Tuesday, January 24, 2012

MATT TAPP FILES - 7 -OPERATION TUMA












MATT TAPP - 7







METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE


Directorate of Professional Standards



Investigation into the public complaint by MR Lenny Harper



OPERATION TUMA


Mike Sunman - Detective Inspector - Senior Investigating Officer.




This is in relation to the Met 'interim' Report and final Metropolitan Police Report



Para. 4.36 "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."



Para 5.2 "Mr Harper claims that DSU Sweeting ignored information given by him regarding ACPO policy reports and criticised his handling of finances, the search, and entry to HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support policy, lack of a gold group, and the finding and labelling of human remains. (Mr Harper) also states DSU Sweeting criticised Mr Harper's use of terminology such as 'shackles' and falsifying areas within HDLG such as cellars."


5.3 "Having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper. The report is a fact based, objective review conducted by a highly experienced SIO that produces recommendations for the now SIO. As in any review, and the purp[ose of conducting one, areas of vulnerability are highlighted for learning and are given to assist the current investigation to move on."



According to the investigating officer Sweeting never criticised Lenny Harper for using the term shackles, nor did he (Sweeting) criticise Lenny Harper for any of the following


Sweeting did not criticise my handling of finances.

He did not criticise the entry into HDLG.

He did not criticise the subsequent search of HDLG.

He did not criticise working practices with lawyers.


Sweeting did not criticise my Victim Support Policy, lack of a Gold Group, or handling of exhibits.

If Sweeting didn't (and Section 5 of the Complaint report makes it clear he did not), then who did?



This is the most important blog posting I have done in relation to Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Investigation) and the suspension of former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM.



I will explain to readers the relevance of this Met investigation and how it ties in with the outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp and the suspension of Graham Power on the 12th November 2008.



The Ramifications are huge. Some serious and very awkward questions must now be asked of the former Chief Executive of the States of Jersey Bill Ogley, former Chief Minister Frank Walker, former Deputy Chief Officer and then Acting Chief Officer David Warcup and Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand.



I will try and keep this posting short . I must explain to new readers just what happened in the run up to Graham Power being suspended. It goes to the very heart of high level government and also calls into question the advice given by the Law Office.


In short;


On the 10th November 2008 DCO David Warcup wrote to Chief Executive Bill Ogley raising significant concerns about the command and control structures of Operation Rectangle. This letter contained extracts from a Metropolitan 'interim' Police Report.



On the 11th of November CEO Bill Ogley on receiving this letter contacted then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis to attend a pre-press briefing for all ministers in advance of the press conference happening on the 12th November 2008.



On the 12th November 2008; Graham Power was asked to attend a meeting at Cyril Le Marquand house on the morning of the 12th. Mr Lewis handed Graham Power a letter dated 12th November 2008 with the heading "Disciplinary Code" in which he had informed him that he had received a letter from the Chief Executive Bill Ogley. This letter contained David Warcup concerns of Operation Rectangle and also extracts from the Metropolitan Interim Report. Considering the re-press briefing on the 11th the overall management of Operation Rectangle would be publicy called into question. In light of Mr Powers accountability under Article9(3) of the Police Force Law. Mr Lewis invoked the Disciplinary action and suspended Graham Power under 2.3.3 of the code.



Mr Power states during his judicial review that Chief Executive Bill Ogley said 'that in view of the letter, he would be allowed 1 hour to consider his position'. The rest as they say is History.





When the big press conference and suspension of Graham Power happened on 12th November 2008 Lenny Harper became very concerned about the use of a Met Report. The reason being Lenny Harper and Andy Baker of ACPO had not yet been interviewed. Lenny Harper put a complaint into the Independent Police Complaints Commission about the Met Interim/ final Report. This report was completed at the end of November 2008 when both Mr Harper & Graham Power had been interviewed.


You would expect the findings of Operation Tuma to be damning on Mr Harper.



Mr Harper now explains why he went to the IPCC



In November 2008 I watched with some astonishment and no little annoyance and frustration as David Warcup and Mick Gradwell told the world that all the work that I had carried out along with a talented and dedicated team in Jersey investigating child abuse in States run institutions had been false and a pack of lies. I watched as they not only blackened my name, but also justified the suspension and character assassination of one of the best, most honest and capable bosses I had worked for in thirty four years in Graham Power. I recoiled at the inferred and explicit statements that the evidence from victims of savage and cruel abuse was all a fiction and the product of sick and criminal minds. My anger and bemusement increased as first Warcup and Gradwell and then Andrew Lewis (only hours before I left the island Lewis had stood at a dinner at the Lt. Gov’s residence with his arm around me and told my wife that he had stood shoulder to shoulder with me in facing down Frank Walker who had wanted to once again “bury” the abuse allegations) and the Chief Minister of the time explained that their actions and the nonsense they told the world’s press were all direct lifts from a report by the Metropolitan Police (the Sweeting Report) which was “critical and damning” of my performance in leading the Abuse enquiry and of Graham Power’s supervision of me. They told how the Met report had severely criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, the entry and subsequent search in HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support policy, lack of a Gold group, and the finding and labelling of human remains. They also related how the Met report had criticised me for my use of terminology such as ‘shackles’ and falsely describing areas where victims had alleged abuse within HDLG as ‘cellars.’ This damning report, they said, was the reason why they had no choice but to suspend Graham Power for his failure to supervise his out of control Deputy.


I could not believe that the local Jersey media could be swallowing this innocently. They must have known that Gradwell and Warcup were wrong when they said that there were no cellars, only eighteen inch floor voids – not only had BBC Panorama’s Robert Hall filmed in there but even JEP journalist Diane Simon, together with others who were later to forget, had been shown around the cellars. Frank Walker and his wife had been taken around and shown the cellar areas where many “fleshed and fresh” bones had been burnt and deliberately hidden. These bones seemed to be conveniently forgotten when Gradwell told the world that no human bones had been found. The statement describing these bones by the expert in Sheffield had obviously disappeared. Diane Simon also conveniently forgot that it was her who first mentioned ‘shackles’ to me and that she had run a story in which she said I had refused to confirm the finding of shackles. Now she was criticising me for whipping up media frenzy about shackles.


In all of this, my anger turned to what I perceived to be the corrupt actions of the Met Superintendent who had carried out the review and who had been so critical of me without even bothering to speak to me or to those who were supervising and mentoring me. (the ACPO Homicide Working Group) Gradwell, Warcup, the Chief Minister, Home Affairs Minister and all of the Jersey media were quoting the Met report as the source for all of the criticism Graham Power and I were facing. I did the only thing I felt I could do and made a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police against Superintendent Sweeting.


At first the Met refused to accept my complaint. “You left it too long” they said. I appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. (IPCC) They ordered the Met to investigate. Eventually they did and after an investigation (named Operation Tuma) they reported that my complaint was recorded as “no case to answer.”

My first reaction was one of disgust. I knew that what Warcup, Gradwell, Walker, and the rest were saying was out and out rubbish and a total fabrication. How could the Met be endorsing this? Then I read the findings. They were astounding.


My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT. Paragraph 5.3 of the Sweeting Met report lists the complaints that I had made, i.e.; that the report was “critical and damning of me without ever speaking to me. That it had criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, my victim support policy, the lack of a Gold Group, the finding and labelling of human remains, my use of the term ‘shackles’ and the use of the term ‘cellars.’ In reality, according to the Met report to the IPCC, “having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.” The report goes on to say in Para. 5.4, “The report was neither critical nor damning.”


