Tuesday, February 7, 2012

THE WARCUP LETTER- OPERATION END-GAME



Former Chief Minister Frank Walker - Former Chief Executive Bill (Golden Handshake) Ogley


Former DCO David Warcup




Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis







On the 12th November 2008 former Chief of Police Graham Power was suspended from duty.



Graham Power along with DCO Lenny Harper and his dedicated team smashed the veil of secrecy concerning decades long Child Abuse in the Jersey Care Homes.


For those readers who have been following this tragic chapter in Jersey's history & for those who are a little less familiar the real crux of the suspension comes together on the 10th November 2008.


On the 10th November, Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup sent a letter to Chief Executive Bill Ogley along with an attachment from the Metropolitan Police "Interim Report" raising issues surrounding the management of Operation Rectangle. This document was used by the Chief Executive and the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis to suspend CPO Graham Power without warning, without representation and without hearing. The suspension was carried out in a way which effectively ensured that the Chief Officer could not return to work and was effectively a dismissal. There has been much speculation as to what the letter might have contained. What we know for sure is that it did not contain the full version of the alleged "Met Police Interim Report" - as Warcup claimed that that document was too confidential.


What the Warcup letter failed to say was that the "Met Interim Report" was heavily qualified and stated clearly that the views expressed might change after more work had been done. If this detail had been included ,then, according to previous advise from the Solicitor General, it could not be used for suspension purposes. That part was excluded from what Warcup had to say. We also know that the final version of the Warcup letter was an amended version of the original. Brian Napier QC discovered this but failed to identify who it was that made the changes and why. All the key players denied it was them. Was this letter "Sexed Up" in an effort to convince Andrew Lewis that it was fit for purpose? And if so why was he so easily convinced?


Why did he not seek the original so that he could judge for himself whether the letter was an accurate reflection of what the report contained? Or could it be that he and others were only obeying orders and the strings were being pulled from another direction.


What we have here are mainly the views of DCO David Warcup.



These views were never presented to Graham Power before, during or immediately after his suspension. This is a grotesque failure on the part of then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Stuart Syvret will be looking at the failure of Andrew Lewis on his blog.


Remember what was going on behind Graham Powers back concerning the Outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp - what we are witnessing is a pincer movement to remove the Chief of Police.


Look at what the current Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has done. During the suspension reviews of early 2009 he had a chance to put a stop to this madness, instead, he repeated exactly what Andrew Lewis had done previously. All the Senator had was David Warcup's letter minus any reference to the Met Report. He then embarked on a Wiltshire enquiry that cost the tax payer 1.5 million pounds, dropped all disciplinary action and then hung Graham Power out to dry with the help of the Jersey Mainstream Media. This complete and utter madness has been able to go on unchecked by the vast majority of our States of Jersey Parliment because they would rather stick their heads in the sand and say "What about Jerseys reputation".



It has been left to the Jersey Bloggers to undertake the Investigative work into one of the darkest chapters in Jerseys history. We do this without protection. We do this because we believe it is the right thing to do.



This is not about Graham Power or Lenny Harper



This is about the Children who suffered terribly in the Care of the States of Jersey



I have always remained of the opinion that if you find the truth about the suspension of Graham Power and the denigration of Lenny Harper then you will find the truth about the cover-up. That was my opinion back in 2008 when I started on this road and it remains my opinion to this day.


DCO David Warcup had only been on the Island for 97 days when Graham Power was suspended. David Warcup was not in the Island for the vast majority of Operation Rectangle. What Warcup offers is opinion and "Hindsight" - what he offers is no different to the Met when reviewing investigations.


Something went seriously wrong between Ogley, Walker, Warcup, Lewis & Senator Le Marquand for carrying it on. This suspension could not have happened without the nod from the then Attorney General or higher.



These issues cannot be excluded from any Committee of Enquiry



The former Chief of Police has never had a chance to reply to these opinions/allegations from David Warcup - I will give him that opportunity - he deserves nothing less.




Rico Sorda



Truth, Honesty and Integrity


Team Voice



- The parts highlighted in Blue are where Warcup quotes the Met "Interim " Report.


- This letter has not been redacted nor did it need redacting.









10 November 2008



Dear Mr Ogley,



Re Historic Abuse Enquiry



I am writing further to our previous meetings and my previous briefings to the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.


The purpose of this letter is to set out details of what I consider to be failings in relation to the command and management of the on going Historic Child Abuse enquiry.


I believe that there is a strong public interest in making the following disclosures and that it is right and proper to do so to maintain the integrity and confidence in the States of Jersey Police, and also to ensure that the public interest is properly served in seeking to resolve these issues.


Background


The background to the current enquiry is as follows;


In April 2006 States of Jersey Police became concerned at the number of carers who were being accused of involvement in offences concerning the abuse of children. This was particularly highlighted when the Commanding Officer of the Jersey Sea Cadets was arrested for downloading pornographic images including some involving Sea Cadets. The attitude of the Sea Cadet authorities of that time caused great concern. Accordingly, police began to examine a number of previous cases and during this review were continually referred to which had allegedly taken place at Haut de la Garenne. This covert phase of the enquiry went on until November 2007 when the investigation was made public . Because of the concerns of victims about an involvement of the Jersey caring agencies it was decided to seek the assistance of the NSPCC in London. Within a week seventy victims had come forward, most detailing abuse at HDLG.


Among the victims were a few who had said that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming and had then disappeared. Two others said they had knowledge of human remains at the location but were not specific. A person also came to police and said he had a client who knew there were human remains buried at the home. The collation of numerous complaints of both sexual and violent abuse of children had led to the decision being made to enter the home to carry out a screening search for human remains and evidence in support of the allegations of abuse . The advice and assistance of the NPIA in the deployment of UK specialists was secured.


The abuse enquiry parameters are presently set at events that took place from the mid 1940s to 1990



The Above extract is taken from a report presented to me following my appointment and sets out what, at the time , was considered to be a representation of the facts in relation to the enquiry.



As you are aware, I took up post as Deputy Chief Officer with the States of Jersey Police on the 4th August 2008. On the 11th August 2008 , following the departure of Mr Harper , I took over responsibility for the Historic Abuse Investigation known as 'Operation Rectangle'.


Having taken over responsibility, I immediately began a strategic review of the enquiry, as a result of which, it quickly became apparent that there were a number of failings in respect of the command, control and conduct of the enquiry.


Indeed you will recall that on the 4th September 2008 I spoke to both yourself and later the Attorney General regarding confidential matters as well as my concerns regarding the conduct of the enquiry.


Following the appointment of Detective Superintendent Gradwell, further work has been completed which supports the view that the enquiry has not met the standards which might be expected in an investigation of this nature and in following sections I have provided a brief synopsis of what I feel are the key issues.


Command and Control


The conduct of major enquiries , critical incidents and crime investigations are normally based on practice and guidance developed by the Police Service and approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers. A basic principle in the management of critical incidents whether they are crime, civil contingencies, public order or firearms, Is the need to have effective command structures in place.


For over twenty years the police service has used the Gold/Silver/Bronze levels of command , allowing police commanders to develop strategic , tactical and operational responces to spontaneous and pre- planned events (ACPO Centrex 2006)


In relation to this particular investigation , there is no evidence of a proper command structure with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident. In this instance, this role would fall to the Chief Officer with the role of Silver Commander falling to Mr Harper, the senior Investigating Officer.


There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.


It is apparent that key partners have not been included at a strategic or operational level, nor does it appear that there has been effective consultation with Key partners and the public.


Community consultation and the use of an Independent Advisory Group has not been effectively managed.


There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters


No resource management plan has been developed and approved .


There does not appear to have been detailed consideration in relation to 'Command Resililence' and the possible problems associated with using unqualified individuals to undertake key roles.


Media Strategy


Although a Media Strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to a unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. There is no doubt that to much detail was disclosed to the media without regard for its impact and potential interpretation. The use of detailed briefings as well as extensive 'off the record' briefings, undoubtedly had a significant impact. The consequences and the impact of this approach are now a matter of public record.


There is also little doubt that there have been improper disclosures to the media, including potentially unlawful disclosures, in breach of the Data Protection Law.


Where inaccurate and misleading reporting did occur, there is no evidence of any attempt to issue corrections to the media, nor indeed to provide clarification.


The adversarial and combative stance adopted by the SIO was allowed to continue unchecked.


Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former SIO have not been evidenced.


Financial Issues


Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of an overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.


Overtime was allowed to continue over many months , unrestricted and without due regard to cost or the welfare of staff members.


The fast pace and dynamics of an ongoing enquiry have clearly placed challenges on all concerned in respect of effective financial management . The Accounting officer has clearly sought reassurances concerning the financial controls and expenditure and it is clear that he has had to place complete reliance and trust in the reports and updates he received from the force.


Expenditure in relation to forensic matters has been significant. In the absence of a forensic strategy , there was therefore no effective controls of the potential levels of spend in this area.


Expenditure in respect of consultants and specialists appear to have proceeded unchecked.


Specialists have been used 'out of role' at significant expense, e.g The specialist search dog handler was deployed at £650 per day dealing with duties in respect of which he was not trained or qualified.


The ACPO homicide working group (HWG) assisted in the provision of advice and guidance. Their role was however, one largely based on the provision of mentoring and advice. The decisions and actions which follow from this process are a matter for the Chief of Police and the Senior Investigating Officer.


The lack of effective records and policy management have made it extremely difficult to critically assess certain aspects of policy and evidence


Enquiry parameters were very broad and advice concerning the -development of effective investigative parameters as suggested by the (HWG) have not been followed. This has resulted in a lack of coordination and a lack of effective prioritisation of enquiries.


The Lawyers working on enquiry issues were prevented from working effectively with the enquiry team and were criticised heavily in the media. The Media were repeatedly advised by Mr Harper that it was not normal practice for lawyers to work directly with investigators.


Not only did this have an effect of casting doubt on the integrity of the Law officers, but indeed it cast doubt on the broader legal system in Jersey. The assertion that lawyers do not work in this way is fundamentally wrong and indeed there can be little doubt that this action has had an adverse impact on the overall conduct of the investigation . i.e the effective engagement of lawyers would have enabled prioritisation of enquires and would have also assisted in bringing matters to a successful conclusion at an earlier stage.


Media reports have suggested that children have been murdered and buried at Haut de la Garenne. An assessment of the evidence casts significant doubt on this hypothesis. The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and it does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home Haut de la Garenne.


The evidence does not support the facts that there were murders, bodies destroyed and buried at the former children's home.


The piece of 'Child's Skull' is not human bone and was recovered from within a 'Victorian era'


The 'cellars are not cellars, they are voids under the floor.


The 'Shackles and 'Restraints' have not been identified and there is no evidence of Shackles or restraints being used


Many of the bones recovered are animal, in origin, of those identified as possibly human they all predate 1950


The blood stains in the bath have not been identified as blood.


There are 65 teeth recovered in the floor voids and 1 elsewhere. They are milk teeth which have come from at least 10 people and possibly up to 65 people. They generally have the appearance of being shed naturally.


The number of alleged suspects were over stated in the media, leading to increased public expectations and subsequently arousing further suspicion of a 'cover up' when large numbers of suspects were not charged with offences. Only three suspects have been charged, however, there remain a number of lines of enquiry which are being pursued concerning allegations of historic child abuse.


Further more the DCO has apparently removed material which is relevant to the enquiry. He has been requested to return this or explain where the material in question can be located. In the event that he fails to respond directly a criminal enquiry will be commenced.


In August 2008, I commissioned the Metropolitan Police to carry out a review of the historic child abuse investigation. The review was commenced in September and on 10 November 2008 I received an Interim report detailing their initial findings.


The report itself is 'restricted' for the purpose of circulationdue to the fact it contains sensitive information, some of which may be disclosed in future trials. I can however summarise a number of issues which emerge from the report and which I anticipate will be expanded upon when I receive the final report;


' There is no policy book dealing with forensic strategy which is a critical area in this investigation'


'There are no specific terms of reference for Operation Rectangle given the potential size, complexity and sensitivity of the enquiry, one would have expected a more precise terms of reference'


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



Issues have been raised in relation to the lack of a community impact assessment and the lack of a strategic (Gold) group. Issues are also raised in the inappropriate use of the Independent Advisory Group. The Report then deals in some detail with the important decisions relating to the search and excavation of Haut de la Garenne and the Victoria Tower Bunkers. The report concludes that the rationale for the searches/excavations do not appear to stand close scrutiny and that


"no evidence of homicide was apparent and no missing persons have been identified, "we are therefore of the view that Operation Rectangle should consider this aspect of the enquiry closed"



The report also deals with the forensic assessment and intelligence as well as the arrest strategy and the management of the major incident room. The report also expresses concerns about the media strategy, 'the manner in which some information was imparted to the media, the quality of this information and the language employed... the interaction of the enquiry team with the media at this time does raise many issues'.


The continued investigation into physical and sexual abuse is justified.


The comments highlighted above can only serve to summarise what is undoubtedly a complicated and detailed series of events and findings.



