Sunday, March 25, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 13- OPERATION BLAST











OPERATION END GAME - 13




"OPERATION BLAST"




"I write with reference to my previous discussion with the Solicitor General concerning matters which have been brought to my attention which may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police into Mr Power,Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police." David Warcup June 2nd 2009 to the Home Affairs Minister





What you are about to read in this post is simply staggering.




This is just the beginning of what can only be best described as the complete and utter Lunacy of Acting Chief Officer David Warcup and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Some would be right in saying that it is straight forward corruption in public office You are about to see what happens when people get desperate. Graham Power put a huge spanner in the works when he decided not to go quietly on November 12th 2008.



After the shambolic original suspension - the bullying allegations - the safe cracking - ILM's new suspension -house raiding of Stuart Syvret - they had found nothing.



That is how, and why, the name "OPERATION BLAST" came into our lives.



Let us begin.



I have been interested in Operation Blast for a very long time. It is only now that after exposing all the previous corruption we now land at Blast. It all started with the Statement, Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand made in the states on the 16th June 2009.



This is the part of the Statement that jumped out at me;



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It is my duty to inform this Assembly that on 2nd June 2009 I received a formal written report from the Acting Chief Officer of Police, which confirmed to me the details of Operation Blast. I was first informed of the general details in relation to Operation Blast by a letter from the Solicitor General dated 30th April 2009 and requested further information prior to making any decision in relation thereto.



The first question I asked myself was this; Who informed the Solicitor General of these files and why. I emailed the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq who was Solicitor General in 2009 and asked him. I reproduce the email and reply below.



From: rico sorda
Sent: 20 February 2012 16:30
To: Tim Allen
Subject: Attorney General (Operation blast)

Dear Attorney General,

I hope you can help me with my enquiries into the suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM.

In 2009 you were the Solicitor General.

Mr Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008. What concerns me at this present moment is the second suspension which occured in June 2009. On the 16/6/2009 Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand brought a statement to the States concerning Operation Blast. This is a quote taken from said statement;

"It is my duty to inform this Assembly that on 2nd June 2009 I received a formal written report from the Acting Chief Officer of Police which confirmed to me the details of Operation Blast. I was first informed of the general details in relation to Operation Blast by a letter from the Solicitor General dated 30th April, 2009, and requested further information prior to making any decision in relation thereto. I am able to reveal the following information"

Im trying to work out what happened here. The Home Affairs Minister states that he was first informed of Operation Blast by a letter from your good self, is this correct? The reason for my cocern is the fact that the Law Office were advising the Home Affairs Minister during the former Chief of Polices suspension. How did the Solicitor General end up with details concerning files held at the Police HQ? I hope there is a simple answer here. What im seeing is a mirror image of the first suspension of Graham Power QPM. This concerns me greatly. The letter you sent to the Home Affairs Minister results in a formal written report from David Warcup that results in Graham Power being suspended again.

I hope you can clear this issue up for me.

Kind Regards

Mr R Sorda





From: Tim Allen

Subject: RE: Attorney General (Operation blast)

To: "rico sorda"

Date: Thursday, 23 February, 2012, 9:59


Dear Mr Sorda,

I write further to my email of the 20th February.

I have now had the opportunity to mention this matter to the Attorney General. It is not clear the basis on which you ask for information and any inquiry relating to statements made by the Home Affairs Minister is of course a matter for that Minister and not for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has, however, asked that I refer you to the answer that he gave as Solicitor General in the States Assembly on the 30th June 2009 (at Hansard reference 3.15) in response to an oral question asked by Deputy Shona Pitman and in particular to the answer that was given to a supplemental question asked by Deputy Le Claire (at reference 3.15.1). These questions and answers are of course in the public domain.

Yours sincerely

Tim Allen




Ok , lets go and have a look. What i'm trying to establish here is who told the Solicitor General about the files at Police HQ. Here is the Hansard from June 30th 2009. Fair play to Deputy S Pitman for getting this question in. Look at how the Solicitor General doesn't want to say who it was that informed him about Operation Blast.



3.15 Deputy S. Pitman of H.M. Solicitor General regarding when H.M. Attorney General was first informed about Operation Blast

Would H.M. Solicitor General inform Members when, and how, the Attorney General was first informed about Operation Blast?

