Sunday, February 19, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - GRAHAM POWER REPLIES -2



Former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM 











Operation End -Game 2


Former Chief of Police Graham Power replies. 




What has unfolded here goes to the very heart of Government. 


The closing down of a Child Abuse Investigation 


The Illegal Removal of the Chief of Police 


Before you read the response from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM, I thought I would add a few words to what has been a stressful week.

These past three years have been nothing short of a roller-coaster ride.  It is very hard to stay detached emotionally from the work I have been undertaking.  What we, the Jersey Bloggers, have uncovered is corruption at the highest levels of government.  There can be no doubt about this now.  The evidence is out and published.  What saddens me is the blatant bias of the Jersey mainstream media and yet no one is challenging it.  No one is standing up and saying "enough is enough".  Deputy T. Pitman is one of the very few courageous politicians that we have left.  He, along with Deputy M. Higgins, could be our only chance of political representation in fighting this toxic mess.  Yet we must not forget the very serious issue that this has stemmed from.  We are talking about decades of child abuse going undetected in the Jersey care homes.  This is why they do not want a committee of enquiry ("COE").  They are scared that they will not be able to control it and fashion outcomes that would be palatable to the general public.  Let's be honest here, there has been a serious breakdown between all the agencies who have responsibility for children.  This all stems from the removal of the former health minister and senator Stuart Syvret.  The role played by the former Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, and the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker, must be examined to gain a picture of what was to follow.  Those who live in a proper functioning democracy would be shocked to learn that this led all the way to the Chief of Police being illegally suspended and when we look at the facts and the evidence he was, indeed, illegally suspended.

So, what of the abuse survivors?  Having spent decades living with their experiences of the Jersey care system, they continue to be marginalised by the States of Jersey government and its State sponsored media. On 1 March 2012, it will be one year since the COE was passed in the States of Jersey.  Still we have nothing to say that this will be carried out any time soon.  Chief Minister Gorst said it should be brought to the House in the first quarter of 2012.  It now looks like that deadline is going to be missed.  They simply do not want this COE.  The fact that Sir Senator Bailhache of the feudal empire whose position is wholly conflicted is taking part in the meetings concerning the COE goes beyond the realms of any functioning democracy.

In 2008 Sir Senator Bailhache of the Feudal Empire was Bailiff and chief judge in the Island of Jersey.  His brother, Not Yet But Hopes To Be Sir William Bailhache, was the Attorney General.  These two brothers have more conflicts than the Middle East and are Jersey's answer to the Ewings; except we don't have a Bobby.  We just have two JRs.  Every big decision emanates from the Jersey Law Office.  My hope is that the Jersey abuse survivors will get some form of justice and compensation for their suffering, not only whilst in care but also during the course of the scandal thats unfolding.  What has been uncovered makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.  The Jersey authorities, led by the Law Office, have committed the same grave and criminal acts that led to these decades of abuse in the first place.  You simply cannot get rid of a Chief of Police without any due process and, lets be frank here, without due ANYTHING as the evidence shows without consent having been giving by the highest reaches of the Jersey Law Office.  I simply refuse to believe that Bill Ogley could have or would have made such catastrophic decisions without the go ahead from the Attorney General or above.  One only has to look at the actions of our present Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to see what a farce this has all become.  How this man has maintained his position is in fact more of a damning indictment of the States of Jersey than anything else.

The actions of the former Chief Executive, Chief Minister, Home Affairs Minister and not least the former DCO David Warcup have now been fully exposed the question that must now be asked is WHY!!!!!!  WHY, did they do it? 

 Let  us be under no illusion here, this is all about covering up the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation.  Ogley and Walker did not wield that kind of power - Andrew Lewis put the kettle on and signed the required documents, he even managed to get that wrong, as will be explained by Graham Power below.

All leads Lead towards the LAW OFFICE. Having read through some answers given in the States it seems that the current Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand,  is very reluctant to say who is advising him from the Law Office. 

Senator Le Marquand and the Law Office will be featuring heavily in the upcoming posts.  If what went on with the gang of 4 was bad during the first suspension - then the second one is a Blast.


The actions of Senator Le Marquand are far worse than those of Andrew Lewis. Senator Le Marquand could have put an end to this madness but instead just carried on adding to it.  

I would like to finish by saying that this has not been easy.  I feel like I have acquired a new trade over the last three years; following my instinct and following the evidence.  I would like to thank my readers the world over  and fellow bloggers for their continued support in getting real justice for the Jersey abuse survivors and hopefully one day bringing true functioning democracy to Jersey.  Please keep reading the post.




Rico Sorda



Team Voice



Here we have a reply fro the former Chief of Police Graham Power regarding his illegal suspension during a live investigation into decades long Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle)


I have been asked to provide more information on some of the events and issues which emerged after I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on Wednesday 12th November 2008.   I understand that this is because both the “Warcup Letter” and the “Britton Memo” (sometimes wrongly referred to as the “Met Interim Report”) have been published and have attracted some comment and interest.
Regular readers will be aware that on 10th November 2008 the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, regarding what he claimed were the findings of an “Interim Report” by the “Metropolitan Police” in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   It was claimed that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, saw the Warcup letter on 11thNovember 2008.   On 12th November 2008 I was called in from leave to see the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs and I was suspended from duty.   The suspension was carried out without prior notice, without a hearing, without representation and without me being shown the letter on which the action was allegedly based.   These events have been described in more detail in earlier postings.

I will now attempt to summarise some of the events which followed.   For the benefit of international readers the term “Minister” refers to a person holding Ministerial Office in the Jersey Government.   The Jersey Parliament is known as “The States” and members of that Parliament are referred to as “States Members.”   Elected States Members can be Deputies, Senators or Connétables.   The background to these events concerns “Operation Rectangle” which was an investigation into allegations concerning decades of child abuse in institutions operated by the Jersey Government.   Many victims and witnesses alleged that some of the abusers and persons covering up the abuse were in positions of authority in the Island.

At the time of my suspension, and in order to comply with the law, the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, handed me three notices in the form of detailed letters telling me the suspension was to take immediate effect and there would be a disciplinary enquiry.    During the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, took written notes of what was being said.   I said straight away that I would challenge the legality of the suspension and soon afterwards I gave written notice that I would be seeking a review by the Royal Court.   I asked for a copy of the notes taken by the Chief Executive.   I was told they had been destroyed.   I was given what was claimed to be a typed record of the meeting which had allegedly been prepared from the handwritten notes.   The typed document said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting. 
  
All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12th November 2008.   The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,”  at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.”   That was untrue.   There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered.   I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting.   The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.” 
  
The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away.   He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made.   He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while.   That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said.  The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me.   But he botched the job.   He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter.  Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened.   It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration.   During the suspension meeting the Minister let it slip that the media conference to announce my suspension had already been planned for that afternoon and that a media statement had been drafted the previous evening.   He therefore found himself attempting to keep to a planned order of events under time-pressure and he simply failed to cope.   These are the best explanations I can think of for the reference in the letter to an earlier meeting which everyone agrees did not take place.   Nobody, including the Jersey Government, has suggested better ones.

I also examined the presentation and content of the letters.   They claimed that the Minister was acting upon information received on the previous day in the form of the Warcup letter.  The implication of this was that the three letters had been prepared after the Warcup document had been received.   I did not think that to be plausible.   I came to this view following a consideration of the detailed and legalistic tone of the letters and my assessment of the abilities of those who would have been responsible for producing the documents within the timescale which was being claimed.   In plain terms the letters were to complex, too legalistic and too “good” to have been produced in the time available by the people involved.   I could not think of anyone at the heart of the Jersey Government who would have the ability to produce the three documents between the Minister seeing the Warcup letter on 11th November 2008 and the suspension meeting on the morning of 12th.   It turned out that I was right in that assessment.   But my efforts to confirm that suspicion revealed a great deal about the Jersey regime’s attitude to transparency, fair play and justice. 
  
I served written notice on the Chief Ministers Department that I was requesting technical information from the government database regarding the times and dates on which the three letters were created.   Under the States of Jersey Code on Access to Information I was not obliged to give any reason for this request but I nevertheless, at various stages, indicated that the information was needed by me to assist with my Judicial Review, my defence against disciplinary allegations and to test the integrity and reliability of those who may be witnesses against me.   My application was fiercely contested by the then Chief Minister of the Jersey Government, Senator Terry Le Sueur, with the full support and representation of the Jersey Law Officers Department.   The matter dragged on for almost a year and eventually went to a full hearing before a Complaints Board convened under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.   The Chief Minister was represented by the Law Officers Department.   I represented myself with the able assistance of the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft.   After a full hearing the Complaints Board found in my favour and said that the Chief Minister should release the information.

