Sunday, February 26, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 4- SENATOR LE MARQUAND & ACPO


HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND














OPERATION END-GAME 4




THE ROLE OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND





WHY DID THE 4 ACPO REPORTS HAVE TO BE DISCREDITED?




FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE GRAHAM POWER QPM GIVES THE READERS HIS OPINION 




I must thank the http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/  for supplying the audio for this Blog Posting.




During the previous blog postings we have been looking at the complete breakdown of the rule of law in Jersey. The actions of the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Chief Minister Frank Walker, former DCO David Warcup and then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis have been well documented. The politicised removal of former Chief of Police Graham Power is now a documented fact. 




Now is the time to turn our attention to the present Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand (ILM).  For all the faults we can lay at the door of Andrew Lewis, and let's be under no illusion, there are many, the actions of ILM  far surpass his predecessor. When you put the actions of ILM under the spotlight and scrutinise his handling of the Graham Power suspension and related issues it leaves one feeling shocked and amazed at his  total incompetence, arrogance, lack of natural justice, kangaroo courts and his failure to up hold the law and good governance in public office. 


Today I want to focus on the issue of the 4 reports by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)  and reasons given by ILM for not using them.  During the suspension reviews  conducted by ILM on 13 February and 5 March 2009 we discover that he has done exactly what Andrew Lewis did previously.



2008 - Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis suspends GP on;


A letter from David Warcup, a briefing given by David Warcup on the evening of the 11 November 2008 with reference to a Metropolitan Police "Interim" report.


2009  5 March -  Home Affairs Minister ILM after two suspension review meetings keeps Graham Power suspended on the Warcup letter,  briefing notes from the Warcup and public opinion. 



Now, I really want you to think about this. What's missing  from the above? What never ever seems to get a look in? What is missing from the original suspension and the continued suspension of Graham Power? What's missing that could have added some balance? I will tell you what.



4 -ACPO  REPORTS - 


ACPO 1


ACPO 2


ACPO 3 & 4



The ACPO Reports caused the establishment a big problem. How could they keep their story going.  The ACPO Reports had to be discredited.


 This is where the Audio by "THEJERSEYWAY" comes into play.  


On 21 March 2010 there was a Sunday Talkack programe featuring Deputy Roy Le Herissier and ILM. The part im interested in concerns  the ACPO Reports,  what ILM says about them and how he discredits them.  


You must remember that ILM is prepared to form a judgement on public opinion and not the 4 Reports produced by Andy Baker (SOCA), Anne Harrison and John Mooney (NPIA). This is what we are dealing with here. You just can't make this up. Even when Graham Power sought Judicial Review the ACPO Reports were not permitted as evidence.  Why could this be? Why had the ACPO Reports turned into the establishment's very own Kryptonite? The answer I believe is a very simple one. I will allow you to form your own opinions on this as mine are obvious.


 


PLEASE LISTEN TO THE AUDIO BEFORE CARRYING ON WITH THIS POSTING. 



THE AUDIO IS A MUST LISTEN - The whole programe can be listened to here:


http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.html



The Audio takes some seconds to load up. 



21/3/2010 





I have published the urgent Oral Question that was lodged by then Deputy Bob HIll after listening to this talkback programe. It is reproduced below. 




4. Urgent Oral Question

The Bailiff:

We then come to an urgent oral question which was due to be asked at the last sitting but was unable to proceed because the Minister was unable to be present and so it was agreed it be held over to today’s sitting.

[9:45]


4.1 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding comments made during the BBC Talkback programme about a senior ACPO officer:

Will the Minister inform Members whether he broke a confidentiality clause by claiming on the B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation) Talkback programme that the Wiltshire Police had identified what the Minister claimed to be a “scandal” involving a senior A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) officer, and if so, why?  Would he further state what the conflict of interest was and with whom the person involved agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in A.C.P.O. reports?  Has the Minister made an official complaint to A.C.P.O.?


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

I want to first of all explain to Members why I was not here on the last occasion.  Both myself and my wife were struck down on the evening of the Monday at about 9.30 p.m. with a Norwalk-type virus which was not very pleasant and it would not have been very pleasant either for me or for other Members if I had attended on the next day.  In answer to the question, there are 2 assertions contained in the question which I do not think are factually correct.  In addition to that I will try and answer as briefly as I can but, as is the habit of the Deputy of St. Martin, it is a multi-part question.  Firstly, I do not believe that I have broken a confidentiality clause and that is for the reason set out in some detail in my written answer to 5302 to which I would refer Members.  Secondly, I do not think that I mentioned the Wiltshire Police in this context.  I am not sure of that, and I have not had a chance to check any transcript, but I do not think that I did.  My intention on the Talkback programme was to attempt to achieve a better and fairer factual balance in relation to the situation.  In particular, my intention was to deal with issues which had been put into the public domain, some by the Deputy of St. Martin himself, presumably on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, and also by others.  Those issues included an assertion that the first and second reports of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Working Group provided a complete defence to the Chief Officer of Police.  Now, I have not made any factual decisions on these matters and cannot do so because of the fact that I am involved in a disciplinary matter but when matters were asserted in this way which were not, in my view, in any way balanced, I believe it to be a public duty of mine, as the Minister involved, to correct and to seek to balance the situation where there are clear imbalances in what has been put to the public.  There are a number of issues in relation to the A.C.P.O. reports.  There are various issues and, of course, it all depends upon what their status was.  Were they just a friendly policeman coming alongside to give friendly advice or were they in some sense intended to be independent advice?  If they were intended to be the latter and it was my understanding at that time that that was the intention, then there are a number of issues that arise.  In particular ...


The Bailiff:

Minister, I appreciate this is quite a lengthy question but this is turning into an extremely lengthy answer.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I cannot avoid that.  [Laughter]


The Bailiff:

How much longer do you have?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

About a third of a page, Sir.  It was, after all, given the status of being an urgent oral question.  I think it is not improper for me to respond in some detail to a matter which has been deemed to be urgent [Laughter] if I may put it that way.  I shall try and be as brief as I can.  The issue to which I alluded was an issue as to whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the senior officer involved.  That conflict of interest would be in the area of the fact that that officer was about to apply in Jersey for a senior post in the Jersey police force.  Now in my view there was an obvious potential conflict of interest in that sort of situation and the conflict is between the person’s desire to be objective, if it was going to be an objective report, and the temptation to say and to do things to please the senior officers already in the force.  That is the issue.  I do not believe that I have at any time said that this officer agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in reports.  I have, however, said I believe that certain recommendations which were made by the officers were not contained in reports.  Finally, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make an official complaint at this stage.


4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I know my question was lengthy but I have difficulty finding out where the answers were.  I think most people were looking really at the “scandal” and I really feel it hardly could be said it was a scandal.  Could I ask the Minister whether in actual fact he has seen any of the 4 A.C.P.O. reports and, if so, will he agree then that the senior applicant from A.C.P.O. who was applying for the job had?  Two of the reports were published before the actual interview and 2 were published after the interview; would he agree with that also?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The 2 reports which are particularly being relied upon were before the interview.  I am not sure of the timing of the other 2; they may well have been after.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

Could I ask the Minister again, has he seen any of the 4 reports?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I have indeed.


