Saturday, June 30, 2012

DEPUTY HIGGINS & P48.2012 - NO "IN CAMERA" HERE - WE GIVE YOU THE EVIDENCE





"For anyone looking for a deep drill into Jersey’s ongoing political imbroglios, two outstanding citizen bloggers have been working slavishly for years to lift the curtain: Neil McMurray at Voice for Children and Rico Sorda. On an island where the established media serve as the de facto mouthpiece of those in power, these self-taught journalists, who work for free under grave pressure in thankless conditions, are the only independent press around.)"Leah Mcgrath Goodman






"It is largely due to two tenacious bloggers, Rico Sorda (ricosorda.blogspot.com) and Neil McMurray (Voiceforchildren.blogspot.com) that Power's suspension has remained so high on the political agenda. Both complain that the JEP has failed to investigate what they see as the injustice of Power's treatment." The Guardian






TRUTH - HONESTY AND INTEGRITY



"IT TAKES A THOUSAND LIES TO COVER A LIE"



JERSEY BLOGGERS CONTINUE TO BRING YOU THE EVIDENCE



THE STATES OF JERSEY WENT 'IN CAMERA' AND VOTED AGAINST TRUTH - HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.



DEPUTY HIGGIN'S P.48/2012 WANTED TO RELESE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER, ANDREW LEWIS, WHEN HE GAVE IT "IN CAMERA" DURING NOVEMBER 2008 AFTER SUSPENDING THE CHIEF OF POLICE, GRAHAM POWER QPM ON THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008.



DEPUTY HIGGINS WANTED TO "RIGHT A WRONG".




THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES OF JERSEY DID NOT.




I NOW BRING YOU THOSE NOVEMBER 2008 TRANSCRIPTS




THERE ARE LIES - LIES AND DAMN LIES



It again comes down to the Jersey Bloggers to bring you the evidence. What I will show you is alarming. It makes me so angry as to what has been going on unchecked in Jersey. I do this investigative work, take the risks that come with it, because I'm just so sick and tired of the horrendous actions of my Government. We, the jersey bloggers, have stepped into the void left by our Main Stream Media. There has been deceit, lies, stalling tactics, suspensions and other countless horrific actions by a Jersey Government hellbent on covering-up the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation "Operation Rectangle". Where is the Committee of Enquiry? Where is it?



This proposition was covered in the Friday edition of the Guardian. I would like to thank the Guardian for looking at the work being undertaken by citizen journalists in Jersey. Citizen Journalist who have no protection from a search warrant happy police force. I would like to thank Leah McGrath Goodman for acknowledging the hard work of the Jersey Bloggers. Here incredible story can be read here.





Let us now concentrate on the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis.


Andrew Lewis was the Assistant Minister who took over from the then Minister Wendy Kinnard when she suddenly resigned on the 20th October 2008.


Andrew Lewis made only one decision as Home Affairs Minister Minister and that was to suspend Graham Power on the 12th November 2008.


Andrew Lewis had two things to work with on suspending Graham Power they are:


And most importantly:



The Met Report was a Review. These Reviews are never used for suspensions or disciplinary matters. The Met were chosen because they were recommended by ACPO. It is good practise for major enquiries to be reviewed by an independent force. Graham Power explains this in the above link and is well worth a read. If you could be disciplined or suspended by calling in an independent police force to review your investigation then who would bother? Then we have the Jersey situation.




Here are the main points from the 2008 "in camera"


1. Questions on Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

The Bailiff: (Sir Philip Bailhache)



1.1 Deputy Roy Le Hérrisier of St Saviour:

I wonder if the Minister could confirm that, in considering this matter, this house will act as the body which makes the final decision as to the fate that will befall the Chief Officer. Could he please confirm our precise role in this process?

The Deputy of St John ( The Minister for Home Affairs): Andrew Lewis

I assume the Deputy is talking about the possible further disciplinary process. If indeed the decision was made to dismiss the Chief Of Police, then that matter would be referred to this assembly.