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

I am not sure if the question has changed a little bit in form. I am answering the question as written and not the question as recently stated which appeared to be directed to me personally.

The Bailiff:

I think, as I understand it, you are answering the question on behalf of the Attorney General.

The Solicitor General:

The Attorney General is currently away from the Island appearing in the Privy Council and accordingly is unable to answer this question. He asked the Deputy to defer the question to the next sitting so that he could answer it but the Deputy has declined to do so. As the question is directed to the Attorney General personally and is about his state of knowledge, I cannot answer it for him. He has, however, copied to me an email that he sent to the Deputy as part of an exchange about whether or not the Deputy would agree to defer this question. In it, among other things, he said: “So let me be clear, neither the present Solicitor General nor I participated in any way in setting up of files by the police in Operation Blast. We were not aware of their existence or proposed existence before or during the time when they were set up and maintained. We were not consulted about them and during that time gave no permission or consent in relation to them and were not asked to do so. We were wholly unaware of them, in my case, until 4th April this year when the S.G. (Solicitor General) mentioned it to me.” He also said this in his email that the former Solicitor General was out of the Island and that he had no reason to believe she knew anything about it either. I do not think I can assist the Assembly any more on the Attorney General’s statement.

The Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy Le Claire.

3.15.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I ask the Solicitor General when the Attorney General was first told of Operation Blast, in what manner was he told by the Solicitor General of the operation and what was the reason why the Attorney General was told at the time he was told?

The Solicitor General:

The question is directed to the Attorney General’s state of knowledge. The answer is that he was told about it by me on 4th April. I am, however, not at liberty to go any further into the matter than that because obviously anything I know about the matter is subject to legal privilege and I cannot discuss that in these circumstances.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I understand. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

I have seen other supplementary questions but may I just advise Members who are in the precinct that we will proceed to the ballot at 11.15 a.m. when the Question Time comes to an end and perhaps they would be kind enough to return to their seats if they wish to participate in the ballot. Deputy Tadier.

3.15.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Operation Blast, it would seem, should be very easy to resolve because it seems that nobody set the files up and nobody knows anything about them, so it should be an open and shut case. But the question I would ask if the Solicitor General is in a position to answer, is he aware if any socially or politically prominent non-States Members have also had files on them?

The Solicitor General:

I have no information about that. Even if I had information, I would not be at liberty to reveal it to the Assembly for the reason I have previously articulated: that of legal professional privilege.

3.15.3 Deputy S. Pitman:

If such files were set up in the interests of national security for the Island, who would authorise this?

The Solicitor General:

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that which is, after all, a hypothetical question. What I can say to the Assembly is that neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General have any authority in connection with the setting up of police files



Right, we now know that someone mysterious told the Solicitor General T. Le Cocq sometime between late March and the 4th of April 2009 as it was on this date that he informed the Attorney General William Bailhache about the files.



The person who informed the Solicitor General was none other than Acting Chief Officer David Warcup. Remember the quote from the top of the posting. Also remember the timeline.



June 2nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and discloses details of some files held down at Police HQ under the code name 'Operation Blast.' These files contain information relating to States Members and former States Members. David Warcup states that he has brought it to the attention of Ian Le Marquand as it may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police. He also informs the Minister for Home Affairs that he has had previous discussions with the Solicitor General about these files. End.


This is the letter he sent;




Senator I Le Marquand

Minister

Home Affairs Department

11 Royal Square

St Helier

JE2 4WA



2 June 2009



Dear Minister



OPERATION BLAST


I write with reference to my previous discussion with the Solicitor General concerning matters which have been brought to my attention which may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police into Mr Power,Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police.


On 16th March 2009 it was brought to my attention that, there are currently two files secured in the States of Jersey Police Special Branch Offices under the name of Operation Blast. These files contain information relating to States Members and former States Members.


I have established that these files were created in February 2006, apparently following an encounter by one of the subjects of the file with a States of jersey Police Officer. The conduct and manner of that individual was apparently the trigger to creating the files.


Also brought to my attention was an email dated 24 February 2006 from former Superintendent ****** ****** to a member of staff in Special Branch. This email appears to have been sent at the direction of the Chief Officer, Mr Power, which requested that information on States members be kept in secure files within Special Branch.


