Sunday, April 1, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 16- OPERATION BLAST- GRAHAM POWER REPLIES TO ILM



FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE GRAHAM POWER








OPERATION ENDGAME 15 -




OPERATION BLAST




THE TIMELINE



GRAHAM POWERS RESPONSE TO SENATOR LE MARQUAND





1st Suspension 12th November 2008 - Home Affairs Minister was Andrew Lewis



2nd Suspension 5th March 2009 - Home Affairs Minister is Ian Le Marquand



3rd Suspension 31st July 2009 - Home Affairs Minister is Ian Le Marquand





June 11th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand writes to Graham Power regarding Operation Blast and informs him that there is now two more possible areas of complaint against him. He also informs Chief Executive Bill Ogley about the new issues regarding Operation Blast.







June 14th 2009 - Graham Power replies to the Home Affairs Ministers letter. In Mr Powers 4,000 word reply he explains to the Minister some of the matters regarding to Operation Blast. This 4,000 word reply was leaked by someone as the media got hold of it and published parts. The leak was not from Mr Power.




 I reproduce the response from former Chief of Police Graham Power to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand regarding files held at the States of Jersey Police under the operational name of     'OPERATION BLAST'



This was Senator Le Marquands and Acting Chief Officer David Warcups last chance of trying to pin something on Graham Power. The below was a quick response to the notification from Senator Le Marquand that he was thinking about launching another disciplinary investigation - even though the first one was already stuck in the mud.  I find it hard to get my heard around what Warcup & Le Marquand were trying to achieve. Like I have said before. Why didn't Warcup just do what he was paid to do? If Senator Le Marquand was operating with some form of sane judgement he would have put the whole Blast issue on hold instead of getting into security related issues and some matters of personal embarrassment to political colleagues. A rational approach would have been to take some time out, and along with David Warcup, find out exactly what was held, and how Mr Warcup was going to manage it. 



But this wasn't their agenda.



Mr Warcup was an experienced policeman why didn't he know what to do with sensitive information? 


Warcup & Le Marquand were working to tight deadlines. Working in tandem with the Law Office they were searching in increasing desperation for something, anything, which could justify a further suspension before the review of the second  suspension before the court. The hurried plan to act on trumped up "bullying" allegations had crashed and burned and resulted in Senator Le Marquand  to do a humiliating U-TURN. Also there was 'Nothing in the Safe'  it was getting desperate.



Operation Blast was their last chance. 




One more suspension before Graham Powers Judicial Review was what they were looking for.


June 11th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand writes to Graham Power regarding Operation Blast and informs him that there is now two more possible areas of complaint against him. He also informs Chief Executive Bill Ogley about the new issues regarding Operation Blast



June 14th 2009 - Graham Power replies to the Home Affairs Ministers letter. In Mr Powers 4,000 word reply he explains to the Minister some of the matters regarding to Operation Blast. This 4,000 word reply was leaked by someone as the media got hold of it and published parts. The leak was not from Mr Power.




Graham Powers  crime was investigating decades long child abuse. 



And he was going to pay for bringing such shame on Jersey.




DOCUMENT  PREPARED IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS.


This document is written in response to a letter and enclosure from the Minister for Home Affairs dated 11th June 2009.   It is provided in order to assist the Minister in coming to a fuller understanding of the issues raised in his letter of that date and for no other purpose.   I have at this time not been cautioned or served with any notice of investigation.   This information is provided without prejudice to any information which may be provided or any statement which may be made at a later date.


With some limited exceptions it has been prepared entirely from memory.   This is because at this time I have been denied access to notebooks, files, and other records which may assist me in providing a fuller account.   It is however true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


I have been asked to comment on two things.   The first is a matter which the Minister refers to as “Operation Blast.”   This is said to relate to files held by the police in respect of States Members.   The following is what I know about this matter.


To begin with, Jersey is, for most purposes, a sovereign State.   While in the U.K. responsibilities for matters of national security are split between a number of agencies, including the Police and the Security Service, in Jersey it is only the police who are in a position to address these matters locally.   That said, there is not a great deal to do, but some level of vigilance is nevertheless appropriate.   My first recollection of my mentioning the need to ensure that files were kept in relation to any States Member is in respect of two States Members who were subject to a degree of personal intimidation as a result of their public role.   I asked for files to be maintained to ensure that there was a continuation of corporate memory and in order that an effective response could be provided to any future incidents.   I said that the force should also be in a position to look for patterns and common themes in order to identify any individual or group which could pose a risk, or indications of any wider tendency to target elected representatives.   As best as I can recall I stated this requirement to a member of Operations Management.   I am not an intelligence practitioner and did not tell them how to achieve this task.   I just stated what was required.   I will now try to describe the two cases in more detail.


The first (or at least I think it was the first but I might have the chronological order wrong) related to the former Chief Minister Frank Walker.   At some stage he became the subject of a “hate campaign” in which rumours were spread to the media that he had been arrested for assault on his current wife, and that it had been covered up by the police.   This caused Mr Walker and his family some distress and I recall that he found it necessary to go public with his wife and give assurances that the rumours were false.  As I recall I spoke to Mr Walker repeatedly during this episode.     There were other incidents which happened around the same time.   I recall that there was a report that someone had attempted to impersonate Mr Walker and obtain details of his bank account.   At the same time someone was overprinting Jersey pound notes with the words “Frank Walker is a wife beater” and returning the notes to circulation.   All of these matters were discussed with the force management team.   It was pointed out that the defacement of currency and the spreading of rumours were not necessarily police matters, and it was questioned whether we should be involved.   There was another view, which I recall was led by the then Deputy, Mr Harper, that we should see these attacks on the Chief Minister as a national security issue and that we should take action and ensure that a full file was kept.   I saw this view as correct in the circumstances and asked Mr Harper to oversee the investigation of the matter.   He did so with his customary tenacity, and I recall that a suspect was subsequently identified and a file submitted to the Law Officers Department.   I do not recall what happened thereafter, but I do recall that from time to time I would check with the Chief Minister that things were “O.K.” and assure him that we regarded his safety as a priority. 

