Monday, April 9, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 17- OPERATION BLAST- THE MINISTER ENTERS THE STATES




RICO SORDA - PART TIME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST - JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS












OPERATION END GAME 17





JUNE 16TH 2009




SENATOR LE MARQUAND BRINGS OPERATION BLAST TO THE STATES OF JERSEY.


I


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

In relation to the last question, it is precisely because of my concerns, in relation to what has happened, that I am bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly. [foot stamping] I will not be part of any cover-up in relation to anything that may be done which is wrong within any of the agencies with which I am involved. [foot stamping]



During the previous postings we have followed the trail of Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and Acting Chief of Police Dave Warcup's frantic attempts to try and pin the 3rd and final suspension on the Chief of Police Graham Power QPM.



We have have gone from allegations of bullying, safe cracking and finally file keeping. It really has been a trail of tragic sad proportions of the desperate.



This is how 'OPERATION BLAST' came to our attention.



IT HAD ALL THE STATES MEMBERS IN SHOCK



ATTENTION HAD BEEN DIVERTED



ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF GARHAM POWER



JUST COMING INTIME TO DROP A SHED LOAD OF ABUSE CASES



IT REALLY IS TRAGIC




In late March early April 2009 David Warcup informs the Solicitor General about the files.



April 4th 2009 - Solicitor General T.le Cocq informs Attorney General William Bailhache about the files.




April 30th 2009 - Solicitor General informs Ian Le Marquand about the files. Senator Le Marquand then writes to David Warcup for a report about the files




2nd June 2009 - David Warcup replies to Senator Le Marquand and informs him about the files. The Circle is complete. It really is as simple as that.




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 2009, 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.



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




Mr W Ogley

Chief Executive

Chief Ministers Department

4th Floor

Cyril Le Marquand House

St. Helier



11th June 2009



Dear Mr Ogley,



RE Disciplinary Code In Relation to the Chief Officer of Police


On 2nd June 2009 I received a written report from the Acting Chief Officer of Police in relation to "Operation Blast".


Mr Warcup has discovered that from February 2006 until the suspension of Mr Power that the Police Force was keeping and compiling secret files on each States Member which files contained a photograph of each member, a full criminal record search and other material from various sources including the States of Jersey Police operational/intelligence database. The files have been designated as secret and have apparently not been retained under the standard arrangements for the retention of intelligence data, indeed, apparently there are papers within the files which would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that this information was maintained outside the normal protocols for the management of information. Although the files were under the heading of Operation Blast they apparently did not relate to any particular investigation. Furthermore, the existence of the files is apparently know only to a small number of senior officers and does not appear to have been disseminated further.


I have come to the conclusion that I now have further potential complaint against Mr Power in relation to his involvement in and/ or responsibility for this matter. I am therefore, now writing to you about this in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police. Under that code , at your discretion, there may be a meeting between Mr Power and I to determine the requirement for the complaint to be pursued . I would be very happy to meet with Mr Power, should he so wish, in order to hear his side of the matter Alternatively, he may wish to write to me about this. If I decide to pursue the complaint then I will write to you asking for a preliminary investigation to be undertaken in accordance with the paragraph 2.1.2 of the code.


Any such disciplinary investigation would probably need to emcompass;


a) The circumstances in which Operation Blast was started


b) The nature of the information Kept


c) The purpose for which the information was kept


d) Whether Operation Blast was or was not a proper police operation


e) Who was responsible for the setting up of the Operation


f) Who knew about and contributed to the compiling of the files


g) The degree of responsibility of Mr Power for this matter.



I had previously been made aware by Mr Warcup of the existence, in Mr Powers office, of tape recordings of various telephone conversations of Mr Power, including a lengthy conversation with a States Member who was not the Home Affairs Minister of the time.


It appears to me that I shall also need to make a decision as to whether I should proceed with this further complaint and that the general considerations set out above in relation to a decision as to whether to do so will equally apply. Any request for an investigation might need to encompass issues which parallel a)to e)

above although the first issue could be as to whether the individuals involved had consented to the taping of their conversations with Mr Power.


For the sake of completeness, I would mention that if I decide to proceed with a further complaint or complaints then I will need to meet Mr Power, in any event, in order to decide whether or not he should be suspended from office in relation to any of these further matters. I envisage that any such further meeting in relation to possible suspension would follow the pattern previously established . In the meantime, I have again reviewed the existing suspension of Mr Power and have found no material change of circumstance apart from these new issues which, of course, do not operate in his favour


I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Power and await your response to these matters.


Yours Sincerely


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





Home Affairs Department

11 Royal Square


Mr G Power

***** *****

** **** ****

****** **

St Helier



11th June 2009


Dear Mr Power



Operation Blast


I am now enclosing a copy of a letter I have written today to Mr Ogley. You will see from this that there are now two possible areas of complaint which I may have against you. You may wish to contact Mr Ogley or myself in relation to these matters.


You will also see that I have again reviewed your current suspension and decided that it should continue. You will also see that if I decided to proceed with any of these possible new complaints then there will be a further meeting between us at which I can hear either you or your representative with a view to making a decision as to whether or not you should also be suspended by virtue of these new matters.


Yours Sincerely



Ian Le Marquand



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




JUNE 16TH 2009



STATES OF JERSEY



STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS - SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND



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. I am able to reveal the following information: (1) In February 2006 the States of Jersey Police set up files under the name of “Operation Blast” which contained sections on every elected Member of the States of Jersey, that is on every Senator, Connétable and Deputy. (2) These files do not appear to relate to any actual police investigation. Each section on an individual Member contained a photograph and other generally available information on the Member. It also contained a full criminal record search on each Member. Some of the sections contained other information on a Member from a variety of different sources, including local police intelligence and national police intelligence and sheets detailing the checks that had been carried out in respect of each individual. The existence and general contents of the files have been independently confirmed to me by the Solicitor General acting upon my request. (3) The files were kept securely within the Special Branch Office. Between February 2006 and November 2008 the files were updated from time to time. The files were not retained under standard arrangements for the retention of intelligence data. Indeed, there are papers within the files which would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that this information was maintained outside the normal protocols for the management of information. Various members of the police senior management were aware of the existence of the files and directed certain information to be retained therein. The existence of the files was known only to a very small number of officers and does not appear to have been disseminated further. (4) I am not aware of the motivation of the setting up and retention of these files but I am very seriously concerned about their existence. (5) No new sections were set up after the October/November 2008 elections and no information was added to the files after November 2008. Existing or former Members of the States who are concerned by the contents of this statement may wish to contact the Acting Chief Officer of Police, Mr. David Warcup, who has agreed to meet individually with them, should they so wish, in order to discuss the contents of their section of the files. However, I must inform Members that Mr. Warcup will not be able to reveal to them any items which cannot be properly disclosed outside of the police intelligence community. I will, of course, answer questions which Members may have but the answers which I can give will be limited because of possible police disciplinary issues which may arise from this discovery.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any Member have any questions?