I set out earlier that the purpose of this letter was to set out details of what I consider failings of command within the States of Jersey Police with regard to the ongoing Historic Abuse enquiry. I believe that these failings have the potential to undermine the integrity and reputation of the force and to seriously affect public confidence in policing in the Island.


The interim findings of the review by the Metropolitan Police fully support my previous comments and opinions which I have expressed herein.


As you are aware I have remained concerned in relation to the stance which was previously adopted by the Chief Officer to the proposal that facts surrounding the investigation needed to be clarified in the media, both in relation to the public interest and for legal reasons.


I am also concerned at the lack of dialogue which has taken place between the Chief Officer and myself, as well as the lack of dialogue between the Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell.


I also believe that there are serious organisational issues which lie behind the current events and which need to be addressed within the States of Jersey Police. Broadly speaking I have found the force to be one which contains a large nuber of very committed individuals. However, I have found an environment which is highly risk adverse, and where bullying and intimidation is common place.


Central to all these issues is the lack of proper oversight and proper application of standard working practices, including financial and HR. Unless action is taken to address these issues then I would suggest that the force could yet again find itself the focus of attention at the centre of another critical incident. This is perhaps best exemplified by recent incidents and the levels of internal investigations (6) which are currently being conducted by UK police forces as well as the very real risk which exists to the Islands reputation within the wider Intelligence community.


As you are aware I have raise my concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation with the Chief Officer, Mr Power who does not share my views as to the potential adverse impact and reputational issues whaich may affect the force as a result of the investigation. I therefore submit these comments for your consideration and that of the Minister of Home Affairs.




Yours Sincerely



David Warcup


Deputy Chief Officer

States of Jersey Police





132 comments:

rico sorda said...

One of the saddest things for me when reading the Warcup letter is the sheer lack of any praise for the work carried out by Graham Power, Lenny Harper and their hard working team.

This letter actually says more about Warcup than it does about anything else.

Decades of unchecked Abuse and after 97 days he comes in and just like that old Harry Enfield character says

" Oh you don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this - onnnnnnnly me"

Mr Hindsight

Never ever any empathy for the abuse survivors.

rs

moral_rightness said...

I had a quick read, will reread more thoroughly tomorrow, but first item to hit me, the Gold Group, if I remember correctly there was a valid reason for not using the Gold Group system which itself is not gospel just best advice and if I remember correctly the ACPO experienced advisor's agreed, but then Warcup blatantly disregarded that fact, why?

rico sorda said...

M-R

You are on the money

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This is truly astounding. The Chief of Police is suspended without due process on this letter from David Warcup????? That's it? That's what it takes to have a Chief of Police suspended in Jersey????????

No wonder nobody, including Graham Power, were allowed to see this letter there's nothing in it!

Here's the bit that rings home where David Warcup said;

"As you are aware I have raise my concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation with the Chief Officer, Mr Power who does not share my views."

So the question is why were Graham Power's views not sought? Why was he not given the opportunity to give his views that differed from David Warcup's? They immediately suspended the Chief Police Officer on this letter that he wasn't allowed to see?

Those involved with Mr. Power's suspension have even more questions to answer after the (lack of) revelations in "The Warcup Letter."

Finally this is a hell of a scoop you have here which yet again raises many questions concerning the State Media. How is it that, yet again, a Blogger obtains one of the most sought after documents in recent Jersey history and the State Media don't? Now that it is in the public domain will the State Media be asking the relevant questions of Warcup, Lewis, Ogley, Walker, Bailhache, Le Cocq, Le Marquand? Will they seek to get an interview with Graham Power QPM?

Considering the BBC has been in possession of possibly the other most sought after document, Graham Power's submission to Wiltshire, and have not broadcast/published a single word of it for somewhere in the region of four months then one can assume, they'll not be highlighting the Warcup Letter either. Which might go some way to answering the question as to why this stuff gets leaked to Bloggers and not the local "accredited" (State) Media.

Anonymous said...

This document was used by the Chief Executive and the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis to suspend CPO Graham Power without warning, without representation and without hearing.

That is just incredible. Why didn't anyone do something when it happened back in 2008? This man was treated with contempt from people who should have known better. Why didn't you're politicians do something when you're Home Affairs Minister brought it to the States of Jersey? This wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector.

Anonymous said...

This proves what a lawless state your island is and with the complicity of your media.

Anonymous said...

''The fast pace and dynamics of an ongoing enquiry have clearly placed challenges on all concerned in respect of effective financial management . The Accounting officer has clearly sought reassurances concerning the financial controls and expenditure and it is clear that he has had to place complete reliance and trust in the reports and updates he received from the force''

And? Is this not what accounting officers with oversight are paid to do?

Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former SIO have not been evidenced./

Is it any wonder why Mr. Syvret has been stopped from getting evidence submitted. Ignore it, hide it shred it. It does not exist.

~Below from Mr. Harpers Affidavit

I eventually had to go to London and threaten to stand at the gates of the Sea Cadet HQ and disclose to individual parents before they took action.

Another section from Mr. Harpers Affidavit below

The concerns led us in 2006 to start looking at cases which had been brought. Early on I became worried about one case where a retired senior police officer (Chief Inspector ****) was implicated in passing information to paedophiles about a police investigation but did not appear to have been interviewed. It appeared that billing had been carried out on his telephones but had revealed nothing further. I was still uneasy and asked the investigating officer why **** had not even been interviewed. She told me that she had been instructed not to by the then head of CID, Chief Inspector ****. This was even more of a concern than it would have normally been as the Head of CID was also an officer in the Jersey Sea Cadets. That concern was heightened even more when I discovered that the suspect’s phone that had been billed was actually his wife’s phone. There was no mention of this fact anywhere in the police documentation. The investigating officers denied knowledge of that fact. I was told by the senior officer concerned that no phone could be found for ****. Within twenty minutes of starting enquiries I had traced a phone to him and found that it was the phone he had when he left the force and in fact it had been given to him as a retirement present.

Angus Fairhurst said...

So this now infamous 'interim met report' which has held up by the estbalishment as the 'be all and end al' of the decsion to suspend Graham Power and quickly bring to a close the historic child abuse investigation amounts to no more than 19 lines provided by a lower management met officer and is most certainly 'not qualified' as I suspect are most of Warcup's bold assertions.

This is what they went with?

This was their best shot?

Man they really messed this one up!

Rico I have follwed this story and your blog from the very beginning. You are a very straight and honest guy, that much comes throught time and time again. Thanks for all your efforts to date. You are a legend and history will record yours and a few other decent bloggers brave actions very kindly.

I hope you can bring this to a close soon. For your own sake. Its taken a lot of guts to do what you have done. But to all the victims of abuse in Jersey I send out my hearftfelt sympathy, for it is now well understood that you will always have to live with the horrors you suffered as young people.

The negligent, dishonest, manipulative, pompous and plainly corrupt actions of senior figures in our government a are truly shocking and disgracful episode in our collective history.

Ian Gorst paints himself as the moden family man. So I would suggest to him that if he really does hold those values close to his heart, as I do, then he finally does the right thing and puts an end to this madness and allow a full, open and transparent committee of enquiry to do its work free from the overt political medlings of deeply conflicted individuals within the states and judiciary. It cannot be an easy thing to do. But Rico Sorda and others have manned up. Time for you to do the same.

Anonymous said...

Last week in the States Le Marquand said that this letter was already in the public domain. Of course he was wrong, as he has been time and time again. It never has been.

Thanks for publishing this. It is an important historical document. Finally we are getting to see how Jersey's government has been allowed to operate all these years.

Why oh why did they take this course of action when it came to child abuse?

I hope David Warcup feels proud about this! Not.

moral_rightness said...

ACPO 1

7.5 There are presently thirteen staff on the inquiry team but arrangements are in hand for an additional twelve detectives to be attached from the UK. The investigation was declared a critical incident and a Cat A+ by the SIO - decision number 8. He also decided not to hold a Gold Strategy group or complete a Community Impact Assessment (CIA). The reasons for the lack of a CIA are shown with regard to his concerns of possible suspects in public offices. A CIA can be wholly internal to the police and one should be considered. To assist such an Independent Advisory Group could be convened for this specific investigation / enquiry. This team are more than content to assist with this proposal.


Recommendation 17: That the Chief Officer and SIO consider a Community Impact Assessment and convene an Independent Advisory Group. The IAG should not include former residents at this home, could include advisors from the NSPCC or community groups. The IAG could advise on the CIA.

8.2 In viewing the media cuttings, there is clear evidence of witnesses providing accounts of what occurred in the home and there exists wide media speculation (even some of the graphics of the cellar area are incorrect). The SIO has, wherever possible, refuted wide suggestions and, at appropriate times, refused to confirm sensitive information to minimise sensationalism.

ACPO 2

Recommendation 17: That the Chief Officer and SIO consider a Community Impact Assessment and convene an Independent Advisory Group. The IAG should not include former residents at this home, could include advisors from NSPCC or Community groups. The IAG could advise on the CIA.

On 19th March, a Community Impact Assessment was completed. The first meeting of the Independent Advisory Group was held on the 13th March 2008.

ACPO 3

Recommendation 17: That the Chief Officer and SIO consider a Community Impact Assessment and convene an Independent Advisory Group. The IAG should not include former residents of this home, could include advisors from the NSPCC or community groups. The IAG could advise on the CIA.

On 19th March, a Community Impact Assessment was completed. The first meeting of the Independent Advisory Group was held on 13th March 2008. (26.3.08) Completed.



An extract from Tony's Musings Wednesday, 17 March 2010


3) Independent Advisory Group

The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General's decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham.

rico sorda said...

Hi Angus,

Thanks for your kind words. This hasn't been easy for me or for the other brave bloggers but we have done what we believe to right. People suffered terrible abuse, they bravely came forward and told their harrowing accounts of horrific abuse and look how they have been treated, along with the decent police who tried to do something.

This shouldn't have been left to members of the public.

We have done this because it was the right thing to do. It has been a long 3 years with much stress but not as stressful as the victims of abuse I might add.

I do want out of this, but not until I believe the time is right.

Thank you again

rs

rico sorda said...

Now you know why the ACPO reports had to be discredited - they got in the way.

It really is horrific what has been going on in this little Island.

This why former Chief Minister Terry Le Suer spent a year misleading the house on the dropping of part 'd' in the Napier TOR's

So good was Warcup that he had no idea what SIO Gradwell was up to. How many TOR's was police consultant Mike Kellett working to when doing the BDO Report?

Mick Gradwell constantly trashing the Abuse Investigation and leaking confidential police information to David Rose. The cat is out the bag. Why did they try and stop the Scrutiny Home Affairs Sub Panel from conducting their review.

Speaks for itself

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

What a journalistic coup! This letter goes to the heart of the matter, discrediting the entire Feudalist Party line, as echoed by their State Media. Amazing work on your part, and as vital to upholding democratic ideals as any legitimate military act against tyranny.

Chelloise

moral_rightness said...

Yes it does beggar belief when you read what the ACPO reported and compare that with what Warcup reported many months later:-

Command and Control
The conduct of major enquiries , critical incidents and crime investigations are normally based on practice and guidance developed by the Police Service and approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers. A basic principle in the management of critical incidents whether they are crime, civil contingencies, public order or firearms, Is the need to have effective command structures in place.
For over twenty years the police service has used the Gold/Silver/Bronze levels of command , allowing police commanders to develop strategic , tactical and operational responces to spontaneous and pre- planned events (ACPO Centrex 2006)
In relation to this particular investigation , there is no evidence of a proper command structure with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident. In this instance, this role would fall to the Chief Officer with the role of Silver Commander falling to Mr Harper, the senior Investigating Officer.
There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.
It is apparent that key partners have not been included at a strategic or operational level, nor does it appear that there has been effective consultation with Key partners and the public.
Community consultation and the use of an Independent Advisory Group has not been effectively managed.
There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters

------------------------------
What would make a deputy chief officer ignore the actual ACPO reports and reasoning for not having a Gold group whilst still referring to the ACPO as part of his argument.

He's been caught with his pants down on this one!

Anonymous said...

i believe that there is a strong public interest in making the following disclosures and that it is right and proper to do so

well the public know now

Anonymous said...

I have been reading suspension Review 1 on VFC and came across this. The part about corporation Sole needs explaining;

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. I think it is, however, important to consider whether he was properly suspended on 12th November because, of course, if he was not properly suspended on 12th November that would negate his suspension and therefore it would be necessary to consider whether he would need to be suspended again in the event of us finding that all that is at issue is the correctness of the procedure on the 12th. If I am allowed in due course to develop the argument it is that the procedures of 12th November were improperly applied, therefore the suspension was inappropriate and improper; I will hesitate to use the word “illegal” in these circumstances. Then there is the one of proportionality as to whether the suspension should be re-imposed. So Iwould invite you to consider whether the suspension was properly imposed on 12th November. What I am, for the sake of clarity this morning, proposing is that we do not consider at the first instance the mix of issues that you have raised that are quite proper to consider and quite right to be the circumstances of the judicial review. It is simply this morning that we should look at the issues of 12th November to see whether they were properly applied because, as I say, that does have a material bearing on Mr. Power’s current status. Then we can consider whether suspension is any longer appropriate. I think it will come as no surprise to you that I will be suggesting that that is not any longer appropriate.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Thank you for that but I am not going to look at the original circumstances. That is my decision on that.



Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you, Minister. I must formally state for the record that we are most concerned that before we have been given the opportunity to state our case considerable amounts of that case seems to be something that you will not consider. We have to make it quite clear that there have been material breaches of points 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1 of the code. These are not technical breaches, these are material breaches and render null and void the original suspension. I do hope that we can consider these matters today as we are keen to support the administrative process that you have entered into in good faith. We would rather that we are addressing these matters as part of an administrative review before we have to consider these matters in a judicial review. So I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that you have just offered there in order that we may fully state the grounds for the reinstatement of Mr. Power. I would make it quite clear that the material breaches are only part of the submission but they are nevertheless an integral part of the submission.



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

I only just happened to come on to your Blog, because your new posting has not come up on my Blog. But I'm so pleased I did & I could not of put it better then the comment above from Angus Fairhurst, He has put a challenge out to our new Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst, So has he got the back bone to have a full, open and transparent committee of enquiry to do its work free from the overt political medlings of deeply conflicted individuals within the states and judiciary.

What a horrible thing that has been going on & it has to stop & stop now.

Rico you & VFC have done a fantastic Job, you have shown up the Local Media for what they are useless bunch of Lap Dogs.

It is, I must say a sad day after all these years that it has been proved right that this Island just wanted to close the investigation down I can remember meeting you at a husting meeting 4 years ago, well I did not think You, VFC & Stuart would ever get the truth out, but here we have that vital letter that starts the ball rolling.

Absolutely Fantastic.

What will happen next!

TJW.

Anonymous said...

Comment of 10:33 PM above, says it all.

No one can reconcile the real on-site ACPO advice and their original evaluation of how the investigation was progressing under Harper and Power, with anything Warcup says in his letter. The statements are in direct opposition to one another and can't be dismissed as mere difference in personal opinion. The evidence utterly discredits all Warcup had to say about the ACPO's version. What Warcup has written in his letter is the the most dishonest and blatant form of misleading information possible, is it not?

The entire Graham Power suspension and the entire smearing of the abuse investigation itself, were based on deliberately falsified information and that can no longer be hushed up or denied.

All UK policing agencies should be made aware of this, and should realize absolute proof against all involved in Warcup's devious actions is now permanently in the public domain.

Anonymous said...

Rico you have left no stone unturned in your quest for justice for child abuse victims in Jersey.

Sadly the same can not be said for the States of Jersey.


Actions speak louder than words.

moral_rightness said...

My last bit on the section about the gold group, that the ACPO advised wasn't suitable for the local conditions and so suggested an IAG:

and the Met's view on Gold Groups:-

13. The key questions in identifying if a gold group is needed are:

What is the rationale for setting up the gold group?

What value will it provide in managing the various facets of the critical incident e.g. victim/community trust and confidence, community reassurance etc?

Can the gold commander and senior investigating officer successfully manage the incident without this support? [I would say yes they did it with less people - so lower costs - with an IAG]

14. If it is decided that a gold group is required (A decision means it is advisary not mandatory) then clear terms of reference for the meeting and membership of the group (determined by the nature and profile of the incident) must be established by the chair.

moral_rightness said...

My comments in bold:-

Media Strategy

Although a Media Strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to a unprecedented level of media interest and public concern [high concern from who for what - it was not as if there was a murderer on the run] . There is no doubt that to much detail [who measured it, how was it measured] was disclosed to the media without regard for its impact and potential interpretation. The use of detailed briefings as well as extensive 'off the record' briefings, undoubtedly had a significant impact. The consequences and the impact of this approach are now a matter of public record. [none of this rant means anything]


There is also little doubt [little doubt means there is some doubt so not a valid consideration]that there have been improper disclosures to the media, including potentially unlawful disclosures [are there, where?], in breach of the Data Protection Law.[really!!]

Anonymous said...

"I have always remained of the opinion that if you find the truth about the suspension of Graham Power and the denigration of Lenny Harper then you will find the truth about the cover-up. That was my opinion back in 2008 when I started on this road and it remains my opinion to this day"

I could not agree more Rico,I would also include the dismissal of Senator Syvret as part of the picture.
Here were three men who could not be bought,bribed bullied or intimidated.Therefore they had to be discredited.If you do not like the message then discredit the messenger.
The message they were giving was that child abuse had been going on for a long period of time unchecked by those who's responsibility it was to safeguard children.

What WE DO NOT KNOW IS WHO THOSE ABUSERS ARE BUT HARPER AND POWER DO!!
The answer will provide the reason for the cover up.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed you will recall that on the 4th September 2008 I spoke to both yourself and later the Attorney General regarding confidential matters as well as my concerns regarding the conduct of the enquiry."

What were those 'confidential matters'?

And note the date - 4th September.

Gives the lie to the official version does it not?

Anonymous said...

"Not only did this have an effect of casting doubt on the integrity of the Law officers, but indeed it cast doubt on the broader legal system in Jersey."

And there you have it. The cardinal law was being broken - casting doubt on the integrity of the Law officers. Be in no doubt that phrase is of the utmost significance. S.O.

Anonymous said...

The question now is what are the States of Jersey going to do about this? Where does this leave Ian Le Marquand? What a stinking mess. There has got to be action as we have a breakdown in the rule of law.

Res Nullius said...

David Warcup 10 November 2008

"The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and it does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home Haut de la Garenne."

Home Affairs Minister 05 January 2012

"These exaggerations included allegations that digging should never have started at Haut De La Garenne."

There you have it.

Ian Le Marquand admits that Warcup's assertion was an "exaggeration".

This supports Sturat Syvret's view that Andrew Lewis made the decision to suspend Mr Power without making reasonable enquiries into the allegations made by Warcup.

Anonymous said...

This is the 'smoking gun' Well done for posting it. I hope people realise just what an important document you have published. You are a brave man for doing it and I salute you for it. If the people of Jersey and their politicians do not act on this, then i suggest you walk away now rico.

Anonymous said...

The 'Shackles and 'Restraints' have not been identified and there is no evidence of Shackles or restraints being used

I find this strange coming from the DCO. Is it not the job of the police to investigate? If what he says is true then terrific news but to use it in this kind of way is outrageous. This is what we would call a stocking filler a bit of padding to a letter that was in desperate need from the outset.

Anonymous said...

"The 'Shackles and 'Restraints' have not been identified and there is no evidence of Shackles or restraints being used"

Firtsly, there is evidence of retraints being used. I recall there being witness evidence of such practice although I stand to be corrected. A witnesses account is still evidence - Warcup would know that.

What he should have said was that there was no corroborative evidence of restraints except for the rusty wires which might prove inconclusive in themselves.

That is not the same as saying there was NO evidence.

In any event, the term shackles being ascribed to the rusty wires was first, and probably only ever, used by a JEP 'journalist'.

Anonymous said...

Lenny Harper.

Warcup's letter says:

"Furthermore the DCO has apparently removed material which is relevant to the enquiry.
In the event that he fails to respond directly a criminal enquiry will be commenced"

Lenny, was it not Warcup who apparently destroyed cellars, a stone bath, and numerous bones?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

How Things Are Done In JERSEY

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

As mentioned earlier you have published the most sought after document in recent Jersey history. The letter that had a Chief Police Officer suspended during a live Child Abuse Enquiry. The letter that even the Chief Police Officer wasn't allowed to see or respond to.

In order to give your overseas readers of what we mean by "State Media" have ANY of Jersey's "accredited" media attempted to make contact with you? Has ANY of this latest revelation been mentioned by ANY of the Jersey media now that it has been up for 24 hours? Have ANY of our elected "representatives" made contact with you?

This letter that you have published exposes lies and suggests corruption at the heart of our government and Civil Service surely, one would believe, there is one "independent" "journalist" on this island?

Anonymous said...

Local journalists (I use that word very loosely) are not paid to ask searching difficult questions that might upset editors, their friends or potential advetisers.

They are pais to write soundbite news commentary which is mainly shaped by time working time constriants.

They are only here because they are not good enough to get a proper job and too lazy to question their role within society.

If you are a main stream journalist in Jersey then sadly your career is over before it has even started.

With the exception of Sarah Mantague from BBC radio 4's Today programme and possibly Richard Pallot who now works for ITN who else has migrated onto the national stage having cut thier teeth in Jersey?

Answers on the back on a postage stamp please to......

rico sorda said...

Hi VFC,

I haven't heard anything from anyone.

I contacted BBC Jersey and my email has been passed on to Mr Gripton

But hey thats Jersey, lol, fecking lawless, anything goes here.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"my email has been passed on to Mr Gripton"

Well that's the last anyone will see/hear of that then. Jon Gripton was given Graham Power's submission to Wiltshire around 4 months ago and despite him (the BBC) covering the prosecution case against Mr. Power they don't feel the need to cover the defence case.

The BBC cannot complain about being accused of complicity in this cover-up. If they keep this latest turn of events a secret their position becomes that much more untenable.

rico sorda said...

The media will do what they do - the real focus must now be on the States of Jersey.

ILM must resign I can't see how he can stay in post.

The States is where we must see action.

This really just makes me really angry and sad

This is such a huge story of corruption and all evidenced at that.

And they did in the middle of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation

rs

Anonymous said...

ILM is fine, it is you that's all messed up. You know sometimes I feel sorry for you writing all this guff and the silly connection you try to sell with a cover up. No journalist in Jersey or the Mainland will waste anytime on this because it's simply a non-story. Call me Troll, call me what you like, it is you thats been trolling. Every sensational post you do is classed as trolling. Look it up.

Ian Evans said...

BRIDGET SHAW!!!

Anonymous said...

Spineless States Members. The only way that this rock can be sorted out is by anarchy. Can you not see that the government is walking over us because we let them? They think that we won't revolt, that's why they are treating us with utter contempt. It's time to sort this rock out. We need people like Churchill who would not betray his own people.

Anonymous said...

Where are you working now? BG Romerils? One of our moles tells us you have changed your work place on facebook and seeing as Romerils relies on the States for so much work some related people want to know.

Anonymous said...

Rico, do you mind if I ask Mr Power or even Mr Harper if they have been contacted by your media after the release of this letter.

I still find it very hard to comprehend that the Island has decended into chaos. This should never have been able to happen.

Anonymous said...

A stunning revelation Rico. Now we know the real reason why David Warcup scuttled away from the island. He knew that blogs would eventually get to this even though he knew that the JEP and other media would ignore it even when slapped around the face with it. Before I make some comments on the Warcup letter, may I comment on two posts on here. Firstly, I have not been contacted by any of the media since this letter was posted, except Chris Bright of course, and he only wrote to complain about how I insulted him by saying that he should read some real journalism in the blogs and that he was certainly not a voice for or on behalf of children. This after he refused to print my letter about Roy Boschat as it was "defamatory", even though he had printed everything in my letter previously and had obviously not thought Boschat's letter defamatory. The colleague who called Bright's publication a comic insulted that fine genre. Secondly, the anonymous who threatens you at 6.04am on the 9th, is one of the most telling comments on here. What an illustration of the desperation and depths to which these people will stoop to try and maintain the ongoing cover up. I wonder which one of the goons in the establishment wrote this? Now onto the Warcup letter. I'm not sure of the word limit on these postings so perhaps I would be best continuing on another comment box. Lenny Harper

Anonymous said...

Right. Warcup's letter which was incredibly used to suspend a police chief who had received nothing but praise from HMIC for turning the SOJP around from gross underperforming to being forward thinking and innovative. (not my words, but those of HMIC) What a concoction of untruths and misinformation, and obviously brewed to order for Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley, and Frank Walker. Here in Warcup's own words is the evidence of the behind the scenes conspiracy to get rid of Graham Power, smear myself, and in the process, destroy the chance of the abuse victims/survivors getting the justice they so deserved. Here he describes the "briefings and meetings" that we all knew must have gone on. Warcup states he is setting out the details of failings in the Command and Management of the Abuse investigation. When you look at his career profile and the time spent in non operational roles you have to wonder how he would know. Anyway, enough of the bitchiness - his description of the Gold, Silver, and bronze concept exposes a woeful lack of knowledge on how it should, and when it should, be used in criminal investigations of this type. His comments about 'key partners' not being consulted displays breathtaking arrogance and complete indifference to the feelings of the abuse survivors who would not have come forward if any of these "key partners" (who harboured priority suspects) had been even given a sniff of the enquiry. (TO BE CONTINUED) LENNY HARPER

Anonymous said...

