Sunday, April 22, 2012

OPERATION END GAME -20- THEY SUSPEND GRAHAM POWER FOR BLAST









OPERATION END GAME 20




OPERATION BLAST 



THE THIRD SUSPENSION OF GRAHAM POWER QPM


An intro to the third suspension of Graham Power QPM by former Senator Stuart Syvret. This intro can be read further down the posting.


What I have set out in these series of postings is I hope a very easy to follow timeline into the utter farce that is and was 'Operation Blast' 


Posted below is the transcript of the Suspension Hearing conducted by Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand. I have laid out all the evidence concerning Operation Blast that led to this Suspension Hearing. It really is a staggering read. I believe what stands out and I have absolutely no doubt about this is that Senator Le Marquand walked into this hearing with the intention of suspending Graham Power and nothing else.  Nothing stacks up. The Senator listens to nothing. 


Graham Power had Constable Dr.T.Brain (Chairman,Chief Police Officers Staff Association) representing him in all of the Suspension Hearings. The calibre of Constable Brain shines through. All his valid points are met with ignorance. The Jersey Way is in full flow. 


It makes me laugh how the Treasury Minister is getting all the blame for the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley getting over a half million pound golden handshake when everyone knows the buck stops with former Chief Minister Frank Walker and no one else.  How is it that no one is shouting out about the utter shambolic actions of the current Home Affairs Minister who has spent over 1 1/2 million pounds on what exactly? It's a disgrace that this man is still a Minister. It is a disgrace that he hasn't had to face a vote of no confidence with all the evidence out in the public domain yet nothing happens.  This is what happens in Jersey. The Media should be nailing him with this evidence but there not. This is because it has it's roots in Child Abuse. The JEP are nailing the Treasury Minister but not daring to touch the Home Affairs Minister why is this? The toxic road of Child Abuse one way or another always leads back to the JEP. 

The postings I have done over the past months are I believe the first steps to investigative journalism that this Island has seen for many years. I have done this in my part time. It again raises the question of what the hell is going on here in Jersey. Slowly but surely Senator Bailhache is turning the screw towards independence. He knows that they cannot hold back the changing world. 


This is our Government at work. 


INCOMPETENT - TOXIC AND CORRUPT


CONCEALERS OF CHILD ABUSE


VESTED INTERESTS OVER THE SAETY OF CHILDREN IN JERSEY CARE HOMES


2007- 2012 - STILL NO COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY


5 MONTHS TO MURDER THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION 


Look how the toxic corrupt found the time to murder the independent electoral commission but the welfare of children is still blowing in the breeze. This is how it works here.  Money and Greed. Children don't feature in that. The nodding dogs that represent us in the States are a disgrace. They can't even lodge a question about anything. Things are bad in Jersey make no mistake. 

When you read the Suspension Hearing and do please read it all just ask yourself how is Senator Ian le Marquand still in the States let alone still be the Home Affairs Minister.


Timeline;

July  31st  - 2009  - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand holds a suspension meeting with Graham Power Graham Poower and T. Brain regarding Operation Blast.  Graham Power is suspended again for Operation Blast . The Former Chief of Police has 2 suspensions  - the new one being just days before his Judicial Review Hearing.  Wiltshire have already missed deadlines concerning the first suspension of Graham Power they are now called in to investigate another suspension.


Introduction by Stuart Syvret


Comment on Ian le Marquand’s Conduct
Concerning the so-called “Operation Blast”. 

In light of the great work done by Rico Sorda on this blog – and all the evidence that has been published – the time has come for us, as a democratic, law-abiding people, to move on to asking the next set of questions. Namely, ‘what do we do when our leaders are exposed as overt and evidenced liars?’ 

Can this community ever be governed safely and properly, in the face of such decadence, and corruption of power?

In the course of 2011, I made several written request to Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand for the disclosure of any evidence or data relevant to me – and the policing actions that had been taken against me. Indeed, I expressly sought out any communications concerning me, that involved him, the police in general, and David Warcup in particular. After weeks went by, and several reminders, Le Marquand eventually responded with an e-mail that contained the same type of obfuscatory bluster and deranged nonsense we see him spouting in the transcript of the suspension interview involving Dr. Brain and Police Chief Graham Power.  Le Marquand eventually – via the Home Affairs Chief Officer – sent me a response that asserted that no such evidence, of the kind I was seeking, existed.

That claim – like virtually everything else Ian Le Marquand has said throughout the entire episode concerning the suspension of the legitimate Police Chief and the consequent illegal hi-jacking of the policing function in Jersey for corrupt, politicised purposes – was a lie.
We know it’s a lie – because of evidence now in the public domain – not least the letter by David Warcup to Ian Le Marquand, which not only actually referred to me, but expressly described how a transcript of a telephone conversation I had had with the legitimate Police Chief Graham Power, was being supplied to Le Marquand. 

Older readers may be familiar with the Watergate scandal in America. This crisis in Jersey is worse. In Watergate, the illegal interference with opposition politicians was initially carried out by paid burglars – as opposed to the actual, hi-jacked police force, as in Jersey 

And in Jersey, we see not only the Home Affairs Minister and the Attorney General embroiled in the political repression – and not only do we see them repeatedly lying about it – we see them holding up a mirror to their own corruption, in an effort to con as all, and mislead the public. Le Marquand and his puppet-masters such as the Attorney General, invented “Operation Blast” – and spun it to politicians and the public, as though this filing-system was some kind of foul, anti-democratic plot designed to undermine free democracy. And they did this, in a process that was the complete opposite of the truth. The reality was, they were looking in a mirror.

The corrupt, anti-democratic, illegal, politically repressive and subversive actions were theirs.

The spectre of “Operation Blast” was only ever a trick with smoke and mirrors; a cloak behind which the Jersey mafia could hide their own engagement in the very undermining and oppressions of democracy that they fraudulently claimed to be concerned about. 

And we know this now.

We know it – because unlike at any other time in the 800 year history of the Jersey oligarchy – they don’t control the flow of information any more.

Bloggers, like Rico Sorda, have discovered  and published the hard, factual evidence.

You can read that evidence in earlier postings on this site, and other Jersey blogs.

Indeed – so plain, stark and settled are the evidenced facts, that we now move on, to consider what we, as a democratic, law-abiding people, do about those facts.

One thing is quite certain – we need to democratically rid ourselves of disgusting and inadequate creatures such as Ian le Marquand.

Stuart Syvret.

Former Senator – a victim of Jersey Watergate. 

STATES OF JERSEY
SUSPENSION HEARING
FRIDAY, 31st JULY 2009

Present:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police)
Dr. T. Brain (Chairman, Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association)
Mr. M. Pinel (Head of Employee Relations, States of Jersey)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
Good morning, gentlemen. I think if we just speak to identify voices for any transcription purposes. I am Ian Le Marquand, as I always say, still Home Affairs Minister. Mick Pinel is to my left, he is assisting me. If you could identify yourselves, please, by ...

Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):
Graham Power, Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police.

Dr. T. Brain (Chairman, Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association):
Timothy Brain, Chairman of the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, thank you very much, gentlemen. Perhaps if I can ... just to assist you both, I understand there may be some preliminary points that you may want to make, but before you get to those can I just plan out how I see this morning’s meeting? What I propose to do is simply to consider this morning whether there would be sufficient grounds, where it would be appropriate, to suspend Mr. Power from his post as Chief Officer of Police upon the basis of the, as I will call it, Operation Blast investigation and complaints. I am going to look at that alone. I think that is the fairest thing from Mr. Power’s point of view because I am well aware that we are all awaiting the results of the judicial review hearing. Although I could look at both together by tangling up the first with the second it seems to me it makes thing complicated. The downside of that, I suppose, from Mr. Power’s point of view is, of course, that depending on the outcome of the judicial review hearings I could subsequently then conduct a hearing in which I consider both together, if I thought that appropriate. But I propose just to deal with the one matter today unless you object to that. If you do, I will deal with both matters together.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you, Minister. I am expecting you to talk about the implications of Operation Blast this morning, I am not expecting to deal with the wider implications of the outcome of a matter that has not yet been decided.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No, that is fine. We are in agreement. Can I also just perhaps, just to slightly simplify matters, make my position clear in relation to the third area, which is the tape recordings area. If Mr. Power were able to give me an undertaking that he would not make such tape
recordings in future without the knowledge or consent of individuals then I would not view that as being a matter which would warrant consideration of suspension, if I can put it that way. We can effectively dispose of that for the purposes ...