1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

"Paragraph 2.1 of the code requires that in the event the Minister having disciplinary concerns he will write to the Chief Executive."

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as provided with what was said to be a copy of that letter. It is dated 12th November 2008 and in it the Chief Executive is instructed to conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the code. Part 2 sets out the actions which the Chief Executive is required to take. These included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

Those statements were never sought nor made. Why then was the officer concerned suspended?



The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.




1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?



The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.



1.5 Senator S.Syvrey

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of which Ministers took part in the earlier discussion on the Tuesday evening concerning the issue and will he also, in particular, inform the assembly whether he is aware of the fact, given the involvement of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of the Civil Service , that particular individual is one of the potential suspects in the perversion of the course of justice investigations being undertaken by the police force of which Mr Power was the head?




The Deputy of St John:

I am not aware of any such investigation but I can assure Members that the investigation will be undertaken by an independent body and in this case, the chief Constable of Wiltshire will be investigating this. He is a policing expert. He has been asked by the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey to investigate these allegations.




1.14 Senator F H Walker:

The Minister has referred to the advice he has taken, could he confirm whether or not Her Majesty's Inspector of Police has been consulted on the process and if so, to what effect?




The Deputy of St John:

Yes, I took it upon myself to consult with her Majesty's Inspectorate as I felt that they were a useful arbitrator in such matters and the question I posed was did they feel that the action that we have taken was proportionate and appropriate and I was told by Senior officer of that organisation that it was wholly appropriate in the circumstances to suspend an officer to instigate a proper and thorough investigation.




1.15 The Connetable M.K. Jackson of St Brelade:

I note that in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police there is an appeals procedure, paragraph 3. Would the minister confirm whether the Chief Officer has in fact invoked that appeal procedure and has the Minister in fact been in contact with A.C.A.S (Advisory. Concilliation, and Arbitration Service) in the UK as laid out in that paragraph?




The Deputy of St John:

The Chief Officer will have every right to do that. This process has just begun and he will have the right to appeal. The Constable of St Brelade is quite correct, but the process has just begun and he will have every right to defend himself and if he chooses to take advantage of such organisations including his own organisations, then I would obviously encourage anybody in that position to do that and seek advice and assistance. The Chief Officer will have every opportunity to do that.



The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

I take the Minister back to the disciplinary code, the first paragraph of which states and I quote:

" In the normal course of events, the home Affairs Minister will raise and attempt to resolve issues arising which concern the performance, conduct, capability, et cetera of the Chief Officer on a personal basis. The procedure described in the code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed "

Will the Minister tell us how he complied with that first paragraph of the code betore moving further on with the procedure?




The Deputy of St John:

When I took over as having Ministerial oversight of the investigation in question, I began to ask a number of questions and it would seem right and proper to appoint another force to investigate such matters which the Chief of Police agreed to. The result of that is some fairly damning evidence about the command, control and supervision of that investigation. So, Yes, the process was adopted and the outcome was a report that was presented to me that gave me absolutely no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer of Police in order to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and control of quite considerable sums of money and quite considerable resource. That is a matter that I know Members here are most concerned about in other areas I saw an absolute necessity in order to investigate these things thoroughly to suspend the Chief of Police so that we can have an uncontaminated investigation with him having the full right of appeal and process so he can defend himself.



The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

Sorry, it is quite clear from the Minister's comments that he has now jumped into part 2 of the disciplinary procedure and that he did not attempt, on a personal basis which means in discussion with the officer concerned, attempt to elucidate the problem.



The Deputy of St John:

I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered
. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate.



1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.




The Bailiff:

Minister, do not go down this road please.





The Deputy of St John

the actions that I took are justified and we will wait the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was.




