"In the safe I also found a sealed white envelope marked as follows 'S Syvret' which was date stamped 10th April 2007. When opened the envelope was found to contain an audio tape. A transcript of the audio tape was subsequently made and is contained on 41 pages. A copy of the transcript has been forwarded to Superintendent Bonnie" End
Saturday, March 17, 2012
OPERATION END-GAME - 10- TIMELINE 'CORPORATION SOLE'
OPERATION END GAME - 10
THE ROAD TO 'OPERATION BLAST'
“I am in blood stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er”
Macbeth. Act 3. Scene 4.
I have asked the former Chief of Police Graham Power if he would like to say some words regarding what has been exposed so far.
Also, before we move on, I would like to bring to the attention of my readers a fantastic new Blog by Sam Mezec. Sam is a Jersey lad who is studying Law in the UK. On his latest posting he say's something I have been feeling for a very long time and I quote it here. This, in my view, hits the nail firmly on the head.
"Firstly, I'll get this out of the way - I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, proud to be a Jerseyman. Dr Johnson said that "Patriotism is the final refuge of a scoundrel" and I owe no allegiance to a geo-political entity. I only ally myself with ideas and moral principles. I can't be proud of being accidentally born on one piece of rock rather than another. And so accordingly, when Jersey is criticised, I have no urge to instinctively defend her without further thought. I'd try and be objective and look at the criticism being made and decide if it is justified or not before defending Jersey."
Before we move forward with the timeline I have received some exclusive footage of messers Warcup & Ogley practicing the art of 'Safe Cracking' out in the wilds of Trinity. As you will see, Dave 'the trigger' Warcup got a little carried away - so instead - Bill suggested that they settle for a locksmith (after getting advice).
Let us not underplay the seriousness of the actions of Acting Chief Officer David Warcup. He has clearly lied to Wiltshire regarding the breaking into of Graham Powers secure Safe/Cabinet. This act should not be seen as a lone indiscretion. No, it was only a small part in the big picture of the removal of former Chief of Police Graham Power during a live investigation into decades of Abuse in the Jersey Care System and the opinion management of the people of Jersey and abroad by our State Controlled Media. The actions of DCO/ACO David Warcup and D/supt Mick Gradwell will be looked at using the same timeline in future postings. I can assure readers it doesn't make for good reading.
We will probably have to return to the issue surrounding Graham Powers revised contract at some time. I find it intriguing as to what went on here. This is what Graham Power said in the previous posting;
"When mine came up for revision there was legal advice which drew attention to the fact that I was not an "employee" under the law but an office holder, so I could not enter into a "contract" but could agree to a "statement of terms and conditions" which basically would be the same document but not called a "contract." I then entered into negotiations regarding any changes which would be required. Part 8 of the document deals with "Professional Indemnity." This said that, if I got sued as part of my work, the States of Jersey would meet the cost. I drafted an amendment to this which added that if I was the subject of any complaint or allegation which required legal advice or representation then that cost would also be met. The amendment was agreed and I agreed to stay on after my retirement on the strength of the new terms and conditions. I also cancelled my legal insurance with my Staff Association. I recall that the new terms and conditions were signed by a representative of the Chief Ministers department and myself. I kept my copy in the safe."
We know that the copy at Cyril Le Marquand House went missing as it's not mentioned on the Inventory as discribed by Ian Critch on his letter dated 22nd Decemeber 2008. But what exactly came out of Graham Powers safe when David Warcup 'blew the doors' on the 22nd January 2009.
This is what came out of the safe according to David Warcup under Oath.
1. Documentation on subject matter - DCO HARPER / ***** ****
2. Documentation located in a folder marked 'Succession'. This comprises extension of contract conformation re; Chief Officer Power, property purchase policy, and supporting email, along with assorted documentation and emails regarding continuity.
3. Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedures) (Jersey) Order 2000
4. Police ( Complaints and Discipline)(Jersey) Law 1999
5. Email regarding HMIC AFI reminder
6. Correspondence marked ***** /***** / *****
7. Statement marked ***** *****
Like I have said previously we will be returning to this at a later stage.
Graham Power has continued to keep his dignity through this dark chapter in Jersey's history while others in power and authority swim in their own toxic pool of lies. If all goes to plan, we should be entering into 'Operation Blast' by the middle of next week.
The actions of the people that led to the suspension and continued suspension of Graham Power are just plainly shocking. That it was able to happen without any of the Jersey Media raising any questions is just as shocking. Even with the mountains of evidence produced by the bloggers they remain silent. Wether they like it or not the Jersey Media have an important role to play in Child Protection in Jersey.
