Sunday, April 10, 2011

Showtime with Terry and Ian



YUP   IT'S   "SHOWTIME" AGAIN

THE TERRY & IAN  DEBACLE

PRICELESS - SAY'S DORRIS FROM ST OUEN

SHAMBOLIC - SAY'S BORED HOUSEWIFE IN TRINITY

Can I just remind readers what Deputy Andrew Lewis said when he was the former Home Affairs Minister and the person who suspended Graham Power

ON TUESDAY 2nd DECEMBER 2008

 


I am sure that members will entirely understand that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any of the substantive matters that caused me to suspend the Chief Officer and to initiate the procedure under the Disciplinary Code. I cannot comment on them and I would ask the Assembly not to seek to explore them at this time. At some stage at the end of the process my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters, and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by members of the Assembly. In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself.  Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known.

 




Today im looking at Senator ILM's reply to T. Pitman



Between the Chief Minister & the Home Affairs Minister we have been left with a complete Shambles that is of their own making. 


April 3rd 2010 Graham Power writes to the Chief Minister and asks that his report be released at the same time as Wiltshire. The reason GP knows that ILM is going to have a Kangaroo Court is that he had told listeners on the Sunday talkback show.


"HOW SIMPLE IS THAT"


But our lot cant even get that right



One very simple Question;


In the whole sorry mess of the Suspension Graham Power in what part can we say he has been treated fairly?


But lets just take a little look 


Senator Le Marquands reply is interesting for two reasons, one of which is fairly obvious and one which is less so.   Firstly, he does not appear to acknowledge the stance he took in 2008, namely that it was not appropriate for him to enter into correspondence so as not to prejudice his role under the Disciplinary Code.   Secondly, he seems to hint that although he had determined that he should not "see" Graham Powers correspondence there is a hint that he has seen it nevertheless.   He refers to a lot of correspondence flowing around at the time.   What correspondence were they then? Could it by any chance be letters that he should not be seeing so as not to prejudice himself?  but was he taking a sly look anyway?  In other words, did he respect the rules which he had imposed on the basis that he should not be dealing with Graham Powers correspondence so as not to conflict his role under the Code?   

 

I also  notice that Ian Le Marquand  seems to suggest that the Chief Minister might have let him down over the letter dated April 3rd 2010 in that he should have been shown Graham Powers letter or been made aware of its contents.I totally  see this as a further symptom of the shambolic and uncoordinated way in which Ministers have handled Graham Powers case      

 

 When Graham Power wrote to the Chief Minister on 3rd Aprill 2010 he was entitled to assume that he and his Minister for Home Affairs were speaking to each other.   They have some of the most expensive Civil Servants in the British Isles.   They should be well capable of ensuring that information in a letter to one Minister which is of relevance to another Minister is copied appropriately.   That is basic office management.   If they messed this up then what other basic mistakes are happening which we do not get to hear about and what are the financial and other consequences of these mistakes?   

 

We have an Incompetent, Shambolic, Morally Corrupt Government


In the answers Given by ILM we have this bit;  


"However, I have recently, on 25th March of this year, written again to the former Chief Officer asking him to tell me precisely what it is that he is now asking me to do."


 After hearing about this letter from the States Sitting Graham Power decided to track it down. They had sent it to the wrong address. Yup, cant even get that right. Someone at CLM House needs to update their mailing system.


Here is the Question from Deputy Pitman;


2.10   Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the publication of the response of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to the Wiltshire Report:

Will the Minister confirm whether he was ever advised by the Chief Minister that the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police had requested on 3rd April 2010 that his response to the Wiltshire Report should be published?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I have checked my own files and incoming emails, and the Chief Minister’s Department has done the same, and I am confident that I had not seen this letter before a copy was provided to me on 25th March of this year.  Furthermore, I was surprised by the contents of the letter when I saw it, and although I believed that I may have had some conversation with the Chief Minister about a representation having been made to him by the former Chief Officer at about that time, I am confident that the relevant sentence was not mentioned to me.  However, on 2nd August 2010 in the last paragraph of my letter to the former Chief Officer’s representative, the former Constable of Gloucestershire, I wrote: “My position is that the statements of witnesses will not generally be going into the public domain but if [and then I name the former Chief Officer] were to ask me to put redacted versions of his statements into the public domain, then I may well agree to this.  I would be grateful to you if you could discuss this point with him.”  I received a reply to that letter dated 15th August 2010, the relevant paragraph of which starts: “Concerning your last paragraph and your proposed position, if [and then the name of the individual former officer ] has a view, he will make it known to you.”  So I myself raised this very same issue in August but never received any response in relation to my inquiry.  However, I have recently, on 25th March of this year, written again to the former Chief Officer asking him to tell me precisely what it is that he is now asking me to do.

2.10.1         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Supplementary, Sir.  I thank the Minister for his answer.  However, if we can stick with 3rd April, given that Mr. Power could not ask the Minister for Home Affairs direct due to the Minister’s stated wish to remain independent, is it not reasonable to think that any request or suggestion about publication of his defence made to the Chief Minister would have been passed on as a matter of course and, with due respect, does the Minister not concede that this really is not acceptable or fair to Mr. Power?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do have to agree that the … well he has just been named …

The Bailiff:

The former Chief Officer is how he should be referred to.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not agree that the former Chief Officer could not have written to me directly about this matter.  There was quite a lot of correspondence floating around at that time in relation to other matters and I have also looked at that to make sure it was not raised in those, which it was not.  However, I would have expected the Chief Minister to have passed on to me any representations, which were being made to him, which clearly were matters which I should consider.

2.10.2         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Will the Minister not accept that it might have been wiser and fairer all round that before he initially published the redacted version way back last July that he had contacted the Chef de Police or the suspended police officer informing him of his actions so that there could have been a joint publication of the Chief Officer’s redacted version and also the Minister for Home Affairs’?  So in other words, they could have gone out in tandem rather than one side of the argument put forward without the other side having the opportunity to put their case forward.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I do not agree with that.  Ironically, I was not aware until this letter was sent to me recently that the former Chief Officer was aware of my intentions as early as April 2010.  He therefore had ample opportunities to contact me directly to make requests in relation to this.  I took the view that because this was an independent report, which had given full weight to what had been said by the former Chief Officer and which at times indeed quoted what he was saying, that it was perfectly reasonable that this go out in the way that it did.  Subsequently when representations were made to me in this Assembly I wrote, as I have indicated, in August 2010 to ask the former Chief Officer what he wanted me to do and he never told me and he still has not told me to this day.

2.10.3         The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I have a supplementary?  I think that the Minister is forgetting that the suspension was a neutral act so therefore the Minister still had a responsibility for the former Chief Officer who had retired at the end of June so, by mentioning it in August, the suspended Chief Officer was no longer a police officer.  Does he not accept that his actions were incorrect?  He should have informed the Chief Officer before the publication of the redacted form of the complaint so the Chief Officer could have put his side of the story along with the Minister’s.  By saying it was done in August, it was too late because the Chief Minister had retired.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

But we now know that he knew what I was proposing to do as early as April 2010.  I also further made my intentions clear in this Assembly at a date I believe in late June or early July as to what I was about to do.  There was no matter of surprise here as indeed the letter of April indicates most clearly.

2.10.4         Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I would and I hope this is not too wide of the mark.  I am sure you will cut me off at the knees if I have strayed too far.  But given that in a sadly related case yesterday in the court an individual who was instrumental in setting up a blog side to rubbish the former Chief Officer of Police was fined just £400 for making death threats on the grounds that they believed that it was a first offence, an out of character offence - when the Data Protection Commissioner has, I am made aware, a file the size of the telephone directory on this individual’s actions - is the Minister at all worried about public concern that within this case of the suspension, Haut de la Garenne, that justice is not operating as consistently as we would all wish?

[10:45]

The Bailiff:

I have to say Deputy that is a long way off the original question.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It was worth a try, Sir.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid that I was not going to be able to be very helpful here because I am completely unaware of the particular case to which the Deputy is referring.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we will leave that one for another time.