The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.”


So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else?


It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes?


The truth is getting ever closer. Despite the increasingly desperate attempts of the establishment to prevent it emerging (witness the pathetic attempt to portray a letter in the JEP this week as being from establishment crony Roy Boschat when letters being revealed in a Jersey blog show him as semi- literate) the momentum is unstoppable. Sooner or later the role of a number of Jersey’s so called prominent citizens in supporting the cover up of vile child abuse will be revealed to the world. As someone else has said, the ramifications for them and their way of life will be much more severe than if they had just accepted in the first place it had happened and sought to try and make it better and prevent it from happening again.


Lenny Harper



Now I will explain where Matt Tapp comes in. I have been informed that Matt Tapp gave an Interview with Wiltshire Police where he explains what happened.



This is what happened. Can politicians find out if this is true.



1. In August 2008 Tapp is contacted by DCO Warcup


2. Came to Jersey on August 5th 2008


3. Was contracted in September 2008


4. started some work


6. Had a meeting with Graham Power on the 8th October. Graham Power disagreed with Matt Tapp - Tapp position as consultant advisor to DCO Warcup was no longer tenable. He informed David Warcup & Mick Gradwell of the fact and made arrangements to leave the Island.



WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS BOTH STAGGERING AND SHOCKING


7. Later that day at the request of Chief Executive Bill Ogley, he attends a meeting with BO and former Chief Minister Frank walker. From the result of that meeting ,and email correspondence,he agrees to produce a report for the STATES OF JERSEY.


8. There is only one MATT TAPP Report. This is the one quoted by Judge Pitchers and commissioned by the STATES OF JERSEY not The STATES OF JERSEY POLICE.




NOW GO BACK AND LOOK AT HOW GRAHAM POWER WAS SUSPENDED



TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER IAN LE MARQUAND



BEING ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH?




I would also like to thank Former Deputy Daniel Wimberly, Former Deputy Bob Hill and Deputy T Pitman who during 2010 asked many questions concerning the Metropolitan 'Interim' Report. This will be discussed in a future posting.




I will finish this posting by saying im not an Investigative Journalist. Im a member of the public who became very concerned about certain aspects of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and decided to do something about it.




I shouldn't have to be doing this.




Why won't our Media do it?



For further in formation and research please click on the link provided


http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/01/andrew-lewis-or-cpo-graham-power-qpm-re.html



RICO SORDA



TEAM VOICE



101 comments:

Ian Evans said...

"WOW" !!!

Anonymous said...

Didn,t think anything our rulers did could shock anymore, was I wrong. Good work Rico.

caveman in the snow said...

I concur WOW! deep doo doo hitting the fan.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The Damming Met Report that never was.

7. During my final meeting with Mr Power he was not asked to resign he never has been, it was an action that I did not wish to invoke because it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. However I refute strongly the repeated suggestion by Mr Power that he does not know why he has been suspended, full details of the reasons are contained in the two page letter that was given to him at our meeting with him on the 12th November 2008.

rico sorda said...

35 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF A REPORT ADVISING THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ON MEDIA-RELATED MATTERS:
Question

In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?

Answer

In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:

That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
That the public were presented with accurate facts.

The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.

Gris ventre said...

Rico

you truly deserve an award for your hard work and persistance

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

ILM says.

“The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.”

Here's the bit where he is correct.

"was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police"

Yes Matt Tapp was called in to advise the Police, then was sent off with a flea in his ear. It was the bit where he was subsequently commissioned by Bill Ogley and Frank Walker that ILM forgot to mention........if he knew!

Anonymous said...

Please people, copy and paste this to as many people as possible. This is the most disgusting thing I have ever read. Not only did they distroy the integrity of two good honest police officers trying to expose the truth but, they also distroyed the victim survivors rediculing them at every oportunity. Rico, words fail me to express my gratitude to you and VFC for your relentless hard work. I will spread the word far and wide.

Lenny and Graham, I am so sorry for what has happened to you both. This is truly sick, please keep fighting to clear your names. Sometimes, I truly wish that I had never come forward to give a statement!!

Ian Evans said...

More DISGUSTING FAILURE C/O Jersey Governance!

Anonymous said...

Rico, can you publish the rest of Operation Tuma? It would be good to know what else is in it? Lenny mentions paragraph 5.4 but it is not shown. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

State Media played their part in keeping truth away from public eyes.

The use of the term historic abuse PR exercise to undermine and reinforce the idea this was an old case we have moved on.

From where I was looking the only people talking about moving on were those running the Island.

"News is what someone does not want you to print - the rest is advertising,"
Randolph Hearst

Thank you Rico for sticking to your beliefs.

Ian Evans said...

Scotland learn from Jersey....Robert Green FOUND GUILTY using the same methods as the Syvret trial!!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rico. I don't have the tiniest clue how these clowns will attempt getting out of this little lot. Well done.

KC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2010/10/13/suspension-of-police-chief-was-justified/

I wonder how long these articles stay online for?

rico sorda said...

"Lenny and Graham, I am so sorry for what has happened to you both. This is truly sick, please keep fighting to clear your names. Sometimes, I truly wish that I had never come forward to give a statement!!"

Hi Anonymous,

Giving you're statement was absolutely the right thing to do. Please stay strong. There is a long road to go yet we will not give up the fight. What worries me the most is that the actions that I'm exposing here are exactly the same actions that led to the Abuse going undetected over many decades.

Have they not learnt anything..

"Rico, can you publish the rest of Operation Tuma? It would be good to know what else is in it? Lenny mentions paragraph 5.4 but it is not shown. Cheers"

The first part of Operation Tuma concerned Lenny Harpers complaint against Sweeting but as Mr Harper said;

"My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT"

I will be producing it all soon. The reason I put the findings up is that are the main points and to keep the posting short.

rs

Angus Fairhust said...

Holed below the waterline. With pin-point accuracy.

Sir I take my hat off to you. I have follwed this story with great interest from the start and having worked in the upper echelons of Jersey's public administion was always of the opinion, knowing some of the individuals concerned in this 'cover-up' that it was always well within their means to perpetrate such hideous actions.

Now we have the proof.

It is there for all to read in black and white.

Their lies, stupidity and sheer hubris will be forever remembered.

Frank Walker, Bill Ogley, Andrew Lewis, David Warcup, Mick Gradwell and Matt Tapp - hang your heads in shame.

Our media have failed us. They got too close, failed to keep safe distance and either through sheer laziness or downright complicty, will be judged similarly.

Now I and others would like to know what role our judiciary had in this sickening folly?

The Committee of Inquiry beckons.

God speed.

Thank you rico sorda, VFC and Stuart Syvret.

rico sorda said...

"The report which certain politicians and elements of the local media have repeatedly been claiming proves Harper and Power fouled up at their jobs in relation to the abuse enquiry, in fact claims nothing of the sort"

Operation Rectangle under Power & Harper was not perfect. Theres no such thing as a perfect investigation. This is even more so when you take into account the size of the SOJP and the pressure they were working under. The Met and there reviews help the investigating force to move forward and make recommendations.

To their cost they found out that Jersey works differently.

What the authorities in Jersey did was disgusting. That is why the Metropolitan Police had a huge falling out with Jersey

rs

Anonymous said...

All I can say Rico as jersey man is, that I'm grateful that both my parents and grandparents are no longer here to witness the States of Jersey that they loved and faught for in both war's, sink to such an obvious level of vile and contempt for the honost joe!

