Monday, June 27, 2011

HOLLYWOOD HARPER??? BDO Alto .14






"NOTHING TO HIDE NOTHING TO FEAR"




BDO ALTO -14




Senator / Home Affairs Minister- Ian Le Marquand is wanting Deputy T Pitman to step down as Chairman of the Home Affairs Scrutiny panel investigating the BDO Alto Report.  What is unfolding here can be read on the Deputy's blog.  I find this just staggering. The Senator will be taken out of his comfort zone when questioned by Scrutiny, as a former Magistrate he isn't used to this. If there's nothing to hide then why the big shakes about who's on the panel? 






The Above Blog by Deputy T  Pitman  is a must  read 




 Like I said     "NOTHING TO HIDE NOTHING TO FEAR"


Today Lenny Harper appeared on BBC Radio Jersey. What was apparent from the outset was that the host Roger Barra who conducted the interview had the Monday morning blues.  Im not sure how researched he was on the matter but as soon as he heard the words Abuse Survivors he got all aggressive and cut the interview dead. Now, the trick with BBC Jersey, and one that Lenny Harper should have used is this; Mr Harper should have said that BDO Alto bombed Jersey during the Second World, not only would this had hit all the right notes, he would still be on there  talking. BBC Jersey love WW2, as do I.




When I first looked at BDO Alto I had no idea where it was going to lead  us . It has just ballooned in a way I didn't expect. I feel like we sneaked in the back door. Evidence, research and facts is all we are interested in. Do people in Jersey really appreciate just how corrupt the place is? Morally, Socially, in fact on every level.  I will be blogging tomorrow on the latest concerning the Committee of Enquiry. All we can do is keep you, the readers, as up to date as we can.  I have posted some Interviews below which should be viewed. I would like to thank Ian Evans for helping me out, he is always on hand and much appreciated.



What I have discovered concerning Mick Gradwell  is that in all his Interviews and news paper pieces he never explains what he brought to the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Every interview I come across is Gradwell trashing what went before him. What did he bring to the Investigation? Just watch and listen the clips shown below.


I also suggest you watch the ILM ON Channel TV. 



Below I reproduce Lenny Harpers Scrutiny Submission. It can be found on their website.  Also, Mr Harper will be taking part in the Scrutiny Hearing on the 4th July. This will be done via video link up or failing that a conference call.  The Scrutiny hearings are open to the public. The panel have asked me to attend on the 15th I have agreed to this.

Rico Sorda

Truth, Honesty & Integrity

Team Voice





                                                     LEONARD HARPER


 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – WRITTEN SUBMISSION 

  I have been asked to submit a written response in respect of the BDO report into the use of financial resources during the Historical Abuse Investigation.  This is to be a pre-cursor to my evidence to the Sub Committee at a later stage.
In its letter to me of 23rd June 2011, the Sub Committee lays out the three concerns which have instigated the Scrutiny Review.  These are,

“The fact that as Senior Investigating Officer you were not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report despite the fact that you were subject of significant criticism in the report;

The BDO Alto report refers to confidential statements made by yourself to the Wiltshire enquiry;

Critical sections of a ‘leaked report by financial auditors’ were quoted by a report of the Mail on Sunday (4th October 2009) only a few days after  the BDO Alto report states that they were engaged to undertake the review (reference to their engagement letter dated 29 September 2009). It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak.”

The Sub Committee quite understandably comments that it is not the intention to “stray into broader issues relating to the Haut de la Garenne enquiry nor to the substance of the findings in the BDO report.”  However, it does state that it intends to “undertake a review of the issues arising from these (above) concerns.”  In order for me to illustrate the issues that I see as arising from the concerns outlined at paragraph 2, it will be necessary for me show the effect on the report of BDO failing to even contact me.  I will do this by addressing each of the three concerns of the Sub Committee in the order they appear at paragraph 2.  Consequently it will be necessary to show the effect on the report and its accuracy of the failure to seek the knowledge of the person responsible for most of the decision making in respect of the use of financial resources.

There are a number of issues which arise from the failure of BDO to even attempt to interview me as part of their review, nor to give me the opportunity to respond to criticisms contained within the report.  Firstly, it is a well established point of lawful procedure that in certain types of investigations and inquiries certain points of procedure must be followed to ensure fairness and accuracy.  These points were further emphasised in the case of Maxwell v. DTI 1974 and the following excerpts from an article in ‘Practical Law Company’ in December 2008 explain these procedures.

Investigations and inquiries in context

Investigations and inquiries are an increasing feature of public life. They come in a variety of forms. Some have formal powers while others are carried out on an ad hoc, informal basis. Some are triggered by government policy while others are commissioned at the discretion of the government and/or public bodies.

Certain procedural and legal issues arise in all investigations and inquiries. It is important to get these right so that the investigative process runs smoothly, individuals are treated fairly& lawfully and the budget/timetable is maintained.

This note sets out what these issues are. Organisations intending to commission an investigation or inquiry should seek professional advice and assistance at the outset.

