Sunday, February 12, 2012

THE METROPOLITAN 'INTERIM' POLICE REPORT











OPERATION END-GAME -1



"THE ENDING IS ONLY THE BEGINNING REPEATING"




THE METROPOLITAN POLICE "INTERIM" REPORT




A REPORT THAT HAS GAINED ALMOST MYTHICAL STATUS




IT IS REPRODUCED IN THIS POSTING




The Met 'Interim' Report.




A report so sensitive and secret. A report that would be very difficult to redact according to Senator Le Marquand. So sensitive is this report that not even the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis was shown it - before or after suspending the Chief of Police. Having now read the Met 'Interim' Report I cant help thinking that David Warcup wrote his letter once it had arrived.

THE WARCUP LETTER The Met came in and carried out a Review, a common practice that happens up and down the UK. These are conducted in an open and transparent way. 'Hindsight' is always at the forefront of these reviews and is one of the major reasons they are never ever used for disciplinary or suspension actions against the investigating force.



A Quote from the 'Interim':


1.1 This is an ineterim report in respect of Operation Rectangle , a child abuse investigation conducted by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). It has been prepared at the request of the SOJP Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup, the commissioning officer of the review. It is designed to highlight initial findings and areas of concern. However, it should be borne in mind that review enquiries are still on-going and certain Key individuals , particularly the retired Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) , ex-DCO LENNY HARPER, have yet to be interviewed. Hence any observations in this report may be subject to amendment . Ex-DCO Harper retired 31st August 2008, which is the cut-off date for the review.


1.2 It is important to note that during the course of the investigation ex-DCO HARPER was mentored by an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group Advice Team. Between 29th February and 30th June 2008 they completed four reports , which incorporated sixty-nine recommendations , the majority of which are shown as complete.




This is what Senator Le Marquand said during the Suspension Review 1




Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcups's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information which

is referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey

Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all. (END)



This Report was redacted in 40 seconds. This was done for me so I couldn't see the names mentioned.




I have asked the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM to explain the workings of these Police Reviews.




I have been asked to provide some information regarding the practice of major crime enquiries being subjected to a “Review” by the Metropolitan Police. I understand that this question has arisen as a result of the current interest in the review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry which was used as a pretext for my suspension in November 2008.

Perhaps the first point that I should make is that this review just happened to be conducted by the Metropolitan Police. An enquiry can be reviewed by any police force other than the one conducting the enquiry, although this nearly always happens within the same legal jurisdiction. For example, in the UK, English forces would review enquiries by other English or perhaps Welsh forces. They would not review enquiries in Scotland where different laws and procedures apply. When an English force operates in Jersey it is operating in a different legal system. Most English officers have never done this. Some manage to adjust to the change and some find it difficult. The main point to be made here is that “Operation Rectangle” could have been reviewed by West Yorkshire or Greater Manchester Police. It just happened that the “Met” were the force chosen. Whichever force is chosen to undertake a review the purpose is the same. An independent team of investigators look over the case with fresh pairs of eyes and attempt to assist the host force by making recommendations for improvement of the enquiry. It is intended to be a positive relationship based on transparency and trust.


The reason that the Met were chosen is that they were the force recommended by the independent experts who had been appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO), who I had invited to Jersey to quality assure the investigation and to advise and guide Lenny Harper and myself in relation to what we needed to do. These advisors were internationally recognised experts who gave their advice in writing and who reported our responses in writing. Their reports are already in the public domain. In his statement to Wiltshire Police the once Minister of Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, said that the ACPO experts told him that our conduct of the enquiry was a “shining example” of how such enquiries should be carried out.


The ACPO experts said that it was good practice for major enquiries to be reviewed by an independent force and they recommended that the Met be asked to undertake the task. They advised that the best timing for a review would be one which provided an agenda for the new management team which was taking over when Lenny Harper retired in the summer of 2008. We accepted this recommendation. The Met review team were on the ground during the second half of 2008. As they went about their review they communicated their views verbally. Everything of significance was acted upon and was in place before their report was written.

I have been asked about the relationship between such reviews and disciplinary matters. So far as I know there has never been any such relationship. If there was it would conflict with the nature of a review. The reviewing officers have access to all parts of the enquiry and the people they speak to are encouraged to talk to them in a frank and open manner in which candid comment and self criticism can be safely made. The reviewing officers act as “Critical Friends” who are encouraged to make challenging comments and suggestions in order to assist in improving the standard of the investigation and in moving the agenda forward. The presence of the Met review team was welcomed in the force and their contribution was seen as positive. Their unfamiliarity with Jersey Law and procedures did cause them some problems. For example their subsequent reports and statements speak of the need to work with the “Police Authority” and the “Crown Prosecution Service” but these things aside they had a relevant contribution to make.

It appears that on 10th November 2008 a Mr Peter Britton, a civilian working with the Met team, was persuaded to submit a memorandum to the then Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. It is not known for certain what Mr Britton was told about the purpose of the memorandum but given subsequent events it is improbable that he was told that it would be used for suspension purposes. As we now know, Warcup edited the Britton memo and included in a letter to the Chief Executive extracts from the memo which, when taken out of context, could be read as critical. Warcup excluded items which were either positive or which indicated that the views given were provisional and might be changed. Nevertheless the letter from Warcup was used as “evidence” to justify the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.


We know from the transcripts of the suspension review meetings conducted in 2009 by the current Minister, Senator Ian le Marquand, that the use of information from the Met review to justify a suspension, caused a serious rift between Jersey and the Met who, when they found out what had happened, refused to allow their work to be used any further for disciplinary purposes.


I have been asked to try to explain why the use of information from the review produced such a strong reaction from the Metropolitan Police. The main reason is because such reviews are seen as vital in supporting major enquiries. To be fully effective they have to be conducted in a “safe” environment in which officers feel confident that they can share their candid thoughts without fear of any adverse consequences. The use of review information for a disciplinary purpose undermines this principle. If what happened in Jersey became a precedent then it would change the whole nature of reviews. Officers in any force who were dealing with a challenging enquiry, where difficult decisions had been taken under pressure, might hesitate to commission a review which looked at their actions with the benefit of hindsight and which posed a disciplinary risk. If that became the case then reviews would become less frequent and less challenging, and the quality of future investigations and the public interest would suffer.


There is another reason why review material should never be used for disciplinary purposes. This involves the important principle of justice, respected in Western Civilisations, that nobody should be compelled to incriminate themselves. In a review, staff are encouraged and often required to “tell all” to the reviewing team. The use of evidence gained under such circumstances for disciplinary purposes would be a breach of this important principle of justice.

For decades in all parts of the UK the review process has been carried out in a frank and safe manner for the benefit of victims of crime and criminal justice. The important principle that the evidence from a review should not be used as a means of “self incrimination” has been respected and observed by public authorities everywhere. Review teams have operated in the confident expectation that this important principle of justice would be respected by the governing authorities in the location in which a review was conducted. That is after all the expectation of how public authorities would behave in a Western Democracy. Until that is, information from a review fell into the hands of the governing authorities in Jersey. Then the rules changed.


I hope that readers find this information helpful in forming their own views of the circumstances surrounding the “Met Review.”




Officer's Report



From STN/DEPT BRITTON, PETER



DATE 10/11/2008



INTRODUCTION



1.1 This is an ineterim report in respect of Operation Rectangle , a child abuse investigation conducted by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). It has been prepared at the request of the SOJP Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup, the commissioning officer of the review. It is designed to highlight initial findings and areas of concern. However, it should be borne in mind that review enquiries are still on-going and certain Key individuals , particularly the retired Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) , ex-DCO LENNY HARPER, have yet to be interviewed. Hence any observations in this report may be subject to amendment . Ex-DCO Harper retired 31st August 2008, which is the cut-off date for the review.