States of Jersey, yes including the the parish authorites! You should be ashamed at not only the way you treat us the people, but more diobolicly, the way you treat our children!! You are shameful and beyond contempt! And that is an understatement! You do not represent me or the average Jersey man and woman!

I am so angry!!

KC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rico sorda said...

This could very well be the MATT TAPP REPORT?

Makes sense really.

rs

rico sorda said...

Looking at the quotes from Pitchers and knowing none of this was in the Met Reports it must be Tapps work. It basic stuff as ILM would say.

How crazy if a Chief Executive Officer and a Former Chief Minister commissioned a report that led to the whole November 12th fiasco.

We then have ILM spending a million quid trying to justify the mess caused by a couple of clowns with a media consultant.

Just to make sure Wiltshire won't get anywhere the Solictor General gives David warcup operation blast in June 2009 that will delay things even further and suspends graham power again just for the crack.

Thats how things are here

rs

Ian Evans said...

Let us not forget THIS LITTLE VIDEO and "TWO" child abuse investigations trashed!!!

Anonymous said...

In the CTV interview with ILM at he claims to refer to the Wiltshire report in the serious report to be released?

Andrew Lewis in answer to question from Mr. Pitman 22nd June 2010 He also states they referred to Wiltshire report?

Non specific spin.

Zoompad said...

Thank you Rico for what you have done. This cannot be pushed under the carpet any more now, as there isn't a carpet big enough.

Anonymous said...

31st of January Senator Le Marquand is questions without notice in the States.

Ian Evans said...

Oh JOY!!!

What goes around comes around....NO MAN escapes retribution !!!

Anonymous said...

Rico, can you show us the e-mail you sent to ILM now?

Damocles said...

Lenny - Don't jump to to the conclusion that it was a
"pathetic attempt to portray a letter in the JEP this week as being from establishment crony Roy Boschat".

Just because the Boschat letter looked to be from a reasonably literate person does not rule Boschat out as the author, despite his obvious failings, as seen in the hand written letters published on Ian Evans' blog

The JEP staff do sometimes have to considerably tidy up letters which are originally very poorly written.

Ian Evans said...

Not many comments tonight there Rico?

I guess your readers are in too much shock!!! :)

Deputy Trevor Pitman said...

An oral question to the Home Affairs Minister on this most interesting of revelations has just been lodged for next week's States Sitting. Unless it somehow ends up getting blocked...

Anonymous said...

Soooo, the 'damning' report into the police investigation under Power/Harper that carried so much weight was a dodgy journalists report being passed off as a Met Police report! like Ian says WOW.

Great work Rico - have you thought about a career with the police? Only kidding.

Best wishes

cits said...

"31st of January Senator Le Marquand is questions without notice in the States."

Ahhhhh! "I love the smell of the shredder in the morning."

As Frank the Bat and Golden hand Ogley furiously dipatch another bunch of patsy's to take blame while they shred they way out of history.

Funny. triagic and oh so predictable...

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Ian Le Marquand
Subject: Urgent - IPCC -Met Report

Dear Senator,

You will be aware of the original suspension of Graham Power, the actions of David warcup and the so called Metropolitan Police Interim Report.

Senator, im looking through the questions in the States regarding your answers to the issues surrounding this Interim report.

The reason for this email, and the importance of it, is that I have become aware of some of the findings of the IPCC who looked into the complaint by Lenny Harper. His complaint was directed at Brian Sweeting and the Interim report. I wont bother you with all the issues here as im sure you know them.

I have not gone public with the findings yet - they are staggering.

Senator are you really sure, I mean 100% positive that David Warcup showed you the real Met Interim report? Are you really sure that the persoon who you backed 100% was being honest with you? As we have seen with the Sub Panel review not is all that IT seemed with Warcup and Gradwell.

You will know by now Senator that im dogged and will not give up seeking out information.


Something went badly, seriously wrong on the 10th November 2008


I want to give you a chance of reply before I go public with these findinds

rs


From: Ian Le Marquand
Subject: RE: Urgent - IPCC -Met Report
To: "rico sorda"

Date: Thursday, 19 January, 2012, 16:58

Dear Rico, I am positive that I saw the interim report both in electronic form and in a printed out form. There was a misunderstanding by some people because the form of the document which was provided to Mr. Power by the Wiltshire Police, so that he could comment on it, had been entered into the Wiltshire system and from memory it had a different front sheet attached to it and a different date on the front sheet. This led to a wrong conclusion being drawn by some individuals as to the date of the report and as to whether it was a proper report. I answered questions on this on a number of occasions and would refer you back to these for the details. Ian Le M.

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
Subject: RE: Urgent - IPCC -Met Report
To: "Ian Le Marquand"
Date: Thursday, 19 January, 2012, 22:19

Dear Senator,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will email you over the weekend with a reply to the issues you raised.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
Subject: RE: Urgent - IPCC -Met Report
To: "Ian Le Marquand"
Date: Sunday, 22 January, 2012, 18:10

Dear Senator,

As mentioned in the previous email I raised concerns about the Met Interim report that was quoted by DCO David Warcup on the 12th November 2008 and the serious concerns raised within it I now turn my attention to the - Metropolitan Police Service Directorate of Professional Standards - this investigation went under the heading of Operation Tuma - investigation of public complaint by Mr Lenny Harper.

Operation Tuma covered the alleged 'Interim Report' and the full Metropolitan Police Report

Thanks to the persistent efforts of Mr Lenny Harper, the Met have finally released a report which confirms that the only purpose of their review was to assist in the investigation and that no criticisms were made of Mr Harper. It also appears that there was no 'Interim' report.

What was sent on the 10th of November 2008 was a memorandum by Peter Britton, a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police who was involved in the review. He set out some findings and forwarded them to Mr Warcup.

Here are some of the findings;

Para. 4.36 "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation." "The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

Para 5.2 "Mr Harper claims that DSU Sweeting ignored information given by him regarding ACPO policy reports and criticised his handling of finances, the search, and entry to HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support policy, lack of a gold group, and the finding and labelling of human remains. (Mr Harper) also states DSU Sweeting criticised Mr Harper's use of terminology such as 'shackles' and falsifying areas within HDLG such as cellars."

5.3 "Having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper. The report is a fact based, objective review conducted by a highly experienced SIO that produces recommendations for the now SIO. As in any review, and the purp[ose of conducting one, areas of vulnerability are highlighted for learning and are given to assist the current investigation to move on."

rico sorda said...

Senator, we know from the Independent Report prepared by Brian Napier QC (paragraph 45 and elsewhere) that the Solicitor General advised that there could be no basis for action against the Chief Officer if the 'interim' report from the Met contained any provisos or caveats. We also know from Napier (paragraph 69) that the 'interim' report was in "heavily qualified terms"and did not therefore meet the requirements of the legal advice of the Solicitor General. David Warcup, following discussions with government representatives , prepared what was claimed to be a summary of the Met Report which omitted any referance to the provisos and caveats.

When Brian Sweeting interviewed Lenny Harper and Andy Baker from ACPO in late November 2008 he denied all knowledge of an Interim Report or of one ever being sent. He is now vindicated regarding this issue.

Senator, I think you will understand the gravity of the MPS findings.

What happened on the 10th November 2008?