   

The second incident I remember related to the Planning Minister, Freddie Cohen, and began when he was a candidate for Senator.   Mr Cohen, who is of Jewish origin, spoke to me at some stage and described a series of incidents of racial abuse and intimidation which he had suffered.   These included incidents in which he had been personally confronted by strangers and the defacement of election posters and the like.   Again, this matter was discussed with colleagues but I do not recall who took the lead.   During these discussions it was pointed out that racial abuse was not illegal in Jersey and accordingly the police role was questioned.   I recall that I took a clear view that we had a duty to protect the constitutional process and issued a number of instructions intended to protect and reassure Mr Cohen.   I recall that these measures included the installation of a “panic alarm” at his home and other reassurance measures.   I also said that a complete file should be kept in relation to this issue to inform any future investigation.


I have other recollections regarding the keeping of files relating to States Members and these relate to the expressed wishes of the then Chief Minister (Mr Walker) and the Chief Executive that the integrity and reputation of the islands government should be protected and that they should not be “wrong footed” by supporting the appointment of a person to senior political office who subsequently turned out to have unacceptable “baggage.”   As I recall, this was a popular issue at the time.   I have a recollection of reports of an election meeting during which a member of the public asked questions of Senatorial candidates which produced responses which appeared to indicate that one third of the candidates had criminal convictions.   I saw the Chief Ministers request as understandable but difficult within the framework of how the police would normally manage information.   I recall that I went away and discussed the issue with colleagues.   I think that the conclusion which emerged was that while there could be no prospect of running checks on States Members and providing the results to the Chief Minister and Chief Executive, it did seem reasonable that the police should be in a position to be alert to any emerging issues which had implications for good governance, and consider whether a disclosure was appropriate.   The prospect of persons who had criminal connections, or who were vulnerable to blackmail, being appointed to a senior position such as Treasury or Home Affairs Minister was clearly a matter affecting the islands “national interest” and one in which the police could not simply be spectators.   I was conscious however that all of these discussions were taking place in the context of a local “policy vacuum” in relation to the whole subject of vetting.


I will not rehearse the full history of the attempts of myself and others to encourage Ministers to establish an island-wide policy relating to the vetting of sensitive and senior posts.   In attempting to take this agenda forward I was greatly assisted by the then Legal advisor to the Police (now Assistant Magistrate) Bridget Shaw and the then Minister for Home Affairs, Wendy Kinnard.   Together we conducted briefings, submitted papers, and invited visits from U.K. vetting agencies and others.   The last significant development that I remember is that the Home Affairs Department were tasked with producing a draft policy but I do not know what if anything emerged from this task.   What I know for sure is that up to the end of last year it was still possible for a person who would have failed the vetting procedure required to be a cook or a cleaner at Police Headquarters, to be appointed to a senior and influential position elsewhere in the public sector where no vetting arrangements were in place.   I can think of at least one significant example of when this has happened.   Against this background decisions had to be taken as to what role the police should play in “bridging the gap” and protecting the islands interests.   What I am absolutely and totally clear about is that both the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive were firm in their view that I should assist in protecting the integrity of government, and that they both should receive periodic confidential briefings at which they could be told in confidence of any issues which had a potential impact on the governance of the island.   The logic that such briefings could only take place on the basis of records held by the police is inescapable.


There was never going to be enough material for such briefings to be a “stand alone” item.   It was therefore agreed that any briefing of this nature should take place alongside the periodic Security Briefings which I conducted with the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive.   These briefings were my attempt to address another “policy vacuum” in the island.   The States Police have secure connections with agencies in the U.K. who provide secret briefing material.   I am one of a handful of officers vetted by the relevant agencies to view such material.   Most of what we received was not of local interest but some items fell within a category in respect of which I felt that some form of local political engagement was appropriate.   These included the general terrorist threat assessment, the threat to aviation interests, the threat to maritime interests, and the threat to financial centres.   In the absence of any structured local arrangements I asked the Chief Minister, the Chief Executive, the Home Affairs Minister, and the Assistant Home Affairs Minister, if they would consent to be subjected to a low level of vetting which I think is known as “Security Checked” level.   This would not enable them to have direct access to secret material, but they could be briefed on a need to know basis.   It was at these meetings that I said that I would disclose any relevant matters of concern regarding Ministers or potential Ministers.   All that said there was never much to tell.   I do however remember a couple of items which were discussed in this context.


The first that I remember concerned the Housing Minister, Senator **** ** ****.   This arose from information I received from the Harbourmaster, Howard Le Cornu.   He got in touch with me and asked for advice.   I think that there might also have been some email exchanges involved.   He told me of an incident in which the Minister had abused his position and refused to cooperate with a vehicle search while waiting to board a ferry at the harbour.   This caused an incident which distracted the security staff from their core role and potentially undermined the security regime.   I was told that “had it been anyone else” they would have been refused permission to board and ejected from the harbour area.   I said that in my view this is what should have happened.   I told Howard that I had access to the Chief Minister and Chief Executive on matters of this nature and sought his consent to mention it.   He agreed and I obtained papers and gave a briefing at the next security meeting.   The Chief Minister, who was not amused to be told of the incident, asked if he should “have a word” with the Minister.   I said that I understood that he had since apologised but asked for his support for the position that if anything of that nature occurred in future the Minister should be treated “no better and no worse” than any other passenger.   This was given.   I returned to H.Q. with the relevant papers and passed them to Operations for filing.   At some stage I will have fed back the outcome to Howard Le Cornu.