Once the Complaints Board had published its decision the information which I had requested almost a year earlier was finally disclosed on behalf of the Chief Minister.   I received written details from a person responsible for information technology services for the Jersey Government informing me of when the three letters issued at the suspension meeting were first created.   One of the letters, the one in which the Minister told the Chief Executive that he was considering disciplinary action, was first created at 1400 hours on 11th November 2008.   That was the day on which Andrew Lewis said that he first saw the Warcup letter, although elsewhere he had indicated that he was also influenced by a presentation he had received on the evening of 11th, which casts some doubt on the credibility of the letter created at 1400 hours that day.   If he did take a decision after seeing the Warcup letter then he did not take much time over such an important matter.   However, in respect of the other two letters the position is more straightforward.   The letter from the Minister telling me that he was starting the disciplinary process was first created at 0844 hours on Saturday 8th November 2008.   The actual suspension notice was first created at 0848 hours, also on Saturday 8th November 2008.   In other words the key disciplinary and suspension documents were created days before the alleged “Interim Report” had been received, days before the Warcup Letter was even typed and days before Lewis claimed that he had taken his decisions.   It is also worth noting that under the Disciplinary Code the letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive is supposed to be the document which starts the process.   Yet it was the last to be drafted.   By the time Lewis recorded his decision on Tuesday 11th November 2008 to ask the Chief Executive to begin the implementation of the Disciplinary Code the suspension notice had already been in existence since the previous Saturday.

“Bang to Rights” you might think.   Surely the Jersey Government had been caught red handed.   The most obvious interpretation of the known information was that the decision to suspend had been taken first, and the necessary documents prepared and checked by unidentified senior figures who were the real decision makers in this matter.   After that task had been completed, others had been given the job of “finding some evidence” to justify a decision which had already been taken, and to produce a “cover story” to be agreed between the parties.   Not so according to the then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.   After the information regarding the times at which the letters had been created was disclosed he stated that the drawing up of the discipline and suspension notices in advance of the evidence being received was just “contingency planning.”

It is worth taking a step back and looking at the sheer implausibility of what we were being asked to believe in this explanation.   We were asked to accept that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 senior staff in the Chief Ministers Department decided to come to work and prepare suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police as a contingency for the possibility that the Minister for Home Affairs might want to take action on the basis of a report which had not been received and which neither they or the Minister would be allowed to see, and a letter which had not been written.   Amazingly, some States Members appeared to believe this account.   Some plainly did not. Led by Deputy Bob Hill a growing number of States Members decided that they wanted to know more, and they wanted to hear it from a more independent and trustworthy source than the Jersey Chief Ministers Department.

This led, early in 2010, to the appointment of Brian Napier QC to conduct a review and publish a report.   This appointment was achieved in the face of reluctance by Ministers and some still unexplained watering-down of the terms of reference after the appointment had been agreed. By that time it was apparent that heads had been got together and it had been agreed that the “contingency planning” story could no longer stand up to examination.   This was particularly the case once it became clear Napier would discover that the Chief Executive had spoken to the Solicitor General regarding powers to dismiss the Chief of Police on 24th September 2008 and preparatory work for a suspension was underway in mid-October, (Napier report paragraphs 28 and 79.)  So in making their submissions to Napier, Ministers and their allies came up with a third account of events.   The “third version” claimed there had been concerns (albeit according to Napier not documented) which had been growing for some time and that these justified suspension when taken together with the Warcup letter.   When asked by Napier on what basis these concerns had been formed it was said were “coming out in meetings of the Gold Group” (Napier Report paragraph 79) on which the Chief Ministers Department was represented.   In exchanges in the States following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Ministers representation on the Gold Group and the (undocumented) negative messages which his representative was allegedly bringing to Ministers were used as a lifeline and were repeatedly relied upon by the Chief Minister and others. But in taking this line other problems were created.

To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation.     These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted.   Lewis and others signed to say they had been made aware of that possibility. 

In his statement to Wiltshire, Lewis said “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.”   The statement made by Lewis was supported to varying degrees by the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and other members of the governing group.  But according to the information revealed in the Napier report, Lewis and others, who included Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, had been secretly meeting and communicating for months to discuss the means by which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police could be removed from office.   This is no longer denied by anyone.   So the written statement made by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, to an investigation conducted by Wiltshire Police under the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, gives a false and misleading account of how the Minister came to his decision.   It is difficult to see how such a material inaccuracy could have been recorded other than with a clear and calculated intent to deceive readers of the statement, and to conceal from myself, my defence team, the Jersey public and States Members the true circumstances surrounding the unprecedented action taken by Lewis.

It might at this point be worth reflecting on what the reaction might have been had this revelation emerged in respect of me or Lenny Harper (my former Deputy who initiated the Historic Abuse Enquiry.)   What would have been the reaction of Ministers had it become known that we had knowingly made false and misleading written statement to an enquiry of this nature?   Or for that matter what might have happened had we been found to have destroyed the original notes of a meeting in an apparent attempt to prevent them being seen by the Royal Court as happened with the notes taken by Ogley at the suspension meeting? No doubt there would have been high-minded political condemnation and perhaps calls for prosecutions.   The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have felt that it was his duty to spend one or two million pounds on an “independent report” into the matter which could then be launched in a public fanfare with no right of reply.   As it was the revelations related to loyal and obedient servants of the regime so nothing happened.   It was all quietly buried. 

It might now be worth recapping on what is understood to be the stated position of the Jersey Government in respect of the justification for the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police during an investigation into long running child abuse in establishments managed by the same Jersey Government.   As it is commonly understood, their third position, taken subsequent to the revelations in the Napier report, and after their first two accounts had been demolished by the evidence, is that the suspension was justified on two grounds. Firstly the Warcup Letter of 10th November 2008 and secondly the evidence gained (but for some reason not recorded) in the preceding months.   So it appears that there are two grounds said to justify the current Jersey Government’s position which might be summarised as follows:
  • The first of the two grounds is the Warcup Letter dated 10th November 2008 which contains allegations of deficiencies in the command and control of the investigation, the pivotal allegation being “There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.”  (Warcup letter third page.).......... AND:

  • Concerns which had built up over a period of months as a consequence of “information coming out of meetings of the Gold Group.” (Napier Report paragraph 79.)

Readers with a sharp eye for the customary rules of logic may have spotted that something is not quite right with this position.   They are correct.  

While the holding of two contradictory views at the same time is not an unknown feature of Jersey politics, readers might find this a particularly interesting example.   The Jersey government position appears to be that the suspension was justified on grounds which included there not being a Gold Group, and also on the basis of negative evidence emerging from the Gold Group.   Perhaps history will pass its own judgement on the ethical and intellectual qualities of those supporting this argument.

In order to remove any confusion, the true position regarding the Gold Group is as follows.   The formation of a multi-agency Gold Group was considered in the early stages of the investigation.   The problem at that time was that the detailed and far reaching nature of many of the allegations had not been fully assessed.   There were a number of allegations which touched upon senior figures in government agencies.  The establishment of a multi-agency group would have presented the risk of potential suspects or their associates having an oversight of the enquiry.   The complications and risk of compromise which this would present were considerable.    It was therefore decided that it would be unsafe to create a multi-agency group until the position clarified.  After further assessment I gave approval for a Gold Group to be formed in the summer of 2008 and it operated from that time.   This position is not accurately reflected in the Warcup letter, nor could it be if it was to serve its intended purpose.   The Gold Group and other issues had to be presented in that letter as part of a crisis which required immediate and ruthless resolution.   Had it been made clear that the Gold Group was an issue which had been identified, addressed and resolved some months earlier it would have been hard to argue that drastic action was justified.   But that is now history.