Mr. G. Power:
We will need to discuss that. We would want to ...

Dr. T. Brain:
I think we need to discuss that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, do you want to discuss that? Okay, I am just trying to shorten the process.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you. I understand. I think just before we go, I think ... Mr. Power is, of course, a private citizen as well as a Chief Officer of Police. He is currently suspended and therefore not undertaking duties as Chief Officer of Police so I am just trying to understand the circumstances in which you would view him not being able to make a tape recording. Presumably it is not in his capacity as a private citizen.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No, I am talking about in his capacity as Chief Officer of Police.

Dr. T. Brain:
Quite so. I will invite Mr. Power to give me some instructions.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay, thank you.
(Adjournment)

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you, Minister. We understand you are trying to be helpful in this matter and therefore we reciprocate in the same vein. What we must make quite clear is by considering the point that you have just made, no acceptance is made from our part that any wrongdoing was undertaken in the original tape recordings.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No, that is fine. That is correct.

Dr. T. Brain:
What we are saying here is that in order to further business today and make sure that there is no unnecessary suspension, that should Mr. Power be restored to his duties as Chief Officer he undertakes not to make tape recordings of conversations until a review of the practice has been completed.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is fine. That is understood without any indication that he accepts fault in relation to that matter. That is fine. Thank you, that does slightly simplify ... I will note this is without any admission of fault. Okay, thank you very much. I understand from Mr. Pinel that you may want to make some preliminary comments in relation to whether or not I should be conducting this hearing today, is that right?

Dr. T. Brain:
We will make observations about that. I would like to clarify first a very clear understanding of what Mr. Power is accused. I understand that there are investigations proceeding and that the terms of reference of the Wiltshire Inquiry have been extended to include the so-called Operation Blast circumstances. That is not what I am seeking clarification on. I know what is alleged but I need clarification of what is Mr. Power accused. In other words, what would constitute some kind of disciplinary charge or criminal charge so that we can understand how we should conduct our defence today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, the situation at the moment is that I have requested a preliminary report under the terms of the disciplinary code. That has been dealt with by Mr. Richardson who is the deputy ... I think that is the right term.

Mr. M. Pinel:
Deputy Chief Executive.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Deputy Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, who has his terms of reference - and I was consulted on those terms of reference - in terms of widening of the disciplinary issues. So, at the moment, we are in an investigatory stage. All I could indicate to you, I think, would be what might be a possible direction that things might go. If that helps you.

Dr. T. Brain:
That would be most helpful.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But obviously until I get reports back I cannot do that. I think that the directions would relate to obviously issues as to Mr. Power’s knowledge or involvement in these matters but, in a sense, as I view this, this is an issue where it is an allegation ... a 2-fold allegation I suppose, firstly an allegation of secret files having been kept by the police force in relation to individual States Members, and this without reference to any actual investigations against them or in relation to them. That is the nature of the information I have been given. Secondly, as part of that issue, the obtaining of full criminal record checks on each person who was then a current States Member, without any apparent reason or justification for that. That is it very simply. I do not want to speculate as to where else that might take us but is that sufficient to clarify?

Dr. T. Brain:
What I may be struggling with, and maybe you could indulge my ignorance of Jersey procedures here, is what does that constitute in terms of a potential discipline or misconduct offence or a criminal offence. It is not that these ... we are not querying the substance of the investigation, what I need to understand is what does that amount to specifically in relation to Graham Power?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Well, it could ... and I can only speculate because I have not seen the report, I am not dealing with criminal matters here but my understanding is that there could be data protection offences in relation to this and that is a matter which will be considered alongside the investigation. Those are not matters for me, and indeed the investigation of those matters would be operational matters for the acting police leadership at the moment to make decisions on. Clearly, that is my understanding that there are areas in that direction. I suppose that we would be looking at gross misconduct here, depending on what Mr. Power knew or did not know. I suppose gross misconduct would be a fair phrase for that. Potentially there could be an issue of the police force setting itself up, almost a MI5 type operation, and adopting a role inconsistent ... I am speculating but trying to be helpful. I know you were somewhat taken aback during the last proceedings when I spelt out in my final remarks the potentiality in relation to the initial things so it probably helps to realise the sort of potential we are looking at here.

Dr. T. Brain:
It does. It does indeed. My first observation therefore is that this hearing is premature, that when you have a better idea of whether there are specific matters that merit further investigation in a detailed sense against Graham Power, in other words after the completion of the preliminary investigation which you have initiated, then it would be an appropriate time to consider further suspension. It would be helpful, I think, Minister, for you if we do not consider these points in isolation each time. I think we can log the fact that I have made that observation and we will proceed with other matters as we go through this morning and then you can consider if it is helpful to you all the points I make at the end rather than say ... what I am not saying here is stop the proceedings until you have considered that point, but my observation is ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
You want me to consider all points.

Dr. T. Brain:
... this is a premature hearing and that while in the event of the preliminary investigation suggesting that there is a matter that is more serious, that relates personally to Graham Power, it may then become relevant for you to consider this. There are other observations, however, I think I would make about the relevancy of further suspension procedures and you may find it helpful to consider them altogether.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. Thank you. Okay, were there any preliminary points you wanted to make in relation to whether I could properly conduct these proceedings?
Dr. T. Brain:
Yes, there is, thank you. Yes, I will make those ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Do you want to start with those?

Dr. T. Brain:
I will make that point. I wanted to make that initial point around the premature nature of the matters but there is a question of whether you personally can preside, not in your capacity as Minister but in your personal capacity because Graham Power has made a complaint against you in which he alleges that you have breached the disciplinary code by making public statements.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Could I be clear, is this in the same terms as the document which I have got addressed to the Chief Minister dated 24th June?

Dr. T. Brain:
Yes, I believe it is. Graham will no doubt tell me if we are incorrect about that. But I was about to say that on taking the advice that Graham Power took, he lodged his complaint with the Council of Ministers through a letter to the Chief Minister dated 24th June. In that letter it was alleged that you had breached paragraph 1.2 of the disciplinary code which requires all parties to maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. You made a public statement to the States and spoke to the media after you had given Graham Power written notice that you were invoking the disciplinary code. So that is the first observation that we have to make. There is a complaint in being, it is a substantive issue, that you breached ... allegedly breached paragraph 1.2 of the disciplinary code by making public statements. That is a live complaint. At the current time that complaint has been acknowledged but Graham Power has received no further notification about how that matter is being progressed. Consequently, I put it to you that there is now a conflict of interest. While I am convinced you would do your best to deal with these matters in an impartial way, there nevertheless is this underlying conflict of interest, one cannot rule out the possibility of subliminal bias no matter how much one works to avoid that, and consequently it is inappropriate that you chair these proceedings and make the decision. That is our first submission.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Is that solely based on the 1.2, because there were 2 other complaints in relation to accuracy of information? I have to say that on first reading I thought there was an inconsistency between complaint one and 2 and 3 because if 2 and 3 had been complied with in the terms suggested that would have led to a greater possible ground under one.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think it is fair to say, Minister, we are not here to in any way try and deal with the complaint against you. We merely make the observation that the complaint is a substantive one, it is in being. It may have been a different matter if we had had some indication from the Chief Minister about how this matter was being dealt with. As I said a moment ago, we have merely the acknowledgment that the matter has been received. Consequently, this matter is undetermined both in terms of its scope and in terms of the way it will be dealt with. Consequently, the complaint is live, it is in being, it is substantive and there is a conflict of interests. We register that conflict of interest and that conflict of interest exists no matter how you determine the outcome of our observations. However, we are not here to address the substantive nature of the complaint. The complaint has been made, it is in being, it is in relation to you and your personal conduct and we register a conflict of interest.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay. I was puzzled by the terms of the complaint. There was a reference there to a reference being made during questions in the House to the Chief Office of Police. If you want to amplify on that because I am puzzled by that. I take it Mr. Power is aware of the existence of Hansard?