The actions of the politicians who did stand up - and they are few - will not be forgotten. The Jersey Media and docile politicians who put the image and protection of Jersey before that of Abused Children is unforgivable. That is why the quote above by Sam Mezec rings true.
Below is a response from Former Chief of Police Graham Power.
Le Marquand, Warcup, and the “Macbeth Moment.”
“I am in blood stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er”
Macbeth. Act 3. Scene 4.
It is not my custom to begin my occasional contributions to this blog with a quotation from Shakespeare, but having just returned from a short break, and also having read the outstanding investigative journalism relating to the events of the summer of 2009, I thought that this particular extract may be appropriate in the context of the position in which David Warcup and Ian le Marquand found themselves once my suspension passed the six month stage, and the earlier promises by Le Marquand of a resolution by the spring of 2009 had turned to nothing.
In Shakespeare’s play Macbeth had a claim to the Scottish throne but chose to advance that claim by murder, betrayal and deceit. In Act 3 he speaks the above lines in recognition that he has reached what we today would call the “point of no return.” He shows that he understands that he is now so far down the road of bloodshed and treachery that there can be no going back. For better or worse he has to press ahead, and that it so doing it is inevitable that more bloodshed and treachery will follow.
By June of 2009 Warcup and Le Marquand had a big problem. The campaign to remove me as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police had been launched with a “shock and awe” suspension during a brief family holiday in November 2008, combined with the rifling of my office, the breaking open of my secure cabinet, and the seizure of possessions including family photographs and mementos. Nobody was supposed to survive that treatment. By means of this carefully planned coup it was intended that I would be reduced to a shambling wreck, begging to submit my resignation and to roll over to the political agenda of the politician who would be Chief Minister and the policeman who would be Chief Officer. But it all went wrong. They had not thought it through. There was no obvious “Plan B” and no credible response to a situation in which the intended victim fought back and in which the hunters could become the hunted.
So other things had to be tried. Surely more pressure would break the resistance? Perhaps just one more push would do it. So they tried.
The first “second wave” assault had occurred months earlier in the dying moments of 2008. Itcame out of the blue in a letter from Le Marquand dated 31st December 2008. In that letter Le Marquand told me that he was starting a further disciplinary investigation into allegations that I had presided over a “culture of bullying.” This allegation was so brazen and contrary to the truth that it was almost laughable. But the Minister was serious in his intent. I do not have the full story of the background to this attack and its subsequent demise, but by various sensitive means I have come to believe that Warcup encouraged Le Marquand to engage in this line of assault, but that once the nature of the allegation became more widely known it emerged that there were some witnesses who could give evidence that the only bullying they had experienced was by Warcup himself at the apparent instigation of Le Marquand. Whatever the full story, that enquiry was soon abandoned. In a letter dated 26th January 2009 le Marquand told me that the enquiry had been terminated. No explanation. No apologies. Just a curt, short and grudging letter telling me that he had “decided to take this possible additional matter no further.” I am sure that I am not the only person who would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Le Marquand and Warcup discussed the failure of that particular assault. My sources tell me that the debacle led to a souring of the relationship which never fully recovered, whatever might have been claimed in public.
But by the summer of 2009 both Warcup and Le Marquand had passed their “Macbeth Moment.” They knew that there could be no turning back. Nor could they afford to allow me to return to work. By that time a working relationship involving the three of us was no longer credible. If I returned to work their positions would be impossible, and their carefully planned career aspirations would be at an end. So more barrels had to be scraped. From what we now know it appears that their first thought may have been to resurrect a line of attack which had apparently been considered some six months previously but which had not been pursued. On 22nd January 2009, having broken into my secure cabinet, with the able assistance of a senior officer from the “independent” enquiry by Wiltshire Police, Warcup made the unremarkable discovery that some telephone calls to the police had been recorded. This was a well known and well publicised force policy. As Dr Tim Brain was later to point out during our suspension meeting with the Minister, the fact that all calls may be recorded was set out in public notices in the Jersey telephone directory and elsewhere. The Minister must have been aware that the telephone recording allegations would never stand alone as a credible issue. But if the telephone recording could be tagged to something else then perhaps it could be spun in a way which created an image of sinister goings-on in a force which was out of control. In June 2009 Warcup wrote to the Minister and formally told him something which he knew already, namely that in March of that year he had found a filing system in the Special Branch which contained information relating to States Members and that the system had allegedly been given the name “Operation Blast.” This was later put together with the telephone recording “discovery” and taken forward to a meeting called by the Minister, which took place on 31st July 2009 at which I was further suspended. I understand that the transcript of that meeting is already in the public domain and I am content that it speaks for itself. In brief, at that meeting the Minister, when faced with the full absurdity of the “allegations” regarding the telephone recordings was forced to abandon that line of attack but imposed a new suspension of the basis of the files held by the Special Branch.