An aspect of principle 2 above was that following the Salmon Report, letters were commonly issued to those who were participants in an inquiry where there was potential criticism that might be made of their conduct. These letters came to be known as “Salmon letters”.
In his subsequent report in to matters arising from the Matrix-Churchill affair, Lord Scott criticised aspects of the Salmon Principles as being more relevant to adversarial processes than an inquisitorial procedure. However, he took the process of warning those concerned of possible criticism (so they would have an opportunity to comment) further than the Salmon letter; rather, he copied adverse passages from his draft report to those concerned, so they had an opportunity to respond and seek to change his mind. This process is known as “Maxwellisation” and derives from practice in investigations under the Companies Act.
Both processes represent aspects of fairness and may be necessary, depending on the circumstances, for an inquiry conducted today.
For inquiries conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Salmon letter procedure has been codified in to a process of “warning letters” (see section 13 of the Act). This provides that the chairman may not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in a report unless he has sent a warning letter to a person who:
(a) He considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or
(b) About whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or
(c) Who may be subject to criticism in any report or interim report.
Section 14 of the Act creates a statutory duty of confidence between the recipient of such a letter, the inquiry team and the recipient’s legal representative. The duty persists until such time as the inquiry’s report is published or the chairman waives the duty.
The contents of warning letters under the Act are set out in section 15. They must:
(a) state what the criticism or proposed criticism is
(b) contain a statement of the facts that the chairman considers substantiate the criticism or proposed criticism
(c) refer to any evidence which supports those facts.
It has yet to be seen whether the statutory process of warning letters will help speed up inquiries that would previously have followed a Maxwellisation process by dispensing with it, or whether a chairman will consider that fairness requires a “Maxwell” process as well as warning letters under section 13 of the Act
Maxwell v DTI [1974] QB 523
This is what I see as the first issue arising from the concerns and in particular the first concern.  The completion of a review of my decisions relating to the use of financial resources without even seeking an explanation from me as to why I made those decisions, makes it inevitable that the review will be unfair, slanted, un-objective, and lacking in credibility.  Such a review is unlikely to provide a true picture of the situation, and indeed, I would argue that there are so many factual inaccuracies and wrongful assumptions included in the report, that this is exactly what happened.  If I had been spoken to it is unlikely that the report would have come to the same conclusions as it did.  Whilst I fully appreciate the reluctance of the Sub Committee to re-examine the conclusions of the report, it is necessary for me to show how those conclusions would have been affected by the simple process of asking me why I took the decisions I did.  What I will submit is that there are so many of these conclusions which I can contradict with solid evidence, that I cannot possibly include them all.  Accordingly I will simply illustrate my point with a selected few of them, but I would emphasise there are many, many, more.

Firstly, I would have pointed to the close links between Mr Kellett and Mr Gradwell, which BDO seem to have conveniently overlooked.  Both officers worked in the same region of the North West of England and know each other well.  This can hardly be said to be an independent appointment.

One fundamental effect of the failure to even interview me appears at the very outset of the report and is crucial in the BDO conclusion that much of the spending was unnecessary.  This is in relation to the search operation at HDLG.  BDO quote a Met interim report as saying that the entry into HDLG was “unjustified” and the report makes light of the process which led to the search of HDLG.  However, BDO make no mention of the fact that a later report by Wiltshire Police endorsed the entry into HDLG and the important fact that it was the National Policing Improvement Agency who actually recommended the operation and who formulated the Search Strategy. (A copy of their Strategy is attached.)  BDO have completely missed this but would not have been allowed to if they had spoken to me.

The report 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, although again, BDO have ignored them.  I would have pointed them towards the reasons.  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.  Again, I would have insisted they read this document. 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 or ignore the evidence for the operation, something which I would have rectified if I had been spoken to.    Whilst not inviting the Sub Committee to rule on the merits of my arguments, the BDO conclusion that considerable elements of the investigation costs were therefore questionable seems highly debatable to say the least, and would have had to be at least re-assessed if they had been forced to rely on evidence other than a Met interim report which at best was one page of e mail and contained false dates.

In talking about the initial fragment, 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.  I also have e mail evidence which shows that collagen was found by them in the fragment.  We all know that this substance is found only in mammals and not in wood or coconut.  It is likely then, that if I had been given the opportunity to present such evidence to BDO, that their conclusions could not have been the same.  One has to ask how BDO missed such important evidence.  Could it be because they never spoke to me and no one else was interested in giving them the information?  Again, the Sub Committee does not have to reach a conclusion on which version is the truth.  It is surely obvious that the report could not have been fair, objective, or independent without the availability of the alternative explanations.

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.  Far from being reckless with finance as BDO have reported, I was rebuked by Bill Ogley for even considering the need to be careful with money.  I have a copy of his e mail which I will happily supply to the Sub Committee which shows him admonishing me and telling me that “cost is irrelevant.”

The report criticises the use of Mr Grimes and his dogs.  It claims that there were other dog handlers who could have carried out the work.  This is not so.  At that time these were the only dogs trained in this particular line of work available to us, and they were recommended to us by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  It is interesting to note, that whilst employed with us, Mr Grimes was also given time to go and assist two other UK forces.  I should also point out that he is now employed full time by the FBI and that previous to coming to Jersey he had been used frequently by them.  BDO claim they were unable to discover who had recommended Mr Grime.  If they had tried hard enough they would have found that the NPIA brought him to that first meeting in Oxford where the strategy was discussed and approved by all there.

BDO are also critical of the fact that the L’Horizon hotel was used for Mr Grimes and the archaeologists and anthropologists whilst they were in Jersey.  What BDO do not mention was that the cost of the rooms was the equivalent of a B&B establishment because of the favourable rates.  These were professional people who were being asked to work long hours away from home.  My PA who did most of the hunting for accommodation did a superb job in obtaining these rooms at the rate she did.  Staff could not have been accommodated any less expensively. Indeed, although I can find no mention of it in any comment by politicians, Gradwell, Warcup, or SAV, the report does say that the use of all other hotels and accommodation was appropriate.  What is seems to miss is the fact that L’Horizon cost no more than the other hotels mentioned.

The BDO report criticises visits to London by me and staff, and the use of hospitality whilst on these visits.  It states it can find no good reason for the visits, and goes on to criticise the restaurants which were used, and the way bills were split between officers which it claims, were an attempt to hide the cost.  Here again, BDO would have benefited from even a conversation with me over the telephone.  Instead it saw fit to criticise my actions without even the first idea of why we did what we did.  In the following paragraphs I lay out the details which I would have given them if they had bothered to ask.  As before, it is not necessary for the Sub Committee to comment on the veracity of the evidence, although I emphasise it is all verifiable, but merely to note that alternative evidence was available but not even sought by BDO.