Dr. T. Brain:
I am sorry, what do you mean by that, Minister? Can you help me with that? Graham may be aware of it but I am not so please make your point.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
We have a Hansard publication in Jersey. He was saying: “I heard something said referring to the Chief Officer of Police.” I am trying to be helpful to point out that the text of what was said is reported. Indeed, if it assists you, I in fact have a copy of it here but if it assists you it is readily available on the internet. If you go into the States website and click the buttons for Hansard and 16th June, you will find it is section 6 of that. It is clearly stated there. I am merely pointing out where the stuff can be found in case Mr. Power is unaware of that.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you. I am not sure that makes any difference to our submission. I will just find out ...

Mr. G. Power:
I am aware of Hansard. I do not think it is appropriate to get talking about the substance of the complaint.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
It is just that I have the text of the words I used in the context of the Chief Officer.

Dr. T. Brain:
As we said, Minister, thank you very much for that. It may be very helpful for us to read that afterwards. For me personally, let me put it like this, it helps me and I am grateful for that observation but I will make the continued observation that until the Chief Minister has progressed the complaint against you, the complaint is in existence and it will remain in existence until it has been dealt with by the Chief Minister. Therefore the complaint is substantive and we register the conflict of interests.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
What is the status of the complaint? Because on the face of it this is a political matter, is it not?

Dr. T. Brain:
I am not in a position to discuss whether it is a political matter or not. What I would observe is that a complaint is in existence, it is against you, it is under paragraph 1.2 of the disciplinary code and until the Chief Minister has progressed the matter there is a conflict of interests. Notwithstanding, I am sure, your intention to deal with this matter impartially it cannot but be said that this is a matter that should not be before you at this current time.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Forgive me, but I cannot see what the Chief Minister can do with this complaint. What remedy does the Chief Minister have in relation to such a matter? I am really struggling with this because our relationship is a political relationship. He is not a Prime Minister.

Dr. T. Brain:
Well, maybe you could help me, Minister, in understanding what the implication of paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code is?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I think they are pretty clear, are they not?

Mr. M. Pinel:
If I can be helpful ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am not sure where you think the complaint is going to take us.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am sorry, Minister, I really am not going to engage in a debate about the substantive nature of the complaint against you. It is, in a sense ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But it is the existence of the complaint?

Dr. T. Brain:
It is the existence of the complaint and that the matter has not been resolved and that it has been acknowledged by the Chief Minister’s office - I do no think there is any issue about that - so the complaint is live, it is in being and I think ... if I can try to suggest this as helpfully as I can, I think it is of assistance to you to consider whether you should be hearing these matters today. There is a conflict of interest, we register its existence and that is a preliminary observation which you invited us to make. We are not here to discuss the merits or demerits of the complaint, that will be done elsewhere.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
You are submitting in some way this ousts the statutory powers given to the Minister under Article 9(2) of the law? “The Chief Officer may be suspended from office by the Minister which will refer the matter to the States at the next sitting and may be dismissed from office by the States.” You are saying this in some way overrides statutory powers?

Dr. T. Brain:
I am advising you to consider whether it does. Clearly we would have to consider, if you decide to maintain hearing this matter, how that would be proceeded with. We register our concern that there is a conflict of interest by virtue of the fact that a proper complaint has been made within the procedures. We are not here to debate the merits of that complaint, that will be done elsewhere. The complaint exists, it is against you personally, it is not in respect simply of your office as an office holder and that creates a conflict of interest. Minister, you are hearing these matters. You are hearing these matters. It is for you to determine how you deal with them. We are registering our concern at this point.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay, that is fine.

Mr. G. Power:
I can offer some clarification on that very quickly if you would like me to or do you want to consult? I can help the Minister with clarification, I think, in 2 points. One is paragraph 15 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct requires that any complaint be referred to the Council of Ministers. That is what the code says. The complaint was referred to the Chief Minister on the advice of the Greffier of the States, whose advice was initially sought. The second point, I do not think it is part of our case that the conflict of interest overrides the statute. What I would draw your attention to you, and Mick might be able to help with this, is that I understand that the States of Jersey Law allows the Chief Minister to designate any Minister to undertake the duties of another Minister. So the powers for the Minister for Home Affairs, under the law and under the discipline code, can continue to be exercised to the full by somebody who is designated for that purpose by the Chief Minister. That is my understanding of the States law.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is right. I think I have the power on a temporary basis to designate a Minister to cover for me because that often happens on holiday or, indeed, the Assistant Minister. I do not think that the Chief Minister has that power. That would effectively be to remove that Minister from office.

Dr. T. Brain:
Certainly you have that power, Minister, but I was not aware that the Chief Minister had that power.

Mr. G. Power:
Could I give you a little bit of history? That is when the Attorney General advised Wendy Kinnard to declare a conflict of interest you may recall that Andrew Lewis was designated to be Minister for Home Affairs in respect of all matters relating to Operation Rectangle.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is the Minister’s power of delegation.


Mr. G. Power:
I do not think we need to get into the small print of it, I was told then that the power rested with the Chief Minister or at least quite clearly that the powers under Article 9 could be exercised by somebody other than yourself. We are not saying the complaint sets those power aside, we are saying somebody else could exercise those powers.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think it is fair to say we invite you to consider that. I appreciate, Minister, that you have been most helpful to us, whenever it has been necessary, by inviting us to withdraw and consult. If you felt that was necessary now, we would obviously ... from your perspective to consider the observations - if you like the 2 observations that I have made - we would understand that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Well, I have already, of course, had time to consider this because Mr. Pinel gave me notice, and I am going hold it is perfectly proper for me to continue and, indeed, the statutory powers are not undercut. But I will give fuller reasons later on.

Dr. T. Brain:
Well, then we record our concerns and that we obviously are not in a position to physically remove you from these proceedings and we will continue with the proceedings but we register our concern that there is a clear conflict of interest here.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, I will give you fuller reasons.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay, thank you. Now, I think at this point it might be helpful again to try to simplify matters. If I asked you whether you were happy that I apply to this hearing the criteria which I did on 5th March, which I have got a copy of. I am not aware ... I have a number of copies, I am not aware that the judicial review ...

Dr. T. Brain:
One each will be ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am not aware that the judicial review proceedings challenged the criteria, which, if you remember, arose out of submissions which were made by yourself, Dr. Brain. There is a paragraph missing. In a sense I have not included in ... I have jumped ... the one numbered 5 was 6 in my notes and I have not included all that because this was comment on the U.K. (United Kingdom) stuff but 5 gave the point I came to as a result of those considerations. I am just explaining it to you, I am not trying to hide anything from you.

Dr. T. Brain:
Not at all. That is very helpful, we do not interpret that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
This cuts to the chase, as it were.

Dr. T. Brain:
I think this is most helpful, particularly if it is your intention to use similar criteria in making your assessment today.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am inviting you to make submissions - I am sorry, I am going into legalese here - on these if you disagree with them. It may be you are happy with them or it may be ...

