Saturday, April 14, 2012






An extraordinary letter from Acting Chief Officer David Warcup to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand on the 10th July 2009 and I quote;

"On Thursday 22 January 2009 an audio tape was found in an envelope in the Chief Officer's safe at Police Headquarters. When examined it was found that the tape contained recordings of telephone conversations with a number of individuals including the Chief Officer, Mr Power. I have enclosed the full transcript of these recordings for your information and consideration and you will note that they relate to conversations which took place with members of the media,representatives of partner agencies, and a States member, Senator Stuart Syvret."

The letter is reproduced below in the timeline

During the previous postings I have shown you through the timeline how this so called 'OPERATION BLAST' came to be. I have shown how the Acting Chief of Police David Warcup along with the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand used this filing system as another excuse to keep Graham Power from returning to work.

They had tried allegations of bullying at the States of Jersey Police

They had tried breaking into Graham Powers secure safe

They had tried the raid on the Senator Stuart Syvret

Having came up with nothing they then settled on a fling operation held in Special Branch that contained sensitive information.

Former Chief of Police Graham Power didn't know that the Home Affairs Minister was going to make it public on the 16th June 20009. Mr Power had tried to explain to the Minister exactly what the filing system was about - It should come as no surprise to anyone that this fell on death ears.

Graham Power was concerned that by announcing it in the States on the 16th June 2009 that the Home Affairs Minister had breached the Disciplinary Code of Conduct for the Chief Officer not once but three times. I reproduce the letter of complaint Graham Power sent to PPC and then Chief Minister Terry Le suer.

What i'm showing you is how this complete 'Operation Blast' farce got to where it did.

I could put a lot more into this posting but I just want you to read the evidence and come to your own conclusions.

Right the Timeline;

June 24th 2009 - Graham Power writes to the Chief Minister Terry Le Suer and registers a formal complaint against Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand relating to the Ministers Statement to the States on the 16th June 2009. The Minister having made a public statement without first meeting with Mr Power and hence going against the disciplinary code.

Graham Power

QPM MA (Oxon)

The Chief Minister,

The Council of Ministers,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Chief Minister,


I wish to register three complaints regarding the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of matters in which I have a direct interest. You may be aware that these complaints were made initially to the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 18th June 2009 and copied to the Minister. The Chairman of that Committee has since written and advised me that I should re-direct my complaints to the Council of Ministers. The contents of this letter and attachments are effectively identical to that forwarded to the Committee with the exception of some minor changes made in consequence of the Chairman’s advice, and other information received since the first letter was written. The details of my complaints are as follows:


I am the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I am suspended from duty in respect of unrelated issues. It is my position that my suspension is unlawful and has been improperly applied.

On 13th June 2009 I received from the Minister a letter addressed to me, and an attachment which was a copy of a letter to the Chief Executive. The letter to the Chief Executive made reference to an alleged operation said to be known as “Operation Blast.” The letter to the Chief Executive also made reference to the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police and in it the Minister stated that he was initiating the procedure under paragraph 2.1.1. of the code and suggested further steps to determine whether an investigation should be commenced under paragraph 2.1.2. of the same code. Neither the covering letter, nor the letter to the Chief Executive gave notice that any public announcement would be made.

I replied in a letter which was hand-delivered to the Ministers office on 14th June 2009. In my letter I stated my belief that nothing improper had occurred and notified my intention to provide “a full and accurate account in relation to these issues.” I said that this would be provided “soon.” I immediately set about the task of preparing a report relating to the Ministers concerns. The completed report contains approximately 4,000 words.

On Tuesday 16th June 2009 I chanced to listen to a radio broadcast of a States sitting. In that sitting the Minister made a statement. The statement was made in public in the presence of the media. I have since obtained a copy of the statement. The statement gives alleged details of “Operation Blast.” The Minister subsequently answered questions from members. It is my recollection that he made reference to the “Chief Officer of Police” in the context of “Blast.” The statement refers to “possible disciplinary issues which may arise from this discovery.” It is understood that members were not told that any disciplinary process under the code had already been commenced.

My report to the Minister addressing the allegations set out in his correspondence was hand-delivered to his office a few hours after he had completed his statement in the States.

The complaints.

  • Paragraph 1.2 of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police states “All parties involved in the operation of this code will observe confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed.” I wish to formally complain that the Minister is in deliberate and material breach of his obligations under the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police.