There is another occasion which I remember at which the background of Ministers was discussed, but the discussion was unexpected so no files were referred to and so I spoke from the memory of things I had been told by operational officers.   The occasion concerned was a discussion involving the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive regarding who should take on the responsibilities of Wendy Kinnard in respect of the abuse enquiry after she had declared a conflict of interest.   This took me by surprise because I had assumed that the Assistant Minister, Andrew Lewis, would take that role.   However, Senator Walker said that he thought that Lewis was a political lightweight and that his judgement could not be trusted.   He said that he wanted a senior serving member of the Council of Ministers to take responsibility for political oversight of the enquiry.   He asked my advice on who may be suitable but in particular, who was unsuitable.   We agreed that Ministers should be ruled out if they had relevant criminal convictions or a known background of intemperance or indiscretion.   We discussed Ministers in turn and I recall that the Chief Minister ruled out three serving Ministers on the above grounds.   He finally settled his choice on the then Treasury Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur who was not present at the time.   He said that he would contact the Senator and ask him to assume the responsibility.   I later learned that Andrew Lewis had been appointed to the role.


There are two other matters relevant to the Ministers enquiry neither of which it is appropriate to describe in detail at this time.   The first arose when a report of some kind concerning a States member, caused suspicion that something was “not quite right.”   This led, by a series of events, to the then Superintendent and head of operations, **** ***** making discreet enquiries which included sensitive contacts in the U.K.   These enquiries indicated that there appeared to be significant and previously unknown issues with the member which could cause complications and possible compromise at a future date.   Some of these details are highly sensitive and known to only a handful of people.   I said that they should be kept securely in a file relating to that member.   The issues concerned have never, to my knowledge, been disclosed to any other authority in the island, nor should they be disclosed without significant justification and assessment.  

 

I recall that there was another occasion when I was shown open source material, including a media photograph of a social event, which indicated that there was a relationship between a Minister and a former policewoman.   The former officer had left the force following a corruption investigation.   There had also been some issues regarding the recording and publication of sexually explicit material but I cannot remember the details.   Intelligence indicated that the former officer was a drug user and an associate of career criminals.   I thought it probable that the relationship would “blow over” and that the risk of compromise was slight.   I said that the information should be kept on file.   Not long afterwards I was told that the relationship had ended.


That is all that I can recall about files on States Members.   It might be that if I had access to more information I could recall more, but that is all that I can recall now.   There can be little doubt that some files were kept.   They were kept for legitimate reasons concerning the security of the island and the integrity of government, and fully acknowledged and supported by the Chief Minister of the time and by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers.   I set out the strategic requirement relating to what was required, and others with the relevant training and experience, attended to the detail.   I have never seen files on all States members and have certainly never heard of “Operation Blast.”   I do not think that I can assist with this matter any further at this time.


I have also been asked to comment on a recording of a telephone conversation.   From other documents in my possession it appears that this tape was discovered on 22nd January 2009.   


The Ministers letter dated 11th June 2009 is the first occasion on which it has been raised as an issue.   This is what I can remember about this matter.   I remember that some years ago, in the time when ***** **** was head of Operations, I became aware that some officers had devices which were capable of recording telephone conversations on their office telephones.   I think that ***** **** was one such officer but I am less sure about who the others were.   I did not see this in itself as a major issue.   It is widely known that the police service records incoming calls and many external lines have recording equipment permanently connected.   I asked about the reasons for the recordings and I was told that the main reason was the tendency of States members and others to telephone and seek to discuss current cases.   Officers stated that they were not particularly interested in recording what the States member said, but they wished to protect themselves from any allegation that they had disclosed anything improper.   Otherwise they might refuse to take the calls.   I could see the reasoning behind this but felt that, without becoming too bureaucratic, we might need to think about whether the process was right. 

  

It was about this time that the same issue came before the Corporate Management Board and there was a discussion chaired by the Chief Executive.   I wish I could remember how this came about, but doubtless there will be something in the minutes.   Someone, I do not think it was me, tabled some form of paper on the recording of phone calls.   Out of this emerged some practice guidelines which I took away and discussed with colleagues.   The guidelines seemed to say that recording was acceptable provided that proper notice was given.   One way of doing this would be to have a recorded message to all callers as happens in a call-centre.   I did not think that the delays this would involve were appropriate for an emergency service.   It was also said that notice should be given to staff that the recording of calls was in place.   Police staff knew this already but I recall that I asked for some form of notice to be included in the staff information pack, contracts, and the like and I think that this was done.   I also caused public notices to be published in the Jersey Evening Post, the telephone directory, and on the internet, giving notice that calls to the police would be recorded.   I think that when this was done the management team concluded that we were compliant with the guidelines.   Some time after this I decided to give one of the recording devices a try for myself.   I am not one for gadgets but I could see that it might prove useful at some time and I wanted to familiarise myself with it.   To begin with I recorded lots of things.   I did not listen to what I had recorded.   I just played the tape back for a bit to see that I had done it properly then wiped or destroyed the tape.   After a while I lost interest and the device lay unused.   One of the problems with it was that I had to remember to switch it on.   I sometimes forgot to do this, even when taking a call I might have wanted to record.


I have tried to think what might be on the tape in question.   The letter from the Minister does not provide enough information for me to be sure.   I think however that it might be a call I took from Senator Stuart Syvret.   If it is the call I am thinking of then it was about the then pending case of a death at the hospital which had been investigated by the police and in respect of which a person had either been charged or where charges had been recommended.   Senator Syvret was the former Health Minister and had maintained an interest in the case.   I think that for some reason I had “got wind” of the call and thought about whether it was wise for me to take it at all.   I decided that I would take it, in the interests of openness and transparency, and also to cover the outside possibility that he may have some new information to offer.   I was however concerned that I could be accused of saying something inappropriate and I think that it must have been this which persuaded me to switch on the tape.   I did not tell the Senator about the recording.   This was hardly necessary.   Senator Syvret believes that all of his phone calls are recorded all of the time, and often says so.   So far as I know he is wrong, but it is nevertheless what he believes.