Dr. T. Brain:
I think we can certainly address them.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, okay, that is fine. Again, it does help you, I think, to know what we are talking about. Right, well now it is over to you, I think, to make submissions then in relation to the matter.

Dr. T. Brain:
Well, as I say, just to reiterate, that we do therefore consider that these matters are premature. Looking very briefly at some of the issues that you have raised in your suspension criteria, I would invite you to consider paragraph 2: “Is there sufficient credible material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation?” You have, quite properly, initiated a preliminary investigation. When that preliminary investigation is completed you may well be in a position to determine whether there is sufficient credible material before you to disclose matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation as, self-evidently, until that process is complete I suggest to you you are not in that position. I think there are some observations that it is necessary to make in a general sense because we are not rehearsing any kind of contribution that Graham Power might make to any future investigation today but he has been as open and helpful as he can be in the current circumstances in trying to clarify matters relating to the so-called Operation Blast and any contextual information that surrounds it. I think the first observation there is that there has never been an operation targeting States Members. There may be something that is considered about the administration of a filing system but there is not a proactive operation in relation to States Members. I think that it is really important to make an observation at this point. There obviously has been a need to handle information relating to States Members from time to time and there may well be a need to set up a filing system that is appropriate to that but that does not necessarily deliver matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation. I think there are some other observations to make very clearly at this point, which is that Mr. Power has been co-operating not only with the new matters relating to so-called Blast but with the previous Wiltshire investigation. You may or may not be aware - and I only say it in the context of helping you consider how co-operative Mr. Power is being - that he has submitted a very lengthy statement in respect of the original Wiltshire matters that constitutes really probably the fullest account that has been given by anybody to date of the investigations under the code name Haven and the subsequent searches and excavations at Haut de la Garenne. So he is co-operating fully with any aspect of the inquiry, of course within his own statutory disciplinary rights. With respect to the tape recording of any telephone calls, I would draw to your attention this extract from the Jersey telephone directory, under P where police is stated as an entry, there are various numbers there and I will just read it out for you. I am quite happy, of course, for you to have this copy although I am sure you can obtain a copy of the relevant page for yourself. “Police, States of Jersey Police Headquarters, P.O. (Post Office) Box 789, SHJE 48ZD. Please note: calls may be recorded or monitored.” Now, the recording or monitoring of telephone calls is a public statement contained in the Jersey telephone directory. If we are looking at the seriousness of the nature of any matters currently disclosed by Operation Blast then I would ask you to consider them fully in the context of that very, very public statement that is made in the Jersey telephone directory. There are some other observations that I wish to make which do relate to the points that you have helpfully reminded us of here. I received a copy of a letter a few days ago that made it very clear that you had reconsidered the matter of the original suspension for the Wiltshire investigation and that you considered that no matters had changed and therefore your original decision, and the original suspension, remained valid and in place. Consequently it is self-evident that Graham Power today is still suspended from his role as Chief Officer of Police of the States of Jersey. I have made lengthy observations on 2 previous occasions about why that should not be the case but you have clearly disagreed with those observations and he remains suspended. To put it simply it is absolutely not necessary therefore to suspend him further. I am struggling with the concept of a double suspension but, nevertheless, it is unnecessary and you have indicated that that is unnecessary in your previous correspondence. I would suggest to you that when you have the benefit of your preliminary investigation and in the event that you decide that the circumstances relating to Graham’s original suspension have changed so that you might consider reinstating him, that would be the point to consider a further suspension in respect of allegations arising from so-called Operation Blast, which does relate to my original point that today’s proceedings are premature. But I would make a broader point at this point that a further suspension is unnecessary. If I refer you to your own criteria at paragraph 5(e), all of these considerations come under the necessary and proportionate test. If I can just address the proportionality of this issue now. Proportionality comes in partly through the necessity principle. I suggest to you that if it is not necessary it is therefore disproportionate to inflict so weighty an outcome as a suspension on any individual, much less a Chief Officer of Police, who is fully co-operating with the investigations and who has, at no point, interfered with or sought to interfere with the investigations. While I am quite sure that it is not your intention to give an indication of the outcome of the investigations in any subsequent misconduct hearing I suggest that you are inadvertently doing so. I have observed on previous occasions that it is very, very difficult for a Chief Office of Police to return to duty after suspension even if fully exonerated. This is for a variety of reasons but not least of which is around perception. Inevitably if there is a suspension of a chief officer it carries with it pejorative and wholly negative connotations. It makes less likely a fair and proportionate outcome simply by virtue of the fact people will have assumed that with a chief officer, somebody of that status, being suspended for such a long time there must be something substantive relating to the original matters. There is the whole question then of confidence that has been raised. This, by a double suspension, a further suspension, makes a fair and unprejudiced outcome even less likely. That, I must make clear, takes place in the context yet again of observations that I have made elsewhere that there is no equality of arms here. We are seeing the fact that there is the full panoply of the States with all its sophistication and capabilities raged against an individual who is, as yet, unrepresented in legal terms. The best he has to offer, I am afraid, is myself. So this is yet another example of disproportionality being displayed against Mr. Power.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Is Mr. Power saying that he is unable to afford to obtain legal advice, because the concept of equality of arms takes into account normally the person’s ability to obtain legal advice?

Dr. T. Brain:
I am afraid you must be aware of the cost, even I am aware of the cost, of engaging fully qualified advocates in the Island of Jersey. There may well come a point where Mr. Power will be necessitated to engage a fully qualified advocate but that is something that will have to be judged on our own proportionality test. What I am saying is that there has been no aid given to Mr. Power when he had every reasonable expectation as Chief Officer of Police to have received such aid under his previous understanding to what he was entitled. But let us keep focused on the other issue, which is the necessity principle, now. I will reiterate that it is unnecessary to suspend him (a) because he is already suspended and you have indicated recently that you have no intention of lifting that suspension and (b) that the ground for requiring a suspension in terms of his potential - and I do emphasise potential - interference with the investigation are in any case without substance because he would not do that as an individual, as a man of integrity, but he is not in a position to because he is already suspended. A further suspension, in other words, is totally superfluous and you are acting, if you did suspend him, unnecessarily and therefore, by continuance, disproportionately. However, I am confident, Minister, that you will consider the proportionality and necessity of these issues as you have indicated with your criteria marked one to 5 and that you will therefore find a further suspension unnecessary. I would invite you to let that matter lie on the table until, and if, the circumstances of the original suspension change. Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay, I will just think if I have got any questions or points I want to give you an opportunity to address me on before I start to consider a decision. I think the issue of what matters I have before me, in a sense presumably I should be considering the initial letter of Mr. Warcup dated 2nd June and Mr. Power’s document prepared in response to the request. Presumably you want me to consider that as well the former.

Dr. T. Brain:
The principal value of that this morning is not to invite you to consider them in respect of the merits or demerits of any investigation concerning Operation Blast, save to note that there are reasonable explanations given in there. But it does serve to illustrate that Graham Power is co-operating with any new process. I think that is the crucial point to make. There is no sense of spoiling tactics or anything like that. He is fully co-operating in an open and helpful manner. I think that is the most important point to make about ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
But you are not asking me to consider any matters outside of those 2 because I know one of the issues in the Wiltshire review of course was the issue of the A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) report. There is no other matters you are asking me consider?

Dr. T. Brain:
Sorry, which A.C.P.O. report.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Sorry, did I use the wrong term?

Dr. T. Brain:
I do not know, just clarify for me.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Because you have ...

Dr. T. Brain:
You must understand, Minister ...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
... actively involved with those.

Dr. T. Brain:
... I am not representing Mr. Power in respect of the judicial review so you are probably better ... if I ask what you might call a dumb question, please indulge me for this morning.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I just want to check that you are not asking me to consider any other matters other than those 2 which I have delineated or set out.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am addressing the necessity and proportionality principle of whether a further suspension is necessary. I am not addressing the question of whether ... there are more substantive issues around Blast. You have obviously information around Blast and you are most welcome to take that into account.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Okay, as long as it is not anything else.