The Deputy of St. Martin:

I did ask, would the Minister then agree that the 4 reports were consistent in the way in which they reported favourably about the way in which the States of Jersey Police were conducting the investigation?  Therefore, if there was any scandal surely it would be the fact that there was no scandal because the reports were consistent in the way they reported favourably from before the interviews for the job and then after the interviews for the job.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I do not want to go into detail and expressing a view in relation to the contents of the reports because this is part of the disciplinary process that I am part of.  It was the first and second reports which were particularly relied upon and put into the public domain and it is in relation to those that I was seeking to achieve a greater balance.


4.1.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

Given that the Minister is, as he says, so essential to the eventual decision on the Chief Police Officer’s suspension, in terms of talking about providing a fairer picture does the Minister not believe that using terms like “scandal” and “scoop” for theJ.E.P(Jersey Evening Post) as he used to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel can only paint the exact opposite picture, intentional or otherwise?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct.  If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper.  The term “scoop” was used by me rather light-heartedly in a particular context and that particular context which I checked from the transcript of the hearing was the context that I had given an interview with the J.E.P.specifically in relation to the timescales in relation to the different reports.  I do not want to start talking to the Scrutiny Panel about that detail.  I do not find that was being reported before the main Article.  That was the meaning of the word “scoop” in that context.


4.1.3 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

I just want to ask the Minister about the review hearing into the suspension.  He has talked in his answer at length about balance and I just would like him to comment on the impression given by the transcript which is that the letter from the acting Chief Officer of Police, which is then rebutted by Dr. Brain, seems to be the only evidence that he took serious cognisance of.  He said that he could not look at other things like A.C.P.O. reports and so on which gave the other side of the picture and found reasons for not doing so, and I just would like his comments on that.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


The factual matters that I had before me in relation to the suspension hearings which I conducted in February and March 2008 were indeed the letter from the now acting Chief Officer setting out concerns in relation to various issues and an extract - I think it was the outline - of the press conference, for want of a better word, which took place in November 2008 which stated certain specific matters.  I excluded certain other matters from what I was considering.  The decision I had to make was as to whether I should start looking at any of the evidence in relation to the matter.  The problem with this, if you start looking at partial evidence, where do you end: you end up in a sort of mini-trial.  I am very experienced in the parallel situation which is bail applications where exactly the same situation arises.  You make a decision based upon the allegations and the broad sweep of things.  You do not allow yourself to be drawn into looking into detailed evidence.  The specific issue which is raised by the Deputy of St. Mary was challenged, of course, as part of judicial review proceedings before the Royal Court and the Royal Court upheld the approach which I had taken.


4.1.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask a supplementary on that?  The Minister said that in the review hearing he excluded certain other matters and that is the point, I put it to him, why people are uneasy about this process.


The Bailiff:


Sorry, Deputy, how does this arise out of this question?  This question is related to the A.C.P.O. report.

[10:00]


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Well that is exactly it, that those reports do not seem to have been taken into account in the review hearing, so only one side of the story, if you like, and then that is treated and assessed but not the other side and excluded certain other matters and I do not understand why.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Well that is exactly what I have just explained, that the A.C.P.O. reports would have been part of the evidence in relation to the matter.  Even if I had looked at the A.C.P.O. reports, and I have subsequently, it would have made no difference to my decision because I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained.  I do not know whether they were followed out properly; I do not know whether they even make sense.  Now all these are issues which have to be looked at in a wider context.


4.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

I was obviously there during the scrutiny review.  I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that using terms like “scoop”, which may be appropriate for an ice cream salesman but not necessarily for a statesman, and sensationalising issues by talking of “scandal” on the radio and then not giving evidence on the radio, is partaking in the exact kind of behaviour for which the Deputy Chief of Police ...


The Bailiff:

Deputy, that is an exact repetition of the question that Deputy Trevor Pitman just asked.


Deputy M. Tadier:

Well, in that case I will leave it.


4.1.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will just ask the Minister would he not really agree that the real scandal is the Chief Executive Officer’s role?  He was the person who appointed the Deputy Police Chief.  He was then involved directly again with the suspension of the Police Chief with the Deputy Chief Police Officer and now has come forward with recommending that the Deputy Chief Officer should have the suspended police officer’s job.  Would he not really think that is the real scandal of what is going on at the moment?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No.



This suspension of the former Chief of Police has been a sham from start to finish.


 The Home Affairs Minister must be made to explain his actions. They are not befitting of someone who holds public office. When you look at his actions and the evidence it leaves you baffled as to why a former Magistrate acted in the way he did. Could it be, this is only my opinion, that he gave up his very well paid magistrate job to do exactly this. The establishment needed someone with some form of legal background. They needed someone to help put it to bed. It didn't happen. Some decent politicians along with Bloggers started investigating and have now unravelled a cover-up and suspension  that goes to the very heart of the Government and Law Office.



Rico Sorda



Team Voice



We now come to the reply from Former Chief Of Police Graham Power regarding these issues;



I have been asked by the blog authors to comment on the “ACPO Reports” in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry (Operation Rectangle.).   My attention has been drawn to a radio interview and other comments made over the past two years by the current Minister for Home Affairs Senator Ian le Marquand.   When commenting on the ACPO reports the Minister has made references to a “scandal” and a serious conflict of interest.   He said that the reputation of ACPO would be damaged by the nature of their involvement in the Enquiry.


It might be helpful for readers not familiar with the role of ACPO for me to attempt to summarise the nature of the organisation and its role in relation to Operation Rectangle.   The term “ACPO” is an abbreviation for the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.   Police officers and civilian staff who operate at or above the level of Assistant Chief Constable in police forces in those three countries are members of ACPO.   Senior Police Officers in Scotland have a separate professional association.   The role of ACPO is not to be confused with that of a Staff Association or similar representative body.   The professional and employment interests of Chief Officers are represented by a separate organisation which is the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA.)   ACPO is concerned entirely with professional matters.   Its role includes the development of best practice in policing and the provision of guidance and support to forces facing an exceptional challenge.   


ACPO is divided into Business Areas each of which is led by a senior figure, normally a Chief Constable who, in addition to his or her leadership of their own force, will have a wider responsibility for a particular area of policing and will provide guidance and leadership at National Level.   The Business Area for the purposes of Operation Rectangle was the one concerned with Crime.   At the time of the abuse enquiry it was led by the Chief Constable of an English force.


Once it became clear that “Rectangle” was to become a major enquiry I arranged for the part of ACPO responsible for Crime to be contacted and asked to provide advice and support.   Shortly afterwards members of the ACPO Homicide Working Group (HWG) arrived in the Island.   They were led by an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of major crime.   At that time the person concerned held a senior executive position in the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.)   It might be worth making the point that the experience, qualifications, seniority and credibility of the ACPO team which advised officers engaged in the abuse enquiry exceeded by a huge distance that of any other body which has expressed an opinion on the matter since that time.   This includes Wiltshire Police and it certainly includes David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.


It is understood that the terms of reference for the Homicide Working Group are in the public domain as are their reports in relation to the enquiry.   I think that it would be fair to summarise the role of the HWG as providing expert advice and support for the investigation and to give a measure of quality assurance.


Readers of the HWG reports will see that they are thorough and professional and go into some of the fine detail of the enquiry.   They identify positive aspects of the investigation and they also make recommendations for improvement.   Their reports also contain a running commentary on how their recommendations were acted upon.   In my view it is fair to summarise that aspect of their work as positive and sometimes complimentary both in relation to the enquiry, and the speed with which the recommendations were implemented.   Readers of the HWG reports are entitled to come to their own view on these matters and are encouraged to do so.