1.2 It is important to note that during the course of the investigation ex-DCO HARPER was mentored by an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group Advice Team. Between 29th February and 30th June 2008 they completed four reports , which incorporated sixty-nine recommendations , the majority of which are shown as complete.



3 SIO POLICY AND STRATEGY


3.1 The Review Team were advised that DI FOSSEY led the initial abuse enquiry with ex-DCO HARPER providing oversight. However, as previously stated he is shown on all policy Books as the SIO from the 10th September 2007. Instead of running a Policy Book which lists all decision ( except sensitive ones) chronologically , ex-DCO HARPER used five books to deal with the following;



. Search


.Suspects/ Persons of Interest


.Main Lines of Enquiry


.Media



.Victims/Witnesses


There is no Policy book dealing with Forensic Strategy which is a critical area in this investigation.


3.2 There are no specific Terms of Reference (TOR) for Operation Rectangle. The initial decision dated 1st October 2007 stats;


"Operation Rectangle is a single led investigation into historical sexual abuse involving a number of institutions in Jersey. This will include, but not be restricted to Haute de la Garenne Children's Home and the Jersey Sea Cadets organisation. The case for investigating in respect of these (two institutions) organisations has already been subject of a report approved by the Deputy Chief Officer and has taken into account issues of probability and necessity to conduct the investigation."


The policy was apparently written by DI FOSSEY and countersigned by ex-DCO HARPER.


3.3 Given the potential size , complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry one would have expected a more precise ToR. For example:-


. There are no recorded date parameters for the enquiry, which are critical for such an investigation.


. The term 'sexual abuse' is used in the first Decision whereas the next one refers to 'serious indictable offences' . Given the historic nature of the enquiry guidance on offences to be investigated must be very clear.


. As regard suspects there is no reference as to wether it includes staff only, visitors or offences by children on children.


3.4 A major factor affecting the planning of Operation Rectangle was the decision to limit it to a single agency led investigation, e.g, police only. It has been made very clear to the review team that this was due to the internal politics and alleged corruption in the island, a lack of trust by victims of some of the authorities and the fact that at least one suspect was working as a **** **** in the Island. It is felt that this decision probably had a profound influence on the subsequent investigation.


3.5 From a command and control perspective DCO HARPER was SIO then it raises the question of who supervised him at the strategic level. The Chief Officer, Graham Power , stated that he dealt with the political aspects of the investigation, ex DCO HARPER oversaw operational matters and that they would talk 'from time to time'. This ia an area that will need to be explored with DCO HARPER


3.6 There were also concerns over Policy Decisions in terms of lack of detail and consistency,


e,g:-


* Initial decisions regarding the investigation of child sexual abuse and serious indictable offences were later extended to seemingly include all abuse, but with no recorded decision.


* A policy declares the investigation as Category A+ and a Critical Incident. A later decision states that the above was only 'technical' and hence seeks to excuse the need for completing a Community Impact Assessment (CIA) or forming a Gold Group.


* The policy regarding the reasons for searching Victoria Tower Bunkers has very little detail.



3.7 Policy 8 dated 8th December 2007, not to produce a CIA includes the rationale that there is 'no likelihood of community tensions leading to damage to community relations.' Given the high profile of the enquiry and the alleged public mistrust of and between the authorities , the decision appears perverse. However, following a recommendation by the ACPO Advice Team a CIA was completed and has subsequently been updated.


3.8 Policy 8 also dealt with reasons not to establish a Gold Group. I t states, "it is not appropriate because of the involvement of other agencies in the allegations and the additional possibility of a Crown Advocate being approved imminently ." It is felt that any fears in respect of other agencies could have been overcome and would have greatly benefited the enquiry. This issue has yet to be raised with ex-DCO HARPER.


3.9 Another recommendation by the ACPO Advice Team advised that the Chief Officer and SIO consider convening an Independent Advisory Group (IAG). They suggested the IAG should not include former residents at HDLG, but could include the NSPCC or community groups and assist the CIA.



3.10 The Chief Officer advised the review Team that the IAG was formed over a weekend as a result of his phone calls to 'trusted people'. The review team has seen no Terms of Reference, but correspondence suggests that the IAG exceeded their remit and became more like investigators than independent representatives of the community. The general view now appears to be that lessons have been learnt and that the IAG does have a role to play in Jersey.


This is therefore best described as a work in progress


3.11 Two extremely important decisions in this enquiry relate to the search /excavation of HDLG and the Victorian Tower Bunkers . In respect of HDLG, on the 22nd January 2008 , after the search had began, Decision 13 under main lines of enquiry states:-


"To invite Forensic Archaeology to Island to commence preliminary search of grounds of HDLG using ground-penertating radar in initial search for Human Remains."


The rationale for the decision is:-


"Information from two witness, although not specific , raises a possibility, which should be investigated"


3.12 In a later report, some weeks after the search/excavation commenced, a more in-depth rationale is provided for the action taken namely:-


(i) Bones found at HDLG during renovation work in 2003



(ii) Advocate ********* had a 'client' who suggested that bodies were buried at HDLG



(iii) ******* ******* states they saw dead bodies at HDLG



(iv) There is general comment for looking for evidence supporting the abuse allegations and a quote that "that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming or had disappeared."


3.13 The Review Team examined this rationale and concluded the following:-


(i) The bones found at HDLG in 2003 were examined by a pathologist together with another doctor. Both state that the bones are not human. That fact is also mentioned by Detective Sergeant Keith Bray in a report submitted on 7th January 2008. He states "In conclusion the bones are not human remains and therefore that aspect of the enquiry is no longer an issue of concern." The Pathologists view is also noted by Detective Constable Adele Moss in her statement dated 11th January 2008.


(ii) Advocate ********** client was not known to police prior to the search at HDLG hence the information was third party only. They were later identified as ******* ******* and when seen by police made a statement about general abuse at HDLG. However, they make no mention of any bodies at HDLG. Interestingly they were seen by police prior to the search although they were not aware at that time that they were Advocate ******** client . On that occasion they made no mention of any bodies at HDLG.


(iii) This section has been removed (Rico Sorda). The reason im told is that the witness could be identified.


(iv) The general comment about looking for evidence supporting the abuse allegations is considered extremely speculative given the timescale. The quote about children screaming and disappearing is clearly meant to be sinister in nature. In reality many of the children in HDLG are said to have had 'problems' and many came and went on very short notice as this home was used for short- stay reasons and not just long term care.


3.14 A final factor that should have been considered is that there are no children missing from HDLG. Whilst the records are not entirely complete as regards reason for discharge from the home, there are no obvious missing children and no reports in the MIR from parents, relatives or friends suggesting such.


3.15 In respect of the search/excavations at the Victorian Towers. On the 5th May 2008, Decision 19 states;-


"To treat bunkers at the Victorian Tower as new scene of enquiry"


The rationale of the decision is:-


"Intelligence from anumber of witness/sources, most with HDLG connections, which describe either finding human remains/child's body and also make allegations of serious sexual abuse by HDLG staff. Further information of possible occult connection"


3.16 A report dated 12th july 2008 lists the information referred to above as;


(i) Sexual assault of HDLG residents by staff inside bunker



(ii) The finding of a dead child in the bunker many years ago



(iii) The discovery of bones outside the bunkers many years ago



(iv) Satanic imagery on the bunker walls



(v) Around Easter 2008 earth had been disturbed at two locations by unautherised persons which could be interpreted as an attempt to gain entry to the bunkers.