  • The Code of Conduct for Ministers paragraph 3(ii) states “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the States.” In failing to inform the States that a disciplinary process had already been initiated he failed to discourage members from making public and prejudicial statements regarding the Ministers allegations and my alleged role. Given that, under Article 9(2) of the 1974 Police Law it is the States as a whole who are my ultimate disciplinary authority, the Ministers actions have denied me the reasonable prospect of a fair hearing under the 1974 law and in addition are a breach of my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I wish to formally complain of the conduct of the Minister in this matter.

  • The Code of Conduct for Ministers, paragraph 8A is headed “public comments etc. Regarding a States employee or officer.” It then advises members on how they should approach a disciplinary concern “rather than raising the matter in public.” I wish to formally complain that the Minister has breached this section of the Code.

Documents attached.

In order to facilitate the consideration of the matter by the Committee I attach the following relevant documents.

  • Copy of correspondence from the Minister to the complainant dated 11th June 2009 and received on 13th June 2009.
  • Copy of an initial response delivered on 14th June 2009.
  • Copy of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police.
  • Copy of the Ministers Statement made on 16th June 2009.
  • Copy of Article 9 of the 1974 Police Law.
  • Copy of the Complainants full response to the Ministers concerns delivered on 16th June 2009.
  • Letter from the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee dated 23rd June 2009.

In the interest of transparency I have copied this further letter to the Minister.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Graham Power.

Cc. Minister for Home Affairs.

Graham Power sets it out in a straight forward way. As far as I know, and I will check this out, Graham Power never received a reply to this letter of complaint from the Chief Minister. As you can see they were already on their path. Graham Power can't, at any cost, be allowed to return to work. The reason I say this is the next part of the timeline.

Before I reproduce the letter of David Warcup I can't get it across enough just how far gone the actions of David Warcup are. This is the Acting Chief of Police, who has had and continues to have a complete and active role in the suspension of his boss, the then Chief of Police Graham Power. Remember the original suspension of the 12th November 2008 it was Dave Warcups letter of the 10th November that set that in motion. Remember when outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp was sent on his way by Graham Power and 5 minutes later found himself in the office of then Chief Executive Bill Ogley - it was David Warcup that set that in motion.

The actions and the whole handling of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation under David Warcup and Mick Gradwell is now seriously called into question - there can't be any question about this now. Remember Gradwell leaking to Daily Mail journalist David Rose and the whole investigation by the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel into the BDO Review.

In David Warcups June 2nd 2009 letter David Warcup writes;

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

David Warcup is hinting at another Wiltshire Investigation

July 10th 2009 - David Warcup again writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. He now supplies the Home Affairs Minister with a full transcript of the audio recording that was left in Graham Powers secure cabinet for the Home Affairs Ministers information and consideration. He again mentions to the Minister that this might be considered if he decides to widen the TOR's of the Wiltshire Investigation. The Home Affairs Minister is now in possession of audio recordings that were kept in a secure location by the former Chief of Police Graham Power.

Senator I. Le Marquand,

Minister for Home Affairs,

11, Royal Square,

St Helier

JE2 4WA.

10 July 2009

Dear Minister,

RE; Operation Blast

I write further to my letter dated 2 June 2009 Operation Blast.

As you are aware a further matter had previously come to my attention which I believe you may need to formally consider should you determine that you intend to extend the Terms of Reference of the enquiry being conducted by Wiltshire Police, in respect of the Chief Officer Graham Power.

On Thursday 22 January 2009 an audio tape was found in an envelope in the Chief Officer's safe at Police Headquarters. When examined it was found that the tape contained recordings of telephone conversations with a number of individuals including the Chief Officer, Mr Power. I have enclosed the full transcript of these recordings for your information and consideration and you will note that they relate to conversations which took place with members of the media,representatives of partner agencies, and a States member, Senator Stuart Syvret.

The Wiltshire Police Team have previously been advised of the existence of the tape.

I therefore submit this matter for your consideration as to whether you wish to refer this matter to Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Mr Brian Moore, for his attention.

Yours sincerely

David Warcup

Acting Chief Officer

Now, it is for better minds to explain the actions of David Warcup. Im sure the former Senator Stuart Syvret will be alarmed to learn that his private conversation with Graham Power had been seized from the safe transcribed and then handed to the Home Affairs Minister. Is this proper? Is this a Data Protection issue?

Look again how David Warcup mentions the issue of Wiltshire

"As you are aware a further matter had previously come to my attention which I believe you may need to formally consider should you determine that you intend to extend the Terms of Reference of the enquiry being conducted by Wiltshire Police, in respect of the Chief Officer Graham Power."

