Saturday, August 20, 2011


Mike Kellett - Police Consultant

BDO - 22

The written submissions of outside consultant Mike Kellett

The Local Medias refusal to publish anything about the leaks by Mick Gradwell to David Rose

What we have here is utter confusion as to the role being played by Mike Kellett. 

Acting Chief Officer David Warcup seems at a loss in explaining exactly what role Mike Kellett was supposed to be playing - what terms of reference he was supposed to be working to - what review he should have been working on. 

How and why did a simple review by BDO Alto get so savagely twisted by Jerseys Media.

The Jersey Evening post used it to further their agenda of a straight forward Character Assassination  of 'SIO'  Lenny  Harper.  This was done to discredit the Historic Child Abuse Investigation and hood wink the population of Jersey into thinking nothing bad really happened and it was all the doing of an out of control Cop..

Then we have Channel Television winning an award for what can best be described  as complete Turd.  They investigated nothing they just repeated what the former SIO who took over from Lenny Harper - Mick Gradwell - told them. He spent two shows telling everyone what a bad job Lenny Harper had done. Not once did he praise the Investigation and congratulate everyone for all the work they had put in during such difficult times or for that matter explain all the work he had done. There is a bigger issue concerning Mick Gradwell that must be looked out  his leaking to Journalist David Rose being one.

Then we had CTV doing the same the other evening when they had Deputy Pitman in explaining what the BDO Review was about. The poor chap on the couch didn't have a clue what was going on he even had to ask the panel at the end of Graham Powers evidence who Mike Kellett was. CTV along with the JEP have repeatedly attacked the 'HCAE' what have they done that has been positive towards the Abuse Survivors or the Investigation?? 

 BBC Jersey also falls into this bracket  and the time is fast approaching when all of the local MSM needs a root and branch review 

This is taken from an email sent from Mike Kellett to David Warcup on the 2nd September 2009 reagarding the interviewing of Lenny Harper regarding the BDO Review


"I have previously expressed my concern to you, both verbally and in writing, that not interviewing Mr Harper will seriously undermine the credibility of the review. As the former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle he should be given an opportunity to influence the outcome of the process and, given the seriousness of what has been found, natural justice dictates that he be allowed to do so."

 We now come to the leak by D/Supt  Mick Gradwell to the known Child Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose. This is a leak coming from the man who was the Senior Investigating officer of Operation Rectangle from August 2008 to August 2009. This was first mentioned in the States by the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand to a question from Deputy Pitman. I don't think you need to be an expert in any of this to realise the seriousness of Mick Gradwells actions - what is staggering is that none of the local MSM have run with this. No, they are more interested in trying to pin something on Harper and the News of the World yet here we have a leak of the most serious kind and they say nothing.. 

The question from Deputy Pitman can heard here. This received no media attention

Yet when Senator Shenton opens his mouth we get this;

This is what  Mike Kellett says in his submission;

24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.

25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.

26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.

27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.

This is taken from the evidence given by Police consultant Mike Kellett & BDO on Friday, 15th July 2011

Police Consultant:

The circumstances of the source are as set down in my written submission.  The source was [retired D/Superintendent].  He has admitted that to me in telephone conversations.  He first telephoned me about a week or so after the article appeared.  I had already worked out that it was probably him.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:


Police Consultant:

I deplore what he did.  I have told him I deplore what he did.  In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him.  He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter.  It was not BDO at all.  It is not me.  It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief].  It was [retired D/Superintendent].

You can see for yourself how serious this is yet nothing from our 'MSM' . They have said nothing but instead run with utter junk and speculation coming from the likes of Senator Shenton and gang. This cant go on. The Jersey Media needs seriously looking into because they are failing the people of Jersey on all levels. Look at what we got instead 

Hacks and Haut de la Garenne

How the News of the World portrayed the Haut de la Garenne inquiry

ALLEGATIONS of corrupt links between UK police officers and the News of the World have raised fresh concerns about national media coverage of Jersey’s historical child abuse inquiry.

Public Accounts Committee chairman Senator Ben Shenton says new questions now need to be asked about the relationship between investigators working on the case – which included both local and UK police officers – and journalists from the scandal-hit Sunday tabloid, which was closed in a shock move by the paper’s owners, the Murdoch family’s News International, yesterday afternoon.

Questions still remain about how a photographer from the paper came to be taking pictures in the grounds of the former Haut de la Garenne children’s home in the days before the States police went public about the child abuse investigation on Saturday 23 February 2008.

• See Friday’s JEP for the full report

Read more:

Harper defends links with press

Former deputy police chief Lenny Harper

JERSEY officers wined and dined the News of the World’s crime editor at a top London restaurant to stop the tabloid printing wildly inaccurate stories, says ex-deputy police chief Lenny Harper.

In a robust defence of his actions during the historical child abuse investigation, the former senior investigating officer has denied any improper relationship with journalist Lucy Panton.

He says that he worked hard to stop police leaks and insists confidential information could just as easily have come from members of the Council of Ministers.

• Read the full report in Wednesday’s JEP

Article posted on 20th July, 2011 - 2.59pm

Read more:


Call for investigation into police links with newspaper

The former Sunday tablod News of the World

THREE States Members have called for an official investigation into whether States police officers were paid by journalists for information during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry.

Senator Ben Shenton, Deputy Sean Power and Senator Jim Perchard have written a joint letter to the Attorney General and the police chief calling for action in the wake of revelations and allegations about the News of the World.

It has been alleged that reporters from the Sunday tabloid not only routinely hacked the mobile answer phone messages of celebrities, politicians and the victims of crime and terrorism, but also paid corrupt police officers for information.

The three Island politicians say that they have been concerned since 2008 about the way the investigation was handled and have raised the matter in the States on several occasions.

Full story in today’s JEP

Article posted on 26th July, 2011 - 2.57pm

Read more:

I will finish the submissions of Mike Kellet the Police Consultant

Rico Sorda

Team Voice


(a Sub-Panel Chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman)






1.                    Michael KELLETT has prepared this written submission for a Sub-Panel of the Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (the “Sub Panel”) in respect of their Review entitled “Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operation Rectangle”.

2.                    I understand that the Sub Panel has agreed the following terms of reference:

·         To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review;

·         To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police;

·         To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings;

·         To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police;

·         To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and

·         To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings.


3.                    I have read the written submission made by BDO Alto and I associate myself with it in its entirety; it also represents my views on the matters being examined. However, there are certain additional facts that are within my personal knowledge and with which I may be able to assist the Sub Panel.


4.                    In March 2009 I was engaged by the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to carry out a review of certain aspects of Operation Rectangle. The full terms of reference, which I was handed when I began my work, read as follows:

‘Operation Rectangle – Review of the Efficient and Effective Use of Resources

Employment of Mr Michael Kellett:-

The Home Affairs Accounting Officer, [Accounting Officer], has employed accountants to conduct the above review.

The accountants have no knowledge relating to the management of police operations or police regulations. The review will benefit from the involvment of an experienced police manager.

As a former Senior Investigating Officer, who also set up the North West Regional Asset Recovery Agency, Mr Kellett is ideally experienced to work with the accountants.

Additionally, Operation Rectangle has identified certain areas of expenditure that require scrutiny. Mr Kellett is being employed to liaise with and assist where possible the accountants and to identify expenditure on specific areas.

Where able he will comment on the expenditure and potentially identify future best practice for the States of Jersey Police. This finance review is related to item 7 of the Terms of Reference for Operation Rectangle.

The initial areas of expenditure that require scrutiny are:-

1. The Forensic Spend at Haute de la Garenne. The full cost, including travel, hotel and subsistence bills. (No forensic strategy)

2. The employment of Mr Martin Grime – Specialist Dogs

3. The deployment of PC [X] – SIO Driver

4. The cost and management of the security cordon at Haute de la Garenne

5. The purchase of glassware for seconded officers

6. A trip to London by various officers commencing on Wednesday 30th April 2008. (Other visits may also require scrutiny)

7. The employment of seconded and agency staff to Jersey. Including issues such as travel and rest day rate.

8. The use of corporate credit cards for entertaining visitors and staff.

9. Anomalies identified by the review.

10. The management of overtime on Operation Rectangle.

Other areas may become relevant as the review progresses.’

5.                    Whilst it was not explicitly stated, it was my understanding from the outset that BDO Alto and I would prepare a joint report of our findings.

6.                    Whilst carrying out the review, I was mindful of the importance of the principle of independence, as stated in Section 4 of the ACPO Murder Investigation Manual[1].  With the exception of the issue I discuss in paragraphs 12 to 18 below, the only way in which the manner or substance of my work was constrained by anyone or anything was by the parameters of my terms of reference which, as is evident from their final sentence, were quite wide and flexible.