Firstly, not only myself, but ACPO were worried about the security of our offices at the Police HQ.  ACPO were also concerned about the security of our electronic systems.  It was decided that we would seek the advice of the team dealing with such matters at New Scotland Yard.  We made our first visit there and discussed the arrangements which we had in place and which we should be thinking of enhancing.  Much useful information was obtained, and indeed, several members of that unit visited Jersey and carried out an inspection of our offices and made useful recommendations.  There are a number of other points to be made which BDO failed to recognise but which I would have enlightened them on if they had bothered to contact me.  It is true, as they claim, that these meetings rarely lasted longer than an hour or ninety minutes.  However, I was not usually in London for these meetings alone.  I combined them with other meetings and tasks to be carried out, some of them directly connected to Rectangle and some either indirectly or not connected.  Furthermore, even in the short duration of the meetings valuable information was gleaned and later acted on.  From this meeting also arose the possibility of us borrowing a brand new sifting machine for use at HDLG which considerably speeded up and made more effective the process of searching for evidence in the debris from the home.  We had this machine for several months and paid nothing for it but the cost of transporting it.  Using it saved many thousands of pounds.  BDO do get it correct when they say that my preference would have been to alternate the meetings between London and Jersey but as the Met would have had to charge for their services if they went to Jersey, it was decided to hold the meetings in London top reduce our costs.

BDO seek in this report to infer some wrongdoing in respect of the hospitality afforded to UK officers.  It should be pointed out right away, that in a written communication, Steven Austen Vaughtier laid out the amount of money allocated to this investigation for hospitality.  I was not using money diverted from operational costs, this was money allocated by the States for the use in supplying hospitality.  BDO seem to infer that it was unusual.  This is not so.  Every States department has hospitality budgets and in many restaurants and bars in Jersey this facility is used regularly.  One local taxi driver commented to me that if it wasn’t for the hospitality budgets of politicians and their departments several restaurants would have long closed.   It is necessary when operating in an isolated environment like Jersey that networking and hospitality facilities are used.  I am quite happy to have my hospitality expenses measured against the services and other benefits that I brought in compared with a similar exercise for any other states department.  As a result of contacts made I was able to save the SOJP many thousands of pounds.  This included but did not stop at secondments, such as the months long secondment to the Met Homicide Teams for a senior detective, a lengthy secondment to a busy west end of London Division for a senior uniform officer during which he gained valuable experience, short notice training for a number of Tactical Firearms Officers when due to accidents we had none, from another UK force, training in Northern Ireland, free of charge, for our probationer officers, as well as validation for our own training procedures, as well as many, many more.

BDO criticise the restaurants which we used and name two of them.  One of them, the “Bombay Brassiere”, is I think, a restaurant in Kensington which was near to a hotel we used.  I think we went there once.  I am not sure what they were trying to infer.  The second restaurant they name is “Shepherds” in London.  The report goes to great lengths to mention that it was owned by Sir Michael Caine.  I think it is correct that it was at one time part owned by him.  This is obviously an attempt to give the impression of five star luxury.  However, as the Scotland Yard team pointed out, this is a restaurant used mainly by journalists, MPs, and senior police officers, (including members of HMIC) many of whom are on business dinners.  Scotland Yard provided a menu to Wiltshire Police, although it never seems to have got a mention in that report and I notice that BDO did not mention it either.  The menu shows good reasonably priced meals at the cost, when we used it, of £32 for three courses and coffee.  Hardly Hollywood style living.  Frequently when using it we would encounter other police officers from various forces and HMIC.  This is a far cry from the movie star lifestyle painted by BDO and the JEP.  When the truth was available one has to ask why they chose to go down this road, and why no attempt was made to speak to me, nor indeed, to even use the evidence that Scotland Yard had given them.

BDO also sought to infer some form of malpractice in the way in which bills were split.  Bills were split to begin with, because invariably officers who were being met with, paid for some drinks for those present themselves.  As for why the bill was sometimes split between two Jersey officers, the truth is rather less exciting and easily verifiable.  Indeed, once again, if BDO had bothered to check with me I would have enlightened them.
On a number of occasions myself and other colleagues had the embarrassment of having our Jersey Purchase cards refused because the States had been, for whatever reason, late in paying the account, leaving cards near their limit.  I remember one occasion in London having to use my own card on arrival at a hotel and then having to ring Jersey to sort the matter out.  Subsequently, when three or four of us where meeting with a number of other UK officers and having to pay the resulting bill, we split the cost to try and avoid the situation as described happening again.  BDO didn’t bother to ask for a reason.  They have simply tried to paint a black picture.  The report quotes a £4,860 bill on my purchase card for eight months of the investigation.  This works out at about £608 per month, well below what my hospitality budget actually was.  BDO compare my cost with a small force in Yorkshire.  What the basis is for comparing an island force off France having to obtain services and assistance in the middle of a huge investigation with a small force in rural England is, I have absolutely no idea.  However, according to BDO even the Deputy chief constable there spent over £3,000 and he had no Operation Rectangle and presumably did not need to leave GB or cross the Channel to meet with contacts.
There are of course, two other concerns of the Sub Committee.  The first of these is the matter of my confidential witness statement made to Wiltshire Police.  This statement was made as part of the discipline investigation into Graham Power QPM.  It was made under condition that it was used for no other purpose.  It contained sensitive details as well as names of victims and suspects.  I was assured by Wiltshire Police that no one would be given a copy of it, and indeed, that it was even exempt from Freedom of Information Laws in the UK.  It formed part of a report by Wiltshire Police that was in itself so confidential that Wiltshire issued the following warning.