I think that the gist of the Senators contribution to the conversation was that the criminal investigation had not got to the full facts, the internal investigation was flawed and that there had been “cover ups” within the health department.    I am fairly confident that this was the essence of what was  mentioned by the Senator.   This is not just because it is difficult to imagine a conversation with the Senator which did not touch upon “cover ups” but that this, and some conflict of interest in the internal investigation, appeared to be at the forefront of his concerns.  I also recall this aspect better than others because I subsequently saw a media report which appeared to confirm that there had indeed been issues with the initial internal investigation and this at once “rang a bell.”   I made some notes at the time and gave assurances that his concerns would be taken seriously.   I encouraged him to see a difference between what the police and others might believe had happened and what could be proved in a court of law.   The two are often not the same and we all had to accept that.   As soon as the conversation had ended I created an email message to **** ****who I think was then a Detective Inspector.   The email was an attempted summary of what was said.   I might have asked if I was telling him anything new and suggested that he ensure that anything relevant said by the Senator was followed-up.   I half-recall that at a later date **** gave me assurances that the conversation had not given rise to any new issues.   I was still nervous that the exchange might be misinterpreted and so I kept the tape in a safe place.   It is probable that I will have also made a notebook entry or similar note of these events.


That is all that I can remember about the tape.   If I am given more information then I might remember more but that is all that I can remember at this time.


Graham Power



So, there you have it. 



What would happen next?



Would Senator Le Marquand inform David Warcup to just sort it out?



Not a Chance



Rico Sorda



Team Voice



Part Time Investigative Journalist



60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the answers to several old questions about what really went on behind the oligarchy spin called Operation Blast, and the mysterious tape recording contained in the safe. As always, now we will have even more new questions.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

What on earth possessed Ian Le Marquand to go down this route? He has unnecessarily opened up a completely new can of worms. Notwithstanding the amount of Ministers etc. with a criminal record or similar, it's now come to light there is nothing of any relevance to prevent people with dubious dealings holding senior positions of power as the former Police Chief says.

“What I know for sure is that up to the end of last year it was still possible for a person who would have failed the vetting procedure required to be a cook or a cleaner at Police Headquarters, to be appointed to a senior and influential position elsewhere in the public sector where no vetting arrangements were in place.”

Then we get Frank Walker allegedly calling Andrew Lewis a "political lightweight". The Former housing Minister creating an incident by refusing to have his car searched by customs officers on the boat, the question has to be asked "why?"

We must also remember that Mr. Graham Power has submitted a 13,000 word document to Wiltshire concerning this so-called "Operation Blast" how long will it be before this document finds its way to the public domain?

Ian Le Marquand clearly has no idea of the potential damage he might have caused with his actions and only has himself to blame..............What a mess!

In the meantime have a look at THIS

Anonymous said...

Q ;The Former housing Minister creating an incident by refusing to have his car searched by customs officers on the boat, the question has to be asked "why?"

A; Boot full of cash no doubt!!Good ol El Tel

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

It may interest your readers to know that I have sought disclosure of the tape transcript in question from Attorney General Tim Le Cocq.

He has not replied, but I received a brief e-mail from his and William Bailhache's factotum, John Edmonds - which asserted that the transcript in question had, in fact, been disclosed to me amongst bundles of other material.

That could be the case.

But I have no recollection of ever seeing it.

Nor could I discover it by trawling the material.

I have since asked for proof that the transcript was, in fact, disclosed to me - and for a further copy to be supplied.

I have had no response from Le Cocq since.

I can't be certain what was in the transcript at this stage. I did have several conversations with Mr. Power about several different concerns I had - on different occasions. It is, as Mr. Power correctly says, no surprise at all that such telephone conversations were recorded. As I've remarked on previous occasions, any conversations I had with Mr. Power were entirely legitimate, from both of our perspectives.

But, in no way whatsoever, was the seizing of that tape and making a transcript of it, and then passing that transcript to other politicians, such as Ian Le Marquand, and William Bailhache Tim Le Cocq lawful.

And if the conversation in question - or for that matter any other conversation that was seized by the oligarhcy - was, in fact, the conversation concerning the death of the patient - then this is of the utmost gravity.

There was a cover-up.

So much so - and so brazen was it - that even the Jersey Evening Post exposed it (with assistance from me.)

Even the Jersey Evening Post.

At least two of the key individuals involved in the cover-up I was trying to expose - are personal friends of the then Attorney General William Bailhache.

The safe was cracked and the transcript made in late January 2009 - and that material was then supplied to the Attorney General. In the coming weeks Bailhache then ordered the raid and arrest and search without a search-warrant to be undertaken against me. That action occurred on the 6th April 2009.

Before then, I had written on several occasions to the Attorney General's department, pointing out that the locum should not be prosecuted - and that it was a corporate manslaughter, and that Health & Social Services as an organisation should be prosecuted.

I was also pointing out that a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice had - quite plainly - taken place.

Bailhache rejected my evidenced 'confession' - as the person who had been in charge at the time, and instead carried on with the wholly misdirected and diversionary prosecution of the locum. He likewise ignored the plain evidence of conspiracy to pervert justice.

Which placed him in an ruinous - indeed, hopeless - position.

And that even before you factor-in the fact that William Bailhache was a personal friend of at least two directly involved individuals, so should have had no involvement at all in the case.

But by this stage, I knew the truth of what had gone on - and I had the evidence.

William Bailhache's very survival depend upon crushing and discrediting me.

Who, in fact, was the main 'complainant', against me, and the supposed 'victim' - in who's name the massed police raid and related illegal actions were carried out?

It was William Bailhache.

Handy, eh? Being able to decide that you are a "victim" of a "crime" - by your and your brother's political opponent - and then being able to order the police action yourself - and then decided upon a prosecution.

And - of course - what better judge to hear the resultant show-trial - than another friend of one of the individuals directly involved in the cover-up?

The Jersey oligarchy:

Your life in their hands.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

This is fascinating information as usual, but I am confused about the hospital death. Was this connected to the nurse and the data protection prosecution, or was it a different matter?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

It was a different matter.

But in so many ways - not a different matter.

The public interest disclosure I made concerning the incompetent and prematurely halted investigation in to the suspected murders by a rogue male nurse was simply a fig-leaf used by Bailhache & co as an excuse for the illegal massed raid.