7.                    However, in his written submission to the Sub Panel and subsequently when giving oral evidence, the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Leonard Harper, has alleged that, due to the nature of my relationship with his successor, (now retired) Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell, I was not independent. He has also asserted that he finds it difficult to believe that the then Acting Chief Officer would have appointed someone who was truly independent. I absolutely reject this allegation, which is totally unfounded. This slur on my professional integrity can only serve to deflect attention from, or devalue, the conclusions contained in the report and Mr Harper should be asked to provide evidence to support it.

8.                    In relation to the then Acting Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, prior to arriving in Jersey in March 2009 I had never met him, nor indeed, had I ever heard of him.

9.                    In relation to Mr Gradwell, we were members of the same police force in the UK, the Lancashire Constabulary and have known each other for approximately twenty-five years. For a time, about twenty years ago, we were close colleagues. However, in 2001 I commenced an overseas secondment and on my return to the UK in 2003, I headed a Home Office funded regional unit, not based in Lancashire, until I retired from the police service at the end of 2006. Throughout that period, from 2001 until March 2009, I had little or no personal or professional contact with him. Since leaving Jersey at the end of July 2009 I have spoken with him on only four or five occasions, by telephone, mainly in relation to matters pertaining to Operation Rectangle.

10.                Even if that had not been the case, it does not follow that I was not independent. Reviews have been a feature of major criminal investigations in the UK for the best part of two decades. Senior investigating officers are used to their investigations being reviewed by colleagues and to carrying out reviews of colleagues’ investigations objectively, independently and in a professional manner. It may be that Mr Harper, who I understand prior to him deciding to take command of Operation Rectangle had not been involved in major crime investigation for some time, is unfamiliar with this common best practice.

11.                Furthermore, there appears to be some inconsistency in Mr Harper’s approach to this issue. I understand that shortly after police operations commenced at Haut de la Garenne, at the suggestion of Chief Officer Graham Power, he made contact with a former senior officer in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) who was then a member of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and a member of the ACPO Homicide Working Group. He asked this officer to come to Jersey to act as his mentor during the investigation. Subsequently, on a number of occasions, he described this officer as carrying out a review and in evidence to the Sub Panel said that he was both mentor and review officer. Whether he was one or the other, both or something in between the two, at the very least the role(s) clearly demanded a sense of objectivity and independence on the part of both men. Yet I believe that Mr Harper and the officer had served together for a number of years in the MPS and had remained in contact after Mr Harper had transferred from MPS. I do not know if Mr Harper has ever met Mr Gradwell but he has certainly never met me. I therefore find it odd that he would so publicly deny Mr Gradwell and I the ability to have a professional working relationship at the same time that he so readily grants that ability to himself and his former colleague.


12.                I entirely understand Mr Harper’s anger that he was not interviewed as part of the Review and I agree that the failure to interview him was undesirable.

13.                It had always been my intention from the outset to interview him, as this would have been a natural and essential part of the process, should he have been willing to be interviewed in the first place. I had discussed this at an early stage with members of the Wiltshire investigation team[2] and we had agreed that, in order to save time and to interfere with Mr Harper’s domestic life as little as possible, it would be appropriate for us to do so at the same time. They had already interviewed him once and were due to reinterview him shortly, so I began to draw up a list of the issues I wished to discuss with him. Some days after this agreement, I mentioned it in passing during a conversation with Mr Gradwell. To my great surprise he suggested that Mr Warcup may have some views about this and that it would be a good idea if I mentioned my intention to him before acting. I did so and Mr Warcup told me that he did not think it was advisable at the moment but that it might be possible at a later stage. During the next two or three months I raised the matter with him on several occasions and part of our dialogue has been recounted in the written submission of BDO Alto.

14.                Ultimately, on 2nd September 2009, I sent him an e-mail, the relevant part of which reads as follows:-

‘I spoke with Mick Gradwell last week, before he left Jersey, and I understand from him that you have not changed your mind concerning my request to seek an interview with ex-DCO Harper [ ... ]. I think it is therefore appropriate that I set out my position.

You have previously given me reasons why you do not think it proper for me to interview Mr Harper, even though this is a course of action that in any other review would be unremarkable, standard and indeed essential. However, I still feel that my understanding of your reasons is insufficient for me to be able to be entirely sure that you have arrived at the correct decision. You have said that it is because an interview could affect other matters being investigated and at our meeting on 21st July you specifically mentioned Operation Blast as being one of these. Given what I understand to be the substance of Operation Blast I cannot understand how it could be possible for any interview I were to have with Mr Harper concerning the matters I am reviewing to prejudice that investigation.


I think it is important to point out that, until recently, it had been the intention of the Wiltshire team and I to interview Mr Harper together, something they would not have agreed to if they had considered that my questions might have prejudiced their investigation. Whilst events have ovetaken this intention, having spoken to members of the team in recent weeks and since you and I met on 21st July, I have no reason to believe that their opinion has changed about the impact on their work of any interview carried out by me.

I have previously expressed my concern to you, both verbally and in writing, that not interviewing Mr Harper will seriously undermine the credibility of the review. As the former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle he should be given an opportunity to influence the outcome of the process and, given the seriousness of what has been found, natural justice dictates that he be allowed to do so.’

15.                Mr Warcup replied to me in a letter dated 7th September 2009. In relation to the points I had made concerning the interview with Mr Harper he said:-

‘Let me be absolutely clear that in our meetings I was explicit in my reasons for pursuing the course of action which I have, which were to ensure that the enquiry being conducted by Wiltshire was not prejudiced. I also felt it appropriate to have available to me the information from your review and that of the Wiltshire enquiry before making any further decisions.’

16.                The matter was left there and so Mr Harper was, unfortunately, not interviewed by me.

17.                Having said that, I feel that it is my duty to stress that I do not believe that anything Mr Harper would have said in interview would have altered in any substantial way the findings that the personnel from BDO Alto and I arrived at. I have read Mr Harper’s written submission to this Sub Panel and the transcript of the oral evidence he gave, together with some other written contributions to internet blogs, in which he attacks our conclusions. However, nothing has persuaded me to change my position in relation to the manner in which the financial and human resources were managed during Operation Rectangle.

18.                As is pointed out in the written submission of BDO Alto, the Review was not an investigation of any individual but was designed to ascertain what had occurred and to make recommendations for the future. Indeed, that much is clear from my terms of reference. We acknowledge the dedication of many individuals in the States of Jersey Police who were working under great pressure and for lengthy periods without time off, including Mr Harper himself. The manner in which some of our conclusions were expressed was diluted precisely because we had not been able to speak to Mr Harper. Nevertheless, as he himself pointed out in his oral evidence, he made the bulk of the financial decisions and he therefore cannot absolve himself of the extremely serious and costly errors that were made.


19.                Shortly after I began work on the review, I had a meeting with members of the team from Wiltshire Constabulary who were investigating matters arising from the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power. The initiative for the meeting came from them but in any case, it made complete sense to me. Whilst our roles and objectives were different, there were many overlaps in our work. We were interested in interviewing some of the same people and in accessing many of the same documents and IT systems. During the following months we had further meetings, on an ad hoc basis, to exchange information and on several occasions I drew their attention to evidence I had obtained that was pertinent to their investigation. This was done openly and with the knowledge of the Acting Chief Officer, of Mr Gradwell and of BDO Alto, although BDO Alto did not participate in any of these meetings[3].

20.                A central focus of both the Wiltshire investigation and of the work being carried out by BDO Alto and I were the actions of Mr Harper. I was aware that Wiltshire had already interviewed him and that a written record existed of the interview in the form of a draft statement. I therefore asked if I could see it. I was not allowed to do so immediately, as Wiltshire decided to seek legal advice as to whether this was permissible. In due course they were told that it was and I was given access to it; I was not given a copy but was able to take notes of its content.

21.                In due course I incorporated several points from Mr Harper’s statement into drafts of sections of my report which I sent to the Wiltshire team. I am aware that these drafts were passed on to the Wiltshire lawyer. Subsequently, the drafts were incorporated into the joint report of BDO Alto and I. I understand that the consolidated draft was also sent to Wiltshire, although I am not able to say if it too was examined by their lawyer, as by this time I had left Jersey.

22.                I am not aware whether Mr Harper was, as he claims, given any assurances as to how his statement would be used. At no time was I told that I was not able to include references to his statement in any documents I drafted. In fact, only three references to his statement were included in the consolidated report.


23.                The first I knew of the article published in the Mail on Sunday on 4th October 2009 was the following day, when I received a telephone call from the Managing Director of BDO Alto to inform me of the fact. During my time in Jersey and since, I have had absolutely no contact, formal or informal, with any journalist.

24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.

25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.

26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.

27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.





[1] Major Crime Reviews, ACPO Murder Investigation Manual, pp83-88, 2006 edition.

[2] I outline the nature of my relationship and dealings with the Wiltshire Constabulary investigation team below in paragraph 19 onwards.

[3] I should also point out that neither did the Acting Chief Officer, Mr Gradwell or indeed, anyone else.