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.
2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000
3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).
4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 

There is absolutely no condition under which my statement should have been made available to a firm of accountants who are not security vetted in any fashion in relation to such documents, and who had no connection with the discipline investigation for which it was provided.  I gave no such authority for it to be used, and Wiltshire Police have denied ever providing the statement to BDO.  If BDO had bothered to interview me I would have pointed all of this out to them.
The final concern was the leaking of the BDO report shortly after it was commissioned.  There is not much I can add to what is known.  David Rose is a journalist with a public track record of supporting convicted paedophiles and trashing police investigations of historical child abuse.  He is the author and co-author of several books and documents in which it is claimed that allegations of historic abuse are either as a result of conspiracies between greedy victims fabricating stories and police willingly acquiescing, or as a result of ‘false recall syndrome.’  He has given evidence to Parliamentary Select Committees on behalf of Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Care Home Rapist, and the North Wales Care Home abusers, all of whom he claims were victims of miscarriages of justice.  This is despite a three year public inquiry in North Wales which cost millions and totally vindicated police and victims.  This was not the first time of course that Mr Rose featured in the Jersey investigation.  He was leaked material previously, and in a tape recorded conversation told Graham Power that he had been leaked confidential material by Senator James Perchard.  Rose denied the conversation despite the recording, and Perchard denied leaking to him.  It seems to me, to reflect rather badly on the so called objective and independent nature of this report that a journalist with a publicly proven record of supporting convicted child abusers should have more access to the report and through his police contacts, to be able to influence it more that the people making the decisions which were being reviewed.
In making this submission I have had to contradict a number of the findings of the report.  I do this in the full recognition that it is not the Sub Committee’s task to in any way re-assess the findings of the report.  I do it in order to show that a substantial body of alternative evidence was easily and readily available which may have given a totally different perspective on events.  This evidence was ignored and not even sought, despite the fact that much of it came from the person making the decisions which were being reviewed and subsequently criticised.  Such criticism without even an attempt to seek an alternative view cannot be seen as being fair, objective or independent.


Leonard Harper
25th June 2011











67 comments:

Anonymous said...

Le Marquand is finished at least any reputation he once had is.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

In my opinion Re; Gradwell (and Warcup) the only contribution they made to the enquiry was to prevent Abuse Victims coming forward and to scupper prosecutions. Not sure how successful they were?

Anonymous said...

What a submission! If Mr. Harpers submission can be corroborated is he and his team owed an apology from someone?

Love to see Bdo taken to the cleaners for trying to trash Harpers reputation,well,either that or Harper sued for slandering Bdo.

Anonymous said...

PUT THROUGH THE MILL, WHICH BLACKENED OUR NAME!!!!!!!

IAN le MARQAUND , you should hang your head in shame .
The interview with le M on CCTV had strong similarities to Philip Bailhaches
Liberation day speech.

Interesting times, and I am so looking forward to the public scrutiny enquiry.

Anonymous said...

What was Gradwell doing , showing evidence on local CTV , when it was still a live investigation, oh silly me , It would have been deemed inadmissible if by the slightest chance that the crown offices had allowed ANY CHARGES to be brought.

Anonymous said...

You should be a paid advisor to the scrutiny team Rico is that possible?

Anonymous said...

From the last comments on your previous post, Anonymous asked, "Am i to assume from these 'terms of reference' that the inquiry has no interest in the accuracy of the Bdo report!"

Well, yes, Anonymous. Where else have we seen this same trick in use? The old favorite disappearing terms of reference ploy, "Part D," that's where! The very same magic trick where no individual will be held accountable for the missing "Part D."

Once again, there is no high level interest in accuracy or getting to the bottom of anything, here. Instead, this is just another example of a reluctant establishment resigned to another investment in time and money creating some article of artificial transparency. Is this to be a future report into the decisions regarding an investigation of the scrutiny of the handling of the report into the investigation which has altered terms to preclude any transparent fact finding into unpleasant matters?

Repeatedly bangs head on desk in despair.

Ian Evans said...

Top post Rico, and coupled with Trevor's effort, just awesome.

And about Le Marquand, I have to say this....

"I TOLD YOU HE WAS TOTALLY CORRUPT" :)

Anonymous said...

You should be a paid advisor to the scrutiny team Rico is that possible?

Uh, isn't that what Rico already does? He offers scrutiny to scrutiny right here.

It's dark in the cellar said...

I think it is about time Ian Le Marquand was sent to St Saviour's for analysis.

He thinks he is God's friend, he thinks he can destroy peoples lives at will, he thinks there are no consequences to his actions

Clearly, he is knitting with only one needle.

Anonymous said...

Trevor Pitman we salute you. Or something like that.

rico sorda said...

The reason the Scrutiny TOR's are the way they are is so it wouldn't get bogged down. In ILM's words it would be more sharp, to the point and punchy. Lets not forget that BDO compiled a report that is heavily critical of Lenny Harpers decisions without contacting the man and getting his version of events. This report was also used by Wiltshire in compiling their Financial report, both reports were then used in Senator ILM;S big presentation and media show. On July 15th 2010 the JEP ran with page after page with the headline of 'Lavish Lifestyle of Lenny Harper' this can be viewed at the library and photocopied like I have done. These reports were used to discredit Lenny Harper and Graham Power and in doing so trash the child abuse investigation.

There must be a full and complete audited trail of who set the TOR's between Home Affairs and BDO

When did BDO start

When ILM received the first Draft - who was privy to this

What involvement did the accounting officer steve austin vautier have with the setting up and involvement of this report

Why were police officers, home affaires staff and outside contractors interviewed and not the SIO Lenny Harper

What was the conclusion of the investigation by the SOJP into the David Rose leak

Why did ILM say in the states that all roads pointed to Gradwell


Plenty to be getting on with

rs

Anonymous said...

Mick Gradwell, please can someone refresh my memory, I am sure Gradwell is the same man who helped cover up the Hollie Greig child abuse scandal in Scotland?

Zoompad

Anonymous said...