The circumstances surrounding this suspension were the subject of extensive “spinning” which included a statement in the States and briefings to the Jersey media who dutifully reported the discovery of “an operation targeting States Members” and similar wild tales, none of which were true or even alleged. As Dr Brain was to point out at the suspension meeting, “Blast” was nothing more than an issue around the administration of a filing system. In the normal course of police work reports would be received relating to members of the States. They had to be filed somewhere and I had said that the Special Branch Office, which was the most secure part of the building, was the right place for them to be filed once any issues had been dealt with on the principle that States Members should be treated no better or no worse than anyone else in similar circumstances. That necessitated the setting up of a filing system. Others attended to the detail. For the record, until the term was used by the Minister I had never heard of “Operation Blast,” and I do not know why an operational name was given to a filing system. I do however know that operational names are generated by a random computerised system. The name which this process randomly allocated could just have easily been “buttercup” or “snowflake.” For some reason the system produced the name “blast.”
All that said, the fog and mystery generated around this issue enabled Le Marquand to create a new suspension which effectively rendered irrelevant the Judicial Review of the first suspension which was to be heard a few days later. It also enabled him to set a revised timescale which guaranteed that there could be no conclusion to the disciplinary case before I retired in 2010. He had presented the whole Blast issue as a high-profile and urgent cause for concern which needed to be addressed by a suspension and a full investigation. He had announced the matter in the States on 16th June 2009. Nevertheless, in spite of the alleged urgency, the disciplinary enquiry relating to “Blast,” named “Haven 2” did not begin until 1st September 2009, almost three months after issue had been publically raised and almost five months after Warcup had found the files.
Under the terms of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police I provided a statement of over 13,000 words in response to the allegations made by Warcup in relation to the Special Branch files. According to information provided by the Chief Ministers Department in May 2011, the Minister for Home Affairs has never seen or read that statement. And that is where the matter currently rests.
Ian Le Marquand remains Minister for Home Affairs having tried unsuccessfully to become Chief Minister and Treasury Minister. David Warcup was Acting Chief Officer during my absence until he resigned in July 2010 shortly before the publication of a report by Brian Napier QC which revealed new information regarding his role in my suspension. In accordance with my long stated intentions I retired in 2010, finally leaving the police service in July of that year. In spite of a suspension and investigations lasting nearly two years no disciplinary charges were ever brought and no hearing was ever called.
And finally, it might be appropriate to offer a clarification of any misunderstanding which might have arisen in consequence of the Shakespearian introduction to this contribution. Some readers might have formed the impression that I was suggesting that Macbeth and David Warcup were in some way identical. That is not the case and no such meaning was intended. They are entirely different. One was an heir-apparent who, in pursuing his ambitions, resorted to betrayal, treachery and deceit, which took him on a descending spiral leading to his eventual downfall.
The other was the King of Scotland.
I hope that interested readers find this contribution helpful in developing an understanding of the issues in this long running story.
We now move onto the next timeline. This is a very important piece of the Jigsaw as it's the first time that the Senator Ian Le Marquand as the new Home Affairs Minister comes into the picture. During Graham Powers first suspension review ( full transcript here SUSPENSION REVIEW 1) we hear the word 'Corporation Sole' comes into play.
I have raised the issue of the 'Corporation Sole' with all States Members and the Law Office via email. I received replies from Deputy T Pitman and Deputy Valois. No one seemed sure of the answer. I have yet to receive a reply from the Jersey Law Office. I would have thought that someone as learned as the Home Affairs Minister must be correct but thought it best to double check.
Back to the timeline.
February 13th 2009 - Graham Power has his first Suspension Review Meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand. Senator Le Marquand informs Graham Power and his representative T. Brain that he, as Home Affairs Minister, and I quote;
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" End
We can see clearly here what the Minister is saying here. The importance of this is immense. If the Home Affairs Minister does look at the original suspension, then in a proper functioning democracy, he would see that it was a complete farce and send Graham Power back to work. He say's he can't look at the original suspension.
On the 20th March the States of Jersey have their sitting. After getting no reply from the Attorney General Deputy Tadier has lodged an oral question. This situation is ridiculous. If the Attorney General had bothered to answer the question via email he would not have to waste his time in coming to the States Chamber. Deputy Tadier must make sure he gets a straight forward answer to a straight forward question and not get drowned in legal waffle.
This Question is number 7 on the list
ORAL QUESTION FOR TUESDAY 20th MARCH 2012
Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –
“Would H.M. Attorney General confirm that when a Minister has made a discretionary decision, and it then emerges that the decision was unlawful or was procedurally unfair, the Minister’s successor is able to re-consider the decision in question?”'