6.1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Absolutely. The Minister says that Mr. Warcup will not be able to reveal to them any items which cannot be properly disclosed: well, would the Minister explain why, when this is obviously personal information about Members, why this cannot be disclosed under freedom of information principles? [Approbation]

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The fact is that there is intelligence information on individuals which comes to the attention of the police very often via national links and that information cannot be disclosed. It is simply information of such a confidential nature that it would prejudice our ability to access information from the national links. That is the reality of matters. I have disclosed this matter to Members but the fact is there always will be certain information held on individuals.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

But this is information about, perhaps, me. Really, am I not entitled to know what is on record about myself? [Approbation]

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This would be matters which came from a particular confidential source. You must understand I am talking generally here. The concerns in relation to this matter are because matters were grouped together in relation to States Members as States Members but there will always be confidential material held by the police in relation to individual people and the confidentiality of that must be maintained.

6.1.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Regardless of the other questions that may arise, the question I have is in relation to who, if the Minister knows, authorised the setting up of Operation Blast and, from a political level, if anybody? If nobody politically had the authority to set this up, exactly what authority does the Minister have in respect of taking it apart? If Members of the States of Jersey are collectively analysed and kept on watch by the States of Jersey, what confidence does that give to future people in this community who might wish to put themselves forward for office, knowing that no matter what their backgrounds or their histories… I for one had one that was involved with international intelligence, I am not confident that some of those details are now secure. What confidence do members in this community have of putting themselves forward for public office, knowing that the States Assembly, not the Judges, not the Jurats, not the unelected Members, but the elected Members will have files kept on them and looked at and not shared with themselves?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

In relation to the last question, it is precisely because of my concerns, in relation to what has happened, that I am bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly. [Approbation] I will not be part of any cover-up in relation to anything that may be done which is wrong within any of the agencies with which I am involved. [Approbation]

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I ask the Minister in particular then to address the first part? I appreciate today, I am sure as Members do, his candid statement but can I ask if he is aware as to what political authority was involved with setting up this operation, if any?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am not aware of that but I have to say that even if there were political authority in relation to this matter, from one of my predecessors, I would consider that improper.

6.1.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I thank the Minister for bringing this to Members’ attention. My question is was this Operation Blast internal to Jersey or was it requested by an organisation such as the Home Office and do people outside of the Island have access to this information?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

You must understand that the information which I have is limited but, as far as I can see, this is purely an internal operation.

6.1.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I must admit I am almost speechless… absolute disgust. I have to express... Where are we; Zimbabwe or Jersey? I want to know where this was set up, and I know it is not this Minister’s fault and I applaud him for bringing this to our attention, but this House really must have that information and I want to know where it was initiated from, who is controlling it and if Senator Syvret is going to stand up and tell us: “I told you so”, I for one will be nodding.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Members must understand that this may now lead to a further disciplinary matter and that I am in the invidious position in relation to any such matter, of being the person who has to decide. I therefore have to refrain from expressing a clear view on facts as they may relate to any individual. However, my understanding is that this was set up with the knowledge of the senior management team of the States of Jersey Police.

6.1.5 Senator S. Syvret:

The statement says that some of the sections contained other information on a Member from a variety of different sources, including local police intelligence and national police intelligence. I am assuming that is me because of my work with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who are classified as subversive organisations by MI5 and Special Branch. My question is twofold; could the Minister inform us and if not, could he find this out, did any of the previous Law Officers know - previous Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals and so on - of this activity? Secondly, could he say that the files which he tells us we cannot necessarily view in total would be disclosable or discoverable as part of a civil legal action?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The reference to a Member was not intended to be to any individual Member but in relation to a number of different Members, so it is … I am afraid I am now forgetting what the latter questions were.

Senator S. Syvret:

Did any of the previous Law Officers know about this operation, for example, the present Attorney General, the former Solicitor General; and, secondly, does the Minister accept that this material which he says we would not be able to look at or have copies of, would in the main be discoverable or disclosable as part of a legal action?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The answer to the first question about the involvement of the Law Officers, as far as I am aware, they had no involvement. I certainly have been in correspondence with one of the current Law Officers to seek advice on this matter and if they had I would have expected them to have told me that. In relation to other matters, I am afraid there is this category of highly sensitive data which would not be disclosable in general and, whether it would be disclosable in relation to a specific criminal matter, I am not sure, but I doubt that.

6.1.6 Senator S. Syvret:

A supplementary, if I may just follow up on that? Would that be on crucial, secured, important information of national security relevance, for example, whether I had registered my car address or not?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, the sort of category of information I am talking about is highly sensitive material, as would normally be related to national security or services of that sort of nature but it could be material relating also to suspicions of serious crime.

6.1.7 The Deputy of St. John:

In my time in policing there were files held at Police Headquarters for the antecedence of persons and that used to extend into their families. This being obviously a similar type of file on each one of the Members, can you confirm whether or not they extend into the Members’ families please?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have no information on that.

6.1.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The fact that the files on States Members do not appear to relate to any actual police investigation smacks very much of a police state [Approbation] such as that found in East Germany where the Stasi had files on all citizens. The fact that there was no actual police investigation, on what basis do the police hold these files and why can States Members not have access to the files? You can understand, under the Data Protection Law, that they would not have information if it contained actual police investigations and so on - wrongdoing - but any other information should be accessible to all States Members. Would the Minister please answer the question?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Unfortunately that is not so, for the reasons I have said. The purpose of people going to see Mr. Warcup would be so that he could disclose to them everything that he could properly disclose and in a confidential way. I am not here in any way to defend what has happened.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

If I could just follow up on that; I thank the Minister for his statement today and exposing this but, again, it comes down to what information are the authorities allowed to have on individuals. Now, we know intelligence information in terms of national security; we fully understand that. We understand information in terms of criminal activity, however, many files are kept on people which include innuendo, suspicions, reports and so on and this information, whether it be for States Members or the public at large, should be accessible, and I would like to say that I think we should call for a committee of inquiry into this whole business so that not only States Members but the Island can be reassured of what is going on. [Approbation]

6.1.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

I do not believe we have had an answer to the previous question asked by Senator Syvret. It states here: “The existence of files were known only to a very small number of officers.” I presume that means police officers; does it mean Law Officers as well? Secondly, could he indicate how this set of information - these files - came to light? Was it to do with investigations internally, taken by Members of the force who happen to be in place?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have already given an answer as well as I am able to in relation to the Law Officers, which is, as far as I am aware, they had no involvement in this matter but there are questions that need to be asked in relation to this. Again, I am sorry, I have lost the second part of the question.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Can he indicate how these files came to light? Was it as a result of activities by police officers who happened to be …?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, they came to light because Special Branch officers decided, after a certain amount of time had gone by from the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police, that they ought to tell the Acting Chief about it.