This is so serious. The implications as you will be aware are huge. A Chief Of Police was suspended from duty on the 12th Novemeber 2008 in the middle of a Child Abuse Investigation for what reason exactly? I have been through every question you have answered regarding the Met and their reports and your answers don't stack up. This is why I've contacted you, and offered you a chance of reply.

Why did David Warcup & Ministers lie about the Met Report? Claiming that it criticised Lenny Harper or Graham Power?

Was David Warcup and others being honest with you Senator? What did they show you once they had found the keys to the safe?

There are many issues concerning the actions of David Warcup & Mick Gradwell. I don't want to go over them right now but will do over the coming days.

Im very interested in hearing your views. You might support my line of investigating and reporting or you might be one of those who still clings to the view that the Jersey Authorities are fine honest folk who are not engaged in any sort of cover-up.

What we are talking about Senator is not the image of Jersey

We are talking about Child Abuse. Child Abuse that happened in the Care of the States of Jersey. We are talking about the actions of David Warcup, Mick Gradwell and others during a live investigation.

I believe you made serious mistakes with the handling of the Wiltshire Disciplinary Investigation. Your position must now be made clear. You still have a chance to redeem your standing if you make the right choices. Did you know about the true findings of the Met reports of November 2008?

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

Rob Kent said...

Brilliant work, Rico! You are finally uncovering the festering, rotten truth about what happened.

These guys are worse than Watergate in their brazen abuse of power to subvert a live police investigation.

It is completely shameful how the judiciary and the media happily went along with the conspiracy when anyone with an iota of common sense and morality could sense that the whole government/Warcup line was based on a big lie.

Anonymous said...

It is now very important that the entire operation tuma report is put into the public domain.

It is also vital that whatever ILM thinks he saw that might be construed as the 'interim met report' is placed in the public domain.

It is also now essential that the Matt Tapp report is released in full for public scrutiny.

And to that list I would also add David Warcup's letter to Bill Ogley in which he effectively outlines the reasons for GP's suspension.

By whatever means these documents must be made public so that we the tax payers of jersey can finally understand the truth surrounding the suspension of Graham Power, the subsequent trashing of the investigation and the local media's role in actively supporting the governments official line.

And for good measure it would be helpful if the case files of the 11abuse cases that were dropped by the AG could now be passed to an independent UK QC for re-examination.

And that independent QC should be asked to give eveidence at the COI.

ex-pat Donkey said...

Rico,

Towards the end of your posting you say "im not an Investigative Journalist".

Sir, you are mistaken.

Good work.

Anonymous said...

When is “criticism” not criticism?

The term is defined as meaning:

“1. the act of passing judgement as to the merits of anything.
2. the act of passing severe judgement; censure; fault-finding.”

Whatever definition used, these days, it usually includes a reference to the passing of negative judgement, or the making of adverse comment.
It may well be that Mr Sweeting's report did not, within that definition, overtly “criticise” Mr Harper and the conduct of the investigation. However, the reference to:
“ areas of vulnerability are highlighted for learning and are given to assist the current investigation to move on."
would suggest that Mr. Sweeting's “fact-based, objective review” did highlight such areas of weakness, or vulnerability – presumably in the areas listed by Mr. Harper – and included mention of them as a guide to assist the ongoing, or future investigations. Referring to these comments as not being “criticism” could be regarded as sophistry on the part of D.I.Surman.
It is possible for a document which seeks to offer such advice and guidance in this way to be interpreted by some (e.g. Mr Warcup, Deputy Lewis et al), since it mentions areas of weakness, or vulnerability, as condemnatory and by others, since it contains no overt, or direct criticism, as exculpatory. This latter could be the view taken by D.I. Surman.
For example. Mr. Harper claimed that he was criticised by Mr Sweeting for, among other things, the “lack of a gold group.” Mr Harper, himself has acknowledged that a Gold Command Group was not set up for Operation Rectangle and has given reasons for this departure from normal practice. It could be that Mr. Sweeting's review mentions the advisability of having such a group, or simply points out that none was established, which statement Mr Harper views as criticism, but which the Metropolitan Police and D.I.surman regard as “assistance.”
The only way anyone can make up his, or her mind as to the true nature of Mr. Sweeting's review, is to study the entire report. Is there any chance that Mr. Sweeting's report will be made available for such study and analysis?
It is impossible for anyone to judge based on three brief extracts from what is obviously a much lengthier document.?

Anonymous said...

Matt Tapp 7 At last! The fog is beginning to clear!

Still confused though re. Wiltshire.
Where do they state categorically that there was NO enterim report.

L Harper was not discredited in the Wiltshire report,BUT,was G Power?

ANd what of that famous expensive retaurant meal...was that NOT a criticism from Wiltshire?

xJHB

Anonymous said...

You must to go to the Nationals on this or the Pax?

Anonymous said...

I am confused!

Lenny Harper complained to the Met and later to the IPCC that Sweeting's review “criticised a number of areas of the investigation.” specifically that Sweeting “criticised his handling of finances, the search, and entry to HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support policy, lack of a gold group, and the finding and labelling of human remains. (Mr Harper) also states DSU Sweeting criticised Mr Harper's use of terminology such as 'shackles' and falsifying areas within HDLG such as cellars."

To make formal complaints, Lenny Harper must have seen Sweeting's review and must have come to the firm conclusion that it was critical of him (Harper) in those specific areas.

Surman's response is that “it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.”

If that is the case and Sweeting's review contained no criticism of him and his handling of Operation Rectangle, the question has to be: What led Lenny Harper to complain about it in the first place?

Presumably Lenny Harper still believes that Sweeting's review was critical of him and his handling of a number of areas. Surman's response doesn't withdraw, or negate Sweeting's comments, whatever they were; it doesn't disprove the existence of Sweeting's review; it just interprets it differently from Lenny Harper.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the whole thing is that Sweeting's review is open to differing interpretations as to whether it is, or is not critical of Lenny Harper and his handling of Operation Rectangle, with Lenny believing that it is and Surman believing that it isn't.

So a review, which Lenny believes to be critical of him and his handling of the HDLG investigation still exists. And if Lenny Harper believed that this document was indeed critical of him and his conduct, it follows that Warcup, Lewis, Ogley and Walker also, and perhaps with some justification, believe(d) that the very same document was indeed critical of Operation Rectangle, Lenny Harper and, by association, Graham Power. Both sides believed the same thing about the same document.

Therefore, rightly, or wrongly, Surman's official response to Lenny Harper's complaint does nothing to remove what Warcup, Lewis, Ogley and Walker can claim justified their actions.

Sorry, Rico – but as long as Lenny Harper maintains that Sweeting's review did criticise him and the way he handled Operation Rectangle, your case, based on a belief that Surman's response indicates that nothing was wrong with the investigation, crumbles.

Surman doesn't indicate that. He only indicates a difference of opinion as to whether Sweeting's review was critical of Lenny Harper, with Lenny maintaining that it was and, ironically, thereby supporting the case of those responsible for suspending Graham Power.

Anonymous said...

A full independent and public committee of enquiry is needed into this whole affair which requires, by force of law, witnesses to be summonsed and give evidence on oath.

Nothing less will do and I call upon all those decent politicians to get the ball rolling in that direction

Very well done Mr Sorda.

Anonymous said...

And whilst Warcup, Walker, Ogley et al were stitching up Graham Power and Lenny Harper, Gradwell was stitching up the abuse survivors.

Fact: Gradwell made it clear to victim survivors at a meeting held 19 March 2009 that he did not ask to come to Jersey, that he did not want to be in Jersey and that he just wanted to get off the island as quickly as possible and that meant closing the abuse investigation down pronto.

