Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Scrutiny Review - The Findings- 1


Lenny Harper




Ex Senator Ben Shenton




Ex Senator Jim Perchard













Scrutiny Sub Panel the Findings -1



As I start to digest what has come out of the Scrutiny Sub Panel Review my attention is now swinging in the direction of one EX Senator Ben Shenton plus his side kick one EX Senator Jim Perchard.



The reason for this is simple. On the 19th September 2007 Senator Ben Shenton became Health & Social Services Minister. He appointed Senator Jim Perchard as Assistant Minister with special responsibility for Social Services.  What follows with these two concerning the Jersey Historical Child Abuse Investigation in my opinion doesn't make for comfortable reading. They have come across as hell bent on discrediting the investigation under Lenny Harper at any given opportunity.  The question that must be asked and found is a simple  "WHY".  The fact that they held such positions of authority makes it even more serious. 



There are the very serious allegations concerning Jim Perchard leaking information to David Rose. This  infamous Journalist was writing articles for the Daily Mail back in April 2008 which were trashing the investigation he continued with this trashing right into 2009 with the help of Mick Gradwell.



It is Ben Shenton where I believe a very bright light should be shone. I just cant figure it out yet but I will.   Why is he so hell bent on discrediting anything to do with Lenny Harper &  Graham Powers involvement with the "HCAE" and yet doesn't bat an eyelid on the actions of D/Superintendent Mick Gradwell.  Shenton, along with Perchard and the Data Thief Deputy Sean Power even wrote a lovely little letter to the Attorney General to look into a possible leak between Lenny Harper & the "NOTW". No letter to the AG about Gradwell though.



I cant help but think  that the Shenton interference stems back to when his dad the former Senator Dick Shenton  was president of the then Defence committee. This committee was the political body in charge of Policing in Jersey.  It is so important that we look at this.  Do the Shentons have influence down the "SOJP?"? Especially Dick Shenton. 



Dick Shenton was no fan of Lenny Harper they had crossed swords on numerous occasions. Can someone, would someone use an Abuse Investigation to settle some old scores?



Before I get onto Lenny Harpers guest posting here are some links referring to the issues I raise above.



I  believe  im getting closer to understanding how the Abuse Cover-up happened.  It has been a painstakingly slow. This is being done with fellow bloggers and good old investigative work. I follow my instinct.   I need to know that the newly promoted Andre Bonjour of the SOJP was fully cleared by the South Yorkshire Police. Again, my instinct is telling me to look there. Is there a link between Bonjour, Shenton & a certain person that gets Police Protection.  These are questions that must be asked and looked at. Maybe there is nothing there but I just keep getting this nagging feeling.

Ben Shenton was dead against the recent Scrutiny Sub Panel review into BDO ALTO.  




Here are some links and posting at to why im looking at the actions of the  Shentons. 






Everybody loves it when the "PIPE FITTER" comes a calling


















Here is Lenny Harpers reply to the Scrutiny Sub Panel Report


GUEST  POSTING  10TH November 2011

The publication of the Scrutiny Report into the circumstances surrounding the BDO Alto report on the use of Financial Resources during Operation Rectangle should be grasped as an opportunity to renew focus on the most important people of this whole tragic saga and who seem to have been totally forgotten.  They are of course, the abuse victims.  Attention should now be switching once again to how it was that such vile abuse was allowed to flourish in establishments run by the States of Jersey and how this abuse was permitted to blight young lives forever, and to continue to do so over decades despite being reported time and time again to many agencies and individuals.

Of course this consignment of the victims to the status of a side issue is not and has not been an accident.  Indeed among the most bizarre and ghastly sights of the week has been one of the main architects of the denigration of abuse victims, Ben Shenton, appearing on BBC television defending the professionalism and integrity of the mainstream media whilst pouring scorn on those who have sought to publish the truth on various blogs.  I must have missed the utterances from Mr Shenton which showed any knowledge of the qualities of truth and integrity.  Those who have so willingly and enthusiastically misreported most aspects of the HCAE could have no more fitting apologist!

The same could be said about the quite appalling performance of Ms Gallichan in delivering her PPC statement on the BDO report, where she blatantly, although not very successfully, tried to discredit and smear the Scrutiny Sub Panel and in particular Deputy Pitman.  Anyone who did not realise that her hesitant and wavering attempt at destroying the impact of the Scrutiny Report was a scripted and hastily put together damage limitation exercise by her political masters must also believe that Channel Television only report the truth and deserved the award they received which has now turned into egg on their face.  True to form, they this evening led with another beautifully deceptive online headline which made me think they were reporting yet another attack on my running of the HCAE.  The headline, “Operation Rectangle – More criticism” was ingenious as it bore no resemblance to what the Scrutiny Report actually said.  Moreover, CTV managed to totally ignore the stinging criticism they suffered in the report.  Their looking glass is obviously steamed up. 

As CTV seemed to have totally ignored the actual findings of the Scrutiny Panel perhaps we should look at some of them.

The Scrutiny report concluded that the Terms of Reference for the BDO report had been drawn up too narrowly and that this led to a focus only on internal police arrangements and use of resources by the police.  The sub panel found this promoted the perception that high levels of expenditure were caused by lack of control by Police management and that accordingly the Scrutiny report concluded that it was inevitable that this narrow focus would be seen by some as less than objective and an attempt to discredit the HCAE.

BDO of course didn’t think it worth arguing that they should interview me so neither they nor anyone else, except a few bloggers, thought it worth asking how items like the building of a new major incident suite for the enquiry could ever have been facilitated without the prior knowledge and approval of Home Affairs, Treasury, and any number of politicians and States Departments.  Funnily, none of the mainstream media have yet asked that question.  Instead, BDO and the media focussed on attacking me for presenting officers who had come to Jersey to work away from home on a difficult and stressful investigation with a pair of crystal tumblers on completing their stint, business meals in an Indian restaurant, and for spending on average £160 a month more on expenses than the Deputy Chief of a rural English force who had no major investigation and who did not have to fly across the channel when he wanted to liaise or meet with other colleagues providing assistance.  Never mind that lives had been ruined by States sponsored and States concealed child abuse.  The ‘lavish lifestyle’ was a much more appealing headline to those such as  Mick Gradwell who played no small part in the direction that the BDO review took.  