6.1.10 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Building on Deputy Le Claire’s question, can the Minister confirm that he is taking every step to bring an end to this practice and, where it is possible, to expunge the relevant files?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Absolutely. When I was first told about this, clearly, the first thing that I said in response was: “Are we still doing this?” to which the answer was: “No”, matters having stopped in November; and the second question I asked was: “Is there anything more that is currently being investigated?” because I suspected there might be similar files on other people. That is what was being investigated. Obviously the existing files will need to be retained for evidential purposes but I can assure Members that no use is going to be made of them although there may be items of information held in them which can be properly transferred to the normal methods of keeping information.

6.1.11 Deputy S. Power:

The Minister said that the existence of the files were known to only a very small number of officers and does not appear to have been disseminated further. My queries are did previous senior officers of the States of Jersey Police have access to this data? Is he 100 per cent certain that the data was not copied and does it apply to new Members of the States that have been elected since November 2008?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

It does not apply to new Members of the States; that is why I indicated that. I cannot know whether or not information has been copied and, again, I am sorry, I have lost the first part of the question.

Deputy S. Power:

Previous senior members of the States of Jersey Police perhaps have access to this data.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am trying to avoid referring to individuals but I believe that there are people who were formerly senior members who would have had access.

6.1.12 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:

Just before I start or ask the Minister a question, is it worthwhile sensing out the mood of the House to lift Standing Orders in terms of the time limit to the questions in this House? [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff:

I absolutely understand why Members would wish to do that but I fear my hands are tied. The ruling which the Bailiff made said it was not possible to lift a part of a Standing Order. Now, 68(3) is a part; if you lift the 10 minutes the whole thing falls away so I fear it is not possible. I do not know how much longer we have got, Greffier, but I will disallow the time we have just spent discussing this. I fear then this is the last question.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

On a point of order, could you advise which Standing Order we are referring to?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, 68(3).

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:

I am sorry Sir, may I just intervene? The Constable of St. Lawrence has been flashing a light for a number of minutes behind me, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

So have many.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

No, Sir, just that I meant I have been masking and I think I may be responsible.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I see. I have been writing down all the Members as I have seen them and I have tried to be as fair as possible but I am afraid we are on to the last one.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Okay, well, 2 questions very quickly. Could the Minister just confirm whether it is just elected States Members this applies to or to any of the non-elected Members of the States or any other Members for example of the judiciary, et cetera? Also, could the Minister also just inquire whether this has ever been practised in the past from time to time?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

As far as I am aware it only applies to elected Members, hence why I talked about the 3 classes and this appears to have been set up, as I said in the statement, first in February 2006.

The Deputy Bailiff:

As I say, I am sorry, Members but we cannot go on …

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Can I just make a request? I am sure the Chairman of P.P.C. will have been taking this on board but I do think we are the masters of our own House, or we should be. [Approbation] To me it seems ridiculous that we have got a law that restricts us from doing the things we should be doing so could I request the P.P.C. look into this with a view to maybe amending that Article so, when there are occasions like this, we can lift Standing Orders without impeaching or whatever… of the former Bailiff? Thank you.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, did you say we were acting under Standing Order 63, because this is 68?

The Deputy Bailiff:

No; 68(3).

Deputy J.A. Martin:

But the Bailiff never ruled on 68; it was 63 that he ruled on. It is a completely different Standing Order.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That is absolutely right Deputy, but what he ruled was that you cannot lift a part of a Standing Order and that was his ruling. It was in the context of the other one but he having given that ruling, I do not think it is open to any other presiding officer to say that that ruling was wrong. Therefore it is a matter, Deputy, if Members wish to change that which of course they are free to do, it would be a matter for P.P.C. to make any amendments.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Could I make a second statement, Sir, thus allowing the clock to start again on questions? [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, you cannot repeat the same statement, I do not think.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

This one will be a lot shorter, Sir. [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

I do repeat; I understand Members’ sentiments on this but we have to abide by our rules.

The Deputy of St. John:

Could I, on behalf of the Chamber, thank the Senator for having brought this to our attention and hopefully at some time in the not too distant future a report and proposition can be brought so we can take it further? I would like to thank him.

Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:

Just a suggestion that might be a way forward; if we cannot lift part of Standing Orders, could we lift the whole of Standing Orders until the adjournment and then go back to Standing Orders when we re-adjourn?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You cannot lift the whole of Standing Orders. [Laughter]

Deputy M. Tadier:

In a similar vein to Deputy Green, but what would happen if we just lift the whole of that particular Standing Order?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Then there is no provision for making statements at all so we simply do not have any provision dealing with it. I am sorry, I did consider this. I have every sympathy with Members’ requests. If I felt I could go with Members I would, but I do not feel able to and the Chair, like anyone else, must stick by the rules.

Senator S. Syvret:

A point of order on a separate matter; another Member mentioned the possibility of having a committee of inquiry into this issue and another way forward for the Assembly might even be an in committee debate on the matter. I would like to ask where things stand in terms of the States getting into this territory and indeed perhaps possibly agreeing to set up a committee of inquiry, given that I am under criminal investigation of a quite dramatic nature myself, as well documented, and part of my case is that evidence discovered and used against me has been obtained unlawfully and it seems to me that a committee of inquiry would in fact go into that territory, so where does that leave the Assembly and its powers, if it were the will of the House to have such an inquiry?

Deputy S. Power:

With all due respect to Senator Syvret, there are 53 Members in this Assembly and it applies to all 53 of us. He is talking about himself again.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I do not think we can take matters any further at the moment. The Minister has made a statement. He says it is being looked into and it is really for Members, if they wish to see what further steps can be taken later, to no doubt either bring in a proposition or making further inquiries of the Minister as things develop.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

A clarification; is this action on the part of the police not an attack on parliamentary privilege and should it not be investigated on that basis? So, could you please explain to us how… well, in fact, in that case I am asking the Chairman of the P.P.C. to obviously immediately start investigating this.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Very well, it is clearly a matter for the P.P.C. or anyone else to take such further steps as they think best in the light of this statement and the information which it has disclosed.