It would appear that between February 2006 and November 2008, files were updated albeit on an infrequent basis. The information contained within these files includes personal contact details of States Members, taken from the official States of Jersey Government Website; print out of convictions from the Police National Computer and the States of Jersey Police Operational/Intelligence database. The files also contain information from secure sources such as police intelligence reports and sheets detailing the checks that had been carried out in respect of each individual. It is apparent that full criminal record checks have been carried out on all States Members in 2006.


The files have been given a security classification of 'Secret' and have not been retained under what would be described as the standard arrangements for the retention of intelligence data.


Examination of these also indicates that in addition to the Chief Officer, members of the States of Jersey Police Senior Management were aware of the existence of these files and directed that certain information to be retained therein.


The existence of the files is known to only a very small number of officers , and does not appear to have been disseminated further.


Following discovery of the files referred to above , I am now referring the matter for your attention.


In considering how you may wish to deal with this matter I should point out that there are items of information which are highly sensitive and which cannot be disclosed under any circumstance outside the police intelligence community. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature I have initiated any enquiries in relation to the specific content of each individual file. I do however intend to initiate a formal review of the retention of intelligence in this area to ensure that all information is retained and handled in accordance with established best practice and in accordance with current legislation.


Should you require any further information then please advise me directly



Yours sincerely,



David Warcup


Acting Chief Officer.






What is the Acting Chief of Police David Warcup doing contacting the Jersey Law Office and Home Affairs Minister about sensitive files kept a Police HQ? Is it not his job as a senior ranked police officer to know how to handle such sensitive information? What is the States of Jersey Police Force meant to do when sensitive information comes through the Police Station relating to states members or members of the public - put in the bin? - send it to the JEP in a brown envelope?



Should the Law Office or Home Affairs be having anything to do with this in the first place? There is secret sensitive material kept at Police HQ. David Warcup and Senator Le Marquand use it as another attempt to discredit Graham Power and get him suspended again.



I just can't get over what is happening. In fact I believe it goes beyond Lunacy.



This bit is simply staggering;


"I write with reference to my previous discussion with the Solicitor General concerning matters which have been brought to my attention which may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police into Mr Power,Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police."


By June 2009 Graham Power has been suspended for over 6 months. Wiltshire is getting bogged down. They keep missing completion dates. What the hell has this got to do with Graham Powers suspension. What has files down the Police Station got to do with alleged mismanagement of a Child Abuse Investigation? There can be no doubt about the real integrity of David Warcup - this man was in up to his eye balls.


How about this . This is mind blowing:


"The files have been given a security classification of 'Secret' and have not been retained under what would be described as the standard arrangements for the retention of intelligence data."


Acting Chief Warcup, why didn't you just do what you were paid to do. Sort it out with zero fuss. Maybe regulations had changed between 2006 and 2009. Why are you running to the Law Office and Home Affairs.



This stinks it just simply stinks



Im so angry at what my Government has been up to.



This all stems from the Child Abuse Cover-up



And I can tell you right now



It gets worse.



Enter stage right; Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand





Rico Sorda



Team Voice



Investigative Journalist

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

There it is ladies and gents Warcup's integrity. Or should that read there it ISN'T? Graham Power was knifed in the back by Warcup, Bailhache, Le Cocq and this posting shows it.

Anonymous said...

3.15.3 Deputy S. Pitman:

If such files were set up in the interests of national security for the Island, who would authorise this?

The Solicitor General:

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that which is, after all, a hypothetical question. What I can say to the Assembly is that neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General have any authority in connection with the setting up of police files

Thats very strange. The SG must have known as Warcup said.... "I write with reference to my previous discussion with the Solicitor General concerning matters which have been brought to my attention which may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police into Mr Power,Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police." David Warcup June 2nd 2009 to the Home Affairs Minister"

Great posting rico. They really must hate you for this. You have not only shown up the people who govern us but also the Jersey Media outlets..

rico sorda said...

In response to the anonymous comment at 8.46

The question from Deputy S Pitman was asked on June 30th 2009

You will know that Warcup wrote to ILM on June 2nd 2009

The SG would have known the answer simple as that

rs

Anonymous said...

So, if the AG nor the SG had any authority in the setting up of the police files.

Then who the hell did!?

rico sorda said...