Dr. T. Brain:
Anything else you want to say?

Mr. G. Power:
No.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is all right. Okay, well thank you very much then for your submissions. I am now going to take some time to consider ... we have finished quite early with the submissions. I always underestimate the length of time it takes me to decide things. I think I may be in a position to give a decision by 12.30 p.m. If I am still thinking or writing notes or whatever and you are back then I will get Mick to come out and inform you. I do not think I am going to be much before 12.30 p.m.

Dr. T. Brain:
I just wonder whether it would be helpful if I gave you my telephone number then?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes.

Dr. T. Brain:
Rather than, if you will excuse us, the corridor is not the most harmonious place to sit for ... Bear with me a moment and I will give this to you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Both the P.S.(?) and the other establishment has some nice external seating arrangements.

Mr. M. Pinel:
This is your mobile?

Dr. T. Brain:
Telephone number removed by VFC.
I will switch it on because it is obviously off at the moment.

Mr. M. Pinel:
Okay. Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Excuse me not rising too precipitously, I strained a calf muscle playing cricket last night.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am very sorry to hear that. We note your observations.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I attempted to rise but it hurt me then.

Mr. M. Pinel:
I will turn off now, Minister.
(Adjournment)

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am going to give a decision now in relation to the matter which I dealt with ... heard this morning. I am not considering the issue of the tape recording of telephone calls because I do not view that as a sufficient ground to warrant suspension and particularly in the light of the undertaking given by Mr. Power this morning, which undertaking was given without admission of fault. I am considering solely the issue as to whether it is appropriate for me to exercise the power given to me by statute under Article 9(2) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend Mr. Power from office as the Chief Officer of Police. That power is also referred to in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police. I am doing so on this occasion solely in relation to the matter of the investigation concerning Operation Blast and the possible disciplinary matters which may arise therefrom. I am not looking at that in parallel with the existing disciplinary matters in relation to which Mr. Power is currently already suspended but I have given notice that I may at a later date look at the 2 in conjunction with one and other as I would indeed be entitled so to do. The reason I am not doing that is to try to be absolutely fair to Mr. Power and because of the fact that that earlier decision is currently subject to judicial review proceedings with a decision having been reserved by the Royal Court in relation thereto. I am going to begin with the preliminary point in relation to which I gave my decision without giving any reasons. I said I would come back to that and give reasons. Dr. Brain brought to my attention the complaint made by Mr. Power to the - I am sorry I have written Chief Officer of Police, that does not make sense - Chief Minister in relation to an allegation of breach by myself of paragraph 1.2 of the disciplinary code, in particular the words: “All parties involved in the operation of the code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed.” The allegation is that by making a public statement in the States and answering questions thereon in relation to Operation Blast I have breached that code, and as there is an outstanding complaint against me I have a conflict of interest in this matter. The suggestion is that I exercise my power to delegate, either to another Minister or to my Assistant Minister, my powers in relation to disciplinary matters concerning Article 9(2) in the disciplinary code as far as suspension is concerned. Maybe the submission was wider than suspension but for the purposes of today it seems to me as far as suspension is concerned. I find no merit in this argument for the following reasons. Firstly, because the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 Article 9(2) gives the power of suspension to the Minister. Originally that power was vested in the committee who could not have delegated it, now it is vested in the Minister. In my view the clear intention of the statute, which is repeated in paragraph 2.3.3 of the disciplinary code, is that the Home Affairs Minister should deal with such matters unless there were a very good reason not so to do. The question is does the making of this complaint provide such a very good reason. It was only the 1.2 of the code point of the letter which was put before me but in fact the letter of 24th June 2009 contained 2 other points, which are not put before me, which suggests that I should have provided more information to the States in a way which would apparently have constituted a more serious breach of the code. It is hard for me to take seriously complaints which are so self-evidently contradictory. However, today I have been asked to look only at 1.2 and to disqualify myself based only on the fact that the complaint is pending. Frankly, any reasonable person looking at Hansard will see that I, as Minister, was endeavouring to comply with 1.2 while also fulfilling my duty to the States to inform them of a matter of great public importance. Furthermore, even if there were a breach of 1.2 then what would be the effect of that? The effect could be to give rise to a claim for damages for Mr. Power against the Minister for breach of contract. I cannot see that such a possible claim could ever constitute a very good reason for the Minister for Home Affairs to stand down from dealing with the current disciplinary matters where the statute clearly envisaged that that is what he would do. One might as well say that because Mr. Power and the Minister are currently engaged in disputed judicial review proceedings that that disabled the Minister from further considering matters or that because the Minister has initiated an investigation he should be debarred, or because he has previous considered the suspension of Mr. Power he should be so debarred. None of those matters would have any merit and, in my view, neither does this submission. I am not sitting here as a judge but as a Minister considering the exercise of a ministerial power granted by statute. I come now to the suspension point itself. I handed out a copy of the suspension criteria which were based upon the notes which I made on the meeting of 5th March 2009. I, in fact, had typed out paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of those notes. I have repeated 5 of those references ... to (5) of those notes in paragraph 5 of these notes because there was no final decision, just discussion contained therein. I will not read them out now because I am going to read them out paragraph by paragraph later on. I have before me as materials to consider, Mr. Warcup’s letter of 2nd June 2009 and Mr. Power’s document of 16th June 2009. I am not being asked to consider anything else. The main points put before me were: (1) that it is premature, prior to the investigation, for me to proceed at this point to a suspension decision; and (2) that such further suspension is unnecessary as Mr. Power is already suspended. There are subsidiary points in relation to this such as equality of arms, which I will also deal with later on. I am going to take my notes slightly out of order here because I think this would be more helpful. Dealing first of all with the premature aspect. I have sufficient information before me to make a proper suspension decision. Indeed, by the very nature of such matters the person making the decision will always only have limited materials before them prior to a full investigation of the matter. I do not find any grounds ... any merit in the submission this is premature. Dealing with the further suspension argument, there is of course an issue here which in fact has really arisen by virtue of Mr. Power’s own actions and that is this. What if the Royal Court were to overturn the previous decision on some technical reason but it was appropriate for suspension to stand in its own right on this matter? That is a possibility and that possibility is created, indeed, by Mr. Power’s own actions in challenging the earlier decision. This is not an overkill situation, this is purely me looking to see if that possibility were to occur would it be appropriate for there to be a suspension on this other matter in its own right, and that is what I am doing. In relation to the equality of arms point, there is no issue of equality of arms, no valid issue here. Firstly, because Mr. Power, who is still being paid for his role as Chief Officer of Police, is well able to afford legal advice. Secondly, because the relevant equality of arms principles almost certainly do not apply to a suspension hearing. Taking on board all the other submissions which I have received, I am now going to proceed to analyse the criteria and the case in relation to the criteria set out in the suspension criteria document which I will attach to these notes. Firstly are the allegations/circumstances sufficiently serious to allow the suspension power under Article 9(2) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, as dealt with under the disciplinary code of the Chief Office of Police and particularly under section 2.3.3, to come into play prior to a hearing. At the request of Dr. Brain I tried to give some idea of the potential seriousness of disciplinary charges - if that is the right word - which might eventually ensue from the current investigation. Of course I spoke about the issue of files or sections of files having been created on each States Member, apparently without there being any operational reason for that in terms of an investigation concerning them or a matter concerning them. I spoke about the potential issue of States of Jersey Police Force having, as it were, taken on an MI5 type role in relation to monitoring activities of States Members and I talked about the issue of the obtaining of criminal records on people who are not suspected of any criminal matter. All of those matters ... of course the involvement of Mr. Power in this, his responsibility for this, his knowledge of this are all matters which are subject to investigation and which I will have to consider in due course. My answer to one is, yes, the allegations/circumstances are sufficiently serious for this purpose. The second section: “Is there sufficient credible material before me disclosing matters of sufficient seriousness to merit a disciplinary investigation?” My answer to that also is, yes, clearly there are in Mr. Warcup’s letter of 2nd June. Three: “Is it necessary and proportionate to suspend Mr. Power?” I leave that over because that comes back in under 5(e) and I will deal with that as a final issue before me. So I now move on to paragraph 5 and taking them one at a time. Paragraph 5(a): “Factors to be looked at together, the likelihood or unlikelihood of eventual dismissal.” As I said on the previous occasion, based on limited materials, this is always a difficult test and I am not in any way seeking to prejudge the outcome of any investigation but my view at this moment in time is that there is a very serious possibility of dismissal in relation to these matters if Mr. Power were shown to be responsible for the compilation or had knowledge of the compilation of these files. Paragraph 5(b): “The seriousness of the matters investigated.” I have already commented that these are, in my view, very serious. Paragraph 5(c): “The risk posed to the Wiltshire investigation by virtue of Mr. Power returning as Chief Officer while the investigation continues.” The difficulty here is again similar to the difficulty I had on the earlier occasion. In this particular case the involvement of other serving police officers, who would be junior officers of course to Mr. Power, in the investigation is vital to its success in finding out who set this up, why it was set up, et cetera, et cetera. The question arises, how can this properly be assured while the Chief Office of Police would remain in post? My answer to that is it cannot and therefore there is a substantial risk. Paragraph 5(d): “The issue of public confidence in the Jersey Police Force.” There is a major issue of public confidence. I think it is fair to say that the response of the Members of the States of all political persuasions to this revelation demonstrated that this was a matter of serious public confidence. Paragraph 5(e), I come finally to the necessary and proportionate test. I have already dealt with the gloss on the necessary test put by Dr. Brain in the context of an overkill. Well, my view - and it is inevitably a view that is going to flow from the decisions I have already made - is that it is both necessary and proportionate for me to suspend Mr. Power in relation to the Operation Blast matters. That is the decision which I now make. I wanted to say that it is not my intention to refer the matter of this further ground for suspension to the States of Jersey under Article 9(2) because of the overkill situation. I do not intend to make a statement in the House concerning that. I intend to view this as a continuation of the existing suspension although I decided it separately in this way. Now, gentlemen, there are one or 2 matters I wanted to just mention to you in closing this morning. The first one is I need to bring to your attention the fact that I am fairly shortly anticipating receiving a report from a firm of accountants who have been investigating financial issues, use of money in relation to this investigation. I have not viewed that as being part of the Wiltshire matter, although I understand that they have been working together to a degree. But I just mention that because that is going to, I think, come out fairly soon and may well be made public, either by my actions or else elsewhere. So there is that issue. Obviously if I find that relevant to disciplinary matters I will forward on a copy of that report.