Senator S Syvret:

Will the report be published when it is completed



The Deputy of St John

No, it will not because the report of the Metropolitan Police contains Crown evidence that will be used in the prosecutions that are currently underway and potential prosecutions that may come from this investigation.



1.21 Senator S Syvret:

Will the Minister state whether legal advice he has been given at any stage of this particular episode has come from the Attorney General (William Bailhache. rs) and Solicitor General ( T.Le Cocq. rs)?


The Deputy of St John:

I have taken advice from the Law Officers and that does include the Solicitor General.




Senator S Syvret:

Does it Include the Attorney General?




Deputy St John:

No


Deputy Troy

Are there any other reasons for the suspension



The Deputy of St John

No, there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation which is code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those, of a serious nature.




Let me explain to my readers the problem we have here.


Andrew Lewis says at 1.3:

"Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."

No investigation was being carried out by the Metropolitan Police. Not ever. It was review as explained on the link at the top of the post. But why was Andrew Lewis so confused? Surely, such an experienced Police Officer as David Warcup, would have informed the main players and especially the Home Affairs Minister exactly what the Met Review was about? This simply doesn't make sense. Why wasn't he told?



Then this part is even more incredable


Andrew Lewis at 1.17 says:

. "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."


Stuart Syvret was 100% right on this. Why didn't Andrew Lewis know that the Met Interim Report wasn't complete. If he had seen the Met Interim Report he would have noticed on page 1 that they said it wasn't complete. They hadn't interviewed Lenny Harper or Andy Baker from ACPO . If Andrew Lewis didn't see the Met Review again the question must be asked is why didn't David Warcup or any of the main players inform him of this. The Review was heavily quailfied. From the above quote we can be under no doubt that Andrew Lewis is saying that he has seen the Met Interim Report but doesn't know its heavily qualified. Just what is going on here? I can see why they didn't want this transcript coming out. The Minister is making it up on the spot. Does he have any idea what has gone on? What keeps crossing my mind is that if Andrew Lewis didn't see the Met Report then the only thing he had was a letter from David Warcup. Surely he didn't suspend a Police Chief on a letter from his Deputy? it just can't be so.


Then we have this bit:


Andrew Lewis in reply to Constable Crowcroft

"I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered
. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate."

Now, I just don't know this for sure, and will have to check with Graham Power ,but did Andrew Lewis nearly let the cat out of the bag there.? This is where the farce of the shredded notes comes into place. When Graham Power said no to their little game and filed for Judicial Review the Chief Executive Bill OGLEY shredded the notes. Graham Power asked for an investiagtion into the note shredding as this was required for his Judicial Review hearing. The Solicitor General said no. The Solicitor General then represented the Home Affairs Minister at Graham's Judicial Review. Im not making this up. This 100% truth. A man with many hats is the Solicitor General.


We can take it from the answers given by the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis that he has seen the Met Interim Report. When we read his quotes like these.

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."



" Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."


The above one is simply liquid Gold. let me explain;


1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

"Paragraph 2.1 of the code requires that in the event the Minister having disciplinary concerns he will write to the Chief Executive."

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as provided with what was said to be a copy of that letter. It is dated 12th November 2008 and in it the Chief Executive is instructed to conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the code. Part 2 sets out the actions which the Chief Executive is required to take. These included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

So they use the review by the Met as the preliminary Investigation. They use a Review asked for by Graham Power as a preliminary investigation in getting him suspended. How are these clowns getting away with this. What the hell was David Warcup doing when all this was going on? If he was a man of any integrity he would have come out screaming from the rooftops. Maybe he was to busy breaking into Graham Powers safe at Police HQ? or Going behind Graham Powers back with outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp? or Maybe he was to busy writing another letter? Operation Blast was the name of that one. I never thought it was as bad as this. But like I said at the beginning it takes "A thousand lies to cover a lie"


Can it get worse? Well yes it does.