The Chief of Police at the time Graham Power

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This further shows how desperate they were to pin something on Graham Power QPM and/or Lenny Harper but they couldn't no matter how hard they tried. Gradwell reportedly told Le Marquand that he had leaked confidential information during a live Child Abuse Enquiry to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles back in late 2009/early 2010 and Le Marquand keeps it quiet?

Now you, a Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) publish "exclusively" the letter sent to Le Marquand that seriously, once more, brings into question the integrity of David Warcup and his motives, as well as others' and what's the betting the discredited and disgraced State Media won't publish a word of it?

Probably will have "investigative journalists" finding out how much Lenny Harper paid for a prawn cocktail........What a mess this island is in.

Anonymous said...

"Probably will have "investigative journalists" finding out how much Lenny Harper paid for a prawn cocktail.."

Not only "investigative journalists" for State Media, but the Jersey government itself, at whatever cost to taxpayers. They wouldn't blink at spending millions more to bury this fiasco and decades of covered up child abuse, by forcing attention back on that meal. No one can now believe anything is too much for them to do or spend, to keep the lid on how corrupt they really are. A nest of vipers is what they are.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

What your recent postings have demonstrated, is that the conduct of the Jersey authorities has been worse than Watergate.

Anti-democratic, political espionage - breaking and entering - and larceny - against opposing politicians - the improper involvement of the Attorney General - the supplying of stolen information to the ruling politicians.

The difference between the Jersey situation and Watergate - is that the Jersey situation is worse.

In Jersey, we arent speaking of only a one-off incident - and nor are we speaking of the actions of a group of burglars - but rather the politically hi-jacked - and illegally acting - police force.

And the actual corrupted, politicised prosecution of the opposition politician.

And then the bent protections and concealment of these crimes - by a corrupted judiciary.

And this is Britain - in the 21st century.

One has to wonder - just how much privileged access to Ministers of State - maybe even the Prime Minister - has been brought by the lobby of the Jersey oligarchy?

£250,000 "premier league" privileged access?

Indeed - have any such donations to UK political parties always been made with private funds?

Or has some of the COCF - the Jersey oligarhcy slush-fund - been "converted" for such uses?

After all, that fund has been kept very well topped-up.

Even by convicting foreign nationals of a supposed "crime" - that was not classified as a crime when their action was taken - two years before the law was introduced.

The most extraordinary conduct on display - is not that of the Jersey oligarchy; in so many ways - it isn't that surprising, and exactly what you would predict a collection of incestuous spivs to get up to, if not subjected to any proper oversight or effective checks and balances.

The most extraordinary conduct on display in all of this - is that of the Crown - of London - of the UK government - in tolerating and protecting such an undisguised state-mafia - right on their doorstep.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

Another bag of baloney invented by the law society to protect and enrich its' members

What about lawful laymans privilege or constructive builders privilege

Lawyers, making it up as they go along, sanctioned by Phil the Pathetic

cyril

Anonymous said...

As someone who studied the Watergate scandal years ago, I can appreciate Stuart Syvret's opinion. The scale and power of the individuals involved in the cover-uo may be less in Jersey, and their numbers far fewer, but the initial crimes themselves would be considered far more disgraceful.

The bizarre arrest and unwarranted police raid on a sitting senator, Stuart Syvret, would certainly be seen as far more controversial, for starters.

What started with a "third rate burglary" was of little interest to the public, or to journalists until it was apparent the legal defense resources made available to these "burglars" was far outside the norm.

If Watergate had also involved the concealment of child rape and complicity of the media in ignoring that, the burglary would have been all but irrelevant in comparison. Any high level government involvement in protecting child raping or child beating would have become the larger scandal.

Watergate became a crisis because of the cover-up, because the courts, media, Attorney Generals, law enforcement and the presidential cabinet were involved. However, unlike in Jersey, there were numerous members of the opposition party, some investigative reporters and even some former presidential allies who refused to allow the continued misuse of power.

In Jersey you have Stuart Syvret, Rico Sorda, and some other excellent activists and bloggers, but there is no person in political power currently who appears willing and able to take this all the way to a just conclusion.

Yet you can take some hope from the fact that Bernstein and Woodward were the previously unknown upstart reporters who blew the lid on Watergate through the Washington Post. They despaired and grew impatient long before the rest of the media and public caught up their work, and only then did politicians and government workers begin to speak out.