"What I will submit is that there are so many of these conclusions which I can contradict with solid evidence, that I cannot possibly include them all. Accordingly I will simply illustrate my point with a selected few of them, but I would emphasise there are many, many, more."


According to Lenny Harper - Mr Kellett and Mr Gradwell, both worked as officers in the same region of the North West of England and know each other well.

NOT QUITE SO INDEPENDANT THEN


"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"


SOLID EVIDENCE


"This was not the first time of course that Mr Rose featured in the Jersey investigation. He was leaked material previously, and in a tape recorded conversation told Graham Power that he had been leaked confidential material by Senator James Perchard. Rose denied the conversation despite the recording, and Perchard denied leaking to him."

SOLID EVIDENCE

Anonymous said...

in relation to ILM

Clearly, he is knitting with only one needle.

love that phrase

Anonymous said...

rico sorda said...
The reason the Scrutiny TOR's are the way they are is so it wouldn't get bogged down. In ILM's words it would be more sharp, to the point and punchy.

What is so difficult about Scrutiny inestigating the original report. Its been done on this site.
If that report is really is that flawed,then they owe it to the accused to correct the error.

rico sorda said...

• Firstly, I would have pointed to the close links between Mr Kellett and Mr Gradwell, which BDO seem to have conveniently overlooked. Both officers worked in the same region of the North West of England and know each other well. This can hardly be said to be an independent appointment.

BDO have some explaining to do. Who advised BDO that Mike Kellett was their man? I have tried to track him down but so far no joy. If they did know each other then I for one would not be surprised

rs

rico sorda said...

Reading Lenny Harpers submission you cant but wonder why BDO never contacted him. Surely a professional outfit like BDO would have said " right we had better contacy Mr Harper" like it says in their code of conduct?

rico sorda said...

I now turn my attention to a written question asked by Deputy Bob Hill to the minister of Home Affairs on tuesday 20th april 2010

"Will The Minister Inform the Members"

a. of the cost of the Historic Abuse Enquiry from 23rd february 2008 to the date the former Deputy Chief Officer's retirement.

b. the cost since the appointment of his replacement

c. how the expenditure is monitored and who is the Accounting Officer legally responsible for expenditure.

d. who has political responsibility for the expenditure and how closely it is monitored

Answers

a. cost of the Historic Abuse Enquiry from the 23rd February 2008 to the date of the former Deputy Chief Officer's Retirement £3,202,600 ( lenny harper retired in august 2008 )

b.the cost since the appointment of his replacement from September 2008 to end of March 2010 £3,710,800

c. financial management of the enquiry is overseen by a multi-agency Gold strategic c0-ordinating group. The Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Department is the Accounting Officer,and member of the Gold Strategic co-ordinating group.

d. The Accounting Officer of a states funded body is personally accountable for the proper financial management of the resources of the body in accordance with article 38 of the public finances law( jersey) law 2005 law.

The Accounting Officer is not responsible for making decisions on policy issues but is accountable for the implementation of policy with due regard for value of money. Policy descisions are the responsibility of Ministers. Furthermore, the accounting officer does not have managerial oversight of,nor clearly any operational responsibility for the states of jersey police. Departmental expenditure is monitored on a regular basis and reported to the minister in the quarterly financial report in accordance with financial direction

Anonymous said...

How sad Lenny Harper has to spend his time defending himself when he should be enjoying a well deserved retirement.

moral-rightness said...

[How sad Lenny Harper has to spend his time defending himself when he should be enjoying a well deserved retirement.]

I think Lenny will be able to enjoy himself a lot more once the abuse survivors get the justice they deserve. So, I think any sympathies should be held for those abuse survivors who have not received due justice so far, because (as Lenny has said) this is what this is really all about.

GeeGee said...

To the Anonymous commenter above - I was going to submit a comment expressing the same sentiments exactly.

It is indeed an appalling state of affairs that two good, honest police officers who should now be enjoying some quality time are having to deal with all this, and all in the name of covering up child abuse.

Jersey, you have got yourself into one almighty mess, and it is good that people like Lenny and Graham have not sailed off into the sunset, but are prepared to stand and fight their corners because THEY have nothing to hide.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Is Philip Ozouf a modern day politician, as he claims, or a FRAUDSTER?

Anonymous said...

What was that classic ILM said in the States, about evidence he could not provide, because it was in Warcup's safe, and Warcup was on holiday?

rico sorda said...

"On a number of occasions myself and other colleagues had the embarrassment of having our Jersey Purchase cards refused because the States had been, for whatever reason, late in paying the account, leaving cards near their limit. I remember one occasion in London having to use my own card on arrival at a hotel and then having to ring Jersey to sort the matter out."


Surely that simple reason above cant be the reason for splitting bills? The Accounting officer or someone in Home Affairs must know if thats the case? This was made into a big thing in the BDO Report and JEP

rs

Anonymous said...

"Surely that simple reason above cant be the reason for splitting bills?"

Oh, that would be too logical an explanation for their use in tarnishing the reputation of a real hero.

Lenny Harper is indeed a hero for the ages, and his reward will come from seeing justice done on behalf of those innocents he swore to protect in his career as an honest. He never loses his focus on what he values most, the truth finally, officially and publicly, fully proven on their behalf.

Anonymous said...

[Surely that simple reason above cant be the reason for splitting bills?]

It is odd, that an accounting firm did not consider that may have been the case. I have worked for a few companies, where sales reps could find themselves in that situation and have acted in the same way as Lenny. Which in my mind raises the question, what about the calibre of investigating staff!, they must have been a bit 'green' to even forget to interview the one person who would have provided some balance, and credit cards hitting limits could easily have been verified by checking CC/DB detailed lists, probably the same source they used to add up costs!! Lenny would be stupid to make something like that up, knowing he could easily be proved wrong.

THE SMELL GETS WORSE

Anonymous said...

The smell! It's that bad that we can smell it in Paris !! Come on Ian, if you're going to tell a few porky's at least make them convincing!