3.17 The Review Team examined the rationale and concluded the following:-


(i) There is witness evidence of a person being sexually assaulted in the bunker,however, ( part redacted by Rico Sorda). In any event an excavation after such a long period of time is unlikely to provide any supporting eveidence.


(ii)The finding of a 'dead child' in the bunkers is information from ********* ***** (This name has been redated)


(iii) The bones found many years ago may be reference to either a 1988 find of a 19th century femur or animal bones found in a nearby farmers field.


(iv) The satanic imagery on the bunker walls is apparently a drawing of a head with horns seen on the wall of the bunker by a witness when 15yrs of age.


(v) It is stated that the earth disturbance at Easter 2008 'could be interpreted as an attempt to gain entry to the bunkers. It is also suggested to the Review Team that it could equally be drugs connected. Any other speculation would seem pointless.



4 - FORENSIC


4.1 The ACPO Homicide Advice Team recommended that the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) should undertake a forensic review. Subsequently this was conducted by two of their Forensic Specialist Advisors.


4.2 Much of their review deals with strategic and administrative issues and thanked all those interviewed for their help, co-operation and all round professionalism. However, it is understood that due to leave commitments and tight timescales a key member of the investigation, the Forensic Services Manager (FSM) VICKY COUPLAND, was not interviewed in person, but was spoken briefly by telephone.


FSM COUPLAND does not agree with some issues raised and has submitted a response to the NPIA


4.3 During the course of the investigation at HDLG, FSM COUPLAND has comprehensively documented her role in a series of eighteen (18) Major Incident Scene Management Logs. Entries relate to a range of areas and include:-


* Strategies for forensic recovery and examiniation


* Forensic meetings


* Staffng issues


* Media


*General administration


It is unclear what input the SIO had in formulating the strategies outlined in his logs.


4.4 The examination of HDLG and surrounding areas has been extensive and has involved many forensic disciplines. Numerous exhibits have been recovered abd include:-


* A number of bone fragments - eleven of these have been examined. Three have been indentified as believed to be human bone. However, carbon dating has shown two of them to be dated 1450-1650 and the third to be 1650-1950. The other fragments are either animal bone or not bone at all.


* Sixty -Five teeth- these have been indentified as child/juvinile teeth. Indications are some teeth fell out naturally whilst other were extracted . Some results in respect of the teeth are still outstanding.


*Restraints


*Shackles


The term restraints and shackles give a false impression. The restraints are in fact a piece of coiled wire whilst the shackles are a piece of metal chain and piece of metal


4.5 Great emphasis has been place on a piece of bone (JAR 6) found at HDLG on 23rd February 2008. This was initially identified by Doctor Julie Roberts ( Forensic Archaeologist) as bone, probably from the skullcap of a juvenile. This find was subject to much media interest. Some confusion then seemed to have existed as to whether this was bone or not. The issue seems to have been clarified in a report by Doctor Tom HIGHAM (Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit), dated 1st May 2008. In it he states that, "the sample was not in fact bone,but was almost certainly wood". He seemed surprised that DR Roberts could so confidentially determine the exhibit to be an infants specimen. He concludes that the sample is a) not bone b)not human. Clearly with so much emphasis being placed on this item it is felt that further efforts should be made to try and define its origin.


4.6 Much forensic work has been undertaken by LGC Forensics. In order to establish their findings and the chronology of events the Review Team intend to interview members of their staff in the near future.


INTELLEGENCE


5.1 Although an early decision was made to focus on HDLG, it spanned a long time frame and therefore involved a large number of potential suspects. The terms of Persons of Interest (PoI) and suspect have been used in the conduct of the investigation, but the terms have never been defined and appear to have been virtually interchangeable. Failure to separate suspects , from those who failed to reach that status , rendered prioritisation more difficult. It is suggested that the following criteria could have been applied


*Suspect


A person whom there are grounds to suspect of the offence and who would require a caution prior to questioning


* Persons of Interest


A person, who enquiries or M.O suggest , may possibly be in some way 'involved in' or 'connected to' the offence but falls short of the 'suspect' criteria.


5.2 The second ACPO report in late March 2008 recommended that the SIO should consider a scoring matrix to manage and prioritise the arrest of any suspects. Although at that time the SIO made a decision not to use such a matrix, the Review Team considers that this would have been beneficial. During the period of the review the new SIO made a decision to create a flexible form of matrix and the Review Team concurs with this decision. Use of the suspect and PoI criteria may have aided prioritisation process and if raised at the start of the enquiry could have assisted in determining appropriate research levels.



ARREST


6.1 At the time of the review the following people had been arrested in connection with Operation Rectangle:-


* Gordon Wateridge


*Michael Aubin


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

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

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


Of these only Wateridge and AUBIN have been charged and await trial.


6.2 Contained in the Persons of Interest/Suspect Policy Book (Policy 7, dated 10/04/08) is the decision, "wherever possible to get preliminary file to Barrister THOMAS before arrest so that charges can be flagged up pre-arrest ." The rationale being , "to avoid having to release suspects from custody without charge and to identify potential evidential problems early". This decision is seen as problematic as it could restrict any interview with a suspect and at worse could make any interview inadmissable at court. The new SIO and the relevant prosecutors are aware of this decision.


7. MEDIA


7.1 At the start of the enquiry media appeals for witnesses and information attracted a large number of responses. The search at HDLG, however, caused an explosion of interest both local and international. There are concerns about the Media Strategy, the manner in which some information was imparted to the media, the quality of this information and the language employed


8. MAJOR INCIDENT ROOM


8.1 The Major Incident Room (MIR) was set up in September 2007 to deal with the administration of the investigation and operated primarily as a 'manual' or 'paper' major enquiry system. Jersey did however utilise a computer-based spreedsheet for dealing with some aspects of the information gathered and for Action Management.


8.2 In late November 2007 it became clear the the MIR did not have the capacity to cope with the volume of information being received and that the HOLMES system would need to be introduced. On the 3rd January 2008, a meeting took place with the Devon and Cornwall Police (who provide Major Incident IT support for Jersey) to undertake 'Back Record Conversion' (BRC) TO HOLMES. This process was started at Devon and Cornwall headquarters while new workstations were purchased and installed in Jersey. This BRC took longer than initially envisaged due to the volume of material involved, but good support was provided by Devon and Cornwall Police who also loaned an experienced officer manager (OM) to run the MIR.


8.3 An area that did cause some concern during this review and which may be subject of a future comment is the use of 'Officers Reports'. At the time of this review just over eight hundred reports have been submitted , any of these have been used instead of completing Action results or submitting a message in some cases the report could have been more appropriately dealt with as an Other Document. This issue has been discussed with the OM and has endeavoured to reduce the volume of reports.


9.CONCLUSION


9.1 Research prior to the Operation Rectangle outlined prior prosecutions and current allegations of physical and sexual abuse , which undoubtedly justified an investigation.


9.2 Such investigations benefit greatly from Multi-agency approach, but it was not considered viable due to the circumstances in Jersey. It is felt, however, that had such difficulties been overcome, it would have greatly benefitted the enquiry.