Lenny Harper, Part 3. Warcup in his comments above betrays how little he knew about the difference between large UK forces and Jersey. In respect of the media he continues to perpetuate the lie and myth of unauthorised leaking to the media and totally ignores the ACPO statements about my attempts to correct the wilder assertions in the media. This can only be a deliberate attempt to mislead with false information. There is no other possibility. Ironic, when one considers how his briefings to the media have been shown to be untrue. (see below about cellars and the search of HDLG). Financial Controls weak? He cites unlimited overtime at the expense of staff welfare. Chris Bright obviously did not show him the JEP article commenting on the fact that I made staff take Sundays off. His lack of experience of such investigations is also shown by his failure to compare overtime here with similar overtime rates in enquiries in the UK. His comments about lack of records and policy management are again directly contradicted by ACPO. TO BE CONTINUED: LENNY HARPER

Anonymous said...

Lenny Harper: Part 4. Warcup was too busy ingratiating himself with the then AG to notice that the integrity of some Law Officers had been questioned long before the Abuse investigation. It was further exacerbated by the appointment of the so called child abuse lawyer who turned out to be a fraud specialist from the chambers which earned millions from the AG's office, and then again by the AG's comments that there would be no prosecutions - made to one of his female lawyers. Warcup's false assertion that the search at HDLG should never have started was torpedoed several times, as was his rediculous claim (and this is where this lie started!) that there "were no cellars, just voids in the floor." Here is his grasping, lying, letter at its most vile. Blood stains not identified as such? Did he not ask the UK experts who carried out the tests (Bedfordshire I think) and who said it was tested positive for blood? Warcup spouts the falsehood that the Met interim report contains the specific criticisms which the Met have now, in their report to the IPCC, (also reproduced on the blogs but not the JEP of course)totally and specifically denied. Think about it. Warcup states in the letter which he wrote to get himself into Graham Power's job, that the Met report contained these criticisms. The Met say they did not. The whole letter is based on falsehoods and misinformation, given to placate a government and Law Office who were not happy with the draft first press release of the November 2008 Warcup/Gradwell press conference. It had to be changed, from the SOJP had never said that murder had been committed, to me being reckless and misleading by claiming murder had definitely been committed. This could not have been achieved without the co-operation of Channel Television, the JEP, and other parts of the media. This scandal will not be ended within Jersey. The island's government do not have the ability, will, or the clean hands required. This will need outside intervention. Lenny Harper

rico sorda said...

"Where are you working now? BG Romerils? One of our moles tells us you have changed your work place on facebook and seeing as Romerils relies on the States for so much work some related people want to know"

This guff doesn't bother me because if it did I wouldn't have have started investigating. The more I read the Warcup letter the more staggering I find it. ILM must go. He kept Graham power suspended on this letter alone after the suspension review in early 2009.

The is why ILM and his non existant reputation clings to wiltshire like a troll would cling to a can of breda at last orders. He is busted well and truely busted.

What they have done to everybody including abuse survivors during an abuse investigation shows you just how low and in the cess-pit this I Island is.

The States must now step forward Ilm must now resign - in shame.

rs

rico sorda said...

Thanks for that lenny,

Do you think this letter is a first in policing? Have you ever heard of it before?

A DCO writes a load of guff plus quoting a very heavily qualified report that he knows can't be used in any disciplinary purpose that results in his boss being suspended. Have you or anyone else in the police in the UK heard of this happening before?

Did Warcup know that his letter was going to be used in a suspension of his boss without his boss seeing it? If yes this is criminal

IF HE DIDN'T WHY DIDN'T HE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

He surely would have gone balistic

But yet we heard nothing

rs

rico sorda said...

"I set out earlier that the purpose of this letter was to set out details of what I consider failings of command within the States of Jersey Police with regard to the ongoing Historic Abuse enquiry"

Read wahat Warcup say in the above

"I consider"

They are his opinions.

They suspended a CPO on opinion

Anonymous said...

I am writing further to our previous meetings and my previous briefings to the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis


I assume Mr. Ogley requested Mr Warcup write back a letter of considerations?

In the background Mr. Tapp had been commissioned by Mr. Ogley?

Smacks of desperation to control the Police investigation as it was.

Anonymous said...

Could someone refresh my memory into the reason given that Ogley received a golden handshake?

Anonymous said...

No-one knows for sure why Ogley received a payment but it has been suggested elsewhere that while it was unrelated to this scandal, it was to avoid another one.

Anonymous said...

"Where are you working now"
Rico why let that junk through and isn't it threatening behavioyr?

Anonymous said...

Rico, you have blown this case wide open. The establishment with the help of the wiltshire police (who were no doubt controlled by ILM) has covered up child murders. Warcup and Gradwell are now proven liars who made everything up to satisfy their corrupt masters the states of jersey. The mainstream media will surely be knocking on your door shortly. The truth is out there!

rico sorda said...

"Where are you working now"
Rico why let that junk through and isn't it threatening behavioyr?


For every 50 I let one through. People need to realise that I have done this without zero protection. I have done it because I believe in what I'm doing and that it must be done. I have been failed by the local media who should have done this but instead would rather protect instead of investigate. Lets get this absolutely clear - We have a breakdown in the rule of law - it is there for all to see.

If myself and other bloggers hadn't have taken this on what would we have know about the Jersey Child Abuse Cover Up? This hasn't been easy and the pressure has been immense - its not everyday that you expose you're government for being a morally defunt corrupt administration that is prepared to suspend a Chief Of Police - denigrate his SIO and trash a Child Abuse Investigation whilst its still live.

The relationship of our media and certain individuals inn Jersey as played a big part in the toxic pit. It has been allowed to carry on for far to long.

They don't care about Abuse Victims they never have

That must change now.

rs

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Check this out if you want a laugh; the BBC College of Journalism:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/ethics-and-values/

I can endorse what Rico says above about threats; I receive them, as do other bloggers.

We've had to do what we do, otherwise all of this evidence would never be uncovered and published. But not only are the BBC and its employees actually paid to do this stuff - they're actually obliged to by law. So where are they?

Why do ordinary people - with no protection - have to run these risks?

Oh well, for as long as the BBC continues to assist the Jersey oligarchy in concealing these crimes, we have all the public-interest justification we need in publishing.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"Where are you working now"

Rico, why is this person asking you personal questions that have no public interest whatsoever, its boring, don't let this sort of rubbish through.

Meanwhile, far more important, I cannot wait for the other evidence to turn up on this and some other blogs.

Keep up the good work.

Rob Kent said...

Astonishing! Who would have thought back in 2008 when we were saying this stuff and everybody was calling us paranoid conspiracy theorists that eventually you guys would follow your noses, dig out all the evidence, and display it online?

I don't think Walker, Ogley and the rest would have predicted it.

What's especially good about these revelations, is we can now see how up to their elbows in manure Chris Bright and Rob Shipley have been.

This was such an egregious cover-up, such a brazen and illegal coup against the chief of police, and they were happy to spin their propaganda all the way down the line.

This will now become a textbook example of how Jersey government operates, for anyone in Brussels who is interested in finding out more about the jurisdiction.

GeeGee said...

'The island's government do not have the ability, will, or the clean hands required. This will need outside intervention'. Lenny Harper

So very, very true Lenny. A fact which daily more and more people are coming to realise.

Bring it on!

rico sorda said...

This part of the Warcup letter jumps out at me

"However, I have found an environment which is highly risk adverse, and where bullying and intimidation is common place"

The reason for this is that Senator Le Marquand was trying to nail Graham Power with this so I got on the case and blew his garbage apart.

After many emails I confronted him in the Royal Square which ended with him running away from me.

You can read the whole episode here

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/01/home-affairs-minister-senator-ian-le.html

Senator Le Marquand has been left holding the baby

rs

Anonymous said...

Jersey bloggers have established the evidence for the need for outside intervention. If Rob Kent would use his writing talent to organize this story so it could be read in a time sequenced format, it could become a compelling argument for international oversight for Jersey, and likely for all similar secrecy jurisdictions. It could stand along side "Treasure Islands" and cause meaningful change.

Anonymous said...

Compare Le Marquand interviewed on CTV 3 years ago. To the way he looked tonight being interviewed....

From a Bolshie Maveric 3 years ago, to a frightend timid shadow of that man trying to read from notes!?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Taken from the link provided (above) from Stuart.

"Promoting accountability and transparency - gathering and presenting information to enable public scrutiny of government and those with authority or influence over audiences' lives"

"Preventing deception, fraud and corruption - providing audiences with the means to avert being misled by some statement or action, especially when public money is involved"

This from the BBC who have been e-mailed a link to this Blog Posting and not reported a single word of it.

This from the BBC who has been in possession of Graham Power's defence statement to Wiltshire for around four months, and have not reported a single word of it, despite reporting on the prosecution case against him.

Sorry there was a time when what the BBC told us was believable.............those days are long gone.

Anonymous said...

Would this of been the payback for Mr. Warcups efforts?

‘I’ll resign over police chief appointment’

Wednesday 31st March 2010, 2:58PM BST.




Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.

HOME Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand will resign if States Members do not back David Warcup as the next police chief.

The Senator warned yesterday that if acting chief officer Mr Warcup was not appointed by the States, he would accept that the House had no confidence in his ministry and would quit. He was speaking after a hearing with the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny panel yesterday.

The panel wanted to find out why the proposition for Mr Warcup’s appointment had been progressed while current police chief Graham Power remains suspended.

The panel, chaired by Deputy Roy Le Hérissier, asked the Senator whether he would delay the proposition regarding Mr Warcup’s appointment until Mr Power’s retirement in July. The Senator refused and said that he would have started the process for a new chief officer even if Mr Power was still in office, as the department needed continuity.

rico sorda said...

This is David Warcups transcripts to the Bdo review

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/09/hollywood-harper-bdo-alto-23_18.html

RS

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, I thought the comment below, which I've left on my blog, would also interest your readers.

Here is a profound example of evidence that further displays the fundamental unreliability and misfeasance of Andrew Lewis.

Lewis, as Home Affairs Minister, received the letter from Warcup. Although he has flatly contradicted himself in various statements, one of Lewis’s evolving positions was that he had no concerns about the investigation - until he received the Warcup letter.

As it is – even if receiving such a letter in a vacuum – with no pre-existing knowledge or understanding of the subject – still, a Home Affairs Minister would have been legally bound to undertake “sufficient inquiry”.

But was Lewis in such a state of ignorance? No. By his own admittance he had a prior understanding.

But, the question might be asked – what was the quality of Lewis’s prior knowledge? Was it just some casual and vague ‘impression’ that he had? Is it in any way “understandable” for him to have received the Warcup letter – and just accepted it immediately - and to have had no grounds for questioning its accuracy?

Here is a quote from Graham Power’s statement to the Wilshire investigation, in which he is referring to the oversight given to Operation Rectangle by the Homicide Working Group (H.W.G.) of ACPO:

“158. I note that the feedback given to the Minister for Home Affairs was even more positive. In a statement dated 7th May 2009 Andrew Lewis speaks of his briefings by the H.W.G. and states in paragraph 8, "When I received their report with the recommendations, I was told by Andy Baker that the investigation was a 'shining example' of how an investigation of this type should be run and that they were satisfied that the S.I.O. was doing a good job.””

Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis – in his statement to Wiltshire – says that he had received reports, and briefings from no less an authority than Andre Baker – of the ACPO H.W.G. – to the effect that Operation Rectangle was a “shining example” of how these investigations should be run.

So, on the one hand, Lewis has received written reports from ACPO, and briefings from the head of ACPO’s Homicide Working Group, that endorse the leadership and management of the child abuse investigation. And – on the other hand – he receives an un evidenced letter – containing a variety of obvious misrepresentations, falsehoods and distortions from Warcup – and he chooses – instantly – to accept – without further inquiry – the claims of Warcup.

And completely discount the detailed reports of ACPO – and the opinion of one of Britain’s leading specialist detectives – which he had already received.

The actions of Lewis – damned by his own words.

Stuart

Zoompad said...

"If Rob Kent would use his writing talent to organize this story so it could be read in a time sequenced format, it could become a compelling argument for international oversight for Jersey, and likely for all similar secrecy jurisdictions. It could stand along side "Treasure Islands" and cause meaningful change."

Please please please do it!!!!

Anonymous said...

rico
you and other bloggers have done a great job on all of this but even now with all the evidence nothing will be done there is just not the states members with the back bone apart from 3 mybe 5 who have.where dose it go from here

Anonymous said...

Rico, you have blown this case wide open. Wiltshire were clearly establishment stooges paid off to do a hatchet job on Operation Rectangle. Add this to the evil machinations of the State Media who have been ordered by the all powerful Jersey civil service to not report these dynamite allegations. It is only a matter of time before the National media pick up on this story and it goes global..

Anonymous said...

Although all the blogs are linked on the sidebar it would be useful if they could linked through a central portal with a suitably google friendly catch all URL.

That way anybody on the outside wanting an instant snapshot of the way the our government operates could quickly and easily access a vast amount of documented evidence and informed comment.

Meta tags such as Jersey, corruption, lawlessness, secrecy, government, politics, etc could all be added to pick up a wide range of google inquiries.

Then the government would be gravely concerned and jersey bloggers would have struck a blow for openess and transparency in the murky world of offshore government.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Q. Is there any surprise that the BBC will not publish the Warcup Letter?