On the 25th March 2010 Brian Napier QC was commissioned by the Chief Minister of the States of Jersey to produce a report into the suspension of the the then Chief Officer of Police, Graham Power. What interests me about the Brian Napier Report is what he says about the Met Interim Report and related issues.


Taken from the Napier Report;


100. That letter makes express reference to him (Mr Warcup) receiving an “interim report” from the Metropolitan Police on 10 November. It does not, however, refer to the qualifications which were an important part of that report. I am surprised that, in circumstances where Mr Warcup did not disclose the primary document to either Mr Ogley or Mr Lewis, he did not see fit to mention the qualifications that were, on any view, of some importance. By not doing so, he gave the document an importance and status which, in my view, it did not merit. When Mr Ogley then wrote to Deputy Lewis on 11 November, Mr Ogley referred to the report which Mr Warcup (at his request) had provided, and said “I am assured [the report] draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation.” That assurance could only have come from Mr Warcup himself.



101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place. I have to say I am not convinced that operational confidentiality was a sufficient reason for not looking at what the Interim Report had to say about the management of the enquiry. Criticisms of Mr Power’s leadership and management skills are matters which have no obvious connection with pending criminal prosecutions. It would have been possible for Mr Warcup to have redacted it, so as to exclude any material that it was not appropriate for anyone outside the Police to see, but retaining the parts which expressed criticism of the handling of the historic abuse enquiry. Yet, so far as I am aware, no such approach was made to Mr Warcup. And neither did Mr Warcup himself suggest such a course of action.

105. In circumstances where the report was used as a mainstay in establishing the grounds for the immediate suspension of Mr Power, no one in authority had access to anything more than a partial summary of its contents, provided by Mr Warcup. I do not regard that as a satisfactory basis on which to take a decision of such importance.

Andrew Lewis also told Wiltshire under Oath that he didn't see the Met Interim Report.


He also told Wiltshire under Oath that he didn't have any reason to doubt the Investigation until he received a letter from the Chief Executive via David Warcup.


But what is this all about;


Andrew Lewis at 1.17 says:

. "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

What is he referring to here. We have the Warcup Letter and we have the Met Interim Report. What is Andrew Lewis on about here. This is all wrong on every possible level the conclusion is simple and doesn't cost a penny.


The Child Abuse Investigation wasn't good for Jersey's Finance Image. Huge action was needed. They needed to remove the Chief of Police and show the world it was all one big mistake. They then could drop a load of Abuse Cases during this backdrop. You only have to look at the continued shocking treatment of the Abuse Victims.


Where is that Committee of Enquiry?



Shocking Truly Shocking


Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist

92 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. Not much more to say than that. Well done Rico.

What you have revealed here is prime facie evidence of criminal conduct. The police, in any functioning democratic state, would need no further reason to be arresting Lewis.

Unfortunately I feel that it is more likely that your door will be the one ordered to be kicked in.

Anonymous said...

Andre Lewis was at the sunset concert at Grantez this evening. Very soon after this blog posting went up he left in a hurry.

I bet he wont be sleeping to easy this evening.

Lying under oath. Is a criminal offence.

Anonymous said...

Nice one Rico. I thought yesterday was a great day for bloggers. This post increases that pleasure still further. Wow! Well done and thank you.

rico sorda said...

The Journalists are also waiting.

This is all happening because Jersey doesn't have any investigative journalists. This is the sorry state we find ourselves in. It means civilians like myself have a choice to make. Do we just sit back and allow this toxicity to go unchallenged or do we try and do something.

I can't sit back and do nothing. I just want some Truth, Honesty and Integrity.

I want the victims of Abuse to be treated with the respect they deserve. I want them to have a fully robust Committee of Enquiry but look at how hard that is becoming. It just can't go on. I just want this to concluded so I can get on with my life as I don't see this as a full time job. I don't do this because I want to bring down Governments and so on. I just want some Honesty.

Thats all I WANT

I can't sit back and do nothing

rs

Anonymous said...

God bless you rico.

You are a decent honest man.

