Sunday, January 29, 2012

MATT TAPP FILES - 9 - THE WAITING GAME






MATT TAPP - 9




THE WAITING GAME




We all hope that Senator Le Marquand will start clearing up some very serious issues this Tuesday.



My past experience with these states sittings is not to get to excited or expect anything explosive. I know he has some explaining to do but lets just wait and see what happens.


On Saturday morning I emailed politicians and the press. I did this for a number of reasons. The main one being that not all politicians read the blogs - by reading my email they would get a good idea of what is going on.



No one has asked me to do this work. I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. I have zero protection with what I do. What  happened to the Abuse Survivors and continues to happen absolutely disgusts me.  It makes me angry, very angry. If we all did nothing then that would be unforgivable.



The work I have done is easy. Why did it have to come down to a member of the public to do this when we have 4 media outlets and countless journalists. 



I reproduce the email I sent to members and the rather strange one I had back



The email I had back,  came from one Deputy Baudains - the Deputy of St Clement.



I have had it confirmed to me that it is in fact the Deputy. I have asked him to confirm this, but as of going to press i've yet to receive  a reply.



I don't really want to discuss the Deputies reply as I believe it speaks for itself 



If it really is from Deputy Baudains then it disgusts me



Lets see what Tuesday Brings



Kind Regards



Rico Sorda




From: rico sorda

Subject: The Politicised Suspension of the Former Chief of Police


To: i.gorst@gov.je


Cc: i.lemarquand@gov.je, A.Breckon@gov.je, "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , "ben queree" , "gerrard baudains" , "cswiseman" , "Jersey Care Leavers Association" , "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "jep" , "Francis" , g.southern@gov.je, "jon gripton" , "roy herissier" , j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, "judy martin" , "m paddock" , m.tadier@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan" , p.ozouf@gov.je, "p.rondel" , "Paul Routier" , r.duhamel@gov.je, "richard rondel" , "sadie rennard" , s.crowcroft@gov.je, s.ferguson@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, "Sean Power" , "steve pallett" , t.vallois@gov.je, t.pitman@gov.je


Date: Saturday, 28 January, 2012, 10:03



Dear Members,


As you will be aware, a number of Oral questions have been lodged for tuesdays sitting concerning the suspension of former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM.


This suspension happened on the 12th November 2008 during a live investigation into decades long abuse in the Jersey Care Homes.



All the evidence is now pointing to this being a politicised act. Now is the time for bravery from all States Members. Now is the time to say enough is enough. 



What was the former Chief Executive to the States of Jersey Bill Ogley  former Chief Minister Frank Walker and former DCO David Warcup doing going behind the back of former Chief of Police Graham Power on October 8th 2008.  Why was the CEO & CM getting involved with police matters?  I find this absolutely staggering. The person we are talking about is an outside media consultant called Matt Tapp. A media consultant, as like most consultants, are guns for hire. You get what you pay for.  Matt Tapp was called in by DCO David Warcup to help the 'SOJP' with a future media plan concerning a press briefing and related issues. After a couple of days down the SOJP he had a 45 minute meeting with Graham Power. From the outcome of this meeting Matt Tapps position was untenable and made plans to fly home. In the world of consultancy work this is no big deal - you win some you lose some. 


What happened next has got to be one of the blackest days in the history of the 'SOJ' & 'SOJP'  I will let Matt Tapp describe what happened - under oath - to the Wiltshire Police.


 This is from my Blog posting. When you get to point 11 you will not believe what you are reading.



1. In August 2008 Tapp is contacted by DCO Warcup



2. Was contracted in September 2008



3. Came to Jersey on October 5th 2008



4. He has a set of TOR's, it was agreed that Tapp would conduct his report in two parts:



. Four days in situ in jersey, with access provided to all media coverage generated to date , all external communications strategies produced in relation to the investigation, and a detailed briefing of the investigation to date, including the substance of key witness statements


. The production, from his office in Cambridge , of a written report in line with the Terms of reference




6. On Sunday the 5th October Tapp flies to Jersey and commenced the review on Monday 6th October, based at the SOJP Headquarters in Rouge Bouillion



7. Tapp reached conclusions about the most appropriate way the SOJP should close this aspect of the investigation publicly , and how to proceed in terms of the external communications around the on-going child abuse investigation



8. Tapp says he shared his results and recommendations with Warcup & Gradwell



9. Tapp was made aware on Tuesday October the 7th by Warcup and Gradwell that Graham Power , had a very strong view about what the force should say to the media about conclusion of excavations at Haut De La Garenne, and this view differed significantly from my own.



10. Tapp made an appointment to see Graham Power on the Wednesday October 8th. That morning Tapp shared his conclusions and recommendations with Graham Power. The meeting lasted 45 minutes and as a result of the discussion Tapps position as consultant advisor to David Warcup was no longer tenable. He informs David Warcup and Mick Gradwell and makes arrangements to rearrange his flights back to England




11. Later that day, at the request of the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey, Bill Ogley, he attended a meeting with Mr Ogley during when they were joined by the Chief Minister. As a result of that meeting , the subsequent correspondence via email, he agreed to produce a report for the States of Jersey with the following , term of reference.



Why is this so serious? Well take a look above. We have a Media Consultant that is no longer required by the 'SOJP' - now being commissioned  to work for the 'SOJ' on matters that relate to a live investigation into child abuse - child abuse that happened in the care of the States of Jersey. This is a total and utter breakdown of the rule of law in Jersey. This is as politicised as you can get. 




The report that Matt Tapp produced was used to shut down certain aspects of the Jersey  Child Abuse Investigation - the report was used at the presentation on the night of the 11th November 2008 by David Warcup & Mick Gradwell to dupe then former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis that is was from the MET- the report was then used on the 12th November 2008 at the press conference given by Warcup & Gradwell  at police headquarters following the earlier suspension of Graham Power. The reason Graham Power had to be suspended in the morning is blindingly obvious - he thought he had sent TAPP on his way - then the report ends up in the Royal Court after being disclosed to the defence  of 3 alleged abusers - Judge Pitchers then quotes the report like it's the lost scriptures of the dead sea and the JEP give it about 20 pages of complete mindless rubbish.



THAT IS ALL EVIDENCED FACT



If that isn't a breakdown in the rule of law then show me what is. This has the most serious repercussions for the SOJ -SOJP-OPERATION RECTANGLE & THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY. 




I will leave you with this question that was asked in the States by the former Deputy of St Mary Daniel Wimberly to the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand in 2010; Look how evasive the answer is. There is no mention of the facts produced above. That is for a very simple reason. If the Senator had come with the real answer he would have simply said "There is a breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey"


This part of the answer has intrigued me ever since it was given. It has proved to the most important part of jigsaw. The jigsaw is now complete; "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."



If you have any questions relating to this email then please feel free to ask.  



The Victims of Abuse deserve so much more than this. The Committee of Enquiry was passed on March 1st 2011 and still they wait. They have suffered nothing but disdain from past Governments this must all stop now. Decades upon decades of decadence must come to an end.



Now is the time for Bravery. If members of the public can show it then so can you. 



( Ask yourself this; Why didn't our Media uncover this?)




Kind Regards 



Rico Sorda


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 opini





Sat, 28/1/12, clifford baudains wrote:


From: clifford baudains

Subject: Re: The Politicised Suspension of the Former Chief of Police

To: "rico sorda" 

Date: Saturday, 28 January, 2012, 18:17


I'm tired of people trying to justify the actions of the incompetent Power & Harper. Trying to dress it up as some sort of political corruption would be laughable were it not so damaging, especially to anyone who was abused. Kindly remove me from your mailing list.


Gerard Baudains




From: rico sorda 

Subject: Re: The Politicised Suspension of the Former Chief of Police

To: "clifford baudains"

Date: Saturday, 28 January, 2012, 18:44


Is this email a hoax?


I email a Deputy Baudains who represents the public of Jersey. Could you please inform me who this is.


Kind Regards


Rico Sorda



From: rico sorda 

Subject: Hoax Email

To: "gerrard baudains"

Date: Sunday, 29 January, 2012, 10:29


Dear Deputy Baudain,


I believe someone is spoofing your email. I received a ridiculous email yesterday evening proclaiming to come from yourself. I have reproduced a copy below.


During my 3 year research into the Jersey Child Abuse Scandal I have faced many types of threats to distract me from my work, even death threats. I have sat and spoken to Abuse survivors and heard first hand their  harrowing stories.


As you will know, the internet has allowed us all a chance to research and investigate. I remember well your work on humiliating  frank walker in the states regarding Harcourt. They thought it was a conspiracy, just complete waffle, but you were proved right.


For that reason alone - I knew that the compete garbage I received last night couldn't be from you.


Here is the Hoax email I received last night; What a sad day it would be in the free world of democracy if a member of the Jersey States asked a member of the public to remove them from their mailing list when they are paid to serve the public.


I will be sending this Hoax email out to all members and the press to inform them what is going on.


You might like to add something.




So there you have it.


£45,000 per annum  for what exactly?



Rico Sorda 



Team Voice


145 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Baudain could not of read the email or you would not of had that reply. You wrote of genuine concerns and if he closes his eyes and ears to that, he is denegrating the job he is elected to do.

Will he be absent for ILM answers to questions because the subject is not suitable or he knows the answers already?



Liberation speeches stir up a storm

Monday 12th May 2008, 2:26PM BST.


ISLANDERS were ‘disgusted’ and ‘offended’ by the speeches made by the Chief Minister and the Bailiff on Liberation Day, according to Deputy Gerard Baudains.

The St Clement Deputy said that his phone had not stopped ringing over the weekend with people calling to voice their anger and sadness at how Jersey’s most important holiday had been ‘hijacked’ in order to blame the international media for embellishing the truth about the Haut de la Garenne abuse scandal.

Deputy Baudains said that many Islanders had called him in floods of tears while others had said that they were close to walking out of Liberation Square during the Bailiff’s speech when he called for an end to the media’s ‘remorseless denigration of Jersey.’


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.



View more: Haut De La Garenne news.







More Links



This is Jersey

About us,


Advertise here,


Contact us,


Privacy & legals





Jersey Evening Post

Accounts,

Anonymous said...

Rico,

What evidence is there to make you think it was a hoax? There are many States Members who are entirely capable of giving such a 'glib' and dismissive response.

Unless there is compelling evidence that it comes from anyone otehr than GB, you have to presume it was sent by him.

The point that arises is that he seems to dismiss all the valid questions you pose because he does not like Harper or Power. But this misses the point. Whether either were 'goodies', 'baddies' or somewhere inbetween (ie human), your questions still need to be answered. I wish you and the handful of 'good' States members good luck in getting answers on Tuesday

Anonymous said...

I think you will find that most States Members are not interested anymore Rico. Deputy Baudain is not alone and you can tell that from the people who never ask any supplementary questions whenever Power/Harper questions arise.

Anonymous said...

That cannot be a hoax but at least you got a straight answer from the Deputy, even though you obvious don't like it and again take it personal.

Anonymous said...

Most States Members are either Ministers, Ass. Ministers, Constables or newly elected states members....

Thats the sad majority!?

Zoompad said...

If this is really from him then it is a disgrace, but if someone is impersonating a politician then that is a criminal offence. Good on you Rico for publishing this.

Zoompad said...

Perhaps Mr Baudain is having his email intercepted, that is of course a criminal offence, although Stafford Police seem to think it's ok for a well favoured well protected troll with a criminal conviction for making death threats to a Jersey politician to do that to an institutional child abuse survivor.

Clemmens Lemons said...

Yes Baudains misses the point entirely because of his existing prejudices.

Let's make it simple for him.

Deputy Baudains, do you think it is acceptable for politicians to deliberately mislead the public, break the law, carry out personal vendettas and to unnecessarily cost the tax payer millions of pounds in the process?