RICO SORDA


Team Voice


Part Time Investigative Journalist


80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
TAKE THE FIGHT TO WHERE IT BELONGS!!

The Coronation Oath is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath. Here is the Oath Elizabeth II swore -

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Six British Monarchs have been deposed in one form or another, having been deselected for their failure to maintain the rights and liberties of the People. They were Ethelred, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I (executed), James II and Edward VIII.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Oh what an evidenced lair Senator Le Marquand is! And to think this man sits in judgement of other's! Has he no shame?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
How can that man, ILM, even show up in public after all this. Wow. How can any one keep a straight face when listening to the man spout his lies. It is now over for him, right?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Le Marquand made certain that every States member present and asking questions would be under the completely false impression that Graham Power had instigated some sinister Naziesque type of dossier system. The term"liar" is not strong enough for ILM.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
This is truly shocking.

Ian Le Marquand unconscionably scheming, manipulating and massaging political and public opinion against Graham Power based upon a fabricated tissue of half truths, innuendos and lies. 

How clearly the truth is now emerging.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive".

Thanks to you Rico and the other bloggers for continuing to expose and untangle this inglorious web of deception.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, someone from the UK with unimpeachable integrity will be authorised by the UK Government to scrutinise this blatant corruption and obvious collusion at the highest levels of Jersey States and the Law Office.

To misquote the bard, "Something is rotten in the State of Jersey"

"The truth will out."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"How can that man, ILM, even show up in public after all this. Wow. How can any one keep a straight face when listening to the man spout his lies. It is now over for him, right?"

In Jersey!!!!!!

OBE more like

rico sorda said...

The files were not retained under standard arrangements for the retention of intelligence data. Indeed, there are papers within the files which would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that this information was maintained outside the normal protocols for the management of information"

What is the Senator saying here? I don't understand this part of the Statement. Is he trying to suggest something sinister is going on?

This is what David Warcup said in his letter;

"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."

So, is ILM trying the old sex it up routine ?

rs

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Le Marquand, a man who every Sunday and Holy day stands shoulder to shoulder with many of the the Islands Sharleton self proclaimed Christians. Whilst in thier hearts, there is nothing but wickedness and evil!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
My oh my did it send panic through the ranks. It worked a treat didn't it. Diversion tactic complete. And, like you have pointed out previously, the files are still sitting down the SOJP in Special Branch just like they were before this rubbish started. How much did they pay Wiltshire to investigate this? David Warcup failed not just Graham Power, the SOJP, the people of Jersey he failed himself by allowing himself to be corrupted..

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
For years ILM defrauded his victims in 'court' through the most outrageous dishonesty.

His lies and corruption have been exposed by the sord, well done Rico.

ILM, a lifetime of lies and criminal behaviour

cyril

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Senator Le Marquand says:

"No, they came to light because Special Branch officers decided, after a certain amount of time had gone by from the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police, that they ought to tell the Acting Chief about it"

Who could these Special Branch officers be?

Could they possibly be Burmingham & Bonne? 

The two UK offices that were present at the breaking of Graham Power's Police Headquaters secure safe?!

Anonymous said...

No one should be naive enough to think Jersey corruption alone will be enough to result in UK oversight but this could become the ultimate untenable Crown appointee humiliation. They won't be able to deny that P.B. and other appointees knowingly stood by and allowed ILM to continue down this farcical path. ILM digs himself in deeper every week when he blusters and blows smoke that no longer covers where its coming from. We know there are some in the City of London who read these blogs and the internet does reach those on the dark side. No doubt they are becoming rattled by this. Who would wager that ILM can have any future left in public life? But will ever sing? Perhaps.

Anonymous said...

Rico

This blog is too important to be missed and you are up against a mysterious Blogger problem which does not automatically show your blog's updates on other sites. 

Please work around that by posting the link to your most current update on ALL the other blogs, including Crapaudverload, which has actually blogged about the updating problem. 

Regular readers will continue to seek out your current postings, but it is increasingly important that Jersey bloggers take steps to bring this story to the attention of potential new readers. They must be made aware of your ongoing investigative journalism.

Anonymous said...

Which part of "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."

did ILM not understand. He failed to provide the States with a balance view, because his statement ignored everything that Graham Power had stated, why???

Anonymous said...

Special Branch officers decided, after a certain amount of time had gone by from the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police, that they ought to tell the Acting Chief about it.

Anyone want to hazzard a guess of the special Branch officers?

ex- Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...
Andre Bonjour?

Anonymous said...

Why didn't ilm's statement mention the tape recordings in Graham Powers safe? My guess is that it would have caused people to ask some awkward questions about how they got the recording in the first place. Ilm is nothing than a spineless puppet for his real masters in the Law Office.

Anonymous said...

If we go back to the Paul Le Claire scandal, the one where he overheard Frank Walker in the members room insisting that he wanted Harper out, we get a reminder of the political motivations to close the investigation down at that time. 

It was this kind of establishment thinking that gave rise to ILM's farcical behaviour since he became Minister for Home Affairs. And now that we can all read for ourselves the truth of the matter behind the spurious operation blast and the way it was baldly delivered to States members we get to see how this rotten, lying and deceiptful behaviour has damaged the credibility of our government. 

Ian Le Marquand I hope you take the time to read this and I hope you feel a huge sense of shame. Your actions are cowardly and dishonest in the extreme. You blatently tried to ruin a well respected Police Officer's career and for what exactly? Because he had the temerity to do try and do his job by bringing to justice child abusers. 

Senator Le Marquand you are weak and feeble minded invididual who has sadly been shown to have not one ounce of decency. 

RESIGN!!!!!!!

Rob Kent said...

It is amazing that ILM could address the States on such a serious issue and not even mention Graham Power's explanation of what occurred.

Also interesting is the slippage and Chinese whispers that happens between Warcup's letter to ILM (which is already tendentious and incriminatory) and ILM's letter to Ogley.

Warcup says:

"It would appear that between February 2006 and November 2008, files were updated albeit on an infrequent basis."

ILM says:

"Mr Warcup has discovered that from February 2006 until the suspension of Mr Power that the Police Force was keeping and compiling secret files on each States Member..."

What was infrequent is converted into a persistent and systematic activity.

But then ILM receives Power's letter which fully explains what actually happened (not Warcup's shady, Iago-like interpretation). We discover that Frank Walker needed to replace Wendy Kinnard on the abuse inquiry and he and Power agreed that, "... Ministers should be ruled out if they had relevant criminal convictions or a known background of intemperance or indiscretion." 