In addition to their written reports the working party also provided face to face briefings.   I was briefed on a regular basis and attended meetings at which members of the working group communicated their thoughts in detail.   I also arranged a series of briefings to key political and government figures.   These included the then Minister for Home Affairs Wendy Kinnard, the then Deputy Minister Andrew Lewis, the Chief Minister Frank Walker, and the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers Bill Ogley.   I also established a rule that neither me nor any other member of the force should be present during these briefings.   This was arranged so that the discussions could be as open as possible and that there could be no suggestion that the free exchange of information and views had been inhibited by the presence of me or another senior officer.   The verbal feedback from Ministers was that this arrangement was useful and in his statement to the Wiltshire enquiry Andrew Lewis says that he and others were told at these briefings that the force was offering a “shining example” of how such an enquiry should be conducted.


Subsequent to my suspension the use of the ACPO reports became controversial in a number of areas, the primary two of which were their non-use in considering whether to impose or maintain the suspension and the derogatory comments, referred to earlier, made by the current Minister.


The issue regarding the non-use of the reports has been explored in detail in other forums and I will attempt to summarise it briefly here.   Neither Andrew Lewis in imposing the suspension, or Ian le Marquand in maintaining the suspension, would allow themselves to read the ACPO reports, or to be strictly correct, would not allow themselves to consider them “on the record” when the suspension was being officially considered.   What they did or what they read when nothing was being recorded may remain a mystery.   What we know for sure is that Lewis enacted the suspension on the basis of a letter from David Warcup which included some very selective quotes from a memorandum by a member of the Metropolitan Police who were separately reviewing the enquiry as a result of a recommendation by the Homicide Working Group.   By the time Ian le Marquand reviewed the suspension the Met had insisted on the withdrawal of its material from the process which left le Marquand with even less evidence than his predecessor.   This led to a situation whereby the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was being kept suspended entirely on the basis of comments made in a letter by the Deputy Chief Officer (made Acting Chief Officer with a salary increase subsequent to the letter,) David Warcup, but the detailed and documented views of the ACPO Homicide Working Group were ruled out of play.   As indicated earlier, the ACPO working group was staffed by recognised experts whose advice was widely sought at international level.   There is no record of anybody of note seeking the opinions of David Warcup on matters of major crime.   Readers can come to their own view as to what this situation indicates regarding the desire of the Jersey authorities to come to a well informed and fair decision regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of their Police Service.   In considering this matter it might be helpful for the reader to consider whether, had the ACPO reports contained something damming and highly critical, Ministers would have been equally determined to rule them out of play.   Readers may also wish to consider the plainly conflicted position of David Warcup in the context of the Ministers subsequent comments, which I will now attempt to summarise, as to what in his view constituted a conflict of interest.


The second issue of note relating to the reports are the critical comments of the current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, in which he refers to “scandalous” matters relating to a conflict of interest concerning the role of ACPO.   This aspect was “trailed” by the Minister in a series of comments which built up interest and exposure until he eventually revealed what was on his mind.   We were told by the Minister that the senior member of the Homicide Working Group had applied unsuccessfully for the position of Deputy Chief Officer of the Force.   That was it.   That was the “scandal.”


But the implications of the repeated comments of the Minister were plain enough.   The suggestion was that the status of the person concerned as a candidate for an appointment in the force had led to some toning down or perhaps outright misrepresentation of what ACPO had to say.   It might be worth thinking this through.


To help with this process it might be useful for the reader to consider just whose thoughts were supposed to be influenced by such a deception.   Certainly not mine.   The selection and appointment of the new Deputy Chief Officer was made by a panel consisting of Wendy Kinnard, Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley and an advisor from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.   It was done in a Jersey hotel several miles from Police Headquarters.   I took no part in the process and did not enter or go within miles the hotel building until the selection had been made and I was to be informed of the result.   It therefore could not have been me who was supposed to be influenced by positive comments in relation to the enquiry.   If it was anyone it was Ministers and the Chief Executive.   But readers may have spotted that there is something not quite right with this aspect of the Minister’s argument.   The Minister for Home Affairs is suggesting that a candidate sought to gain improper influence with the Jersey establishment by saying positive things about the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   If indeed he was, then he had got it the wrong way round.   The Minister for Home Affairs appears to be saying that ACPO reports in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry were corruptly influenced in a positive direction in order to gain favour with Jersey Ministers.   Given the undisguised hostility to the enquiry demonstrated by the Islands government at that time this does not seem probable.   So far as I know the Minister has never tried to explain how this would make sense from the perspective of a candidate and I cannot work it out either.


The remaining aspect of this curious set of allegations which readers may wish to consider is the sheer gravity and magnitude of what the Minister is alleging, and his lack of follow-through with the serious allegations he has made.   There is no record of the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs writing to the Serious and Organised Crime agency and formally putting to them his allegation that one of their senior executives is corrupt.   There is no record of any complaint made to ACPO.   There is no record of any request for an independent investigation of the serious allegations made by the Minister.   There is just a record of words thrown into the air on Radio Jersey and in the sanctuary of the States.   There does not appear to have been any attempt to back those words with evidence or an investigation.   Readers can come to their own conclusions with regard to the sincerity, consistency, integrity and truthfulness of those involved.   They might also come to their own conclusions regarding whose word can or cannot be trusted in these matters.


And finally, some readers may be concerned that, notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of evidence, the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have been accurate in predicting that his comments would be damaging to the reputation of ACPO.   Given the high standing in which that organisation is held throughout the world, that would be a matter of concern.   I have therefore taken the trouble to contact former ACPO colleagues, who are still in senior positions in that organisation, and checked with them as to whether there are grounds for concern.   So far I have not found a senior member of ACPO who has heard of Senator Ian le Marquand.   Or his comments.   So perhaps there is no longer any need to worry over that issue.   Some readers may be relieved to hear this news.







77 comments:

Anonymous said...

I just quickly typed out the first part of the audio.

Int. You have taken them into consideration.

ILM Can I just explain the situation in relation to my decisions in Feb and March on suspension. Feb & March I held two hearings on two seperate days, to determine whether Mr. Power should be suspended. I completely reheard matters becaise I was concerned about the speed and the precedured followed in the first suspension.

In reality, at those two meetings he was not concerned with the first suspension.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Le Marquand. ''My intention today is, and always has been, to conduct a review of the issue as to whether Mr. Power should continue to be suspended and not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally he was properly suspended in November.'

I dont suppose the above quote given at the meetings Mr. Le Marquand referred to in the audio would be worth sending to the BBC broadcaster.

Sets me thinking of the CTV advert where ILM is broadcasting forgetting questions asked, in their newest promo clip. But really given his position and responsibility it is not acceptable to be that forgetful. Unless you have a reason or possibly of a certain age. This is not a laughing matter.

Ian Evans said...

LOOKING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

Ian Evans said...

and GOOD work Rico :)

Keep pluggin away mate

Anonymous said...

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2008/20691-46213-1222008.pdf

Taking on board Stuarts comments. Feb 2008


Highlighted just one example of self preservation and forward thinking in self preservation.
(a ) In the paragraph numbered 3.5 after the words “will review the matter and” insert the words “,
subject to the preservation of legal professional privilege and the privilege against selfincrimination,”.

res nullius said...

"If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper. " ILM

I would be interested in any readers suggestions for list of 'senior officers' who have put themselves into a position where there is a conflict of interest, potential or otherwise.

Shall I begin with Senator Le Marquand?

Anonymous said...

Such a good blog update!