18th July, 2011



Dear Deputy Pitman,




I am writing in connection with the hearing of the Scrutiny Sub-Panel last week, during which I gave evidence alongside [Managing Director] of BDO Alto. As you know, the day before the hearing we were supplied with a copy of the written submission prepared by the former Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Mr David Warcup. Having now had more time to consider Mr Warcup’s remarks, both [Managing Director] and I thought that it would be appropriate to provide you with a supplementary written submission in response to them, in addition to our more or less immediate reactions provided during the hearing on Friday.


On pages 3 and 4 of his submission, Mr Warcup refers to an internal review of Operation Rectangle commissioned by the States of Jersey Police as a result of a decision taken by the ‘Gold’ Group in December 2008. As far as I am concerned, this is not the review that I was commissioned to carry out. As I informed you at the hearing last week, the first time that I saw the terms of reference for that review was on Thursday last when I received a copy of Mr Warcup’s submission. On 21st July 2009 Mr Warcup did, to my great surprise, mention to me in a meeting we had together that there were other terms of reference that he had thought I was working to, in addition to those issued to me at the end of March 2009 (and which I reproduced in full in my original written submission); but despite me asking to see them he was unable to find them at the time and in the following weeks chose not to share them with me. However, this appeared to be a minor concern for him and his main worry at the meeting was not my terms of reference but whether or not BDO Alto and I would produce a joint report, a topic to which I shall return below.


I appreciate that this situation must be a matter for some embarrassment for Mr Warcup and SOJP but I am unable to explain why I was never told of the intended existence of this ‘December 2008’ review until four months after I had begun my work. I can only assume that there was a breakdown of communication or some misunderstanding within Mr Warcup’s office or between him and Mr Gradwell. However, it may be worth noting that not only was I unaware of it but neither was it mentioned to BDO Alto, despite Home Affairs Department being represented at a senior level on the Gold Group and there being numerous meetings – including a number at which I was present – and correspondence between Home Affairs and BDO Alto during the relevant period.


Furthermore, whilst he does not say so in his written submission, in the letter to me dated 7th September 2009 to which I referred in my original written submission, Mr Warcup acknowledged that something had gone wrong and said, ‘This was clearly not your responsibility and no blame is attached to you, however the original intention was to broaden the scope of your work’.


On page 5 of his submission Mr Warcup goes on to state that ‘during the course of the internal SOJP review [he] became aware that either Mr Gradwell or Mr Kellett had apparently agreed with BDO Alto Ltd. that there should be a joint report’. I reiterate that there was no ‘internal SOJP review’ taking place, at least certainly not one with the terms of reference which he set out in his submission. The only review I was carrying out was the joint review with BDO Alto that I understood I had been commissioned to do. It was not a case of me agreeing anything with BDO Alto, the fact of a joint report was absolutely implicit in my terms of reference. Indeed, it would have been almost impossible for BDO Alto to have produced a report that was of any use to either SOJP or to the Home Affairs Department without input from me, which is the very reason I was employed.


For the same reason, we are puzzled that Mr Warcup states on page 6 of his submission that his refusal to countenance me interviewing Mr Harper related only to the SOJP internal review. He appears to imply that he does not understand why BDO Alto did not themselves seek to interview Mr Harper. It was always intended that I would interview Mr Harper in respect of the joint review being undertaken with BDO Alto, this of course being the only review that we were aware of. This intention was communicated by BDO Alto to the Home Affairs Department from as early as 28 May 2009 (see page 32 of BDO Alto’s written submission). BDO Alto would not have been in a position to carry out an effective interview of Mr Harper without my presence and by forbidding me from interviewing him he in fact also prevented BDO Alto from doing so.


On pages 5 and 6 of his submission Mr Warcup raises several other issues that, whilst perhaps not directly relevant to the Sub-Panel’s deliberations, I feel I ought to respond to briefly:


·        Firstly, I agree with him entirely that nothing should have been done by BDO Alto or me that could have undermined the investigation being carried out by the team from Wiltshire Constabulary. That is one of the main reasons that Wiltshire and I maintained such a close liaison throughout the time I was in Jersey and indeed, afterwards when we were both finalising our reports.

·        He states that he was concerned about the methodology we had adopted, specifically ‘that key witnesses had not been deposed in writing’. That is to misunderstand the methodology of a review. We were not carrying out a criminal or disciplinary investigation where statements needed to be taken from witnesses. I made contemporaneous and comprehensive written records of conversations I had with every member of SOJP and Home Affairs Department who I interviewed and these are quoted from in our report, together with documents to which we had access. All of our conclusions are based on sound, verifiable evidence.

·        He goes on to state that the review ‘lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to Mr Power and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police’. I do not wish to appear over-sensitive to comments that may seem harsher to me than they do to others and which were perhaps not meant to sound harsh. However, I would point out that Wiltshire Constabulary clearly do not agree, as in paragraph 1.10 of their ‘Finance Report’ they refer specifically to having had sight of my initial drafts and of the draft joint report with BDO Alto and state that they ‘concur with many of the draft report’s findings’.

·        He also goes on to state that he had received legal advice via Wiltshire Police that raised concern at some of the content of my drafts. On 23rd September 2009 I had a telephone conversation with a member of the Wiltshire investigation team who had been instructed to contact me concerning that legal advice. The only concern their lawyers had relating to anything I had written was a reference, not to Mr Harper or to Mr Power, but rather to a remark made by a member of SOJP about a reporter from a national tabloid Sunday newspaper, present at one of the dinners hosted by Mr Harper in London and which I had quoted in the original draft discussing the circumstances of and expenditure on that meal. I was happy to delete the remark from the draft and it did not appear in the final version.

·        I would also point out that the first time he raised any of the concerns set out in his written submission was in his letter to me of 7th September. Indeed, some of his concerns I have learned of for the first time only in his submission. By the time of our meeting on 21st July 2009 he had received all but one of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the joint report. At that meeting he expressed complete satisfaction with what I had produced. Furthermore, I was subsequently informed by two people present at the meeting of the Gold Group that had taken place on 20th July 2009 that at that meeting he quoted approvingly from sections of my drafts and allowed [Chief Executive of States of Jersey] and [Home Affairs Accounting Officer], who were also present, to read extracts from them, something he is unlikely to have done if he had any serious concern about the content.

·        Mr Warcup also states that I was unhappy with his decision that I should not carry out any further work on the review and that as a result I expressed concern that some of my findings were likely to be suppressed. That statement is inaccurate; whilst at some stage he may have made such a decision, it was only after I had already effectively resigned and my expression of concern about the possibility of my findings being suppressed predated both my resignation and his decision. In my e-mail to him of 2nd September 2009 I had set out my views not only about his refusal to allow me to interview Mr Harper but also about his wish not to have a joint report with BDO Alto. The reasons he gave to me in his letter of 7th September and that he has set out in his written submission to you for his desire for two reports bear no relation to the reason he gave to me on 21st July. In my e-mail I said to him, ‘If you cannot change your position on this then I do not see how I can continue to contribute anything useful and I would have no alternative other than to terminate my involvement in the review of Operation Rectangle immediately. […] I am sorry to have to write in such terms and sorry that our dealings with each other may have to end in this fashion’.


Finally, I think that we would like to reiterate the point we made on Friday that our review was not an investigation of Mr Harper’s conduct, nor was he accused of anything. The aim of the exercise was solely to identify learning points for the future and to make recommendations for both the States of Jersey and the States of Jersey Police to consider relating to improvements in the management of finance and other resources during major enquiries. We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report. However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. 


I hope that these remarks will be of some assistance to you and to your colleagues on the Sub-Panel and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to let me know.


Yours sincerely,






Michael Kellett




Deputy Trevor Pitman,

c/o Scrutiny Office,

States Greffe,

Morier House,

Halkett Place,

St Helier,




Anonymous said...

This is mind blowing stuff. I've read the whole lot and am astounded as to what has been going on and even more so Jersey's media have been keeping it all quiet. Thank you for this Rico it is a real eye opener.

voiceforchildren said...


What a complete shambles this all is. Gradwell, and others have got some serious explaining to do and he is refusing to give evidence to the panel? He's been accused by the Home Affairs Minister and the "mysterious" (don't know what TOR's he is/was working to) of leaking confidential documents to a Child Abuse denying "journalist" during an on-going investigation and our media want it hushed up?

Nobody can have any doubt as to the complicity of our entire local "accredited" media after reading this.

As for the CTV debacle the other night, one had to laugh, when Jess Dunsdon said words similar to "Mark has been following the case". Mark being the CTV "journalist."

What a crock of sh1t, he hasn't been following it at all!! As you said in the main posting "Mark" didn't even know who Mike Kellett was and at the Panel Hearing had to ask Deputy Pitman!