Mr Gradwell of course, refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel.  This seems at first glance rather odd, considering his almost non-stop pontificating to various media outlets during most of his time in Jersey.  This includes delivering confidential information to one journalist who not only admitted to placing false information into the public domain, but who was also a known apologist for convicted paedophiles. The Scrutiny report states that Mr Gradwell undermined Mr Warcup by changing the original reasons given to him by Warcup for employing Mr Kellet.  Instead of the overall review of the SOJP handling of the investigation which Warcup told him he wanted, Gradwell directed Mr Kellet to work with BDO and concentrate on a number of narrow issues concerning my expenses and staff issues.  The Sub Panel have pointed out the ‘strange situation where it was to be seven months or so before Mr Warcup discovered that Gradwell had ignored his instructions.  Mr Warcup was supposed to be Gradwell’s boss and ‘supervising’ him.  The supervision would appear to have been lacking for all those months.  I seem to recall that a false allegation of something resembling that in respect of his supervision of myself led to the suspension of Graham Power!

The Scrutiny Panel concluded that the involvement of Gradwell in directing the work of the consultant working with BDO undermined the independence of the BDO review.  BDO were more than happy to take the direction of Gradwell through Mr Kellet which was in marked contrast to their refusal to even engage with me after their report became known to me, never mind their bizarre acceptance that it was ethical to report on my decisions without even contacting me.

The Panel found that the failure to interview myself or give me an opportunity to respond undermined the credibility and fairness of the BDO Review.  BDO themselves must have realised this but were too happy to take the money and run, Matthew Corbin of the company refusing to even engage with me post report.  

The Scrutiny sub Panel also criticised the fact that the Terms of Engagement did not make it clear to BDO that their report would have been subject to public scrutiny.  Of course one reason for this may have been that the Home Affairs Minister had no intention of it seeing the public light of day.

Another of the Sub Panel’s findings was that the evidence pointed to the fact that it was Mick Gradwell who was responsible for leaking key sections of the draft BDO findings to sections of the media, including the supporter of convicted paedophiles, David Rose.  The report points out that having left the island Gradwell is not subject to police discipline regulations.  Maybe, but are there not possible Data Protection offences there?  The Jersey authorities have not been slow in coming forward to prosecute individuals who do not agree with their views on child abuse, as one very well known former senator found to his cost.  Gradwell seems to be enjoying some of the same immunity that a few corrupt police officers were handed by the Attorney General’s office when they were caught red handed in my time there.  

Another strange aspect of Gradwell’s shocking conduct is the total silence of the Jersey media in respect of Mr Kellet, Mr Le Marquand and others stating in evidence that Gradwell did indeed leak confidential information.  Mr Kellet even stated that Gradwell admitted it to him, but still the Jersey media ignore it.  Yet, they screamed headlines at us about other dealings with the national media which they perceived as threatening their cronies in the Jersey establishment. 

The report points out that even the Accounting Officer, at one stage, expressed his concern to Scrutiny that no budget had been allocated, although this did not stop CTV and others repeating allegations that I had gone way over the non-existent budget. The account given by BDO in their review as to the arrangements between the SOJP and Home affairs to monitor and challenge expenditure on the investigation differs, according to the Scrutiny report, from Mr Power’s account.  I know which version is true. 

Throughout the Scrutiny report the actions of Mick Gradwell stand out.  From his deliberate refusal to adhere with the instructions given to him by Mr Warcup in respect of Mr Kellett’s terms of engagement, and his substitution of them for his own agenda to try and discredit the investigation which went before him, right through to his leaking of confidential information and then his shameless refusal to give evidence.  So much for the gruff seasoned detective as David Rose called him.  Of course, it is not surprising.  Much of what he fed to the gullible Jersey media at the now infamous press conference of November 2008 has been shown to be untrue or simply malicious.  The two best examples of this of course being the issue of the cellars (there were none he said) and the fact that he said with his experience he would never have gone into HDLG.  That says it all about him.

I said at the outset that the publication of this Scrutiny report should be the opportunity to re-focus on what is really  the important issue here – the abuse suffered by so many at the hands of people employed by the States of Jersey to protect them.  The current government should be sparing no effort to obtain justice for those survivors and to establish why and how the abuse was allowed to continue for so many years despite many agencies knowing about it.  As we have already seen though, they are not.  Shenton and Gallichan are just the start of it.  They and their cohorts would prefer to continue to attack supporters of the abused victims rather than the abusers.  Shenton, Perchard, Le Marquand and others have already wasted many hours trying to discredit those of us seeking to atone for the missed opportunities for justice previously, now they turn their attention to others seeking the truth such as the bloggers who have printed vast reams of evidence and most recently the Scrutiny Sub Panel who showed great courage in arriving and publishing conclusions which dared to contradict much of the rubbish peddled by the establishment and their pet poodles in the Jersey media.  I do not underestimate the courage of the bloggers, Deputy Pitman and the other members of the Sub Panel who all have to live in Jersey with the constant desperate attempts to denigrate them as either layabouts or conflicted individuals.  Only in Jersey would the media allow individuals who had hidden evidence in the form of an important letter from a wrongfully suspended police chief, or someone who had previously been proved to be trying to smear abuse victims, to accuse others of being conflicted without that media tearing them to shreds.  The news that several United Kingdom journalists are once again showing interest in what is happening in Jersey can only be of benefit to those who matter most.  
The victims.

Lenny Harper







94 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Ben Shenton, after listening to what he was saying in an interview to state media, certainly has changed his tune on BLOGGING

Anonymous said...

OK.

Several UK Journalists are showing interest in whats going on in Jersey.

But is there even one of these UK Journalists who would have the guts to report whats truely going on in Jersey?

Anonymous said...

This is a phenomenal posting where Lenny Harper spells it out exactly how it is and that's one big cover up from start to finish. Glad he mentioned the bravery of the scrutiny panel members and bloggers because it takes real guts to go against the party line in Jersey. Finally but most importantly mr Harper has never forgotten the most important people of them all the victims of child abuse suffered at the hands of the states of Jersey. Shenton Perchard Gradwell you've been rumbled.

Anonymous said...

Its such a shame that we still have to really on the mainstream media to get information across to the majority of our population.

Also a shame that they wont publish Mr. Harpers letter

Anonymous said...

Its such a shame that we still have to really on the mainstream media to get information across to the majority of our population.

Also a shame that they wont publish Mr. Harpers letter

GeeGee said...

Way to go Lenny - superbly put.