If Jersey's corruption cover-op story plays out the way Watergate did, someone close to the top will leak more information and a few people of conscience will eventually refuse to lend their support to the charade. Finally, one or more of those implicated in indictable crimes will begin to spill the beans and the cascade of lies will be exposed more fully.

Then, your work as journalists should be given well deserved credit.

D

Zoompad said...

"The most extraordinary conduct on display in all of this - is that of the Crown - of London - of the UK government - in tolerating and protecting such an undisguised state-mafia - right on their doorstep."

Exactly!

But you see, integrity isn't really very high on the UK Government's agenda is it? I did give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt over his part in the 2002 police trawling investigation, which members of the BFMS and FACT and dodgy journalists including David Rose and Richard Webster were lobbying to stop the police doing their job investigating institutional child abuse. I assumed David Cameron must have been tricked and that he didn't realise what sort of people he was talking to, and that if he had he would have stormed out of the chamber in horror and disgust. I think I may have been very naive.

Anonymous said...

David Warcup appeared to be on a mission with his job taking a side line.

A mission to remove Graham Power at all costs find anything that could bring about the success of the mission that would in turn become an operation giving the Home affairs minister power to interfere.

He never accomplished his mission and yet the Home affairs Minister was involved during and whilst that mission was ongoing by receiving letters from Mr Warcup.

Anonymous said...

Whether we like it or not, legal professional privilege is a common law right to protect the client - not the lawyer.

The real concern for me is the question - who is the client here? Is it Warcup personally? Surely not. It was the position of Chief Police Officer. But wait a minute, he was the Acting CPO. The CPO was already on suspension but that suspension was looking shaky. So the advice was given to the ACPO effectively to create trouble for the actual CPO.

This somehow does not smell too sweet ..... It really would tend to confirm the view that Warcup was out to get Power no matter what lengths he had to go to. Not much doubt about this. But, again, the real question is - was he doing this purely out of self interest or was he acting on someone else's behalf? Surely the could not have been somebody, or a group of people, behind the scenes pulling Warcup's strings!

Zoompad said...

Now I am beginning to understand why the UK Government can't be bothered to intervene in this mess of corruption - they haven't been offered their £250,000 a year sweetener! Perhaps we child abuse survivors should do a few sponsored walks, jumble sales, cake and jam fetes ect to raise some Parliamentary bribe money?????!!!!!

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/03/psychiatrists-snatching-our-children-thats-stalins-trick.html

Anonymous said...

Hi D,

A privilege is not a right

Lawyers who have evidence that their 'client' is guilty of a crime has no right to withhold that evidence. However, that does not mean they cannot represent the client

we need to understand how lawyers use words to obfuscate matters

eg;
It is a privilege to drive a vehicle.

It is a right to travel in automobiles.

Call it semantics if you like (I do) but, that is the way it has been set up.

the word legal has no place in common law, it is an invention of the law societies.

cyril

Anonymous said...

This blog is off the scale. This is worse than Watergate far worse...

Anonymous said...

Legal professional privelege would that work in protection for the law officers if they are involved in corruption?

Anonymous said...

2nd June 2009

Warcup to Ian Le Marquand

''I do however intend to initiate a formal review of the retention of intelligence in this area to ensure that all information is retained and handled in accordance with established best practice and in accordance with current legislation.''

Rico Do you have the review conducted by David Warcup?

I seem to recall a special branch officer in a liason with females having access to secret files then being supported by law department at a later date.

Anonymous said...

What is the problem concerning these files? Can someone explain why this led to Graham Power being suspended again? What Mr Warcup describes in his letter to Senator Le Marquand is standard police stuff.

Anonymous said...

"What is the problem concerning these files? Can someone explain why this led to Graham Power being suspended again? What Mr Warcup describes in his letter to Senator Le Marquand is standard police stuff."

I think Mr Power has explained why there was no problem with the files from his sensible view.

Now we need for ILM, Warcup and Wiltshire to explain their version, but they won't.

Rob Kent said...

Re "What is the problem concerning these files? Can someone explain why this led to Graham Power being suspended again?"

They were in a fix. They had expected Power to fall on his sword when they made him the offer he couldn't refuse at the time of his first suspension.