If so then I would suggest that you Sir are not fit for purpose.So do us all a favour and step down.

Anonymous said...

The facts are: "Four days in situ in jersey, with access provided to all media coverage generated to date , all external communications strategies produced in relation to the investigation, and a detailed briefing of the investigation to date, including the substance of key witness statements"
"The production, from his office in Cambridge , of a written report in line with the Terms of reference"

Rico, how do the survivors of child abuse feel about having their most personal and confidential witness statements used by a spin artists hired to denigrate them and the brave policemen who fought for justice? Their own harrowing stories released for this purpose? The survivors will have more to say on this, I'm sure, and they should be heard!

Chelloise

Anonymous said...

The point that arises is that he seems to dismiss all the valid questions you pose because he does not like Harper or Power. But this misses the point. Whether either were 'goodies', 'baddies' or somewhere inbetween (ie human), your questions still need to be answered.

Hear hear,if this is not sorted WE ALL are under the control of Big Brother & could have this system used against any of us in the future as no doubt others have in the past without the ability,funds or nowhow to fight against them.I hope that this is a false email from Deputy Baudins as have always thought of him as one member that would fight/support cover ups such as this.

Ian Evans said...

LETTERS TO LENNY Part 6

Anonymous said...

All States members should be very interested in this. If they are not, why on earth did they become politicians?

Anonymous said...

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.

Pay??? for the RAG!!! not a chance.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"I think you will find that most States Members are not interested anymore Rico. Deputy Baudain is not alone and you can tell that from the people who never ask any supplementary questions whenever Power/Harper questions arise."

That assertions is made quiet often by the troll.

There's an obvious problem with it.

Most States members never were interested - in the first place. So to imply - as the troll does - that most States members at one time were doing their duty properly, but just lost interest because the subject wasn't that important, is entirely misleading.

Most States members - most of the time - hate, just hate, hate, hate - any kind of very difficult subject.

Any controversial matter - that requires hard work, courage, going against the complacent herd, facing up to very serous issues, debating any subject that does not have a nice "safe", JEP-pleasing and voter-friendly outcome.

Which is why all of the immense and pressing challenges that Jersey faces - and the crises this community is in (just for example, the economic meltdown) just do not even receive honest debate.

And of course, even those few members who do try to confront the rest with the serious issues find themselves attacked, or isolated.

But - that said - in so many ways, most people in our community have the government they deserve.

But the vulnerable and oppressed - such as the abuse survivors, deserve protection - deserve justice. Which is why this is one controversy that has not - nor ever will - fade away. No matter how much the average States member would like it to - so they can instead consume days of States time discussing their fantasies such as water divining - under the sea.

But States members are worse than "not interested" in the criminal concealment of decades of child abuse now.

Now, they're angry and fearful - and openly hostile to the subject and those who raise it. And it isn't difficult to see why.

The vast majority of States members - old and new - have, like the troll, 'backed the wrong horse'.

Most of them have not only sat in silence - additionally, they've actively supported the Jersey mafia cover-up.

But - oh dear - the subject just won't go away. And - as a consequence - most of those States members are going to look contemptible and disgusting in the eyes of history, and already look dishonest, cowardly and stupid - given the evidence that has emerged, while most of the elected members of our parliament have sat, mute as tailor's dummies.

So let no one be surprised that most States members hate the subject, and just wish it would go away. Most States members have always been that shallow and inadequate; it's a damning observation upon them - rather than some criticism of those of us, like Rico, who continue to fight for truth and justice.

If most States members do not demand the resignation of Ian Le Marquand on Tuesday - if they do not throw their support behind the protection of vulnerable children - if they criticise and sneer at those members who do do the right thing - and if they fail to meet the challenge of rescuing this community from a now evidenced collapse in the rule of law - two obvious facts will be drawn; namely - we will not be in the least surprised - and - the inevitable historic damnation that is descending upon most States members will be all the more deserved.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

On his website Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains nails his colours to the mast:

http://www.gerardbaudains.com/archives/342

"Oct 31st.
I see in tonight’s JEP that our ex-police chief is, as usual, blaming everyone but himself for the expensive fiasco that was the child-abuse inquiry. Lenny Harper – Jersey’s version of Tommy Cooper – was about the most un-professional copper I’ve ever seen. His job was to find evidence, not be a media PR man – and, to maker matters much worse, he didn’t even stick to that – he embellished everything to suit his egotistical nature. Remember some years back when he coverd the front page of the JEP and alarmed the public with nonsense about ‘machine guns’ in Jersey? One was, according to him, a ’single shot machine gun’. For thosde not familiar with guns, google ‘machine gun definition’ and you’ll see what an idiot he was.
Anyway, Lenny Henry was running the investigation and was completely out of control. But he had a superior officer – a certain Mr Power – whose duty it was to keep Harper under control. He failed. So it’s no use blaming others, Mr Power – it was YOU who failed – and cost taxpayers a fortune. You should at least have the decency to shut up."

Come back Ann Dupre, all is forgiven!

Anonymous said...

I think you will find someone has an obsession with telling you they are not interested in this, despite so much daily evidence to the contrary. That someone likes to repeat rubbish about no one in the States being interested either, despite the millions the States spent trying to cover this story up. Not interested? Not one person can believe that. Not the abusers, the abused, the cover-up merchants, the corrupt, or the bloggers and their many readers.

Anonymous said...

Gerard "Sour Grapes" Baudains doesn't seem to like Constable Simon Crowcroft or JEP journalists either! On the plus side, at least we know who spoilt his paper recently (see below).

Whatever his opinions, his language is anything but parliamentary and is clearly a breach of the code of conduct.

http://www.gerardbaudains.com/archives/358

(excerpt below)

"Nov 22nd 2011.
How very sad for Jersey.

The driver for change in the States is the Privileges and Procedures Committee who, amongst their long list of responsibilities, have a remit to bring forward proposals for changes to the machinery of government.
For that reason I was hoping to become the Chairman of the Privileges & Procedures Committee. Sadly, I didn’t get it. The two front runners (Gallichan, Connetable of St Mary and Crowcroft, Connetable of St Helier) were unlikely to make any real change so I’m doubly disappointed, as the chance to reform, get government working properly and regain public support has been thrown away. The Connetable of St Helier finally won the ballot. As he never turns up to meetings, it’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.
My fear is that it will be such a shambles that ultimately there will be calls for the UK to take over the running of Jersey. I can see a vote of no-confidence being required in the not too distant future.

Sadly, too, the States are again being belittled by journalists who are either not up to the job or have an agenda of some sort.
Recently, two have been making much of the ’spoilt papers’ that were in the ballots for the various positions (ministers, chairmen ,etc). If only these journalists understood politics and stopped whipping up public anger over trivial matters we would all be better off.
They tried to make out that States members are so incompetent they can’t even write a name on a ballot paper without getting it wrong. It’s actually the journalists who are thick. I’m told the ballot papers were spoilt because on a couple of occassions a member had written ‘neither’. So I ask these semi-intelligent hacks – what would you do if you were faced with a ballot between two people and you had not the slightest confidence in either? The only alternative – as I did on one ballot – was to put the ballot paper in the waste basket.
However, I – unlike those journalists – can understand a member’s frustration when there are perfectly capable members available for a position but either they haven’t put themselves forward – or, in the case where I dumped my paper – have been excluded early on in the balloting.

...

And now for a warning – if members think that by voting the Connetable of St Helier in as chairman of PPC will ensure ’business as usual’ I have bad news for them.
The phrase ‘p*ss*ng into the tent instead of p*ss*ng out’ springs to mind."

Anonymous said...

Rico,

I thought the word Shyster was just made for ILM and his cohorts.
Baudain lol.

but HUBRIS.je - What a fabulous word with so many ugly connotations ! - I have never known so many bases to be covered so succinctly and a perfect match for the action and effect that you have highlighted.

Of course it was obvious to any with over half a brain with just the most basic of revue.

The critical thing about "plausible deniability" is that it must be plausible -Doh !

ILM has done a passable job of juggling these steaming t**ds but thanks to your work (Rico) at least one of them is already amongst the fan blades !

I wonder if God will send Ian Le Marquand a mysterious lower intestinal infection on Tuesday.
ILM's god has done this in the past when the indefensible needs defending.

Does "Jon" mean toilet ?
mysterious movements !

btw. Has anybody seen the emperor's clothes ?

Anonymous said...

Is it really necessary to slag off Gerard Baudains for just having a view?

rico sorda said...

"Kindly remove me from your mailing list"

Sorry Deputy, you are a paid representative from the funds of the Jersey Taxpayer.

I do this work because I want the truth for the Abuse Survivors.

Its not easy doing this. I have no protection from the feudalists.

This work must be done until the end

Then I can get on with my life

It can be very stressful - but onwards we go

rs

Anonymous said...

Is it really necessary to slag off Gerard Baudains for just having a view?

Welcome to the 21st Century. Where the internet helps to shine a light into areas where paid politicians had previously been able to hide. And perhaps more importantly are held accountable by the very same people who pay their wages.

Deputy Baudains should know that. And if he didn't then he's probably better off doing some voluntary work in the parish and stepping down as a states member.

Anonymous said...

paid representative Baudains: "Kindly remove me from your mailing list"
Is this the States Member equivalent of the toddler putting his hands over his ears and screaming when he is told not to soil himself ?
-oh bless !

commenter says: "Is it really necessary to slag off Gerard Baudains for just having a view? "
Well this is a big deal involving "Hubris" aplenty - inflicted on children over decades, then inflicted upon their protectors.
Hubris which Baudains continues to pedal in the face of the evidence presented Re. yesterday's correspondence:
"I'm tired of people trying to justify the actions of the incompetent Power & Harper." [incompetent, compared to whom* ?]
"Trying to dress it up as some sort of political corruption would be laughable.......," [no not "dressed up" EVIDENCED !]
"especially to anyone who was abused. [EXCUSE ME, BUT HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW ?]

So it is only fair that Gerard Baudains has the opportunity to receive robust feedback and defend, or even modify his "view"

He has flip flopped before,
but in the meantime, what a "member"

*Warcup/Andrew Lewis etc. -can't even organise a cover up in Jersey !

GRRRRRRRR.

Anonymous said...

The Deputy should do what the others do and just click and drag your silly e-mails to the trash bin or mark as spam. who needs lectures about the welfare of children from a prat who has none of his own.

Night.

Anonymous said...

Is it really necessary to slag off Gerard Baudains for just having a view?

Ok so it is allright for Mr Baudain to slag off with on his blog with his view on who is costing the tax payer money.

Rico emailed him concerns as is his right? there was no abuse in the email.

Look at the post Mr. Baudain made on his own blog.

"Oct 31st.
I see in tonight’s JEP that our ex-police chief is, as usual, blaming everyone but himself for the expensive fiasco that was the child-abuse inquiry. Lenny Harper – Jersey’s version of Tommy Cooper – was about the most un-professional copper I’ve ever seen. His job was to find evidence, not be a media PR man – and, to maker matters much worse, he didn’t even stick to that – he embellished everything to suit his egotistical nature. Remember some years back when he coverd the front page of the JEP and alarmed the public with nonsense about ‘machine guns’ in Jersey? One was, according to him, a ’single shot machine gun’. For thosde not familiar with guns, google ‘machine gun definition’ and you’ll see what an idiot he was.
Anyway, Lenny Henry was running the investigation and was completely out of control. But he had a superior officer – a certain Mr Power – whose duty it was to keep Harper under control. He failed. So it’s no use blaming others, Mr Power – it was YOU who failed – and cost taxpayers a fortune. You should at least have the decency to shut up."

Anonymous said...

BBC and JEP 'Boycott' Scrutiny Meeting

Anonymous said...