25 comments:

Anonymous said...

But given that in a sadly related case yesterday in the court an individual who was instrumental in setting up a blog side to rubbish the former Chief Officer of Police was fined just £400 for making death threats on the grounds that they believed that it was a first offence, an out of character offence - when the Data Protection Commissioner has, I am made aware, a file the size of the telephone directory on this individual’s actions - is the Minister at all worried about public concern that within this case of the suspension, Haut de la Garenne, that justice is not operating as consistently as we would all wish?

As Mr. Power has discovered, justice done (or not) the Jersey way

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

I'm sure your overseas readers would be surprised to learn that our Home Affairs Minister is a former Magistrate. A former Magistrate that publishes a prosecution case against the former police Chief (member of the public) and thinks that he has to be asked for the defence case to be published!!

We know Ian Le Marquand is not the sharpest tool in the box, but do you think he has learnt yet that what he has done contradicts all natural justice?

Anonymous said...

We will never forget what you have done Mr. Le Marquand you should be so ashamed for a supposed man of religion.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for keeping this in the public eye Rico people can not be allowed to forget just how lawless and unanswerable our goverment are.

Anonymous said...

Let alone Ian Le Marquand and Terry Le Sewer how the hell does Andrew Lewis sleep at night!?

Anonymous said...

How many of Ian Le Marquands other judgements as a magistrate could have been flawed? his judgements in the case of Mr Power have shown him to be seriously out of touch with meaning of real justice

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous

You can only shake your head at what has been going on over here, lawless totally lawless. No one is keeping checks on anything. How our Government just let it continue is beyond me it really is. And again our Media must share a large part of the blame for not holding anyone to account.

We must hope for a good election this year

rs

Anonymous said...

This overseas reader could find it hard to believe that he was a former Magistrate simply because he sounds like he is making it up as he goes along. He does not so much try to persuade anyone he is correct as he mostly offers disjointed logic and meaningless contradictions to any fact-based counter presented by his questioner. He must hold the common Jerseyman to an awfully low standard of intelligence to think his words will satisfy anyone seeking the real story.

Anonymous said...

Its surprising that there has been no comments on Senator Ozouf answering a question on behalf of TLS, last Tuesday. The question was from Deputy T Pitman regarding part d purposely being left out of TOR.

Ozouf's answer was disgusting and has to be heard to be believed.

And its all very much related to "Show time with Terry and Ian".

Ian Evans said...

"How many of Ian Le Marquands other judgements as a magistrate could have been flawed? his judgements in the case of Mr Power have shown him to be seriously out of touch with meaning of real justice."

Now there is a question!

He likes (as judicial greffe) being the head of departments that doctor trial tapes.
He likes (as a judge) to ignoring damning evidence that proves policemen have committed perjury in his court.
He likes (as home affairs minister) to cover up crimes that his colleagues have committed.

On the whole, given his track record, I would say that he will eventually be heading to prison.

Thanks for the update Rico....

Anonymous said...

"In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself. Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known."

And we all know what happened next.

Correct

Shambolic & Incompetent

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

It must also be remembered, Ian Le Marquand - when magistrate - was also most strongly active in sentencing already messed-up children to lengthy periods of de facto imprisonment - including, specifically, long periods of wholly illegal solitary confinement.

Really - in some case, these children were "remanded in custody", for lengthy periods - as an unlawful means of dodging around the laws that were in place to prevent the casual imprisonment of children - and - were that not bad enough - they would often end up suffering weeks - and even months - of solitary confinement.

All of those practices were illegal.

That was institutional child abuse - carried out by Jersey's magistrates' court.

And then - of course - we have the infamous spectacle of Ian Le Marquand - as magistrate - prevaricating and delaying for months - the case of the businessman who was bribing bent cops - in exchange for business referrals.

In a law-abiding society, the cops - and the businessman - would have been jailed.

Thanks largely to Ian Le Marquand's enthusiastic agreement to adjournments in the case of the businessman - eventually, the charges got dropped.