And thanks to Rico, VFC and Trevor for exposing all the injustices that have been meted out over the last three years, not least of all to the abused.

Sadly Lenny, I do not think there will be any focus from any Government here in Jersey to attempt to address any wrongdoings towards the abuse victims or indeed yourself or Mr Power.

Jersey's shame.

Anonymous said...

I think there is a big sinister cloud haqnging over the decisions of Gradwell and his relationship with Rose!

Wouldn't be the first time that a senior Police officer was found to be involved with Kiddie fiddling!

rico sorda said...

"Wouldn't be the first time that a senior Police officer was found to be involved with Kiddie fiddling!'

There can be many reasons why people do what they do. I don't for one minute believe Mr Gradwell to be a kiddie fiddler if that was what you are implying. He does and should explain his actions though. I think that might be a problem for some people. His actions are of a most serious nature and that there can be no doubt.

rs

Zoompad said...

"I don't for one minute believe Mr Gradwell to be a kiddie fiddler if that was what you are implying."

Good for you Rico, because two wrongs don't make a right.

The truth will come out, is coming out, and we have to stick straight to what we know to be true, and nothing more.

rico sorda said...

"The report points out that having left the island Gradwell is not subject to police discipline regulations. Maybe, but are there not possible Data Protection offences there?"

Good point Lenny.

Alas, as we have seen with the Data Thief Deputy Sean Power its not what Data Protection you break but who you know. Is it the very same Sean Power that appears on the nomination paper of Sir Philip Bailhace.

Even this raises a question does it not. Sir Philip thinks its ok to have a politician who stole Data concerning a fellow politician from inside the States Building passed it on to a third party & got caught. He lost his ministerial position never got prosecuted and now turns up on the nomination paper for Sir Philips bid to be Chief Minister.

Thats how it is over here. Stunning it really is.

rs

rico sorda said...

Read carefully what Dick Shenton is saying here. Check the hostility he has for Power/Harper. Like father like son.

This a powerful person.

I really want to get to the bottom of this Cover-up

From Dick Shenton.

YOUR front page article (JEP, 11 January) on questions of conspiracy in the long-running saga of the Chief of Police’s suspension needs comment.

Personally I am sick and tired of the way that much-needed public money is being squandered in this case.

In an article published by your paper a year or two ago I questioned the way that the Island was being policed. I said that if I was a States Member I would bring a vote of no confidence in the Home Affairs Minister at the time and in a letter set out the attitude of the then Chief and Deputy Chief officers.

Since that time we have witnessed reports, totally unfounded, that told the world what a horrible place Jersey, our Island, was. There will always be people prepared to believe the worst but in this case they were being helped by police officers who should have known better.

The truth of the matter, as I found out in representing a private individual, was a force who exceeded authority and used threats and bluster to silence justice. I was warned by advisers that my phone could be tapped and when I reported this to the then Home Affairs Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, she did nothing.

Needless to say I continued with my efforts on the part of the individual but I could not believe that the police force that my father had served in had descended to such depths. The Police Complaints Authority was a joke who could not help the constituent or myself.

I would love to give evidence on oath of my experience with the Power/Harper police force and perhaps the barrack room lawyers among the States Members will listen to the truth.

What happened to old-fashioned responsibility for the failure of a company and its staff, when the chief would resign and fall on his sword?

To Senator Terry Le Sueur and Deputy Andrew Lewis I would offer my support because they are the innocent victims of the failure of the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister to act when they knew the facts.

With regard to any extra money or cost, I would put it towards extending the winter fuel allowance to all pensioners, rather than waste it on our overpaid officers.

Article posted on 14th January, 2010 - 3.01pm

rico sorda said...

"Since that time we have witnessed reports, totally unfounded, that told the world what a horrible place Jersey, our Island, was. There will always be people prepared to believe the worst but in this case they were being helped by police officers who should have known better. "

Is he on about Children who suffered terrible Abuse in Jersey care homes? Or some other reports?

rs

rico sorda said...

A MUST READ

RS

Anonymous said...

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2008/11/13/a-salute-to-the-family-tree/

Anonymous said...

What a hypocritical buffoon that man is. At least he knows you have the power to make his life miserable, if he doesn't answer questions. keep up the great investigative journo work.

Anonymous said...

Lenny Harper is a hero through and through, and any tarnish to his name is temporary and fraudulent.

Someday a number of Jersey people will wish they came out of this mess looking better. The tables will turn, and they will envy the good public reputation of Lenny Harper.

Zoompad said...

"Someday a number of Jersey people will wish they came out of this mess looking better."

And it's not too late to do so.

There are people who have helped to cover up the abuse NOT because they are paedophiles but because they were too scared of rocking the boat and upsetting the gravy train.

That's bad, but it's not as bad as being a paedophile or a murderer, or a Pin Ball Wizard.

You people who are clinging on to this sinking ship had better come off right now, because Stuart is going to be vindicated, Lenny is going to be vindicated, everyone who has stood up to the bullies who have tried to cover up the atrocities that went on at Haut de la Garenne will be vindicated and surely you do not want to be associated still with the wicked creatures who have committed these crimes?

rico sorda said...

Hi Zoompad

A very good measured comment.

Why people cover up for such awful crimes I just don't know.

For me though, the people who cover-up, conceal & threaten the people who do expose this are no better than the people who commit the crime.

Team Voice have been going at this a very long time. Im so gald we didn't stop as I believe we are really getting there. I have always trusted my instinct on this. Right from the very start I new something was wrong.

Why has it been left to members of the public to expose this shocking cover -up? I must also echo what LH said about the courage shown by the Scrutiny Sub Panel.

Spread the word

The Blogs are leading the way

rs

rico sorda said...

. "I need to know that the newly promoted Andre Bonjour of the SOJP was fully cleared by the South Yorkshire Police. Again, my instinct is telling me to look there. Is there a link between Bonjour, Shenton & a certain person that gets Police Protection. These are questions that must be asked and looked at. Maybe there is nothing"

This is so important. I will be doing all I can to clear this up. Until we know the answer it is of real concern

rs

Anonymous said...

Common sense at last in the States Chamber. Senator Gorst is the new Chief Minister,bye bye Ozuof :)

Anonymous said...

What do you make of Caroline Labey voting for Bailhache?
I guess that's why she voted originally for the vote to be kept secrete.

Zoompad said...