The corporate manslaughter concerns the far later accidental death of a patient (who happened to be a nurse)- and the resultant cover-up by the organisation.

It is the same issue in this sense; both cases represent disastrous - indeed fatal - clinical governance failures by Jersey's Health & Social Services department - and both cases represent exactly the same, old-boys'-network system of conflicted and politicised cover-ups and perversions and distortion of the prosecution and judicial apparatus.

Both cases represent the same issue - because that issue is public safety - or, rather, immense danger to vulnerable members of the public, when to conceal that danger suits the elites of the Jersey oligarhcy and their friends.

The issue at the heart of both cases - is the manifest, evidenced and overt corrupt failure of what passes for a prosecution function in Jersey.

Stuart

Zoompad said...

Why are some of the names blanked out?

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this Rico. Im lost for words regarding the actions of the Minister and Acting Chief of Police. It should not be left to you bloggers in exposing the truth..

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Stuart Gull from the States of Jersey police is giving evidence at the leverson enquiry today.

Do you know what this is about?

Will he try and nail Lenny when it was Gradwell who was caught leaking

Anonymous said...

Stewart Gull won't be asked anything about HDLG because it was before his time for crying out loud. At a guess it will be about his work before Jersey.

Anonymous said...

Before he came to Jersey, Stewart Gull was press relations officer for Suffolk Police during the Ipswich murders and it seems that he is just talking about that.

Anonymous said...

That's it? That was Operation Blast? A bunch of files that were initially requested by FRank Walker and some additional incident reports on the dubious behaviour of a tiny minority of States members - all of which had been supplied to the Police by other agencies! It's awful to think that ILM went to the States with this - and all the more concerning that he can simply get away with acting so totally irresponsibly. Well at least the truth is coming out. ILM is a walking liability and totally unelectable next time round. He's another one term pony that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

I find Mr Power's comments give a very interesting account of the some of the day to day activities of a Police Chief and the intelligent and thoughtful way he went about his work. At one level I am surprised that he was so much in contact with the Chief Minister, but on refelection can see that it is very important for the good policing of the island. It's also a good reminder of how vulnerable our politicians are, particularly with their easy accessibility to the public.

As regards ILM, the man with voluntary selective amnesia, and the finesse of a trussed pig in a sack, it's just more of the same.

With regard to Mr Power's jibe about Stuart always seeing cover ups, perhaps with the passage of time and the revelations that have emerged, he may be more inclined to share Stuart's views.

And it may be more than the happenchance that he describes, that led to him recording that particular phone call with Stuart and saving it in a locked safe. That case more than any other shows the hopeless entanglements that follow from the many hats the crown officers wear.

Anonymous said...

Yes but, Why was Mr. Power suspended?

rico sorda said...

Regarding Stuart Gull, as far as I know, he was at the enquiry today because of his role during the Ipswich murders and nothing else.

VFC raised this pint in an earlier comment and it is taken from Mr Powers memo


“What I know for sure is that up to the end of last year it was still possible for a person who would have failed the vetting procedure required to be a cook or a cleaner at Police Headquarters, to be appointed to a senior and influential position elsewhere in the public sector where no vetting arrangements were in place.”

This has been a major problem. Who or what is the procedure to vet politicians in Jersey? I know for a fact that they should have political/economic/demoracry test before becoming a politician I also believe this should be done before any criminal check and I don't think it should be multiple choice.

We just have individuals. They then become Ministers in charge of huge budgets. With this come great responsibility. Who is keeping a check on them? Remember the land rezoning allegation? how long do the police need?

This is where Wiltshire never seemed to grasp what they were dealing with. Unlike Dr. Brain who I have no doubt new exactly what he was dealing with.

Operation Blast

You can't make this up you really can't

rs

rico sorda said...

Yes but, Why was Mr. Power suspended?

This is very simple to answer. He, along with Lenny Harper and his dedicated team uncovered what these filthy bast*rds had been doing to defenceless children for decades in the Jersey Care Homes. It really is as simple as that. It brought the spotlight on Jersey. This wasn't Bergerac or Jersey Royals or even the Battle of Flowers. No, this was the battery and Sexual Abuse of Children in the care of the States of Jersey Jersey - and not excluding possible murder.

Oh what shame these two coppers had brought on poor defenceless Jersey. Who would step forward and defend this poor bastion of the feudal empire against these must heinous allegations. Oh, how the likes of feudal puppets Shenton, Perchard, Sean Power and others didn't care about the abused but ran to protect Jersey and seek favour from the barons.

This tale of Sexual Abuse has everything it really has. Two of those mentioned were Health and Assistant Health Minister in 2008 and undermining the investigation.

Unbelievable

But True

rs

rico sorda said...

"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."


This is what the Jersey Way is.

Defend the Island no matter how toxic the deprivation.

That is how the vast majority of our politicians work

rs

Anonymous said...

Re: The Roger Holland (Honourary police office and Vingtenier) affair and Ralph Mauger (Ex Centenier) allegations

Who vets the centeniers? If, as has been reported Mr Bailhache knew of a previous offence by Roger Holland then still allowed a person to hold a position of authority what is the point of checks?

If the police did not hold sensitive information on states members centeniers etc how and through which bodies have checks been conducted anyhow?

rico sorda said...

Re: The Roger Holland (Honourary police office and Vingtenier) affair and Ralph Mauger (Ex Centenier) allegations

Who vets the centeniers? If, as has been reported Mr Bailhache knew of a previous offence by Roger Holland then still allowed a person to hold a position of authority what is the point of checks?

If the police did not hold sensitive information on states members centeniers etc how and through which bodies have checks been conducted anyhow?


Right, now we are getting into it Anonymous. This is why ILM and Warcup in their desperation went with this. Where should sensitive information be kept?

Why don't people email ILM and asks him what he was thinking.

rs

rico sorda said...

Why are some of the names blanked out?

Hi Zoompad

I guess you know the answer.

Take care

rs

Anonymous said...

