BDO Alto 5
Lenny Harper replies
Im asking the readers of my Blog a simple question are our Ruling Elite
Researching these Blogs sometimes leaves me feeling very depressed. I can fully understand where Stuart Syvret is coming from.
I emailed the Chair and Deputy Chair of PAC asking about their Scrutiny of the BDO Report im still awaiting acknowledgment of the email let alone an answer.
We now know that the independent review undertaken by BDO is a total sham. We also know that there is now a bit of panic going on between Wiltshire, BDO and the Home Affairs dept. ILM & SAV have dived for cover and are currently unavailable, BDO responded with something that was worse than their report, Wiltshire are flapping and trying to find answers as they seem to get the seriousness of the situation. Someone gave Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement to BDO.
B. Home Affairs
When I started these BDO blogs it was meant to be about the shock of a £64,000 report that hadn't involved the two main players Lenny Harper & Graham Power. When I started reading the report I soon realized that they were quoting Lenny's Wiltshire statement things then snowballed. I will be publishing LH's reply. Why BDO or the MSM couldn't have done the same only ILM knows.
Yet look at what has happened to Deputy Hills complaint. This can be read here
Its just the same garbage from this out of control ruling elite
Or Deputy T Pitman trying to get a report into 1.1ks
This just cant carry on.
This Corruption does not just lay at the Door Of Child Abuse it runs through everything.
Why doesn't a politician ask the following questions
A. What is the Criminal Confiscation Fund
B. How much money is currently held in it
C. Who controls the CCF
D. Can we have a Financial Audit of the las 5 years
E. And can it please be used for the " Committee of No ENQUIRY"
This is just a short posting. I will keep you posted with any updates I get.
TRUTH HONESTY & INTEGRITY
Just two days ago, on the 9th May 2011 I became aware for the very first time of the existence of a group called BDO Alto Ltd. I also learnt that they had carried out a review of the manner in which I had utilised resources in the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry. This all came as something of a surprise as despite being the Senior Investigating Officer of the enquiry, BDO had never made any attempt to ask me anything at all about the enquiry and the decisions I had made in respect of the use of resources. It did not take me any longer than the first page to realise that their report was full of factual errors and assumptions which they had wrongly arrived at, either intentionally or otherwise, because of their failure to speak to me, and I believe, the former Chief Officer of the force, Graham Power QPM. Below, I draw attention to some of the most obvious flaws in the report which I believe cost the States in excess of £60,000. I should emphasise that there are so many wrong assumptions and factual inaccuracies that I have restricted myself to pointing out a representative sample of them.
The report is flawed from the outset when it makes light of the process which led to the search of HDLG. It rightly states that there was no initial intention to excavate the building, but then states "for some reason this changed." The reasons have been well documented. The BDO report states that where the dog barked, we dug. It deliberately ignores the evidence of the Operation Rectangle Summary Report, (available on the SOJP website before Mr Warcup removed it) which describes all the technical and scientific aids and methods which were used to corroborate the reactions of the dogs. The report also ignores the evidence available to us from builders who found bones they believed to be human and who were told to "let bygones be bygones." It follows also, that BDO make no mention of the inconsistencies in the handling of the bones by the local Pathologist. All in all, BDO seem to deliberately play down the evidence for the operation.
The report quotes the now discredited Met review as saying that "the search was not justified." There seems to be shades of the now widely criticised Warcup and Gradwell press conference here. However, Wiltshire in their report endorsed the entry and search. The BDO conclusion that considerable elements of the investigation costs were therefore questionable seems highly debatable to say the least, relying as they do on the Met report.
In talking about JAR/6 BDO state that the item had not been lab tested or subjected to peer review. This ignores the fact that the identification was made by a renowned and respected anthropologist. It goes on to peddle the myth that a scientist from the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford identified the item as wood or coconut. This, as we know, is rubbish. Firstly nobody at that lab was qualified to say what it was - their expertise is in dating, and they made a hash of that, and secondly, no one ever said what it was. I have e mail evidence which shows them saying clearly that to be sure as to what it was, it would need to be examined by experts. How come BDO never picked that up? Could it be because they never spoke to me? There is no mention either of the collagen found which directly contradicts the coconut and wood theory. One has to ask, why did BDO not pick up the e mails which show the lab as struggling to explain the collagen. If they had spoken to me I would have given them copies.
On page 10 the report states that an NPIA(National Policing Improvement Agency) review criticised my strategy. This is very odd because it was the NPIA who developed the strategy (and I have a copy of the letter they sent me outlining it). Furthermore, they were present at the meeting in Oxford where the operation was first discussed and advice sought from them. They were also present throughout the excavation at HDLG, and described the operation as an example of good practice. Strangely though, in mentioning those present at the Oxford meeting, this BDOI report does not mention the NPIA as being present. It is nonsense to suggest they would criticise their own strategy. One has to ask why the report has ignored the NPIA presence at the Oxford meeting where the decision to enter HDLG was taken and why there is no mention that the NPIA devised the strategy. It is puzzling in the least as to why BDO should claim that the NPIA reviewed and criticised their own strategy. Did they deliberately try and muddy the water or did they mistakenly enter NPIA when they were really talking about the mysterious Met report which the Napier report concluded had been used in a misleading fashion by David Warcup. Either way, it is a damning indictment of their ability and credibility.