I have always been fascinated by the behaviour of people who call themselves Christian, so I took the trouble to write a little comment for the thread
www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/01/26/church-to-buy-former-cinema-for-community-centret/
I wove in a bit of local political observation just to keep it interesting (what a devil!), but strangely my comment has not been published yet.

I have been observing the JEP site. They have been goaded into publishing some "off message" posts that probably they would not normally publish.
Over he weekend there has been a developing situation. Initially there was an unusually long break with no now posts be uploaded; the "thisisjersey" website was frozen they must have been unsure what to do - like a rabbit in the headlights. Presumably they were busy having meetings to decide what to do, or being briefed on the same.
Today I have had most of my posts censored and not published so I think that the JEP has re-entered it's pre-election opinion management mode when it is very difficult indeed to get "unaccredited opinion" published and in particular they will not let me reference your blog. By owning the news they own the island.

The electorate think that they choose the government of this island but they are as busy as they are naive and they do not notice that over the months the JEP told them who to vote for.

I saw an apt quote on the web recently: "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is just advertising"
Well done Rico !

IF TUESDAY DOES NOT PRODUCE HONEST AND COMPLETE ANSWERS then we need to get this into the NATIONAL NEWS stream - sadly that may be the only thing that these people respond to -so BE PREPARED TO "TWEET AND TWITTER LIKE CRAZY".

Warcup washes whiter! - scrub it under the Tapp and hide it under the Matt
-nah not catchy enough.

Enough already. below is one of the posts, so far CENSORED by the JEP.
If it is libellous presumably it will not be published here.
Sorry to ramble. -Am I preaching to the confused ?

TITLE: Sodom & Gomorrah
SUBMITTED: 19:48 29Jan 2012
You Christian fundamentalists who have shaped our island and our politics (did I not say democracy?)

ILM & Team Bailache etc. I am surprised that your pious words do not choke you.

Tell me : What is it that you have "builded here" ?

Is it Jerusalem or is it Sodom or Gomorrah ?

and meanwhile your Churches stay mute and morally withered while they give you sucker.

"TO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS" - you lawyers must hate that phrase as it is a legal catch-it-all, not bypassed by political
weasel words and half truths and misrepresentations. - Does God have Tuesdays off ?

The ability of your minds to rationalise your performance is anthropologically fascinating but theologically bankrupt.

Enjoy eternity because it is HOT HOT HOT and I do like to be kissed every day and every night.

;-)

Your shame is my glory,
Lucifer x.

[you DO know how I like to be kissed ! xx]

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
The Deputy should do what the others do and just click and drag your silly e-mails to the trash bin or mark as spam. who needs lectures about the welfare of children from a prat who has none of his own.

Night."


January 29, 2012 11:50 PM

so anon, maybe Wilberforce should have kept quiet about slavery, being white eh.

prat

Zoompad said...

Electoral promises

Anonymous said...

Baudains has done his fair share of 'slagging off'. He reserves particular venom for greens.

Anonymous said...

re: "Have your say (if we let you)"

I have noticed that they simply WILL NOT allow any mention of blogs! A number of times I've tried to write "the truth (or alternative opinions and inconvenient facts) is out there, if you look for it. Try the local blogs"
but they simply won't publish anything like that.

Lately I've had more luck just posting straightforward facts - they seem to find it difficult to ban such things :)

Must be great to be the all-powerful censor - bet it gives them a huge sense of power and self-importance deciding what people read or don't read! I still wonder how some people sleep at night.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Will ILM be in the States tomorrow to answer questions or will he be in the TOILET?

Anonymous said...

Present the evidence.
Let the evidence speak for itself.
Don't antagonise those from whom you are trying to garner support. This is counter productive and damaging.
Telling states members that now is the 'time to be brave' is like a mother speaking to a child who is afraid of going to see the dentist.
Similarly, telling states members what conclusions must be drawn from the evidence can also sound patronising and overly prescriptive.
Present the evidence.
Let the evidence speak for itself.
Let the evidence do the talking.
Don't give them the opportunity to evade looking at the evidence by presenting them with opportunities to disagree on interpretation.

Anonymous said...

re ``Remember some years back when he coverd the front page of the JEP and alarmed the public with nonsense about ‘machine guns’ in Jersey? One was, according to him, a ’single shot machine gun’. For thosde not familiar with guns, google ‘machine gun definition’ and you’ll see''.

Erm Mr Baudain, what does it say about rocket launcher? You being an obvious expert on arms, can you google that and tell us what is says??

Res Nullius said...

The mark of any half-decent politician is to be able to assess a subject with an open mind and, if need be, re-assess it in light of new information.

Baudains, while screwing his salary from the public purse has failed the most basic of tests of his character.

He is there to represent those who didn't vote for him as well as those who did. He has a duty to do so. It is not optional.

I might suggest that his opinion of Mr Power and Mr Harper was so entrenched that he is now unable to look at anything to do with them objectively and dispassionately.

That makes him a poor politician and a weak man.

Zoompad said...

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

I may be right about Matt Tapp after all.

Matt Tapp Matt Quinn

GeeGee said...

Oh Mr Baudains. I am sure you will agree that you were elected democratically as a States Member, and, as such you should be behaving democratically as a States Member.

You have been included as far as I see it on a mailing list of part of our Government, and I fail to see how you feel you can pick or choose when you do, or do not want to be one.

You were not elected to be selective just because you have a gripe. What about those of your constituents who suffered the abuse and subsequent corruption/cover-up that has come from this? You owe them a duty do you not?

Anonymous said...

thank you Zoompad for pointing me to this.
http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/2012/01/none-so-blind-as-those-that-will-not.html

Avoid being waylaid by conspiracy theories,and as Rico has so often stated Follow the evidence

Zoompad said...

Yes Anon, I know, which is why I have been so wary of jumping to the conclusion that Matt Tapp and Matt Quinn are one and the same.

If I were Matt Quinn and I was telling the truth about not being Matt Tapp or having anything to do with MI5 I would post up a picture of myself to clear up the confusion.

Anonymous said...

I think we can get some measure of the man from
climate-crock-versus-gerard

response-to-gerard-baudains-letter

Thinks he knows better than the experts!

Ian Evans said...

AWARD WINNERS AGAIN!!!

Anonymous said...

Rico, is that email 100% confirmed as coming from Baudins?

Ian Evans said...

LETTERS TO LENNY Part 7 - An Explosive Finale!

Word V "ovenbro"

PMSL :)

Anonymous said...

''the Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer waited for independent written confirmation of his concerns from the Metropolitan Police.''

Well he might have waited, but did he get them?


2.15 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding disciplinary action against the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:
In light of the criticism in the Napier Report of the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will the Minister be undertaking disciplinary action against this officer in order to demonstrate consistency, and does the Minister still have confidence in the said officer’s integrity and suitability to continue in office despite his imminent retirement?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
The Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer of Police acted at all times honourably in an extraordinarily difficult situation. Neither his motivation nor his integrity is questioned. Both of those statements I deduce from paragraph 110 of the report. Indeed, the subsequent reports of the Wiltshire Police have shown that all the areas of concern which he raised in relation to the performance of the Chief Officer of Police were fully justified. There were very serious failures by a former Chief Officer and the consequences were very serious. Furthermore, the Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer waited for independent written confirmation of his concerns from the Metropolitan Police. In the light of those major considerations where the Acting Chief Officer is fully vindicated, the criticism of Mr. Napier is very minor, and so my answers directly to the questions are firstly, no, of course not; there is not a disciplinary issue here.

Anonymous said...

Zoompad
looking at the link you gave Matt Tapp worked on the McCann case is misleading. I believe he worked for a tv production company, not a UK police force. PR sort of talking head.

Anonymous said...

And lets not forget this Rico! Anr Independent police officer brought in by the acting police chief to work with BDO Accountants! Not only that but, they had known each other for 25 years, admitted Mr Kellet (the independent police officer) the man involved.

Isn't it odd how all of these old friends of the acting police chief at the time keep popping up in the child abuse investigation, which resulted in Power and Harper being crucified! Makes you think doesn't it?

Zoompad said...

FROM THE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE WEBSITE

Corporate Communication
Matt's role

Matt directs and leads the development, implementation, governance and evaluation of strategic communications, both internally and externally.

He develops strategic, collaborative communications activity with partner agencies in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere and directs all communictaions in relation to critical incidents.

The Force's advisor on all communications activity, he leads a department of 13 people and attends meetings of the Chief Officer Team.

Duties and responsibilities

Matt is responsible for maintaining and enhancing positive relationships between the police and public and with all other stakeholders including employees, staff associations, media organsations, and public, private sector and voluntary sector organisations in order to generate support for, and engagement in, effective policing activity in Nottinghamshire.

He develops and directs the implementation and evaluation of strategic and tactical communications plans to improve operational performance, to enhance public understanding of, and confidence and participation in, policing services, and to improve the reputation of Nottinghamshire Police.

He is the strategic lead for the force on all communications functions including media services, public relations, marketing, e-services, internal communications, corporate identity and image, stakeholder management, crisis management and partnership communications.

He represents the force at a local and national level on strategic communications issues and as Gold Communications Officer in the context of major and critical incidents, he plans and directs communications strategies, often on behalf of several different agencies in order to ensure public safety and to enhance operational performance.

In liaison with other agencies, he designs and tests contingency plans to manage the communications needs of multi-agency critical issues which threaten public safety and the public’s confidence in the police in Nottinghamshire.

He manages departmental and force budgets in relation to communications activity to ensure the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of all communications activity and provides strategic and tactical communications advice to the Chief Officer Team

VERY STRAIGHFORWARD FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT TROLLS

Anonymous said...

The ''written confirmation'' confirms,from the Met police according to ILM as referred to in the Napier report.

(that there were very serious failures by a former Chief Officer and the consequences were very serious,) So the acting chief of police officer must of told Mr. Napier he had, that written confirmation for Mr. Le Marquand to give the answer to the question he was asked. ILM believed his Chief of Police or chose to believe him.

Anonymous said...

Matt Tapps duties and responsibilities
sound really impressive.
Is there anyone out there who can sort through all that waffle(most likely written by him)and explain in laymans terms what he really does.

Zoompad said...

"he leads a department of 13 people and attends meetings of the Chief Officer Team"

If I were a conspiracy theorist instead of an anti child abuse blogger I would say that sounded like a witches coven!

Anonymous said...

Have never attended the States in session.
Have no idea where the entrance is.
What time should i turn up to watch THE entertainment ?

Anonymous said...

Gerard Baudains doesn't actually like children much, one can tell by the way he talks to them. The same is probably true of the fairer sex. An ignorant bully, St Clement is not well served.

Anonymous said...

FYI Anonymous - side door opposite Morier House, top of Halkett Place. Starts at 9.30 a.m.

Be there or be square!

Anonymous said...

Ref. "side door opposite Morier House, top of Halkett Place. Starts at 9.30 a.m. -Be there or be square!"

I (like many I suspect) would like to be there.

But I have a real job -apparently unlike many of our States Members
I need to be there and DO my job, not just pretend to do it.
Baudain?

I look forward to your reports and hopefully positive results for this island.

Regret to be not just square but positively cuboidal !

Anonymous said...

Well done rico. In amongst the Le Marquand waffle there was some excellent pieces of information offered up. The role of the ceo & chief minister must now be fully investigated. This must now be done through the courts in london as your states chamber has proved thats its not fit for purpose.

Anonymous said...

Tapp's report not submitted until 23 nov ...after the suspension on the 12th.
mmmm...

Anonymous said...

Tapp's report not submitted until 23 nov ...after the suspension on the 12th.
mmmm...

That must be a complete lie. What good would it be then. You have them on this rico just keep going. Deputy Valois asked some interesting questions but the audio was a bit naff. lets hope TJW does his bit.

Anonymous said...