These series of postings have been first class. I would put this alongside you're BDO ALTO postings. You have really gotten inside the main issues. Congratulations. You must be an ispiration to every journalist in Jersey who has studied to do what you are doing.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"What I know for sure is that up to the end of last year it was still possible for a person who would have failed the vetting procedure required to be a cook or a cleaner at Police Headquarters, to be appointed to a senior and influential position elsewhere in the public sector where no vetting arrangements were in place.”

Simply put this seems to read that although a person might not be fit to clean the toilets at the police station, there is nothing stopping them becoming the Home Affairs Minister........Priceless!.......Just bl--dy priceless!

Anonymous said...

I think it was likely in the good old days with the Jersey Way, declarations and claims of undertaking a criminal record check was in truth the ''old boys network'' at work.

Centenier blah blah can vouch for so and so's son, father, brother, uncle or cousin etc to become a centenier in such and such a Parish which led to the situation we are in today and which will continue if things do not change.

Obviously mistakes can happen with checks and balances but we should not have to take the word of one old boy vouching for another or one person in a position of authority and power doing as he chooses.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A far more fundamental question - one which people seem to be missing - needs to be asked.

Of what value are "criminal" checks in Jersey - if so many serious and dangerous criminals - are never prosecuted in the first place?

There are, for example, child abusers in Jersey - who will never show up on a criminal background check - because they are not "officially" criminals - because they've never been charged or convicted of child abuse.

Even though the should have been.

Ditto so many individuals who have criminally conspired to pervert the course of justice.

Criminal "law" enforcement in Jersey is plainly a de facto party-political tool - as in any other corrupt, oppressive regime - so what value, then - relying upon "criminal" background checks?

Stuart

Póló said...

Isn't that a beautiful piece of writing by Graham Power. Some policeman. Full marks.

Anonymous said...

It amazes me that you base a lot of your posts and assumptions on just one side of the story and then get people like the ex senator, who is hardly of great character anymore after doing time, to carry on attacking his former work colleagues in his usual perpetual bitter way. I guess this explains why you are not getting anywhere with these posts and as every week goes by nothing changes because it doesn't. There is nothing investigative about re-publishing old transcripts and trying to allure people to believe them to be part of a massive scandal. It is just no substitute for hard evidence that can be reproduced for word wide circulation by the press. Your blog has been read by some journalists and they always came to the same conclusion, it just amounts to a conspiracy theory and nothing more and the fact that these blogs are confined to only blogs says it all.

rico sorda said...

Ok then Anonymous the comment section is all yours. Backup your words with evidence. Show the people that I have it wrong. I back my post up with evidence.

"There is nothing investigative about re-publishing old transcripts and trying to allure people to believe them to be part of a massive scandal."

And yet you must be clicking on every day and reading just assumptions. Why do you do it. I have allowed this comment. As you know it will only be the one unless you deliver me something decent.

All yours.

Evidence now. Nothing else will do.

rs

Zoompad said...

SuperTroll really has been very busy recently, hasn't he?

He's flitting here there and everywhere, leaving a trail of abusive and insulting comments everywhere he goes, just like snail slime. He's just left yet another one on my blog, telling me that I need to be sectioned for posting a newspaper article.

He must be bored. Or very nervous.

Lets hope he doesn't resort back to phoning people up and making death threats again.

Anonymous said...

Going by your time line I see that ILM suspends Mr Power again on the 31st July. Going by this I take it that ilm has more evidence against Mr Power? Don't tell me he suspends him on what you have published so far?

rico sorda said...

"To begin with, Jersey is, for most purposes, a sovereign State. While in the U.K. responsibilities for matters of national security are split between a number of agencies, including the Police and the Security Service, in Jersey it is only the police who are in a position to address these matters locally."

Where should files be kept in Jersey then? The Law Office? In the States Chamber? In ILM's Lunch Box? In the JEP? Or at a secure location in the SOJP?

This is just amazing it really is

rs

rico sorda said...

"These series of postings have been first class. I would put this alongside you're BDO ALTO postings. You have really gotten inside the main issues. Congratulations. You must be an ispiration to every journalist in Jersey who has studied to do what you are doing"

Thank you for your kind words. We have presenters in Jersey not Journalists. I believe there is a big difference.

rs

rico sorda said...

"Going by your time line I see that ILM suspends Mr Power again on the 31st July. Going by this I take it that ilm has more evidence against Mr Power? Don't tell me he suspends him on what you have published so far"

Ilm suspends Graham Power using nothing more than the Warcup letter rgarding Blast. Im not joking. He does a mirror image of the first suspension.

Lunacy, it is out of control Lunacy.

rs

Anonymous said...

Criminal "law" enforcement in Jersey is plainly a de facto party-political tool - as in any other corrupt, oppressive regime - so what value, then - relying upon "criminal" background checks?

comment above from Stuart Syvret post.

I guess the value depends ultimately on,whom requested it and for what purpose.

Self serving, self protecting or legitimate.

Global Citizen said...

"This has been a major problem. Who or what is the procedure to vet politicians in Jersey? I know for a fact that they should have political/economic/demoracry test before becoming a politician I also believe this should be done before any criminal check and I don't think it should be multiple choice."


I don't believe there is any problem with potential politicians having criminal records.

We live in a democracy, and if the public wish to vote criminals into office it should be the right of the public to do so.

The problem lies in potential politicians failing to declare, or deliberately hiding, criminal histories.

Some might say putting aside the fact of the individual having committed a crime, such an action tends to suggest a low level of integrity which itself reveals an unsuitability for that individual to be holding an office of public trust.

So it should be allowed for convicted criminals who have served their sentence to stand for election if they desire. But ONLY if upon standing they fully declare the nature of their conviction on a public record set up for the purpose.

If an individual is later found to have been elected into office without declaring their criminal history on the public record, they should immediately be removed from the position, made to repay whatever wage they have up to that point taken, and permanently banned from standing for election again.


I also certainly don't believe potential politicians should have to take a political test before becoming eligible for election.

What are you thinking Rico? That situation would tip the balance in favour of career politicians, not the average man in the street.