Fact: Gradwell informed victim survivors that they might as well drop their cases because they were never going to get to court.

Fact: Gradwell invited selected victim survivors, (some of whom had never stayed at HDLG) to the police station where he showed them items of evidence found at HDLG. It would appear that he was trying to intimidate the victim survivors and at least one of them walked out telling him that “this was a stitch up”. This was done during a live investigation and this action could have rendered those items of evidence as inadmissible in a court of law.

Fact: Gradwell exhibited those same items of evidence found at HDLG in a television interview, although, it is now questionable that those items were the very same that were found at HDLG initially. The same can also be said for Jar6! Again, this was done during a live investigation.

Fact: Gradwell along with Warcup destroyed evidence found during the dig at HDLG.

Fact: Gradwell leaked highly confidential information to David Rose, a well-known journalist who appears to openly support child abusers.

Fact: Gradwell and his team went to great lengths to contact as many people as possible who went through the Jersey care system right up to date and who had not previously come forward with complaints. Of those that did make complaints and gave statements, none to my knowledge were ever fully investigated and their cases were closed.

Just a few of many more FACTS:

Attorney General William Bailhache tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.

Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG was Justified.

Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions and a Still-born Baby at HDLG.

Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many suspected Human Bone Fragments.

Police Had Intelligence of Children ‘Not Being Seen Again’.

Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains.

Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths still unresolved.

ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.

The Successful Prosecutions were all the work of Lenny Harper and his Team.

There are many serious suspects still at large. Gradwell and Warcup failed to bring them to Justice.

rico sorda said...

"To make formal complaints, Lenny Harper must have seen Sweeting's review and must have come to the firm conclusion that it was critical of him (Harper) in those specific areas"

One must really try and take themselves back to 2008 when going through this. What is missing is the vibe of what was happening at the time. Walker had made a fool of himself his ego wanted some pay back.

I believe Lenny made his complaint because of what happened in and around the suspension of Graham power. Warcup was saying the Met were critsing Operation Rectangle and he and Andy Baker weren't even interviewed.

The real big issue is what happened to Matt tapp when he walked out of Graham Powers Office. What the hell were Walker and Ogley thinking. November 12th 2008 was what they were thinking. Graham Power was on holiday - that is why the suspension notes were drawn up before the 10th November.

They used the Met's name to give the suspension an aair of justification when really it was just Watrcup, Walker and Ogley along with the Tapp report

If you suspened a Chief Of Police you don't do it because osome recommendations you don't do it because of critiscms you do it because of what Ilm and gang were saying

Very serious issues

Where are they?

rs

Anonymous said...

I made the complaint against Sweeting because the world and I were being told by Mr Warcup, supported by Gradwell, Andrew Lewis and others,that he had criticised me for my financial management, entering and searching HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support, lack of gold group, labelling/finding human remains,using the term 'shackles', and calling areas 'cellars.' The Met report to the IPCC makes it clear these criticisms do not exist at all in the Met report, interim or otherwise? It further states the report was neither "critical nor damning." Is that not pretty clear and absolutely contradictory to the rubbish being put out by Warcup, Gradwell et al? Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

I should add that I never, and still have not, seen Sweeting's reports. Even a copy of my statement was refused to me. Lenny Harper

Zoompad said...

"You must to go to the Nationals on this or the Pax? "

Paxo, yes, because he was repremanded over the Frank Walker Newsnight episode!

Anonymous said...

Senator Le Marquand must step down
along with a few others the people
of Jersey should have there say and must have say.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, in answer to another comment, not having ever seen the Sweeting report or the so called interim report, I do not know if or what criticism of myself is in there. I would be surprised if there was none. I would also be the first investigator to have ever had a case reviewed and no criticism made. However, if the Met are to believed in their report to the IPCC (and why wouldn't they be/) then the specific criticisms which Warcup et al said were in there, and which they used as the excuse to suspend Graham Power and attack me, are not. The IPCC report specifically mentions those criticisms and said they were not made. Neither were the reports damning. It is this fact, the non existence of criticism which Warcup and others claimed which is the real issue. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

Wow ! Incredible work RICO. You've come a long way mate.
I am almost ashamed to be a Jerseyman. Keep it up.

Rob Kent said...

Re, "I am almost ashamed to be a Jerseyman. Keep it up."

Rico is what IS good about Jersey. If only the government of Jersey lived up to character of its people, we'd all be patriots.

Anonymous said...

Rico, this is the most damning part of your posting and is slipping under the radar. Can you do a posting on this. Do you know that what you have posted below is 100% right. If it is, then you have opened a most serious can of worms. This report ended up in court and you are saying it wqs commissioned by the states of jersey.
1. In August 2008 Tapp is contacted by DCO Warcup



2. Came to Jersey on August 5th 2008




3. Was contracted in September 2008



4. started some work



6. Had a meeting with Graham Power on the 8th October. Graham Power disagreed with Matt Tapp - Tapp position as consultant advisor to DCO Warcup was no longer tenable. He informed David Warcup & Mick Gradwell of the fact and made arrangements to leave the Island.





WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS BOTH STAGGERING AND SHOCKING



7. Later that day at the request of Chief Executive Bill Ogley, he attends a meeting with BO and former Chief Minister Frank walker. From the result of that meeting ,and email correspondence,he agrees to produce a report for the STATES OF JERSEY.



8. There is only one MATT TAPP Report. This is the one quoted by Judge Pitchers and commissioned by the STATES OF JERSEY not The STATES OF JERSEY POLICE

GeeGee said...

I really do not think the 'nationals' are able to touch these stories. I seem to be aware of a D-notice on any stories connected with the whole child abuse investigation.

I wonder why? This is why we must get the message out as far and wide and to as many people as we can by whatever means we can.

Anonymous said...

Scrutiny HA P30


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
Do you not think the issues are getting conflated, Mr. Minister? Because what we are seeing is you are saying that some documents that are germane to the suspension and the disciplinary issue, you want them to be put before the States and, presumably, the whole idea of that is that the States will make some kind of assessment of these documents. But, surely, that suspension of disciplinary procedure should come to an
end on the basis of correct procedure and then we should look at this appointment.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Absolutely
.
The Minister for Home Affairs:

That may well be so. Can I handle this very simply? As I understand it, the concerns that are being expressed by individuals are not in relation to the competence of Mr. Warcup, per se, or to his ability, per se. The sort of concerns which have been expressed are in relation to the role which he played in connection with providing
information to the former Minister for Home Affairs which then led on to the initial suspension process. That is my understanding. If I can put this very simply in the vernacular, as I see it, there are 2 possibilities here: there is the possibility that he exaggerated things, that he had made things up, that he had some motivation for so doing and that he is effectively a snitch. That is not my opinion but that is effectively,
if I may put it, where people are coming from who have a concern; I think that is not unfair. The alternative possibility is, of course, that he was fullyjustified, that there were serious issues that he, in fact, had advice from the Metropolitan Police which fully backed this up and that his concerns are justified and have been backed up by the outcome of the Wiltshire Police. In which case, he has done his duty as an officer, a
painful duty, but nevertheless a duty of a senior officer discovering that things have gone seriously wrong in termsof bringing that to the attention of the officer’sseniors.

That, it seems to me, is the crux of the matter and the crux of the concerns. Am I
being unfair or are there other issues?

Anonymous said...