The island's media are a bl--dy disgrace, so much so, they could win awards for!!...............Hang on a minute THEY HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

What a remarkably detailed submission of 15th July from Mike Kellett. Now theres a man with a sharp brain.
I wonder if he would accept £40000+ to help run this island?
Allthough he has made it very clear that he is not happy at the assertions from Mr.Harper, that he wasnt totaly independent,due to his previous association with Gradwell,he nevertheless makes it clear that this investigation was not a personal matter against Mr. Harper.
That Credit can i think be given the JEP and CTV

Anonymous said...

Good God - what an utter shambles!!

If we take these statements from Mr Kellett at face value, then whatever faults Messrs Power and Harper may have had, these were dwarfed by the utter incompetence and duplicity of their successors - namely Warcup and Gradwell.

It would seem that, although there might well be questions about Mr Harper's financial management skills (which I guess he would own up to) Mr Kellett in no way criticises his dedication to the abuse investigation or his professionalism in carrying out his investigative duties. Quite the opposite in fact - he commends him.

Warcup's refusal to allow Mr Kellett to interview Mr Harper clearly severely damaged the review - and I emphasise the word "review" as opposed to "investigation", as stressed by Mr Kellett. This, along with other major issues led to Mr Kellett's resignation from his work with the SOJP.

It is now becoming ever clearer that the media - particularly the JEP and CTV - have badly distorted the intentions of the Kellett/Wiltshire reviews and have since steadfastly refused to publish anything that might contradict this distortion - despite the now abundant evidence available. This is shameful.

Finally, thank goodness that some States Members had the common sense to oppose Le Marquand's proposition to appoint Warcup to the Chief Officer post thus causing Le Marquand to withdraw it. Can we possibly imagine what sort of mess we would now have on our hands if Warcup had been appointed and then this new damning evidence had come out?

Whatever next, I wonder!

Anonymous said...

Realistically, all of the outside Police Forces used to rubbish Power & Harper.
Kellett is the first one to let it be known that he doesn't want to be involved in this.

And who will be the next....

As the dominos start to tumble?!

rico sorda said...

"Finally, I think that we would like to reiterate the point we made on Friday that our review was not an investigation of Mr Harper’s conduct, nor was he accused of anything. The aim of the exercise was solely to identify learning points for the future and to make recommendations for both the States of Jersey and the States of Jersey Police to consider relating to improvements in the management of finance and other resources during major enquiries"

Someone had better point the local media in the direction of that statement. Remember what happened with the Met Interim Report? Well, that was also a review of Operation Rectangle and not meant for any disciplinary action - we all know what happened with that along with a little letter from Dave Warcup. What we have here is the police being brought back under control with the retirement of Lenny Harper and the suspension of Graham Power. The real power led by the Feudal brothers had the police back in the pocket. Close the Abuse Investigation down and move on.

But we started asking questions


rico sorda said...

Mike Kellett, just like Brian Napier probably had no idea what they were walking into. Im starting to get very concerned about what happened with Operation Rectangle under Mick Gradwell. The fact that he is refusing to take part in this review plus the feelings of Mike Kellett towards Gradwell leaking to David Rose can not be downplayed.

Everyone has been left dismayed at what the local media did with the BDO Review


rico sorda said...

Police Consultant:
I deplore what he did. I have told him I deplore what he did. In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him. He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter. It was not BDO at all. It is not me. It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief]. It was [retired D/Superintendent]."

Just think about that.

The Journalist Mick Gradwell leaked confidential information to in mid 2009 was David Rose the same David Rose that it's alleged that Senator Jimmy Perchard leaked a confidential email to in May 2008 - there seems to have been a very snug little set up with this journalist

What laws did Gradwell & Perchard break?


Anonymous said...

Sales figures towards media JEP should be a great performance indicator being ignored at their peril

rico sorda said...

And this is from a David Rose article from the 15th November 2008 - Gradwell & Rose are already getting it on but no one minds as its trashing the Abuse Investigation

"Since February 23 this year, when the island's then deputy chief officer, Lenny Harper, first addressed them outside the granite walls of the Haut de la Garenne former children's home, they had been led to believe it had been a house of horror - a place where children were tortured and abused in a labyrinth of cellars, and that possibly as many as seven were murdered.

Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense."

"llustrating his presentation with slides and the actual physical evidence, he went on to demolish every detail that the world had been told supported the notion that children had died in horrifying circumstances.

For example, the home's 'cellars' were not cellars at all but merely an underfloor space so low that any adult could only walk bent double, with no door or stairway leading down to it.
Metal 'restraints' were in fact an old bed spring, and a piece of wood on which someone had scrawled 'I've been bad 4 years and years' was not placed in the building until 2003 - 17 years after it ceased to be used as a children's home.

Yesterday, in an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Mr Gradwell, 48, revealed that such discoveries were continuing.

However, The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team.

They show he repeatedly misled both the media and the island's government, and made a series of statements that proved to be inaccurate.

Read more:

"However, The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team"



Anonymous said...

If, Mr. Gradwell deems to put in an appearance he is in no rush, is he? Maybe he needs the time.

In total contrast to Mr. Harper and Power.

Ian Evans said...


Ian Evans said...

As I have always said Rico, if a man is honest, he will have no problem answering any question, and at any time? And he will always answer clearly and concisely.

Contrast what I have just wrote with virtually every member of our Governments responses.

Le MeekOne and The Sewer inparticular!

Don't take much working out, do it?

Anonymous said...

We wonder why Warcup would not control Gradwell and why others were afraid to bring attention to Gradwell's scandalously unprofessional behavior.

My theory is that Gradwell was a highly valued and highly protected recruit for the sole purpose of ruining any chances for the survivors to ever see most abuse perpetrators brought to justice. Gradwell was then simply untouchable. Warcup was pressured to put up with Gradwell's attempts to drag the entire historic abuse enquiry into the gutter, even if Warcup was uncomfortable with Gradwell risking the reputation of the department's professionalism. Not that Warcup had it in him to ever be any saint or hero...


rico sorda said...

This is from the VFC posting a sums it up

We get three Jersey Politicians, Jimmy (potty mouth) Perchard, Ben Shenton and Sean Power, who think that Lenny Harper, or officers under his command, "might" have leaked stuff to the NOTW and the island's media are all over it, without a shred of evidence, unlike the mounting evidence against the Former Assistant Health Minister and Gradwell.

How can it possibly be that the Home Affairs Minister, during a States debate as good as, accuses Mick Gradwell of leaking confidential reports to a "journalist" which is aired live on BBC Radio Jersey, and BBC Jersey mention nothing about it, two CTV Reporters claim "they didn't hear it" and the JEP totally ignore it? It's just not conceivable.

Isn't it time we had a Parliamentary Select Committee (Scrutiny Panel), the same as the UK, that are able to scrutinise the local "accredited" media?

voiceforchildren said...


The silence of Jersey's "accredited" (discredited) media is DEAFENING

Anonymous said...

I think this Scrutiny Review (solely brought about by your investigations Rico) shows the REAL reason why Warcop left and his swipe at Bloggers. He knew that he had "mis-managed" the BDO Alto review but knowing the local MSM and his Political bosses would never even think about properly looking into the issues raised let alone make them public he became worried about what the Blogger where unearthing. That is why he resigned - not because of the Bloggers attacks but because he knew the same Bloggers he was attacking were the ones who would eventually unearth his wrong doings.

People like him who have lived in the old days of unaccountability are hopefully a thing of the past. The statement in that Job Advert for the new CEO (to the affect) "Have a strong enough character to withstand abuse from Bloggers" should really have said "Jersey now has a strong investigative Blogging community who have the support of some States Members so you will no longer be in a position to brush your mistakes under the carpet - We are a transparent organisation that accepts mistakes will be made and we will be proactive in highlighting ALL the mistakes that are made with accountability were appropriate.

I have always been taught that if you put your hands up early and just say "sorry, I cocked up" you will actually receive more positive response than negative.

Maybe Jersey's new Flying Banana could be a Mission Statement that say "As a community we accept mistakes will be made, but we are big enough and strong enough to admit these mistakes and take any criticism the public have. Through that we will build an even stronger Civil Service"

We can but hope............

rico sorda said...

Warcup has been caught out on more than one occasion. In his defence I believe he had no idea of the levels of toxicity that exists in the higher reaches of power in Jersey. Once he had written that letter on the 10th November with the met interim report he was doomed. In the bad old days before bloggers he would have been ok..

What has gone on is tragic for the simple reason it's covering up the Child Abuse that went on for decades. We must keep on asking the questions.

I have no regrets in looking at the issues surrounding the BDO Review £64,000 pounds of taxpayer money and no one asked a single question.

We will now look at BDO's version of the David Rose leak and they have it bang on the money. So bang on are they it could have come straight off this blog..

rico sorda said...

From BDO Submission to the Scrutiny Review

Background to the Mail on Sunday press coverage

41. The “leak” referred to by the Sub Panel relates to an article published in The Mail On Sunday and on the Mail Online website on 4 October 2009, authored by a journalist called Mr David Rose. The title of the article was “Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a ‘£20 million shambles’”19.