Dr. T. Brain:
Sorry, can I just seek clarification? Which investigation are you talking about?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
There is an issue raised as to the proper use of monies in relation to Operation Haven.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is what I am talking about. That is an issue which, of course, has been looked at in parallel by the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee), the Public Accounts Committee have raised issues and matters have been going on in relation to that in parallel. I instituted, earlier in the year, a report in relation to accounting practices of what happened in relation to that. So I mention that to you because Mr. Power may not have been aware that matter is happening.

Dr. T. Brain:
I certainly was not aware of it.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No, I have to say I had forgotten about. It was so long ago that I had temporarily lost track of it. I had forgotten I had done that but that is happening. I would have mentioned it earlier otherwise but that is what I am trying catch up on because that has come to my attention recently. The other thing I wanted to mention is that the direction things will go now, obviously I will continue to conduct monthly reviews without a hearing, unless a hearing is ... sorry, this is not a hearing, this is a meeting. Unless a meeting is specifically requested. Unfortunately, there continue to be further delays in the completion of the Wiltshire investigation. I understand that they are going to complete the Operation Haven investigation first and then go on to the other matter so that matters will become available to me ... obviously as and when reports do I will start reading them and start considering them and starting a movement towards making decisions as to whether this should move to a formal disciplinary hearing or not. I am just trying to track what is happening for the benefit of Mr. Power and yourself, Dr. Brain. If we move eventually on to a formal disciplinary hearing then what I would anticipate is that there would be a preliminary step in that in which there would be a meeting to discuss procedure and matters of that nature first. I think that must occur because various issues will arise in relation to that. I am merely showing my thinking in relation to this, should we end up down this road. But thank you, gentlemen, for your attendance today. I thank you, Dr. Brain, for coming over and I hope you have a very pleasant flight back. The weather has indeed been quite kind to you today.

Dr. T. Brain:
Thank you, Minister.

Mr. M. Pinel:
I will turn the tape off now.


There you have it.

That is how they went about suspending the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM for the third and final time.  It is up to the readers to come to their own conclusions about the integrity of the Home Affairs Minister but my own opinion just based on evidence and nothing else is that he is corrupt. He has forsaken natural justice, this from a former magistrate, for reasons he can only really know.


The  Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand initiated Wiltshire to investigate. All David Warcup had to do was put the files in order. They are all still down at the States of Jersey Police. Still in Special Branch where they have always been. This is your corrupt Government at work.

It is simply shocking


And yet it CONTINUES


I have one posting left on these issues. I hope you have enjoyed reading this and learning the truth. I followed my instinct from day 1 and have been proved correct. 

The Children  arn't safe as long as these clowns still hold a position of authority 


Rico Sorda


Team Voice 


Part Time Investigative Journalist 


Extracts of the Wiltshire Police Investigation into files on States members (Operation Blast)
Department
Home Affairs (Home Affairs)
Author
Wiltshire Police
Issue date
14 Jul 2010
Status
Complete
Cost
£301,100.00

Extracts of the Wiltshire Police investigation into the role of the Chief Officer of Police, Graham Power, in the creation and maintenance of personal files on States Members (Operation Blast).

The report contains the following:
  • obligation to confidentiality
  • executive summary
  • background and context (text redacted)
  • investigation strategy
  • investigation (text redacted)
  • the accounts provided by CO Power
  • legal advice in respect of charges
  • assessing culpability
  • list of conclusions
  • list of recommendations
  • appendices
The figure given as the cost of the report is the cost of the full investigation by the Wiltshire Police.

Just a reminder to readers; 

Chair Borne To Heaven Borne (A Guest Posting)


The Jersey homes I was in still stay in my memory, I could do a complete drawing of both buildings even to this day. Was the Girls Home demolished to hide another Haut de la Garenne scenario? What secrets lay buried with the Girls Home? I will be signing and selling my book at the Christian book shop in the Central Market St Helier on Wednesday from 10am  12. 30. I hope the book will help people to come forward and talk about it rather than suppress it as some have done for so long.

38 comments:

James said...

Rico, small correction please. Dr Brain was not a constable: he was the Chief Constable (of Gloucestershire)

GeeGee said...

Thank you Rico, and Stuart for your thoughts. It is quite clear you never stood a chance against this bunch of crooks, but slowly, slowly the tide turns, and it will be in your favour Stuart.

I have long been sickened, saddened and disgusted about the treatment of Graham Power who was an honorable man whose final days after a distinguished careeer were blighted by a DIShonorable fellow officer, and the corrupt States of Jersey.

We must all share this information, not only Island wide but world wide. It is now becoming patently clear that Jersey is not all that it is cracked up to be, nor ever has been.

And as an aside to this, the lady, Jean Neil, who has written the book about her experiences was visited four times in the UK by the Lenny Harper team and she has nothing but the highest praise for them.

Anonymous said...