From the Graham Power, QPM, statement, above, "Readers of the HWG reports will see that they are thorough and professional and go into some of the fine detail of the enquiry. They identify positive aspects of the investigation and they also make recommendations for improvement. Their reports also contain a running commentary on how their recommendations were acted upon. In my view it is fair to summarise that aspect of their work as positive and sometimes complimentary both in relation to the enquiry, and the speed with which the recommendations were implemented. Readers of the HWG reports are entitled to come to their own view on these matters and are encouraged to do so.

****
Mr Power describes the transparency of the HWG role, stating, "It is understood that the terms of reference for the Homicide Working Group are in the public domain as are their reports in relation to the enquiry. I think that it would be fair to summarise the role of the HWG as providing expert advice and support for the investigation and to give a measure of quality assurance."

Wow. This sounds pretty straightforward.

From reading this post it would seem likely the ACPO and their HWG would have been publicly ridiculed and perhaps even judicially challenged by the Jersey government had there ever been ANY evidence of ACPO incompetence or impropriety. Instead, ILM and the puppet press have only put forth extreme effort to avoid exposure of the ACPO Reports and anything at all to do with their assessment process.

Only now is it even clear that the HWG met with Jersey officials apart from Mr Power and his staff, apparently making themselves available to expertly and confidentially answer any quality control questions. Do we know of any questions asked or concerns voiced? This is the first I've heard of those ongoing ongoing Q&A opportunities.

I have no idea how possible this is, but I am left hoping Mr Power will be assisted by the ACPO in clearing up this travesty of justice. The ACPO should be every bit as offended by ILM's overall disparagement of their professionalism, the phony scandal allegation in particular, and by the outrageous behavior of David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

As Mr Power has mentioned previously, good professional policing at a local level depends upon the mutual trust, assessments and ongoing advice of independent outside police experts like the ACPO. There is obviously a real danger for the policing process in other places should ACPO fail to put the record straight in cases like this.

Let us all hope someone within the ACPO will make the effort to put more of this story out to the National media. It could be in their own interest as well as that of Mr Power. It might also help begin to right one terrible wrong to the abuse survivors who have seen so little of the truth come out in the mainstream media.

Elle

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I do like that quote from Ian Le Marquand:

"If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper."

In fact, I like it so much, I'm going to quote it in the legal papers.

Senior officers and conflicts of interest, eh?

Shocking.

Simply shocking.

Well, let's look the bright side, eh, Ian? Your words are to contribute to the rooting-out of such foul conduct.

Stuart

Caveman in the Snow said...

"Well that is exactly what I have just explained, that the A.C.P.O. reports would have been part of the evidence"?

Hence the very reason why its should have been looked at to bring the balance ILM squeeks on about.

"Even if I had looked at the A.C.P.O. reports, and I have subsequently, it would have made no difference to my decision"?

Bacause ILM had to take the path he was placed on those above him and any other factors didn't come into it.

"because I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained. I do not know whether they were followed out properly;"

Like Warcups were???

"I do not know whether they even make sense."

I indeed ILM has read them then he would know they make perfet sense.


"Now all these are issues which have to be looked at in a wider context."

You bet your a*s they do...

Anonymous said...

There can be no doubt left now in the mind of anyone with an ounce of intelligence that ILM has been lying to the States and to the people of Jersey for the last few years.
One clear result of the maintenance of this totally unsustainable position is that the reputation of senior police officers with impeccable records has been "trashed".
Another clear result is that those who have suffered abuse in the past have been let down badly by the government. The corollary of this is that those who inflicted the abuse have been protected on an "at all costs" basis.
To any sensible human being this situation is disgusting.
The biggest tragedy of all is that no one at all seems to have any way to rectify it.
Shameful.

Zoompad said...

That scandal that ILM was talking about in part 2, the conflict of interest - was he talking about David Warcup?

voiceforchildren said...

The supposed SCANDAL.........That Ian Le Marquand had to look up in the dictionary!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Does your neighbour own a PETROL BOMB?

Anonymous said...

the real scandal is that ILM is so thick that he had to look the word up in the first place.

Anonymous said...

On the 13th July 2009 in answer to a question from Mr. Crowcroft 2.7.5 The Connétable of St. Helier:
In his closing moments of his last answer to me, the Minister said, almost sotto voce, that the investigators are not investigating the original suspension. Is the Minister saying that the terms of the investigation have shifted from the grounds under which the Chief of Police was originally suspended? Does he not think that is against the rules of natural justice?

The reply below:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

That is not what I am saying at all. I am simply saying that we have not asked the police to investigate whether or not the police chief was properly suspended in the first place. That would be a total waste of public money.

Why pretend on air that he was concerned with the original suspension. ''That would be a waste of Money''

He cannot see the waste of money is, in trying to justify that suspension of which he cannot evidence.

Damocles said...

"It might be worth making the point that the experience, qualifications, seniority and credibility of the ACPO team which advised officers engaged in the abuse enquiry exceeded by a huge distance that of any other body which has expressed an opinion on the matter since that time. This includes Wiltshire Police and it certainly includes David Warcup and Mick Gradwell"

I think the paragraph above from Mr Power's comments needs a lot of publicising

Anonymous said...

so ILM thinks

"If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper."

but not if your name is Warcup

rico sorda said...

I really hope that people full realise just how big a problem we are facing in Jersey. People like Lewis, Le Marquand etc don't make decisions - they act out the decisions made for them.

They are willing to make themselves look like complete fools because they haven't the fortitude to tell their masters I'm not taking the wrap for this one.

I say again - how is Senator Le Marquand still in office?


One must also look to the States Chamber. They must pull the plug on this Minister they really must.

I will keep going until I believe I'm done.

Then I will walk away and say at least I tried, I tried to something, I didn't just moan, I put my head on the feudal block and flicked them the bird ( sent by broadband) of course.

Do something - don't moan

email your politicians. they represent you

rs

Anonymous said...

Conflicted enough.

Mr Warcup promised position as chief of police on employment. Mr Le Marquand publicly stated he would resign if Mr. Warcup not given promised job title.

Mr Warcups letter used as ''the'' evidence to suspend Mr Power then judged and considered by Mr. Le Marquand in suspension dispute.

Anonymous said...

Senator Le Marquand goes on about correcting a balance concerning the publication of the ACPO reports. The Senator plus his allies must have filled their pants when they became public because it seriously put 4 torpedoes into their already sinking titanic. The Senator is so scared about being found out you can hear it in his voice.

"My intention on the Talkback programme was to attempt to achieve a better and fairer factual balance in relation to the situation. In particular, my intention was to deal with issues which had been put into the public domain, some by the Deputy of St. Martin himself, presumably on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, and also by others. Those issues included an assertion that the first and second reports of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Working Group provided a complete defence to the Chief Officer of Police"

What a silly thing to say. What the ACPO reports offered the Minister was an alternative to the Warcup Letter, briefing and public opinion. The opinions offered by the Senator are verging on the ludicrous. This is what happens when you are defending the lie. The lie is what makes fools.

This has been and continues to be a gripping tale of child abuse, cover ups and government incompetence of the like never seen before.

Next Blog please

Anonymous said...

Anonymous comment at 6:25
"Mr Warcup promised position as chief of police on employment. Mr Le Marquand publicly stated he would resign if Mr. Warcup not given promised job title."

"Mr Warcups letter used as ''the'' evidence to suspend Mr Power then judged and considered by Mr. Le Marquand in suspension dispute.
February 27, 2012 6:25 PM"

The (above) perfectly straightforward comment bears repeating over and over.