He States:

"The Wiltshire Police Team have previously been advised of the existence of the tape."

Well, we know that because a member of the Wiltshire Team was present when they broke into Graham Powers safe. Graham Power wasn't allowed an independent witness.

Im bringing you the shocking corrupt actions of our Government

Coming soon I will be showing what happened when the Jersey Law Office got fully involved.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Part Time Investigative journalist


The Guardian said...

Its a freak show of the finest order. So shabby. So disorganised. So amateur. I mean really really second rate.

Graham Power was fuked over because they did not want to admit they, the corporate sole, were complicit in child abuse.

That sadly is the bottom line.

I am not a regular reader of your blog but its content has been passed to the relevant international journalists.

With lazer like pin point accuracy.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


The evidence you publish here is extraordinary.

Simply extraordinary.

These letters by David Warcup should have been disclosed to me, when I was requesting any such evidence to be disclosed because of its profound relevancy to my abuse-of-process argument.

Not only did the Attorney General refuse to disclose this evidence - he repeatedly denied that any such evidence existed.

This is high political corruption and political repression - of the most stark kind.

What you have established here - with evidence - is the fact that the Jersey Attorney General's department engages in criminal enterprises.

Your readers should understand - that what they read here - is evidence that a politicised, malicious, corrupt, oppressive and abusive prosecution was mounted against the most prominent opposition politician in Jersey - and Her Majesty's Attorney General lied throughout - mislead court - lied by asserting that the kind of evidence you have published here, "did not exist".

Yet - here it is.

This is worse than Watergate.

Imagine Watergate - but place on top of that corrupt, criminal assault on free democracy - the spectacle of the corrupt Attorney General then mounting a malicious prosecution against the senior Democrat politician - and then the prosecution repeatedly lying in court - falsely denying the existence of evidence concerning the covert oppressions.

If Jersey was a law-abiding, respectable democracy - Tim Le Cocq, William Bailhache, Ian Le Marquand - and a few others - would announce their resignations from all public office first thing Monday morning.

You, Rico, have discovered and published evidence that proves that Jersey's leading opposition politician - was unlawfully and undemocratically repressed - by a corrupted Crown Office - which then proceeded to lie about it.

Things unavoidably now flow.


Anonymous said...

Rico ther aint no Part Time Investigative Journalist about it my friend You are doing what we all have a right to do and that is telling the truth. You have made the Rag look like children playing with alphabet soup.

Well qualified to be a full on Journalist.

Ian Evans said...

Kick Ass Sorda :)

Anonymous said...

Stuart Syvret, what is the standing on Warcup handing over transcripts to the Home Affairs Minister? Rico said there would be better heads out there who would know.
It couldn't have been that sensitive or he wouldn't have handed them over. What about Mr Power in this bizarre 'freak show?' a decent man treated worse the an abuser. Simply awful from start to finish.

Anonymous said...

As Stuart Syvret commented above, this has direct bearing on his mistreatment by the judicial branch of Jersey's government, and then there is the Data Protection issue, and a corrupted and conflicted police administration. Wiltshire's behavior in all of this is highly suspicious, which brings up a whole new level of UK police corruption. The Jersey mainstream media is guilty of blatant and easily documented complicity, in violation of all acceptable journalistic ethical principles. The golden handshakes might be linked in several different ways to this, and everything mentioned is the direct result of the ongoing effort to cover up generations of proven institutional child abuse.

Where does this lead next? All signs point not to a thorough COE but to a sensationalized local media frenzy led by Senator Bailhache to press for Jersey's independence. How else can they avoid legal accountability when you have exposed their crimes?


Ian Evans said...


Unfortunately, Stuart was a government employee at that time, and therefore bound by ALL their rules & laws, and with no recourse to justice, he took the oath that bound him and they can use that forever and a day in his capacity as a government agent.

Now that he is no longer bound by his oath, or their rules, he, as a common law man, can now present his complaints again free from the restraints of oath and committment....

voiceforchildren said...


The UK Government stepped into the Turks and Caicos for far less.

As mentioned in Mr. Power's complaint to TERRY LE SUEUR

Anonymous said...

"It takes a thousand lies to cover a lie"...

Well done sir on this thorough and compelling breakdown of Operation Blast. I have always wondered as to the truth behind the existence of Operation Blast. You have set it out in a user-friendly series of postings. From my perspective, as someone who is not familiar with the intricacies of the circumstances surrounding Graham Power's position, the above could not be more true.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Ian Evens says:

"Unfortunately, Stuart was a government employee at that time, and therefore bound by ALL their rules & laws, and with no recourse to justice, he took the oath that bound him and they can use that forever and a day in his capacity as a government agent.