Isn't a very nice and accurate image of Jersey's judiciary brought to mind - when considering in contrast to that last case - I got jailed for ten weeks - on the basis of charges I was given less than 24 hours notice of?

Jersey's judiciary - gangsters in red cloaks.

Anonymous said...

So Mr Sorda do you agree with Mr Syvret's paranoid / looney view of Ian Le Marquand as well?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Thanks for showing NO FEAR

rico sorda said...

"So Mr Sorda do you agree with Mr Syvret's paranoid / looney view of Ian Le Marquand as well?"

Well, first up I believe what Mr Syvret said is factually correct but if it isn't I look forward to your comments proving otherwise.

I have lost all faith in the Home Affairs Minister. Im just waiting to see if after all this he has the cheek to stand as Chief Minister. In my opinion after researching his role in the Graham Power Affair he shouldn't even be Home Affairs Minister. If we had a proper working government with checks and balances he would have been slung out a long time ago.

Now that is based on evidenced fact

rs

Anonymous said...

So you say Stuart Syvret is correct is slanging off so many people and you support him for doing that.

rico sorda said...

You Say;

"So Mr Sorda do you agree with Mr Syvret's paranoid / looney view of Ian Le Marquand as well?"

I Say;


"Well, first up I believe what Mr Syvret said is factually correct but if it isn't I look forward to your comments proving otherwise.'

You Say

"So you say Stuart Syvret is correct is slanging off so many people and you support him for doing that."

You really must get over this Syvret thing. No more comments please as I have no doubt I will be replying to you on VFC blog. Stuart does his own thing, if you have a problem with his blog contact him.

Ciao for now

Anonymous said...

Rico

I think this paragraph sums it up.

"When Graham Power wrote to the Chief Minister on 3rd Aprill 2010 he was entitled to assume that he and his Minister for Home Affairs were speaking to each other. They have some of the most expensive Civil Servants in the British Isles. They should be well capable of ensuring that information in a letter to one Minister which is of relevance to another Minister is copied appropriately. That is basic office management. If they messed this up then what other basic mistakes are happening which we do not get to hear about and what are the financial and other consequences of these mistakes? "

Anonymous said...

"I believed that I may have had some conversation with the Chief Minister about a representation having been made to him by the former Chief Officer at about that time, I am confident that the relevant sentence was not mentioned to me"

Ok then Senator LOL. Rico, keep going, don't ever stop!!!!!!! Please

Anonymous said...

I think Stuart's comment goes to the heart of Le Marquand's motive. When the entire truth is known, Le Marquand could be in a great deal of trouble for his role in knowingly sentencing kinds to such institutions, and for his willingness to keep his friends off the hook for related crimes. History will not be on Le Marquand's side.

Elle

Anonymous said...

I know this is a different topic but,
Today Sky News, a comment from Jersey.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7124117913567332282&postID=2466104811340983585
Posted by: trollfinder on April 12, 2011 12:02 PM
Trolls are nasty uncaring people, they have little remorse for their actions, there is a political troll in Jersey, and he targets the victims of child abuse and the Bloggers that question the government. He is actively protected by Jersey Data Protection and authorities at a high level.
Recently he overstepped the mark and made an abusive phone call to one of his victims, it was recorded, he was sent to court and fined, listen to the tape, google “my pet troll” its on you tube.

Come on people, we must pull together and overcome the oppression that is the Jersey establishment,
Trollfinder.

Anonymous said...

"Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am afraid that I was not going to be able to be very helpful here because I am completely unaware of the particular case to which the Deputy is referring."

Is he saying he doesn't read the newspaper? I can understand he might not know about the "case" itself but come on, that reply is total BS in my opinion.

I hope the same question is asked again in the "Written questions giving time for the answerer to add more b.s." during the next sitting. Although his answer will probably be something along the lines of not wanting to comment.

That said, there are more pressing things to be getting on with but I think its just another example of the utter cr*p he squeaks out.

Anonymous said...

Thought you'd like this MSM event Rico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L50rDK-G8-s&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but is Thomas Wellard a real poster then?

Ian Evans said...

HEROIN - THE PRICE YOU PAY