What would the ACPO or any real professional policing organization think about this?

Anonymous said...

"This has been and continues to be a gripping tale of child abuse, cover ups and government incompetence of the like never seen before.

Next Blog please"

Absolutely, and more factual submissions from Graham Power please. At this rate, we will have his report submitted on these blogs un-redacted. Come on ILM, what are you waiting for!

Anonymous said...

At the start of this posting, para reads , 2009 5th march home affairs minister ilm after two suspension review meetings keeps GP suspended,on warcup letter, breifing notes from warcup and public opinion,my question what public opinion? did he carry out a survey or hold a public meeting to seek public opinion, I think not just more lies,not one member of public that I have spoken to (and that has been many) have agreed that GP should have been suspended,some suggesting that certain members of the states should have been suspended long ago mainly for lying and wasteing public money,I can asure ilm that public opinion at this time is very strong that he should resign and this includes some of his fellow church members at St Pauls,so come on ilm do us all a favour,GO.

This comment was just submitted on my last blog but also thought it should be published here..

rs

Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous said...

``the real scandal is that ILM is so thick that he had to look the word up in the first place''.

I beg to differ, the real scandal is that we have the ILM's of this world sitting in judgement! Does he really represent the average magistrate, law officer and politicion? God help us!

Anonymous said...

Can anyone confirm if the HR person involved in Mr Powers suspension is no longer in the job.

If so, do we know if they received a golden handshake left of their accord or were dismissed?

This reflects badly on the States of Jersey that Mr. Le Marquand is able to carry on the charade and has not been dismissed.

Anonymous said...

"If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper."

Exactly why Warcup's letter should have been disregarded, as well as Gradwell influenced Press Briefings.

Graham Power was suspended in a fit of "hell or high water" and my my some look to be right up to their necks in it!!

Anonymous said...

Although it has been said that Senator Le Marquand’s recognition of the fact that matters were grossly exaggerated many times by the press, he thought it reasonable to take account of "public opinion" in keeping Graham Power suspended, now how daft is that!!

rico sorda said...

If what you read in these postings concern you then ask yourself why none of our media are covering it. This is the scary part it shows you how the establishment control things.

Email your politicians I repeat email your politicians

Start raising your concerns. Point them towards the evidence

rs

Anonymous said...

During the Wiltshire inquiry, Wiltshire had a public opinion survey done to measure local attitudes to the Jersey Police after the Historical Abuse Inquiry. I think the result was that many people had a positive attitude to the Police and that there was not therefore the widespread concern/ dissatisfaction claimed by Frank Walker, Bill Ogley, Ian Le Marquand and others.

Anonymous said...

'The Home Affairs Minister must be made to explain his actions'.

It seems to me that he has,and frequently. You got to give him credit for always having an answer.He has one of those legalise minds which is able to phrase things in such a way that he can always worm his way out of a predicament. He is just great at running verbal circles around anyone.

rico sorda said...

it seems to me that he has,and frequently. You got to give him credit for always having an answer.He has one of those legalise minds which is able to phrase things in such a way that he can always worm his way out of a predicament. He is just great at running verbal circles around anyone.


Actually its more like legalise rubbish. He knows he won't be held to account so can say what he likes and does. It doesn't even have to make sense and it doesn't he just keeps belting it out. There must be vote of no confidence against this minister its the only way the evidence can be brought forward into the chamber.

If this happens I have no doubt the Minister will be removed

rs

Zoompad said...

"If what you read in these postings concern you then ask yourself why none of our media are covering it. This is the scary part it shows you how the establishment control things.

Email your politicians I repeat email your politicians

Start raising your concerns. Point them towards the evidence "

What about us concerned people who live on the mainland? I have told my MP Bill Cash several times about the collusion of corrupt officials to cover up child abuse. The UK Government can't claim that what happened in Jersey has nothing to do with the UK, as not only was the Pindown system the same as the Grand Prix, and children from the West Midlands were being deported to Haut de la Garenne, but also UK police like David Warcup and Muck Gradwell, and Muick Tapp were involved in the very expensive cover up

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"During the Wiltshire inquiry, Wiltshire had a public opinion survey done to measure local attitudes to the Jersey Police after the Historical Abuse Inquiry. I think the result was that many people had a positive attitude to the Police and that there was not therefore the widespread concern/ dissatisfaction claimed by Frank Walker, Bill Ogley, Ian Le Marquand and others."

What appears to be eluding some people, is the fact that even if public opinion had been hostile to the police and the child abuse investigation - so what?

It should have made not one atom of difference.

By accepting the notion that 'public opinion' is a relevant consideration in such matters as the party-political removal of an inconvenient police chief - you fall into the trap of accepting the oligarhcy thinking.

The task of a police force and a police chief - is to objectively and impartially enforce the law.

It is not their task to win 'popularity contests'.

Sometimes the victims of crimes might be in some kind of unpopular minority. An msm led public opinion may not care about that minority - or may even be hostile to them.

Does that mean the police force should then stop providing the full and proper protections of the law to that minority?

Of course not.

Indeed - it is nothing less than profoundly and utterly dangerous - to even consider that it might be appropriate for policing to be effectively conducted and directed in accordance with what a few media bosses decide is going to be "public opinion".

That way lies the path of discrimination, mob-rule, lawlessness and populist fascism.

And, of course, if public opinion is to be the guide of who the police should - or should not - enforce the law against - then some influential villains - real, foul swines - absolute animals - like a criminal media boss, maybe - will get away with their crimes.

At least until we secure objective, non-politicised policing for the good of this community.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

I think Le Marquand has stopped making any sense.

Anonymous said...

"He has one of those legalise minds He is just great at running verbal circles around anyone."

As a lawyer I have to say that this statment, while appearing to make sense, is rubbish.

ILM was a pretty hopeless lawyer with an over inflated opinion of his abilities. Ask yourself; if he was such a hot-shot,why did he not stay in private practice where he could have carved out a lucrative future for himself?

He does not have the ability to talk verbal rings around people. He simply waffles and blusters complete nonsense, which leaves others confused while trying to work out what the hell he just said.

His talent is talking cr*p and being able to get away with it. For a while at least.

A good lawyer analyses and presents his argument with precision and clarity. A bad lawyer does what ILM does.

Unfortuantely we have very few politicians who go into the chamber prepared or able to blow him out of the water. They just sit there, listen, scratch their heads trying to decipher his cr*p and then, when they have done that, have to return the following week with another question. Only to repeat the process.

Will someone with intelligence, sharpness and in possession of all the supporting quotes, and evidence ever be able to step up to the mark and take down this inadequate, failed lawyer?

Anonymous said...

I think the public opinion considerations Mr Le Marquand claims to consider, is that, of the pr message they feed us such as waste of money and reputations and such like. Rather than truth of the evidence.

Mr. Le Marquand is not in a reality show and the public vote decides the winner.

Anonymous said...

If le marquand was to resign,that would be the easy way out for him,he needs to be exposed for what he is (a liar and a failed lawer halfwit,come puppet) because I think someone is pulling his strings, no he needs to be taken to task in open forum, ie the states sitting,what an utter disapointment this guy has turned out to be, my wife and myself wasted one of our votes on this clown,to think he sat in judgement of others and he dosen,t appear to know right from wrong,and the difference between the truh and lies,prayers in the states yes please we need big time help from somewere.

Anonymous said...

Hell,when i wrote that comment,I never intended it as a compliment,but more as a comment.
Its good to hear a lawyers view of the man.
Would you do us a favour next time he makes a statement,and give us a translation. Better still would you care to go through and decipher some of his existing waffle.