42. The article includes reference to “a leaked report by financial auditors into the investigation”. However, far from simply being an article written about financial aspects of the investigation, the article reveals the findings of a three-month investigation carried out by The Mail on Sunday. This article quotes from Mr Mick Gradwell, the Senior Investigating Officer who replaced Mr Harper following his retirement, Acting Chief Officer David Warcup, Mr Martin Grime, the NPIA’s Chief
Executive, a former Metropolitan Police Commander (through a spokeswoman) as well as an unnamed “Jersey government spokeswoman”20.

43. In fact, Mr Rose had been covering the investigation for some time and his use of “leaked” documents in the 4 October 2009 article was not the first time.

44. An earlier article dated 15 November 2008 was titled “How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children’s home ‘murders’”21. In that article, Mr Rose notes “… The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team. They show he repeatedly misled both the media and the island’s government, and made a series of statements that proved to be
inaccurate.” [our emphasis]

rico sorda said...

45. This November 2008 article also quoted from numerous individuals involved in the investigation including Mr Harper, SIO Gradwell, Mr Frank Walker, a named professor from the Sheffield University Centre for Human Identification and an LGC spokeswoman. We are not aware as to whether the “leak” of material referred to in Mr Rose’s article of November 2008 has been investigated. Even in that article details of financial expenditure were being discussed; the article refers
to “… the police are also said to be concerned at the inquiry’s profligate
expenditure – such as a decision to send two officers First Class to Australia, and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog.”

46. And in fact, as early as 24 May 2008, Mr Rose was discussing the costs of the investigation at Haut De La Garenne. In his article titled “Jersey police failed to reveal that tested ‘skull’ was coconut”22 he reported, “Last night it was revealed his [Mr Harper’s] investigation at Haut de la Garenne is set to cost £6.5 million this year – about £20,000 per day since the inquiry began on February 23.”

47. This is important context because the terms of reference for this Scrutiny Review might otherwise imply that there was no financial or other confidential information in the public domain, whether “leaked” or released, and therefore that the article in The Mail on Sunday on 4 October 2009 came ‘out of the blue’. That is clearly not the case and much had already been reported.

rico sorda said...

Material “leaked” to the Mail on Sunday journalist

48. BDO and Mr Kellett discussed the David Rose article of 4 October 2009 the very next day, on Monday 5 October. Both BDO and Mr Kellett were concerned and upset that confidentiality had been compromised.

49. The nature of the leaked material was immediately clear. It was not and could not have been an ‘interim report by financial auditors’ that had been leaked to The Mail on Sunday because no draft report was in open circulation by that date.

50. The email trails that follow provide a full contemporaneous record of discussions and correspondence that took place on 5, 6 and 7 October 2009.

51. The Home Affairs Department wrote to BDO as follows23:

“I was concerned to read an article about the HCAE in the Mail on Sunday yesterday that stated that the newspaper has had sight of 'a leaked report by financial auditors', the report is later referred to as 'the team's interim report'. The article does not mention BDO but quotes David Warcup as telling the Mail on Sunday that 'he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper's spending.'

If the report referred to is indeed your report I would be grateful for an
explanation of how the draft was allegedly made available to the Mail on Sunday reporter when neither the Minister for Home Affairs, the Accounting Officer or myself have yet seen a copy of your draft report.”

rico sorda said...

52. BDO responded by email on the same day, extracts from that email24:

“To confirm, the draft report has not been provided to anyone by BDO Alto, and in fact no copies have been provided to any party including Home Affairs … there are no copies in circulation as far as we are aware. I understand that drafts of Mike Kellett's work were circulated to Mr Gradwell, amongst others including the Wiltshire team, during drafting stage - this included sections on Mr Grime, the deployment of [named officer] and meals in London. I have not yet been able to speak to Mike today, however I know that he circulated copies of his work on a confidential basis and was also minded that confidentiality was to be maintained at all times, and that the Report output needed to be on a 'privileged' basis. It does seem more likely to be the case that
it is initial drafts of Mike's work that have been seen by the newspaper rather than our Report - although I have no evidence of that, and nor can we speculate as to the source …

The wording included in the newspaper appears to be taken from Mike's original drafting, as discussed above. I would again stress that the Report has not been made available to anyone by BDO, and that confidentiality is of paramount importance to us. Neither has any comment been made by us to any media, and the only discussions relating to this Report are as between ourselves, Mike Kellett and yourselves.”

53. Mr Kellett sent an email to BDO on 6 October 2009 and a copy of that email was
forwarded by BDO to Home Affairs the next day25. Extracts from that email:

“I am shocked that drafts of sections of our report (and not the 'interim' report, as inaccurately stated in the article) have been leaked to the press and published in this fashion, which is unhelpful to say the least and does nothing to serve the public interest. I agree with you that the quotes cited in the Mail on Sunday appear to be from the very first drafts of my work, as at least one of them appeared only in initial draft and was excised from the document drafted to consolidate my work and that carried out by you and [BDO employee]. Given that fact, the probable source of the leak is clear to me. Apart from you, the initial drafts were also sent to David Warcup, to the Wiltshire team and to Mick Gradwell, for information and for feedback on accuracy of content and on style. None of these recipients received any of the updated drafts, neither those done by me to my initial work nor the consolidated drafts prepared by you …

One of the elements of the article of most concern to me is the identification by name and reference on several occasions to [named officer]. It seems to me to have been unnecessary and unfair and the implication in the article is of course negative. I have written to him this afternoon in an attempt to reassure him that the report as written makes clear that he was acting on the instructions of Lenny
Harper and a copy of my e-mail is attached below.”

rico sorda said...

The BDO Submission can be read here



rico sorda said...


Channel Television has scooped a top award for its news coverage.

In a star studded ceremony on Friday in Plymouth, Channel Television’s flagship news programme won a Royal Television Society award for coverage of the Haut de la Garenne expenses scandal.

Channel Report beat entries from West Country Tonight with a piece from Afghanistan, and an entry from BBC South West on Wild Weather to scoop the top news prize.

In judging the winning entry for the Single Item News Award, judges were looking at the quality of journalism demonstrated in the programme.

They said Channel Report was the clear winner with a “well put together programme, which had clear and concise storytelling and a strong interview with the main protagonist.”

The RTS Awards are the gold standard of achievement in the television community.

Each year seven awards ceremonies across the RTS regions recognise excellence in programme making and broadcasting skills.

This year Channel Television was nominated for four awards. Those included Adam Fowler for Regional Reporter of the Year, Mark Wilkinson for the Craft Editing award, and Channel Television’s Jersey Live programme, which was nominated for Regional Programme of the Year. Jersey Live was commended by the judges for the ‘energy’ in it’s coverage.

Managing Director Karen Rankine said: “Competition for RTS awards is extremely fierce and the standard is very high, so we were delighted to receive four nominations. The award is one in which the whole of our production team can share.”

Laura Holgate, Head of Programme Production said: “Haut de la Garenne was a very important story to our viewers, so when the report into the investigation was released, we really wanted to do it justice. This award proves that we did just that.”

voiceforchildren said...


"“Haut de la Garenne was a very important story to our viewers, so when the report into the investigation was released, we really wanted to do it justice."

After what the Jersey Bloggers have exposed, it shows just how much cack that statement is.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting information about the award

I thought the award was given for the Haut De La Garenne investigation generally, not specifically for the expenses ''scandal'' oh so that is so funny. Its looking like CTV pr a scandal nominate themselves? and win an award for it.

rico sorda said...


Great interview with ILM & Graham Power


rico sorda said...

This is also taken from the BDO Submission and refers to the JEP. It's a classic and one of the best yet. This shows the JEP at it's very best. I still cant believe what im reading I know you should never be shocked by what the JEP does but this takes the biscuit

76. We do not report that Mr Harper was “reckless”; we have raised issues where we consider that the use of financial resources was not appropriately considered and /or the reasons were not properly recorded and/or expenditure incurred was done without reference to SOJP policy and/or States of Jersey Financial Directions, and/or without proper consideration of alternative options. Some examples are
provided elsewhere below, by way of response to specific criticisms made by Mr Harper in his written submission.

77. Whilst we have not seen the email exchange between Mr Harper and Mr Ogley to which Mr Harper refers, we have seen an alternative email where Mr Harper took a hostile approach to an enquiry about investigation costs.

78. On 19 March 2008 a reporter from the Jersey Evening Post e-mailed the Force’s press officer querying the amount that officers assigned to the cordon at Haut de la Garenne were to be paid on the forthcoming bank holiday weekend and asking from which budget the money was to come from. The e-mail was forwarded on to
Mr Harper who replied, copying-in the reporter’s editor, ‘We are up to our necks investigating allegations of serious abuse against children. I am outraged that this buffoon should be concerned about how much the vital scene guards are costing. Is he suggesting that we should not have security at a major crime scene because of the cost? … This clown is a step too far’.

