyone know why Steve Austin Vautier has managed to go unde the radar all this time. The above is taken from the excellent interview with Graham Power on the VFC blog

Anonymous said...

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

You don't need to publish my message but you should read this document and pass it on. It is effectively a blueprint to freedom from dictatorship and has been used time and time again in overthrowing bad goverments. Not all will be relevant to Jersey but some will, in terms of non-violent protest.

Read this link first and it will explain all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848

Anonymous said...

Rico, have you heard from the JCLA ref the professionals that TLS is going on about. You have asked some very good questions it's a complete mystery why he has been so silent. 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


Why the struggle with answering the above? Do you think he was just bluffing this?

Anonymous said...

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

Why does ILM continue to rubbish Graham Power. Why is he allowed to rubbish Graham Power and the Investigating Team when the Chief Minister has made the above statement. None of this is making any sense. Is the former Chief of Police innocent of any wrong doing? Answer YES HE IS so why do they carry on.

Anonymous said...

Rico, I was reading the posting on tony's musings and noticed ILM has been in email contact with him i thought he was really busy. You must really have him over a barrel on the issues you raise.

rico sorda said...

During my research on the Professionals mentioned by our Chief Minister I came across this article below. Is this the unit that advised the CM that:

Senator 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.



Abuse inquiry: ‘No’ to Health’s claim for £1.8m in costs

JERSEY’S Health Department has had a £1.8 million claim for costs for the historical child abuse inquiry rejected by Treasury.

The JEP understands that the department has been asked to justify a part of the claim which asks for £864,000 to cover costs for the psychology trauma support team, which provides support for victims of abuse.

It is believed that the sum is considered to be far too high. The claims were contained in a proposition which was briefly lodged by the Treasury Department before being withdrawn last week following concerns over the money being requested.

Treasury Minister Senator Philip Ozouf (pictured) said that it was essential that the sums being claimed by departments could be justified.

Article posted on 15th April, 2009 - 2.56pm

More questions than answers

rs

rico sorda said...

I hope Elle is ok about using one of her old comments. It really is bang on

Anonymous said...

Time to simplify again. Here is my partial list of the most basic facts.

Outrageous institutional child abuse with hundreds of survivors, witnesses and corroborative items of evidence. Documented details of decades of abuse without police or government support for truth. Determined senator, COP and his chief investigator begin to uncover truth with entire world watching. SOJ expresses extremes of sympathy for itself, but not victims, in the face of exposure. SOJ and Civil Service bosses make every legal and illegal attempt to suppress truth and intimidate and vilify politicians, whistleblowers, proper police investigators, mainstream press, and bloggers. From Ourchap Report to Wiltshire and Napier, the terms of examination and unredacted reports of evidence are never allowed to publicly show further proof of what is obvious. Secret government meetings are improperly held to plot removal of those who support abuse investigation. Swat team level of police force sent to secure evidence from Father of the House, without warrant. The courts and local press are utterly corrupt in regard to their leanings on the side of pro-establishment whitewash. Clear advantage is given only to the side of the cover-up at every opportunity. Still no apology to the survivors. This is Jersey.

Someone could add up all the official lies told regarding this mess but it might take up more space than a blog format allows.

Elle

Gattuso has a 4 match ban. said...

It could not have been better put Elle. Great writing. The truth. Rico your'e a Le Gend. Keep stiring son. The whole thing is a house of cards.

Ian Evans said...

MY NAME IS NOT BILL OGLEY!

Anonymous said...

BO is getting terminated in his prime and with 2 years left to run of his 10 year term. This is because TLS says that they/he is restructuring the Senior civil service (well this is Terry's excuse for the 3 month delay in disiplining BO for the Napier Report).

So surely there will be a public out cry if they dare bring in a replacement from overseas, on the same money and to take up the same position. BO was terminated and his position was terminated. Golden hand shake, dont sing like a canary, disappear....

Disaplinary process sorted, long and happy retirement sorted??!!

Dont think so!?

Anonymous said...

You can only make a position redundant, not a person and should the same roles be allocated to a new title, it would deem to be unfair dismissal.

Making a position redundant, does not equate to 'mutual agreement', in my opinion, it equates to (in this instance) finding a reason to sack someone and pay them handsomely to keep quiet!!

rico sorda said...

if there is one man who could tear this government apart its BO

Anonymous said...

BO will be back, sweatng.

Because he will be standing up in the Royal Court.

Under Oath.

Anonymous said...

The Napier report ended Ogley's rein. We have deputy bob hill to thank for that.