Anonymous said...

The recent comment from the lawyer was right on the money. There is only one point that I would tend to disagree on. Whilst I agree that ILM is clearly an inadequate lawyer, I don't necessarily think that this means that all lawyers not working in private practice are inadequate. There are some good legal minds at work in the Law Offices although, of course, their advice is not always followed!

As for ILM's apparently clever use of English legalise - well! We often see on TV senior UK politicians being challenged by highly skilled interviewers. This often takes the form of a joust. The politician knows exactly what answers the interviewer wants him to give but equally skilfully avoids providing that answer whilst sounding plausible and getting his own points across clearly. Even though this can be infuriating, one has to admire the skill involved.

ILM, I'm afraid, has never been challenged by a Paxman or John Humphreys. I'm afraid it would be a blood bath if he were to be. No, he simply relies on the simple fact that his very clearly enunciated verbal garbage is enough to fool most States members - oh, and the media of course. He is simply not clever enough to lie consistently although he has demonstrated a singular talent for lying convincingly on single issues. His main problem is that he is not as clever as he thinks he is and cannot remember the detail of the last lie he told.
This would be comical were it not so tragic!

Anonymous said...

Rico have you heard back from the law officers yet?

The reason I ask is yesterday listening to the Leveson Inquiry, I think it was John Prescot who said he had written to Met police and recieved assurances that he had not been hacked on his phone etc etc he also wrote to various other departments dealing with the phone hacking and informed no he was hacked.

It was not until he was advised to write to the law officers that he finally got the answers that confirmed his suspicions.

He also he was very specific when asking for information from the law officers being careful to write in his questions do you have any paper, video, recordings etc any mention of my name in any documents in the met investigation.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Stuart Syvret's analysis that public opinion should not be a factor in police decisions to investigate serious crime. The point I should have gone on to make is that even by their own criteria used to justify Graham Power's suspension/ dismissal, the establishment failed. Their argument has not been supported by the facts. Also Ian Le Marquand has used negative public opinion/ concerns alongside the Warcup letter as the main justifications for maintaining the suspension. Again the evidence does not support him. It is necessary to make these points for a couple of reasons. The notion that the Police only enforce the law by public consent is imbedded in democratic consciousness and is most often measured by public satisfaction surveys of police conduct. The establishment tried to subvert this idea of public consent to their own ends. The sad thing is that while the evidence did not support their view, they have quite successfully managed to persuade opinion formers and many Islanders that Mr.Harper and Mr.Power were out on a limb, policing without popular consent. This is a classic example of the way in which ideology works to support the establishment. While I agree with Stuart that successful policing should not be a popularity contest, these other aspects of the ideological process should not be ignored

Anonymous said...

Looks like you are on the MONEY regarding the actions of Bill Ogley. Half a million for covering up Child Abuse and getting rid of the Chief of Police. Jersey, what an island.

CTV
Jersey's former top civil servant, Bill Ogley, was paid half a million pounds when he quit his job early.

The revelation comes days after it was announced golden handshake agreements were to be looked into.

Jersey's Comptroller and Auditor General is to review the system following a meeting with the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week .

There has been signigifanct public concern about payments made over recent years to officers leaving the employment of the States, and their related organisations.

Chris Swinson says there is a lack of reliable information about the mechanism for the approval of such arrangements.

Anonymous said...

All the chickens are coming home and who is still there carrying on this sham? Senator ILM. Left all alone, no friends, took a huge pay cut and now is all by himself lol he deserves it.......

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Let us not forget the "sterling" words of former Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur concerning Bill Ogley.

The Chief Executive has played an important part in delivering these successes and in responding effectively to the pressures. I thank him for his sterling work.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Another past escapade of Bill Ogley.

At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”.

Anonymous said...

JEP This newspaper has been campaigning for the release of the figures since suspicions of a large pay-off emerged in the autumn. In December a request was mad by the JEP under the Freedom of Information code, but that was refused. Follow-up questions were also met with a wall of silence - until now.

This morning Senator Gorst conceded that the JEP's actions on behalf of Islanders had played a key part in his decision to release details of Mr. Ogley's pay out and to confirm that it was controversially written into his contract.

On BBC headline
Senator Gorst confirmed this was part of his contract with the States of Jersey and that Mr Ogley agreed to the amount being made public.

The Fact Mr. Ogly has sanctioned the release leads me to think this is more PR.

Zoompad said...

Sorry about the typos

Anonymous said...

I had asked an earlier question, that being did or has the HR person involved in Mr. Powers suspension received a golden handshake if no longer in employment of States of Jersey.

I hope Mr. Swindon will take a look.

Anonymous said...

Rico once again thanks for bringing all this together. An immense and worthwhile task, bringing light into the machinations of the dark places of Jersey’s political elite and their mainstream media cohorts. And thanks too to Graham Power for his steadfast willingness to participate in setting the record straight in such a clear and powerful fashion. Hats off to you both.

As I have read through the various revelatory blog postings in recent weeks it has been astounding. From the outset of the Historic Abuse Enquiry there have been many skeletons hidden away in closets that those in positions of power would prefer to remain hidden. They have done their utmost via corruption, collusion, cover up and spin to ensure that they were successful. But once one of these skeletons is uncovered its bony fingers will be pointing to the others that hitherto have remained hidden.

I can’t help thinking that there are and have been various puppets and seeming puppet masters employed by those at the very top who are pulling the important strings.

Although the sequence may not be entirely accurate this sprang to mind. Warcup appointed. Warcup briefs Ogley and Walker. Kinnard resigns. Lewis replaces Kinnard. Lewis suspends Power. Warcup replaces Power. Lewis resigns. ILM arrives. Suspension of Power continues. Walker resigns. Walker replaced by TLS. Warcup resigns. Ogley resigns. What next? ILM resigns. And then maybe Bailhache replaces ILM?

Who are the real powers behind the scenes? What is their agenda? It all seems to lead to the Bailhache brothers, but are they too just the front men? Again who is wielding the real power behind the scenes? Rhetorical questions I suppose, as we will likely never know for sure just who is/was yanking on whose strings, but it surely goes to the very top of the “establishment”.

Corruption, collusion, cover up and spin with a veneer of democracy… aka “The Jersey Way”.

Anonymous said...

"I don't necessarily think that this means that all lawyers not working in private practice are inadequate."

I agree completely and apologise if I offended those perfectly good lawyers in private (and public) practice.

My point should have been that cream always rises to the top.

Had ILM been a top legal brain he would have made a big name for himself in private practice or been snapped up by the Crown. He was not. He simply sneaked off to the safety of an admin job where his delusions of grandeur began to form.

Anonymous said...

Well I wouldn't too excited about Sen. Ian Gorst. Quote from him in today's filthy rag: "The JEP is a very good barometer of public interest and opinion". Page 5.

Anonymous said...

This is stunning. The whole sorry mess starts to unfold. Its taken a long time with a couple of OBEs but the story is being told. Corruption at the highest levels of Jersey Government. They had the money to do it and they used it. If big Bill sang then the Chorus would run...

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct.

Has he looked up bozo

The mess has been exposed. The dotts have been joined. The bloggers duff your caps.

Jersey has suffered these bozos for long enouth

Anonymous said...

Follow the money its jersey that all you have to do...

rico sorda said...

And so it comes to pass the shock horror of it all. The JEP tries to claim the moral high ground on discovering the Ogley pay out - don't make me laugh - this is serious stuff.