To rule out inappropriate candidates, they had to carry out criminal checks - Frank Walker agreed. So we have a full and reasonable explanation of the existence of these files; that 'Blast' was not an Operation as such, but the name given to a filing a system; and that the files were kept separate from normal police files because of their highly sensitive nature - they relate to ministers of State.

And yet, given this full and reasonable explanation, ILM concealed all of this from the House and deliberately misled them, spinning them a completely different scenario. You might conclude that he only wanted to publish 'facts' and statements that undermined the abuse inquiry and its leading actors. You might also conclude that he wanted to undermine the support for Harper and Power in the States by inciting outrage that members had been spied on in a Stasi-like manner.

In the UK Parliament, a minister has to resign if he is found to have deliberately misled the house.

PS Assuming that all of these files were not destroyed by Warcup, where are they being kept now? In the normal filing cabinets? Or locked up in the Special Branch safe? Have they been updated since, I wonder? Maybe somebody could ask that of ILM the next time the House sits.

rico sorda said...

Le Marquand says;

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The fact is that there is intelligence information on individuals which comes to the attention of the police very often via national links and that information cannot be disclosed. It is simply information of such a confidential nature that it would prejudice our ability to access information from the national links. That is the reality of matters. I have disclosed this matter to Members but the fact is there always will be certain information held on individuals.

"That is the reality of matters. I have disclosed this matter to Members but the fact is there always will be certain information held on individuals."

So what is the Minister actually doing? In the space of 14 days he is marching into the States Chamber telling people about files that might be held in Special Branch. Im sure MI5 would love this bloke as their minister. 

It was just about shocking the States Members and boy did it work. 

But it will and does get worse

rs

rico sorda said...

Hi Rob,



I agree with your comment. What I wanted to show with these postings is how we got into this ridiculous situation where Graham Power received a record breaking 3 separate suspensions in the space of 8 months all because he exposed the decades of Child Abuse.

The old boy net work with their lackeys then tried to bury it and in doing so displayed all the actions that caused the concealment in the first place.

Outrageous behaviour. Oh how we must must protect the reputation of Jersey. They are only protecting the money. They don't care about the Abused they don't even care about the working class.What the Child Abuse investigation did do was fully expose the toxic underbelly of this beautiful little Island.

It can't carry on

rs

Anonymous said...

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I ask the Minister in particular then to address the first part? I appreciate today, I am sure as Members do, his candid statement but can I ask if he is aware as to what political authority was involved with setting up this operation, if any?



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:



I am not aware of that but I have to say that even if there were political authority in relation to this matter, from one of my predecessors, I would consider that improper.

Anonymous said...

Senator Le Marquand says:

"I will not be part of any cover-up in relation to anything that may be done which is wrong within any of the agencies with which I am involved"

Is he having a larf??!!

rico sorda said...

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:



Can I ask the Minister in particular then to address the first part? I appreciate today, I am sure as Members do, his candid statement but can I ask if he is aware as to what political authority was involved with setting up this operation, if any?



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:



I am not aware of that but I have to say that even if there were political authority in relation to this matter, from one of my predecessors, I would consider that improper.




But he did have Graham Powers memo. Why didn't he use some of that information?

Anonymous said...

ILM 
'' I therefore have to refrain from expressing a clear view on facts as they may relate to any individual. However, my understanding is that this was set up with the knowledge of the senior management team of the States of Jersey Police.''

Could this mean it was set up politically? With senior management team of States of Jersey Police aware of the situation?

Anonymous said...

Law Officers, which is, as far as I am aware, they had no involvement in this matter but there are questions that need to be asked in relation to this.



And again



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The answer to the first question about the involvement of the Law Officers, as far as I am aware, they had no involvement. 



The old ''as far as I am aware'' rolled out in relation to law officers knowledge

voiceforchildren said...

Rico
.

Ian Le Marquand's not wanting to be part of a cover-up is just priceless. Shall we remind ourselves of how he knew about Gradwell leaking information during a live Child Abuse Investigation to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and yet Senator Le Marquand claims because nobody asked him about it he never told anybody!

From the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's findings.

"5.5 Mr. Gradwell’s reasons for taking such an unprofessional step are not clear to us as he refused to participate in the Scrutiny review." 

Ian Le Marquand's response.

Agreed. Mr Gradwell did explain his behaviour in a telephone call to me in late 2009 or early 2010, but this was not included in my evidence as I was not asked about this.

Anonymous said...

Le Marquand, Heaven? contre, Hell?pour.

Anonymous said...

Hansard Tuesday 14th July 2009 My comments in bold.

I was in fact just about to explain the situation, as it has been explained to me, in relation to the £2.5 million which is the Home Affairs Department’s aspect. My understanding from the figures provided to me by my own staff is that £110,000 of that is in relation to the first investigation MONEY AVAILABLE FOR 1ST PART OF WILT INV. being conducted by the Wiltshire Police Force. That is not going to be sufficient to cover the total cost. MONEY INSUFFICIENT FOR REST OF INV. Indeed, although there is a gap between the amount being sought by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the total provisional sums, even if the whole of that gap were to go to that expense it still is not going to be enough. It will in fact arrive at the position approximately at the end of May. So there are going to be additional monies which are going to have to be found from somewhere. AT MOMENT MONEY NOT AVAILABLE FOR In addition to that, of course, I face the problem in relation to the financial provision for the investigation in relation to Operation Blast. Now, I sense from the reaction of Members in this House that there is universal agreement that that investigation should take place, or almost universal agreement that that should take place. SHOULD TAKE PLACE. NOT, WILL TAKE PLACE. But the fact is that I do not have the money. AGAIN MONEY NOT AVAILABLE FOR BLAST To make my position even worse the agreement which has been brokered, subject of course to States approval AWAITING STATES APPROVAL FINANCIALLY in terms of budgetary matters for the Home Affairs Department from next year ... for that to work so that we cannot have to cut real core services relies upon me being able to keep certain under-spends from this year. So I do not want to have to allocate those. AT THE MOMENT DO NOT WANT TO ALLOCATE MONEY TO BLAST. So I am putting the House on notice that at some point I am going to have to come back in some manner for additional monies, NEED MONEY FOR BLAST WILL COME BACK both in relation to the initial investigation and the Operation Blast investigation.

Stuart Syvret said...

There is a very, very strange thing about Operation Blast.


A most striking characteristic - that says, in so many ways, all you could ever need to know about the calibre and adequacy of 99% of Jersey politicians and the 'fitness-for-purpose' of your government.