Instead of rolling over, Power fought back. The initial review hearings where Power was represented by Dr Brain (who ran rings around Le Marquand), would have made them realise that if it ever came to a full Disciplinary Hearing, Power would have won hands down.

They therefore needed to keep him suspended and were scraping around for any means. The concoction of 'Operation Blast' was meant to suggest that Power had been illegally spying on States members, running a Stasi-type secret police.

In fact, there was no Operation Blast. As Power explained in a previous posting on this blog, it was a secure filing system for holding sensitive data reported to the police:

"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.”"

rico sorda said...

"In Jersey you have Stuart Syvret, Rico Sorda, and some other excellent activists and bloggers, but there is no person in political power currently who appears willing and able to take this all the way to a just conclusion. "

I bumped into Constable Crowcroft today - I believe its safe to say he just doesn't care about this anymore. He is a politician - all politicians should have corruption plus the reason for said corruption high on their radar.

In the Watergate Scandal least the two reporters had a media outlet ready to back them. We have nothing here - zero - zilch - a baron wasteland of investigative journalism and the like.

We still have a Home Affairs Minister sitting in situ who should be sacked. This is not my opinion, the evidence has exposed him as an incompetent, yet he just carries on and no one batters an eyelid. This is why I say that the States is not fit for purpose.

rs

Anonymous said...

So sorry to hear that Mr. Crowcroft has lost interest. Still what could he,or even a handful of politicians do. What indeed could the whole of the States assembly do against a corrupt judiciary?
Complain to London?
I suspect Rico, that despite all your perseverence in investigating this whole sorry affair,that its going to be down to S.S. to carry this forward as he carries his challenge into Europe.

Anonymous said...

Rico, you say, "In the Watergate Scandal least the two reporters had a media outlet ready to back them. We have nothing here - zero - zilch - a baron wasteland of investigative journalism and the like."

Keep doing what you are doing.

Remember the man who learned about hacking from his own ability to hack friends' phones? You provided that link. He went on to force public attention on the issue, but first came upon a media culture too ready to hear him out and then use the hacking for their own nefarious purposes, never reporting it. The truth found a way of coming out, which it has a habit of doing when even a few people care, and they are not always those in political power.

Woodward and Bernstein had excellent support from publisher Katherine Graham and editor Ben Bradley, but both reporters took a very public whooping from the rest of the media, including Claire Booth Luce, and from countless public officials.

It was slow work. The reporters did not have internet research resources, or even much local name recognition. They were young and relatively untested. They met resistance and multiple dead ends. Like you, for a long time they had no idea how far the evidence would lead. Even when they were able to report a substantial evidence that the cover-up involved the highest levels of US power, Nixon won a landslide re-election. The reporters were discouraged because very few outside Washington were interested in the growing demonstration of criminality, but within the White House the panic was palpable.

You will need the help of others, but they may already be those willingly available to you. Some of your commenters are extraordinarily skilled writers, and your researched drama is more than compelling.

To protect yourself, you need to be involved with the international networks of bloggers and independent journalists, as well as organizations which protect their rights. You probably have more allies even now than you know.

Keep going with the faith that your effort on this is profoundly important.

Anonymous said...

2.4.6 The Connétable of St. Helier:
The Chief Minister says that the legal advice was not ignored. It was simply balanced. Will the Chief Minister agree with me that it is not so much a matter of ignoring legal advice but not sharing it with States Members? Will he confirm that the reservations by the Crown Officers were not shared with States Members at any stage during the statement by the former Minister for Home Affairs, nor were they shared with this Assembly during the in camera debate when I attempted to get this matter resolved at an early stage. What is his view on the fact that the former Chief Minister replied to an email from me saying that the legal basis of the suspension was absolutely assured?

will the former chief Ministers email to Mr Crowcroft stating the legal basis was assured be the next shredded or mislaid piece of evidence?

rico sorda said...

Anon at 9;16

Thank you for your comment.

There are days when I think why do I bother. Why do I bother doing this, putting myself in the firing line, taking the risks in trying to get the truth out when 99% of my parliament don't give a hoot about real truth, honesty and integrity.

Team Voice have been at this for years now. I started investigating this in 2008 - but I was junk in the early years - it was only by chance that I met up with Voiceforchildren and started to really get stuck in. I can't thank the Voice enough for keeping me going.