So, we now know the Ogley was paid over £500,00 quid, the question is, why, when they could have just sacked him for his actions.

Now you see the story unfolding. Like I said before the gang of 4 couldn't suspend Graham Power without the nod from higher. This nod also gave Ogley protection because if one falls they all fall. Just read what I have been posting these past years and months concerning the child abuse cover-up and the suspension of Graham Power.

If the JEP were acting like a paper should they wouldn't even have to break their own story it would never have happened.

But it carries on. It carries on in the form of Senator Le Marquand. A man all out on his own having to carry on the lie.

This place is rotten to its core

rs

Anonymous said...

The figure was announced years ago on Jersey's trustworthy blogs while the Jersey Evening Post remaind silent. Just like it has done for many years.

I have thought you wont publish this so It's off to the reliable media blogs.

Ian Evans said...

MEET THE SHREDDER

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"All the chickens are coming home and who is still there carrying on this sham? Senator ILM. Left all alone, no friends, took a huge pay cut and now is all by himself lol he deserves it......."

I'm going to carry on saying it - ILM, Ogley, Lewis - etc - all just monkeys - not the organ-grinders.

Mere infantry - not the generals.

The leaders of all this are William Bailhache, Phil Bailhache, Frank walker, Tim Le Cocq - and one or two others, hidden behind the scenes.

Don't be decoyed away from the real bosses - the 'controlling minds' - behind this whole disgraceful enterprise.

Stuart

rico sorda said...

So this is the reply's when Chief Minister was asked about this meeting in the states. This is very serious because it points to a civil service led removal of a states member, one who was flagging up serious issues with child protection. Again i say this was in july 2007 before the Abuse investigation went global.

Now looking at the information we have it looks like lets get rid of Senator Syvret before he exposes years and years of child protection failures. No one new at this time the police were already on the case

Here is the exchange


3.6.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I have a copy of the file note from the Chief of Police on my desk. Could the Chief Minister just clarify, the States C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) stands effectively accused by the Island’s most senior police officer with what he concluded was a lead involvement in an attempt to remove a Minister from office regardless of the rights and wrongs of what that Minister did? How can this not result in suspension as a neutral act while this is investigated, particularly given that the C.E.O. was later to play a major part and a contentious part in the suspension of the Chief of Police?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I have to be fully careful here because I am not sure whether this file note may have any relevance to the investigation that is currently underway and I maybe urge caution in answering this but say merely that I believe that any reference to a file note, which may be contained in some blog or other source should be treated with the appropriate level of certainty.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
It is a copy of the file note; it is not in some blog.

The Bailiff:
Sorry, what is your question, Deputy? Deputy what is your question? Deputy, this is question time, were you asking a question? Deputy, I am speaking to you, please stand up when I am speaking to you.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I was not aware you were talking to me, Sir, apologies.

The Bailiff:
Well I am not sure who else I was talking to, but anyway ...

rico sorda said...

3.6.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I was just quite shocked at the dismissive nature that everything comes from a blog; it is a proper file note so perhaps my question would be, would the Chief Minister perhaps now take that more seriously?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I will treat it to the extent that I need to treat it at this stage, with the appropriate level of seriousness, yes.

3.6.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:
We have heard the positions of certain people who were kept behind, will the Minister explain as to why the majority or the whole of the Corporate Management Board were not asked to discuss this particular issue?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I made it clear that the purpose of the meeting was the effect of criticism on staff morale. The meeting was directed at those officers directly concerned with staff morale.

3.6.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:
Just following on from Deputy Pitman’s question, first of all has the Chief Minister seen the file note, which the Chief of Police recorded at police headquarters after his meeting with the Chief Management Board? Has he seen this first of all and, secondly, if he has not, if he takes a copy of it will he please act on it? Because it does seem to indicate there was far more to that meeting than meets the eye.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I have not seen the original file note, I have seen a copy of it and as I have previously said it will be treated with the appropriate level of seriousness.

3.6.5 Deputy S. Pitman:
I would like to refer to that file note on 25th July from the former Chief Officer and he does say coming back from that meeting: “I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me [that was the C.M.B.] in my capacity as the Chief of Police into a Civil Service-led attempt to remove a Minister from office.” I add there that the Chief Executive was also there. Bearing that in mind - and the Chief Executive was also involved in the organisation of Operation Blast and he burnt the notes of the meeting that was held in the Chief Officer’s suspension - surely the Chief Minister should be taking some leadership and looking into these issues of the Chief Executive? He should be taking them very seriously.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
The file note in question and contents of it may form a matter of the disciplinary investigation. I do not feel inclined at this stage to make any comment on the content of that file note.

3.6.6 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:
If, as the Chief Minister alleges, the meeting was held in respect of staff morale, why was the Chief of Police not requested to leave the meeting? Why was it a matter of his own choice to leave the meeting? Secondly, were any notes taken of the meeting?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
he decision of the Chief of Police to attend or not attend is a matter for the person concerned and not for me. To the best of my knowlTedge no notes of the meeting were taken; it was an informal meeting.

rico sorda said...

3.6.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:
The question will be what is the Chief Minister saying was not discussed? I just want to refer to the file note. The discussion was led by B.O. (Bill Ogley), who we know is the Chief Executive Officer, who disclosed: “The Child Protection Committee will this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister … Attempts were made by the C.E.O. to draw me into this. I was told that my people were part of the Island’s arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticisms of the Minister.” Could the Chief Minister tell us what was not being discussed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I do not think I can. I do not believe it is appropriate to speculate on the content of that file note, as I say, while there is still a disciplinary process ongoing.

3.6.8 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I stand to be corrected, but I believe I heard the Chief Minister imply that this could not be looked at because there was an inquiry into the suspension of the Chief Officer. Could he just clarify how the 2 are in any way related? How can that stop him taking action to investigate allegations against another senior civil servant?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
My comment was that the content of the file note might form part of an ongoing disciplinary investigation.

rico sorda said...

This is former Chief Minister Terry Le suer email to Bob Hill on the possible disciplinary outcomes of Napier. What he doesn't say is that we are giving Ogley over half a million quid for a job well done - for us.

From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 06 October 2010 16:01
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Napier

Dear colleague,
As you may be aware, I have now received the Report into the suspension on 12th November 2008 of the (former) Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police (“the Napier Report”).
Having read this Report carefully, I am of the view that there could possibly be grounds for disciplinary action arising out of the report. I am taking advice on this and considering it as a matter of urgency and anticipate making a decision on this shortly.
I have also sought appropriate advice about the publication of the Napier Report prior to any disciplinary proceedings which may, after consideration, take place and I am advised that publication might prejudice any disciplinary process which may be required.
Although I have shared the Napier Report in confidence with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has acknowledged that it is important for any disciplinary process that may be required to be conducted properly so that there can be no question of any impropriety. The Deputy of St. Martin has therefore agreed to continue to hold the Report in confidence.
I am grateful to the Deputy for his understanding in this matter and I hope that all States members will similarly respect the need to conclude any disciplinary issues prior to publication.
I confirm that on the conclusion of any disciplinary issues, the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form.

Yours sincerely,


Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister

Anonymous said...

You and Stuart are making it easier and easier to picture what decisions were made by the Bailhache brothers and cronies behind the scenes. Eventually, the trail to the top will be evidenced enough on the net to bring down the whole house of cards.

The payoffs should finally even make sense to the stupidest JEP reader. When you think about it, the amount they admit they paid to Ogley was not all that much, considering what he did for his masters and knowing what he knew. What will it take to finally divide and conquer these criminals?

rico sorda said...