After reading the transcript there can be no doubt Ian Le Marquand is an ignorant corrupt (and way out of his depth against Mr. T Brain) Jersey incompetent. One day Mr Le Marquand and his ilk should find themselves in a prison cell and made to pay back the £300k wasted on the non existent Operation Blast.

Anonymous said...

Children in Jersey can never be safe while people like ILM are willing to do the establishment's bidding for them.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Have just read the suspension transcript, once more, in its entirety and anybody with half a brain can conclude that is half more than Senator Le Marquand has.

Your readers MUST be encouraged to read this transcript, especially those who think it unfair to describe Ian Le Marquand as brainless. To qualify that statement and to demonstrate the desperation of Ian Le Marquand (the Law Offices stooge) to pin something on Graham Power QPM one only needs to point out that if Senator Le Marquand had have looked in the telephone directory, he wouldn't be looking so brainless right now.

Selected extracts from transcript.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

which is the tape recordings area. If Mr. Power were able to give me an undertaking that he would not make such tape recordings in future without the knowledge or consent of individuals then I would not view that as being a matter which would warrant consideration of suspension, if I can put it that way. We can effectively dispose of that for the purposes ...

Dr. T Brain:

With respect to the tape recording of any telephone calls, I would draw to your attention this extract from the Jersey telephone directory, under P where police is stated as an entry, there are various numbers there and I will just read it out for you. I am quite happy, of course, for you to have this copy although I am sure you can obtain a copy of the relevant page for yourself. “Police, States of Jersey Police Headquarters, P.O. (Post Office) Box 789, SHJE 48ZD. Please note: calls may be recorded or monitored.” Now, the recording or monitoring of telephone calls is a public statement contained in the Jersey telephone directory. If we are looking at the seriousness of the nature of any matters currently disclosed by Operation Blast then I would ask you to consider them fully in the context of that very, very public statement that is made in the Jersey telephone directory.(END)

That's about the calibre of it.............................BRAINLESS

Anonymous said...

Dr. T. Brain: What I may be struggling with, and maybe you could indulge my ignorance of Jersey procedures here, is what does that constitute in terms of a potential discipline or misconduct offence or a criminal offence. It is not that these ... we are not querying the substance of the investigation, what I need to understand is what does that amount to specifically in relation to Graham Power?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand: Well, it could ... and I can only speculate because I have not seen the report, I am not dealing with criminal matters here but my understanding is that there could be data protection offences in relation to this and that is a matter which will be considered alongside the investigation. Those are not matters for me, and indeed the investigation of those matters would be operational matters for the acting police leadership at the moment to make decisions on

A little contradictory. The acting Chief of Police can decide for operation reasons to make this decision yet Mr Power in his capacity as Chief of police not?

Anonymous said...

Oh this just cracks me up.

B I Le Marquands eventual answer after waffling in reply to the statement by Mr. Brain.

Dr. T. Brain: I will make that point. I wanted to make that initial point around the premature nature of the matters but there is a question of whether you personally can preside, not in your capacity as Minister but in your personal capacity because Graham Power has made a complaint against you in which he alleges that you have breached the disciplinary code by making public statements

specifically around Mr Le Marquands actions against 1.2 of the disciplinary code.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am not sure where you think the complaint is going to take us

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Just to remind readers of your live and interactive broadcast tonight Sunday 22nd April 2012 at 6pm (BST) HERE

Anonymous said...

The full might of the Jersey mafia against on man.


Dr. T Brain:

We are seeing the fact that there is the full panoply of the States with all its sophistication and capabilities raged against an individual who is, as yet, unrepresented in legal terms. The best he has to offer, I am afraid, is myself. So this is yet another example of disproportionality being displayed against Mr. Power.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Walker and Ogley have been named as having knowledge and possibly involved in files kept on states members without reason or justification how did that play out with data protection or criminality claims.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Graham Power QPM on IAN LE MARQUAND

Anonymous said...

This was an obvious attempt by the Jersey Power Structure to block any potential legal remedy Graham Power was entitled to, even as they called his suspension a neutral act. If all his remedies were blocked, Jersey cannot hold this suspension up to any level of international scrutiny.

Furthermore, Wiltshire is primarily charged with the professional protection of the public through the enforcement of their local and National law. Their remit in the case of their Jersey contract cannot give them the option to engage in the cover-up of criminal acts elsewhere, knowingly or unknowingly.

They will eventually be compelled to answer questions regarding their complicity in this matter, because no FOI denial can stand up to the overriding consideration of a police department having been used to subvert natural justice on so many important levels.

There is no ethical excuse for all those involved in the various reports used to harm the reputation of Graham Power. If they were provided with misinformation and therefor made false statements about Mr Power, they must be compelled to put things right for him, now.

If they made proper findings which were withheld from the public due to Jersey's excessive Wiltshire Report redactions, they must come out and say so, now.

The same standard should apply to all outside agencies and authors of reports which were then used or misused to unjustly persecute Graham Power. Their failure to publicly remedy a harmful situation they helped perpetuate demands a remedy.

I can't help but think a key consideration in all this was the deliberate misplacement of the part of the employment contract which entitled Mr Power to financial coverage of the very type of legal representation most relevant to this persecution.

Leigh

Anonymous said...

What an absoulute muppet this le marquand is,and to think not one states member has the guts to call for a no confidence motion to get rid of him, don,t they see he is only dragging them all down in the eyes of the public with all his lies (all tarred with the same brush and that sort of thing)what the public should do at the next election is as Guernsey did last week throw them out,their election result was that they got rid of 12 sitting deputies and now have 22 fresh faces,well its a start!

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, rico, on a fantastic series of postings. You have laid it out for all to see. Who can save us from this shower of incompetent .........

Anonymous said...

Dr. T Brain:

We are seeing the fact that there is the full panoply of the States with all its sophistication and capabilities raged against an individual who is, as yet, unrepresented in legal terms. The best he has to offer, I am afraid, is myself. So this is yet another example of disproportionality being displayed against Mr. Power.


Is this why part of his contract went 'awol' from the safe and HR?

Anonymous said...

ILM

'' Frankly, any reasonable person looking at Hansard will see that I, as Minister, was endeavouring to comply with 1.2 while also fulfilling my duty to the States to inform them of a matter of great public importance.''

More like scraping the bottom of the barrel in self preservation.

Anonymous said...

"Is this why part of his contract went 'awol' from the safe and HR?"

Yes exactly - and very obviously!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Deputy Tadier on JERSEY JUSTICE

Chevalier Blanc said...

I just wish that all this info could get into everybodies hand just to see how corrupt the establishment really is in Jersey.
If only people had kept faith with Stuart Syvret when he stood for Senator then i would think most of this info would have come out in the States Chamber in one way or other,.
Everybody in this Island should realise just how much they owe to you Rico for the wonderful work you have done. I would like to see you open your own newspaper. Can't thank you enough for you and Stuart and the people from VFC.

Anonymous said...

A response to the comment from Chevalier Blanc:

It may seem to be happening at a frustratingly slow pace, but people are undoubtedly becoming aware of what Rico has uncovered and reported. It may be human nature for some to want to hold on to ignorance when faced with information contrary to the sacred feudalistic beliefs, but it is also human nature to resent being lied to. And no one reading the transcripts and other evidence can avoid seeing how lied to they were. Perhaps more importantly, humans are gossipy creatures, and in a small place like Jersey, the real underlying story of this saga will continue to tempt people to learn more, at least covertly. There are some who will simply never care, but then, they are not usually as involved in much, even if they remain half-hearted supporters of this corrupt regime, so it is Middle Jersey you are slowly but surely effecting now.

Ian Evans said...

A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS

Anonymous said...