Why was Graham Power suspended?

Why was the child abuse investigation closed?

Who is responsible?

The answers given have proved to be not justified.

Anonymous said...

HANG ON HERE..............

you are telling us that the States of Jersey under the CEO and Chief Minister commissioned a report that was used on the 12th November 2008 to help shut down or trash a child abuse investigation that had happened to children in the care of the states of jersey.I refuse to believe that even on this Island this couldn't be allowed to happen. Someone please ask le marquand in the chamber if this is true. If it is true then our rule of law really is broken..

Ian Evans said...

State Media's REPORTING on Rico's Investigation?

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to understand the issue here, I think I'm getting it, but perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong:-

If there was no Met Interim Report but the one purported to be so was a 'report' by a Media PR person called Matt Tapp who did so when acting for the two people who claimed they were the government! who in turn received their orders from the big BOSS!!

Surely if this was proved to be true, it should be national news, as an example of how to shaft Jersey internationally.

Anonymous said...

No wonder Phil B so want's an independent Jersey! He and the old guard could do with us as they wished couldn't they, with no questions allowed, and no superior authority to have to account to!

rico sorda said...

The Metropolitan Police Reports and the Tapp Report are not the same.

I will explain it an interview I should be giving at the weekend

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, I thank you for your steadfast determination and courage to seek out the truth.

Your persistence has really paid off. And what a bombshell this latest blog is.

I sincerely hope that all those responsible for perpetrating and supporting this corrupt and shameful episode of deliberate malfeasance will now have to face real justice...administered from London.

There is no way they can cover this one up and nowhere they can run and hide from it now! The truth is out, and just like the genie, it cannot be forced back into the bottle.

Thanks also to Stuart and VFC for their tenacity in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me where to see a copy of the redacted Witshire report

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Congratulations Rico - a target has been hit. You have attracted a lawyer-troll.

An American lawyer once said to me, 'you can tell which side is right - and which is wrong - in litigation - by looking at the complexity of their respective arguments. Those in the right, will make their case simple - those with the very weak case, will over-complicate and obfuscate.

You see a text-book example of just such obfuscation - and not a little desperation - in the cobblers submitted by the reader who comments at 12.02.

That reader says:

"To make formal complaints, Lenny Harper must have seen Sweeting's review and must have come to the firm conclusion that it was critical of him (Harper) in those specific areas.

Surman's response is that “it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.”

If that is the case and Sweeting's review contained no criticism of him and his handling of Operation Rectangle, the question has to be: What led Lenny Harper to complain about it in the first place?"

No, Lenny did not have to see Sweeting's review.

Lenny - just like the public of Jersey - just like the survivors - just like the national media - and just like the international media - was fully entitled to assume that the secret report by Sweeting contained exactly what the Jersey mafia claimed for it.

Remember - the whole world were told that the review - "the Interim Met Report" - contained utterly damning criticisms.

Criticisms so damning it merited the immediate suspension of a Police Chief - without following due process.

So, not unreasonably, Mr. Harper complained about Sweeting writing such a damning report - without interviewing him, or the ACPO officer - and making wild claims not compatible with the available evidence.

As Lenny and others have pointed out - there is no police investigation anywhere - that could be claimed to be so perfect as to be beyond constructive criticism.

But there is a world of difference between reasoned constructive criticisms - and criticisms that can be described as so damning it merits the public sabotaging of an investigation in a manner that has no precedent, anywhere, in the rest of modern British policing - and the suspension of a police chief.

The central - and very plain - matter here - is that entirely false, manufactured and calculatedly dishonest claims were made by Jersey's oligarchy for the Sweeting review. In fact - no "review" that matched the oligarchy description,and which depicted Operation Rectangle as claimed by them - existed.

There can be no diversion and distraction from the plain - evidenced - fact.

Which is that Jersey's public authorities lied by falsely claiming that a report said things that it did not say.

They lied - conspired to pervert the course of justice - so as to sabotage a child abuse investigation - and manufacture a fake "reason" to suspend the Police Chief.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

What now...

Those that relie on state media will be none the wiser and I've not heard from any states members or indeed heard any swords being readied.

Excellent work, but what now...

Anonymous said...

Dear Rico,

The writer of the post: January 25, 2012 12:02 PM is probably a reasonably intelligent man (my guesses).

My understanding and recollection of this is that the "Interim Met Report" (AKA Sweeting's review?) was kept secret: "oh it is highly critical and damming"

It might be an innocent and honest question [welcome] from someone new to the subject or it might be an attempt to clog your page with fog and trivia [unwelcome].

Anyway -if Power and Harper were not allowed to see the "Interim Met Report" then the posters question is just circular-intellectual Gobbledygook with a fistful of hair-splitting. (classic legal tactics?) -in any event it takes pages to make a rather weak point.

Just it reminds me of some of [establishment fink/troll] "Ade's" posts of "thisisjersey" (but more polite).

Perhaps the underbridgedwellers are leaving the JEP website before the sky falls in :-)

HS

Anonymous said...

Ref my post (If it is fit for publication): "Perhaps the underbridgedwellers are leaving the JEP website before the sky falls in."

Just got to the last published post, January 25, 2012 9:21 PM , and ST.S has clocked it already.

There is just a chance that it was innocent but it did seem odd for someone to go into so much detail at the same time as being apparently not well informed -smelt fishy.

HS

Anonymous said...

Well done Rico. But let us not miss the bigger picture. At the time of the events you describe the island was in the middle of its two-stage general election. The Senatorial and Constable elections for the island's government had taken place on 15th October 2008. The Deputy elections were scheduled for 28th November 2008. The results of 15th October showed a strong momentum against the establishment candidates which if carried through to the Deputy elections could have produced a very different government - certainly a much more open one. The falsehoods of 12th November were a very successful electioneering ploy which successfuly re-elected the establishment party. That cannot be changed. They won. They will do the same again.

Anonymous said...

pitchers is quoting a report in court that was used by the defence council to get some paedos off. the report used was commissioned by the chief executive to the states of jersey behind the former chief of police back. your local media give it the treatment . this report was written by a media consultant who works for the dollar.
you people don't have a chance. great work though.

Anonymous said...

Lets not split hairs here. For 'media consultant' please read 'spin doctor'.

The evidence here strongly suggests that Mr Power was suspended on the back of the words of a hired gun. The public were lied to and the words were give fake legitimacy. Our most senior government officials were not only behind it, they created it.

In my view, this is the most serious scandal to hit Jersey for many years.

Surely Mr Power and Mr Harper are in a strong position to sue the States, Ogley, Walker, Warcup, Lewis and Le Marquand for, at the very least, defamation of character?

They are all very wealthy men after all.

That is one way of getting the truth out to the general public.

Unfortunately, these blogs don't get read by anywhere near enough people.

Otherwise this will be buried, like all the other scandals.

Zoompad said...

"you people don't have a chance"

Well, thats just your opinion. Some of us, though battered and knackered, refuse to give up on justice. Sabrine Dardenne, Margaret Humphries, Stephen Lawrence's parents and many other brave people to numerous to mention also refused to give up hope.

The Lord said to knock and the door will be opened and that is exactly what we intend to keep on doing.

Anonymous said...

Rico or Stuart - contact John Pilger.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Harper challenged the Wiltshire report and has been absolved.
Considering that it was Mr, Power who was suspended,has he also challenged the report.
If Power was suspended due to the alleged behaviour of his deputy then he also is absolved. BUT,as we still dont know why he was suspended......