In spite of all of the conflicting and contradictory accounts offered by the Jersey Government we can be sure of some things which have emerged from this issue.   The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other.   And this is not a story about me.    I am not a victim of child abuse.   I do not have to seek justice from the very authorities whose conduct and ethics have been exposed by their actions in this case.   It is no wonder that the survivors of decades of abuse in Jersey Government institutions have little faith in the Island’s political and legal system.   If the regime will lie about one thing then they will lie about another thing.   If they will destroy evidence in one case then they will destroy evidence in another.   If they are willing to collude and cover up the truth in relation to one matter then they will do the same about other things.   If the Jersey regime could do this to me and get away with it then think what they could do to others.   Think what they could do to the victims of abuse.  Think what they could do to you.   Think about it.   










84 comments:

Anonymous said...

J'Accuse !


Nuff said!

Anonymous said...

Can this possibly get any worse??? Sadly, I think it can and in all probability it will!! My prediction is that there will be no COE and this will be based on our Government saying that it was the decision of the majority of the abuse victims not to hold the enquiry as they do not want to go through all that emotional turmoil again!! I hope I am wrong!!

How do I think this will happen? Some, but not all of the victim survivors are due to receive compensation for the abuse they suffered whilst in the “care” of the States of Jersey, that is almost now fact. They will each talk to their legal representative to discuss their case and settlement being offered. I urge abuse survivors to read any documents very carefully, digest its contents and seek independent advice if you are not sure what you are reading and agreeing to. Never feel compelled to sign on the dotted line there and then. If, during these meetings your legal advisor even brings up the matter of the COE whilst discussing your claim, you have to ask yourself why? Are you being offered the compensation in exchange for saying no to the COE? The COE has nothing to do with your civil action against the States of Jersey and has nothing to do your with legal representative so why would he/she raise this matter? Remember, they have all been in negotiations with the States Government and their Lawyers for almost four years now. All parties want this to go away, this would be a damage limitation exercise in exchange for your silence and lining your own lawyer’s pockets! You have to ask yourself, does your lawyer honestly have your own best interests at heart? How much money is he/she going to receive in comparison to the amount of money you will receive! Is the amount that you are being offered enough to buy your silence, will it be enough to make those dark, haunting memories of your childhood go away, will it be enough for you to pick up your life and move on, will it be enough to take the pain and suffering away, will it be enough to make you feel clean and like yourself, WILL IT BE ENOUGH!!

The COE is not just about what happened to the victims, it is about finding out how the abuse was allowed to happen (we know it did), how it was allowed to be covered up for decades and decades (we know it was) and why the Judiciary and our Government paid a part in trashing a live police investigation. We also need to know why the MSM played their part in helping to trash the investigation and the reputations of two good, honest police officers and on who’s instructions. The COE is also about those that have been accused of child abuse and want the opportunity of clearing their names. In particular, a one Danny Wherry whose wife, through the letters page of the JEP publically announced that she wanted the COE to go ahead so that her husband is allowed the opportunity to clear his name!!

These are not facts, they are just my thoughts based on what I have read on these blogs over the last three or more years and based on what I know to be the truth. Millions upon millions of tax payers’ money has been wasted on covering up the abuse investigation, not just those funds used by ILM on the Wiltshire and other reports but, the more than 3.5 million spent by Warcup and Gradwell in trashing the investigation not to mention the golden handshakes to Ogley, Pollard and probably many others to include Lewis, Warcup, Gradwell, Tapp etc.

Anonymous said...

•The first of the two grounds is the Warcup Letter dated 10th November 2008 which contains allegations of deficiencies in the command and control of the investigation, the pivotal allegation being “There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.” (Warcup letter third page.).......... AND:


•Concerns which had built up over a period of months as a consequence of “information coming out of meetings of the Gold Group.” (Napier Report paragraph 79.)

You couldn't make it up. Classic.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Once more all is laid bare by the former Police Chief and it makes for very disturbing reading. For those who have an interest in this subject (which should be every man, woman and child in Jersey) then they should also read this EVIDENCE

Anonymous said...

http://tinyurl.com/6q4asms

Question from Mr Pitman on the audio posted above. 3rd audio down on link 6:18 onwards. Napier report Para 35, Mr Warcup said in interview he wanted the a report from the Met police in order to give substance to a media announcement. Mr. Warcup Echoes what Mr. Powers states.


From Mr. Powers post ''During the suspension meeting the Minister let it slip that the media conference to announce my suspension had already been planned for that afternoon and that a media statement had been drafted the previous evening.''

Rob Kent said...

"The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other."

People of Jersey, are you listening? This is the truth, as revealed by the evidence. It is not an opinion. It is what happened.

And since then, they have been lying and prevaricating, using all the means at their disposal to stop the truth coming out.

And they are prepared to defame, libel, malign, and damage the careers of anyone who obstructs them.

You have law-breakers and shysters at the heart of your government.

"That's what's the deal we're dealing in..."

Anonymous said...

Something else that will be ignored by the BBC

Anonymous said...

It never ceases to impress me how, just when you think that the last great post is published,that another appears. The great point about Mr.Powers post is that it has clarified and given chronological order to what has become a very complex collection of reports/investigations.
Yet again no chance of any of the media following up on this.
Has anyone thought of sending it to the Guernsey Press,for despite being under the same ownership they seem to have editorial independence

xJHB

Anonymous said...

"It might at this point be worth reflecting on what the reaction might have been had this revelation emerged in respect of me or Lenny Harper (my former Deputy who initiated the Historic Abuse Enquiry.) What would have been the reaction of Ministers had it become known that we had knowingly made false and misleading written statement to an enquiry of this nature? Or for that matter what might have happened had we been found to have destroyed the original notes of a meeting in an apparent attempt to prevent them being seen by the Royal Court as happened with the notes taken by Ogley at the suspension meeting? No doubt there would have been high-minded political condemnation and perhaps calls for prosecutions. "

Anonymous said...

Rupert Murdoch's journalists might have employed some unsavoury tactics in getting a story but at least they looked for stories. What they did could never be condoned but at least NI would expose corruption and paedophilia and the same can't be said for the BBC. If given the choice of Murdoch or BBC then I would have to take Murdoch. The BBC has shown itself incapable of even cutting and pasting a story such as this one you have published and many others published by Jersey bloggers.

rico sorda said...

I believe it is essential that people read the posting on the link provided. It is taken from the Suspension Review conducted by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Graham Powers representative Constable T.Brain really lays out the total sham of Grahams suspension. Senator Le Marquand relates how he is getting advise from the Law Office.

Like I said in my main posting all roads lead to the Law Office. None of this cold have happened without the ok from the very highest reachers of the Law Office.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham_13.html

Senator Le Marquand position is now is completely untenable and must resign or be removed from office.

His action have been as shocking as anyones is this shameful episode

rs

rico sorda said...

I believe it is essential that people read the posting on the link provided. It is taken from the Suspension Review conducted by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Graham Powers representative Constable T.Brain really lays out the total sham of Grahams suspension. Senator Le Marquand relates how he is getting advise from the Law Office.

Like I said in my main posting all roads lead to the Law Office. None of this cold have happened without the ok from the very highest reachers of the Law Office.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham_13.html

Senator Le Marquand position is now is completely untenable and must resign or be removed from office.

His action have been as shocking as anyones is this shameful episode

rs

Anonymous said...

Mr Le Marquand should resign as should of Mr. Le Sueur.

http://whichwayshallivote.wordpress.com/is-this-lying/graham-powers-letter/

Anonymous said...

6:18pm "Mr Le Marquand should resign as should of Mr. Le Sueur"
[ TLS retired btw]

Forget resigning ! These two Ex-Christians can hold hands as they descend the steps to hell.

Repenting only works if you wouldn't do the same again and if you did not leave wrongs un-righted and you used the power entrusted to you to compound them.

You took on the vile wrongs of others -they are yours now.
A wrong shared is a wrong doubled.

You can go to church all you want because now you are mine.

What do your priests actually know of right and wrong ?
They are just silly men in dresses
(which is my thing incidentally)

It won't be long now.
[YA Ha Ha Ha .......]

Anonymous said...

"During the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, took written notes of what was being said. I said straight away that I would challenge the legality of the suspension and soon afterwards I gave written notice that I would be seeking a review by the Royal Court. I asked for a copy of the notes taken by the Chief Executive. I was told they had been destroyed. I was given what was claimed to be a typed record of the meeting which had allegedly been prepared from the handwritten notes. The typed document said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour."

Don't it make you proud to be from Jersey?

Anonymous said...

International readers may like to occasionally check out the state media website

www.thisisjersey.com/news/

The front page will be something like:
Runover cat taken to vet.
Chief minister does charity bungee jump !