REPLY TO MY LETTER TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

To:
Date: 06/11/2011 08:36
Subject: Senator Stuart Syvret whistleblower of child abuse at Haut de la Garenne


Dear Sir,

Please would you help Stuart Syvret? He is in La Moye prison right now, serving an 8 week sentance for Contempt of Court, following an illegal trial in which he was not allowed to put forward his defence.

Mr Syvret has been relentlessly persecuted for years, because he has tried to help victims of Haut de la Garenne, the childrens home in Jersey where charred fleshed human bones were found by Jersey police.

Please will you investigate this?

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Richards (a survivor of Pindown child abuse in Staffordshire)

Dear Ms Richards,


Thank you for raising this issue with us. Mr Syvret's case is not one that Amnesty is working on at the moment. Unfortunately, due to limited resources Amnesty is unable to investigate every instance of possible unfair trial and it becomes necessary to prioritise by the gravity of the situation. This example seems to be a conventional miscarriage of justice and it has been reported in the press that action has already been taken to address the issue of possible corruption in Jersey. Amnesty International receives more requests for assistance than the organisation can address, literally tens of thousands per year.
There are several over-lapping factors that affect whether we take up a person’s case and which actions (public or non-public) we take once the case has been taken up:

· Gravity of the violation
· Quality and ongoing reliability of information about the case
· Alignment with broader work of AI
· Alignment with projects and priorities
· Whether it represents a pattern of violations in the country
· The likelihood of AI having an impact
· Capacity of the IS to follow the case and to plan/develop campaigning
· Capacity of Sections to take on the case for campaigning
· Whether other organisations or agencies are already working on the case
· The wishes of the individual
· Benefit to harm ratio (i.e. AI will not make the situation worse by acting).

Below are details of an alternative organisation that may be able to be of assistance to you:

Liberty
website: www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
telephone: 020 7403 3888 or 0203 145 0460

I'm sorry we cannot be more helpful in this instance. Thank you for taking the trouble to write to us and best of luck with Mr Syvret's case.

Kind regards,

Imran Uppal

Supporter Care Team
Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA

Tel: 020 7033 1777
Email: sct@amnesty.org.uk

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

State Sponsored PAEDOPHILIA

GeeGee said...

Off tangent a bit, but I am really surprised and disappointed that Deputy Labey not only voted against an open ballot, but voted for PB as well.

I did not give her my vote to go down this route. Simon Crowcroft also.

rico sorda said...

CHIEF MINISTER GORST

My first reaction Brilliant

I have faith that this man might just help this Island regain some of it's social and moral standing. He is by no means the second coming but if we have just moved away from the terrible toxic years of Walker. Le Suer & Ozouf then this most be a positive result for Jersey. By the end of Thursday we should have a very good idea how this new Government will look.

Someone once said to be that Turkeys don't vote for Christmas - Deputy Labey blew that myth clean out of the water today.

The big winner today was the Abuse Survivors and the Committee of Enquiry.

Sir Philip filled me with dread when listening to him today. He didn't even see how conflicted he was ref the 'CO'.

He must be watched like a hawk concerning the COI because believe you me that was one of the main reasons for his return.

Onwards we go

Truth, Honesty & Integrity

RSI

Ian Evans said...

States Reject Corruption

Anonymous said...

Do you think Mick Gradwell got paid an extra bonus for his trashing actions?

Zoompad said...

I've written to Stuart to tell him the good news about Bellyache, though I suppose he will already know via the BBC Propaganda er news. I expect he will have a smile on his face tonight!

rico sorda said...

Im not sure what Gradwell got paid and it's not a concern of mine. What I do want to know is what Gradwell was up to and why. He didn't do what he did just for the crack. Nope, my guess it was a little more planned than that. Im working on a posting that I hope will explain what I mean.

There is a bigger picture here and it also involves editors of some of our MSM outlets. Its all out there it just needs piecing together. You cant do a Cover-up like our lot did and hope no one would notice.

The JEP , Mick Gradwell, CTV and a few more are being found out.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"And we're going to have to change the rules to ACCOMMODATE THEM.

rico sorda said...

It will be with great interest that i'll be watching how the MSM act towards the new Chief Minister. I thought it was very telling listening to Senator Gorst on the Roger Barra breakfast show this morning.

BBC Radio Jersey is a very hard right station. Not all the staff I might add but the influential ones. Poor Roger seemed really put out that Sir Philip was defeated and that Philip O might be out of a job on thursday. You don't have to take my word for it you can just listen back on the I player if you can be bothered.

The Jersey State Media has been complicit & bone idle in many way when it comes to holding checks and balances on our government. This has been for a number of reasons but what happens when you have a Chief Minister they don't want. Will we now see the leadership of Gorst put under the microscope?

Interesting times

Make no mistake yesterday was a savage blow to the old guard.

The worms can smell a freedom that has been none existent for 800yrs

Rs

Anonymous said...

Roger Bara should have stuck to playing the piano he was pretty good at that but has always been one to be servile,yes sir no sir!!

Bazzita said...

"Sir Philip filled me with dread when listening to him today."

You rage against Bailhache and the establishment of which he has been an essential part, yet you still deferentially refer to him by the title of "Sir".

A title granted by the establishment for services to the establishment.

I wouldn't be surprised if that puts a wry smile on his face if he reads your blog.

Rico, you can keep doffing your cap if you like. In my view that man deserves no such respect from the public of this island, so shall get none from me.

Baz.

rico sorda said...

Bazzita

Fair comment

I refer to him mostly as Sir Philip so people don't get confused with the other one.

And the other reason is- well there isn't one lol don't know why I call him that.

I agree 100% with your comment

Old Phil it is

rs

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to Phick Phil?

rico sorda said...

I think we will stick with Senator Bailhache

I don't want to get into the name calling game. The issues are far to serious. I have so much research on at the moment and thats where all my concentration will be. I have serious concerns about the SOJP at the moment. Over time time I hope these concerns will prove to be proven redundant. It might take a "COI" to do that.

The issues raised in LH's affidavit cant be pushed aside. They must be addressed.

We ca not move forward with Child Protection unless all the issues have been tackled. Yesterday was a change for the better. Lets see what this new era brings us.

There will be some very nervous people out there. What if a former Senator who is sitting in La Moye was right about a horrific failure in Child Protection over the decades. The evidence on his blog is compelling but that is just my opinion lets see what the COI make of it.

Some people might be very worried about that

rs

rico sorda said...

STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE ON 8th NOVEMBER 2011

The Privileges and Procedures Committee has recently been approached by BDO Alto (the
firm”) which has asked the Committee to investigate their concerns about the manner in which the Education and Home Affairs scrutiny sub-panel’s review into issues surrounding the Review of Financial Management of Operation Rectangle has been conducted. To avoid any perception of a potential conflict of interest, Senator Ferguson as President of the Chairmen’s Committee, Senator Le Marquand as Minister for Home Affairs and Deputy
Trevor Pitman as Chairman of this sub-panel, did not participate in the consideration of this matter which was therefore considered by the remaining 4 PPC members.

In making this statement I wish to make it clear that, notwithstanding the on going concerns expressed to us, PPC is not questioning the Chairmen’s Committee original decision to allow
the sub-panel’s review to go ahead. Neither is it questioning the choice by the Education and
Home Affairs panel of this particular review topic. PPC’s concerns therefore relate solely to the manner in which the sub-panel and the Chairmen’s Committee have acted in this matter.

rico sorda said...

PPC further wishes to make it clear that its involvement in this matter comes not in the usual
manner from a complaint under the Code of Conduct for States Members but rather from
paragraph 4.25 of the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the PAC (R.30/2008). This
states that “Questions about a potential conflict of interest on the part of a member of a Panel
should be referred in the first instance to the Chairmen’s Committee for consideration who
will refer the matter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee if a satisfactory resolution
cannot be achieved”. Although in this case, there was a resolution put forward by the
Chairmen’s Committee, the complainant did not feel that the terms of that resolution had been
adhered to. PPC has also considered this matter in accordance with its duty under Standing
Orders to ‘promote high standards amongst members of the States’

The Committee’s investigations have shown that the firm first approached the Chairmen’s Committee at the outset of the review because it was concerned about the perceived lack of impartiality of the sub-panel Chairman, Deputy Trevor Pitman. At that stage the Chairmen’s
Committee considered the concerns raised but concluded that it saw no reason to prevent the
review going ahead.

rico sorda said...

Before making this decision the Chairmen’s Committee had received correspondence from
the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs scrutiny panel which included an undertaking that ‘the review will be conducted rigorously and fairly and that all matters will be dealt with on an evidential basis’. When responding to the firm on 1st July the Chairmen’s Committee wrote ‘The Chairman of the Sub panel and the Chairman of the main Panel were quite clear that they were determined to focus the review on evidence from a full range of witnesses and to consider their findings in a fully objective fashion. They gave an undertaking that there would be no further public comments by members of the Sub Panel on issues
connected with the review until the review had been completed’.

In contacting PPC recently the firm remained concerned that its initial concerns about conflict
of interest had not been properly addressed but they also raised additional concerns that the
undertakings about ‘no further public comments’ had not been complied with. The firm drew
PPC’s attention to entries on Deputy Trevor Pitman’s own blog about the review, to a
Channel Television interview he had given and to 2 video interviews about the review given
by Deputy Pitman to the Voice for Children blog.

rico sorda said...

PPC considered the content of the blogs and received transcripts of these video interviews. PPC was extremely concerned about the tone and content of the 2 video interviews by the sub-panel Chairman which were critical of the actions of BDO Alto and which comment on a
wide range of other issues relating to the on-going review.

Having identified these matters PPC wrote to the Chairmen’s Committee to enquire what
action, if any, the Committee had taken to enforce the undertaking given at the outset that the
members of the sub-panel would not make public comment during the course of the review. It
was clear from the response received that no action at all had been taken by the Chairmen’s
Committee even though the President wrote in her reply that ‘the Chairmen’s Committee does
indeed stand by its decision that it is inappropriate for any comments to be made on personal
sites during any Scrutiny Review’.

Prior to the final preparation of this Statement, PPC met with the President of theChairmen’sCommittee, Senator Ferguson who confirmed that no specific measures were put in place by the Chairmen’s Committee to monitor adherence to the undertaking given by the sub-panel. The Senator opined that this matter was effectively delegated to the Chairman of the main Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and indeed her letter to PPC dated 11th October 2011 included the comment “However, the (Chairmen’s) Committee has also been made aware that reminders to the Sub-Panel Chairman in respect of his undertaking not to make
blog entries have been given by the main Panel Chairman.”

rico sorda said...

PPC subsequently also met with Deputy Le Hérissier (Chairman of the main EHA Scrutiny
Panel) and Deputy T Pitman (Chairman of the sub-panel). During that meeting it became
apparent that Deputy Pitman disputed that he had given an undertaking not make further
public comment on issues connected with the review prior to its completion. He commented
that he would not allow himself to be constrained in such a way and that he would respond to
media enquiries, including those from citizens’ media as he felt appropriate. He was asked if
he had seen the letter of July 1st in which the undertaking was given and he said he could not
be sure, although Deputy Le Hérissier reminded him that he had seen it.

Deputy Le Hérissier said he had reminded Deputy T Pitman about the undertaking but had
believed that the blog entries had tailed off very soon after the letter of 1st July was sent.

It is clear from these two meetings that there was confusion between the Chairmen’s
Committee and Deputy T Pitman about the precise nature of the undertaking given to the
firm. The Chairmen’s Committee was not monitoring the situation and Deputy Pitman did not
advise them that he disagreed with the undertaking set out in their letter to the firm. The
Chairman of the EHA Scrutiny Panel did not feel that he had been specifically tasked with
monitoring the situation as he felt he had been involved in the early discussions about a
potential conflict more as a witness than as a member of the Chairmen’s Committee.

rico sorda said...

The correspondence that PPC has seen makes it clear that the sub-panel Chairman was well
aware at the outset of this review that concerns had already been raised about a perceived lack
of impartiality on his part. PPC’s view is that when the Chairmen’s Committee nevertheless
agreed that the review could proceed he should have been scrupulous to ensure that the
review was conducted in accordance with the undertakings given to that Committee. PPC
does not know what conclusions or recommendations will be in the sub-panel’s report when it
is published in the coming days, but is concerned that whatever the outcome, the review may
be overshadowed by a perception that a conflict of interest did exist despite assurances to the
contrary given by the Chairmen’s Committee. PPC would consider it to be regrettable if
because of this perception, the review was seen by some to be of limited value.

PPC is equally concerned that the Chairmen’s Committee, having allowed this review to go
ahead on the basis of certain undertakings, took no action as soon as the Committee became
aware that those undertakings had not been complied with.

rico sorda said...