The Deputies gave it a good shot. If I could offer one thing that is keep your questions short and sharp. Deputy Tadier was making speeches when he should have been asking quick fire questions. Well done everyone. You move on and keep at them.

Zoompad said...

Is the lack of contract and terms of reference to Matt Tapp also a lie?

Anonymous said...

The Napier Report confirms that the Acting Chief Officer of Police acted at all times honourably in an extraordinarily difficult situation. Neither his motivation nor his integrity is questioned. Both of those statements I deduce from paragraph 110 of the report.

Oh really?

Anonymous said...

Napier deals with the Tapp report...
mmmmm...

Anonymous said...

So who wrote the press release if it wasn't Tapp....
mmmm...

Anonymous said...

Out of interest did Mr Baudain The Deputy of St. Clement asked any questions at all?

rico sorda said...

Ok lets start

Today was just the beginning of a new chapter on this. First up - Senator Le Marquand came up with some complete rubbish today. He was just saying anything that came into his head.

1. I will have to double check but as far as I know Brian Napier has never ever mentioned Matt Tapp or his report. I might be wrong on this but it was a complete new one for me.

2. Senator Le Marquand now says that Wiltshire is a definitive report on Operation Rectangle. This man is off the scale. He can't even remember what it says on page 1 of the Wiltshire Report

3. The questions on Tapp were very revealing. TJW will be going to press a little later with the audio.

4. Today was a classic States questions without real answers. This is why so much can go on in Jersey on any issues without anyone knowing.

I agree with a previous comment about some of the supplementary questions - they should be short and sharp. When you are having to answer the complete garbage ILM is serving up you end up with this situation. They should be commended for getting up and demanding answers.

The worst thing I heard today was from the Chief Minister regarding the Committee of Enquiry. It looks like he has now started back peddling. What is ILM and Senator Bailhache talking about this friday I wonder?

CM Gorst has allowed Bailhache to de-railed the electoral commission if he allows Bailhache to do the same to the COE then it will be scandalous

rs

rico sorda said...

So who wrote the press release if it wasn't Tapp....
mmmm...


Exactly

They have no proper response to the questions so just come out with complete garbage.

rs

Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Le Marquand has shown he will deduce whatever interpretation is required into whatever report he refers to.

State Media, Deputies and Senators are happy to accept his word and have openly proclaimed so.

Anonymous said...

It was astonishing watching Le Marquand on CTV... how can he get away with that?

rico sorda said...

Tapp's report not submitted until 23 nov ...after the suspension on the 12th.
mmmm...


This is very strange. If they are saying Tapp's Report wasn't handed over until the 23rd November what was it purpose? Did Frank Walker & Bill Ogley commission a report just for the defence council of Wateridge, Aubin & Donnely.

Of course not. It made an appearance in time for the 12th November 2008

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

I am fairly certain there is not a single first world democracy left which could endure this level of obnoxious concealment of official behavior without being exposed internationally. Not one. The government of Jersey can not have it both ways, now. Either they are striving for democracy or they are clinging to corrupt and inward facing remnants of feudalism.

It is only a matter of time before the hard evidence from you, VFC and Stuart begins to define Jersey's government shadiness in the eyes of the world. And should the oligarchy launch a serious campaign for Jersey independence, the spotlight should only come back to this scandal more quickly.

The level of interest in this Jersey scandal is surely immense. We don't know your readership level, but Stuart's has skyrocketed in recent days, particularly since your revelations on Matt Tapp. Despite regular comments from a troll obsessed with no one being interested, the facts are clear: you independent journalists have revealed Jersey's unacceptable opposition to normal transparency to a growing international audience, and the facts will never go away.

Who now wants to be the next Matt Tapp, Peter Britton or David Warcup in the minds of a global independent media readership? Wouldn't that risk short term pay checks for long term professional and personal disgrace and even ruin?

Never worry that your efforts have not had the desired effect, or that your facts are not getting out to enough people. In time, you will surely see that much in the name of justice is being done behind the scenes - more than any one of us can yet see.

The days of Jersey media's feudal self containment are truly past.

Elle

rico sorda said...

I can just imagine.

Today was without doubt his best yet. I jest not when I say he was just making it up as he went along.

This isn't a sprint but a marathon

I was laughing today at some of the things he was saying


rs

rico sorda said...

Hi Elle

What today showed is the complete failure of our States Chamber. We had a Minister answering questions with a complete load of waffle and Garbage. The reason they do this is that they can and there is nothing that can be done about.

Its a Chamber of vested interests.

The only place left for our evidence is in a court of law in England and start a process of change.

What people and most States Members forget is that if they can do this to Abuse Victims and a Chief of Police then what else have they been able to do and get away with? We are very insular here.

Some are saying we shouldn't have politicians sitting on the electoral committee

Im thinking that we shouldn't have politicians sitting in the States of Jersey

Those good deputies should never have been treated to such garbage today but thank god they were prepared to ask the questions.

Change will come. It will take time.

What comes after Bailhache?

Thats their problem


rs

Ian Evans said...

Elle hun, England love these scum, they do England's Financial Bidding!!!

Nothing will change at the Courts of Justice either, it's Europe or nothing!!!

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the recordings from today of Question time. You & your reader's can listen HERE

Anonymous said...

If anyone would like any particular audio transcribed I am happy to do it.

rico sorda said...

6 and 14 would be a great help thanks

rs

moral_rightness said...

I have been re-reading the Napier report and bearing in mind the various evidence since. The whole emphasis behind the reasoning to suspend GP, was the assumption by several people that the MET report was going to very bad, but as we now know it wasn't, it must be that both Gradwell and Warcup conned everybody around them.

So if there was no damming Met Report, there was no reason to suspend. But then we had ILM say there were other factors, like finance, but hey that has been blown out of the water, what's left, oh the Gold Group reports but hang on didn't Gradwell sit in on that along with a certain deputy for Ogley (or did I dream that). We have a friend of Warcup, spinning stories that do not match the Met Report but do match what Gradwell had said, but now we are told that was released at a later date.

This bucket has got more holes than the titanic, how is it still afloat, surely there must be some real biggies to come, you know, like the boat of no return!!

90. Against the background of growing concerns about Mr Power’s conduct, the awaited report from the Metropolitan Police became more and more important. It was something that had the potential to provide the objective evidence of incompetence which was lacking in the run up to 12 November, and which the Solicitor General had expressly said (in his notes of advice to Mr Crich of 6 and 11 November) should be present before any suspension took place. Yet it would appear that the administration was actively preparing for suspension some time before the Interim Report was sent to Mr Warcup on 10 November and that those responsible for making preparations for suspension, should the Minister so decide, were making significant assumptions about what the Metropolitan Police report would contain. The first draft of the suspension letter from Deputy Lewis to the Chief Officer and the letter informing the Chief Officer that the Disciplinary Code was to be invoked was the work of Mr Crich on the morning of 8 November. This documentation was sent, with other draft documentation, to the Solicitor
General for comment and advice. The draft letters to the Chief Officer in the version of 8 November refer to the “outcome” of the Metropolitan Police investigation, yet the covering memo to the Solicitor General from Mr Crich makes it clear that this had not yet arrived. The memo also says that this could be “as early as Tuesday 11 November” but it is not clear from the context whether what is being referred to is the arrival of the report of the investigation or the act of suspension itself. Be that as it may, what is clear is that the first version of the draft letters to be used in the event of a decision to suspend were written on the basis that both suspension and the invoking of the disciplinary code were warranted by reference to the content of a report which, at the time of writing, had not yet arrived.

[and eventually proven to not be damming - oh dear]

Anonymous said...

Ok Rico will start now.

Anonymous said...

ITV 6pm ILM slagging the deputies that asked questions.

Ian Evans said...

"SCUM"

Anonymous said...

Ian

That UK is reluctant ( or likely frightened of ) its obligation for oversight in the breakdown in Jersey's democratic governance is extremely clear. Even so, UK has a higher standard of transparency for many of these particular issues, or am I wrong in guessing that fear of European and/or other international discovery could pressure UK to look at Jersey's very well documented corruption once it has assessed the international risks of ignoring it?

As a big fan of English Common Law and a fervent believer that there must always be some legal or constitutional type of guaranteed remedy for this level of exposed criminality in government, I would hope UK would be compelled to fulfill their legally indisputable duty to protect Jersey's citizens.

The UK fallout could be catastrophically damaging if this Jersey cover up continues without resolution, because it involves the BBC, and not just Jersey's culturally feudal government mouthpieces. If the BBC cannot quickly cover its backside by covering the factual evidence in full, their critics and international competitors could have a field day with this. The media is in love with itself everywhere, and as such, covers itself extensively, piling on when competitors are down.

But if the rule of UK law is at all enforceable, the UK should be very afraid of European courts, and even more so, of the fact that outside Jersey, everyone who knows about Jersey from publicly available on-line information would be quickly convinced of high level corruption based on factual evidence. Why would that permanently archived documentation of illegality not ultimately trump the very primitive and easily discredited spin Jersey maintains?

Elle

Zoompad said...

I never did it before but I have started on the second one down, Question 4, Deputy Tadier if thats ok

Anonymous said...

Transcibed Q6 TheJerseyWay

HM Home Affairs DH Deputy Higgins DP Deputy Pitman D? Unknown CP chair person


Question Deputy Higgins will ask of the Minister for Home Affairs.

DH. Will the Minister publish the letter from the, then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to the then Chief Executive of the States, in Nov 2008 which precipitated the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey police and if not why not?

HM. Sir its my understanding that, that letter was a um, previously leaked and appeared on blog sites, and so if the Deputy really wants to find the contents of the letter I'm sure he can a, do that, um but I have to make the decision as to whether it is in the public interest a to release this particular letter, and at the moment I'm not minded so to do, um it's a letter which was considered a, a by the Napier report in detail it was also considered as part of the failed attempt by Mr. Power to overturn the suspension decision made by me, in March 2009, it also makes reference to the Metropolitan police report, and the Metropolitan police have consistently objected to it being used as part of a disciplinary process, if I released a letter then inevitably there will follow a demand to see the, that report and I dont think, that that is appropriate. It reflects sir the concerns of Mr. Warcup in November 2008, however, the definitive report, in matters concerning Mr. Power is now the report of the Wiltshire police, frankly sir I'm not convinced that its in the public interest, to release this at this time, and as I said before if members really want to find it, it was leaked onto web sites some years ago, and they can find it there, but I dont at the moment propose to release it.

DH. Supplementary Sir, I am pleased the Chief, ah the Home Affairs Minister has confirmed that whatever letter is on the blog, is accurate, so I will go and look for it, um but what concerns me about this letter, and the whole process, is the fact, that the interim report of the Metropolitan Police was used as the justification, for suspending the Chief officer of Police, and yet Mr. Sweeting the police officer who was leading the investigation into the review of the case, which again I stress, was not for disciplinary purposes, was not even aware that the Interim report existed, or had been published, at the time, when he spoke with the former ah Senior investigating officer Lenny Harper and Andy Baker from ACPO, ah after its publication, so he knew nothing about it, so this is why its crucial that we get this letter out, and we get to the bottom of this interim report and how it was brought forward.

Cont

Anonymous said...

CP What, what was the question there Deputy?

DH The question is

CP That was just a statement

DH Sorry, it was a statement, yes Sir I'm just saying, does not the Minister agree that until these ah questions have been answered, this, is going to rumble and rumble, and its going to unfortunately, carry on probably for the rest of this session of the parliament, until answers are actually brought together.
HM Sir, as I've already indicated, if somebody sends me the ah independent complaints, ah commission report, and information, which is now being put to me, that the (interim)?or (entry)?(independent)?? report wasn't produced by the officer who was just named, ah if they send me that detail so that I can consider it, I will then go and look again, at the, this will be the third time I'm looking at the documents, but I will go and look again, I I'm much less diffident now about looking at these, documents, ah for the simple reason, that the disciplinary matter now over it was very difficult whilst they were going on, and I will see who sent the email, and it may be that, ah, it may be that it was ah the person whos been mentioned before, Mr. Sweeting, whos sent the email in which case I'm afraid his forgotten what he did, but I'll check it, if people will kindly send me the information to enable me (so to do?)