9.3 Command and Control appears to have been an issue in areas such as:-


* Terms of Reference


* Policies


* Supervision


* Gold Group Support


* Community Impact Assessment


9.4 At the start of the investigation the media played a large role in publicising the enquiry and assisted in appeals for witnesses and information. When, however, the search/excavation at HDLG commenced it moved quickly on to a new level seemingly fed on a running commentary on the work/finds at HDLG. The interaction of the Enquiry Team with the media at this time does raise many issues.


9.5 The rationales for the searches/excavations at HDLG and the Victorian Tower bunkers does not appear to stand close scrutiny, particularly given the extent and cost of the work undertaken. EX-DCO HARPER has not yet had the opportunity to comment , but at the present time we have grave doubts about the justification for conducting the searches.


9.6 That said, the search /excavations work was undertaken and no evidence of homicide was apparent and no obvious missing persons have been identified. We are therefore of the view that Operation Rectangle should consider this aspect of their enquiry concluded.


9.7 In respect of the on-going child abuse allegations , these are currently subject to vigorous process, involving the legal authorities, which should reduce the list of suspects to single figures. These will then be prioritised and where appropriate progressed to prosecution.



Peter Britton





In January 2009 the new Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand held a Suspension Review into the the suspension of Graham Power. Senator Le Marquand was unable to use any of the quotes of the Met as explained above so could only use the opinions of DCO David Warcup. The Senator upheld the suspension. Graham Powers representative was Constable T. Brain. The suspension reviews are a must read for anyone interested in this.



SUSPENSION REVIEW 1


SUSPENSION REVIEW 2


SUSPENSION REVIEW 3


ACPO 1


ACPO 2


ACPO 3 & 4




Dr. T. Brain:

I think you do have to decide that. I am trying to find a way of being more helpful to enable you to make that decision. I think it is difficult for us and I am not seeking to be obtuse on the issue to envisage what“more serious circumstances” are without further guidance on the issue from the code itself. It is very open-ended, but I think the word we have to concentrate on here is “serious” and that goes back to the issues that are raised in the letter of 12th November, but they do have to be raised in context. While these issues could be serious, we have to then say is it possible still for Mr. Power to have been given the opportunity to consider addressing them because while there are matters that have been raised here they are capable of explanation? Certainly they are capable of being placed in context. I do not wish to put all of the matters of what would properly be the investigation of potentially a hearing, but we do have to consider where some of the things that are fully applicable in a U.K. context relate to the circumstances of Jersey and the investigations which are under consideration. All of these matters here are capable of an explanation had the opportunity been given to provide that explanation and maybe any misunderstandings could have been cleared up at that point. Of course, what we had was a presentation which raised these issues of Mr. Power so in effect what we had was an accusation and a trial without a hearing and that amounts to lack of due process, lack of compliance with the code and I think, more crucially a failure to comply with human rights. Accusations were made; they were not made to Mr. Power and he was given no effective opportunity of answering them. These were management issues. These are not issues of personal misconduct. These are management issues and they are capable of a management explanation which could have been given and for which there was no opportunity to give. Can I just pause for a moment, because I have been talking for a long time? Issues have been raised and we are very happy that you raise these and we explore them in depth, but could I just take the opportunity to pause and just consult with Mr. Power for one moment?



There you have it. You have now read the two documents The Warcup Letter & The Met 'Interim' Report. This has been brought to you not via the Jersey Mainstream Media but by Jersey Bloggers. We are just ordinary members of the public who became very concerned about the actions of our Government towards the victims who suffered terrible abuse in the care of the States of Jersey and the decent Policeman who did something about it.



Operation Rectangle wasn't the 100% perfect Police Investigation - there isn't any such thing.



What must be remembered is that Abuse was being reported for decades to all the Agencies who had a duty of care towards these Children.


They were let down as Children and continue to be let down as Adults



It saddens and sickens me when I see what my Government has done. This cant continue, it's out of control.


In Jersey - The Ending is only the Beginning Repeating



Rico Sorda



Team Voice




71 comments:

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

More astounding investigative journalism.

You know, this is a forlorn hope, but a tiny element of optimism in me is sustained by the thought that perhaps - just perhaps - one or two Jersey mainstream journalists - I could name them now - might look in the mirror one of these mornings and feel the shame and self-disgust they deserve.

This kind of thing is not supposed to happen in Western democracies.

In our societies, the media uncovers evidence - and exposes malfeasance - especially by governments and the powerful. It isn't left to bloggers - who run the risk of massed police-raids, politicised prosecutions and bent judges - whilst all of the State media maintain a deafening silence.

Yet - that's what's happened in Jersey. With the broadcast media - especially the BBC - being complicit.

In your recent postings Rico, you have produced the evidence - the two key documents - that show the actions against Police Chief Graham Power to have had no credible basis at all. None at all.

Why didn't so much as one single traditional journalist in Jersey do that work?

I know quite a few of the Jersey hacks; I used to speak with them back in the day. One or two of them even have intellectual pretensions.

I can tell you for a stone fact - that if this was 1930's Germany - every single one of them would have been churning out Nazi propaganda - and playing their wretched part in the Holocaust.

There isn't one - not one of them - who possesses real integrity.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

One thing is for certain it was NOT a Met police interim report. It is headed "officer's report" and a civilian officer at that. Jersey is a cesspit of corruption.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

From the suspension Review ILM said.

"But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey
Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose."

As Graham Power had said.

"That is after all the expectation of how public authorities would behave in a Western Democracy. Until that is, information from a review fell into the hands of the governing authorities in Jersey. Then the rules changed."

"Total lawlessness" is one way to describe it all........The Jersey Way.

Anonymous said...

Re ``One thing is for certain it was NOT a Met police interim report. It is headed "officer's report" and a civilian officer at that.

Exactly, as I've claimed right from the the start, the so called ``Met Interim Report'' did not exist, and as such any report claiming the legitimacy of a ``Met Interim Report'' was a fake!

The report is that of a civilian who put together a report at the request of David Warcup!

This non credited report (non credited in so much as it was not an official `Met Interim Report' or anything close to it), was then miss represented by eithet Warcup or representatives of the SOJ as an official Met diciplinary document, which it was not!

And, there is a world of difference between the authentic and and the fake!

People often go to prison for missrepresenting or, for manufacting fakes in order to pervert the course of justice!

Well in most civilized democracies they do! But this is Jersey?

Anonymous said...

Who ever it was who said that this could bring ``the government down''
was on the money !

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A commenter said.

"One thing is for certain it was NOT a Met police interim report. It is headed "officer's report" and a civilian officer at that. "

That is correct and Graham Power, and others, have referred to it as "a memorandum."

So not only does this "memorandum" vindicate Mr. Power, it exposes the lies that have been told by others. It also vindicates Team Voice who have steadfastly maintained that an official Met "interim" Report does not exist, and also vindicated is THIS MAN

Anonymous said...

Let's put this in some perspective

Serious case review in to failings of loads of civil servants etc looking after vulnerable children, result, nobody suspended.

Euro millions scandal ref the incinerator purchase, result nobody suspended.

Verita report, result, nobody suspended.

And they suspended the Police Chief on the basis of that!!!!!!!!

It looks to me like a "report" made to order where the outcome had been predefined.

Anonymous said...

It should be obvious to those familiar with statements by both Harper and Power that no other, better options were available to them, given the long time complicity of Jersey authorities in the abuse itself, than to keep their investigation closed off to Jersey authorities who would have self-selected for an oversight role, i.e. Gold Group.