A. NO

rico sorda said...

Im not so up on all this computer stuff. All I know is how to turn it on, do a link, use Skype and put a blog up. We need people who are willing to help the cause and get on and do it. Im a computer pleb but learning as i go on.

I don't believe Wiltshire were stoogers. They just Milked a rather fat cash cow for all it was worth. The probably couldn't believe their luck when then missed two completion dates and instead of getting the book thrown at them Senator lan Le Marquand suspended Graham Power againg in June 2009 and started another investigation called Operation Blast.

There are some obvious failures with Wiltshire but seeing as the Home Affairs Minister dropped all disciplinary charges none of it was tested with due-process.

The whole episode is a shambolic mess. The bad news for ILM and his controlers is that History is not recorded in the Jersey Evening Post

rs

rico sorda said...

Im working hard on a series of postings. I hope that Operation End-Game-1 will be up on Sunday. The hardest part is not the research but finding the time. 20 minutes here and there can get you along way if you get on with it.

I plan to take a serious break from blogging soon. Once I know the CoE is up and running then I will take time out. This has left me drained. I just know that I won't be able to relax until the CoE is underway.

There must be poltical will to change this Island and free it from the clutchers of the morally deranged feudalists and their Jep gimps.

We bloggers have done the hardwork.

Now the decent politicians must bring it to the house and if need be seek the removal of the Home Affairs Minister. He must shoulder the blame.

RS

Anonymous said...

Rico, what were the obvious failures with Wiltshire, apart from it being really late?

Anonymous said...

Minister under fire over e-mail

Orlando Crowcroft



THE Health Minister has come under fire for criticising the way the police have handled the Haut de la Garenne inquiry.

Senator Ben Shenton has questioned why the media were told that a body had been found at the former children’s home when police had in fact found a small fragment of a child’s skull.

In an e-mail to the Council of Ministers, Senator Shenton also criticises Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard for her department’s handling of the inquiry at Haut de la Garenne.

Deputy police chief Lenny Harper, who is leading the inquiry, described the comments as ‘unhelpful’ and in marked contrast to the support given to the States police by the Chief Minister, the Home Affairs Minister and the community.



Published 6/3/2008

phil said...

In the opening of Warcup's infamous letter he states:
'...I believe that there is a strong public interest in making the following disclosures and that it is right and proper to do so to maintain the integrity and confidence in the States of Jersey Police, and also to ensure that the public interest is properly served in seeking to resolve these issues.'
Then in last week's States sitting ILM says that he 'is not minded to' make Warcup's letter public because it is not in the public interest!!

Warcup: It is in the public interest
ILM : It is not in the public interest
Warcup: It is, 'cos I say it is.
ILM : It's not, 'cos I say it's not.
Warcup: Oh yes it is.
ILM : Oh no it's not.
Warcup: It is.
ILM : It's not
Warcup: It is when I want it to be
ILM : It's not when I don't want it to be
Warcup: That's fine then
ILM: Yes, that's fine. We are in agreement. I'll do a press release. Do you know any good media consultants?
Warcup: As it happens I do. We use them all the time. I’ll instruct them to get in touch with your department.
ILM: Good, thanks, just don’t tell anybody else, ok?
Warcup: Yes Minister.

phil said...

PS
My sources tell me that the secret codename for their cunning plan was:
Operation 'Turning on the Tapp'

rico sorda said...

This is the Statement issued by Senator ILM in May 2010 when dropping all disciplinary action against Graham Power;

THE THREE REPORTS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASPECTS OF THE HISTORICAL ABUSE ENQUIRY WHICH RELATE TO HAUT DE LA GARENNE

A) INTRODUCING THE THREE REPORTS

The first two reports were produced by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire for the purposes of an investigation into the responsibility of the Chief Officer of Police, Mr. Graham Power, for any failures in relation to the management of the part of the Historical Abuse Enquiry which related to Haut de la Garenne, to which I shall refer as “the Haut de la Garenne investigation”. The Wiltshire Police were nominated by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and I am very grateful to them for the excellent detail of their work.
The third report was produced by BDO Alto, a firm of accountants, in relation to the management of financial aspects in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation. This report does not look specifically at the role of Mr. Power and, in fact, has a wider remit because it looks at the role of the Home Affairs Department as well as the States of Jersey Police. I am also very grateful to BDO Alto for their work.
All three reports appear at this time in redacted form. The main purpose of the redaction has been to remove the names of individuals, including witnesses, who are not public facing. However, the size of the Wiltshire reports is such that the redaction process could not be completed in time for this presentation and work will continue with this with a view to providing as much of the text as is properly possible.

rico sorda said...

Very misleading information has been put out to the general public to the effect that Mr. Power has not seen these reports. In relation to the Wiltshire Police reports the situation is that Mr. Power was provided with copies of the key statements of witnesses in order to enable him to produce his own detailed statement of evidence. His statements were fully taken into account by the Wiltshire Police in coming to their conclusions.

Thereafter, Mr. Power was provided with a copy of each of the Wiltshire reports very soon after I received them. Mr. Power has not, to my knowledge, seen the BDO Alto report which was not produced for disciplinary purposes. I am referring to that report today because it provides much greater detail of the issues to that which is contained in the Wiltshire financial report.

B) IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
Firstly, I am very aware that this further publicity in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation will be very painful to many former victims of abuse. I regret this but it is now necessary for the truth to come out in relation to the management failures in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation.

Secondly, I owe it to the general public of Jersey to put what I have learned into the public arena. Indeed, I have discontinued the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Power about two weeks before his retirement date so that I could do so before the summer States recess and so that the members of the States Assembly could ask me questions in the States prior to that recess. I

rico sorda said...

have, personally found it to be very frustrating to not be able to share with the general public what I have known. I have not been able to before because of the existence of a confidentiality clause in the disciplinary code of Mr. Power. Although it has been obvious to me that Mr. Power and those who have been working politically on his behalf have repeatedly leaked much of his side of the story, whenever I have felt obliged to counter these leaks I have been accused of breaching the confidentiality clause.

Thirdly, I want to assure those who have been victims of abuse in the past that the strong criticisms contained in these reports of the handling of the Haut de la Garenne investigation in the past does not mean either that people have not been prosecuted who should have been or that the police will not continue to fully investigate and seek to bring to justice both past and future abusers. There are currently still a number of cases proceeding through the criminal justice system and new allegations will be properly investigated. Indeed, the Public Protection Unit of the States of Jersey Police has in recent years been greatly strengthened in numbers and experience precisely in order to achieve this.

I have great sympathy for those who have come forward to speak about incidents that occurred to them in the past which have left very deep and painful scars and I want to reassure them that their allegations will always be treated seriously by the States of Jersey Police.

rico sorda said...

Fourthly, as the Minister for Home Affairs I am very much involved in the work of the Child Policy Group and with the current work in relation to the proposed Children’s Plan. The three ministers involved, supported by the Chief Minister and our other colleagues on the Council of Ministers are determined to achieve high standards for the present and future care of vulnerable children whether they are “in care” or not. We know that we must do much better in the future and that all our systems must be made properly accountable to outside scrutiny.

C) APOLOGIES

As the current Home Affairs Minister, with responsibility for the oversight of the States of Jersey Police I wish to make a number of apologies for the past failures of the senior management of the States of Jersey Police and for past ministerial failings.
Firstly, I apologise to the people of this Island for the serious reputational damage which occurred both to this Island and to its people as a direct result of serious mishandling of the press conferences and by virtue of the misleading information which was put out in these press conferences during February 2008 onwards.
Secondly, I apologise to the victims of abuse, whether at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere for the unfair and unrealistic raising of expectations which occurred as a result of these press conferences.

rico sorda said...

Thirdly, I apologise to the people of Jersey for the ministerial failures of proper

2
oversight over the States of Jersey Police. There are mitigating factors in relation to this but there are still clear failures. Those failures extend to the substantial wastage of public money some of the details of which now follow.

Fourthly, I want to apologise to members of the States Assembly who were misled and continued to be misled in relation to various matters including the status of the item which was originally described as “partial remains of a child” and later as “a skull fragment”.

D) THE FINDINGS

I hope that you have already had an opportunity to look in some detail at the parts of the three reports which have already been made available to you. I am going to go directly to the Conclusions of the Wiltshire Police and then to the Legal advice in relation to suggested disciplinary charges. I will make some brief comments as I go .I begin with the 383 first Wiltshire report. This was the interim report and became the final report at a later date without any changes.

Conclusion 1
Mr. Harper should never have been appointed as the Senior Investigating Officer. This is a specialist role and neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Power had either performed this role or received any training for this role for more than 10 years. The decision was made effectively to concentrate control of the investigation on the two Senior Officers, Messrs. Harper and Power. In fact all other members of the Senior Management Team (that is the Superintendent and the 3 Chief Inspectors were kept away from the investigation.

rico sorda said...

Whenever there is a major investigation there must always be another more senior Police Officer who takes the supervisory role. Once the decision was wrongly made that Mr. Harper would be the Senior Investigating Officer there was only one officer who was senior to him and that was Mr. Power. Mr. Power therefore had to become the supervising officer in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation and this in addition to his inherent responsibilities as the Chief Officer of Police.

Conclusions 2 and 3
These relate to failures of oversight.

Conclusion 4
The first failure is insulting to States Members who were raising legitimate concerns.

The second failure includes a very sick joke. This, in my view, shows an anti- Jersey slant which is totally inappropriate for a person who was there to serve the people of Jersey.

Conclusions 5 and 12
These really belong together. It is apparent that both Mr. Power and Mr. Harper were in a position in which they did not trust any outside organisation including the prosecution service. This led to them deciding to concentrate the


3,leadership and management of the Haut de la Garenne investigation upon themselves alone.
Conclusion

6.It is extraordinary that very little or no thought was given to the impact of the investigation upon the general public of Jersey.
Conclusion

7.This is in Mr. Power’s favour although I am bound to say that this was at the expense of very high overtime costs and very long working hours for some officers.

rico sorda said...

Conclusion 8

This is actually very important. Gold command groups have for a number of years been viewed as an essential part of any major investigation. The reasons for this are presumably the same as mentioned above, namely, the desire to exclude outside agencies and the other members of the senior management team. A properly constructed Gold Group would have given due priority to financial management issues and would have meant that decision making was less dependant upon the judgment of Mr. Harper.

Conclusions 9, 10 and 11

These are, in my view less serious although they relate to management issues and are further examples of the general managerial failures. The Independent Advisory Group appears to have been set up with a view to compensating in some way for the lack of a Gold Group and for the lack of multi-agency working. It could never have done this and although the members of the IAG deserve praise and thanks for their willingness to assist with the investigation, they were in reality set up to fail and this through no fault on their part.

Conclusion 13
This also is in favour of Mr. Power.

Conclusions 14, 15, 16 and 17

These four Conclusions all relate to failures on the part of Mr. Power to exercise oversight over the area of media strategy. The failure includes the lack of a proper media strategy and the carrying out of that strategy. It should have been obvious to a Chief Officer of Mr. Power’s experience that once the media became aware that digging was taking place in the vicinity of a children’s home, that wild speculation might arise from the Press. Instead on 23rd February, 2008, Mr. Harper was allowed to make a highly inflammatory and misleading statement about “partials remains of a child”. Mr. Power was present at Haut de la Garenne before the statement was made and they must have discussed what was going to be said. If they did not then he is equally at fault for failing so to do.

rico sorda said...

What had happened was that a piece of material had been found which was approximately 6.3 cms by 4.4cms, that is approximately two and a half inches by one and 3 quarters inches. It has sometimes been wrongly referred to as

4
the size of a 50P coin but it is a lot larger than that. Unfortunately, on 23rd February 2008, this piece of what we now know to be coconut shell was wrongly identified by an anthropologist as being part of a child’s skull. This was an extremely unfortunate occurrence but it was not yet a disaster. The fact is that if an investigation lacks the necessary structure, policies and safeguards, as this one did, and something goes wrong then an unfortunate occurrence can turn into a disaster. It is extremely questionable as to whether the anthropologist should have offered such an identification without proper laboratory testing of the item. It is also clear that at the time of the “find” it was not known as to whether the object had been found in a level of the building which belonged to a relevant time period. However, notwithstanding the lack of forensic corroboration and the lack of level dating, Mr. Harper chose to announce to the world’s media that they had found what appears to be potential partial remains of a child. The world’s media very quickly turned that into the find of a child’s body.
Thereafter, Mr. Harper commenced daily briefings during which he fed huge amounts of detail about the search to an eager world media. Those briefings and the underlying failures of press strategy are very heavily criticised in this report and rightly so.

rico sorda said...

Some months after Messrs. Warcup and Gradwell had arrived on the scene, the States of Jersey Police employed an expert on police press strategy matters. After a meeting with Mr. Power in which Mr. Power would not accept what the expert was saying, the expert found his position to be untenable and resigned. However, before leaving he wrote a report which was highly critical of the strategy. That report was referred to by a Commissioner of the Royal Court in a judgment in which he was highly critical of the media strategy.
The problems with the handling of the media were very serious for a number of reasons.