DH? A point of information to the Minister, it was a Mr. Britton who actually ah signed the report and ah

CP Ah Deputy ?

D? Thank you Sir, um will the terms of reference of the committee of enquiry into historic child abuse, cover these sorts of issues and the issues that have been raised thus far, thus handing it over to an independent person, to review once and for all.

HM Ah thats a matter for the States to decide, um I think its unlikely, that, the Chief Minister will recommend that, as part of the proposition.

CP Do you wish a final question Deputy Higgins oh I'm sorry Deputy Tadier you Deputy Pitman Deputy Pitman

DP Does the Minister not concede that it's a pretty sorry inditement of, of our Government that, people can find out more information about whats going on, by going on t'internet and reading investigative bloggers whatever, one wants to call them and what I'd really like to ask the Minister, given what's been said by the members, does he not think this should actually form a crucial part of the committee of enquiry into the historic abuse saga and that would be a way to get to the real bottom of people under oath.

HM No Sir I think that would be a complete waste of money, we've allready spent a great deal of money on the Napier report ah unfortunately some members wont accept its conclusions in this area, they want a best of three competion if it goes against them next time, they will want best of five and if they lose that one, they will want best of seven

CP Final question Deputy Higgins?

End.

Zoompad said...

It takes ages, and I need to go to bed so here is the first bit and I will do some more tomorrow, hope its ok

*****************************

(12:49) 00:00 Chair: Very well, we come next to a question that Mr Tadier will ask of the Minister of Home Affairs, Deputy Tadier
D. Tadier: To my good friends and the minister of Home Affairs. Can the Minister inform members whether the report written on the 8th October 2008 by an outside media consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former chief executive of the states and the former chief minister and not by the States of Jersey Police?
ILM: Sir, sir, in answering this I think I want to refer it to the named individual, the reason for that is because theres the question of Chief Minister about that individual, he’s named there so I can’t see any problem by my doing that
Chair: If it is essential to make sense
ILM: Well, I think it makes sense
D.Tadier: Sir, can I just add that when it says former chief minister but of course that s two chief ministers ago now
ILM: Ah yes
D. Tadier: so its probably helpful if we do refer to names
Chair: Very well
0:01 ILM: Sir, I will assume that the question relates to Mr Tapp, that ties in with the question of Deputy Higgins, who was a specialist media consultant, who was appointed by Mr Warcup, in order to advise the States of Jersey Police on knee jerk related issues Following a disagreement with Mr Power as to the correct way forward, he resigned. He was then asked by the chief executive Mr Ogley , with the consent of the chief minister at the time, knowledge and consent of the chief minister at the time, Mr Walker, to produce a report, which he did. That report was not available until after the original suspension. The involvement of Mr Ogley in this and Mr Walker and Mr Tapps involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report , and Mr Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr Tapp played or indeed Mr Ogley in this way, and I’m frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time
2:08 D. Tadier: Sir, firstly if I can thank the minister, because actually this, a similar question was asked on the 20th April 2010, and at that time there was an ongoing inquiry so the minister had to be slightly more cagey in the answer he was able to give on that occasion. I suspect, sir, that the reason, that this is being given some import by certain journalists and certain individuals in our islands sir, is because it exactly confirms the fact or the suspicion that actually this was a political act it wasn’t the police chief and that department that actually decided that there was need for the police chief to be suspended, sir, rather that it was decision of the chief executive officer , who, as we know, has now been, if I could say, paid off, sir - I don’t know if that’s an appropriate expression – so, does the minister actually acknowledge, that with so many people having resigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Mr Warcup, who, ostensibly, resigned because he was getting harassment, but actually it could be for other reasons , sir, that actually, this is something that is of political interest – and will the minister seek to give a full statement to the media outlining the timeline and chronology, and actually the reasons for the suspension, sir?
3:30 ILM Sir, so many questions again
Chair: There are only two: was it a political act, and will you make a statement?

Anonymous said...

transcript Q14 TheJerseyWay

CP chairperson DH Deputy Higgins CM Chief Minister SP Shona Pitman
TP Trevor Pitman DV Deputy Valloise

Any confusion please double check against audio on The Jersey Way

CP The next question which Deputy Higgins will ask of the Chief Minister.
DH Thank you Sir, Will the Chief Minister publish full details of the contract, if any, with Matt Tapp Associates ,and fully explain the companies role, in the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, and various news releases relating to Haut De La Garenne, and if not why not?
CP Chief Minister.
CM I thank you Sir. Matt Tapp Associates were commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States of Jersey with the knowledge of the former Chief Minister, on the 8th October 2008 to produce a report with the following single term of reference. To make an assesment of the external communications activity, pertaining to the Haut De La Garenne investigation (Feb 2008 - Oct 2008) This work was agreed by correspondence between the former Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates, there was no formal contract, but Matt Tapp Associates were paid through the usual order invoice process. The Matt Tapp report was received on the 23rd November 2008 which was after the date of the initial suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.
DH Can the Chief Minister confirm though, that the information that Mr. Tapp gave them on the 8th of November was actually used, ah as part of the suspension process, or part of the justification used, as part of the suspension process of the Chief Officer of Police.
CM Sir I find myself in the same difficulty ah as the Home Affairs Minister I'm being asked the justification for the decision made by the previous Home Affairs Minister and whether, the information, what information, was used, in order, to make that decision and assesment as I've said Sir the actual report was not received by the Chief Executive until the 23rd November, and therefore, it seems to me, I dont see how that report can have been used in that initial decision making process.
DH Sir can the Chief Minister, either confirm or look into the very serious allegation that actually, the document used on the 12th November was in fact part of the Tapp report, and it was presented, to the then Home Affairs Ministern Deputy Andrew Lewis, as the Met report, and that actually Deputy Andrew Lewis was misled, and that this is a very serious allegation if it is to be true, its an allegation that actually might result in a, Chief Executive officer having to resign, or even a Deputy Police Officer having to resign sir, so can the Minister either confirm whether this is true or if not look into those allegations.
CM Sir I'm not sure I'm being asked, to comment, on an allegation, coming from, where with relation to a report which was only received by the Chief Executive on the 23rd November which was a good number of days after the decision to suspend was made, if ah the allegation had substance sir, I should of thought that Mr. napier when he reviewed the initial suspension, would of considered it, and therefore, it potentially would of been in his report. I dont recall any comment in that regard in that report sir.
CP Shona Pitman
SP Ah would the Chief Minister, tell members who actually paid the media consultant Mr. Tapp, did it come out of the Police budget, Home Affairs or the Chief Ministers department?

Anonymous said...

CM Ah Sir a very good question, the invoice which I have in front of me was addressed to the Chief Executive approved for payment by the Chief Executive he being the accounting officer of the Chief Ministers department I can therefore simply make the assumption from those two facts, that it was paid from the Chief Ministers budget, sir.
Supplementary Sir
SP Does the Chief Minister know how much it cost, the report cost and if not would he endeavour to provide this information to members.
CM Sir, as I said in answer to the Deputies earlier question, I have the invoice in front of me and therefore yes I do know, I'm assuming Sir the Deputy would like me to tell her? The cost of the report was £2,500:00 before VAT including Vat obviously that comes to £2,937:50 Sir.
CP Deputy Trevor Pitman
TP Thank you Sir, and I hope you're not going to say this is too wide off the mark, but could the Chief Minister liase with his Home Affairs Ministe,r to ascertain whether theres actually, was anothe consultants report, on media (during?) the Met report which actually rubbished a lot of what Mr. Tapp came up with.
CM Ah Sir we appear to be in the, ah what I can of course, ah consult with the Home Affairs Minister but the Deputy is raising issues to which I am unaware sir.
CP Very well, then, Deputy Higgins do you wish a final ah Deputy vallois and then Deputy Higgins
DV Sorry Sir, Could the Chief Minister explain why there was no contract agreed between the Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates please.
CM Um I cant, simply to say it is a small amount, and therefore one would not necessarily have a formal contract as such, however, as I've said it was agreed by email correspondence, I've not been able to, locate that email correspondence but if I in due course am able to do so, then I imagine that, that will give the details, of, the instruction to carry out the work, having said that, of course I've said in my opening answer the terms of reference for that work piece of work was the sole one, which I outlined.

Anonymous said...

Cont
DV Sir supplemetary, sorry can I ask the Chief Minister whether in actual fact its within an accounting officers right to fulfill a service under public administration without having formal contract agreement even though he is budgeting officer, however, being able to be accountable for that, going forward or if the public accounts committee was to pick that up then could he explain to me whether its within policy to do so.
CM Ah Sir the chairman of PAC has a very good point, as I've said I've not been able, at this point, in the short time available to locate the emails whereby, it was requested that this work were undertaken, of course the Chief Executive officer is accountable, PAC are entitled to review all the accounts and question officers upon there duties, with regard to spending, that's absolutely right and proper, and I am obviously able to say today, as I've done that this work was instructed, undertaken and the costs of that work, that is part of the accountability which is right and proper.
CP Final question Deputy Higgins if you wish?
DH Yes thank you Sir. Will the Chief Minister liase with the Home Affairs Minister and publish, both the Tapp report that was comissioned on the 8th of November, and the 23rd November so we can do a comparison because the two, becaue I believe they were one and the same.
CM Sir two points of interest there, and I noted from the order paper, that a previous questioner asked the Home Affairs Minister about a report which was written on the 8th of October, as I said here, the Chief Executive instructed, the production of a report on that day, but that report was only received by him on the 23 of November, therefore I'm not sure to which report on the 8th October the Deputy might be referring when it comes to publication of the Matt Tapp report which was received by the Chief Executive officer on the 23rd of November I shall ask for it to be fully redacted, I understand there might be a, an approval process required, by Matt Tapp Associates but I will certainly endeavour to post that report in a redacted form.
DH Thank you sir. Just a supplementary on that, And just a point of clarification for the Minister in particular, the Home Affairs Minister might be able to obtain the report that was commissioned on the 8th which was the one that was supposed to be for the States of Jersey Police, so if you get both of them, then we'd actually be much further on.Thank you.
CP Very well
End.

Ian Evans said...

"The only place left for our evidence is in a court of law in England and start a process of change."


Rico!!! Have you forgotten what Bridget the Midget said to Stuart?

"This is 'NOT' a court of Justice, this is a court of Law"

That is why nothing will ever be achieved through the courts, they are courts of 'LAW'. Statutory bullshit that almost everyone who appears, grants said courts consent to be Governed.

Jesus Christ, wise up you guys. Me and "the squirrel" have given you enough information to start thinking for yourselves!!! WHY AREN'T YOU???

What does it take? A weekly reminder???

Zoompad said...

"I would hope UK would be compelled to fulfill their legally indisputable duty to protect Jersey's citizens."

I think the British Government is too focussed on stripping disabled and sick people of any dignity they have to be bothered with a trifling thing such as making sure the justice system works in the United Kingdom. I personally know of two people right now who are being prosecuted for handing out leaflets, and one of them has had half a million pounds of taxpayers money spent on persecuting him to try to make him shut up about the child abuse a lady with Downs Syndrome suffered as a child. What the hell is wrong with a country that throws so much money at persecuting whistleblowers and tries to kick the victims of abuse into the gutter?

Zoompad said...

So saying, I disagree that justice won't be found in the courts. The justice system in Jersey and in the UK is broken - that much is obvious - and so it needs to be fixed - none of us can do without it, it has to be made to work somehow. Like Rico keeps saying, this is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

I'll get the rest of that transcript done, shall I do the first one as well?