Lol France :)

rico sorda said...

I Have been emailing the Home Affairs Minister looking for some answers. I thought that I would share them with you

From: rico sorda
Subject: Today in the States
To: i.lemarquand@gov.je
Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, a.dupre@gov.je, a.green@gov.je, a.jeune@gov.je, "ben queree" , "Ben Shenton" , "Bob Hill" , c.egre@gov.je, dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "Daniel Wimberley" , "Deirdry" , "jep" , f.cohen@gov.je, "Francis" , g.southern@gov.je, "roy herissier" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, "Jim Perchard" , k.lewis@gov.je, k.vibert@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "Terry Le Sueur" , mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "Paul Routier" , "Sean Power" , r.duhamel@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, t.pitman@gov.je, s.ferguson@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je
Date: Monday, 20 June, 2011, 19:11

Dear Senator

I have been informed that today in the States you alleged that the person who leaked a not fit for purpose financial report to the Child Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose was Mick Gradwell. Can you please confirm that is what you said. I don't believe I need to spell out to you the seriousness of what we are uncovering here. Mick Gradwell & David Warcup were pivotal in the trashing of the abuse investigation on the 12th Noveber 2008 that led to the former Chief of Police being suspended.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda


From: rico sorda <>
Subject: Re: Today in the States
To: i.lemarquand@gov.je
Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, a.dupre@gov.je, a.green@gov.je, a.jeune@gov.je, "ben queree" , "Ben Shenton" , "Bob Hill" , c.egre@gov.je, dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "Daniel Wimberley" , "Deirdry" , "jep" , f.cohen@gov.je, "Francis" , g.southern@gov.je, "roy herissier" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, "Jim Perchard" , k.lewis@gov.je, k.vibert@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "Terry Le Sueur" , mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "Paul Routier" , "Sean Power" , r.duhamel@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, t.pitman@gov.je, s.ferguson@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je
Date: Saturday, 25 June, 2011, 10:28

Dear Senator

As I await reply to my question below regarding the leaking of an Interim Report to David Rose I have some further points I hope you can clear up.

In the BDO Alto Report they quote former SIO Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement as you will aware this is a very serious matter as the statement was made for the disciplinary investigation into Graham Power during Operation Rectangle. Wiltshire have now conducted their investigation into this leak and have informed Mr Harper that the leak didn't come from them and so shocked are they that they are releasing his statement to him.

So, who leaked the statement to BDO? Home Affairs? SOJP? Who was handling the Wiltshire report when it was handed over as this would have conntained Mr Harpers Statement

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

rico sorda said...

Flag this message
Re: Today in the StatesTuesday, 28 June, 2011 20:35
From: "rico sorda" View contact details
To: i.lemarquand@gov.je
Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, a.dupre@gov.je, a.green@gov.je, a.jeune@gov.je, "ben queree" , "Ben Shenton" , "Bob Hill" , c.egre@gov.je, dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com... more

Dear Senator

I realize it's a busy time in the States at the moment but I thought I would just remind you about the points I raised below. Also, in the not to distant future, I will be requiring some answers concerning the "Metropolitan Police Interim Report". The reason for mentioning the "Met Interim Report" is simple. What i'm hearing from the UK doesn't tie in with what David Warcup received on the 10th of November 2008.

I look forward to the Scrutiny hearings Senator as I have always followed the mantra of 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' . There has been a lot of talk about removing people from the Sub Panel, why would someone want to do that when you have nothing to hide? For a simple lay person like myself Senator it doesn't make sense.


There are some very serious issues concerning the BDO Alto Report that need straight honest answers. It was used in trashing a Child Abuse Investigation. If people who are copied into this email don't think that's a serious enough reason coupled with an alleged leak by the former SIO Mick Gradwell to known Child Abuse denier David Rose then God help all of us

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

rico sorda said...

The first Scrutiny hearing will be taking place on the 4th of July at 11.30 as soon as I know the venue I will post it. These hearings are open to the General Public

rs

Anonymous said...

"Surely a professional outfit like BDO would have said " right we had better contacy Mr Harper" like it says in their code of conduct?"

Seeing as you will not answer questions, BDO Alto has been informed about your blog and your serious accusations against BDO Alto's integrity and professional reputation for which extracts written by you have been taken. Funny enough they had never heard of you but they have your blog and all its slurs against its corporation well within its' radar now and its my understanding they are taking your accusations very seriously.

rico sorda said...

My Blog goes under my name.

'"They are taking my accusations very seriously"

About time. They have some serious questions to answer. But in the meantime

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lenny Harper
To: Matthew Corbin
Sent: Saturday, 21 May, 2011 9:38:33
Subject: Re: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle


Dear Mr Corbin,

As part of my complaint, the ICAEW state that I should give you ample opportunity to answer the substance of the complaint. So to comply with that fully, and to ensure you realise the seriousness of the situation and that I and others will not go away, I will further elaborate my complaint and give you some more information which may be of interest to you.

Firstly, it was not the Home Affairs Department who submitted a report which purported to be an audit of how resources were used on Operation Rectangle without even contacting the person responsible for those decisions. It was your company. Your company carried out a sham of an enquiry and came to wrongful assumptions without even speaking to the one person who knew the answers as to why resources where used in the way they were. A thirty minute conversation with me would have contradicted many of the lazyily and hastily reached conclusions in your report. You spoke to one or two disaffected people who, if you had bothered to ask, you would have found had a history of inappropriate conduct detected by me. You received payment for something you knew lacked credibility and integrity. What I want to know, is who made the decision not to speak to me, yourselves, or was that dictated to you in the terms of reference. Either way, it looks like a continuation of the policy to stop the abused victims having their say through the police investigation.