Now that he is no longer bound by his oath, or their rules, he, as a common law man, can now present his complaints again free from the restraints of oath and commitment...."

States members are expressly not officially classified as employees. Not a view I agree with - because your elected representatives are employed by you, the voting public.

But even if your assessment of the implications of taking an oath of Office is correct - the Jersey oligarhcy can't have it both ways.

I was obeying the oath of Office - indeed - I was one of the few States members to actually do so.

Everything the Jersey mafia did to me, was a calculated, illegal attempt to intimidate me and obstruct me in the discharge of my duties according to the oath.

Either the oath of Office counts for something - and one is bound by it - but at the same time one is then free from molestation and oppression for trying to carry out the terms of the oath - or - it counts for nothing, and if one is abused for tying to obey the oath, one cannot have one's rights limited by it.

Not, however, according to Michael Birt appointee Jonathan Sumption QC - British establishment fixer - who dodged the horns of that dilemma - through the novel finding that I was not a human being - when rejecting my judicial review application.

The UK judiciary - its corruptions laid bare.


Anonymous said...

It should be perfectly apparent by now that lawyers (including alleged judges) play semantics with words.

Am I a hu man being (being the colour of man)Science says no, I am a homo sapien.

In dealing with government, corporations, courts, police etc.
I am only ever a man, no more, no less. If we want to maintain our inalienable rights, we must learn how lawyers(judges) use words to trick us.

A publicaly sworn common law oath of office is binding in law, no question.

The law of the land (common law) is the only law that applies to men and women, absent our consent to other jurisdictions, this cannot be repealed or tampered with unless we become independent from Britain.

enactments or statutes are nothing more than the policy of SoJ inc. and they are arbitrary (S.Power - S.Syvret, data protection enactments)

Lawyer written human rights are a poor substitute for our inalienable rights, they already seek to do away with some of our more important inalienable rights

I will never consent to this


Zoompad said...

Keep up the good work Rico xx

Zoompad said...


We have to have laws, otherwise there would be complete chaos.

The problem isn't that there are laws and police and courts and judges, but that there are CORRUPT laws and police and courts and judges. When you have people like Phil and the Thistle Hotel golf and sauna jollies secret family court club judges making up the laws as they go along then they are not proper laws are they?

If new laws are going to be made up, they should be discussed properly by the properly elected representatives of the people, in the Parliament or the Senate, not smuggled in on the sly.

Anonymous said...

Hi Zoompad,

we do have laws, unfortunately they are being ignored in favour of 'acts' (corporate rules)

I put it to you that what we have now is pretty much chaos

child abusers would be held to account if our proper law was
followed by government and the judiciary which it clearly is not.

governments are forbidden from making laws for the people (they can only regulate commerce) because it is we the people who the governments work for.

take care


Zoompad said...


I agree.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Rico, my heart is broken, there is no closure there never can be, Jersey will never rest until the review is open to those of us who suffered abuse in the hands of the States of Jersey who allowed it. I will be coming to Jersey to ask for the review to open. It's people like you who and Stuart I am indebted to, I can never thank you enough for what you have done. The journey continues.....the journey is never going to end until the States of Jersey look at the way in which they worked and admit fully their mistakes and learn from the past, we will not go away, we will not give up until justice is done. Juliex

rico sorda said...

I will be doing a live blog cast at the above address at 5pm today Sunday the 5th April. This is a trial on our new Blog TV Station.


rico sorda said...

Hi Julie,

Stay Strong. We will not give up this fight for real Justice for all the Abuse Survivors. This has been a long process but one that must be done. We will end up dragging the Jersey Government to a Committee of Enquiry but drag them we will. I have always been of the opinion that through finding the truth about what happened to Graham Power and the denigration of Lenny Harper we would find the truth of the deceitful actions of the ones who are prepared to cover up the abuse of children in the protection of friends and the so called good name of Jersey.

Stay Strong. We will not abandon the pursuit of Justice. We will fight your corner for as long as it takes.

Rico Sorda

Anonymous said...

Dear Rico, thank you for your strength, your courage and integrity, it's people like you who are worth more than a Sir, a Lord or a title, you don't need a title, you are a true person. From the bottom of my heart I say 'thank you', Julie x

rico sorda said...