It really is mind blowing when you step back and look at what they have done to the Victims of Abuse and continue to do.


This story is staggering. This story has everything.


I will not stop until the Abuse Survivors I know turn round to me and say ok thats it.


Truth Honesty and Integrity is all I ask


These village hicks fail on all accounts


Make me sick

No Stopping

rs

rico sorda said...

s.crowcroft@gov.je

Never be afraid to email your representatives and as ask them what is going on. They serve you not the other way round

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

The Denver Gals will support you from here, to wherever this story leads you. We promise. Your work is more than worthy of our admiration.

The Denver Gals

rico sorda said...

Hi Denver Girls,

Cheers my dears.

New posting Wednesday.

Onwards we go

rs

Anonymous said...

I would just like to thank you Mr Sord for all your hard work,
Please keep It up..)

Rob Kent said...

Re "I would just like to thank you Mr Sord for all your hard work,"

The Sord is mightier than the Mouse, or something like that :)

Anonymous said...

I can't help wondering what the current Chief of Police Mike Bowron is making of all this?

Does he actually know what has been revealed on this and other blogs in recent weeks?

In effect one of his predecessors who was not willing for his integrity to be compromised, or his office to be politicised, was the target of a smear campaign in the media, and unlawful suspension by corrupt officials, all under the auspices of the Law Office.

So where exactly does this place Mike Bowron as he surveys what was hitherto hidden now in plain sight?

Is he to be another establishment puppet and stooge like Warcup?

Or is he his own man possessed of honour and integrity and of a similar calibre to Power?

Either way it will be "interesting" to see how this plays out.

Anonymous said...

Bowran knows exactly whats going on.

And as Syvret says. Bowran has three choices.
1/turns a blind eye to the curruption.

2/runs back home to England for personal/family reasons.
or

3/says enough is enough!?

Anonymous said...

I think it will be 2/runs back home to England for personal/family reasons. Then the Ogleygarch's will find another parsty cop.

Anonymous said...

There is no chance Bowron, Warcup, Lawless Offices, ILM, PB, TLC, BO, and everyone else involved or effected isn't reading this.

Considering how far they went to find information at Stuart's, and the work involved in accessing the police CO safe, they would have to be combing through the blogs with

The State Media may be the only exception - too lazy to read the investigative journalism of the Mighty Sord of Truth and Justice. (nod to Rob)

Anonymous said...

Re the comment that read...

``We still have a Home Affairs Minister sitting in situ who should be sacked. This is not my opinion, the evidence has exposed him as an incompetent, yet he just carries on and no one batters an eyelid. This is why I say that the States is not fit for purpose''.

But the States of Jersey depends for it's survival on the `contived' incompetence of men and women like IlM.

He, IlM and many other's like him, are a bullwork that enables the Jersey ship of State to stay afloat, when in fact, it should have sunk decades ago when Norman le Brocq demonstated how corrup it was!

But sadly then as now, the Constables, Law Office and Judiciary ensured that the democratic defficit remained intact! History repeating itself?

rico sorda said...

new posting up soon

rs

Anonymous said...

We did a bit of digging and spoke to Mark Temple of Romerils who told us that you left them years ago and when asked to comment on your blog he said the Firm did not endorse anything on it whatsoever. He also pointed out that your Facebook profile says ‘worked at’ and not working at which is true. Funny how you are using them on your profile though and they think it’s strange as well. Maybe they will contact you in the near future about it because they are not happy bunnies.

Anonymous said...

Not happy bunnies? Methinks not happy troll. Isn't that just so typical of the troll boy and his masters of Jersey's pretend democracy because you are on to them? If someone you worked for is not happy with what you are doing, it is because of fear, because in Jersey, people still rule through terror, threats and intimidation. They even use sick sock puppet trolls, who are unable to control their compulsion to threaten you. Maybe it is only that one troll.

Anonymous said...

@Anon at 07:52 pm

Dear god, is that all you can come up with?

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

March 27, 2012 7:52 PM

When you cannot win the war on truth, revert to rather odd methods of distraction - too late, distractions are a bit old hat.

------------------
Incidentally, this troll could spend years reading up on members of Linkedin LOL

Anonymous said...

see the next posting (not showing up in RSS feeds again)

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/03/operation-end-game-14-operation-blast.html