How many of our 51 elected representatives can you name who got into politics primarily because they are passionate about serving the ordinary people of this island, and seeing the wishes of the ordinary people of this island come first? Can you even reach double figures? If you could blog's like this wouldn't need to exist.

All that would be achieved by forcing a political exam upon electoral candidates would be a reduction of that number.

And I wonder what the "adminstrative fee" would be for those wishing to sit the exam....?

Anonymous said...

Re the moron who posted

`It amazes me that you base a lot of your posts and assumptions on just one side of the story and then get people like the ex senator, who is hardly of great character anymore after doing time, to carry on attacking his former work colleagues in his usual perpetual bitter way. I guess this explains why you are not getting anywhere with these posts and as every week goes by nothing changes because it doesn't`

But you are wrong moron Troll, havn't you read the papers lately! The States of Jersey have admitted Guilt and re paying up!!

Things do change thanks to people Like Rico, Stuart, VFC etc! Idf it wasn't for the evidence that they have published, do you think the A.s lickes like you would have settled!! You really are cretin!! Pleas crawl back under your stone!

moral_rightness said...

It is amazing how ILM does not consider for one moment that Warcup is conflicted!!

Even worse, ILM could not see why he should not have been considering Graham Power's suspension whilst Graham had lodged an official complaint against ILM, he did not consider himself conflicted.

Yet he was extremely quick to claim others were conflicted when it suited.

It is my opinion that not only was ILM conflicted, but he was biased without shame!.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Anonymous at April 3, 2012 3:51 AM says

It amazes me that you base a lot of your posts and assumptions on just one side of the story.

really.

It actually amazes me that - as your research - using Government documents, including Hansard, and your genuine written statements from retired senior police officers is easily verified, that anonymous really does not get it, checks it, or is most likely on the payroll for the dark side, or a five year old using his dads computer.

Boatyboy

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3.51 AM - "It amazes me that you base a lot of your posts and assumptions on just one side of the story"

Well I guess when the JEP, BBC, CTV and ILM fail to give the other side of the story let alone the truth, then someone has to.

I guess the truth hurts!.

Anonymous said...

1st suspension - Baseless
2nd suspension - Strung out the first.
3rd suspension - strung out the first and second suspension.

Blast

Final conclusion. Mr Power left with an unblemished record.

Zoompad said...

"What are you thinking Rico? That situation would tip the balance in favour of career politicians, not the average man in the street."

You're right, Global Citizen.

Most of us anti child abuse bloggers aren't politicians, or lawyers, we are just ordinary people, so we don't always get stuff right, and it's good when someone like you comes and points out stuff like that.

These blogs are making political debaters out of all of us, they are like a big round table and we are all learning new stuff all the time. Its a pity the governments dont look at us more positively, they employ think tanks at great expense to do what we are all doing for free.

Anonymous said...

"Final conclusion. Mr Power left with an unblemished record."

Amazing, isn't it? Mr Power admits he wasn't perfect - that all police departments and their COs make mistakes during complex investigations - but we have yet to see real proof of any significant mistakes on his part.

The lack of evidence of any grave errors on Mr Power's watch is all the more remarkable given the strange obsession of Warcup, ILM and the State Media for finding fault with almost every single thing Mr Power did.

Elle

Anonymous said...

Scary stuff

Anonymous said...

After the revelation in Jersey about Operation Blast - a covert police operation to create files on all States members - one Deputy says he won't be backing calls for a Committee of Inquiry.

Deputy Sean Power says States members should wait until Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has made his own inquiries into who set up Operation Blast and why.

Deputy Power says he's confident Senator Le Marquand will deal with the issue.

He also says he has absolute confidence in acting police chief David Warcup and in Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins.
21/6/2009

Well she bailed him out when he nicked data so guess he is right on that one...

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Sean Power based his confidence in the acting chief Mr Warcup on.

Had Deputy Power been working on any projects with David Warcup that would explain his declaration of absolute confidence in the acting police chief?

Anonymous said...

"There are two other matters relevant to the Ministers enquiry neither of which it is appropriate to describe in detail at this time. The first arose when a report of some kind concerning a States member, caused suspicion that something was “not quite right.” This led, by a series of events, to the then Superintendent and head of operations, **** ***** making discreet enquiries which included sensitive contacts in the U.K. These enquiries indicated that there appeared to be significant and previously unknown issues with the member which could cause complications and possible compromise at a future date. Some of these details are highly sensitive and known to only a handful of people. I said that they should be kept securely in a file relating to that member."

Hmmm. Now I wonder who that could be?

Anonymous said...

However, Senator Walker said that he thought that Lewis was a political lightweight and that his judgement could not be trusted. He said that he wanted a senior serving member of the Council of Ministers to take responsibility for political oversight of the enquiry. He asked my advice on who may be suitable but in particular, who was unsuitable. We agreed that Ministers should be ruled out if they had relevant criminal convictions or a known background of intemperance or indiscretion. We discussed Ministers in turn and I recall that the Chief Minister ruled out three serving Ministers on the above grounds. He finally settled his choice on the then Treasury Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur who was not present at the time. He said that he would contact the Senator and ask him to assume the responsibility. I later learned that Andrew Lewis had been appointed to the role.
There are two other matters relevant to the Ministers enquiry neither of which it is appropriate to describe in detail at this time. The first arose when a report of some kind concerning a States member, caused suspicion that something was “not quite right.” This led, by a series of events, to the then Superintendent and head of operations, **** ***** making discreet enquiries which included sensitive contacts in the U.K. These enquiries indicated that there appeared to be significant and previously unknown issues with the member which could cause complications and possible compromise at a future date. Some of these details are highly sensitive and known to only a handful of people. I said that they should be kept securely in a file relating to that member. The issues concerned have never, to my knowledge, been disclosed to any other authority in the island, nor should they be disclosed without significant justification and assessment

3 council of ministers members were ruled out for possible criminal convictions or a known background of intemperance or indiscretion.

Who was on the council of ministers in June 2009?