Firstly, no thought appears to have been given to the impact on the community in general and past victims of abuse in particular. No thought appears to have been given to the effect on the reputation of this Island and of its people and I have already apologised for that.
Secondly, the nature of the information which was drip fed to the press on a daily basis was such as to give rise to an expectation on the part of past victims of major finds and of very numerous successful prosecutions. I have already apologised today for that.
Thirdly, the provision of detailed information, some of it misleading or exaggerated, had a tendency towards contaminating the evidence of potential witnesses. If, for example, a person had come forward and said that they had been taken through a trapdoor down into a cellar where they had been assaulted in a bath then the finds of such items would tend to give credence to the complaint. However, once Mr. Harper had revealed such matters, the value of the evidence would be reduced by contamination.

rico sorda said...

Fourthly, the information which was put out and the way in which it was put
5
out was such that the prosecutors and the senior police officers who had taken over running the investigation were very concerned that defence lawyers might be able to successfully run the argument that Mr. Harper’s press releases had led to a situation in which a fair trial of people who were accused of offences committed at Haut de la Garenne was not possible. That that was a very real possibility is shown by the judgment of the Royal Court Commissioner to which I have already referred. That risk was reduced by the actions of Messrs. Warcup and Gradwell in their press conference of 12th November 2008.

Conclusions 18a, 18b and 18c

These relate to failures on the part of Mr. Power to correct the position in relation to the “skull fragment” once the expert advice was corrected. If you look at the Chronology in Appendix 1 you will find that on 31st March 2008 an expert from LGC Forensics told the States of Jersey Police that he believed that the “skull fragment” was not bone and that this view was shared by a Doctor from the British Museum. Notwithstanding this, on 7th April 2008 the anthropologist still maintained the original view. On 8th April 2008 another expert concluded that the object came from a Victorian context. On 8th April 2008 the States of Jersey Police maintained that it was a “skull fragment” but on 9th April 2008 the anthropologist was no longer sure but Mr. Harper decided not to initiate further testing because of the dating issue. On 1st May 2008 an expert from LGC wrote to Mr. Harper to tell him that the object was not bone and almost certainly wood. On 17th May 2008 that was confirmed by an e-mail to Mr. Harper. Despite that and despite further questions in the States of Jersey the Police never come clean on this issue and never admitted that the original find was not bone let alone a “skull fragment” or “partial remains of a child”.

Conclusion 19

This is again the risk of abuse of process arguments and contamination issues.

rico sorda said...

E) THE ADVICE IN RELATION TO SUGGESTED CHARGES

I am not going to spend much time on these this morning. You will see that they correspond with the criticisms contained in the Conclusions which I have commented on in some detail. The Deputy Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers in his report to me dated 15th April 2010 suggested some minor changes to these but I am not going to comment on these this morning because the issues remain essentially the same. From 15th April 2010 I attempted to meet with Mr. Power in order to give him an opportunity to comment on these before I made a decision as to which charges should go forward. He raised various different points and it was apparent to me that he wanted to avoid meeting with me, presumably so that he could say that no charges were ever formally brought against him. I want to make it clear that if time had so allowed I would have proceeded with most if not all of these disciplinary charges.

F) THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASPECTS
I am proposing to take the Wiltshire Finance Report together with the BDO Alto Report. There is no doubt that the unsatisfactory finance structure of the Home Affairs Department will have slightly contributed to the problems. It is simply not satisfactory that the Chief Officer at Home Affairs should be the Accounting Officer for the States of Jersey Police when he has no oversight or control over the activities of the States of Jersey Police.

It is also possible that the announcements of senior politicians to the effect that all necessary resources would be provided for the Haut de la Garenne Investigation without the setting of a formal budget may have led the Senior Police Officers to believe that they had greater freedom in terms of expenditure than would be usual in relation to a normal investigation.
However, both of those issues are countered by the letters of assurance which were sought by Mr. Austin-Vautier and given by the most senior police officers.

rico sorda said...

G) CONCLUSIONS
There is only one conclusion and that relates to the failure of oversight of Mr. Power in relation to the establishment of efficient and effective oversight of financial expenditure prior to July 2008. This failure links back to the original decision to concentrate control on the two most senior officers, Messrs. Power and Harper and the decision not to form a Gold Group, which would have exercised some oversight over expenditure.

However, a key issue was the failure to appoint a Finance Officer for the Investigation. It is quite surprising that with all the additional police officers and forensic experts who were brought into the Island that neither Mr. Power nor Mr. Harper realised the need for a police officer who would be devoted to ensuring value for money.

The management and oversight failures which are best detailed in the BDO Alto report are principally in the following areas.

1) OVERTIME PAYMENTS

Huge amounts of overtime were worked by Police Officers during the early parts of the Investigation. There are two separate issues here. The first issue is that officers were being paid overtime at double time rates for months, substantially in relation to the guarding of the Haut de la Garenne site. What should have happened is that the overtime should have been rostered at an early date so that overtime payments were based upon one and a half times rates. Although no calculation has been made of the effect of this, I have calculated that the additional cost will have been of the order of £100,000.

A related issue is the issue as to why the two senior officers believed that the investigation had to be rushed. The point here is that the Golden Hour principle simply did not apply. That principle means that when there is a major crime there is often a very short period at the start to obtain information from witnesses before memories dim. But this was an Historical Abuse Enquiry and related to matters which were already years old.

rico sorda said...

2) WAS THE DIGGING INSIDE THE BUILDING NECESSARY?
This is a more difficult issue. The BDO Alto report follows the conclusions of the earlier Metropolitan Police Report. However, in Section 2.58 and 2.59 of the main report you will see that the conclusion of the Wiltshire report is that although the initial decision to dig inside Haut de la Garenne was questionable, they are of the opinion that it was reasonable to conduct the search inside Haut de la Garenne. I would comment that that is particularly so after the original mistaken opinion of the anthropologist and for disciplinary purposes I would have followed the Wiltshire opinion although I understand that some people will take the view of BDO Alto.

3) THE DIGGING AT VICTORIA TOWERS
However, there does not appear to have been any sufficient reason for the decision to start digging at Victoria Towers. The cost of this was substantial both in terms of the maintaining of a cordon and in terms of the costs of experts although I do not have precise figures for this.

4) THE USE OF SPECIALIST SEARCH DOGS
Unfortunately, there were a whole number of problems with this.

a) Firstly, the decision was made to use a private firm rather than similar dogs from another police force and this will have been more expensive.
b) Secondly, the individual who was used was no longer fully accredited.

c) Thirdly, the specialist dog for searching for bodies was 7 months beyond its police accreditation. It is now apparent that the dog was
giving false positives.

d) Fourthly, the second specialist dog became out of date for testing for
police accreditation after one month.

e) Fifthly, the sum of £92,705 was spent on the dog handler and dogs for
139 days of charged work and yet the dogs were only used for 35 days. A further 23 days of the work of the handler in other capacities are accounted for but 81 days of work are not accounted for although 17 of these were for days upon which the dog handler was not going to work (ie Sundays).

f) Sixthly, accommodation costs for the dog handler were £15,818 and he stayed at an hotel at the wrong side of the Island. Furthermore, the dog handler was wrongly granted an upgrade for his accommodation which cost £1,613 extra.

5) THE CHARGES FOR LGC THE FORENSICS COMPANY

The initial charging was on the basis of an hourly rate with a top rate of £130. However, after a time LGC themselves suggested a move to a daily rate with a maximum of £750 per day. As LGC staff were working 12 hour days that would have meant a daily charge of £750 rather than £1,560 but this offer of reduction of rate was never taken up by the States of Jersey Police. The total invoiced costs of LGC came to over £450,000 and so the saving would have been substantial.

rico sorda said...

There was also an issue in relation to the LGC staff also being placed at an expensive hotel on the wrong side of the Island.

6) EXPENSIVE MEALS FOR MR. HARPER AND OTHER OFFICERS IN LONDON

I come last to items which although not the largest in terms of cost are likely to weigh heavily in the public mind.

On a number of occasions Mr. Harper travelled with a number of officers to London for meetings with police officers from the Metropolitan Police Force. None of the meetings took longer than two hours and some of those who were present have doubted their value. In all cases it would have been possible to have travelled over and back on the same day. However, on a number of occasions there were stays in London for one or more nights and during these stays there were expensive meals.

The guidelines for the States of Jersey Police were that meal costs should not exceed £25.22 per head for dinner and that the costs of alcoholic drinks should be paid by the officers themselves. Here are some examples:-

a) 3rd February 2008 a meal for four costing £212.90 divided between 2 purchase cards;

b) 4th February 2008 a meal for four costing £418.50 divided between 2 purchase cards;

c) 5th February 2008 a meal for four costing £449.72 divided between 2 purchase cards;

d) 30th April 2008 a meal for five costing £300 divided between 4 purchase cards;

e) 1st May 2008 a meal for eight including a reporter from the News of theWorld costing £699 divided between 3 purchase cards.

Page 56 of the report indicates analysis of Mr. Harper’s purchase card over an 8 month period shows 45 transactions at restaurants, often high class establishments and that the combined charging on this card and that of Mr. Harper’s driver/staff officer over that period came to £7,802. It is also of concern that the amounts of the larger bills were split between a number of cards, apparently in an attempt to conceal the size of the total amount.

The issue in relation to Mr. Power is that he should have checked and authorised Mr. Harper’s expenses but in fact they were authorised by a more junior policeman. The grossly expensive meal expenses demonstrate a pattern of expenditure which was totally out of control.

rico sorda said...

G) THE ROLE OF THE ACPO HOMICIDE WORKING GROUP
There has been a great deal of misinformation put into the public domain in relation to this and I, therefore, want to explain the position of the Wiltshire Police on this and my own position.

Firstly, what we are dealing with here is not the Association of Chief Police Officers itself but a working group of police officers whose role is to provide specialist advice when this is required in relation to homicide investigations.

Section 2.3 of the Executive Summary of the main report on the Haut de la Garenne investigation explains some of the issues. It is to the credit of Mr. Power that he sought such advice. However, things very rapidly went wrong. The Working Group advisers decided to only make recommendations to which Messrs Power and Harper had previously signalled their approval.
In particular their advice to form a Gold Group was omitted. Because Messrs. Power and Harper did not want one. This whole process greatly undermines the credibility of the advice as being truly independent advice. It was Mr. Harper who first made contact with the senior officer involved rather than a request for assistance being channelled through ACPO itself.
Furthermore, the senior officer involved had a clear potential conflict of interests in that he was then a candidate for a very senior post in Jersey namely that of Mr. Harper’s replacement. Unfortunately, this officer put himself in a position in which he could have had a motive to want to ingratiate himself to Mr. Power who would be involved in the selection process.
Furthermore, at times Messrs Power and Harper failed to understand and carry out the advice which was given and the responsibility for oversight of the Haut de la Garenne investigation always remained squarely with Mr. Power as the overseeing officer. The advice of the Working Party did not extend to financial management issues with the exception of one general recommendation.

Notwithstanding all this, I agree with the assessment of the Wiltshire Police that the involvement of the Working Party may have given Mr. Power a false sense of security.

rico sorda said...

However, it is very clear from the Wiltshire report and particularly from section 2.3 that the Working Party reports are very far short of providing Mr. Power with a defence in relation to the Conclusions of the Wiltshire Police and that they have taken these into account in reaching their conclusions.

Finally, I am aware that the Working Party reports were used by Mr. Power as a means of placating his own Minister and Assistant Minister in relation to the concerns which they and other States Members were raising. It is, therefore, particularly galling to find that the advice recorded was far from complete and far from truly independent.

H) ISSUES FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE

The regrettable failures which have been highlighted in the three reports raise a number of different issues for the present and the future.

Firstly, it is clear from the above that the present Acting Chief Officer of Police is fully vindicated by these reports. He had no honourable option but to bring the clear failures of oversight and management which he had found to the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs of the day Deputy Andrew Lewis. The issues which he raised are reflected in the Conclusions and the suggested disciplinary charges. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Warcup has himself been subject to unfair and unsubstantiated innuendo and criticism from both past and present members of the States.

Secondly, it is clear from the above that ample grounds existed for the original suspension of Mr. Power by Deputy Andrew Lewis and for my maintaining this suspension. The issue as to whether the procedure followed by Deputy Lewis was correct will be dealt with in a separate report which is due shortly.

rico sorda said...

Thirdly, a number of other important issues are raised including:-

1) The issue as to how political and organisational oversight of the States of Jersey Police can be better arranged in future.I have for some months been meeting with a working party which has been set up in order to advise me on the formulating of new proposals for a Police Authority. This is particularly recommended by the Wiltshire Finance Report. My immediate concern is that in the aftermath of these reports and the report on Operation Blast that there will be a call for stronger control of the States of Jersey police. We cannot get away from the need to preserve the operational freedom of the police although that needs to be balanced with the need for efficient management and use of resources.