2.2 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Chief Minister regarding the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

Can the Chief Minister explain why, during the time the suspension or disciplinary action against the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was being discussed and prepared behind the scenes, there was no formal attempt to resolve the issues between the Minister for Home Affairs, senior officers who had concerns - I did make clear in an email that I meant senior officials, not senior officers of the police; so I did make that clear in a subsequent email - and the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

Although I was not directly involved with the offence referred to by the Deputy of St. Mary at that time, I am satisfied that initial attempts were made by the previous Minister for Home Affairs and senior officers to address concerns with the investigation into the historic child abuse inquiry with the previous Chief Officer of Police. The previous Chief Officer of Police was not prepared to enter into any formal constructive discussion regarding the ongoing investigation or any of the concerns raised by the Minister or senior officers.

2.2.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I would like, if not now then later, specific reference to where in the Napier Report there is any evidence of formal meetings with the former Chief Officer of Police by the people involved in his suspension to talk through to face him, if you like, with the concerns and elicit his response. In my reading of Napier, no such meeting or meetings took place. I would like the Chief Minister to tell the House where we can find any evidence that the former Chief Officer of Police was talked to at all in this way, in a proper measured way.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I consider it may not have been in the Napier Report. The information was available within the records which were produced to Mr. Napier. I am quite happy to research those and give chapter and verse to the Deputy.

2.2.2 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

The Napier Report has shown there is clear evidence of abuse of process by very senior civil servants and Ministers which led to the unfair suspension of the former Police Chief Officer. Over £1 million was spent to justify that suspension. Does the Chief Minister not think it appropriate to make a statement to explain what went wrong and what has been done about the process and indeed an apology be given to the former Police Chief Officer.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I already indicated in answers last week that I have no intention of giving an apology to the former Police Chief Officer. £1 million was spent and the facts speak for themselves. The report has been produced and, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing further to add to it.

2.2.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Does the Chief Minister not feel any regret for the way that he has handled this case? Had he or the Minister for Home Affairs at the time conducted a proper investigation before suspending the Chief Officer, we could have saved the £1 million that was subsequently spent and saved some of the cuts that are coming in the near months.

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I regret many things about the way the historic child abuse inquiry was conducted, in particular the activities of the Deputy Chief Officer of Police at that time. The fact we have had to spend significant sums of money is regrettable, but that is all that I have to say on the matter. I have no intention of doing anything further about it.

2.2.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The Napier Report on page 26 says, and I quote: “The confrontation with Mr. Power was seen coming by officials weeks in advance of 12th November and I do not know why the opportunity to head it off (or at least attempt to do so) was not taken.” In other words, Napier himself says that there was no attempt made to resolve this issue to improve the performance, if that is what was required, but at least to discuss this properly before moving on to disciplinary procedures or indeed suspension. I again, ask the Chief Minister to confirm to this House that no attempt to talk with the Chief Officer of Police was made and that that contradicts natural justice. He was suspended basically at the point of a gun.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

What Mr. Napier wrote was that he did not know of reasons why that opportunity, he believes, was not taken. The evidence is there, and I believe he could and should have known.

rico sorda said...

1.16 DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FORMAL MEETINGS WITH THE FORMER CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE:

Question

Further to the answer given by the then Chief Minister on 19th October 2010 (Hansard 2.2.1) in which he stated that he was happy to research the records given to Mr. Napier and to then give ‘chapter and verse’ to the Deputy of St. Mary in relation to the details of any formal meetings with the former Chief Officer of Police by the people involved in his suspension to talk to him about the concerns that had been raised and to elicit his response, would the Chief Minister now undertake to make this information available to all members?

Answer

I am not aware of any formal meetings that took place with the former Chief of Police to discuss these concerns.

rico sorda said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I consider it may not have been in the Napier Report. The information was available within the records which were produced to Mr. Napier. I am quite happy to research those and give chapter and verse to the Deputy.

And now Chief Minister Gorsts


Answer

I am not aware of any formal meetings that took place with the former Chief of Police to discuss these concerns.


You just can't make this up. I have proven on my blog that Le Suer has been lying hey it got him an OBE its how this lot act.

Out of control

rs

Anonymous said...

How foolish to answer You would quote chapter and verse and then be proven their is nothing to quote.

Anonymous said...

It would appear that my answer was not totally correct and I apologise for this. The correct answer is set out below.

The costs of the Wiltshire Constabulary Investigations in 2009 were charged to the Home Affairs Department and were funded by way of a budget transfer from other Departments’ underspends (the Economic Development and Social Security Departments) to help address overspends within the Home Affairs Department as a result of these investigations and Court and Case Costs. (Ministerial Decisions: MD-HA-2009-0108, MD-S-2009-0070, MD-E-2009-0215, MD-TR-2009-0201, MD-TR-2009-0197).

The costs of the continuing Wiltshire Constabulary Investigation into Operation Blast in 2010 forms part of paragraph (a) of P.64/2010 - Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 : Funding Requests Under Article 11(8) due for debate on 6th July 2010.

I am looking at the costs of the continuing Wiltshire constabulary (which I assume is Haven 2 or operation blast) all I can find is a information on a request for finance toward this. I can not seem to verify Wiltshire did investigate operation Blast or approval for finance

Anonymous said...

How foolish to answer You would quote chapter and verse and then be proven their is nothing to quote.

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

What Mr. Napier wrote was that he did not know of reasons why that opportunity, he believes, was not taken. The evidence is there, and I believe he could and should have known.

The evidence was no opportunity was given for it to be taken.This was the evidence.

And now Chief Minister Gorsts
Answer

I am not aware of any formal meetings that took place with the former Chief of Police to discuss these concerns.

Anonymous said...

I am confused by the comment at 10:05. What is this is reference to?

Anonymous said...

2012 Election RIGGED the meaning of going viral

Small Axe said...

"Although I have shared the Napier Report in confidence with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has acknowledged that it is important for any disciplinary process that may be required to be conducted properly so that there can be no question of any impropriety. The Deputy of St. Martin has therefore agreed to continue to hold the Report in confidence."

If I recall correctly, did not the Deputy of St. Martin claim he made no such agreement because no such agreement had been discussed between him and Le Seuer?

rico sorda said...

"am confused by the comment at 10:05. What is this is reference to?"

Im not exactly sure but we are witnessing is a totally corrupt and defunct government in action. Is it any better now? I believe Jersey can only move forward wants the likes of the Bailhache brothers are removed. They hold a strangle like grip on the Jersey Law Office and that is where the real power lies. To defeat the Generals you must first knock out his army. Slowly they are going.

Its just shocking whats been allowed to happen.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, could I ask you a favour?

Could you PLEASE go into your blog settings and alter the Captcha style?

Blogger have changed it by default without warning and the new style is unreadable half the time. I'm getting frustrated of having to enter the thing 3 or 4 times before getting it right, to the point that I'm soon going to give up trying to leave comments.

There's a few people also complaining about this on the Google forums, so I know I'm not alone. Some bloggers have even turned off the comment verification because of the problems its caused!

Apparently there's a section in your settings where you can reset it to the more readable old style.

I'd really appreciate it if you could change it, or maybe even ask public opinion about it first.

It's quite an important issues because it's putting people off commenting on blogs, which defeats the object of the comment section. Why Google though that was a good idea we can only guess!
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Rico the last comment applies to me also, I find it really difficult to copy the words now even with my glasses!