Operation Blast was pulled out of a hat - and quite deliberately and lyingly, misrepresented to States members as some kind of spooky, anti-democratic, gestapo-type activity by the police - against the legitimate activities of elected politicians.



And the average Jersey politician went "Ooh - how dreadful! We can't possibly tolerate the Police taking an interest in politicians; it might lead to some kind of political repression and attacks on democracy".



Meanwhile - the fact that an actual, all-out, illegal massed-raid and direct act of anti-democratic terrorism - conducted by the police - against an elected member - which also included the illegal seizure of the private data of 1000s of his constituents - did actually happen.



Not even something so minor as the keeping of files - but an actual attack on democracy.

And the re-action of the average Jersey politician?

"Oh - raids and arrests - and searches without a search-warrant - conducted against an elected member? Oh that doesn't matter; that's only Syvret. They're welcome to oppress him."

When you hear Jersey oligarchy politicians proclaiming how concerning the supposed "Operation Blast" files were - you know they're lying.

You either support freedom and democracy - and oppose police-state oppression - or you don't.

You can't oppose the threat of police-action against democratic politicians - except when it's against democratic politicians you don't agree with.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Rico

Kuddos again!

Le Marquand said, "I am not aware of that but I have to say that even if there were political authority in relation to this matter, from one of my predecessors, I would consider that improper."

Wait, is he even allowed to address mistakes by predecessors? Holy Corporation Sole!

Rob Kent said, "In the UK Parliament, a minister has to resign if he is found to have deliberately misled the house."

OK, so even if Jersey is, well, different, what is the reaction of those ministers now that they know they were so deliberately misled by ILM?

Would those who served as enthusiastic foot stampers at ILM's Operation Blast comments now explain their opinions about being deliberately misled? Or, are they still conceding their acceptance of being lied to for the sake of the Jersey Way?

What about those ministers who were understandably concerned and worried about the mysterious secretive files as presented by ILM? Are they willing to call it what it really is - an example of deliberate false disparagement and libel of a Chief of Police, for the sake of keeping him away from the earnest investigation of child abuse.

Should the ministers of the time expect an informative and inquiring email to poll them on their views? Perhaps something from Jersey's Part Time, (but most intrepid) Investigative Journalist?

Elle

rico sorda said...

I have just re posted this blog to see if it updates in the time bars.

Hence I had to re-post all the comments.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Are you receiving even half of the comments being posted or are the majority getting disregarded?

Anonymous said...

https://www.rssinclude.com/help_support/integrate_into_popular_services/how_to_add_an_rss_feed_on_blogger_blogspot

rico sorda said...

Rico.

Are you receiving even half of the comments being posted or are the majority getting disregarded?


No, some comments don't make it to publication. If they add value to the posting and ask a valid question then they all get published.

rs

rico sorda said...

Stuart is right;


April 6th 2009 - Stuart Syvret has his home raided by the Police and is arrested for alleged offences under the Data Protection Law. One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. They were looking for their smoking gun - their end game - the well was dry.

Yes, its ok for a States Member to be raided - have his laptop sized - and paper work seized. And yet not a murmur from the majority of States Members. Then ILM drops Operation Blast and the poo hits the fan.

This is typical 'Jersey Way' thinking

And why democracy was killed and abuse went unchecked

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"WHO WILL SAVE US?"

Anonymous said...

You were all warned back in 2008:

"Ian le Marquand - When asked about internet gambling, he replied "I could see people stealing from their employers to fund their habits" (or words to that effect). Are you serious? Does he honestly believe we are all crooks that need to be controlled? Very frightening man."

"Ian Le Marquand - now how anyone can give him such high odds is a mystery to me. He is a terrible speaker. Quiet and mumbles. Reminds me of Mr Bean. In favour of GST. But he does want to see law and order brought back to our streets, so many will be pleased to hear that. He didn't say how he would do it though."

"I can not for the life of me understand how anyone could be considering Ian Le Marquand as a credible candidate. Yet another of the 'old boys' club. Bad news for everyone. His performance so far has been quite frankly appalling. This guy is trying to hoodwink us all. DO NOT VOTE FOR IAN LE MARQUAND. It would be a huge mistake."

http://the-jersey-forum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=senators&action=display&thread=255&page=2

Anonymous said...

"Once you have started with one lie you have to make up 1,000 lies to cover that one"

Anonymous said...

Dont vote for le marquand,how right you are,however I dont think anyone will ever have a chance,I have a feeling in my water that within the next few weeks he will be thrown out or resign, please GOD.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

It is perfectly clear, after reading your posts and some of the excellent comments you published, that Ian Le Marquand, has lied to the electorate and worse, lied and mislead the house.

As was seen in the Uk over the expenses scandal the problem was sorted out and the good politicians and police had their day against the crooked MP's some who have served time at HM prisons.

What does it really say about our Government if those sitting with him and around him, do nothing to oust this charlatan and allow him to continue ?

Why does PB not stand by his words is on record as saying.

" If a minister lies to another minister as far as I am concerned that would be the end of his career."

Here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpDmSlnogWY

So why is Philip Bailhache and the others on the CoM not taking action, or are the whole bloody lot corrupt ?

Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Absolutely. When I was first told about this, clearly, the first thing that I said in response was: “Are we still doing this?” to which the answer was: “No”, matters having stopped in November; and the second question I asked was: “Is there anything more that is currently being investigated?” because I suspected there might be similar files on other people. That is what was being investigated. Obviously the existing files will need to be retained for evidential purposes but I can assure Members that no use is going to be made of them although there may be items of information held in them which can be properly transferred to the normal methods of keeping information.


What was all the fuss about then

Anonymous said...

Graham Power had written to Ian Le Marquand and clearly stated the following;

"They (the files) 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."

Le Maquand knew this. But instead went to the house with a host of spin, lies and outright deceipt.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst needs to take action now. Le Marquand is himself a national securiy risk.

Anonymous said...

"Ian le Marquand - When asked about internet gambling, he replied "I could see people stealing from their employers to fund their habits"

What about all the bookies shops over here couldn't they be a problem as well with theft to fund horses/dogs/football & anything else that moves to be gambled on he should shut those as well!!

Anonymous said...

Le Marquand is a security risk to the Island. Look back as his actions in relation to sexing up the interim met report for a spurious disciplinary against Power. That brought relations between UK and Jersey police forces to an all time low.

Would ACPO ever assist a large scale local investigation ever again?

Would the met be so keen to assist in mentoring the SOJP in the future?