The JEP it is an integral organ of the beast which has made all this criminality possible.

If you wish to leave a comment, could I suggest:
"do you suck or do yo blow ?"
Feel free to be creative.

Even advertisers hate it because it is so damn expensive.

Anonymous said...

The Attorney General corroborates Mr Warcups version of event in relation to the draft report Mr. Power was given.

From Napier report Para 84 But I can say that the Attorney General has
confirmed that he can corroborate precisely what Mr Warcup said to me, as he
was given by him the same version of events at the time,


My question is, would the Attorney General be confirming he saw the script for the press conference on 6th November? as this is the date Mr. Warcup was alluding too, the date Mr. Power went on holiday.

The Attorney General confirmed one version from Mr. Power a draft different version to that claimed by Mr. Warcup

Anonymous said...

Quoting from Mr Power's statement, above, "The Jersey government position appears to be that the suspension was justified on grounds which included there not being a Gold Group, and also on the basis of negative evidence emerging from the Gold Group."

I am almost choking from that statement, wishing it could be humorous rather than tragic. What a perfect quote for the inside book jacket when these facts are published as a nonfiction best seller.

The most frightening scenario of all is hinted at here, where Mr Power says, "

"There were a number of allegations which touched upon senior figures in government agencies. The establishment of a multi-agency group would have presented the risk of potential suspects or their associates having an oversight of the enquiry. The complications and risk of compromise which this would present were considerable. "

That takes readers right back to that time period when the Operation Rectangle was known to the entire world as an abuse scandal involving decades of cover up. A look back at press coverage proves many reporters mentioned the abuse survivors' expressed fear that somehow, despite the critical eye of the global media, the government would pull off another cover up.

Well, here it is, folks! It reads like the proverbial who-dunnit, but we now know a great deal more than ever about the who and about what happened.

So, who will be the first to finish writing the book?

Some of us have offered to provide journalists with a tiny bit of our own evidence in the form of (mostly unanswered) correspondence with BBC, whose disgraceful complicity should make any fact-based book exponentially more powerful to a global readership.

The (outside) mainstream media should be clamoring for the chance to cover this before their own professional fear and apathy are brought into the spotlite.

Elle

Anonymous said...

Taken from Post by Mr. Power on voiceforchildren.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown.

In napier report Para 84 Attorney General confirms Mr. Warcups version of the media report. Would that mean for the Attorney General to corroborate Mr. Warcup he would have had to see Mr. Warcups claimed version of the press release on the last working day of Mr power?

If the Attorney General didn't see Mr Warcups version on that day, then he the Attorney General can not corroborate Mr Warcup in the dispute of the press release seen by Mr. Power.

Anonymous said...

Hi Elle @Feb19, 11:33 PM ,

Jersey is a 9 by 5 rock with a population significantly less than the borough of Slough, cut adrift off the coast of France and entrusted to the care of a group of "good chaps and old boys".

The Feudalists have relied on the mainland press not being overly interested in in what happens here unless it is sufficiently scandalous or lurid.

The whiff of a mainland story has been quashed by the old boys and the odd hasty legal letter (paid for out of our taxes again).

All this, helped by serial deniers such as David Rose of the Daily Mail
see: http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/02/unlawful-coup-against-police-chief.html
comment @Saturday, 18 February 2012 08:34:00 GMT
DAVID ROSE - Where are they now ? #2

"........... From Child Abuse denier to Climate Change Denier - now who will have studied this subject with the integrity and intellectual rigour it deserves ? David Rose or Stephen Hawking et al ?
David Rose is a Joke, a sick Joke -perhaps he could get a job with the JEP when the Mail is done with him.
A study a few years ago by the UN estimated that 300 million additional people are going to be at risk of starvation (to death?) as a result of unchecked climate change.
300 MILLION !!!!
Even 1 million would be a lot. Does your 'profession' put food on your kid's table Dave?
It may be that David Rose's little escapades into the Jersey/Gradwell "tooth fairyland" may be one of his less serious disservices to humanity. ........."
The SCIENCE IS IN David - Not completely in but SCIENCE never is. Of course solar effects and Ice ages are real but they are in addition to atmospheric effects.

Well Done (NOT) the Daily Mail ! must try harder, we know you can do it eg.:
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2012/01/stephen-lawrence-and-daily-mail.html

Where are they now ? #3 is taken in draft form by DAVID WARCUP & IAN LE MARQUAND (of the overdue resignation see:
http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2010/03/31/ill-resign-over-police-chief-appointment/
Why was it so important to you Ian - Was it part of a pre-arranged DEAL perhaps ?
Or is it difficult to find another faithful lap-dog ?

I was wondering whether to do a Where are they now ? #4 ANDREW LEWIS
but I am holding back because, as said, there is a good kid inside Lewis, just wanting to get out.
Kicking the "tea boy" might 'do it' for MARIO LUNDY but it gives me no pleasure.

What are you going to do Andrew. Is the wife going to pay your legal bills after we have said our piece?
You could try for immunity from prosecution, but who are you going to ask? You could try the Jersey Law Offices, but would you trust them after last time. Before you go in to the meeting, check the mirror; you still have PATSY stamped on your forehead !

All this could have been sorted out on island but how many years and how many tries and how many millions of OUR money ?

Well done "blogers" sounds almost demeaning now doesn't it?
Well done INDEPENDENT JOURNALISTS !

[JEP, CTV & 'BBC-Franchise' hang your heads in shame]

As for the book, it must be written. The 'definative document' [am I plagiarising ILM there;-) ] should be a joint effort by Rico, Stuart & the 2 wronged police officers, ideally with unfettered contribution from the pantomime players and the Law Offices for that satirical edge.
Suggest 10% + of proceeds to the care leavers association or child line

H x.

P.S.
Not only is it sufficiently scandalous or lurid, but it is served up on a silver platter with as many sequels in back stories as you could want.
And those hasty legal letters will need the xerox on shift work now. lol.
The BEEB's best bet is to disband the local 'BBC franchise' and start afresh with mew management. The BBC is a world class institution and it should not let this tarnish it's global reputation.

Tom Gruchy said...

The special St Clement Parish Assembly to consider the Electoral Commission fiasco is from 7pm Tuesday 21 February.
If you don't know why this meeting is important than you must be politically fast asleep.
Voters of St Clement will be able to vote in support of Deputy Le Herissier's proposition that attempts to rescue this most import reform initiative from the old guard.

Anybody can attend.
A further special assembly for St Helier is being arranged (date to be confirmed) but do NOT leave this to somebody else. You want democracy? Then be prepared to work for it....ATTEND

Anonymous said...

"Every big decision emanates from the Jersey Law Office."

Correct. All roads do indeed lead to the Law office. This is where you will find all the answers to this shocking scandal.

Anonymous said...

To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation. These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted.


What Power says here is probably why there were never ever and disciplinary hearings. These people would have been called to give evidence. Not a chance of that happening. Look how Lewis messed up their suspension plan could you imagine him and Frank under Oath....

Anonymous said...

Can anyone write a sufficiently informative, feeder e-mail to the new Sun on Sunday Newspaper?

This should fit all their requirements: Child Abuse Cover ups, Governmental Corruption, Politicians lying on oath, Civil Service Government within Government, Police Chief removed by Subterfuge & Lies, Local media including the BBC complicit in the cover-up. High level accused Abusers still in Post, protected by the Authorities, Golden Handshakes to Criminals, Whistleblowers Jailed, Inappropriate use of Data protected reports & Police Reports. Possibly forged reports, Prosecutions sabotaged by the legal system to protect Paedophiles. Victims abandoned by those meant to protect them. Have I missed anything?

Probably - Sadly

Anonymous said...

Napier [84]

"Mr Warcup’s version of events was that he told Mr Power that the version of the script for the press briefing which he (Mr Power)
had seen was inaccurate, but he (Mr Power) never asked to see the corrected version. Again, I find it very difficult to know where the truth lies as between the conflicting versions of events. But I can say that the Attorney General has confirmed that he can corroborate precisely what Mr Warcup said to me, as he was given by him the same version of events at the time."

So the Attorney General (William Bailache) confirmed to Napier that Mr Warcup had told him on the 6th November that he had shown Mr Power (before he left on leave) the press briefing and told Mr Power it was inaccurate, but Mr Power left off on leave without asking to see the corrected version.