Anonymous said...

Re questions asked regarding the Matt Tap report

`` it was paid from the Chief Ministers budget, sir.

Supplementary Sir SP

Does the Chief Minister know how much it cost, the report cost and if not would he endeavour to provide this information to members.

CM Sir, as I said in answer to the Deputies earlier question, I have the invoice in front of me and therefore yes I do know, I'm assuming Sir the Deputy would like me to tell her? The cost of the report was £2,500:00 before VAT including Vat obviously that comes to £2,937:50 Sir‘’.

Maybe I’m just to suspicious, but given the cost’s of other reports commissioned by either the SoJ or SoJP, doesn’t the Matt Tap report appear exceedingly good value for money…..I mean £2‘500 for an investigative report, a report that has undergone proper and thorough research and which if done professionally, should have taken several weeks if not months to compile?

Personally, I think the figure must be wrong. That is unless of course, the hard work had already been done for him? It would be interesting to find out if Matt Tap actually gives a break down of his charges including an hourly rate

Zoompad said...

"CM Um I cant, simply to say it is a small amount, and therefore one would not necessarily have a formal contract as such, however, as I've said it was agreed by email correspondence, I've not been able to, locate that email correspondence but if I in due course am able to do so, then I imagine that, that will give the details, of, the instruction to carry out the work, "

Well, that should be fairly easy to sort out, because the reciprient of that email correspondence will also have a copy won't he, and he will also have a bank statement which will show how much money changed hands.

Anonymous said...

Mmmmm no recorded written formal contract or agreement and yet public funds are used (fishy)?

Question:``Sir, Could the Chief Minister explain why there was no contract agreed between the Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates please''.

Answer CM ``Um I cant, simply to say it is a small amount, and therefore one would not necessarily have a formal contract as such, however, as I've said it was agreed by email correspondence, I've not been able to, locate that email correspondence''.

Regardless of the amount, it is very odd that thier is no record of an agreement between the two parties (fishy).

I wonder how many other `small' amounts of tax payers money are used in this way? A way in which no one can be held to account, because the all important official agreement does not exist?

No names, no accountabilty, no one to question and no one to answer! You really couldn't make it up!

Zoompad said...

THE JERSEY WAY NUMBER 2

Part 2
3:35 ILM No sir, it was not a political act, it was quite apparent by the time that Mr Tapp was asked to produce his report that there were serious concerns in relation in the way in which the media handling had taken place. This was apparent fairly early on, in fact, but by the time we got into October 2008 the storm clouds were defiantly gathering in relation to that, it was by then known that the so called skull fragment was not a skull fragment at all, but was some other type of materiel, and it seems to me that it was part of the duty of the Chief Executive at the time to try to start to gather evidence which would become relevant to subsequent decisions, there is absolutely nothing political about that.
4:21 Chair: And will you make a statement?
ILM: I’ll talk to the press, but I’m not going to go into enormous lengths, enormous technical details.
Chair: Deputy Higgins
4:35 D Higgins: Thank you sir. Doesn’t the minister find it rather strange though, that Mr Tapp was brought in by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police to write a report; it was then felt that his services weren’t required by them; he was then invited by the Chief Executive, who had already, from the 24th September, been making enquiries from the Solicitor General and others about bringing disciplinary charges against the Chief of Police? Doesn’t it look like the media thing was part of a political process of getting rid of him?
5:04 ILM: No sir, the fact that already enquiries were being made, in terms of possible disciplining matters, is pretty consistent with Mr Ogley taking the view that he should be gathering evidence set together, clearly, Mr Tapp very strongly disagreed with the way in which matters were carried out. Incidentally, Mr Tapp’s evidence on what he had to say in relation to matters were actually included as part of the Wiltshire Report. They clearly treated him as an expert with the right knowledge and ability.

Zoompad said...

THE JERSEY WAY NUMBER 2
Part 3

D. Higgins: Supplementary, Sir, the report , going back to Mr Ogley’s role in this - sorry, almost lost what I was going to say then – Mr Ogley commissioned this report, with the former Chief Executive Mr Frank Walker, former Chief Minister, sorry, and the report was used as part of the justification for his dismissal of, or suspension I should say, of the Chief Officer of Police, was the fact that he wouldn’t agree to the media strategy, so, in other words, although the- I’m sorry, I’m being too...
Chair: Finishing your question are you, Deputy?
D. Higgins: I’m trying to, sir, I’m trying to sort of formulate it while I’m thinking, and not very well. Will the Home Affairs Minister go through all this and produce, chapter and verse, for the media and for members here, because there is so many elements that are now coming to the front showing that this was a political act, will you revisit it and put out all the information?
6:47 ILM: It’s not a political act, I see absolutely no evidence of that, and I stand by the report of Mr Tapp in relation to that particular area. Members are very quickly forgetting that actually the concerns of Mr Walker were fully justified by the Wiltshire Reports when they came out – that’s the substantive report in relation to what actually happened where there were failures, and so on and so forth
7:13 Chair: Deputy Osier
D. Osier : Given this never ending saga and given the miasma of allegations and counter allegations , could the minister comment on whether the constitutional manner in which we have dealt with this was sufficiently robust and independent, or would he reform it so that we never get into the situation again where so many people are involved, and the independence and integrity of an independent police chief as should be is heavily compromised?
ILM: That is part of my work program, because , once, hopefully, the States of Jersey pass the new police force law, I have left to the issue of disciplining codes and such matters for the police chief, to be dealt with by regulation, so the States will have a full say in relation to that, clearly we have got to get the procedures right for the future, totally agree with Deputy Messurer on that
D. Messurer: Supplimentary, would he not agree that the involvement of other civil servants in trying to manage a police chief was totally wrong in retrospect?
8:19 ILM No sir, I don’t, I don’t agree with that, it’s, it’s, members must, of this assembly, must understand that Mr Ogley, as Chief Executive, had a particular role of oversight indeed, within the Civil Service system, if I can refer it to the wider system – I appreciate the police not a civil servant has a particular status – he would have been the person who would have oversight at the officer level, of the Police Chief in relation to matters, in relation to which it was proper to have such oversight – in my view, someone will always have to have that; there has to be proper balance – and I’m seeking to achieve that balance in the new law between operational matters and other matters as safeguards.

Zoompad said...

Sorry I got one of the names wrong, because I don't know all the names and couldn't work out who was speaking, so can someone correct it, thanks

Anonymous said...

You really couldn’t make it up could you!

Mr Harper was hounded and ridiculed by ILM for his dinner with journalists , and here we have ILM just brushing aside the non existence of an official contract, a contract where the SoJ paid out of tax payers money almost £3000.00 .

I wonder how many more of these inconsequential payment have been made over the years, payments whereby because of the lack of an official contact no one can be held to account!

You should be ashamed Ian, you are clearly a man of double standards!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM responds to readers questions concerning the infamous Met "Interim" REPORT

Zoompad said...

THE JERSEY WAY NUMBER 2

Part 4
9:03 ILM Nevertheless, there has to be some level of oversight at Civil Service level
Chair: Deputy Trevor Pitman
D. Pitman: Thank you sir. I’m almost tempted to ask if the minister could tell the house, particularly new members, what are the circumstances particularly in mammals you find 1.6 collagen, I don’t think you find it in coconuts, but my question is, the minister keeps referring again to the Wiltshire Report as the ultimate findings. This was actually, really, this is the prosecution case it was never able to be put to Mr Power, because the minister – I have to use these words – chickened out, ran away, wouldn’t give him a fair hearing in court. Wouldn’t the minister agree with that?
9:44 ILM Sir, I very much resent the suggestion I chickened out, or wouldn’t give a fair hearing; the fact is, the reports took so long in coming, and the procedure that then followed, if I got correct, the documentation took so long, and Mr Power then brought forward his resignation date by 6 months, which rendered it impossible to actually deal with the matter. The fact is, that Wiltshire did not set out set out the prosecution case, they produced a balanced report, it’s available to members both in redactive form and a full form, they consider what he’s saying and they come to judgements on that. It remains in my view the definitive report on this matter.
10:20 D. Pitman: Supplementary sir. Talking of balance and fairness, would the minister finally make Mr Power’s 62,000 words available to all, so we can actually have some real light on the matter.
10:31 ILM Sir, I’ve been working on that for quite some time, but amid significant difficulties. I had to take specialist’s advice from council on issues relating to libel, that has thrown up some complicated issues, I’m still working on it, but it is complicated, it’s not a matter of just taking out certain names, it’s a question of wether or not I can properly put into public domain certain matters without risking libel, and I have to be fair, not just to Mr Power, but to others. The work is continuing and will be completed as soon as we can.
11:05 Chair: Final question for Deputy Tadier
D. Tadier: Thank you sir. I think the reason this is serious sir, is because the minister somehow and at some time needs to explain why: when a media consultant is taken on by the States of Jersey Police only to resign; as he arrives home, he immediately gets a phone call from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister, saying, actually we want you to do a report for us: because he wouldn’t have been able to do that report for the Chief Minister, because he was already working on another report - subsequently , to suggest that actually, one way or the other, the States of Jersey, the Chief Executive Bill Ogley, who is now resigned and retired sir, and the former Chief Minister Frank Walker wanted to get Mr Tapp to do a report one way or the other sir – that’s one of the answers that needs to be answered.
Chair: Is that your question then?
D. Tadier: That was my question for now. I was going to wait until next week and ask some more Sir, or do some writing, there are other questions to be asked, but I think that’s the first point that needs to be asked. Does it seem strange to the minister, that actually when someone who has been commissioned to do a job for one person resigns, he gets a phone call immediately to do a job from another department when he’s already booked his flights home, allegedly?
12:21 ILM: No sir, I don’t find it strange, but no doubt that Mr Ogley discovered that Mr Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the case. I don’t find it surprising at all at a time when documents and matters are being collated with a view to possible disciplinary matters – that he be asked to review a report, as I say sir, it has already been dealt with in the Napier Report, Mr Napier found nothing untoward about it.


Please can someone else check it over, thanks

Anonymous said...

ILM - referring to Ogley and Wqalker commissioning Tapp to write a report for SOJ says
'It's all dealt with in the Napier report and Mr Napier found nothing odd about that'
Sorry but this is a misrepresentation of Napier ... It is not ALL dealt with ... there are many questions re. Tapp's report that are not even considered by Napier eg it's TOR,what was it's purpose and how was it used, was it intended to replicate in some way the report that was originally commissioned by Warcup etc. So many questions that Napier DOES NOT consider.
cont

Gris Ventre said...

Rico

£2,937-50 for a report, this seems a real bargain. I would have thought that most consultants of Matt Tapp's ranking probably wouldn't get out of bed for this amount, it would hardly cover expenses unless of course these were in addition to his fee.

Anonymous said...

ILM has selectively referred to Napier throughout States questions in such a way that he has misrepresented what Napier actually says.
The most important example of this is when he says that Napier highlights some procedual failings. What he fails to point out, as I have mentioned in previous postings, is that Napier also highlights at length, not least in his reports' conclusion, that there are significant 'evidence' based failings.
ILM makes Napier out to be favourable to his case but really it is not. Napier in effect says that Power should not have been suspended ON THE EVIDENCE (or rather on the lack of it) as well as on faulty procedural grounds.
Questions to ILM have not directly focused on this aspect of Napier. As I see it, Napier is more favourable to your position than to his, but ILM has managed to turn this perception around in the states debates.
This perception of Napier needs to be challenged
phil

Anonymous said...