Has this damage been repaired?

Le Marquand - a national security risk of the highest order.

rico sorda said...

The Met Interim Report wasn't sexed up as such - it was what it was. David warcup sexed up the press conference on the 12th November 2008 when Graham Power was suspended.

Again, I would like to thank the people who have taken the time to contact me, stop me in the street and just offer support for the work we Jersey Bloggers are doing.

What im showing you with these posts is the utter shambolic and out of control government we have and continue to have.

How is the Home Affairs Minister still sitting in post? Ask why the local media haven't touched any of this. Do they not care that we have such an incompetent in office?

1.5 million pounds Ilm spent trying to cover this up. Yup, 1.5 million. I will be dealing with this as we come to the end of OPERATION BLAST.

60 GRAND IF YOUR LUCKY FOR A VICTIM OF ABUSE

SICK SICK SICK

rs

Anonymous said...

Why on earth did Frank Walker not come out and make a public statement that made it plain that Graham Power was only acting as he had been instructed?

Why when Le Marquand went to the States and scared politicians into believing that Jersey has a stasi like secret police did Bill Ogley not seek to clarify matters?

And what on earth was David Warcup doing making such a big deal about nothing?

You really have to worry about the way Jersey is being governed and the calibre of people who represent us. They seem at best totally incompetent and at worst down right nasty bastrds.

What other explanation can there be? We are, let us not forget, talking about child abuse here.

I'm still not entirely convinced this was just about trying to save Jersey's reputation. I suspect it goes far deeper then that and there are still some skeletons in the cupboard.

Thank god for the internet. Thank god for a few good bloggers and men of principle.

Anonymous said...

Graham Power;

"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."

And there you go. How many of these States Members have fingrs in pies and wouldn't like to see a vetting system.

Anonymous said...

You have displayed perfectly why the committee of Inquiry will not happen.

Can you imagine the public when they find the Wiltshire Met ACPO and BDO alongside Napier report, Mr Power and Mr Harpers statements. Do NOT tally with the media and Government version we have allowed to believe took place.

Anonymous said...

I just listened to an excellent interview with BBC Newsnight's Economics Editor Paul Mason on BBC Radio Five Live with Richard Bacon. Get it on the BBC I-player if you can. It was broadcast at about 2.30pm GMT.

Essentially Mason was plugging his latest book 'Why its kicking off everywhere' but he made some very interesting and revealing comments about the way activists and political bloggers are now eclipsing the work of state run and mainstream media through the use of the internet.

When the Economics Editor at the BBC is predicting his own employers eventual and complete marginalisation you know that if your reading this then your getting your information from a much more reputable source.

The world has changed and political dinasaurs like Ian Le Marquand are getting exposed the world over.

Press accreditation is dead. If you say your accredited then your journalistic credibility is heavily undermined. If you work for the JEP or CTV you are a effectively a laughing stock. Somebody to be pittied in a professional sense.

The Arab Spring. Planned on Facebook, distributed on Twitter and broadcast on Youtube.

Anonymous said...

You have laid it for all to see rico. What happens next is anyones guess. This level of corruption/incompetence must not be allowed to continue. Why does your parliament allow the Minister to get away with these actions? Don't you have some kind of governing body?

Anonymous said...

The future generations of Jersey children will be learning what you bloggers have exposed in their Jersey history classes. That is not only because the facts will triumph, but because the internet has become the first source of research for history.

I pity the children and grandchildren of those guilty of covering up abuse and derailing an honest investigation. I pity them for what they will have to accept regarding the courts and judiciary, the corrupt Crown Appointees, the police officers who were hired to ruin their more honourable predecessors, the hideously unprincipled media workers, those with Wiltshire who accepted the unacceptable subversion of truth without protest, and those cowardly, greedy individuals within the States of Jersey and the Law Offices who made it all possible.

Anonymous said...

"One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper."

Rico, do you know this for a demonstrable fact, or is it supposition and interpretation in your (and others) part?

Attributing motives is one thing, proving them, or having them proven is quite another.

rico sorda said...

"One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper."

Rico, do you know this for a demonstrable fact, or is it supposition and interpretation in your (and others) part?

Attributing motives is one thing, proving them, or having them proven is quite another.


Hi Anon,

Police raid for a driving license?

Police raid for Data Protection when he had already published it?

Nope, they thought Graham Power and Lenny Harper had leaked Stuart Syvret information. On the day of the raid Advocate Lakeman contatcted Graham Power and asked him if he should be worried.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico Can you answer this for me.

Has there ever been a clear cut answer from either Wiltshire or ILM to a question such as:- Did Wiltshire police investigate what States members were informed was operation blast specifically the information in files on states members and former states members the data protection issues involved etc.

I have read Data protection office did not instigate investigation ILM did. What was to investigate if not data protection?

May be worth a freedom of information request.

I personally do not believe it took place.

Zoompad said...

The only reason I look at the BBC news now is to check to see if any of the real unpropagandarised news has been allowed to be broadcast. I find a quick glance about mid afternoon is generally sufficient to verify that the BBC has very little of importance on its news channel.

I don't know why the BBC don't just set aside the ridiculous notion that they have a serious news channel, and get some more fitting anchormen to run the propaganda channel, perhaps Ant and Dec, or maybe even Jedward?

Anonymous said...

Why do you have a photo of yourself dressed as a kiddy fiddler waiting to take kids to abuse into a bunker? Mind you being childless and obsessed with sexual abuse thats what you do isn't it?

rico sorda said...

JH

Not publishing any of your vile comments. I know exactly when they come from you.

rs

Anonymous said...

"I am not aware of that but I have to say that even if there were political authority in relation to this matter, from one of my predecessors, I would consider that improper.




But he did have Graham Powers memo. Why didn't he use some of that information? "

Exactly, he did have Graham Power's letter, so why did he not have an investigation to find out the truth!!!

Imagine if the boot had been on the other foot, lets face it try as they may they could not actually find anything to honestly keep Graham suspended for.

Zoompad said...

"I have read Data protection office did not instigate investigation ILM did. What was to investigate if not data protection?

May be worth a freedom of information request.

I personally do not believe it took place."

Please, will someone do that? I would do it myself, but not sure how to phrase that particular FOI request, thanks

Zoompad said...

I appear to have made a bit of a stir up with my FOI request about the BFMS to the Charity Commission

Anonymous said...

June 16/2009 ''The Deputy Bailiff: Very well, it is clearly a matter for the P.P.C. or anyone else to take such further steps as they think best in the light of this statement and the information which it has disclosed''

As of July 13 2009 There was no data protection involvement in the investigation and Mr Le Marquand said any criminal involvement would be within the data protection area.