Adding to my previous comment about human nature and gossip, I do not live in Jersey but follow things closely enough to predict Ian Le Marquand will soon be tossed overboard by his former supporters simply because he isn't particularly convincing when he lies. I think ILM is a likely turncoat because his character and personality suggest a strong need for approval despite his ridiculous blustering dishonesty. So, he may be the first of his kind to point fingers, when the tide turns and he becomes resentful of his masters and their state mouthpiece media.

Rob Kent said...

Watch out. Rupert Murdoch has turned his attention to the Channel Isles. Fortunately for the Channel Isles, his empire is just about to go down in flames:

https://twitter.com/#!/rupertmurdoch/status/194697134396801024

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid a previous commenter is far too naive about people in Jersey changing their minds.

It's probably difficult for non-islanders to understand how people like Le Marquand can stay in office, but in many ways Jersey resembles the Truman Show. The island's only newspaper, the JEP, has effectively served as state propaganda for as long as anybody can remember.

Most people here are conditioned to simply accept what the JEP writes as though it is the truth and the whole truth. You see, there never has been anything else; there is simply no concept of there being a different narrative.

People who are conditioned in this way aren't interested in logging onto the internet and reading primary sources (such as transcripts): they get all they need to know from the JEP editorials.

If an election was held tomorrow, it's more than likely Le Marquand would top the polls, or nearly so. He will be viewed by many voters as a politician who defended the Jersey Way and stood up to greedy, self-serving, imported UK police officers.

Bloggers like Rico are regarded as conspiracy-theorist left-wing nut-jobs who hate Jersey and want to destroy the island.

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who won't see.

Anonymous said...

If my previous posts sound naive, even I don't for a minute believe the average person there is simply seeking to learn the truth so they can change their polarized minds. The same can be said for a great many other less insular places. Many people naturally make extraordinary efforts to avoid uncomfortable facts, and would not wish to turn to this type of news source, disregarding what they see as a conspiracy theorist blog, as you say.

Placing important information out to the wider and deliberately truth avoidant public even in more challenging locales can be accomplished through arousing people's natural curiosity about local insider information, and plain old gossip. What we call "office water cooler talk" plays into individuals' fears of being left out of the loop, as it can also be seen daily at parties, shops and pubs and so-on. With younger people, Facebook and other social media can effect local popular culture overnight by appealing to curiosity and the need to be included in the inside knowledge base. A popular local band can publicly take up a social or political cause and effect their fans' views dynamically.

This is one reason why powerful political strategists make such successful use of slogans, jokes, colorful terms and cryptic insider messages to their supporters, especially with their utilization of social media. It is why they try to use celebrities and music to spread their messages. They can make it seem cooler to be in the know than to be in the dark.

Those who are narrating the message hold incredible power, which goes to the heart of why the JEP has held such outsized influence despite its dreary quality and easily apparent disregard for all standard ethical journalistic principles.

The challenge the JEP and the other state media outlets face now is in the way they have begun to ignore more than mislead with regards to the recent news exposed by this and related local independent online media, ceding the topics to those bloggers with the hard evidence. There is a Jersey msm news vacuum now on these topics. That may be because the msm is finally resigned to being eventually caught out on their lies, not only on blogs like this, but most likely by outside media or upcoming books as well, because to outsiders, this story has "legs" with staying power.

I don't believe ignorant people will suddenly seek out blogs like this, but more that Rico, VFC and Stuart are actually creating the greater narrative now on the subject of ILM's documented corruption and on the outrageously criminal surrounding Mr Power's unjustified multiple suspensions. No one is doing much to defend ILM against the facts, and no one is trashing Mr Power's reputation any more because those who would do so have no believable weapons against the facts.

This vacuum now leaves the power of communication in the bloggers' hands. If not, I would know nothing about this situation in Jersey. Not long ago it was the Jersey msm making much to do about nothing by expressing outrage over the alleged price of those prawn cocktails in London. Their original treatment of Operation Blast was to make it a huge boogy-man of a news issue. Everything Matt Tapp said was a potential headline, as well as a judicial reference.

Now, just who is bringing up any of these topics? Those who control the narrative, like Rico. From what I have read, no member of the States who was previously involved in the cover-up now publicly mentions these issues, unless forced to. They forfeited the entire narrative and are struggling to kill the COE so these issues can somehow die before further exposure.

Your truth will win on its merit, and everyone who helps spread it holds exponentially greater power than those who hide from it.

Rob Kent said...

Given where we were 3-4 years ago when the cover-up happened - Graham Power illegally suspended, Stuart raided, the JEP and MSM lying and spinning against the investigation team - we all knew and sensed what was happening, it's just that we had very little evidence.

That meant that the establishment were able to stand up in the States and tell outright lies. The JEP was able to tell outright lies. CI TV were able to put out a pure propaganda piece from Gradwell and win an award for it.

But as a result of the blogs, and some politicians demanding the hearings and inquiry, we now actually know what the truth is.

Since all of the evidence has come out into the open and we can easily rebut any of their nonsense, the establishment and the JEP have just shut up about it and no longer want to engage with it.

Pretty amazing really, that the editor and journalists at the JEP could be wrong-footed and outrun by a 'pipe-fitter', as some fools refer to him.

Anonymous said...

Ian le Marquand reacts to the bloggers:

https://twitter.com/#!/raubrey/status/195048419885203456/photo/1/large

Anonymous said...

The Aitkenhead report, which was witheld at the request of the Law Officers, is now avaialable online

http://www.gov.je/News/2012/Pages/AitkenheadReports.aspx

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Excuse me not rising too precipitously, I strained a calf muscle playing cricket last night.

Something else in common with Frank Walker,a love of cricket!!

Anonymous said...

"Pretty amazing really, that the editor and journalists at the JEP could be wrong-footed and outrun by a 'pipe-fitter', as some fools refer to him."

Excellent commentary from Rob Kent, as always.

Rico, you rock, you just do. You should go down in history for showing what one good determined man can do when his times call for it.

Denver Gals

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of internet effect:

On Planet Jersey, an investor who was allegedly swindled on a Jersey investment has been using forums and UTube to get his message out. Boaty Boy, a thoughtful commenter on PJ, says to the disgruntled investor today, "It is interesting that the States of Jersey ministers are talking to you after all this time, let us hope an amicable settlement can be reached."

"Your you-tube video's after only being up a few days has attracted a total of 147 hits and this thread has been read now over 4,032 times. As you need to be a member to write but anyone with access to a computer in the world can read, one does wonder if people reading this are investors or should the expression be would have been investors in Jersey banks."

The investor is getting his point across where it counts, Jersey's public image.

Ian Evans said...

BLOGGERS FORCING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

rico sorda said...

I will be interviewing Deputy Tadier live on Blog TV tomorrow, Thursday 26th at 7pm.

The link is here.

http://www.blogtv.com/People/voiceforchildren

I will be interviewing the Deputy on issues concerning the Committee of Enquiry

rs

Anonymous said...

For some reason, I can't find the Deputy Tadier interview at any of your sites or links.

Anonymous said...

I missed Sundays and Thursdays Blog Tv programs, are they recorded or is it live or nothing?

In respect of Ian Le Marquands reference to his strained calf muscle that was just pathetic. A typical attention seeking peice of behaviour not waiting until someone else asked what the problem was. It ws a serious meeting yet he makes an effort to bring this into it. I hope his effort to make light of a serious meeting received the attention it deserved. None.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

We are waiting for Blog TV to upload it. VFC is finding out what the problem is as we hope to have it online ASAP

ILM= Excuse

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

It has turned out that the live broadcast with Deputy Tadier was NOT recorded so apologies to our readers/viewers but this was out of our control and was the consequence of a technical problem with Blog TV.

In the future we will be separately recording the live broadcasts with an external video and will publish them on the Blog.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You will be live and interactive tomorrow night (Sunday 29th April at 7pm BST). you will be discussing a number of issues concerning Jersey and interacting with the online audience. The broadcast will be, up to, an hour in duration and can be found HERE