How does this work!! Surely if Mr Power was off on leave how could he see a copy of what must have been a revision made after he had left, whereas Mr Power's next immediate meeting was a suspension.

It is amazing that the AG could remember that verbatim conversation but could not remember the following more significant event ie:

Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and
Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself.

rico sorda said...

The Napier Report is a very damning report indeed. We must remember we only received it after the 3rd draft. The Law Office went through it first .

The whole Napier episode is shocking thanks to the conduct of our then Chief Minister Le Suer. This man just simply lied to the states about the dropping of part (d) from the terms of reference. He is just as bad as the rest. They are all cut from the same toxic cloth.

Why they do it is beyond me.

They all pop down to church on a Sunday morning to was away the weekday sins. It makes me laugh.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, I trust you can back up with hard facts your allegation about Le Sueur's conduct?

Bear in mind you are speaking of a man who recently recieved an OBE for "political services to the island".

Anonymous said...

With all this gathered documentation and evidence Graham Power is getting together. It stands to reason that it won't be long now till he pounces.

It also stands to reason that when he does pounce, it won't be for the money.

It will be for the victims, and to clear his good name!?

rico sorda said...

Rico, I trust you can back up with hard facts your allegation about Le Sueur's conduct?

Bear in mind you are speaking of a man who recently recieved an OBE for "political services to the island".

100%

You should now me by now. In fact its on this blog.

rs

rico sorda said...

With all this gathered documentation and evidence Graham Power is getting together. It stands to reason that it won't be long now till he pounces.

It also stands to reason that when he does pounce, it won't be for the money.

It will be for the victims, and to clear his good name!?


This is only the beginning there is still so much more to come

rs

Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Rico, I trust you can back up with hard facts your allegation about Le Sueur's conduct?

Bear in mind you are speaking of a man who recently received an OBE for "political services to the island"."

That reader clearly expects us plebs and proles to be awed and impressed by an 'honour' - as though such things were only - or even usually in Jersey's case - awarded to people of great personal merit.

I mean, come along, Frank Walker was given an OBE - what else need be said?

This maybe; do you know how London determines who should and should not be awarded honours in Jersey?

They do so on the basis of "recommendations" and "soundings" from the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Lieutenant Governor - and similar Dons from the high ranks of the Jersey oligarchy.

Why do you think so many complete non-entities - and in some cases obvious sc*m - end up receiving these baubles?

Stuart

Anonymous said...

The AG get out words in contrast to
his recollection of a verbal dialogue:-

"can corroborate precisely".

Whereas:-

"The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself."

"Does not recollect" does not rule out that he did not, it could mean that he did give advice but cannot remember.

and

"believes he never saw", could mean is not saying he never saw, but leaves the possibility that he might have but claim it was passed in front of him but he did not realise what it was.


"believes he never saw"

Anonymous said...

Obedience to the British Empire OBE,In all its dark deeds. Keeping your mouth shut about the rot at the core of our society.

Anonymous said...

"Rico, I trust you can back up with hard facts your allegation about Le Sueur's conduct?
Bear in mind you are speaking of a man who recently recieved an OBE for 'political services to the island'."

Hmm. Some powerful millionaires and billionaires would gladly stoop to all new lows to get their hands on evidence to discredit what Rico has proved with his documentation. If they could find facts on their side, they would surely use them, and you would already have them to support your views. But you don't because they don't - possess any evidence to discredit the clear evidence.

Elle

Anonymous said...

This is the conclusion from Graham Powers judicial review. Like the rest of this debacle you can only shake ones head and ask what the hell are they doing.

Conclusion

In terms of “illegality” Mr Power did not assert that the Minister did not understand the Code and the Law that regulated his decision making and he accepted that the Minister had the power to suspend the Chief Officer at the outset of any disciplinary procedure and before any preliminary or other investigation.

As to ”irrationality”, the Minister was conducting a review of the decision taken by his predecessor in November, but in essence two questions arose both of which the Minister answered in the affirmative:-

Was there sufficient material to justify a disciplinary investigation? If so,

Could Mr Power remain in post whilst that investigation took place?

Those questions have to be addressed in context, which we would summarise as follows:-

Mr Power was the Chief of Police and Mr Harper the Deputy Chief and Senior Investigating Officer in respect of Operation Rectangle.

Mr Harper retired from the force in July 2008, and was replaced as Deputy Chief Officer and senior investigating officer in respect of Operation Rectangle by Mr Warcup.

Mr Warcup conducted a review of Operation Rectangle and reached conclusions which were presented to the Ministers and to the media that were revelatory and which brought into serious question the management of Operation Rectangle.

At the same time that the conclusions were published, the Minister received, via the Chief Executive, a report from Mr Warcup, raising significant issues about the management of Operation Rectangle and Mr Power’s role in that.

These are serious matters and seen in context, we conclude that the decision of the Minister that there was sufficient material to justify a disciplinary investigation was rational and within the range of responses open to a reasonable Minister in his position. In relation to the second question, of course it may have been possible, as Mr Power submitted, for him to remain in post pending the investigation. He said that he could have assisted the investigating officers in gathering evidence for that investigation. However it was a perfectly rational decision of the Minister to conclude otherwise and again it was within the range of responses open to a reasonable Minister in his position.

Turning to procedural impropriety, the procedure adopted by the Minister in conducting his review was procedurally fair; in contrast, we have to say, to the procedure apparently adopted by his predecessor in November 2008. In the first stage, on 13th February 2009, the Minister invited Mr Power to make representations to him on the status of the Code, the relationship of the Code to the statutory provisions and the documents and other information which the Minister should take into account in making his decision. The Minister informed Mr Power of the advice received by him, so that Mr Power could comment upon it and put forward a different view if he wished to do so. Mr Power was subsequently provided with the information which the Minister would be taking into account. The second part of the review took place on 5th March 2009, when the Minister gave Mr Power the opportunity to make representations about the criteria which would govern the Minister’s decision and about whether the suspension should be continued or lifted. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Power was informed by the Minister that he would remain suspended from office.

Anonymous said...

Although we have found that Mr Power’s Convention rights are not engaged, we consider the decision of the Minister to continue the suspension as both necessary and proportionate. Once it is concluded that an investigation into Mr Power’s role in Operation Rectangle is to take place, it becomes necessary to ensure that the investigation is conducted properly and without any interference. As the Minister remarked it is difficult to see how that can be done when the investigation concerns the Chief of Police himself. Suspension is a proportionate means to achieve his removal from his post during the conduct of the investigation in that it is an interim measure under which all of his contractual rights are maintained.

We conclude that there has been no abuse of the Minister’s powers and the application is therefore dismissed.

Anonymous said...

Which review is this a reference to?

"Mr Warcup conducted a review of Operation Rectangle and reached conclusions which were presented to the Ministers and to the media that were revelatory and which brought into serious question the management of Operation Rectangle."

and which review is this a reference to?

"At the same time that the conclusions were published, the Minister received, via the Chief Executive, a report from Mr Warcup, raising significant issues about the management of Operation Rectangle and Mr Power’s role in that."

Ian Evans said...

Andre Bonjour REVISITED

rico sorda said...

It is from Graham Powers Judicial Review

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2009/12/graham-powers-judicial-review.html

I don't have a clue as to what review they are on about. The only review I know is from the MET.

LOL Well spotted. The conclusions from the Judicial review are complete nonsense . I've never spotted that before. Its complete bullish*t. This is getting worse by the day,

rs

Anonymous said...

No Rico @7:00 AM

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2009/12/graham-powers-judicial-review.html

You must have skim read that because it is not ALL bullsh*t

In particular:
"Could Mr Power remain in post whilst that investigation took place?" => "affirmative" which translates to YES [oui, Ja, .......]


So having stated this they then put their Establishment spectacles back on and explain how it was OK for the minister to extend the suspension again and again. Fabulous !

You have indeed shown ALL THE REST OF IT TO BE THE SAID MANURE !

Of course The police Chief could not be allowed to continue in post because if he so much as sneezed it would have blown their whole charade apart, as you have now done.

You are doing a brilliant but you need more sleep my friend,or get one of those new 28hour/8day clock/calendar gizmos.

I think I know what "....... Mr Power’s Convention rights are not engaged " means but perhaps we could trouble Mr.Syvret to explain it clearly

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Did you hear ILM in the states this morning? This was the best yet. The man just made up complete lies.

Anonymous said...