A related issue which arises is in relation to the performance of ministerial government in relation to this case. I have held the view for some time that ministerial government is too dependant upon the abilities of individual ministers. Could these failures have been prevented if the Minister for Home Affairs at the time had been working together with a Police Authority or even with a group of other States members. It is difficult to be certain but I strongly suspect that the leadership of the States of Jersey Police would have been more rigorously tested.

2) Issues will inevitably arise as to the selection processes for senior police officers.

3) There is the issue of the impossible position of the Chief Officer of Home Affairs in being the accounting officer for the States of Jersey police without having managerial control. That must be changed as soon as possible. At the same time the processes for checking financial transactions and in particular for checking transactions on purchase cards need to be tightened up.

4) Allied to this is the need for the setting of proper budgets in relation to major investigations.

5) There are the issues of the various recommendations which been made by the Wiltshire police in relation to the running of the States of Jersey Police. I am not going to deal with these this morning because the Acting Chief Officer of Police has only recently seen these.However, I would say this. From the time when Mr. Warcup took over responsibility for the Haut de la Garenne investigation the previous failures started to be corrected. A Gold Group was started, an outside review from the Metropolitan Police was obtained, proper financial management was established, some cases which were virtually closed were re-opened and reinvestigated with resulting successful prosecutions. In all this Superintendent Gradwell played an important part and the management standards for the investigation which are now normal across the UK were applied.
6) There are issues in relation to the current police structures which will very soon be addressed. In particular, the lack of senior officers with experience of running major investigations was exposed. That is the role which was played by Mr. Gradwell. We need to have a permanent officer at the level of Superintendent who can fulfill this role in future.

7) There is also the need for the maintenance of good working relationships with prosecutors and with other agencies. This provides a process of cross-checking how the States of Jersey Police are operating and is a further safeguard against the over concentration of the making of major decisions in the hands of a few senior police officers.

8) For my part, whilst I remain the Minister for Home Affairs I commit myself to working together with other States members, with the leadership of the States of Jersey Police and with other agencies in order to improve the working and efficiency of the States of Jersey Police, learning lessons from the past failures and looking forward to a better future of service to the people of Jersey.

Senator Ian Le Marquand Home Affairs Minister

Anonymous said...

Who told Mr. Shenton a body had been found?

rico sorda said...

Having read this Statement there are now some glaring parts of mis-information being given.

I can now see why ILM and his gang didn't want me bringing my concerns about the BDO Review to the Scrutiny Home Affairs Sub Panel. It makes sense now.

This is ILM a former Magistrate dropping all disciplinary charges against Graham Power and then nailing him in public. This is how the Jersey administration work and have been able to work for so very long.

This isn't justice

This is a lawless Mafia State

rs

rico sorda said...

"Some months after Messrs. Warcup and Gradwell had arrived on the scene, the States of Jersey Police employed an expert on police press strategy matters. After a meeting with Mr. Power in which Mr. Power would not accept what the expert was saying, the expert found his position to be untenable and resigned. However, before leaving he wrote a report which was highly critical of the strategy. That report was referred to by a Commissioner of the Royal Court in a judgment in which he was highly critical of the media strategy.
The problems with the handling of the media were very serious for a number of reasons."

Look how misleading ILM is being here.

No mention that the Tapp Report was commissioned by the CEO Bill Ogley for the States of Jersey. And then ended up with the defence council to help get some abusers off.

The States of Jersey commissioning reports that helped try and get people off abuse charges.

rs

Anonymous said...

''Thirdly, I want to assure those who have been victims of abuse in the past that the strong criticisms contained in these reports of the handling of the Haut de la Garenne investigation in the past does not mean either that people have not been prosecuted who should have been or that the police will not continue to fully investigate and seek to bring to justice both past and future abusers. There are currently still a number of cases proceeding through the criminal justice system and new allegations will be properly investigated. Indeed, the Public Protection Unit of the States of Jersey Police has in recent years been greatly strengthened in numbers and experience precisely in order to achieve this.

Given the reports Mr. Le Marquand refers to, for Mr Le Marquand to continue his charade in the para above is disingenuous in the extreme.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

None of this would have been possible without the complicity of the State Media. ILM was able to churn that stuff out without being scrutinised, quizzed or questioned on a single item of it......not one.

Jon Gripton has been given the defence to that stuff, is in an ideal position, to answer what ILM and Wiltshire had alleged but in true BBC style is burying it......IMO.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Out of all the things ILM peddled, with the help of the State Media, this paragraph has got to be the most telling.

"Firstly, I am very aware that this further publicity in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation will be very painful to many former victims of abuse."

To many "FORMER" victims, he wasn't even pulled up on that. Perhaps ILM or the State Media should ask those who were abused if they consider themselves "FORMER" victims? Or is it too much to consider that what was done to these children will remain with them for the rest of their lives?

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, THE JERSEY EVENING POST, "at the heart of island life", creates front page news with a story about a plane flying over the island at 3.00am.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible to sue the BBC as Im a licence paying and Im not getting the news from them anymore as the internet can do so much more and is as diverse and I can understand the truth of a matter myself, if I have the greatest amount of facts possible however the BBC is failing me in not giving me the facts and the truth of most situations that may be damaging to our so called democracy

Anonymous said...

The Findings,(D) le marquand made so many excuses that the wiltshire report was not complete and he was waiting for it, and yet in this parah he says, (I begin with the 383 first wiltshire report this was the intrim report and became the final report without any changes!!)has anyone seen the intrim report? was there even one or was this the final report that he was holding back? In another parah (PART B) he says (secondly I owe it to the general public of Jersey to put what I have learned into the public arena)personnaly what I think he owes to the general public of jersey is his imediate resignation, at the next states sitting will do.

Anonymous said...

"There are currently still a number of cases proceeding through the criminal justice system."

What Justice system?

The Justice System that is loaded against the victims?

The Justice System let drags its feet so slowly that some victims have taken their own lives long before they see justice.

The Justice System that's riddled with freemasons who swear an oath to their friends and freemasonry to keep the shadows of abused victims falling on them and has done so for many generations.

The Justice System so conflicted that it has as its arch villains the very people ultimately were and are responsible for the decades of cover-up of some of the worst kinds of behaviour one could imagine, who then moralise how good a job they done.

Justice

Anonymous said...

This ILM statement you posted really caught my eye and I think it needs further rebuttal by Graham Power. It would be most interesting to ask ILM if he still stands by these words.

"I attempted to meet with Mr. Power in order to give him an opportunity to comment on these before I made a decision as to which charges should go forward. He raised various different points and it was apparent to me that he wanted to avoid meeting with me, presumably so that he could say that no charges were ever formally brought against him. I want to make it clear that if time had so allowed I would have proceeded with most if not all of these disciplinary charges."

"...so he could SAY no charges were ever formally brought against him." What?????

Anonymous said...

Just Ice cold and unfeeling
secrets not revealing
spots on a leopard fade away
victms wait for another day
Just ice, Justice
call it what you must
I feel none, I hear nothing
my metal tested in rust.

Pain poured upon the pain
in a never ending fear
I opened my heart cause they made it so clear

Justice would be done seared through my head justice could be my friends if he wasn't dead
Justice could be here for the world to see, but then i wake up
I remember this is Jersey.

rico sorda said...

Senator Le Marquand used untested conclusions to justify his own actions simple as that.

When Graham Power was suspended he wasn't shown the Warcup letter in fact he wasn't shown anything.

He then enters a disciplinary investigation because of this suspension

All disciplinary gets dropped and then gets hung out


That is Jersey Justice and that is a fact


All done to cover up and close the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation

rs

Anonymous said...

Channel tv tonight did a brief report on a petty criminal convicted of a string of robberies.That to me was unusual. Also unusual was that his mug shot was up on screen,and for the duration of the item.A policy change on the way, to identify all criminals?I am curious as to who supplied them with the photo.Lets hope they are ready with mugshots of certain individuals regularly mentioned on Jerseys blogs. Lewis etc.

Anonymous said...

http://web.archive.org/web/20100325101823/http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=487791

Why did this not get taken any further AT THE TIME?

Anonymous said...

http://web.archive.org/web/20100325101823/http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=487791

Why did this issues get taken any further AT THE TIME?

http://web.archive.org/web/20100622043338/http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=489482

Anonymous said...

Oh come on how can the former Magistrate cover up child abuse?

Anonymous said...

''That risk was reduced by the actions of Messrs. Warcup and Gradwell in their press conference of 12th November 2008''

Sais who?

Anonymous said...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080307061923/http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/showarchive.pl?ArticleID=101145


http://bit.ly/zHjh3i

Interesting no attributed hack to this article. This is how rumours start.

The JEP should be asked to explain
I wish I had the ability to screen capture the article.

Anonymous said...

2.4 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the report commissioned by an outside media consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle:
Can the Minister inform Members whether the report written on 8th October 2008 by an outside media consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States and the former Chief Minister and not by the States of Jersey Police?

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

In answering this, I think I want to refer to the name of the individual. The reason for that is because there is a question for the Chief Minister about that individual, he is named there, so I cannot see any problem in my doing that unless you rule otherwise.

The Bailiff:

If it is essential.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

But I think it is confusing otherwise when there is a question.

The Bailiff:

Very well.

[10:15]

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I just add that it says “former Chief Minister” but, of course, that is 2 Chief Ministers ago now so it is probably helpful if we do refer to names.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I would assume that the question relates to Mr. Tapp - that ties-in with the question of Deputy Higgins - who was a specialist media consultant who was appointed by Mr. Warcup in order to advise the States of Jersey Police on media-related issues. Following a disagreement with Mr. Power as to the correct way forward, he resigned. He was then asked by the Chief Executive, Mr. Ogley, with the consent of the Chief Minister at the time - acknowledging consent to the Chief Minister at the time, Mr. Walker - to produce a report, which he did. That report was not available until after the original suspension. The involvement of Mr. Ogley in this and Mr. Walker and Mr. Tapp’s involvement is all covered at some length in the Napier Report and Mr. Napier does not express any concerns in relation to the part which Mr. Tapp played or, indeed, Mr. Ogley in this way and I am frankly puzzled as to why there is now excitement about Mr. Tapp’s role when this has been in the public domain for quite a long time.

2.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Firstly, if I can thank the Minister because a similar question was asked on 20th April 2010 and at that time, there was an ongoing inquiry so the Minister had to be slightly more cagey in the answer that he was able to give on that occasion. I suspect that the reason that this has been given some import by certain journalists and certain individuals in our Island is because it exactly confirms the suspicion that this was a political act and it was not the Police Chief and that department which decided that there was need for the Police Chief to be suspended. Rather, it was a decision of the Chief Executive Officer who, as we know, has now been if I can say “paid off” - I do not know if that is the appropriate expression. So does the Minister acknowledge that with so many people having resigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Warcup, who ostensibly resigned because he was getting harassment, but it could be for other reasons, that this is something which is of political interest? Will the Minister seek to give a full statement to the media outlining the timeline, the chronology, and the reasons for the suspension?

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Marquand:

There are so many questions again in that one.

The Bailiff:

There are only 2. Was it a political act and will you make a statement?

Senator B.I. Marquand:

No, it was not a political act. It was quite apparent by the time that Mr. Tapp was asked to produce his report that there were serious concerns in relation to the way in which the media handling had taken place. That was apparent fairly early on, in fact, but by the time we are getting into October 2008, the storm clouds were definitely gathering in relation to that. It was by then known that the so-called skull fragment was not a skull fragment at all but was some other type of material and it seems to me that it was part of the duty of the Chief Executive at the time to try and start to gather evidence which would become relevant to subsequent decisions. There is absolutely nothing political about that.

The Bailiff:

Will you make a statement?

Senator B.I. Marquand:

I will talk to the press but I am not going to go into enormous length or enormous technical details.

2.4.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Does the Minister not find it rather strange though that Mr. Tapp was brought in by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police to write a report, it was then felt that his services were not required by them. He is then invited by the Chief Executive who had already from 24th September been making inquiries with the Solicitor General and others about bringing disciplinary charges against the Chief of Police. Does it not look like the media thing was part of a political process of getting rid of him?

Senator B.I. Marquand:

No, the fact that already inquiries were being made in terms of possible disciplinary matters is fully consistent with Mr. Ogley taking the view that he should be gathering evidence together. Clearly, Mr. Tapp very strongly disagreed with the way in which matters were carried out. Incidentally, Mr. Tapp’s evidence of what he had to say in relation to matters was included as part of the Wiltshire Report. They clearly treated him as being an expert with the right knowledge and ability.

2.4.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Going back to Mr. Ogley’s role in this, Mr. Ogley commissioned this report with the former Chief Minister, Mr. Frank Walker, and the report was used as part of the justification for his dismissal. Mr. Ogley, according to Napier, said that one of the reasons for the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police was the fact that he would not agree to the media strategy. Will the Minister for Home Affairs please go through all this and produce chapter and verse for the media and for Members here because there are so many elements of it now coming to the front showing that it was a political act. Will he revisit it and put out all the information?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It is not a political act. I have heard absolutely no evidence from that and I stand by the report of Mr. Tapp in relation to that particular area. Members are very quickly forgetting that the concerns of Mr. Warcup were fully justified by the Wiltshire Reports when they came out. That is the substantive report in relation to what happened where there were failures and so on.