Those Jersey individuals or authorities who might normally have been appointed for additional oversight were potentially too close to the suspects themselves, or to positions of legal responsibility for the very children who were abused. The grave potential for extreme levels of conflict of interest and for criminal interference in the investigation itself should be given the most careful scrutiny in understanding this tiny, self contained island jurisdiction. This insularity is well considered to have played an essential role in Jersey's unusual cultural acceptance of child abuse.

When Harper and Power requested truly independent oversight and manpower assistance from UK, ironically, the same potentially conflicted Jersey authorities then used those associated costs themselves as a basis for additional criticism.

Given the evidence of attempted government interference in the investigation, it should now be obvious why outside media reporting became absolutely vital to the police efforts to prevent their investigation from being shut down prematurely. With some of Jersey's most powerful officials, the Jersey media and the agencies related to child care internationally exposed as complicit in decades of horrific child abuse, Harper and Power had no available choice but to rely on the protection of outside media interest to counterbalance Jersey's systematic avoidance of abuse exposure. Without the fresher lens of the outside media focused on the initial police discoveries, it is doubtful that any criminal abuse prosecutions would have taken place.

Additionally, without the sympathy for abuse victims afforded by an outraged international public, the police could not have elicited the accounts of many potential victims or witnesses. The local media in Jersey was not trusted by police or victims of abuse due to a long history of complicity in covering up abuse and anything considered potentially embarrassing for the island's powerful and wealthy.

Those initially controversial media decisions have come nearly full circle. The very concealment Harper and Power and the abuse victims feared would happen without the international media spotlight, has come to pass.

The physical evidence has been destroyed, discredited, denied, replaced or spun into irrelevant coconut shells. Every protection the abuse investigation had, including forensic science, proof of dark punishment cellars, and the outrage of the world has been replaced with two false but furious beliefs, that the international media was the real enemy of Jersey's good people, and that the original abuse investigation had gone "rogue", beyond the bounds of good local government "controls."

It is difficult to predict the short term outcome of this rather easily documented coverup, but thanks to Jersey bloggers, the longer view should be the expectation that Jersey's government will be thoroughly exposed as having played a criminal role in the original abuse and in suborning justice after the Harper and Power policing positions were concluded.

Anonymous said...

It is designed to highlight initial findings and areas of concern. However, it should be borne in mind that review enquiries are still on-going and certain Key individuals , particularly the retired Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) , ex-DCO LENNY HARPER, have yet to be interviewed.

Say no more. No matter what was contained within the review it should not have been used.

Anonymous said...

The publication of the Interim Report exposes so much. Not least:
1. That the previous Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, is a blatant liar and that he lied to the States Assembly
2. That Warcup, Ogley and Walker have bought disgrace to their respective offices, and hence to public administration in Jersey.
3. That the present Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, is a manipulative psychopath, as slippery as an eel, who is unworthy of being entrusted with any position of power.

The list goes on ...

Anonymous said...

"It is difficult to predict the short term outcome of this rather easily documented coverup, but thanks to Jersey bloggers, the longer view should be the expectation that Jersey's government will be thoroughly exposed as having played a criminal role in the original abuse and in suborning justice after the Harper and Power policing positions were concluded"
this poster has summed up concisely and accurately this sorry saga in Jersey's history,

Anonymous said...

WHY THE JUSTICE SYSTEM FAVOURS PAEDOPHILES.

Anonymous said...

The Kinsey Syndrome

Anonymous said...

This is the Wiltshire police

moral_rightness said...

"6.2 Contained in the Persons of Interest/Suspect Policy Book (Policy 7, dated 10/04/08) is the decision, "wherever possible to get preliminary file to Barrister THOMAS before arrest so that charges can be flagged up pre-arrest ." The rationale being , "to avoid having to release suspects from custody without charge and to identify potential evidential problems early". This decision is seen as problematic as it could restrict any interview with a suspect and at worse could make any interview inadmissable at court. The new SIO and the relevant prosecutors are aware of this decision."

If I recall correctly, either or both Graham/Lenny where not keen on the early intervention of the AG's office!.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This comment explains perfectly how things are done in Jersey.

"Let's put this in some perspective

Serious case review in to failings of loads of civil servants etc looking after vulnerable children, result, nobody suspended.

Euro millions scandal ref the incinerator purchase, result nobody suspended.

Verita report, result, nobody suspended.

And they suspended the Police Chief on the basis of that!!!!!!!!

It looks to me like a "report" made to order where the outcome had been predefined."

For decades our children, and hospital patients, have been neglected (at best) by this government/Civil Service/Law Offices. There has been one damming report after another and not one person is held to account, we are told "lessons have been learnt (which they clearly haven't) and we should move on."

The one Report that is designed "specifically" for the police force to learn lessons is used against the police force!

It just so happened that the police force, at the time, were investigating decades of Child Abuse where among the suspects were, and still are, we are told, in a position of authority.

Anonymous said...

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/comment/2012/01/10/policeman-who-blew-the-whistle/

Has anyone considered submitting evidence to the Levison enquiry.

leaks from an ongoing investigation ?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Sorda.
You have proven the case with the evidence provided that Mr Power was unlawfully suspended from his post and I am hoping you could answer a question for me which goes to the heart of the policing profession.

Dr. T. Brain was representing Mr Power at the suspension reviews. Now that Mr Power is retired and has undoubtedly been stitched up don't the policing profession owe him any kind of support and shouldn't they be making an example of the Jersey government and making it clear that they are not going to tolerate members of their profession being treated in this manner?

I suppose in simple terms has the policing profession deserted one of their own?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous, I havent a clue but I will find out for you. That is an excellent question.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Dr. Timothy Brain, while representing Graham Power QPM at a suspension review hearing spelt it out very clearly when he said this.

"so in effect what we had was an accusation and a trial without a hearing and that amounts to lack of due process, lack of compliance with the code and I think, more crucially a failure to comply with human rights. Accusations were made; they were not made to Mr. Power and he was given no effective opportunity of answering them. These were management issues. These are not issues of personal misconduct. These are management issues and they are capable of a management explanation which could have been given and for which there was no opportunity to give." (end)

"Jersey Justice" not to be confused with "Justice."

Anonymous said...

"Review teams have operated in the confident expectation that this important principle of justice would be respected by the governing authorities in the location in which a review was conducted. That is after all the expectation of how public authorities would behave in a Western Democracy. Until that is, information from a review fell into the hands of the governing authorities in Jersey. Then the rules changed."

In Jersey you get:

Frank Walker OBE

Terry Le Suer OBE

Bill Ogley £500,000

Senator Le Marquand a Taser Gun

Anonymous said...

3.8 Policy 8 also dealt with reasons not to establish a Gold Group. I t states, "it is not appropriate because of the involvement of other agencies in the allegations and the additional possibility of a Crown Advocate being approved imminently ." It is felt that any fears in respect of other agencies could have been overcome and would have greatly benefited the enquiry. This issue has yet to be raised with ex-DCO HARPER.

Look at the trouble we are still having in Jersey regarding the agencies who have responsibility for children. Have we already forgotten the Hason Renouf case that is still ongoing. I know it's on you're blog somewhere rico but can't find it. Im not sure the Review Team fully understood the climate in Jersey the persisted at that time and still does.

Anonymous said...

I too have wondered why police organizations in the UK have not rallied around Graham Power in his defense. If he had been wounded in the line of duty his fellow officers in outside jurisdictions would have organized to help wherever needed. The UK organizations, including those for retired police workers should be alerted so they can get the story out to the entire profession. They should really want to help him.

rico sorda said...