Then there is the matter of how you come to quote from a confidentail statement I made to Wilstshire Police for the sole purpose of a disciplinary enquiry into the Chief Officer of the States Police. As I told you previously, this statement was highly confidential. Here I attach the section of the Wilstshire report relating to confidentiality of the report which they say is exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act.

rico sorda said...

From: Matthew Corbin
To: lennyharperCc:
Sent: Friday, 20 May, 2011 17:19:33
Subject: FW: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle


Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your email of Tuesday 17th May 2011 (timed 22:56), which I was forwarded on Wednesday 18th May.

I have forwarded your email to the Home Affairs Department of the States of Jersey for their consideration and response to you. This firm was engaged by and reported to the Home Affairs Minister. A copy of our report was subsequently put into the public domain via publication on the States of Jersey website. We state in the report that we did not have an opportunity to discuss a draft of this report with you. We also caveat that it was for the use of the addressees only. We are therefore unable to make any further direct comment.

Yours sincerely
For BDO Alto Limited

Matthew Corbin


"we state in the report that we did not have an opportunity to discuss a draft of this report with you'

WHY NOT?

rico sorda said...

"we state in the report that we did not have an opportunity to discuss a draft of this report with you'"

So, according to ILM they started their report sometime around the early part of 2009 and a year later they hand it over. BDO could have walked to scotland in that time and asked lenny harper about their findings. Good job we live in a the modern age.

Lets see what they say on the 4th

rs

Anonymous said...

What does Lenny Harper make of Alison Fossey being promoted?

Anonymous said...

More and more people are talking about this...

TonyTheProf said...

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

The lost summary report.

Anonymous said...

'BDO Alto has been informed about your blog and your serious accusations against BDO Alto's integrity and professional reputation for which extracts written by you have been taken. Funny enough they had never heard of you but they have your blog and all its slurs against its corporation well within its' radar now and its my understanding they are taking your accusations very seriously.'

I'm sure that they are taking these accusations very seriously - no major international firm of accountants would want to get their name embroiled in a cover up of child abuse. But I think that the authors of the report have more to worry about from BDO Head office than Rico.

Anonymous said...

No matter who BDO were engaged by, and reported to. Accountancy have standards and regulations that have to be adhered to.

rico sorda said...

BDO are looking at me, BDO are investigating me, BDO are looking at how I dress, BDO don't know who I am, BDO only know my name, BDO have been informed about my blog, BDO are taking me seriously

SO WHAT

All I want to know is will they contact me before they write their report?

rs

rico sorda said...

BDO State


"A copy of our report was subsequently put into the public domain via publication on the States of Jersey website."

That might not be true. I believe ILM handed copies out when he held his Kangaroo court in May 2010.

rs

Anonymous said...

''We also caveat that it was for the use of the addressees only. We are therefore unable to make any further direct comment.''

Would a caveat strike out the need for accounting regulations or professionalism be given?

Rico ''All I want to know is will they contact me before they write their report?''

hhahha doubt it.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

THE KANGAROO COURT

Anonymous said...

It’s unusual to see non accountants like your good self seemingly knowing more about the process and protocol of the preparation of forensic accountant reports then the qualified people themselves. You are also so sure of yourself that you have stuck your neck on the line by accusing a major finance firm of worldwide dominance of not following codes of practice. Still you know what you are doing obviously and are prepared to give evidence if necessary.

Anonymous said...

knowing more or less, than professionals has nothing to do, with reading a report that is bias to the paymaster.

rico sorda said...

Giving evidence on the 15th

Come on down its open to the public. I just want my concerns answered.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico if you have found a major firm to have broken its code of conduct then this is massive because it should be reported to the JFSC who give out licenses to operate in Jersey. If you have not and have dropped a clanger then you could be in serious trouble with that firm that has to keep its profile clean. At the moment I doubt this firm has broken any code of conduct which you are trying to prevail to your readers. But if your intuition is correct then you are a hero.

Anonymous said...

'It’s unusual to see non accountants like your good self seemingly knowing more about the process and protocol of the preparation of forensic accountant reports then the qualified people themselves. You are also so sure of yourself that you have stuck your neck on the line by accusing a major finance firm of worldwide dominance of not following codes of practice. Still you know what you are doing obviously and are prepared to give evidence if necessary.'

Some of us do have experience with reports such as these, but what surprises us is the apparent one-sideness of the report which would suggest that the report is not a very professional piece of work. Personally, I have more confidence in Daniel Wimberley finding the truth than the 'specialised' forensic accountants we are meant to believe who put their names to this report.

Ian Evans said...

TROUBLE FOR THE CLOWN PRINCE!

Anonymous said...

How is Rico responsible for policing who or who does not break JFSC codes?

The responsibility lies with those who wrote the report to adhere to the code they are licenced too by the JFSC

rico sorda said...

Bdo interviewed LGC Forensics -Fact

Bdo interviewed the police officers who were on the london trips- Fact

Bdo interveiwed Martin Grimes the dog handler who now works for the FBI- Fact

Bdo quoted Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire statement that Wiltshire have denied supplying- Fact


Bdo didn't interview the person their whole report was about Lenny Harper - Fact

WHY?

I Want answers. If there is nothing to hide these answers will be forthcoming in a proper documented & audited fashion.

And not even got going on the leaks to Rose

rs

Anonymous said...

Just had a quick peek at JSFC corporation codes of practise

The Principles

No 7. A registered person must not make statements that are misleading, false or deceptive.

I am not sure if using Mr. Harpers confidential statement to Wiltshire would be deceptive or misleading?

mac said...

Rico,

It look's like you should keep a can of this handy.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/abebane.jpg/

Anonymous said...

Mac's Link

Anonymous said...

anon said

"No matter who BDO were engaged by,and reported to. Accountancy have standards and regulations that have to be adhered to"

haha hahaha

Arthur Anderson


c

rico sorda said...