'..... In particular:
"Could Mr Power remain in post whilst that investigation took place?" => "affirmative" which translates to YES [oui, Ja, .......]
So having stated this they then put their Establishment spectacles back on and explain how it was OK for the minister to extend the suspension again and again. Fabulous ! .... '

And they couldn't or wouldn't pass comment on whether Warcup and the "gang of 4" (or however many) should not have been suspended on the spot at GP's surprise suspension party.

We are supposed to respect the law [contempt of court if you don't BTW Mr.Syvret] but can anyone explain to me why there is a cliche "the law is an ass"

You can Bray that again.

Anonymous said...

Who can have confidence in the authority and judgement of the States of Jersey Police.

The Chief Minister at the time stated his reasons were justifiable at the time.

The Minister for Home Affairs suspended a police chief, ignoring repeated legal advice that has since been described by TLS as considered and weighed.

The H Affairs ministers considerations being; a Gold group claims of ''serious mistakes being made'', alongside a letter to the Chief Executive from a Deputy Chief of Police whilst knowing the Interim report referred in the letter was subject to amendments and with heavily qualified terms.

The result of the behaviour of the Chief Executive, Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Minister has reinforced my lack of confidence in the States of Jersey Police contray to that being a consideration.

They are no more than puppets to the government that put there own interests above that of the public they are paid to serve

Ian Evans said...

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Anonymous said...

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 21st FEBRUARY 2012

Question
Following his answer to an oral question on 31st January 2012 in which he stated that there was no formal contract with Matt Tapp Associates for the work undertaken at the request of the Chief Executive, would the Chief Minister outline how this situation came about and inform members whether the Chief Executive had discretion to commission work with no contract and, if so, state whether this decision not to conform with standard procedures was discussed with anyone else
and explain why this decision taken?.

Answer
As the Minister for Home Affairs explained in an answer to an oral question asked on 31stJanuary 2012 Matt Tapp Associates were originally commissioned by the States of Jersey Police to conduct a review of external communications relating to Operation Rectangle for which terms of reference were agreed.

Following a meeting with the former Chief of Police it appears that Mr Tapp was of the view that his position had become untenable and his contract had effectively been terminated. Subsequently, as I explained in my answer to a similar question on this issue asked on 31
st January 2012, the former Chief Executive commissioned Matt Tapp Associates to produce a report with the following terms of reference:

·
To make an assessment of the external communications activity pertaining to the Haut de la Garenne investigation (February 2008 to October 2008).
This work was agreed by correspondence between the former Chief Executive and Matt Tapp Associates. The former Chief Executive, as Accounting Officer, had the authority to procure this work and there was no requirement for a formal written contract for this relatively low monetary value which was in accordance with Financial Direction 5.7 Purchasing

Anonymous said...

ILM classes Matt Tapp's written report as: relatively low monetary value.

Yes it would have been well worth the money....

But, only if this written report and writer had not been exposed for what they really are!?

rico sorda said...

The former Chief Executive, as Accounting Officer, had the authority to procure this work and there was no requirement for a formal written contract for this relatively low monetary value which was in accordance with Financial Direction 5.7 Purchasing

Its ok for the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey to get involved with police investigations and commission a report behind the back of the Chief of Police who was investigating decades of Child Abuse in States of Jersey care homes. Priceless.

rs

Anonymous said...

The former Chief must of been desperate for something in black white to support his political interference and actions in the suspension of Mr. Power

Anonymous said...

Has any (honest) person you know of seen evidence of additional records regarding Matt Tapp's role? If Mr Tapp had demonstrable prior contact with the States or subsequent contact as an architect of spin discrediting Operation Rectangle, that would help fully disprove ILM's recent claims.

What would it take to force the release of relevant supporting documents, if they exist? Would Mr Power, Mr Harper, and the various policing authorities in the UK, for example, have access to Mr Tapp's records?

The further the Wiltshire, MET, Napier, Talking Heads and others become ensnared in this deceit, the more some of them should want to separate themselves from the inevitable fallout by being the "Good Guy" so to speak.

Any ideas?

Anonymous said...

"Its ok for the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey to get involved with police investigations and commission a report behind the back of the Chief of Police who was investigating decades of Child Abuse in States of Jersey care homes. Priceless."

Rico, surely it must have been behind the back of the Minister for Home Affairs, otherwise he would have known there was an issue prior to receiving the letter from WArcup!!!

Anonymous said...

What actually happened in the States Chamber today?

Unon@11:29 AM says "Did you hear ILM in the states this morning? This was the best yet. The man just made up complete lies. "

When will we have more detail on this please ?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio from today's Question time. You & your Reader's can Listen HERE

rico sorda said...

You really must listen to question 15 now published on the TJW -link above - and listen to what Ilm says about the info he is using in keeping GP suspended

Priceless

rs

Anonymous said...

I too have just read this,and am perplexed,and i note that i am not on my own on this.Who was the author of this review and can anyone offer a simple explanation?

Anonymous said...

Its good that we can be directed to any report when a question is raised,but have any of you blog site owners considered putting up a chronological list of events/reports to help us through this paper maze.

Anonymous said...

Re ``Following a meeting with the former Chief of Police it appears that Mr Tapp was of the view that his position had become untenable and his contract had effectively been terminated''.

Was it Tapp who had decided that his position was untenable, or, was it Graham Power? I ask because there is a world of difference!

The difference being between Tapp resigning from his post, or what in effect boils down to, Tapp being fired by Graham Power!

But we have the answer don't we, and that is ``his contract had effectively been terminated''.

No wonder he was so willing to work for the enemy!

Anonymous said...

Rico, does any of this stack up? Having just read the Judicial Review one is left bemused by the conclusions. Why didn't the minister refer to the 4 ACPO reports for some balance? Are they referring to the Warcup letter as some kind of report?

My take on it is this. Senator le marquand and the judicial review had their hands already tied. If the suspension was lifted then whole stinking mess would have been exposed for all to see.

Anonymous said...

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 21st FEBRUARY 2012

Further to the answer given on 31st January 2012 by the Minister for Home Affairs that the then Chief Executive “discovered that Mr. Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the [historic abuse] case” and that he became aware that Mr. Tapp was available to do work for the Chief Executive as he had just been advised his services were not required by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will the Chief Minister outline for Members exactly how this “discovery” by the Chief Executive took place?

Answer

I am not aware of how the former Chief Executive was advised of Mr Tapp’s concerns regarding the external communications relating to Operation Rectangle prior to a meeting the Chief Executive held with Mr Tapp in the afternoon on 8th October 2008

Anonymous said...

*******NEWSFLASH********

Have you heard the good news !

The Christian Fundamentalists & Feuadalists have given up lying* for Lent !!!!!
[* that's a lie BTW]

From the bits I listened to CM Ian Gorst did answer the questions quite well and quite completely.
There was the odd qualifier in there like "based on" which may or may not be significant.

Gorst is a capable man, who unlike ILM, can string words together in the right order and remember what he just said.
Hopefully Gorst will have the integrity and indeed the good sense to avoid being permanently tarnished by yet another layer of cover up.

This is just not going to be closed by anything other than an adequate public enquiry which must also investigate the post 2008 - Power suspension & cover ups and the Gradwell/Matt Tapp 'spin till you're dizzy' episode.

Gradwell/Matt Tapp episode was well received on the island at the time because many uncritical islanders wanted so badly to believe. The genuine hurt and upset that the dark past and the shadowy present had caused in the population was palpable and heavy in the air. Their beautiful Jersey -Ruined !
The notion that it was all a hoax by that wicked Mr.Harper, his [now constructively dismissed] Chief of Police G.Power and the [deposed for "damaging staff morale"] Health Minister Stuart Syvret
- was powerfully seductive on island.

Jersey people are NOT demonstratively more stupid than other Europeans, they just WANTED TO BELIEVE MORE and it was presented swathed in their perceived self interest "damaging Jersey" etc.etc.