As of that date Mr Higgins was to bring a proposition on 22nd September 2009 on Blast which was I believe withdrawn.

17th Nov/2009 Mr Le Marquands answers related soley to the original Wilt investigation and did not extend to any matter relating to operation Blast. The Blast timescale issue did not relate to other matters being looked at by Wiltshire ILM stressed he did not want to make a link other than in camera between the chief officer I assume Disciplinary Investigation and Blast

Anonymous said...

2.23 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF WILTSHIRE CONSTABULARY TO INVESTIGATE OPERATION BLAST:
Question

Will the Minister advise –

(a) the date when the Wiltshire Constabulary was appointed to investigate “Operation Blast”?

Answer

The appointment was made on the 4th September 2009.

Is it possible there was a faux appointment as at 4th September soon dropped I wonder why Mr Higgins proposal was dropped in Sept 2009?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

I will be covering this in an upcoming posting. The next posting should be up on Sunday. There will be some quick postings as I want to get onto the Abuse Compensation scheme and Tor's for the forthcoming committee of enquiry.

Plenty of work to do and so little time.


There is a little politics and blogging talk tomorrow night upstairs in the Perison pub from 7.

I have agreed to do the talk on blogging and why I do it.

So, mr anonymous, who sends me loads of messages I can't publish here is your opportunity and to anyone else who hates what I do. You know where I will be. I will be expecting to see you there so you can ask all your questions to my face. Don't be going chicken on me. Come and tell all to my face.

Please come along if free. Im not sure what to expect but I will be 100% honest with any question I might receive

rs

Anonymous said...

Please excuse this escapade into JEP toothfairyland

What was the paper copy headline, VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH !!!

On the thread:
http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/04/04/pitmans-lose-libel-case-against-jep/

Starting at 8:05 this morning I have made 3 attempts to post the following:

*********************************

NAME/TITLE: Soiled Balletpapers
------------------
"Get at em" @88 -What is the significance of the choice of name - Is that playground talk or is it (troll) feeding time at the zoo ?

Perhaps Cyber bullying is a big issue lurking under the soil of our fair isle.

I have no recollection of the cartoon but I suspect that the legal challenge may have had less to do with oversensitivity and more to do with long running acrimony with the JEP which is very unsympathetic to the Pitmans and is largely controlled by their political opponents and associates.

Also, a political cartoon by the large estate agent Broadlands - This is Jersey but it is unusual to see such overt political involvement by business; usually it is behind closed doors or at the golf club or temple bar.

*********************************


2 of my posting attempts have failed - wish me luck for #3 which was at 9:24 pm

To mis-quote Animal Farm: SOME SPEECH IS MORE FREELY REPORTED THAN OTHERS


My name "Soiled Balletpapers" is chosen to ridicule the hijack of the Electoral Commission and has not been deemed inappropriate by even the JEP CENSORS


Am I upset? - NO, I am little annoyed but totally delighted by their continued CENSORSHIP because the more they do it the shorter their power and money loving, child abuse apologist organisation will last.


Wake up Jersey - You may have voted but you did not choose the election winners or the government - the JEP did in 2011 - never again !

Did you vote for Bailache? - will you vote for him again ?

JEP - "the TOXIC heart or the Island"
It costs you more than the 50p cover price - Far far more !

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

In respect of the sick comments you, and all of us, receive from the despicable little maggot - you can draw a great deal of confidence and satisfaction in that all JH can ever do is engage in mindless abuse, a small example of which you let through above.

It speaks volumes, does it not, that that wretched little fool - is the best the Jersey oligarhcy can muster.

Not one single, fact-based, rational argument against the evidence we've sought out and published.

Instead, only an inadequate, deranged drunkard - who cyber-stalks women - and threatens to "see what caustic soda does" to their face.

The champion of the Jersey establishment.

He will never appear and participate in a public debate - because he is a coward.

Stuart

Ian Evans said...

MEETING THE BOSS

Ian Evans said...

MAD-DOG!!!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Democracy Terrorists RE-POST

Zoompad said...

They are trying to limit FOI requests

Anonymous said...

So how many kids have you taken into that bunker RS? You take a digital camera with ya? They always say its the ones who play innocent who end up being the fiddlers.

rico sorda said...

"So how many kids have you taken into that bunker RS? You take a digital camera with ya? They always say its the ones who play innocent who end up being the fiddlers.'

I have let this comment through. It has been one of very many along the same lines. Is it any wonder Im scared about the safety of children on this Island when an obvious supporter of pedophiles takes the time to come onto my blog and post this.

The reason I don't mind so much is that it just fires me on. When I feel like I can't do it anymore I just think about these predators and the ones who make strange phone calls and it bloody spurs me on.

New postings starting Sunday

rs

Anonymous said...

Thats a great photo Rico. Maybe some of the trolls (or the troll) should get out there and enjoy some scenery instead of wasting time making filthy comments of which I hope someday they will regret.

Is that you posting under Rico on the rag site, with the capital R rather than the little r?

I have to ask the question before I go off on one!!

Enjoy your weekend.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,sorry to be off topic

today the police turned up at my door to talk to me about a parking ticket,I'm defending this in court in the next week or two.

I just wanted to ask your readers if anyone has had the police at their door for a parking ticket
before it has gone to court?

thanks

cyril

Ian Evans said...

TRUST JERSEY!!!

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha! A single man in his 40's with no kids fits the paedophile profile much better than all the family people you seem to attack. I mean what does spurs you on? I bet this is all a smoke screen for something far more darker.

Ian Evans said...

They are pooping their pants squirrel, that's for sure :)

Zoompad said...

I am sorry to be a nag on this issue but I feel this is important. Members of the BFMS were responsible for helping to trash the police investigation into HDLG and other institutional child abuse investigations. Now, they do not want to answer my FOI and are trying to make out that they have nothing to do with Ralph Underwager and the FMSF. That is a lie.

Dr Elizabeth Loftus

I didnt't realise that they had been corresponding with Rowan Williams.

BFMSs letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams 26th February 2010

Now that I have read this I am going to write another letter to Rowan Williams and ask him to reconsider stepping down as Archbishop of Canterbury. The pressure these creeps or putting on people like him is awful.

rico sorda said...

Now that the Easter holidays are coming to an end the blogging starts. I have had a rest and now ready to go again. I might go to press tonight. I have so much more to post. I thank everyone here and abroad who have followed this. No stopping. Rs

Ian Evans said...

MEETING THE BOSS Part 2