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2010/04/financial-management-of-historic-abuse.html

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Jersey "journalism" at its best. Matthew Price gets the LG to read his speech out to him. Licence fee payers are shelling out for this GUMPH.

What did the LG say to Matthew Price that he hadn't read out in his speech?

rico sorda said...

Another day another political speech by an unelected States member

st_ouennais
June 30th, 11:04

I caught some of the Lieutenant-Governor's valedictory speech. Like the Bailiff's Liberation Day 2008 speech it was very politically sensitive. Haut de la Garenne featured again. He said we shoud have concentrated on supporting victims and bringing the guilty to account . Fair enough. But he went on to say that we were diverted because a few politically motivated people gave the international press stuff about mass murders and government cover up. It will take 10 years to clean up Jersey's image as a place of mass murder.

Now there are several interesting aspects to that comment. Note he specifically said international press. Why careful word to exclude local press from implied criticism? He is worried by our reputation for mas murder, but says nothing about our reputation for institutional child abuse over at least 4 decades. I find it hard to believe he thinks that is acceptable. Perhaps he was just playing safe. With court cases and convictions there is no denying there was child abuse. But when the evidence of murder is confined to lime pits, charred fleshed bone fragments, children's teeth that could not have come out naturally, strangely disappearing stone bath and miraculously shrinking cellars, perhaps there was no death and no bodies. We can only pray that really was the case.

If the outgoing Lieutenant-Governor believes there was no cover up, perhaps he could enlighten us mere mortals how ongoing abuse was never bought to light. In 40 years not one employee, former resident, or manager had any idea that anything was going on. Or they did and it was never investigated, or it was investigated, but was never prosecuted. Where exactly in the chain was the 'weak link'

Not content with that the Lieutenant-Governor turned his attention to elections and the elected members. He explained, with some justification, that senators had an island wide mandate. Less logically he said therefore their policies had general support . Failed senatorial candidates who got in as deputies knew their policies did not have such support. they have the right to bring proposition, but they know its futile , and should not waste time. doing so. So next elections when candidates say they will make up their mind on the strength of the debate you might want to remind them what the LG said - the matter is effectively decided beforehand. Unless of course the LG is wrong and people do not vote on the policies of the candidate, which then rather opens the question of what are our elections about.

Just wondering what constitutes treason these days, and does criticism of the LG (the Queen's representative) count. Does it still carry the death penalty?

http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/134940.html

RS

rico sorda said...

The above post sums it up for me and I thank St Ouennais for such a good posting.

It's shocking speeches like the one today that make me even more determined to carry on fighting for the truth. Then we had the foot stamping from the members of the rabid occult who have voted against everything concerned with the abuse scandal.

THEY KNOW NO SHAME

rs

rico sorda said...

Tuesday 5th July

Written Questions


5. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman –

“Given that the Minister has stated that he was already aware – prior to my question in the States – of the alleged 'leak' to a UK journalist of material from a then uncompleted and unpublished confidential audit report into the financial management of the historic abuse inquiry, will the Minister outline how he identified the individual he alleges leaked the information; what action he took as a result; further still, why this information and that this serious incident had taken place was not made available to States members or the general public?”


6. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“Given that the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel are about to undertake a review relating to wider related issues did PAC ever examine the report written by BDO Alto into the management of the Historical Abuse Inquiry expenditure; if not, why not? Further still, would the Committee undertake to scrutinize the expenditure incurred by the Wiltshire Constabulary in their investigation(s) surrounding the inquiry – including Operation Blast – and submit a report to the States outlining its findings?”


7. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“The inquiry by the Wiltshire Police cost £531,500 in total; will the Minister provide a full breakdown of the costs identifying how many staff these figures covered for the following headings:

Staff costs – £200,700
Travel – £92,000
Hotel Accommodation – £82,000
Subsistence £39,100
Rent – £14,000

Will the Minister further give a full breakdown for what exactly was covered by the remaining three headings –

Other costs – £11,400
Equipment Purchase – £15,200
Legal Fees – £77,100?”

rico sorda said...

9. The Chief Minister will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier –

“Following the statement on 30th March 2010 by the Minister for Home Affairs at an Education and Home Affairs scrutiny panel hearing that the Minister did not want to expand on the reasons for the delay in producing the Wiltshire report because he had given an interview to the Jersey Evening Post and, in his words, “I promised the reporter that she would have a scoop”, will the Chief Minister state whether he considers this acceptable conduct by a Minister and within the requirements of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and conduct that shows a satisfactory standard of transparency and integrity?”

16. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Following his statement made at the States meeting on 17th May 2011 about racial intolerance in Jersey what steps, if any, has the Chief Minister taken to raise public awareness by establishing anti discrimination programmes in schools, public service departments and the wider community?”


14. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Can the Chief Minister explain why he maintains that the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police offered, in his letter to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated 31st March 2010, to fully participate in the Napier Review?”

rico sorda said...

7. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs–

“Will the Minister clarify how the Wiltshire investigation incurred expenses of £200,700 in staff costs; £92,000 in travel; £82,000 in hotel accommodation and £39,100 in subsistence; where were these expenses incurred (Jersey or elsewhere); what grade hotels were used; and to how many individuals do the travel, accommodation and subsistence figures relate?”


16,14 and 7 are oral questions

Anyone can tune into 1026 and listen to question time next Tuesday morning. There are many more questions lodged but the ones above are the ones im interested in

rs

rico sorda said...

I had a brief chat with Senator Le Marquand in town today. It was very civil but he couldn't give me any answers.

rs

Ian Evans said...

He Who Speaketh NOT - Leaves

Budgie Smuggler said...

"I had a brief chat with Senator Le Marquand in town today. It was very civil but he couldn't give me any answers."

Well at least he didn't run away this time. I figure he reads your blog. LOL!

Have you heard anymore from BDO Alter Ego?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just up up the Audio of our Departing Lt Governor's Speech.

You & your reader's can listen to it HERE