Dear Mr Sorda.
You have proven the case with the evidence provided that Mr Power was unlawfully suspended from his post and I am hoping you could answer a question for me which goes to the heart of the policing profession.

Dr. T. Brain was representing Mr Power at the suspension reviews. Now that Mr Power is retired and has undoubtedly been stitched up don't the policing profession owe him any kind of support and shouldn't they be making an example of the Jersey government and making it clear that they are not going to tolerate members of their profession being treated in this manner?

I suppose in simple terms has the policing profession deserted one of their own?


Mr Powers Reply.

"During my suspension I received powerful support from the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) led by the formidable Dr Timothy Brain, who at that time was Chief Constable of Gloucestershire. Those who have been following the story have read the transcripts and other documents relating to his exchanges with the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand. Many who have studied these exchanges have commented on how Dr Brain "ran rings around" the Minister in terms of the strength of his arguments and intellectual analysis. Dr Brain would have been the person who would have led my defence team had there been a disciplinary hearing. As is now well known, the Minister for whatever reason delayed matters to a point at which a hearing was no longer possible. The position once I retired was that I was no longer a member of the Association which is for serving Chief Officers only. This may not have been clear to the Minister who attempted to engage the Association in correspondence relating to my case at a time when I was no longer a member. This included an attempt to summon me to a disciplnary meeting well after my "last working day" had been and gone. It was left to the Association to remind the Minister that Jersey Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police did not apply to private citizens living in the UK. To answer a specific point raised by one of the readers of this blog, I do not feel abandoned by the Association and I understand how their reimit is limited in relation to my case. Had I been serving in a UK Force and had I been subjected to similar treatment, (which would be very unlikely given that UK guidelines would have prohibited many of the actions taken against me in Jersey) then the Association would have made strong representations to the Home Secretary. But the situation is that the Home Secretary has no formal role in the policing of Jersey and so the only body to whom representations could be made would be the Government in Jersey, who most people who have studied the case see as the core of the problem. That is the formal situation. I am however aware that as in many things there is an informal networt through which representations can be made. I am confident that through this process senior government figures in the UK have been made aware of the severe misgivings of the Police Service with regard to the integrity and fairness of the arrangements for the oversight of policing in Jersey. The correspondent may also be interested to know that I am in regular personal contact with some of the senior figures in UK policing and that I am grateful for their support and their regular expressions of disgust at the conduct of a jusrisdiction in the British Isles and under the British Crown, and of their low regard for those in authority who were responsible for the conduct of my case."

Anonymous said...

We have learnt how the coup was accomplished and the main characters involved.

What happens now, how should it be fixed?

You can not simply pretend this has not happened and move on.

Someone has to be accountable.

Anonymous said...

Ali Dizaei: Met Police commander jailed for corruption

Metropolitan Police commander Ali Dizaei has been jailed for three years for misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice.

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

Surely this is what should have happened to Warcup!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr Power, for answering an important question surrounding your outrageous mistreatment by Jersey.

Considering the compromising position forced on the Met by Jersey's fraudulent use and reckless media misrepresentation of the Met's work, I would think your case merits an indignant official response from that organization in particular.

It also seems unlikely that all of the Wiltshire Police staff would have willingly colluded with the crooked Jersey government against one of "their own," unless many of them were unaware of the level of fraudulent evidence used against you. Wouldn't any of them now be willing to condemn this use of their report in the event the real evidence was made available to them? I recognize that some at the top were all too willing to be used for corrupt purposes, but could all police in Wiltshire be as systematically corrupt as to let this continue without another word?

At least now, they should be able to see the role they have played and take any opportunity to disassociate themselves from the inevitable negative publicity this will generate.

Might the retired senior officers in the Wiltshire area want to know about this as well? I am guessing the retired officers would be less afraid to speak out than policemen who currently have careers on the line.

All police officers in the UK should be really outraged on your behalf, sir.

Elle

Anonymous said...

The thing is: Why are they so frantic to cover up what has obviously happened? Why pay a fortune in hand outs, investigations of investigations etc. to try to discredit the original child abuse investigation?
Surely the time and energy spent in this negative way would be much better spent in simply acknowledging what has clearly happened to these poor victims and trying to help and support them.
They were victims of abuse. They need the help now to cope with what happened to them.
The way this has been dealt with is extremely cruel and heartless.
So why? What is the reason?

Anonymous said...

"So why? What is the reason?"

Nothing too bad ever happens In Jersey. Everything is all above board and tickety boo. We are in control, you can trust us, this is a great place to do business.
Now let us look after your money.

The Beano is not the Rag

phil said...

Question for ILM:
How can a review be deemed to be objective and balanced when many of it's findings can be challenged, or even, in some instances, shown to be false?

Re the Wiltshire review:
The Home affairs Minister,ILM, keeps referring to this review as the 'definitive review'. He uses the words 'objective' and 'balanced' to describe it. His whole case now depends on this - since virtually everything else has been discredited.

This perception of the Wiltshire review that ILM is trying to sell needs to be directly and rigorously challenged. A clear, concise and persuasive alternative view should be made in the form of a States assembly question to the minister and an accompanying press release.
Perhaps a statement by our retired COP, Mr Power, to this site might help to encourage one of our politicians to undertake this course of action.

Anonymous said...

'Another MP with much to lose was Edward Heath, Prime Minister of England from 1970-74. Heath was a frequent visitor to the Haute Garrene childrens care home on Jersey. He would quite often take young boys from the home away on ‘sailing ‘ weekends on his Yacht, ‘The Morning Cloud’., which his bodyguards rechristened ‘The Morning Sickness’. On no less than 4 occasions , Heath was warned by the Metropolitan police chief, not to loiter in public toilets, where he would attempt to pick up young boys. Never the less, Heath fell foul to blackmail and Under threat of exposure he was forced to take Britain into the Common Market under very unfavourable conditions'

Read the whole article on www.sovereignindependent.com - Why The Justice System Favours Paedophiles.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Ali Dizaei: Met Police commander jailed for corruption

Metropolitan Police commander Ali Dizaei has been jailed for three years for misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice.

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

Surely this is what should have happened to Warcup!"

Yes - the reader is quite right.

But don't be so sure about the "should have" - as though we were speaking definitely in the past-tense.

Warcup should - and still could - be prosecuted. After all, there are many victims of his actions in Jersey - not least the abuse survivors.

But - of course - before those victims can enjoy their various human rights to be protected from crimes - Jersey would have to have a lawful, functioning, non-conflicted prosecution system.

The person who is legally responsible for the fact that Jersey's prosecution system is run by overtly conflicted villains, is Ken Clarke, the UK Justice Secratary.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Is this finally,the last document in this saga,or is there more to come?Its so easy to lose track of the plot with the reams of paperwork to read through.Time I think,for a chronological update complete with an index to the relevant documents.
As for the Interim report,can we now remove the italics on the understanding that it is an official Metropolitan Police report,and identical in content to the copy that was sent to Gradwell?

Anonymous said...

"Surely the time and energy spent in this negative way would be much better spent in simply acknowledging what has clearly happened to these poor victims."

There are far to many high up people involved in the abuses that they will do anything to hide it. I read the link on your blog about Edward Heath and his filthy grubby ways, and this was a primeminister of the uk! How high can you go.

The island belongs to the queen and why has she done nothing about it? or does she even know whats going on?

The like of Birt Walker and bailhatch would be jailed.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought?

Has anyone told ILM that he can now take that document out of the safe and read it, because being a fake it is totally worthless.