Off island the pantomime was rather less well received.
The supposed PR coup orchestrated by Matt Tapp through bent cop Gradwell's unlawful [but AUTHORISED??] leaks to serial denialist David Rose of the Daily Mail (D.R. partially covered @ Feb20 12:41 PM) can still be viewed at:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz1n6kh68nA
[someone please to post a hyperlink]
What is really interesting about this piece is how it was received. In spite of just having had the 'prosicution case' only commenters did not swallow it.
It turns out that a good 50% of people are NOT of below 'average inteligence'
At the bottom, first click on "Best Rated" (or "Worst Rated") THEN click on SHOW ALL.
There is a clear patten with three "Troll-headed" comments looking rather isolated in what is otherwise a 'sea of green'.
The comments are rather better than the "journalist's" work eg. #2:
".....I'm really not sure about this. I still do suspect a cover up. Any close knit community is going to have its secrets. We seem to be forgetting all those who came forward saying they'd been abused - they can't all be fantasists. Added to which I don't think Harper's successor should be talking about Harper's handling of the enquiry - that's not very professional. Too much spent on overtime does not mean the investigation wasn't valid in the first place. All the stuff mentioned in this article has no real bearing on whether or not there was a crime - or crimes involved here." - JW, Spalding, England

Comment voted #1, just ends "Cover up , cover up!"


The article looks seductive but is judged an overcooked advert. In total between 3 and 5 MILLION pounds of taxpayers money has been spent for what? To MAKE US LOOK LIKE CHILD ABUSE DENIERS ? Fortunately forums like this show that most of us are not, or have only temporarily been taken in.

AND It is clearly not entirely true what they say about "Daily Mail Readers" !!!!! :-)

So guess what suckers - the washing does not clean itself -and the on island laundry has proved not fit for purpose and is leaking like a sieve.

Anonymous said...

OMG

Just listened to the TJW of ILM answering the Tadier question.

ILM said he kept Power suspended on the Warcup letter, the press conference notes on the 12 november written by Warcup and Gradwell and perceived public opinion lol its true go listen if you don't believe me. The guy is incredible and yet gets away with it.....

Anonymous said...

Gradwell's Gardening Tip No.666:

Re. "Newsflash" above:

Feed your "Rose" with Horsesh*t and it will put on a great show.

Try to ignore the smell - perhaps you will get use to it after 6 or 10 or ......... years ?

Anonymous said...

Please listen alonside audio to double check.

Chairperson. We will come next to a question from Deputy Tadier will ask the Minister for Home affairs. Deputy Tadier.

Deputy Tadier.Thank you Sir. Will the minister advise the assembly whether he kept the former chief of police suspended, on the strength of the letter from the Deputy Chief Officer who became acting chief officer alone.
Minister home affairs. So I want to give a brief answer, initially, in relation to the ?colonial question I will advise the assembly, in relation to the substantive question the answer is no.

Deputy Tadier. Did the minister say no.

Minister home affairs. In relation to the substantive question I said no. Yes.

Deputy Tadier. That is to say he didn't keep the former Chief of police suspended on the what is know as the Warcup letter alone, is that correct.

Minister home affairs. That is correct, yes ah its fairly well with transcripts of the full hearings that I conducted, if the ah Deputy Tadier wishes to check what I'm saying, he only has to look at those transcripts, there also of course was a Royal Court case on judicial review where the Royal Court upheld my decision. And he can also look and see what that says about it.

to be continued

Anonymous said...

Part 2.

Deputy Tadier. Sir, thank you for that response. It's my understanding that in March 2009, when the suspension reviews were going on, that the minister, did actually say, that he kept, the chief of police chief suspended, on what's known as the Warcup letter, so, if the ministers saying thats not the case, would he say, on what other evidence or legal advise he kept the chief officer suspended initially that is.

Minister home affairs. Ah yes I will do that so this will take a bit longer, than my initial answer, I reconsidered the suspension of the former chief officer I think for points of doubt we're talking about Mr Power, in Feb & March 2009, and decided to maintain the suspension, I considered two, documents firstly, the letter of Mr Warcup which as members know, I deleted some parts, from, because there were references, in it to the interim report of the Metropolitan police, secondly, I considered the text, of the press release, for the press conference, conducted jointly, by Mr Warcup and the then, senior investigating officer superintendent Gradwell, which had taken place on the day before the original suspension, I also considered issues such as the loss of public confidence, in the police chief. Mr Power brought an application for judicial review, to the Royal Court, and in August 2009 that application was dismissed, but by May 2009 I was aware of the existence of operation Blast, which was secret unauthorised files, kept by the police, on every States member including a criminal record, check on every states member. In July 2009, I held a seperate suspension hearing, for Mr Power and decided to suspend him, upon that basis alone, as a seperate suspension to the original suspension. In October 2009 of course I received the interim report of the Wiltshire police, in relation to the Haut De La Garenne non finance matters. I reviewed, the suspension monthly, and notified Mr Power monthly of the reviews which I had conducted.

to be continued.

Anonymous said...

Chairperson. Deputy Higgins
Deputy Higgins. Yes thank you sir just for clarification from ?????? minister of ?? you mentioned, you'd studied two documents one was the letter
Chairperson. The Minister.
Deputy Higgins. The Minister sorry, The Minister mentioned that he'd studied two documents one was the letter from David Warcup and the other was the, press the transcript for the press conference, I think you said it took place
Chairperson. You, the Minister said.
Deputy Higgins. Sorry. yes sorry yes sorry sir. The Minister said, I believe, that it took place on the 11th, the press conference took place on the 12th, at the same time, almost or within hours, of the police chief being suspended, can you just confirm is that transcript available.
Chairperson. Can the Minister please confirm.
Deputy Higgins. Thank you sir I will get it eventually. Thank you.
Minister home affairs. I am sorry if I've made a mistake on that detail, but I was actually under the impression the suspension hearing took place on the next day. If I am wrong on that I apologise.
Chairperson. of??
?unknown. Yes sir. The minister mentioned operation blast, could the minister confirm that the records of operation blast have been destroyed, and if not what has happened to those files?
Minister home affairs. I have asked questions on this of the police in the past and I'm trying to remember what the, answer to that was, they were, held, for a period obviously in relation to disciplinary, matters, there was also advise at one stage, that they should be held for further reason, but I'm afraid I've lost the details on that. They're certainly not going to be used in any way, and I will, make further enquiries to see, whether, they have now been destroyed, but there were reasons not to destroy them for quite substantial periods I will check, on the current status.
?unknown. Sir a supplementary on that sir. Will the minister revert back to the house once he has found out the information.
Minister home affairs. dont think it warrants my making a statement but I will happily put out information, to members as to what had happened, and if there is still an outstanding reason why they should be kept, as to why thats so,

Anonymous said...

Listening to the audio I am confused about the press release slide the Home affairs Minister refers too.

Is he talking about the award winning ctv press release slides?

Anonymous said...

Senator Le marquand is referring to the slides used by Warcup and Gradwell at the press conference on November 12 2008 + briefing notes.

Remember Graham power was suspended on the morning of the
12th so the press conference could go AHEAD THE WAY THE GANG OF '4' HAD PLANNED.

So, in keeping Graham power suspended ILM used the Warcup letter and the Warcup press conference slides and briefing notes. Yet Ilm said he couldn't use the ACPO reports, I wonder why?

You could not make up what has and is going on here in Jersey.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"OMG

Just listened to the TJW of ILM answering the Tadier question.

ILM said he kept Power suspended on the Warcup letter, the press conference notes on the 12 november written by Warcup and Gradwell and perceived public opinion lol its true go listen if you don't believe me. The guy is incredible and yet gets away with it....."

Yep - it is just staggering.

I'm not sure which fact is more alarming; that these clowns don't realise just how extraordinary that conduct is?

Or the fact that Jersey's Royal Court - in the teeth of the evidence - and all established administrative law case-law - up-held the suspension?

I think it's that latter point; it reveals so much about the Jersey oligarchy - and how, in truth, they are just frightened, inadequate silly little men - flapping around in a panic behind their red cloaks - like the man hiding behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

Think about it; even lay people - with no legal training - are coming to this site - reading the evidence - then reading the judicial review judgment - and seeing it for the manifest rubbish that it is.

We are saying it - the emperors are naked.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Chairperson. Deputy Pitman

Deputy Pitman. thank you Sir. Could the minister clarify. He said one of the reasons, for keeping the chief of police suspended was a lack of public confidence, now that seems a very subjective matter, and to be fair, if there was any lack of confidence in the chief of police it was largely created by the home affairs minister and a couple of senators who are no longer with us, who spent more time undermining the child abuse investigation than they did doing political work.

Minister home Affairs. Sir the test
which I applied in relation to the suspension was a very complicated one. I really cannot actually remember the precise details of it.
But one of the issues that arose, in which I considered was, the issue of public confidence. I had to formulate a view in relation to that, I would accept that of necessity that would be subjective. But I did so formulate a view.

chairperson Deputy Tadier final question.