79. Thus we have formed the impression that the position of Mr Harper, vis-à-vis his public comment regarding investigation costs was not always consistent.

rico sorda said...

On 19 March 2008 - can you believe that. The 'SOJP' were in the middle of the biggest operation the island had seen concerning the abuse of children in the care of the SOJ and we have the JEP asking how much the guards were getting paid on the bank holiday.

Lenny, do you remember who this was?


Anonymous said...

Mr. Harper took a hostile approach. Perfectly reasonable to me, given the situation.

It does show the JEP priority was angling for the overspend rather than the investigation and a bank holiday, no less, nice big figures to blind the sheeple with.

Damocles said...

"Mr Harper took a hostile approach"

Too bloody right he did. It was his duty as a reasonable human being to do so. The foul nastiness of whatever motivated the JEP and such disgusting opportunists as Shenton and Perchard to make mindless (at best) or evil (at worst) insinuations about costs is a stain on Jersey as a whole but illustrates the "Jersey Way" quite well.

Anyone else notice that those looking to find dirt always mention just the 1st class flights to Oz, the sniffer dog costs and a few meals in London? They imply that because these isolated costs MAY have been a bit over the top that the whole investigation was corrupt from top to bottom and therefore a waste of time and no-one was killed or hardly anyone was abused.

They made a dodgy mountain out of molehills, they split hairs and they picked nits finding tiny ambiguous pieces of evidence that, interpreted in an oh-so-convenient way, were used to blacken the whole of the rest of the genuine mountain.

This method of deceiving the public viewpoint has a long and extremely dishonourable global history. Those who have used it should be rooted out of office and never again allowed back into public life. Preferably prosecuted if possible.

Anonymous said...

The first class flight to Oz also visited Thailand. And can anyone imagine how many hours and pages of evidence the police brought back with them?

It was certainly days of evidence and numerous files full.

And that is fact!

Anonymous said...

This is all about the abuse victims. They are trying to trash what really happened to them to the point of offering a poxy amount of money in return for their eternal silence. Do not, I repeat do not sign a gagging order, this is against human rights and freedom of speech. Most of the survivor victims have been rediculed and have not received justice, compensation may be their only hope, but even that it seems will come at a price! What happened to these people as innocent children was for the most part pure evil, no less a word will suffice to express the horrors these children lived with day after day, year after year at the hands of those employed by the States of Jersey to love and pretect them. Do not underestimate the determination of some of the abuse survivors in their quest to expose the truth, books will be written and they will be distributed throughout the world and, via these blogs and other written submissions, history IS in the making.

As always Rico, thank you.

rico sorda said...

77. Whilst we have not seen the email exchange between Mr Harper and Mr Ogley to which Mr Harper refers, we have seen an alternative email where Mr Harper took a hostile approach to an enquiry about investigation costs.

This must be of concern not only for Bdo but everyone concerned in the compiling of this review. Why hadn't Bdo seen the email in question but did see the one concerning the Jep. There are also other issues coming out of the Scrutiny Review concerning the role of the Home Affairs Dept and the Accounting officer. There can be no doubt that Gradwell had it in for Harpers Investigation but what influence did that have on the role played by Mike Kellett. I remember David Warcup having worries over the lack of statements concerning the officers interviewed by Mr Kellett.

There could have been all sorts going on in the background that Mr Kellett didn't know about he wouldn't have known that Mr Gradwell was going to leak his work something that Mr Kellett deplored.


rico sorda said...

I couldn't agree more about the gagging orders. Why would anyone want to gag the Abuse survivors?


rico sorda said...

A simple question would be did BDO ever complain to the JEP about how they represented their report to the JEP or did they complain to the Home Affairs Minister about how he he decided to make it public and the way he went about it. The Media had their set agenda and were hell bent on pursuing it not matter what.


rico sorda said...

I have been looking at the JEP editorials dating back to mid 2008 and seeing how the tone changes.

A new phase in the abuse investigation

July 11, 2008 – 3:00 pm

IT was during the cold, wet and blustery month of February that the Island – and the world – began to hear about allegations of abuse and perhaps even murder at Haut de la Garenne, the former children’s home.

Then, as now, the criminal investigation and bringing offenders to book were the matters of principal concern, but it soon became apparent that Jersey’s good name was also going to be dragged through the mud and that politics as well as criminality were going to loom large on the Haut de la Garenne front.

Now, more than four months on, we have seen potentially gruesome evidence of what might have occurred at the home – or during its earlier incarnation as an industrial school. We have also seen a small number of people arraigned for alleged offences that have come to light during the investigation, but almost as many questions remain unanswered as when the international press corps descended on St Martin expecting bodies to be unearthed at any moment.

With necessary confidentiality surrounding much of the evidence that has so far been collected and collated, Islanders and everyone else longing for a conclusion to the Haut de la Garenne case will have to wait for police and judicial processes to run their course. In spite of this, it is undoubtedly true that the investigation has just entered a new phase. Haut de la Garenne itself is about to be handed back to its administrators and new inquiries are focusing on a second site at a German bunker identified by some witnesses.

However, from the Jersey point of view, another change of great importance is also discernible. Bizarre national and international press hysteria sought, in the earlier stages of the investigation, to show, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, that child abuse was a problem peculiar to the Island and somehow connected to a broth of vague charges of secrecy linked to everything from the Occupation to the finance industry. This, mercifully, has abated.

It is also true that the political battle provoked by Haut de la Garenne and its possible relevance to wider child care concerns is receding into the background. To emphasise again that the police investigation and not politicians’ agendas or shortcomings of presentation on the part of senior figures in the executive must be paramount, this is just as it should be.

Article posted on 11th July, 2008 - 3.00pm

Read more:

rico sorda said...

August 7, 2008 – 3:00 pm

FEW, if any, public servants have ever made an impact on Jersey to compare with that of Lenny Harper.

It is, however, too early to judge whether the newly retired deputy police chief’s contribution to the Island will prove ultimately to have been primarily positive or negative.

That will depend to a large extent on how many convictions are secured at the end of the long, painful and controversial inquiry into historical child abuse which he has instigated and led in what has become his trademark blunt, combative style.

There is no doubt, meanwhile, that the Haut de la Garenne inquiry and Mr Harper’s skilful use of the international media to raise its profile have created an unparalleled furore which, while it has succeeded in encouraging more witnesses to come forward, has also led to awful and unjustified opprobrium being heaped on Jersey and its people in general.

As Mr Harper heads this week into a well-earned, but possibly still high-profile, retirement, it falls to others to take charge of the complex major investigation, on the outcome of which rest many important issues related to the well-being of private individuals and of the Jersey community as a whole.

It goes almost without saying that after Mr Harper’s departure from the scene, there must be no slackening of resolve to get to the truth of what happened at Haut de la Garenne, to secure justice for victims and to take whatever action is required to heal the wounds.

That does not mean that nothing should now change in terms of the investigation’s media strategy or, more widely, the role of the States police in the society it exists to serve.

Whatever his other virtues as a dedicated police officer, it is a sad fact that the variously aggressive or suspicious approach favoured by Mr Harper in certain circumstances has been allowed to open up the beginnings of an unwelcome gap between the States police and the community.

There is a danger that if it remains unchallenged, the idea could take root that the uniformed force is some kind of external agency, put in place to control an unruly and untrustworthy population from which it is somehow set apart.

It was probably not possible to have a full and free debate on the relationship between the States police and the Island community, or on the current unsatisfactory level of political oversight of the force, while Mr Harper – who has not been noted for his receptiveness to the views of others during his time in Jersey – was in his post. It can now begin, however, and the imminent States elections will provide a helpful catalyst for it.

It may even be that the bluff and bombastic Ulsterman, who deserves the Island’s thanks for his tireless commitment to the child abuse inquiry, will be able to make some constructive contribution to that important debate now that he is out of uniform.

Article posted on 7th August, 2008 - 3.00pm

Read more:

rico sorda said...

Welcome assurances over inquiry

August 26, 2008 – 3:30 pm

SEPARATING fact from fiction has so far proved to be one of the central themes – and one of the main difficulties – of Jersey’s continuing inquiry into historical child abuse.
The information presented last week by Attorney General William Bailhache about the progress of the inquiry in relation to possible prosecutions was therefore a welcome, albeit somewhat belated, addition to the process of clarification.
It should also have brought great comfort to the victims of alleged abuse to be publicly reassured about the level of care with which complaints and case files are being considered, and to reflect that the time being taken to do so is neither excessive nor unique. Contrary to an impression created, deliberately or otherwise, by some of those seeking to speak on behalf of the Island’s care leavers, the Law Officers’ Department is not dragging its heels over the investigation. In fact, only six files have so far reached that department from the States police, following complaints to them, they say, about scores of suspects, and of those half dozen, three have resulted in prosecutions already under way.
Give the painstaking attention to detail required before a case can be taken to court with a reasonable chance of conviction, that is not a rate that should give cause for concern, nor does it bear out the reported claims of former deputy police chief Lenny Harper that the inquiry is somehow being hampered by the machinations, or the incompetence, of a Jersey ‘old boy’ network.
Of at least equal importance is the absolute assurance given by Mr Bailhache of the seriousness with which the allegations are being taken and the importance attached to the rights and well-being of the victims. To back that statement, he revealed in an
interview with this newspaper on Saturday the impressive size and professional expertise of the team working on the inquiry in his department.
All of those points should have served to clear the air and allow the processes of justice to continue as carefully as they must and as concentratedly as they can despite the inevitable continuation of sniping from the sidelines by Jersey’s detractors.
It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. In cases as complex and sensitive as those now confronting the Law Officers, and in the atmosphere of near-hysteria whipped up around them, the same might be said of justice rushed. On the evidence so far, Mr Bailhache deserves full public and political backing for his belief that Jersey’s legal system is well capable of handling the daunting task before it.