Just a thought!

Zoompad said...

"The person who is legally responsible for the fact that Jersey's prosecution system is run by overtly conflicted villains, is Ken Clarke, the UK Justice Secratary."

I suppose he's too scared to do anything. Thats the trouble, there are very few men with real guts to stand up for what is right these days. Ken Clarke got attacked by Fathers Rights groups when he dried up the secret family court legal aid gravy train, they wrote graffiti over his house.

Zoompad said...

"As is now well known, the Minister for whatever reason delayed matters to a point at which a hearing was no longer possible. The position once I retired was that I was no longer a member of the Association which is for serving Chief Officers only."

What strikes me is how all these details have been so carefully thought out. It's like a group of people have got together and gone through all these details with a fine tooth comb. Surely they must have been having some unorthodox meetings to discuss all this stuff?

Anonymous said...

Sadly I believe not only has Mr. Power and the child abuse investigation been stitched up, we have a government responsible.

rico sorda said...

Last week I emailed BBC Radio Jersey and told one of their reports that I was publishing the Warcup Letter and that they would probably won't some information concerning it. I was told by the reporter that half term was coming up and that he would pass it onto Jon Gripton head of BBC Jersey. After hearing nothing back I emailed him today.

Here is the email and the reply from BBC Jersey

From: rico sorda
Sent: 14 February 2012 13:49
To: Jon Gripton; voiceforchildren voiceforchildren
Subject: Re: Shovel.

Dear Mr Gripton,

Could you please explain to me why BBC Jersey haven't covered the David Warcup Letter or the Met Interim Report that I have published on my blog. These are probably the most infamous two documents concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and the illegal suspension of a Chief Of police. We have a breakdown of the rule of Law in Jersey. What is BBC Jersey going to do?

Is it all really about carrot cake and a bit of rugby on a Saturday afternoon? If it is then please just tell me. The safety of children in Jersey depends on the Media to break the stories that the goverment try to hide. This isn't happening. This is what I will be explaining to a Committee of Enquiry. Whay does my BBC remain silent on such grave issues? I need and require an explanaition please. It will help me understand when the Jersey Stazi kick in my front door served with a warrent from the Bailhache burger bar.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda


From: Jon Gripton
Subject: RE: Shovel
To: "rico sorda" , "voiceforchildren voiceforchildren"
Date: Tuesday, 14 February, 2012, 14:06

Dear Mr Sorda and VFC

Thank you for the emails and the familiar insults.
As I have previously communicated, I do not provide a running commentary on our journalism.
I am aware of your blogs.
You will be aware we have reported on some aspects of your material, and will continue to do so.
We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work.
Kind regards

So, lets see what happens, if anything.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

I am currently compiling some e-mail exchanges between myself and Jon Gripton to publish as a Blog Posting.

Readers should be made aware that we have attempted to give the BBC every opportunity to publish/broadcast all the "public interest" disclosures that appear on our Blogs and have only been met with a wall of silence from Jon Gripton and the BBC.

Anonymous said...

BBC Can add your latest evidence to evidence they hold, alongside Mr Powers 62,000 word defence document they have been considering for months.

The Jersey public have a right to know, it eould then be a fair, impartial and honest balance to that provided by State media to date.

Which part of your email, is the insulting bit?

Anonymous said...

Deputy Tadier is on CTV is he going to take ILM part ref you're very serious postings?

Anonymous said...

What I wouldn't give to see a really hard hitting Paxman style interview with Gripton over this issue!

Anonymous said...

"Has anyone told ILM that he can now take that document out of the safe and read it, because being a fake it is totally worthless."

A funny little reminder of some historic ILM porkies. This comment made my day.

rico sorda said...

The silence of the Jersey Media speaks volumes. The Jersey Media must be part of the Committee of Enquiry because they are part of the problem. The Jersey Evening Post is the toxic edifice that leads the way. Now if this has anything to do with an alleged rapist I have no idea but their position and the danger they possess towards abused children and their role in the cover-up is there for all to see.

There is no separation between the JEP and the higher reachers of Government. They are the Feudal Bum Cleaners. This is so very serious. These issues must be addressed if we are to move forward.

rs

Zoompad said...

"I am aware of your blogs."

Well done Rico. You have squeezed out of him that he is reading these blogs crammed full of evidence of the most disgraceful cover up of institutional child abuse and yet is not reporting it in the BBC news.

That means the licence payers in Jersey are not getting what they pay for, in effect, they are not getting the news coverage they are paying for with their licence fee money.

Anonymous said...

"We remain impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest in all aspects of our work.
Kind regards,..."

You have proved beyond doubt the fallacy of the above words by John Gripton. Lies, just lies, and so easy to see through now.

Anonymous said...

The BBC impartial, independent, fair, balanced and honest? After everything the bloggers have been reporting and the BBC have been covering up Yer avin a larf Gripton and you've been rumbled by the bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico
I read your email (you should make use of a spell check), other than the two tongue-in-cheek comments “Is it all really about carrot cake and a bit of rugby on a Saturday afternoon?” and “It will help me understand when the Jersey Stazi kick in my front door served with a warrant from the Bailhache burger bar.”, of which neither were directed at Mr Gripton, there were no insults in this one.

Is he referring to some insults in a prior email and if so, how about letting us read them so we can see how good his judgement is.

Anonymous said...

I think someone once again needs ask the question in particular of our new Chief Minister why was Graham Power suspended?

Lets see how far they up the chain they are prepared to carry on with their actions.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A reader said.

" how about letting us read them so we can see how good his judgement is."

Hopefully will have the "offending" e-mail published as part of the Blog Posting I hope to have up tomorrow night.

rico sorda said...

I sent an email some time ago when I explained to Mr Gripton that BBC Jersey was just a straight right wing establishment station. I think thats the only one. VFC has a different more hardline approach with Radio Jersey and I believe Mr Gripton is referring to those. It is up to VFC if he wants to publish them.

rs

Anonymous said...

"I think someone once again needs ask the question in particular of our new Chief Minister why was Graham Power suspended?"

You know, that just might be the most profoundly important question of all.

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
Subject: The Met Interim Report
To: i.lemarquand@gov.je
Date: Tuesday, 14 February, 2012, 20:22

Dear Senator,

Having now published both the Warcup Letter and the Met "Interim" Report I have been left completely and utterly speechless. It took me 40 seconds to redact the so called 'Interim' Report. Senator, someone has been telling some rather large porkies regarding the Met Interim Report. Why Andrew Lewis wasn't shown the Met Interim Report is now blindingly obvious.

What is really concerning me and the readers of my blog, these include readers from all over the world including the outside media is that you kept Graham Power suspended on the Warcup letter alone.

Senator, believe me when I tell you that the cat is out of the bag - well and truly out of the bag.

Im in the process of drafting an email of all the evidence of this shameful episode. Like I said Senator the Wacup letter and the Met Interim report are now public and my god we will be demanding answers.

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

Anonymous said...

I think someone should contact the Met to let them know that their Interim Report is now in the public domain - just out of courtesy of course - and also to let them know that concerned members of the public in Jersey are now demanding a full explanation from our Home Affairs minister as to why the Met Interim report was used as the evidential foundation for the dismissal of our Chief of Police on Nov 12 2008.

Anonymous said...

''What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant''

Finally the truth is spoken.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008

This paragraph interesting.

It would appear all police officers from UK agreed with Attorney General, yet I can find no evidence to back this up?