The BDO report totally misunderstands and misrepresents the situation of the SOJP as it was then in relation to the management of its budget. The report compares the management of the police budget unfavourably with UK forces and rather misleadingly equates (supposed) operational independence with the financial decision making ability of UK forces. In reality, unlike UK forces, we did not have the ability to track our budgets as they do in the UK. Where the UK forces had in house finance departments which reported to the Chief Officer, we had an ever diminishing number of Treasury personnel who nominally worked with us but reported to the Treasury. We had to rely on them for monthly bulletins as to how we were doing. These bulletins became a joke so inaccurate were they and we came to realise eventually that the inaccuracies were deliberate. We monitored our own expenditure and towards the end of one year we knew we were well under-spent, with a surplus that we had been promised we could carry over to the next year. However, the Treasury insisted we were slightly overspent. We later found that we had been correct but our surplus had been passed on to other States departments which were heavily over-spent. Wiser the following years we ignored the Centre’s protestations that we were over spent and indeed they were wrong and we came within budget. This was the context that we found ourselves in at the beginning of the Abuse enquiry. Graham Power continually pleaded for us to be given a budget to work to but was refused. The instruction by Frank Walker to use whatever resources we needed was not misunderstood. It was a clear direction. BDO seem to infer that it was not really an instruction to use whatever we needed. However, they have ignored the fact that when I did speak publicly about the need to be mindful of the costs of the enquiry, I received a stinging rebuke from Bill Ogley on behalf of Frank Walker in which he said “costs are irrelevant. I have a copy of that e mail and if BDO had bothered to try to contact me I would have let them have it.
All of this puts the comments by Steven Austen Vaughtier in a light which does him no credit. According to BDO SAV speaks of the lack of financial control and governance at the SOJP. How he equates this with the fact that our savings were used to bail out other Home Affairs departments is puzzling. It also ignores the reality that he was kept fully up to date with what was happening and totally supported what we were doing. I had several meetings with him and Elizabeth Middleton during which I went through all our expenditure, explaining the efforts to keep costs of accommodation etc to a minimum, all of which he applauded. I wonder if BDO made any attempt to contact hotels such as the Hotel de France and L’Horizon which gave us bargain basement rates as it was out of season and we were guaranteed regular custom? I suspect not.
SAV claims that I was asked for detailed estimates of costs and BDO state that this is contrary to what I said in my statement to Wiltshire. There are a number of points here. Firstly, how could I possibly estimate cost when I had no access to figures. All of these were in the possession of the Treasury. If I had an accountant working alongside me and briefing me daily on the costs I would have had this information at my fingertips. In reality, SAV had easier access to it than I had. What I was able to do, and what I did, was to ensure that every penny spent was operationally necessary. I went through all of these, including the Australia trip, in minute detail to SAV and Mrs Middleton. I even had a detailed report on that trip submitted to Frank Walker through SAV and it was acknowledged that the expenditure was justified. It was not until after I retired that the matter of the Australia trip was dishonestly resurrected.
Furthermore, it is not true that no minutes were taken of these meetings. Mrs Middleton made copious notes, and indeed used them to remind me of what was said at them in the following days. The e mails should still be available. Can we assume that these notes have also been shredded?
There is one last matter of concern. BDO seem to be quoting from my statement to Wiltshire. This was a statement made for a particular purpose – the investigation into Graham Power. When I was refused a copy, I was told that no one would be given a copy and that it would be used for no purpose other than the one it was made for. That was a condition of me then agreeing to make it. I am surprised that it was used for another purpose particularly in the light of the Home Affairs Minister’s refusal to make it public.
BDO state that Mr Austen Vaughtier appears to have blamed his apparent failure to monitor expenditure on the fact that he was told by me that we were investigating a child homicide. This is totally incorrect and is easily demolished by reference to any number of open media sources where I have drawn the distinction between a homicide investigation and treating a scene as one of a possible homicide. Both the authors of the report and SAV should have been well aware of my position on this and the report is misleading and untrue in this regard.
I am disappointed that SAV should have sought to discredit the enquiry in the fashion he has. I had a high regard for him although I was well aware of the pressure he was under from politicians trying to get at the enquiry, and I can understand why he has changed his stance given the ruthlessness and desperate manoeuvrings of those he works for. I am in possession of an e mail from him which shows the level of co-operation I was giving him and his satisfaction with it.