PPC would suggest that the next Chairmen’s Committee take on board the following -

1. if a commitment has been made then it must be communicated to all parties;

2. any commitment must identify who is responsible for maintaining compliance;

3. compliance with a commitment must be monitored;

4. members must be scrupulous to ensure that their actions do not reinforce any
perceived conflict;

5. scrutiny members must recognise that the successful outcome of a review is their
paramount concern.

Recommendation 4 in the recent review of the last 3 years of scrutiny undertaken by the
Chairmen’s Committee (R.118/2011) is that “All Members and Officials must ensure
adherence to Standing Orders, Code of Practice, Protocols and Guidelines”. The new
Assembly will shortly be sworn in and this is the ideal opportunity to review the lessons
learned from recent reviews and to ensure that members undertaking the vital role of scrutiny
in future are adequately supported. PPC believes that if scrutiny is to be taken seriously in the
new Assembly the new Chairmen’s Committee must be prepared to take steps to ensure that
scrutiny panels act in a professional way and the Committee must be willing to take firm
action if panels do not follow agreed procedures.

rico sorda said...

I have raised the issue of the newly promoted Superintendent Andre Bonjour and the issues
surrounding the allegations in LH's Affidavit.

This is the question asked by Deputy T Pitman to Senator ILM

3.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The Minister will recall, I hope, an investigation begun by the South Yorkshire Police into allegations relating to a senior police officer and an alleged abuse within the Sea Cadets. This was, I recall, referred to by the former Acting Police Chief as potentially career-changing. Can the Minister advise as to whether those investigations and a stand alone report were ever completed, what was the outcome, and whether that report, if it exists, is available to Members?

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

I do not have any details in relation to this matter and the Deputy has not given me enough details to understand what he is talking about.

3.1.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Perhaps the Minister should familiarise himself with the 62,000 word-statement of the former Police Chief which he had claimed he had read, so how he can not know what I am talking about I do not know, but could the Minister look into it and get back to me, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is a genuine question. This was brought up at a scrutiny hearing and if we are going to get this ridiculous, I must say, answer from a Minister, is there any point to this Chamber? Can you not ask the Minister will he not adopt a more sensible grown-up approach?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The matter was looked into in the past and I have no intention whatsoever of reopening it.

rico sorda said...

3.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Maybe I shall have some more luck. I have been reading a lot about this whole area because of the scrutiny review into the BdO Alto Report and one of the things that has struck me is the issue of bullying and I read a paper, I forget by who, which shows quite clearly that example after example after example of bullying was tackled within the States of Jersey Police. My question for the Minister is when he said very publicly that bullying was an issue quite recently in the States of Jersey Police I want him to tell the Members how he came to this conclusion and why he made it so public and can he confirm that he now no longer holds this view?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The answer depends upon what period of time the Deputy of St. Mary is referring to. I am quite clear in my own mind that there were issues of bullying within the police force at times in the past. Indeed, the question of the Deputy itself rather reinforces that view.

3.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I have a supplementary, Sir? The question was how he came to the conclusion that bullying was still an issue and that somehow the Chief of Police who has now departed was somehow responsible for that, why he published it in the way he did and whether he can confirm that he no longer holds that view?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The difficulty with the question is I am not sure which period of time that the Deputy is referring to. I wonder if he could clarify that.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

Indeed, the comments that the Minister made about bullying in the police and the failure of the former Chief of Police to deal with it I took - and I think the majority of the public took - to be in recent times and the evidence that I have seen suggests that bullying was tackled very firmly by the team of the S.I.O. and the Deputy Chief Officer and the Chief Officer in the time just before. So the point is that the Minister seemed to be giving a view that was contrary to what was going on and I wonder whether he has now settled on the fact that he has withdrawn that view. I am not sure whether he has withdrawn that view or not.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am still of the opinion that there was a culture of bullying within the police force at the relevant time. I am not thereby saying that that was the fault of the Chief Officer of the day but the fact is such a culture, in my view, did exist. I base that upon a number of issues, including complaints that were made against officers, some of which would have led to disciplinary hearings if they had not left the force.

BLOG POSTING ON ANDRE BONJOUR

Anonymous said...

The heavy to the right media keep banging on about Bailhache being narrowly defeated by only 3 votes. (27 to 24).

Whats not being put into the equation is the 12 constables, Bailhache got 8 of these, Gorst got 4.

Take these 12 dinosaur votes away.

Gorst 23. Bailhache 16....

And a perfect number of 39 States Members!?

GeeGee said...

Rico - I sincerely hope (well I KNOW you will)you keep this investigation of the South Yorkshire report and Bonjour alive and kicking.

As you are well aware my granddaughter was abused whilst in the Sea Cadets. This had a profound impact on her young life. On Sunday she was quite upset and disturbed as she saw her abuser who was believed to have left the Island and 'could not be interviewed at the time'.

Bonjour was an officer of the Sea Cadets at the time and also a police officer and no action was taken.

As you know I wrote to Ian Le Marquand outlining the facts, and the response was that it was a matter for the police, not for him.

Anything you can uncover Rico would be of much interest.

rico sorda said...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

There is a question I want to ask and it probably seems slightly removed from what we have been talking about, but I think it is relevant with regard to the tensions that you have talked about in your statement with the politicians, et cetera, this mention in your report of an investigation from the South Yorkshire police. What happened to that? Did it just grind to a halt because I have not been able to find much out about that? What happened with that? Is that ...

Mr. G. Power:

Well, my recollection is that somebody was given advice and reminded of their responsibilities, that is it was dealt with. It was dealt with within a disciplinary framework but not as a hearing, it was warning advice, or something of that nature.
But I think David Warcup dealt with that. But I know of what you are talking about and that was one of the difficulties in the background all the time. It was alleged that one of the senior players in the force, one of the senior people, had received a report of abuse, several reports of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and had covered up those allegations for a period of a year and I think the investigation focused on whether this was a deliberate cover-up or whether this was an oversight due to high workload and somehow the report got lost on a desk, I am perhaps being over-simplistic about that
but I think that is how it broke down. Lenny Harper commissioned an inquiry, but clearly while that inquiry was running it was very, very hard to include particular key players in the management of the review’s inquiry. It was another problem we could have done without.

rico sorda said...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

There is a question I want to ask and it probably seems slightly removed from what we have been talking about, but I think it is relevant with regard to the tensions that you have talked about in your statement with the politicians, et cetera, this mention in your report of an investigation from the South Yorkshire police. What happened to that? Did it just grind to a halt because I have not been able to find much out about that? What happened with that? Is that ...