Detective Superintendent Gradwell stated in August 2009 that all the police officers from the UK working with the States police had agreed with decisions made by the Attorney General, lawyers and the independent legal team about cases submitted for prosecution, but that "a few more people are likely to be charged".[

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The BBC, IMPARTIAL, BALANCED, HONEST?

Tom Gruchy said...

It should be very simple for Mr Power to have a personal petition presented to the States asking for a debate on whatever grievances he might still have. This could be wide-ranging in its scope if necessary and ask for compensation to be paid.
So far as I understand it he would just need a States Mamber to presnt it and another to second it for the debate to take place.
I have suggested this elsewhere but have yet to have a response.

Anybody else aggrieved by this case could also presumably do the same.

GeeGee said...

Rico - given what has been exposed - Graham Power ousted in an illegal coup, the lies of our Home Affairs Minister, the leaking of confidential and suspect information by Mr Gradwell, Mr Warcup's part in all this and his subsequent departure which he blamed on bloggers, and to put it in simple terms what we all both here and world wide now know was one massice COVER UP, what chance is there for those victims who never saw justice - some of who suffered the worst abuse - having their cases re-opened and re-investigated?

Surely they would have a strong case, and maybe if you are unsure Stuart would be able to enlighten us.

Anonymous said...

Could Tom Gruchy add at bit more information to this most excellent of ideas.....

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't the police be investigating the actions of the government in suspending a police chief?

Why should this fall to Mr. Power to put right?

Anonymous said...

Tom Gruchy

Your point does not address issues around confidence in our Islands Government.

Even if Mr. Power receives compensation that goes no way near putting right how the actions of those involved from the top to the bottom thought they were acting in anyones interst to pull this off.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,

Ref. earlier discussions on the local media:

The JEP is still largely owned/controlled by the Walker family.

I was wondering if the local franchise of the BBC actually stands for the Bailache Broadcasting Company?

Does this sum it up or are there any other stakeholders that we should be aware of ?

The Walker/Bailache entities are very much in bed with each other.

From the coordinating infamous Liberation day speeches when Bailache stated that the "Real Scandal" was the bad publicity for Jersey (and not the decades of child abuse !)

To the unbalanced BBC Radio jersey interview 3 days before the last elections where Walker gave a 15 minute "Establishment Party" plug of much of the Bailache Manifesto.

Where is the balance that is meant to be a legal obligation for the BBC? - Walker was not standing but it is like letting Mussolini do the pre-election broadcasting in 1930's Germany.

H

Ian Evans said...

JERSEY ALL OVER AGAIN

Tom Gruchy said...

All that Mr Power would have to do is sign a personal petition.
It would be the role of any States members to argue the merits of any grievance and this process would inevitably expose any defcts in the government procedures to date -so what is the objection?
It would cost Mr Power nothing financially.

Zoompad said...

I'm not a traitor. I know it looks like I am attacking Robert Green but I'm not.

The Orees were on Mothers for Justice, and they bullied me for 2 years for posting about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. John Hemming witnessed their constant bullying and did nothing at all to stop them!

Stuart would never have allowed them to treat me like that.

I begged and pleaded with Stuart not to trust John Hemmings. If John Hemmings was truly a good man he would never have let me get bullied for 2 years on that site for exposing two dead American paedophile psychologists. He would also be wanting to investigate the Colin Tucker scandal.

I begged Robert Green not to trust John Hemmings as well.

I can hardly bear it that people think I am a traitor and a liar and a loser. All I've done is tell the truth. I feel like getting a ladder and climbing onto the roof of my house and screaming at the top of my voice about this, but of course I cant do that because I would have people banging me up and saying I was a complete raving lunatic.

So frustrated and upset.

Anonymous said...

Did you get a response from ILM?

Anonymous said...

The lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum ! #1

(This is a condensation/re-write of my post on http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/02/unlawful-coup-against-police-chief.html )

I have just watched a fascinating programme on the iplayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014kj65/Horizon_20112012_Are_You_Good_or_Evil/

It starts off OK but it gets interesting from 26:00 with research by Professor Bob Hare into Psychopaths [~1% of population].

& very interesting from 43:30 covering Psychopath's infiltration [~4%?] of business (and presumably politics & banking !)

Psychopathic mimicry is easily mistaken for leadership qualities and the Psychopath is able to use a combination of their "skills" to achieve their goals: charm, manipulation, intimidation ..............

at 47:00 comes the analysis of their actual performance - and IT IS ALL TALK & SPIN and their performance is actually DISMAL !!!!
Hmmmmm..............

It usually takes childhood trauma/abuse to turn a genetic Psychopath into a killer.

factors like a happy upbringing can help [psychopaths] to mimic colleagues and fit in at work.

The capacity of the 'successful psychopath' to identify and outwardly display the qualities corporate leaders admire helps them climb the career ladder quickly despite being poor managers.

Some background on Professor Hare's work :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist
".... checklist assesses glib and superficial charm, grandiosity, need for stimulation, pathological lying, conning and manipulating, lack of remorse, callousness, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, irresponsibility, failure to accept responsibility for one's own actions and so forth."

******Why can't I help thinking of certain of our politicians in this context.

There are certainly a couple of past and present members of the big house who tick most of the boxes.

On his comments site Stuart Syvret might have been hinting at ILM (or was it someone else?):

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

"People in positions of strength and power who have behaved with - at best - utter callousness towards the weak and vulnerable, and - in some cases with deliberate malice and sadism.
For example, subjecting a mentally ill child to a regime of illegal solitary confinement.
For a period of two months.
Leaving the child laying bleeding from self-harm lacerations each night on a mattress in the cell.
Failing to address the burningly obvious health, emotion and education needs of the child. "
------------------------

For what it is worth, from my limited knowledge I don't think that ILM is a psychopath.
he is perhaps a relic of "hard love" Victorianism ?
he is perhaps product of his soiled environment and a religious delusionist who apparently thinks that god on earth wears a tank top and has the initials PB ?

Incidentally PB is the symbol in the Periodic Table for lead.
-Lead is a soft weak metal that initially looks shiny but quickly tarnishes to gray.
-It turns out to be much denser than expected.
-In addition to being toxic it is particularly dangerous because it is a cumulative poison and the damage builds up over years as, once adopted, the contaminant cannot be easily got rid of or ejected.
-Lead is particularly dangerous to children, past present and future.

Food for thought -but do not swallow !

As recent events have shown in almost comic detail this whole messy business could be behind us if the requirement to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth extended to [ex] members of the judiciary like ILM & PB

Anonymous said...

The lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum #2

Psychopathy is apparently clinically diagnosable in about 1% of the general population, rising to about 4% within higher management and potentially higher still in "hothouse"/transient societies like Jersey.

What is bizarre about the world, and Jersey in particular, is that even "normal" politicians, business people and bankers have adopted the mantle of the Psychopath (lying, spin, manipulation, risk taking, LOSS OF MORAL COMPASS) and the world was sold from under our feet in a massive confidence trick which is well deconstructed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

The Inside Job film itself is a MUST SEE btw - It would have been fun if it had mentioned the small part played in spreading the rot by Jersey's LLP /Legislature for hire scandal - remember the one where a certain Mr.Syvret was illegally excluded from his rightful position in the States for 6 months.

H.

Anonymous said...

Lets hope that next Tuesday's States Sitting will not be as short and as non productive as the last one.

After all they have had a 3 week break, and any States Member with any substance, would have made the most of his/her time off.

And will be getting Propositions and questions of substance ready for a history making next session.