ILM - referring to Ogley and Wqalker commissioning Tapp to write a report for SOJ says
'It's all dealt with in the Napier report and Mr Napier found nothing odd about that'
Sorry but this is a misrepresentation of Napier ... It is not ALL dealt with ... there are many questions re. Tapp's report that are not even considered by Napier eg it's TOR,what was it's purpose and how was it used, was it intended to replicate in some way the report that was originally commissioned by Warcup etc. So many questions that Napier DOES NOT consider.
cont

Anonymous said...

Question for ILM
Do you agree that the final section of the Napier report headed ' Conclusions' focuses mostly on considerations of the EVIDENCE (AS OPPOSED TO THE PROCEDURE) and that apart from the procedural failings identified earlier in the report, Napier's conclusion highlights the fact there was not sufficient hard evidence to carry out the suspension of Mr Power on the 12 Nov.

Anonymous said...

Could not the situation of the payment of the Matt report,ie no contract, be likened to giving an open cheque, if the Tapp people had wanted to ( or indeed might have and thats what is being kept secret) milked the system, we may well have payed a lot more money than we are being told,personally I feel something stinks here, (I agree with the the earlier comment it takes longer than that to do a full enquiry and report)according to le marquand we have had to wait months if not years for some results,no this needs looking into someone needs to ask to see the paper work re payment nobody does a report for £3000 expecially if they are working for Jersey States.we need proof,more to the point I will never believe what le marquand says again, he musn,t be allowed to get away with his lies.

Anonymous said...

Why was Me. Power originally suspended?

Mr Ogley , with the consent of the chief minister at the time, knowledge and consent of the chief minister at the time, Mr Walker, to produce a report, which he did. That report was not available until after the original suspension. The involvement of Mr Ogley in this and Mr Walker and Mr Tapps involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report , and Mr Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr Tapp played or indeed Mr Ogley in this way, and I’m frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time

So from the above statement none of this would of come into play as it was not available at the time of the original suspension?

Who wanted Mr. Powder suspended? prior to this and what were the concerns and discussions taking place?

12:21 ILM: No sir, I don’t find it strange, but no doubt that Mr Ogley discovered that Mr Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the case. I don’t find it surprising at all at a time when documents and matters are being collated with a view to possible disciplinary matters – that he be asked to review a report, as I say sir, it has already been dealt with in the Napier Report, Mr Napier found nothing untoward about it.

Mr. Ogley instead of supporting Jerseys Chief of Police in the child abuse investigation is seeking information to suspend him, Matt Tapp opinions took priority over the the Police Chief who had gathered evidence to prosecute people?

Did Mr. Napier believe Matt Tapp was working for the States of Jersey Police?

Anonymous said...

seems to me if power and harper are so upset they should sue somebody.

Anonymous said...

NAPIER SAYS SUSPENSION UNSOUND DUE TO LACK OF HARD EVIDEN
Quote from Napier (Conclusions - para 107)
‘…the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate. There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him ...’

Anonymous said...

£2,937-50 for a report, this seems a real bargain. I would have thought that most consultants of Matt Tapp's ranking probably wouldn't get out of bed for this amount, it would hardly cover expenses unless of course these were in addition to his fee.

Has anyone considered that the reason for such a cheap report was that Matt Tapp may have completed most of the work whilst employed by Warcup.
Dont want to muddy the waters but here are two questions.
How long was he employed by Warcup and how long by Ogley/Walker.

Anonymous said...

Rico, this is from MATT TAPP-3

Commissioner Pitchers states;

"The legitimate criticisms of him and the potential damage that he did to any inquiry or Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008

. That report has been disclosed to the defence in the course of these proceedings and I quote from its conclusion"

Did they spend 3 grand so the defence case had some ammo in getting these people off? On Matt Tapp-3 it says that another police force also paid peanuts for a report and that he was working with Warcup before he came to Jersey.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday was the last (half) credible chance for ILM to come clean and save his skin as well as his soul.

It must go international now.

Tweet, Twitter, facebook and cloud source.

Keep it real and keep it accurate!

Yours,
H+

Anonymous said...

Not one for conspiracy theories and jumping to conclusions without proof but.........
Matt Tapps services were dispensed with by Mr. Power. That should have been the end of the matter.
Doesnt need a lot of imagination to work out that Warcup not happy with this, told his paymasters who then employed Tapp to complete his report.
Releasing that report might put an end to the speculation.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that if Scrunity had investigated the Matt Tapp report and the so called interim report that led to Graham Powers suspension, they would have come up with different answers than those given by ILM yesterday!!!

Anonymous said...

The involvement of Mr Ogley in this and Mr Walker and Mr Tapps involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report , and Mr Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr Tapp played or indeed Mr Ogley in this way, and I’m frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time"

ILM is probably genuinely puzzled because he cannot for one minute believe that that if for some reason Napier had been misled at the time, whereas perhaps with recent evidence he may the same view as those raising the questions with ILM.

Anonymous said...

Straight question;

Was it even legal for the CEO &Chief Minister to be even getting involved in policing matters concerning an investigation into the body they were in charge of?

This is just plain crazy. Remember Ogley and the removal of Stuart Syvret and the Graham Power file notes.

Ogley and Walker are so conflicted. iI a former Magistrate can't see this then he really is an idiot

rico sorda said...

Thanks for clearing that up Anonymous. Can you please give us the paragraph numbers as that would help even more.

rs

Anonymous said...

For all the column inches that have been written over this issue, are we still non the wiser as to the specific reasons for suspending Mr. Power.

Does he know?
Did Wiltshire know?
ILM seems to be the only person in government who knows.
ILM could put an end to this whole business by releasing the last remaining pieces of this jigsaw.

rico sorda said...

ILM doesn't even know what he thinks he knows

rs

Anonymous said...

From the Napier report. Mr Napier states this was done on the basis of information provided to him. Did he know Matt Tapp was contracted by Mr. Walker and co.?

9. In the course of my investigation, I held recorded meetings with Mr Andrew
Lewis, Mr Bill Ogley, Mr Ian Crich, Mr David Warcup, Mr Graham Power
and Mr Frank Walker. Where I have ascribed views or opinions to others, I
have done so only on the basis of information that was provided to me in
interview or in documentation I have read. It is no part of my remit to make
findings about whether such views were in fact held, and I do not do so.
Nothing in the report should be read as indicating otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ogley early planning to dismiss Mr. Power.


Fom the Napier report.
A measure of the concerns about Mr Power which would appear to have
predated any adverse comments made by Mr Warcup in his briefings to
Ministers is the approach made by the Chief Executive to the Solicitor General
by phone on 24 September 2008. A file note made by the SG’s office and an
email sent in reply suggests that the original inquiry from Mr Ogley was being
made as to the power to dismiss the Chief Officer of Police, though Mr Ogley
is insistent that his concerns at this point in time did not go beyond the issue of
initiating a disciplinary process.

Zoompad said...

I am going to start on transcript number 1 tomorrow, just saying so that if anyone else wants to do one they wont duplicate

rico sorda said...

I can't thank you people enough for doing the transcripts. Its a great help. Every bit helps.

rs

Anonymous said...

Great work Rico, a fact that is not generally appreciated is that the use of the internet is fast expanding like more than people realise.

You may be surprised to know that mature retired people are the main students of the internet with family all over the world , and time on there hands to get stimulation and knowledge which we all require.

Not so long ago it used to be the library, but the library is now on line and vastly larger.

The point I am making is, people are generally of good heart and soul. It is the people that think they are untouchable like several corrupt members of the States of Jersey, They are shown up by people like you that show factual evidence.

Citizens media will, like the incoming tide be where the truth lies and overtake the MSM. Not that everything you read is true on the internet, but given the present Main Stream Medias pathetic non reporting do they not realise that they have instigated there own decline.

Paul.

Anonymous said...

STATES OF JERSEY
SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING
THURSDAY, 5th March 2009

Present:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police)
Dr. T Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire)
Mr. M. Pinel (Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
What i am suggesting is simply that i exclude the part of the letter which starts with the heading Metropolitan Police Review Interim Report. Okay, so that is ... the pages are not numbered, i am afraid.

Anonymous said...

From Andrew Lewis.

Response to P9 and allegations by Graham Power in his recently published Affidavit
 
February 2010
 
Suspension of the States Of Jersey Chief of Police


6. Mr Power had also been regularly briefed on the progress of the review in even more detail than I. He was also informed that the Deputy Chief Of Police was planning to brief Ministers on the 11thNovember on the findings of the review that were expected to be shocking. Despite this Mr Power decided to go on holiday. I questioned this with him but he claimed that there was nothing in the Met report to be concerned about. Subsequent revelations that are now well documented were of course quite the opposite.

...............
Hmmm - "expected to be shocking" and "were quite the opposite" is more perhaps a more accurate statement from what I have recently read about the whole saga.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Straight question;

Was it even legal for the CEO &Chief Minister to be even getting involved in policing matters concerning an investigation into the body they were in charge of?

This is just plain crazy. Remember Ogley and the removal of Stuart Syvret and the Graham Power file notes.

Ogley and Walker are so conflicted. If a former Magistrate can't see this then he really is an idiot."

A straight answer - and this cuts to the very heart of the matter:

No.

It was not - in any way whatsoever - legal for Chief Executive Bill Ogley - and Chief Minister Frank Walker - to have been involved - in any way - with any kind of interference, obstruction, suspension or removal of the Police Chief.

And that is such a fundamental point - so fundamental - I think people have been diverted from it by arguments about the details of this or that action.

This is how fundamental it is:

Even if there had been (which we know there wasn't) some ground for taking disciplinary action against Graham Power - it would have been illegal for Walker or Ogley to have been involved - in any way or form - in any such action.

That is how simple things are.

For various reasons, each man - Ogley and Walker - were profoundly conflicted - in the sense of being components in criminal investigations - and thus any action against the Police Chief in which they were involved is axiomatically ultra vires.

Further proof - as though it were needed - that governance and the very rule of law in Jersey, has collapsed.

Stuart

rico sorda said...

I should have a new posting up tonight with some luck.

The comment from Stuart is so important and shouldn't be overlooked. I have asked Stuart if he could write a small piece for me about the seriousness of Ogley and Walkers actions.

An they are Bloody serious

rs

Anonymous said...

'...Ogley and Walker - were profoundly conflicted - in the sense of being components in criminal investigations...'

I am not sure exactly what this means ...what exactly does being a 'COMPONENT in a criminal investigation' mean?

Anonymous said...

The involvement of Mr Ogley in "this and Mr Walker and Mr Tapps involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report , and Mr Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr Tapp played or indeed Mr Ogley in this way, and I’m frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time"

Where does Napier mention Tapp I still cant find it..

Anonymous said...

He doesn,t mention Tapp by name but refers to the media consultant on at least two occasions that I can remember

Anonymous said...

Napier also refers to Tapp as the 'public relations expert' and the 'consultant'

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tapp is not mentioned by name in the Napier report If memory serves me right it is media consultant.

Anonymous said...

Napier refers to Tapp by title in the following para's
11 (outline chronolgy)
30,31,32,33
86
hope this helps

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"Napier also refers to Tapp as the 'public relations expert' and the 'consultant'

But did Napier know that the "consultant" was employed by Frank Walker and Bill Ogley?

The SOJ is being investigated for decades of institutional Child Abuse, or "State Sponsored Paedophilia" and representatives of the SOJ get a Media consultant to rubbish the investigation. Isn't that something that Napier should have known or considered?

Zoompad said...

Here's the first one, Question 2, please can someone else check it?