Mr. G. Power:

Well, my recollection is that somebody was given advice and reminded of their responsibilities, that is it was dealt with. It was dealt with within a disciplinary framework but not as a hearing, it was warning advice, or something of that nature.
But I think David Warcup dealt with that. But I know of what you are talking about and that was one of the difficulties in the background all the time. It was alleged that one of the senior players in the force, one of the senior people, had received a report of abuse, several reports of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and had covered up those allegations for a period of a year and I think the investigation focused on whether this was a deliberate cover-up or whether this was an oversight due to high workload and somehow the report got lost on a desk, I am perhaps being over-simplistic about that
but I think that is how it broke down. Lenny Harper commissioned an inquiry, but clearly while that inquiry was running it was very, very hard to include particular key players in the management of the review’s inquiry. It was another problem we could have done without.

rico sorda said...

20
Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, and just so that I get it clear in my head, you say David Warcup dealt with that, so is that report somewhere? Should it be available?

Mr. G. Power:
Yes, well it exists, that is for sure. There will be a substantial report with appendices that explores those allegations and comes to some conclusion
and makes some recommendations, yes.

Taken from the evidence given by former Chief of Police Graham Power on Friday 28th Oct 2011

Anonymous said...

Graham Power's second appearance before the scrutiny panel http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/documents/pubhearings/S-40963-31490-10112011.pdf

All the transcripts are at http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/transcripts.asp?reviewid=194

My advice would be to save a copy of those before they get accidentally deleted when the new scrutiny panels are formed...

GeeGee - the allegations you make are of an exceptionally serious nature. If it were me, I would have no hesitaton in contacting Detective Alison Fossey of the Public Protection Unit.

rico sorda said...

"Well, my recollection is that somebody was given advice and reminded of their responsibilities, that is it was dealt with. It was dealt with within a disciplinary framework but not as a hearing, it was warning advice, or something of that nature.
But I think David Warcup dealt with that"

Well, that certainly doesn't put me at ease. David Warcup left to sort it out. This must be looked into. Maybe an email to Fossy could be the way forward

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, I do not mean that you should contact AF.

I mean that GeeGee should, with her specific allegations about a member of her family, and any alleged inaction previously.

GeeGee said...

Thank you Anonymous, but my hands on this issue are very tied. Rico and Mr Le Marquand were made aware of the reasons why, which are very genuine.

In all honesty, and I do not like having to say this, but I have virtually no faith or trust in the police here. Sad but true.

This is my reason for wanting Rico to investigate this as much as he can, as something does not ring true.

GeeGee said...

Thank you Anonymous, but my hands on this issue are very tied. Rico and Mr Le Marquand were made aware of the reasons why, which are very genuine.

In all honesty, and I do not like having to say this, but I have virtually no faith or trust in the police here. Sad but true.

This is my reason for wanting Rico to investigate this as much as he can, as something does not ring true.

Anonymous said...

Lyndon Farnham for Home Affairs.
bet the licensing unit keep well away from the Royal Yacht!!!

rico sorda said...

"Rico, I do not mean that you should contact AF"

I know but I might anyway. She hasn't said much over the years. She was right in the thick of it yet has remained silent. I know she has a job. Lets see whaty the future brings

rs

rico sorda said...

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

"I do not have any details in relation to this matter and the Deputy has not given me enough details to understand what he is talking about."

And then we have

3.1.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Perhaps the Minister should familiarise himself with the 62,000 word-statement of the former Police Chief which he had claimed he had read, so how he can not know what I am talking about I do not know, but could the Minister look into it and get back to me, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No

And then;

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The matter was looked into in the past and I have no intention whatsoever of reopening it

You see ILM new what Pitman was on about right from the start. He has a lot to answer that is for sure..

Anonymous said...

"I am confident that shortly a new liberation will come to Jersey. A liberation not brought about by liberating forces, but a liberation brought about by truth and openess. The truth will inevitably out. The real Jersey will once again be revealed, and we will again hold our heads up high, look the world straight in the eye, and proclaim with immense pride, we are Jersey."

Frank Walker, Liberation Day Speech 2008.

Anonymous said...

Amazing answer to a genuine question by Mr. Pitman3.1.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Perhaps the Minister should familiarise himself with the 62,000 word-statement of the former Police Chief which he had claimed he had read, so how he can not know what I am talking about I do not know, but could the Minister look into it and get back to me, please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No.


Mr. Le Marquand knew exactly what Mr. Pitman was referring to.

I can not wait to find out what you discover Rico, especially after the CTV report on the recent sentence of a man and police assurances for similar victims to come forward.

Anonymous said...

It make you wonder, who from Jersey's Channel TV is proudly displaying their now bogus award?

Is it on display at their studio foyer?

Is it on display over the Rankin's mantlepiece?

Or has it now suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth?!

Zoompad said...

The only fitting place for that award is in the smallest room!

Anonymous said...

I think Stuart mentioned it was proudly on disply at the studios.

rico sorda said...

So, it looks like Chief Minister Gorst is already under pressure as Team Ozouf launch a fight back.

Deputy Noel got 24 votes in his stand for Social Security Minister - that is a staggering total.

Ozouf
Ryan
Maclean
Refault
Le Marquand
Pryke?

I wish Senator Ferguson all the very best for tomorrow as I believe she will make a very good Health Minister. I have disagreed with her on some issues but one must look beyond that when it comes to something as important as this.

Gorst has had a rude awakening today. Has Ozouf really changed? My own humble opinion is NO.

My worry now is that he will try and scupper the Committee of Enquiry with terror tactics of cost.

The work continues

On Monday we were running through fields of daisies as the dawning of a new era approached. Today the storm clouds that have been plaguing this Island resurfaced.

rs

Zoompad said...

Don't worry, everything is going to work out fine.

Keep the faith

Zoompad said...

Everything will work out fine though, I just know it will, goodness will win and badness will lose. Keep the faith, always keep the faith. xx

Anonymous said...

Would someone dare take down & take away the CTV's award from CTV's studio foyer.

Then see if CTV dare to complain?

Ian Evans said...

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Ian Evans said...

I Dare!!!

Anonymous said...