Anonymous said...

2.4.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would he not agree that the involvement of other civil servants in trying to manage a Police Chief was totally wrong in retrospect?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I do not agree with that. Members of this Assembly must understand that Mr. Ogley, as Chief Executive, had a particular role of oversight. Indeed, within the Civil Service system if I can refer to the wider system, I appreciate the Police Chief is not a civil servant and has a particular status, he would have been the person who would have had oversight at the officer level of the Police Chief in relation to matters in relation to which it was proper to have such oversight. In my view, someone will always have to have that. There has to be a proper balance and I am seeking to achieve that balance in the new law between operational matters and other matters and such safeguards but, nevertheless, there has to be some level of oversight at Civil Service level.

2.4.6 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am almost tempted to ask if the Minister could tell the House, particularly new Members, what other substance apart from in mammals you find 1.6 collagen; I do not think you find it in coconuts. But my question is the Minister keeps referring again to the Wiltshire Report as the ultimate findings. This is the prosecution case that was never able to be put to Mr. Power because the Minister, I will have to use the word “chickened out” - ran away - and would not give him a fair hearing in court. Would the Minister not agree with that?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I very much resent the suggestion that I chickened out or would not give a fair hearing. The fact is that the reports took so long in arriving and a procedure that then followed that, if I got the documentation, took so long… and then Mr. Power then brought forward his resignation date by 6 months which rendered it impossible to deal with the matter. The fact is that Wiltshire did not set out a prosecution case. They produced a balanced report. It is available to Members, both in a redacted form and in full form. They consider what he is saying and they come to judgments on that. It remains, in my view, the definitive report on this matter.

2.4.7 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Talking about balance and fairness, would the Minister then finally make Mr. Power’s 62,000 words available to all so we can have some real light on the matter?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have been working on that for quite some time but I have hit significant difficulties. I had to take specialist advice from counsel on issues relating to libel. That has thrown up some complicated issues. I am still working on it but it is complicated. It is not a matter of just taking out certain names. It is a question of whether or not I can properly put in the public domain certain matters without risking libel and I have to be fair, not just to Mr. Power but to others. The work is continuing and we will complete it as soon as we can

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have been working on that for quite some time but I have hit significant difficulties. I had to take specialist advice from counsel on issues relating to libel. That has thrown up some complicated issues. I am still working on it but it is complicated. It is not a matter of just taking out certain names. It is a question of whether or not I can properly put in the public domain certain matters without risking libel and I have to be fair, not just to Mr. Power but to others. The work is continuing and we will complete it as soon as we can.

2.4.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think the reason this is serious is because the Minister somehow and at some time needs to explain why when a media consultant is taken on by the States of Jersey Police, only to resign, books his flights home, and then he immediately gets a phone call from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister saying: “We want you to do a report for us” because he would not have been able to do that report for the Chief Minister because he was already working on other reports subsequently, so it suggests that one way or the other the States of Jersey - the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley - who has now resigned or retired and the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker, wanted to get Mr. Tapp to do a report one way or the other. That is one of the questions that needs to be answered because …

The Bailiff:

Is that your question, Deputy?

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is my question for now. I am going to wait until next week and ask some more or do some writing but there are other questions to be asked but I think that is the first point that needs to be asked. Does it seem strange to the Minister that when somebody has been commissioned to do a job for one person, resigns, and gets a phone call immediately to do a job from another department when he has already booked his flights home allegedly?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I do not find it strange. No doubt, Mr. Ogley discovered that Mr. Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the case. I do not find it surprising at all at a time when documents and matters have been collated with a view to possible disciplinary matters that he be asked to do his report. As I say, it is all dealt with in the Napier Report. Mr. Napier found nothing untoward about it

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have been working on that for quite some time but I have hit significant difficulties. I had to take specialist advice from counsel on issues relating to libel. That has thrown up some complicated issues. I am still working on it but it is complicated. It is not a matter of just taking out certain names. It is a question of whether or not I can properly put in the public domain certain matters without risking libel and I have to be fair, not just to Mr. Power but to others. The work is continuing and we will complete it as soon as we can.

2.4.8 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think the reason this is serious is because the Minister somehow and at some time needs to explain why when a media consultant is taken on by the States of Jersey Police, only to resign, books his flights home, and then he immediately gets a phone call from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister saying: “We want you to do a report for us” because he would not have been able to do that report for the Chief Minister because he was already working on other reports subsequently, so it suggests that one way or the other the States of Jersey - the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley - who has now resigned or retired and the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker, wanted to get Mr. Tapp to do a report one way or the other. That is one of the questions that needs to be answered because …

The Bailiff:

Is that your question, Deputy?

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is my question for now. I am going to wait until next week and ask some more or do some writing but there are other questions to be asked but I think that is the first point that needs to be asked. Does it seem strange to the Minister that when somebody has been commissioned to do a job for one person, resigns, and gets a phone call immediately to do a job from another department when he has already booked his flights home allegedly?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, I do not find it strange. No doubt, Mr. Ogley discovered that Mr. Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the case. I do not find it surprising at all at a time when documents and matters have been collated with a view to possible disciplinary matters that he be asked to do his report. As I say, it is all dealt with in the Napier Report. Mr. Napier found nothing untoward about it

Anonymous said...

No-one knows for sure why Ogley received a payment but it has been suggested elsewhere that while it was unrelated to this scandal, it was to avoid another one

Same as England football manager,resigns & gets 1.5 million,its to keep quiet!!!

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Marquand:

No, it was not a political act. It was quite apparent by the time that Mr. Tapp was asked to produce his report that there were serious concerns in relation to the way in which the media handling had taken place. That was apparent fairly early on, in fact, but by the time we are getting into October 2008, the storm clouds were definitely gathering in relation to that






Senator B.I. Marquand:

No, the fact that already inquiries were being made in terms of possible disciplinary matters is fully consistent with Mr. Ogley taking the view that he should be gathering evidence together. Clearly, Mr. Tapp very strongly disagreed with the way in which matters were carried out. Incidentally, Mr. Tapp’s evidence of what he had to say in relation to matters was included as part of the Wiltshire Report. They clearly treated him as being an expert with the right knowledge and ability

These two replies are simply min blowing. It was not a political act and it was quite correct for the CEO to be gathering evidence. If that's isn't a political act then what is? It then gets included into the Wiltshire Report. It get even better. A report commissioned by the CEO finds its way into a disciplinary investigation against the Chief of Police and then into the Royal Court. In Jersey this isn't seen as political?

Anonymous said...

3.16 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding his responsibility for the suspension investigation for the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:
Thank you, and it most definitely is not personal. Given that the Minister has presided over the suspension investigation for the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, where deadlines were missed, budgets overspent, and ultimately no disciplinary charges were brought, how much has this process now cost the taxpayer to date and does he accept responsibility for the situation and if not, why?

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

I did not preside over a suspension investigation. What happened under the code is that I requested a report in relation to this matter, initially I requested a report on the first matter from the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers; on the second matter from the Deputy Chief Executive. The process that then followed was a process which we would normally follow in relation to any investigation in relation to a senior police officer. Namely, that an outside force was appointed in order to conduct the investigation. Here it was the Wiltshire Police and they were acting as an outside and independent agency. I could not properly intervene in the investigation process as that would have undermined its independence. From time to time I received estimated dates for completion. In the case of the Haut de la Garenne matter this slipped from March 2009 initially to May 2009 to July 2009 to September 2009. Eventually I received an interim report in October 2009 which was confirmed as final in December 2009, but the underlying evidence was not received until February 2010. I did not receive the Haut de la Garenne financial report until February 2010. In relation to Operation Blast there was similar slippage with the report not being received until May 2010 and the evidence in June 2010. I did my best insofar as it is open to me to avert delay, but was unable to control that delay. I inherited a disciplinary process which was both complex and ambiguous. Once the Chief Officer of Police decided to deny all failures on his part and once it became clear that Operation Blast needed to be investigated, expenditure became unavoidable. However, the reports are of immense value in informing Members of this Assembly and the general public as to what happened. If no disciplinary reports had been available then, in my view, an investigation of some kind would have been required in any event. Furthermore, Operation Blast was required - not only because an investigation would have been required in any event - but also because of the involvement of other senior officers. The total costs in relation to the first Wiltshire reports are £572,532. In relation to Operation Blast the figure has now gone up to £295,708. The cost of cover for the absence of the Chief Officer of Police are £234,854, up until tomorrow the final date. In addition to that there are the costs of the BDO Alto accountant’s report of £64,000

Anonymous said...

Mr Power was suspended on the 12th Nov 2008. Mr Power wasn't shown the Warcup letter or anything else when he was suspended. Wiltshire Police do the disciplinary investigation and by November 12 2009 Mr Power is still waiting.

He has waited a whole year and by June 2010 they finally hand over Operation Blast. A 1-1/2 year wait for something to happen.

That is disgusting

The Home Affairs Ministers position is untenable. How has this been able to go on? You have 50+ states members. Why didn't they put a stop to this follie. Rico is right when he mentions a break in the rule of law.

Anonymous said...

Once the Chief Officer of Police decided to deny all failures on his part and once it became clear that Operation Blast needed to be investigated, expenditure became unavoidable.

Well knock me down. How dare that Chief of Police deny all failures. Is any of this for real? Jersey's at a different level. I can see why the Victims of abuse had no chance under this junta or any previous.

Anonymous said...

from the Warcup letter:Central to all these issues is the lack of proper oversight and proper application of standard working practices, including financial and HR.

This has almost split my sides with laughter.

Look what happened to Mr Power.

You just can't make this up

Anonymous said...

No, I do not find it strange. No doubt, Mr. Ogley discovered that Mr. Tapp was very concerned in relation to the press aspects of the handling of the case. I do not find it surprising at all at a time when documents and matters have been collated with a view to possible disciplinary matters that he be asked to do his report.

Mr. Ogley ''discovered'' at a time when documents and matters have been collated with a ''view'' to ''possible'' disciplinary matters.

Of course he did if he engineered the report.

Anonymous said...

"Oh come on how can the former Magistrate cover up child abuse?"

Because there are so many numb nuts like you around.

rico sorda said...

To Anonymous who posted the comment reference the meals. I thank you for your comment but I just don't want to be going over the price of food when the issues here are off the scale.

I f you really want to know ore about these ares then I suggest you read all the BDO postings on my blog. This cover this area in full.

Many Thanks


rs

Anonymous said...

http://bit.ly/ABJK9j

Any ideas what this was about? Could it be the early part of the smear campaign?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon @06:47,

What do wish to capture? The first link is no longer valid and the second shows a static page from the rag website.

The Beano is not the rag

Anonymous said...

The Rag is fucinished.

Last night front page news: An unidentified aircraft over Jersey.

This morning front page news a mug shot of a young and vulnerable robber.

Not a murderer, not a rapist, not a child abuser but only a thief.

Jersey's only local newspaper is fucinished!!....

Tazer gun him.

Anonymous said...

Child's body found at former children's home.

THE remains of a child's body have been found by police at former children's home Haut de la Garenne.

The grim discovery was made on Saturday by States police officers who believe that it may have lain hidden for more than 20 years.

They fear that more remains may be found as the search continues.

The St Martin property, which closed as a child care home in 1986 and is now used as a youth hostel, has been at the centre of a major police investigation into abuse of children dating back to the 1960s.

The excavation, involving a sniffer dog and ground radar, began last week when information emerged from that inquiry.



Full report and background in today's Jersey Evening Post.

Published 24/2/2008

My post at 6:47 The link works for me strange you are not picking it up I was curious as to the JEP source for their article?


Second link pasted below. http://bit.ly/ABJK9j

interested me as it was published June 2007 I was not sure of the reason for Colin Egre story.?



Deputy defends right to question police methods
By Harry McRandle



DEPUTY Collin Egré has defended his right to question police methods.
As an elected politician, he said he should be free to investigate and question any service carried out on behalf of the States.

The Deputy has hit back at criticism from police deputy chief officer Lenny Harper that he has acted against the spirit of the law by asking members of the public to recount instances of mistreatment by the police.

Mr Harper criticised the Deputy for effectively encouraging people to bypass the official complaints procedure.

In a letter to the JEP published today on page 14, the Deputy says that the idea that the police feel it intrusive for a States Member to look at aspects of a situation simply because others might also be doing that job is 'to entirely miss the concept of democracy'.



Published 13/06/07

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous who posted the comment reference the meals. I thank you for your comment but I just don't want to be going over the price of food when the issues here are off the scale.

I f you really want to know ore about these ares then I suggest you read all the BDO postings on my blog. This cover this area in full.

Many Thanks

Thats fine. Just needed to know where to look. Trivial it may be,but its one of the well publicized points that people keep bringing up in conversation.

rico sorda said...

The next part of Operation End-Game will be published today

rs