00:00 Chair: We’ll move on to the next question, which Deputy Trevor Pitman will ask of the minister of Home Affairs, Mr Pitman
D. Pitman: Thank you sir. Is the Minister aware of the Report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the complaints of Mr Lenny Harper and if so would he advise whether it states at the Interim Metropolitan Police Report it was a fact that during the suspension of the former Chief Officer and allegedly criticised the former Senior Investigating Officer contained no such criticism of these officers, and if so, would he apologise, or resign?
Chair: Minister.
00:31 ILM: Sir, this question relates to the circumstances of the original suspension of the former Police Chief by the former Minister of Home Affairs. I think because there’s so many new members I’m going to have to refer to people by their actual names, so that is, of Mr Power by former deputy Andrew Lewis. That suspension was the subject of a detailed report consisting of 51 pages, which was commissioned by the States of Jersey, by the Chief Minister, on behalf of the States of Jersey, which is called the Napier Report. I’m aware that a report into the complaint to Mr Harper exists, but I have not seen it. The Metropolitan Police Report was requested by Mr Warcup, with the agreement of Mr Power, in order to advise the States of Jersey Police both on high level issues and in relation to individual investigations, for a part of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry. Mr Warcup then subsequently requested an interim report, for reasons which I have stated before. He subsequently referred to the Interim report in a letter written to Mr Ogley, and that letter was concerted by Mr Lewis as part of the matters he considered in the suspension. Mr Napier considered both the Interim Report and the letter of Mr Warcup. He certainly considered the details of the Interim Report because he makes detailed reference to issues therein, which he could only have found by doing so. He doesn’t at any part in his report suggest that the section of that report quoted in the letter of Mr Warcup did not in fact exist in the report. I also checked this, there was a whole series of questions to me in 2010, and eventually I checked the exact nature of the document, and also I checked that the words contained in the letter did in fact exist in the report. The Metropolitan Police Report was not a disciplinary report, and I would not expect it to contain direct criticism of individual officers. Frankly sir, I’m completely puzzled as to what Deputy Trevor Pitman thinks that I have said or done in relation to this, which warrants an apology or resignation.

Zoompad said...

3:00 D. Pitman: Thank you sir. How many Supplementaries c an I have? A quote from the findings of the Independent Police Commission, in reality, having reviewed the report written by D.S. Hugh Sweeting - sorry, I forgot to name him and his team - it’s clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper. Paragraph 5 point 4 “The report was neither critical nor damning”. Does the minister (and I wish he would stop taking the flack for his predecessor), does he not agree that we should not have a situation where someone is suspended on a basis of a letter written, claiming that there’s something in a report – which no-one is allowed to see- indeed, the minister who is suspended - the individual - is not allowed to see it, and actually, when you read the report, it warrants no such action at all.
3:51 ILM: Sir, I’m not sure that the words that Deputy Pitman just read out are inconsistent with what I said. I would not expect any such report to contain details, or any criticisms, of any individual people, it was an overall assessment of the situation. There was a problem – there undoubtedly was a problem in relation to the original suspension, in that the reference in the letter of Mr Warcup to the Interim Report was considered by Mr Lewis, even though he didn’t see the report itself. I found myself subsequently some months later in exactly the same position and decided not to consider the part of the letter which contained that for that very reason.
4:41 Chair: Deputy Higgins
D. Higgins: Thank you sir. Again, I’ve got a number of questions on this. I’ll start with this one. The former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Lewis actually told this assembly that what was contained in the Interim Report, what he’d been told was contained in the Interim Report, was highly damaging. He said that, I won’t quote him, but he gave the house the view that he had no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer, because he had to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and everything else. In other words, basically, he was told, in the letter that he was given by the Chief Executive at the time that this guy was basically out of control, something’s got to be done, you’ve got to suspend him. Now, does he think that this was sufficient, based on just a letter from the Deputy Chief of Police at the time to the Chief Executive, who had already been planning from the 24th September to look at disciplinary matters on the Chief of Police – does he think that was justification to suspend him?
5:44 ILM: Sir, I’ve been asked to express an opinion on somebody else’s matters. I don’t think that’s within the normal course of answering questions. It’s very difficult for me to express an opinion, because I don’t know precisely all the materials that went before Mr Lewis in relation to that, but I do accept there was a difficulty in relation to the usage of the Metropolitan Report in circumstances in which the minister did not see it.

Zoompad said...

I also accept that the letter, a letter, was written by Mr Ogley, in relation to this matter, to Mr Lewis, in which Mr Ogley put his own gloss, as it were, on some of the information which was produced, and that may also of course have influenced Mr Lewis, but I cannot say.
6:33 D. Pitman: Yes sir, could I just follow - the main question I am trying to ask is, if the house was told at the time, that the report contained such damning evidence that gave the impression of gross misconduct and everything – we’re talking about gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision, ect – do you not think that misled the house into a suspension, when there was no such evidence in the Interim Report?
6:58 ILM: It’s very difficult. I’m being asked to express an opinion on something which a predecessor has done at a particular time. I accept that what he did and the manner in which he did it is open to criticism. I personally have always held the view that the procedure that was followed, irrespective of content, the procedure that was followed in relation to that matter was incorrect. I simply don’t think it’s fair that I am being asked to express a view as it were on the performance of a predecessor in relation to matters without knowing exactly what he considered. I would accept that, on the basis of what he said to the Assembly, there were certain weaknesses, undoubtedly.
7:38 Chair: Deputy Tadier
D. Tadier: Thank you sir. I understand that the minister was not around at the time, and that’s perhaps where the difficulty arises from. First of all, will he clarify that actually, were he around at the time, actually, he would have at least insisted on seeing what the report said for himself before making a very serious decision to suspend a chief police officer, without actually having seen the report? So, first of all, was that a mistake, quite categorically, yes or no? And secondly, because the minister has subsequently actually said that he supports the suspension, even though he didn’t support the way in which it was done, suggests that actually he thinks it’s ok to say that the means justifies the ends, and that it’s alright to suspend somebody when the process is incorrect, to do that unlawfully ,and find the evidence for that later. Is that the correct way to do business, Sir?

Zoompad said...

8:30 ILM: Sir, that question was so long that I’ve forgotten the first half of it.
Chair: Well the first half was hypothetical, it was ...
ILM: I think I agreed with it
D. Tadier: To clarify, I would be happy if the minister would just answer the second half of the question
ILM: But I can’t remember that!
LAUGHTER
8:48 ILM: In relation to the first half, I think the answer I’ve already given indicates that I do not think that use should have been made of the materiel relating to this report without the minister having looked at it. Obviously I think that, because I find myself exactly in the same position, and then chose to delete as it were, the reference in a letter to Mr, of Mr Walker to that, for exactly the same reason. No, I have, I’m afraid, forgotten the second half. There’s meant to be only one question isn’t there sir?
9:24 D. Pitman: If I have a supplementary that might help the minister. I think I obviously took a leaf out of the minister’s first response, which is also very lengthy, and I couldn’t quite remember the very beginning of that answer, but the point that’s being made here, sir, is that if, actually, the process wasn’t being followed, and the suspension was made, and it wasn’t based on due process, then we have a choice of a suspension either being made for valid reasons or for political reasons, sir, one is a process, one is to do with the fact that that the job wasn’t being done, or, actually, the other alternative, which seems to be the case, that this was a political decision, being made to get rid of an ...
Chair: You are going to put your question are you, Deputy?
D. Tadier: My question to the minister is, can he confirm that actually, the criticisms of many local journalists on the internet over here, that actually , this was a political suspension, politically motivated, and not one for which the Chief of police officers should have been suspended, is actually correct. Will the minister confirm that this was a political suspension, and that actually there was no physical evidence at that time, no reason to actually suspend the Chief of Police?
10:28 ILM: No sir, I don’t agree with that. I’ve agreed that the procedure followed was not correct, that is, in fact, of course, what Mr Napier found, but Mr Napier also found that there was no political motivation - this was properly followed through, and I don’t think that people can selectively choose parts from the Napier Report. The members of this Assembly must also remember that I reviewed the matter; that I reconsidered it; that I found that, in fact, a suspension was justified, but that decision was attacked by Mr Power, by judicial review before the Royal Court, and my decision was not overturned.
11:07 Chair: Final question from Deputy Pitman
D. Pitman: Oh, where to begin sir! Well, if the minister has read the so called Interim Report, is he aware that it actually wasn’t written by an acting working police officer: it was written by a civilian, and it’s very selective in what it quotes. And does the minister think that that is an appropriate way to go forward, in effectively, ending someone’s career, ruining their life - because that’s what this political decision has done - and, to end, my final question ...
Chair: That was your question I think, deputy
D. Pitman: Oh, I’ll have to become a minister Sir, then I can mock the entourage...
Chair: Deputy, the rules are quite clear, you ask one subject to the question
ILM: Sir, I have noted that amongst the papers flying around and on blog sites are allegations that this interim report was not produced by the Superintendant that were named before. I have to say, it’s the first time I’ve come across that particular allegation. I’d be very grateful if somebody would send me a copy of the ICC Report, so I could have a look at that, I can then go back and have a look at the electronic form of the document which I have seen before, which I described to this assembly, and see whether that’s correct or not.
Chair: Very well

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, in para33 Napier refers to '...the report made (ie to Ogley on Oct 8) by the consultant (ie Tappp) of his meeting with Mr Power...'
So, how does this fit with the claim by ILM and the CM that Tapp produced just one report submitted on the 23 nov.

Zoompad said...

I will try to do another one tomorrow, Rico which one shall I do?

Zoompad said...

ILM is a very scheming and crafty man. This part chilled me when I heard him say it:

"I’d be very grateful if somebody would send me a copy of the ICC Report, so I could have a look at that, I can then go back and have a look at the electronic form of the document which I have seen before, which I described to this assembly, and see whether that’s correct or not. "

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"'...Ogley and Walker - were profoundly conflicted - in the sense of being components in criminal investigations...'

I am not sure exactly what this means ...what exactly does being a 'COMPONENT in a criminal investigation' mean?"

I preparing some notes for Mr. Sorda, which will address the question of the 'lawfulness' of the actions of the relevant individuals in more detail.

However, for the time being, let me explain briefly what I mean.

If any individual comes within the ambit of a criminal investigation - even say, as a witness, or a friend of involved parties, or as an agent or employee of an organisation under criminal investigation - then that individual is a component in the criminal investigation.

And if they are such a component - then they cannot lawfully be involved in any decision-making or action concerning that criminal investigation.

There is nothing complex or mysterious about it.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Lest we forget.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.

Anonymous said...

"So, how does this fit with the claim by ILM and the CM that Tapp produced just one report submitted on the 23 nov. "

I'd missed that point, well spotted, sounds like check mate to me!

Anonymous said...

In addition to his obvious case for suing Jersey, shouldn't Mr Power have solid grounds to sue the Met for their failure to control notes and leaks from staffers which were then used to suspend him, and then to internationally libel him?

I understand there has been a "strained" relationship between the Met and Jersey Police Dpt. but that has recently improved. What does that mean, and why?

Even if the Met have come clean regarding their not ever authoring an official Interim Report, are they not responsible - to both Graham Power and Lenny Harper - for clarifying the role of Peter Britton and any other person associated with the Met who contributed to the international discrediting of both men?

What, if any, attempts have the Met made to make this right?

Anonymous said...

This is a comment left by someone else on Stuart's previous blog, and I think it leads to a very succinct potential question for ILM:

"This perception of Napier needs to be challenged'

Question for ILM:
Do you agree that the final section of the Napier report headed
'Conclusions' focuses mostly on considerations of the EVIDENCE (AS OPPOSED TO THE PROCEDURE) and that apart from the procedural failings identified earlier in the report, Napier's conclusion highlights the fact there was not sufficient hard evidence to carry out the suspension of Mr Power on the 12 Nov.?'

Quote from Napier (Conclusions - para 107)
‘…the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate. There was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him ...’
Wednesday, 1 February 2012 11:56:00 GMT'

Since Napier finds the basis for which Power was suspended to be inadequate due to a lack of hard evidence against him, is documented hard evidence in such an important matter even known to the principle parties involved, including Mr Power, Mr Napier, Mr Harper, the Met?