Why Jersey? Is a serious attempt to learn about Jersey's evolving relationships with China.
The first meeting is at the Star, St Peter Friday 25 November from 7pm Tickets are £20 and include a Chinese buffet and much more. Contact for details jerseychina on Facebook or email info@jerseychina.com

Anonymous said...

There were no children's teeth, burnt bones, undergound cellars, shackles blood , pits with lime, torture bath, witnesses. The children never existed. In fact Haut de la Garenne doesn't exist but is a fata morgana. The two UK police dogs were just stray dogs from St Martin. Lenny Harper was problably never in the Police and an imposter. Newsnight with Frank Walker never took place.Stuart Syvret has made the whole HDG story up to staft Jersey internationally and the police followed it up just for the overtime
And oh yes, I forgot : The Earth is flat.

The line taken by Jersey State Media.....

Zoompad said...

CTV should get another award to go with that one, a luttle silver shield perhaps? The award should be engraven with these words

COVER UP OF THE MILLENIUM

It could be embellished with a fancy engraving emblem, representing HDLG, two hands being shaken (in a Brotherly manner) and a skull and bones.

You can get something like this done for less than £20.

Advocatus Diaboli said...

Greetings Rico, heard anything from Stuart, his blog's gome quiet.

Thanks.

rico sorda said...

Hi Ya

Stuart is in Prison at the moment & should be out in about 6 weeks. He is well. VFC has spoken to him quiet a few times. He is getting a very good rest, eating well and spending time in the gym. When he gets out he carries on minus one community service monkey off his back.

Thats about all I know

The battle is only just starting.

This is a clear case of who gives up first.

Cant see SS giving up

rs

rico sorda said...

Hi Ya

Stuart is in Prison at the moment & should be out in about 6 weeks. He is well. VFC has spoken to him quiet a few times. He is getting a very good rest, eating well and spending time in the gym. When he gets out he carries on minus one community service monkey off his back.

Thats about all I know

The battle is only just starting.

This is a clear case of who gives up first.

Cant see SS giving up

rs

Anonymous said...

You are right, Syvret does have fights coming up in the Courts very soon and people are sharpening the knives to fcuk him.

rico sorda said...

You are right, Syvret does have fights coming up in the Courts very soon and people are sharpening the knives to fcuk him.

Good job their not in the prison showers then.

Lets hope who ever brings him to court will do it in such a way that all the evidence can get heard. Because lets face it it's all everyone wants.

Even Chief Minister Le Suer had the chance to get everyones named cleared but what did he do

He Got It Struck Out

So none of the evidence could be heard

So what are the court cases he is facing about?

Anonymous said...

Syvret has already put 'his version of events into the open' on his blog and if he was so right, just ask yourself why over a dozen people are taking action against him? Are you really this thick?

Zoompad said...

Stuart will never give up, so they are going to have to murder him or run away themselves. And they won't be allowed to murder him because he says he's not a Christian, so God's not really going to allow him the glory of a martyr's death. Anyway, too many people are praying for him, if anyone tries to murder him the angel of death will come for them! Messing with God isn't a very wise thing to do.

rico sorda said...

"Syvret has already put 'his version of events into the open' on his blog and if he was so right, just ask yourself why over a dozen people are taking action against him? Are you really this thick?"

No, but I think you are.

How did decades of Abuse go unchecked.

Read the evidence on Blanche Pierre my friend that alone is horrendous

That is just one reason for not wanting a committee of enquiry

Lets see what they bring to court

rs

Anonymous said...

Has Syvret not shared with his closest allies the finer detail, or any details about his impending court cases?
He really is a dark horse or should I say a dark force.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think nobody has been charged by the Police from accusations on his blog? Do you think it’s because they may not be true at all? Or do you take everything that comes from Syvret's mouth as gospel? It has been up to Syvret to prove accusations against people for years and he has failed so the chickens come home to roost and he simply gets taken to court for it.

rico sorda said...

You have your view I have mine. As you might be aware I seriously look at the evidence. I want all the people you refer to hurry up and get Syvret in court. I want them to challenge what Syvret is saying as a pack of un-evidenced lies. Lets not hide behind some DP charge let have this done in the open.

Is the list of people out in the open yet? I would sure like to see that list.

rs

Anonymous said...

You are not listening. If there was criminal activity done by anybody accused on his blog then the police would of arrested and charged them on the strength of Syvret's 'evidence' already. Why do you think this has not happened?

Zoompad said...

"Has Syvret not shared with his closest allies the finer detail, or any details about his impending court cases?"

Oh, wouldn't you like to know.

We're not telling you, hahaha!

Anonymous said...

Rico, Stuart Syvret has been asked to hand over evidence to not only the States but the Police and even under the request of some of his victims yet has failed. That makes people innocent in my book.

GeeGee said...

I couldn't agree with you more Rico.

I can only imagine that they are charges of naming other people on his blog, but I can think of a few that could seriously have quite a bit to worry about if full and proper trials were to be held.

I think we can safely say, Stuart doesn't name names without the proof to back it, so bring it all on I say.

Anonymous said...

I am cross-posting this on the following blogs: Deputy Pitman's, VFC, Rico, SSS
>>>>>

Deputy,

The transcript of former Senator Syvret's evidence is not published on the Scrutiny website. Graham Power's evidence - from the very same day - has already been transcribed and published.

http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/transcripts.asp?reviewid=194

What's going on there? You allowed him to be called as a witness, he swore an oath, why is it not published?

Anonymous said...

You are not listening. If there was criminal activity done by anybody accused on his blog then the police would of arrested and charged them on the strength of Syvret's 'evidence' already. Why do you think this has not happened?

Possibly political interference, over my dead body and all that.

rico sorda said...

As far as im aware concerning the transcripts is that they have to be signed off by the person giving evidence. This can take some time. Stuart was in prison a couple of days later and so this hasn't happened. I think that is the simple answer to the question.

rico sorda said...

"You are not listening. If there was criminal activity done by anybody accused on his blog then the police would of arrested and charged them on the strength of Syvret's 'evidence' already. Why do you think this has not happened?"

You had better read my blog posting and interview that will be up some time soon.

rs

Anonymous said...

You find any excuse to defend Syvret, sad very sad.

Advocatus Diaboli said...

~~~~~Stuart is in Prison at the moment & should be out in about 6 weeks.~~~~~

I wondered if he was at a 'secret government establishment in the country'....

Best wished to him and all the honest people in Jersey.

Advocatus Diaboli said...

Happy new year Rico, regards to Stuart and all too....