Article posted on 26th August, 2008 - 3.30pm

Read more:

rico sorda said...

Abuse: Where is the delay caused?

September 18, 2008 – 3:00 pm
THE former deputy chief of the States police, Lenny Harper, who, until recently, led the child abuse inquiry centred on Haut de la Garenne, has reiterated his claim that obstacles have been placed in the way of the investigation.

Specifically, Mr Harper, who now lives in retirement in Scotland, says that, in addition to certain political objections to the international furore the investigation has spurred, the Island’s legal system and its designated advisers have been a barrier to the satisfactory progress of child abuse cases.

These are serious charges which must be examined with great care – as must Mr Harper’s motivation for repeating them. It is, to begin with, likely that his perception of the entire affair is tainted by deep frustration. In February he broke news of the investigation at Haut de la Garenne to the world. Since then, more than 100 complainants have come forward with their accounts of what happened at the former home. As a result, tens of individuals have been in the frame for allegedly criminal activity of the most abhorrent nature. Unfortunately, in terms of persons charged and brought before the courts, the results have as yet been meagre.

If we look at the most basic arithmetic of the case, only two individuals connected with Haut de la Garenne are currently being dealt with and they have been charged and taken to court. Another individual who has nothing to do with the former home has also been charged and taken to court. In addition, two people accused of physical abuse have been released without charge and the alleged offences of another couple and an individual are still being considered – again with no connection to the former home.

These, we are informed, are the only cases which have so far landed on the Crown Officers’ desks – which would seem to allow little scope for delay on a grand scale or any other official muddying of the waters. The papers concerning any other potential arraignments must, presumably, still be lodged with the police, who – no doubt for the best of reasons – are themselves taking a long time to produce results.

Meanwhile, on the political front, it is all too easy to confuse the legitimate desire to protect Jersey from the hysterical assertion that we are an island of abusers and cover-up merchants with wilful intervention in the processes of law. Foolish things have been said and the public relations exercise has been handled badly, but the notion that there is a high-level conspiracy to conceal and deceive is absurd for the simple reason that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this view.

In addition, the Island’s new deputy police chief, David Warcup, has emphatically denied that there is any rift between the police and the legal authorities.

But, alas, we come down to an awful fact when we consider why Mr Harper remains so eager to press his allegations of ‘old boy network’ impediments to the course of the investigation. He – and we – have been made aware of children’s teeth, charred bones, shackles and other evidence of possible gross atrocities at Haut de la Garenne. In the continuing – and puzzling – absence of full forensic results, what is so far missing are the how, the who, the when and the why of this gruesome silent testimony.

This is disturbing and disquieting for those intimately caught up in the inquiry – as it is for the rest of innocent Jersey – but Mr Harper’s contributions from afar are doing absolutely nothing to help the situation or move the inquiry forward.

Article posted on 18th September, 2008 - 3.00pm

rico sorda said...

Discovering the truth about Haut de la Garenne

November 12, 2008 – 3:00 pm
WHAT is the predominant emotion likely to be experienced by Islanders learning today that the former children’s home at Haut de la Garenne was not – despite the sustained wishful thinking of sections of the national media – a scene of child murder and torture?

Relief? Anger? Bewilderment? The answer, probably, is a mixture of all those responses and more as the realisation sinks in that Jersey’s good name has been internationally maligned for imaginary reasons without foundation and to suit agendas which remain, to take a charitable view of matters, somewhat mysterious.

Today’s assertion by senior police officers who have reviewed the Haut de la Garenne evidence that none of it fits the lurid picture presented by Jersey’s former deputy police chief, Lenny Harper, with the enthusiastic help of unscrupulous journalists in the UK and beyond, places the unprecedently intensive, costly and dramatic investigation on a new footing and raises many questions to which Islanders will rightly demand satisfactory answers.

Before that process begins, however, it is important to note that nothing has changed in terms of the commitment of the police, the States or the community at large to securing justice and comfort for those who may have suffered abuse as children either at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere in Jersey in the past. The historical abuse inquiry which gave rise to the Haut de la Garenne debacle will continue under the demonstrably more measured professional guidance of Mr Harper’s successor, David Warcup, although it is already clear that the number of cases brought to court is likely to be much lower than once forecast.

The reassessment of evidence by investigators of the highest calibre means that Jersey can begin to put behind it an episode which has caused communal hurt and distress on a scale not experienced since the Occupation. It will not be fully laid to rest, however, until there are clear answers to a number of questions about the quality of supervision and critical appraisal, both political and from the top echelon of the police force, that were applied from the outset to the Haut de la Garenne investigation, the interpretation of the evidence and the diet of damaging sensationalism fed to the world’s media.

Why did Mr Harper, a very experienced senior policeman, see fit to act as he did? Why was he given so much leeway to do so by his chief officer, Graham Power, who remained by and large publicly invisible throughout the proceedings? Why was former Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard, whose recent mysterious resignation may now be seen in a new light, unable to exercise more effective political oversight? Why is Jersey still without an independent police authority, years after the States voted to establish one? And what can be done to mitigate the damage done to Jersey’s image and self-esteem by its wrongful portrayal as a hotbed of perversion, secrecy and cynical systematic cover-ups in high places?

Thanks to the frankness and objectivity of the team which replaced Mr Harper after his retirement, we now know that there is no evidence at all of either murder at Haut de la Garenne or grand establishment conspiracy. In addition, the legal wariness which Mr Harper chose to interpret as an attempt to impede his efforts now looks more like mere prudence in the face of misplaced zeal.

It is also plain, as the new management of the States police begin the urgent task of restoring credibility and public trust, that both the Island and the future conduct of the historical child abuse inquiry will fare better without Mr Harper’s extraordinary notion of what constitutes evidence.

Article posted on 12th November, 2008 - 3.00pm

Read more:

rico sorda said...

Attempting to defend the indefensible

November 17, 2008 – 3:00 pm
FORMER deputy police chief Lenny Harper is mounting a strenuous defence of the way in which he conducted the investigation into alleged child abuse at Haut de la Garenne. No one who came into contact with Mr Harper would expect anything less. He is a man who would fight his corner in any circumstances.

Unfortunately, he is now attempting to defend the indefensible. As good as his motives for seeking maximum publicity for the case might have been, his tactics backfired disastrously – not only because of the welter of damning press coverage the Island received but also in terms of potential harm to the inquiry as a whole.

It is, of course, true that Mr Harper was more than ably aided and abetted by a national and international press that seized on the information he released, focused on its most sensational elements, and produced stories that went far beyond any facts.

But he could have put an end to the ludicrous inflation of the story at any point. It defies credibility that he could have been unaware of the fundamental weakness of the forensic evidence from a very early stage and could therefore have counteracted media exaggeration with a realistic assessment of what had been revealed. Instead, he appears to have chosen to allow speculation to run riot and even fed it with equally speculative talk about the number of bodies which ‘might’ be discovered.

The most basic criticism that can be levelled at Mr Harper is that he was, to a reckless degree, too ready to speak publicly about finds at Haut de la Garenne before their significance had been established. This error of judgment was then compounded by unwillingness to counter the utterly fanciful stories that so may journalists built on what they had been told.

Mr Harper says that he was partly motivated by a desire to prevent the alleged hindrance of the investigation by a high-level old-boy network. The evidence that this exists anywhere but in Mr Harper’s perception is as sparse as the spurious evidence on which so much sensational nonsense was based.

The frankness with which the new investigatory team has demolished an edifice based on the unholy alliance between flawed investigative and public relations strategies and a media rapacious for horror offers hope for the remainder of the inquiry into abuse. This, and not the self-justification of a retired officer, must now be the main focus of attention and effort.

Article posted on 17th November, 2008 - 3.00pm

rico sorda said...

nquiry’s new spirit of trust

December 12, 2008 – 3:00 pm

THE police officers now investigating allegations of historical child abuse in the Island have made what they describe as a final appeal for witnesses to come forward.