Anonymous said...

Some interesting choices for definitions of Tuma and why that might have been chosen as a name -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuma

Anonymous said...

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=4390228d79059b4f964a9612424e2e69_StatesAssembly&qtf_teaser:query=AND(bcalcontent.bidxcontentlvl1:%22andrew%22,bcalcontent.bidxcontentlvl1:%22lewis%22)#_Toc212953519

4.3.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
I must push the point. Is the Chief Minister saying that in terms of, for example, precautionary suspension where the issue may hypothetically or not revolve around a very senior person, he believes that if it does revolve around them, the criteria will apply and that it does not take on a much greater degree of seriousness and therefore requires much firmer and clearer action?

Senator F.H. Walker:

I do not disagree with the thrust of the Deputy’s question but I repeat, each such question, each such matter, has to be considered and acted upon its merits and, of course, the advice from the police is extremely important in arriving at any decision.

Who were the police that were advising at the time, was it the police was it pr consultant?

Anonymous said...

The impact of this blog posting is phenomenal when you look back at statements given at the time.

It totally alters the facts when we are unable to differentiate between Government PR (police evidence or pr spokesman)evidence.

On top of that a policeman who Mr. Le Marquand knew was leaking to tabloid during the investigation he was working on at the time.

Daniel said...

Anonymous wrote:

"When is “criticism” not criticism?"

I often in the States pointed out that the Met Report CANNOT be used as a disciplinary report as it is an exercise in assisting people to learn. That is the basis on which people talk to the investigating team. And that is why the Met were very upset at the use to which their report was put, in Jersey.

Where did I learn about what the proper use of the Met report was? From Wiltshire, who make this absolutely clear.

daniel said...

Anonymous wrote:

"So a review, which Lenny believes to be critical of him and his handling of the HDLG investigation still exists. And if Lenny Harper believed that this document was indeed critical of him and his conduct, it follows that Warcup, Lewis, Ogley and Walker also, and perhaps with some justification, believe(d) that the very same document was indeed critical of Operation Rectangle, Lenny Harper and, by association, Graham Power. Both sides believed the same thing about the same document.

Therefore, rightly, or wrongly, Surman's official response to Lenny Harper's complaint does nothing to remove what Warcup, Lewis, Ogley and Walker can claim justified their actions.

Sorry, Rico – but as long as Lenny Harper maintains that Sweeting's review did criticise him and the way he handled Operation Rectangle, your case, based on a belief that Surman's response indicates that nothing was wrong with the investigation, crumbles.

Surman doesn't indicate that. He only indicates a difference of opinion as to whether Sweeting's review was critical of Lenny Harper, with Lenny maintaining that it was and, ironically, thereby supporting the case of those responsible for suspending Graham Power."

Precisely. Thank you anonymous.

My previous post is the answer to this. The point is not to what degree LH and GP's handling of Operation Rectangle was faulty. Of course it was, and the Met report was there to help future investigations.

The point is that the report from the Met was MISUSED by the Jersey authorities, and shamefully and inexcusably, by Warcup. I say "shamefully and inexcusably" because as a trained senior cop he knows what a review of the type that the Met were asked to do can be used for.

I may try and look up some bits in Hansard . . .

A police review of an investigation, of the type commissioned by Warcup, with the approval of Power, can be used to improve the future, it cannot be used to discipline people.

daniel said...

Lenny harper said:

"However, if the Met are to believed in their report to the IPCC (and why wouldn't they be/) then the specific criticisms which Warcup et al said were in there, and which they used as the excuse to suspend Graham Power and attack me, are not.

The IPCC report specifically mentions those criticisms and said they were not made. Neither were the reports damning."

My guess is that the final Met report DID make strong criticisms. When the Surman report says; "there was no damning criticism of Harper" what they mean is that the report should never have been used to suspend Power, or rubbish Harper.

The real puzzle for me is the evidence from lenny, quoting Sweeting, that there was NO Interim report. Only something put together by a civilian by the name of Peter Britton.

That is where we should perhaps be putting more energy.

Paul, Grouville said...

The issue is should our Media by biased or not?

The BBC has a mandate to "report" fairly - very rarely will they investigate unless it is for Panorama or Newsnight so they will report information given to them that they can verify and does not potentially expose them to legal claim. Is Jersey BBC doing this? Personally I say no and would like them to justify their (what appears to be) one sided reporting.

The JEP, CTV and Channel 103 as commercial entities do not have to be unbiased,

There is an argument that as the only regular newspaper the JEP should be unbiased but I doubt there is any Jersey Law or Regulation that says they have to. We know that the JEP has a falling circulation and therefore is more reliant on their advertising revenue especially the £300,000 annually from SOJ so they will obviously be biased towards their paymasters/advertisers.

CTV does have a charter to adhere to but they have nailed their reputation (with an award) to the anti Power/Harper mast and I believe just do not have the guts to come out and say they were wrong. They swallowed the SOJ/Warcop/Gradwell spin and would look extremely foolish to admit their "investigation" was no more than report the script they had been given by the SOJ. Again they rely on advertisers who are majority Establishment supporters so have no wish to rock the boat.

Thats how I see the present MSM position. Will it change? I believe there is no point in answering that question as it takes the power out of the bloggers hands.

I believe the way forward is to have an alternative online Newspaper for Jersey. I'm sure there are people who read the blogs who have the IT/Webpage ability to create an identical website to that of the JEP where the news will be that reported by yourself and all other non MSM contributors. The comment section like here could be incorporated into the new umbrella website.

I firmly believe the way forward now is that all the online bloggers should pool their skills to take on the MSM through one portal. I believe the combined strengths of bloggers like Trevor, Monty and Bob Hill doing a Politics section; You Stuart and VCF doing an Investigate section; Tony doing his brilliant daily articles; Tom with his Jersey History; The Jersey Way with his audio archives with others dealing with current events from uploads from the general public eg written and/or mobile phone capture (picture/video) reports on incidents.

This is the way forward. I'm sure their are (unfortunately) many unemployed former students of Highlands IT courses who have the skills and contacts to make such a suggestion work. The current Political/Establishment situation is maintained because of the apathy of the younger (non)voters. Get them involved in this project. Make them the current affairs reporters (allow easy upload of article written/media; give them a voice in a form they see as relevant i.e. The Internet. I know my thinking is overtaking things but the new websites Google App has to be a must lol!

Food for thought.

Lets beat the MSM at their own game. Lets become Jersey's biggest online News outlet. Then and only then will the truth of how Jersey is run.

Angus Fairhurst said...

When Frank Walker was secretly filmed by a BBC camera telling Stuart Syvret that he was trying to shaft Jersey internationally he must must have been pretty pissed off when he watched it on the box that night.

Similarly when he and his overprotective apes were once again humiliated in front of the worlds media at the now infamous press conference at St. Martins parish hall. That was a bad day!

And then came the final hammer blow in the form of Paxman and Esther. That was a big time national embarassment. Islanders watching could not believe what they were seeing. He made Jersey look insular, secretive and untrustworthy. The fact he wore tinted glasses at night was a major contributing factor.

He had been planning to thrust his golden banana onto the world stage for some time but when the chance came (and in such unexpected and difficult circumstances) he and his pr advisors blew it.

He was damaged politically. He was emotionally drained. He would have been hurting badly and inevitably he would have wanted some form of pay back.