Thank you for your kind words it really does mean a lot to me. It does get tough at times but then no one said it would be easy fighting such an intrenched system.


Zoompad said...

Blog TV, brilliant!

Anonymous said...


Great work mate. You do us all proud.

One question:

Who do you think is responsible for this whole farce?

Web Guru said...

Great to see you live Rico an actual live truth channel in Jersey got to be a first.

voiceforchildren said...


Team Voice reaches a NEW ERA

rico sorda said...

"Who do you think is responsible for this whole farce?"

It's not just anyone person. Its a toxicity thats grown over the decades. There is a pecking order of power with the Bailhache brothers at the top. Are they responsible for everything bad in Jersey my guess is no. They have played a huge role in the Jersey Child Abuse Coverup. As with all regimes there are those down the order that are prepared to do the dirty work.


Ian Evans said...


rico sorda said...

Government Response to the Justice Select Committee’s report: Crown Dependencies

We note the depth of feeling of some witnesses to this inquiry who have indicated serious grievances with various aspects of the governance of the Crown Dependencies and their desire for the UK Government to step in to address their concerns. However, the Crown Dependencies are democratic, self-governing communities with free media and open debate. The independence and powers of self-determination of the Crown Dependencies are, in our view, only to be set aside in the most serious circumstances. We note that the restrictive formulation of the power of the UK Government to intervene in in...sular affairs on the ground of good government is accepted by both the UK and the Crown Dependency governments: namely, that it should be used only in the event of a fundamental breakdown in public order or of the rule of law, endemic corruption in the government or the judiciary or other extreme circumstance, and we see no reason or constitutional basis for changing that formulation. (Paragraph 41)

As a matter of general principle, we note that, in a very small jurisdiction, there must always be the possibility that individuals wielding very significant economic, legal and political power may skew the operation of democratic government there. Just as the establishment of democratic government in Sark was a matter of good government, any threat to the ability of that system to operate fairly and robustly has the potential to raise good government issues which might require UK Government intervention. This is a matter on which the Ministry of Justice needs to keep a watching brief. We agree with the Committee’s assessment of these issues. We respect the right of the Crown Dependencies to self-determination and agree that it would take a very serious circumstance indeed for the UK government to contemplate overriding these powers. With regard to the Committee’s comments about some of the risks inherent in the governance of small jurisdictions, we are grateful to the Committee for highlighting this important issue. The Ministry of Justice recognises its responsibility, on behalf of the Crown, to ensure good governance in all the Crown Dependencies. We will continue to keep a watching brief on all relevant matters and maintain our strong relationships with the Islands that will help enable us to resolve any problems which may arise in a collaborative way. We will provide advice and support to the government and Chief Pleas of Sark as the new democratic government matures. The Minister responsible for the Crown Dependencies, Lord McNally, visited Sark at the end of September to meet with residents and listen to a range of views about the situation there.

rico sorda said...

Christ, they will positively ppop their collective pants if and when the spotlight shines on this place lol

Anonymous said...

"Jo Duncombe, a child abuse consultant who has worked on a number of cases in Jersey, said it was crucial that the senior officers had been brought in from overseas."

"Jersey is an insular place where they keep themselves to themselves. I've worked there on child abuses cases and there was a lot of covering up."

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

This link to the Scotsman is to a 2008 article. If people link to old stuff they should identify it as such to avoid time wasting. Having said that, it is a superbly clear article about the situation at a time just before the Jersey Establishment closed ranks and started to trash the reputations of the investigators.

Ian Evans said...


voiceforchildren said...


You will be available for a live chat this coming Sunday at 6pm at the same place HERE

You are able to interact live so any questions people might have, please come and ask them.

paul troalic said...

This is all pretty frightening stuff. I met Graham Power one time and found him to be a very serious individual and certainly not the type of person that would lie or bend the rules. I am aghast at the politics that go on at the top end of the police force. It is very worrying. For a deputy police chief to go to the lengths he did to discredit his boss smells of some collusion and persuasion by other political persons.
I am surprised at the involvement of Ian Le Marquand a man of proven Christian principles who is well respected in his church. One would hope that at some point, like the apostle Peter, he will admit the truth.
As far as Stuart Syvret is concerned, again I met him only the once but from his actions in the States Assembly, now the Government of Jersey, I perceived he was an honest, hardworking man who only had the interests of the ordinary man in the street at the forefront of his political aspirations.
From a laymans point of view it would be wrong to criticise but I will watch with interest at subsequent postings.