Quite clearly, anyone still in possession of as yet undisclosed information that could be of relevance to the inquiry must co-operate – adding their voices to those of the many people who have already made complaints or offered evidence.

Moreover, the assurances of senior investigating officer Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell that he and his team can be trusted must be accepted. No one has any grounds to believe that the inquiry is now proceeding with anything less than a sense of urgency, the full commitment of those involved, or determination to discover the truth and bring the guilty to justice.

If, however, suspicion was still lurking among those reluctant to come forward, they should now have been reassured by the presence of representatives of two organisations who shared the platform when Mr Gradwell made his latest statement. Neither the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children nor the Jersey Care Leavers Association would have lent their names to the appeal if they had had any doubts at all about its sincerity.

Events which unfolded last month, when it was made abundantly clear that the most lurid speculation about what might have happened at Haut de la Garenne was essentially just that – speculation – changed the scene dramatically and sensationally. It immediately became apparent that a bizarre mixture of excessive zeal, the dominance of a public relations agenda, misinterpretation of evidence and unwillingness to contradict the wild and irresponsible fantasies of the national and international press had painted a gruesome picture that had no foundation in fact.

All this also led to the reputation of this Island being dragged through the mud quite unnecessarily and produced a background of hysteria that will not have made Mr Gradwell’s efforts to pick up the reins of the
inquiry any easier.

He and his officers will no doubt be able to make use of some of the intelligence already gathered in what remains a disturbing and very serious investigation. But in one sense they have had to go back to square one, introducing a sense of proportion into a case that, thanks to an initially flawed investigative strategy, was transformed from a criminal inquiry into a media feeding frenzy.

Article posted on 12th December, 2008 - 3.00p

Read more:

rico sorda said...

This is just a snapshot of what went on. We now know that the Warcup/Gradwell era is not this shining beacon of light that we were all to believe. We have Gradwell leaking information to David Rose, we know Gradwell was being interviwed by David Rose on the 15th November 2008


Anonymous said...

Those above editorials from The Rag from July 2008 to December 2008 should be preserved.

They, the Rags controllers(whoever they maybe), completely changed their tune within 5 months.

Well done yet again Rico for being completely on the ball.

Ben said...

Thank Heavens for Trevor Pitman, a politician worthy of the name and with backbone and a commitment to justice. I really want to know more about how this firm can have the cheek to try and bill Scrutiny for doing its job. A disgrace!

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

The clear inference to be drawn from this most useful collection of JEP material is that a high level political decision was taken during the summer of 2008 to play down the HDLG abuse investigation purely from the international reputation point of view. It is likely that a calculated decision was taken at the highest level that international reputation was more important to Jersey than the continued investigation and prosecution of abusers.

Once this decision was taken, it would have been necessary for every effort to be made to bring the media in on this in order to subdue public interest locally and to reassure international investors.

My guess is that no one involved at the time had any idea that bloggers would cause so much "trouble" by exposing the evidence which exposed this strategy.

Anonymous said...

How strange it is when some complained about how Lenny Harper's press briefings gave ammunition to the MSM to print wildly distorted reports, yet we had Gradwell doing far worse and with CTV just as bad in winning an award for a printing a factually incorrect report.!!

rico sorda said...

These are the dates of the next BDO Scrutiny hearings

Thursday 25th August with the Minister for Home affairs (10am)

and the Chief Officer (Steve Austin Vautier) (11.15am) in the Blampied Room.

I will be concentrating on the BDO Review and the Committee of Enquiry and nothing else.

When both of these have been concluded and the Abuse Survivors feel like they have reached some kind of closure then I can safely say im done with blogging - until then I will keep going. I want to get back onto the Committee of Enquiry - this is so important. The actions of Gradwell cannot be underestimated the whole handling of the Abuse Investigation under Warcup/Gradwell needs looking into.

This started of about the Abuse Survivors and for me thats where it will end.

I will let other bloggers lead the political charge


GeeGee said...

Rico - it will be a sad day when you stop blogging, but understandable. You have put so much hard work, time and effort into what you have done.

However,I feel you may be around for a while longer simply because I cannot see the Abuse Survivors getting any closure for a while yet. There seems to be quite a bit of 'heel dragging' going on at the moment, so a way to go yet.

On another tangent Rico, I have wondered who would have been responsible for 'seconding' Gradwell to the SOJP, to an Island he clearly disliked and people he clearly had no time for. What was his remit (well we can guess!)and why was he telling Abuse Survivors five and a half months after his arrival that there was no point pursuing the Inquiry any further?

Furthermore why was the following 'snippet' in the national media last week when Gradwell (and Perchard) appear to be a law unto themselves -
LONDON — One of the detectives investigating phone hacking at the News of the World tabloid has been arrested on suspicion of leaking information about the investigation, police said Friday.

'A 51-year-old detective constable was arrested at work Thursday on suspicion of "unauthorized disclosure of information," London police said. The officer has also been suspended'.

Only in Jersey.

Rob Kent said...

Rico, I noticed in the document BDO Alto submitted to the Scrutiny panel, they referred to this blog a few times and stated: "...the content of one particular blog site, which contains much speculation and is not in possession of full facts."

This made me laugh. If only we WERE in possession of the facts, which is all we ever asked for!

It's because we were never given the facts, were lied to, span a load of propaganda, and generally ridiculed that you and others made a determined effort to get to the bottom of it, with no thanks to the likes of BDO Alto.

In fact, if BDO Alto, the JEP, and others, had availed themselves of the facts instead of accepting and regurgitating spin from the likes of Gradwell, there would have been no need for this blog and there would not now be a Scrutiny Review followed by the inquiry.

Didn't BDO Alto charge 64K for the initial review? And they submitted a charge of 26K for their Scrutiny 'work'. This implies that in two weeks of preparation for Scrutiny, they have expended almost half of the time/work that they did on the 9 months of the initial review.

I'm not an accountant (and sorry for the uninformed speculation, guys), but something doesn't add up here. I wonder if it is because a lot of their work was done for them by Messrs Gradwell and Kellet. Surely not.

Anonymous said...

"I want to get back onto the Committee of Enquiry - this is so important"

Yes it is. Well done, and please keep going, keep focussed, and don't let anyone or anything take your eyes off the ball.

I was just as focussed when I was exposing the works of Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. I think I need to follow your example and get back to researching those two scumbags. It's when we home in to the detail of what has been going on that we get to the very heart of the corruption.


rico sorda said...

Hi Rob

You have it in one. No one needs to know anything on this Island. The Scrutiny panel should be asking ILM if he takes any of the blame for releasing the BDO Review to the Media/Public - and not explaining it in doing so. I just don't remember Sen ILM put the media straight about this review, do you?

The only agenda of certain people was to trash the Abuse Investigation & Lenny Harper and use whatever means possible. There cant be any disputing this now.

Gradwell could do as he pleases - the MSM haven't touched him - where has the damning JEP editorials been on his behaviour? The Jersey Media is sick to its core


Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

JEP have attacked Lenny Harper the man who was trying to get justice for the victims, whereas, the JEP has ignored Gradwell, the man who has done the most to discredit the investigation and undermine the justice for the victims.

When will the JEP do a Guernsey Press type full page plus more, special report on a victims story?

Anonymous said...

Just read this comment from Richard Murphy.
Pretty much sums up Jersey.

"Jersey is a place riddled by fear, populated by people who can’t afford to buy homes, who know their government is going bust, who are having more tax demanded of them just to support tax avoiders and evaders and which is running an illegal tax regime to ensure that the place continues to be considered a pariah on the international stage."

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...


Rob brought up BDO Alto's accusatory statement that your blog contained "speculation," and that you were not in possession of all the facts.

Obviously, they weren't in possession of all the facts if they could not answer all the Scrutiny questions. Key players involved in their cock-up couldn't even agree on what terms of reference they were working to, for whom, and for which report. You, at least, had answers from the most indispensable person involved, Lenny Harper. In addition, BDO Alto had no experience with police expense matters and had to rely on a consultant who did not know who he was really working for or how to get access to the only truly key source.

Have you asked BDO Alto to "correct" your facts and explain just exactly what they define as speculation on your part? They owe you that much for making that claim against your blog. Why not publicly ask them to provide you with all the facts they believe you are missing? Bet they have nothing to back up their criticism except resentment that you have found TOO MANY FACTS and you have used them to BACK UP what they call speculation!


Anonymous said...

Rico, I hear even SAV from Home Affairs was livid at the rubbish being reported from CTV. Was this said during his evidence today?

GeeGee said...

The words SAV used were 'sick to the pit of my stomach' when speaking of the CTV reporting. Indeed the MSM in general came in for a battering today.

Anonymous said...

Come on BDO, answer Elles question posted August 24, 2011 11:40 PM here.

Anonymous said...

Terry Le Main has had his time and money out of sitting in the States. No doubt some speeches are less than exciting but any member that snores loudly during debates has lost the will to represent the people. Time to call it a day Terry.

A neighbour.