This was not what Frank was used to. Everybody had always said 'yes sir' when he wanted something. That is what he had come to know. It was how he understood the world around him. It was all for him. So revenge seemed only natural.

So the next time you see that dodgy old golden banana flag thrusting in the wind stop and think for a moment what it really symbolises!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous seems to be doing his best to throw fog all around this issue to try and conceal the real important facts. Lenny Harper said he WOULD BE SUPRISED IF THERE WAS NO CRITICISM OF HIM in the reports. He did not say 'serious' criticism. In any review there is always criticism. What the Met report to the IPCC made clear was that there was no criticism of his financial management,search and entry to HDLG,working with lawyers, victim support, lack of gold group,labelling human remains, using the words shackles and cellars. THESE CRITICISMS WERE NOT MADE IN THE MET REPORT!! Warcup, Gradwell etc. said they were made. They lied. Na matter what other criticisms were made by the Sweeting report, the Met told the IPCC it did not include these. That is the important fact anonymous is trying to conceal.

Larry rivers said...

re Paul from Grouville's excellent comment.

Some preliminary work was done on this a while back but if you wanted to meet up to discuss it again I'd be happy to see if it could bare fruit.

There is a momentum now. We should try and sieze it. And some advertising revenue!

Contact rico with an email addy and I'll drop you a line.

Anonymous said...

Mr Le Marquand,unless you can proove other wise, hopefully at the next states meeting,(thats if you don,t take a sickie)that you at least have a little honour left in you,by admitting you are wrong in what you have been saying to the public of Jersey regarding,your fellow Men and Women ie Mr Power, Mr Harper, Mr Syvret,the Abused People and others, maybe you can forget you were once a magistrate who some people looked up to, infact you could blame others and say you were misslead and you have forgoten the difference between right and wrong,maybe age could be used as an excuse what ever,which ever course you choose, you have wasted my vote for you,you have let me down your voters down,your Island down, and perhaps more importantly you have let your learned self down,please do the right thing,reveal the truth reveal the trouble makers make your peace with the people who are victims of the Jersey Goverment,s evil ways take it on the chin,and then free yourself by handing in your resignation.

Anonymous said...

Enjoy it again

Stuart takes over Frank's Press Conference
(actually, Eric's commentary is quite good)
Muppets version

Frank accuses Stuart of Shafting Jersey

Paxman and Esther - good judges of character
Then again, only a complete idiot would take FW's side over SS's!

On a more serious note

Nice summary, March 2008, and what has changed since?

On Sky News - ex Pedo-Unit cop speaks

How CNN sees it
"teeth and bones of at least 4 children"

Cellars or voids?

And finally

Stuart the ex-convict

Zoompad said...

Peter Britton - The only Peter Britton I can think of is the Peter Britton Tobin, who was also called Bible John. The reason I remember him was because he stayed at one of the Jesus Army Fellowship houses, and I used to be a member of the Jesus Army (when it was the Jesus People) but had to leave because of the bullying.

Please tell me that isn't him!

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly I now am at the stage the Wiltshire report is irrelevant.

It was a one sided disciplinary report which has been deliberately misused and spun by the States of Jersey to suit the aims of People who considered the Islands reputation first.

I feel the public have been lied to in relation to this report and I also believe now, that was deliberate, to cover up actions of those who were involved with Mr. Powers suspension and the closing down of the child abuse investigations.

rico sorda said...

I will be going to press tonight.

'8th August 2008'

A date with the most serious consequences for the Victims of Child Abuse and the integrity of Operation Rectangle.

This date is far more important than any report given by the Metropolitan Police.

This is the date

rs

Ian Evans said...

That's not my birthday! :)

Can't wait mate


Word V "creek"

phil said...

Rico, you write

'When Brian Sweeting interviewed Lenny Harper and Andy Baker from ACPO in late November 2008 HE (my capitals) denied all knowledge of an Interim Report or of one ever being sent. HE (my capitals) is now vindicated regarding this issue.'

So HE, the author of the report, had no knowledge of the interim report!! Can this be verified?
If so, GP was suspended on the basis of an interim report whose existence was unknown to the author of the final report...which begs the question

... 'WHY did he not know of it's existence?' .... there has to be a reason ....WHAT have I missed here? ... WHAT is the reason?
I agree with Daniel...answering these questions with evidence may well bear the most fruit.
Perhaps someone needs to ask ILM this at question time in the next states sitting.

Anonymous said...

Sweeting knew some sort of report had been sent. He lied to me. He told the investigating officer as I was not the SIO at the time of interviewing me, he could not even anknowledge the existence of any report as it belonged to Jersey. About as valuable as any of his other statements. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

BBC Radio Jersey, just after 6pm, gave a quick report that Trevor Pitman will be asking Le Marquand to resign, next Tuesday, with an oral question.

This was the only report on this all day.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"It was a one sided disciplinary report which has been deliberately misused and spun by the States of Jersey to suit the aims of People who considered the Islands reputation first."

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the commenter makes a mistake.

Those people weren't considering the "island's" reputation; they were considering their own reputation - and the survival of the wholly corrupt system that they have so lucratively controlled for decades.

When we read The Rag - so often mentioning how the bad publicity was so "damaging for Jersey's reputation" - it's transparent propaganda of the most old and despicable type. It's playing the "patriotism" card. Conning people into thinking the exposure and criticism of our disgusting and criminal edifice of public administration, is some kind of attack on the community and ordinary people.

We should all make an active effort to expose - and stop playing along with - that propaganda.

The only "reputation" the Jersey mafia were trying to protect - was the reputation of the Jersey mafia.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I am getting more and more confused by all this.
Rico you really need to clear this up,and simplify it for simpletons like myself. A YES or NO answer would be sufficient for now.

Was there an interim Wiltshire or not

Was it really the basis for suspending Graham Power.

Lenny Harper has made it quite clear about a whole load of points that Wiltshire,in their main report did NOT accuse him of, BUT, do we know how Wiltshire viewed the conduct of Graham Power.

ILM seems adamant that he has seen the full document.Has he made allegations against either policemen on the grounds of the contents of the full report.
I may be a little naive but it seems to me that with ILM,what you see is what you get. He seems above board and is happy to answer your emails.
I suspect that we will never be allowed to see the Wiltshire document and that the only way forward is for ILM to be taken to task for defamation,but only by Mr. Harper at the moment.

Though ILM claims that Mr. Power is well aware of the reason for suspension,Mr.Power claims that he still does not know. Until such times as this impasse is sorted there is i suspect,no defamation case to answer.

Anonymous said...

The so called interim report was from the Met, not Wiltshire. Two (or three, or four!!) different reports!

Zoompad said...

Lenny, please can you tell us who this Peter Britton is?

Anonymous said...

Met,Wiltshire ???? Only goes to show how confused i am getting.

SteelMagnolia said...

I always said Rico prove Jersey, you bring down the McCanns and you have achieved both. Excellent work on your part. BUT if anyone is relying on Scotland Yard, well Rico they are a lost cause it is they along with the British Goverment who are covering for the McCanns.A sect of Freeemason's who you and I and your readers ALL know cover-up sexual child abuse.

Just a reminder of Kate's words I really hope one day she is made to eat them but I won't hold my breath.

Well done Rico. xx

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2012/01/mccann-jersey.html

SteelMagnolia said...

Rico just to show you, you are on the right track with regards McCanns. Lolita images of Madeleine by Tony Blair photographer Paul Grover.

http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/madeleine-mccann-lolita-images-taken-by.html