Deputy Tadier. Thank you sir. So it seems that the Minister is giving lots of supplementary, reasons afterwards, why he found good reason to keep, the chief of police suspended. But does the minister first of all acknowledge, that he initially suspended him, on the Warcup letter alone, sir.

Minister home affairs. No sir.I made it clear, that I also considered the, the um I think it actually was copies of the slides which I had, in relation to the press release. I considered that important because it meant, I had a second senior police officer, namely the senior investigating officer corroborating what was being said by Mr. Warcup.

Deputy Tadier. Sir could I ask for the date of that, simply for the record if the minister would, did that, those slides, did that come into the ministers hand before the suspension date.

Minister home affairs. It was, it was it was those which related to the press conference which, I thought, took place on the day before the initial suspension, by, by the former Minister Deputy lewis although I may be incorrect on that. It was that press conference.

Anonymous said...

''Minister home affairs. No sir.I made it clear, that I also considered the, the um I think it actually was copies of the slides which I had, in relation to the press release. I considered that important because it meant, I had a second senior police officer, namely the senior investigating officer corroborating what was being said by Mr. Warcup.''

Scandalous Second officer corroborating is the officer leaking during the investigation, and that Mr. Le Marquand was aware of Have I got this wrong?

Ian Evans said...

It gets better by the hour! :)

Anonymous said...

Headlines Free Robert Green
Free Robert Green

Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:58
Share

Robert Green - Sentenced to 12 months in prison
Please write to Robert to show him your support.

All letters must be addressed as follows

George Robert Green

125799

HMP ABERDEEN

Craiginches,

4 Grampian Place, Aberdeen

AB11 8FN

Phone: 01224 238300
Thank you for all your help!

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

You just couldn't make it up, could you?

The Warcup letter - and the five-page press-release.

Both of which - on their face - are riddled with defects - even at first glance - to a lay-person.

And those two documents - and an admitted refusal to look at other extant and available evidence, such as the ACPO reports - is supposed to meet the legal standard of "sufficient enquiry" on the part of the Minister's decisions?

Just could not make it up.

You really couldn't.

As important as it has been to focus upon clowns like Le Marquand and Ogley in these citizens investigations, they and their actions have been but way-markers on the path.

What should be falling into view now - given the evidence - and the judicial review judgment - is that the real protector of corrupted power in Jersey - is Jersey's bent and politicised judicial function.

The real problem here is not the Le Marquands, the Ogleys, the Warcups, the Gradwells, the Tapps; they're all - each in their own way - just monkeys.

The organ-grinder in all of this is the Crown function in Jersey - the Attorney General and the judiciary.

That function - long-since captured by the Jersey mafia - is the real problem we are looking at here.

We in Jersey are not protected by the rule of law. We do not have a lawfully functioning judiciary.

It's as plain as that.

The judgment in the Graham Power judicial review - in contrast to the evidence and the established case-law - shows that to the world.

The politicians and the civil servants and the corrupt cops - all are now mere decoys at this stage.

Time to focus upon the real problem - the real target.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I guess the perceived public opinion comes from the JEP reports (which was fed by some ex-politicians) which ILM has confirmed were exaggerated.

Since when does such public opinion lead to the suspension of a Chief Officer?

Why was ILM looking at press briefings and slides that had nothing to do with the suspension?

This is turning into a big hole for ILM's bosses!!!

Zoompad said...

"The real problem here is not the Le Marquands, the Ogleys, the Warcups, the Gradwells, the Tapps; they're all - each in their own way - just monkeys."

Rico has painstakingly unravelled the DNA of the cancerous regime that has poisoned your beautiful island for far too long. When doctors attempt to cure cancer they have to look at a biopsy sample in close detail, before they can apply any medicine.

Anonymous said...

Since when does such public opinion lead to the suspension of a Chief Officer.

That is a very good question.Plus I thought Mr Power was suspended because of a letter by Warcup backed up with an interim report from the met. What the feck does the media briefing notes have to do with anything. This has gone beyound stupid it really has.

Anonymous said...

Rico

I am peeking through my fingers reading this, is there more?

rico sorda said...

Tonight

rs

GeeGee said...

Public opinion eh? Well I was not asked for my opinion, were you readers?

I would imagine for every negative against Mr Power, fed, spawned and spun by our wonderful local media there would be 20 positives. Mr Power, an honourable and honest Police Chief, along with Lenny Harper was trying to clean up the corruption within the police force and the Island. Ah - just got it, that does not find favour here does it? and when you are investigating child abuse that multiplies your chances of staying in your post even more.

I can guarantee 100% though that without question everyone of the abuse survivors would have totally supported him.

So, just what 'public' were you listening to Mr Le Marquand/

Bungle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian Evans said...

CHILD ABUSERS will be GETTING WORRIED :)

Anonymous said...

So part of the evidence to suspend Graham was these slides which at the moment I am at a loss as to what they contained. However ILM is admitting that this evidence has been lost.

Oh dear.

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

RE:**NEWSFLASH********by anon. at February 22, 2012 11:40 AM -

Speaking of the David Rose denialist piece in the Daily Mail, anon. wrote:

"The article looks seductive but is judged an overcooked advert. In total between 3 and 5 MILLION pounds of taxpayers money has been spent for what? To MAKE US LOOK LIKE CHILD ABUSE DENIERS ? Fortunately forums like this show that most of us are not, or have only temporarily been taken in."

Those of you in Jersey can be assured the lies and spin are not believed by any uncorrupted non-islanders who come across this story. That may be one reason outsiders who comment here appear more optimistic, certain even, that the cover-up is every bit as nakedly transparent as Stuart Syvret suggested.

Rico, when you, Team Voice, Stuart - and all other conscientious Jersey whistleblowers - feel discouraged at times, please remember that Jersey's seemingly omnipotent spin machine has no significant sphere of influence on outside public opinion; all factual and logical findings you've disclosed would be easily understood and accepted by any impartial observer.

What you have accomplished as independent investigative journalists is so much more significant than what can be seen from within Jersey. Your truth is pretty much the only story out there, and the growing public awareness is unstoppable.

Quite simply, Jersey's government looks to all the world like a corrupt little micro-state obsessed with covering up horrendous crimes against its own children. This automatically leads to suspicion that the known forensic findings at HDLG must be only the tip of the abuse iceberg. And that leads to some rather nightmarish speculation about whether child murders caused the government to overreact with such belligerent dishonesty.

Either The City of London will protect the proven liars and criminals running Jersey or it won't. That is the real concern, because the true story is not going anywhere and even the City of London must be able to see that.

Anonymous said...

Who do they seek consent from to spend money, what is an 11.8 request Was one applied for in this instance? before or after? is it possible to commission report then request permission to do pay for it?

4.13.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I would refer the Minister to the answer given to my question, written question number 11, and I note that the Operation Blast to date has cost £262,390, and I also note that that has been funded from the Historical Abuse Inquiry. Can I ask why this particular Operation Blast is being funded by the Historical Abuse Inquiry when they do not seem to be linked?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That may well be correct. The fact is that Home Affairs does not have that spare money in order to be able to carry the cost of these investigations and they have been funded centrally by an 11.8 request effectively, but that should be made clear in the current 11.8 request. So it is 11.8?
4.13.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I am a little bit confused. Again it seems ... whom would the Minister seek of consent for to obtain this money? Does the Minister need to apply to whoever is looking after the Historical Abuse cash account for this money? Because it seems that over £260,000 has been spent when we could have had a review undertaken by Deputy Higgins for far less than that. What evaluation was carried out before we entered into this investigation by Wiltshire? It seems a complete waste of money.

Anonymous said...

It's beyond me how Le Marquand has the bare faced cheek to carry on with this charade. I mean it must be killing him knowing he's the last line of defence which is creaking under the weight of documented evidence.

Why cant he just come clean and be out of it. He'd actually make more decent friends in the long run and he could retire knowing he'd made a big mistake but had been man enough to put it right.

Of course its not as simple as that. He is a former Magistrate and has the in depth support of the Law Officers dept and key players on the COM. They will be so far up him he wont be able to fart without some London based legal wonk firing out a group alert email.

What a terrible spot to find oneself in. Perhaps we might take some small pleasure from that?

But nobdy should give up. This is far too important.