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur, Chief Minister

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf, Minister for Treasury and Resources

Senator T.J. Le Main, Minister for Housing

Deputy A.E. Pryke, Minister for Health and Social Services

Senator A.J.H. Maclean, Minister for Economic Development

Senator B.I. Le Marquand, Minister for Home Affairs

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade, Minister for Transport and Technical Services

Deputy R.C. Duhamel, Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment

Deputy J.G. Reed, Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

Deputy I.J. Gorst, Minister for Social Security

Anonymous said...

This could be the COM that is being referred to. 2005-2008

Chief Minister of Jersey: Senator Frank Walker

Treasury Minister: Senator Terry Le Sueur

Economic Development Minister: Senator Philip Ozouf

Home Affairs Minister: Deputy Andrew Lewis (replaced Senator Wendy Kinnard)

Health and Social Services Minister: Senator Ben Shenton (replaced Senator Stuart Syvret)

Education, Sport and Culture Minister: Senator Mike Vibert

Planning and Environment Minister: Senator Freddie Cohen

Housing Minister: Senator Terry Le Main

Social Security Minister: Senator Paul Routier

Transport and Technical Services Minister: Deputy Guy de Faye

rico sorda said...

I thought I would add a comment about the Pitmans.

I have nothing but admiration for taking their fight all the way to the Royal Court. It was a fight, in my opinion, they were destined to loose. Jersey is run as a club and has been for over 800 years.

One has to wonder at what advise they were being given. Taking on the Paedo protectors up at Five Oaks (The JEP) and Broadlands was a very brave move. It took courage. They have more courage than most.

Im not sure what this has cost them. I just hope that they will come through this and not be battered by legal fees.

Jersey is just nuts

what next


rs

Anonymous said...

It could work for or against you depending on ones own motives, if you were a member of COM and the Chief Minister on a need to know basis was aware of any convictions, intemperance or indescretion.

Anonymous said...

why were the Chief Minister and the Chief executive not asked to explain their part in the collection of information on States Members given it caused Mr Le Marquand serious concern.

Did the above mentioned receive the same letter as received by Mr Power or did he bring spin to the house and media intentionally.

Were states members ever informed of the full ciccumstances of the Chief Ministers involvement alongside the chief executive in the part they played?

''I have other recollections regarding the keeping of files relating to States Members and these relate to the expressed wishes of the then Chief Minister (Mr Walker) and the Chief Executive that the integrity and reputation of the islands government should be protected and that they should not be “wrong footed” by supporting the appointment of a person to senior political office who subsequently turned out to have unacceptable “baggage.” As I recall, this was a popular issue at the time. I have a recollection of reports of an election meeting during which a member of the public asked questions of Senatorial candidates which produced responses which appeared to indicate that one third of the candidates had criminal convictions. I saw the Chief Ministers request as understandable but difficult within the framework of how the police would normally manage information''

rico sorda said...

Smoke and Mirrors

Remember, ilm dropped all disciplinary action. This will be explained.

rs

Anonymous said...

Re: the Pitmans.

Whilst their decision to take their case to the Royal Court might have been admirable, lets not ignore the fact that having to pay both sides legal costs has the potential to finish their political careers. (If I understand the law re: bankrupts standing in the States)

This was a badly calculated gamble, and may ultimately rob the island of 2 more of its already diminished progressive representatives.

Until the progressives realise that the bigger cause of fighting the establishment on grounds of policy is so much more important than any personal crusades that always seem, one way or another, to end up in court, we will continue to fail.

We really do seem to have a worrying ability to take ourselves out of the game by not thinking through the long term implications of our short term actions.

Anonymous said...

At least it looks as if Stuart has finally learnt to hold his tongue when it comes to the behaviour of other progressives with whom he disagrees.

Finally somebody has realised that the bigger picture is more important than personal considerations.

Zoompad said...

Everyone who tries to help the Pindown abuse survivors gets clobbered, it's depressing.

I don't know what to say, except that I feel so tired of it all.

I got a reply from another FOI request that I made, asking about the support provision for the Staffordshire Pindown abuse survivors, and its just making me feel really upset reading the fob off replies, you get pushed from pillar to post all the time. I really do feel like a leper, because of my past.

I hope Trevor and Shona are ok.

Little caveman in the snow said...

I suppose until you chain yourself to the gates of number ten you won't be listened too.

Its a very big world and crying in the darkness is a world epidemic today.

The custodians of our lives and of our children have done their best to beat us down, yet were remain resolute.

Yes we get down and disappointed now and again however we are strong we were forced to be strong and what doesn't kill us makes even stronger.

We will never be so weak as when we were children and we will never have our strength tested to the point it has allready been.

I wish you well Zoompad and applaud your commitment and sincerity

Ian Evans said...

A HEARTY EPIC!!!

Anonymous said...

I will not rehearse the full history of the attempts of myself and others to encourage Ministers to establish an island-wide policy relating to the vetting of sensitive and senior posts. In attempting to take this agenda forward I was greatly assisted by the then Legal advisor to the Police (now Assistant Magistrate) Bridget Shaw and the then Minister for Home Affairs, Wendy Kinnard. Together we conducted briefings, submitted papers, and invited visits from U.K. vetting agencies and others. The last significant development that I remember is that the Home Affairs Department were tasked with producing a draft policy but I do not know what if anything emerged from this task.


Just like the Police Authority

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CF0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Flegalnews.findlaw.com%2Farticle%2F08H67rV7TZeom%3Fq%3DNew%2BYork%2BTimes%2BCompany&ei=btZ-T9XDF86v8QPn5Z3ABg&usg=AFQjCNEx7di7_YzDHgRMk3L4BBV7FLSIgw&sig2=_rlvXrP3VHAk2S5njgLa-A

This is the nub of the problem. They are talking about cost effectiveness.

Anonymous said...

Brian Moore formerly of Wiltshire constabulary now head of the UK border force. Not whiter than white?

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/9621072.Top_Wiltshire_cop_in_sex_case_inquiry/

What was the outcome of the IPCC investigation?