Ian Evans said...

Ooops, say goodbye to your computer mate.

Back everything up and don't leave the back up in the house :)

rico sorda said...

The backup is hidden in the German Consulate and the computer is buried next to a load of old coins in Grouville.

RS

rico sorda said...

I have asked the former Chief of Police Graham Power QPM to explain the workings of these Police Reviews.



I have been asked to provide some information regarding the practice of major crime enquiries being subjected to a “Review” by the Metropolitan Police. I understand that this question has arisen as a result of the current interest in the review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry which was used as a pretext for my suspension in November 2008.
Perhaps the first point that I should make is that this review just happened to be conducted by the Metropolitan Police. An enquiry can be reviewed by any police force other than the one conducting the enquiry, although this nearly always happens within the same legal jurisdiction. For example, in the UK, English forces would review enquiries by other English or perhaps Welsh forces. They would not review enquiries in Scotland where different laws and procedures apply. When an English force operates in Jersey it is operating in a different legal system. Most English officers have never done this. Some manage to adjust to the change and some find it difficult. The main point to be made here is that “Operation Rectangle” could have been reviewed by West Yorkshire or Greater Manchester Police. It just happened that the “Met” were the force chosen. Whichever force is chosen to undertake a review the purpose is the same. An independent team of investigators look over the case with fresh pairs of eyes and attempt to assist the host force by making recommendations for improvement of the enquiry. It is intended to be a positive relationship based on transparency and trust.

rico sorda said...

The reason that the Met were chosen is that they were the force recommended by the independent experts who had been appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO), who I had invited to Jersey to quality assure the investigation and to advise and guide Lenny Harper and myself in relation to what we needed to do. These advisors were internationally recognised experts who gave their advice in writing and who reported our responses in writing. Their reports are already in the public domain. In his statement to Wiltshire Police the once Minister of Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, said that the ACPO experts told him that our conduct of the enquiry was a “shining example” of how such enquiries should be carried out.

The ACPO experts said that it was good practice for major enquiries to be reviewed by an independent force and they recommended that the Met be asked to undertake the task. They advised that the best timing for a review would be one which provided an agenda for the new management team which was taking over when Lenny Harper retired in the summer of 2008. We accepted this recommendation.

The Met review team were on the ground during the second half of 2008. As they went about their review they communicated their views verbally. Everything of significance was acted upon and was in place before their report was written.

rico sorda said...

I have been asked about the relationship between such reviews and disciplinary matters. So far as I know there has never been any such relationship. If there was it would conflict with the nature of a review. The reviewing officers have access to all parts of the enquiry and the people they speak to are encouraged to talk to them in a frank and open manner in which candid comment and self criticism can be safely made. The reviewing officers act as “Critical Friends” who are encouraged to make challenging comments and suggestions in order to assist in improving the standard of the investigation and in moving the agenda forward. The presence of the Met review team was welcomed in the force and their contribution was seen as positive. Their unfamiliarity with Jersey Law and procedures did cause them some problems. For example their subsequent reports and statements speak of the need to work with the “Police Authority” and the “Crown Prosecution Service” but these things aside they had a relevant contribution to make.

It appears that on 10th November 2008 a Mr Peter Britton, a civilian working with the Met team, was persuaded to submit a memorandum to the then Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. It is not known for certain what Mr Britton was told about the purpose of the memorandum but given subsequent events it is improbable that he was told that it would be used for suspension purposes. As we now know, Warcup edited the Britton memo and included in a letter to the Chief Executive extracts from the memo which, when taken out of context, could be read as critical. Warcup excluded items which were either positive or which indicated that the views given were provisional and might be changed. Nevertheless the letter from Warcup was used as “evidence” to justify the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

rico sorda said...

We know from the transcripts of the suspension review meetings conducted in 2009 by the current Minister, Senator Ian le Marquand, that the use of information from the Met review to justify a suspension, caused a serious rift between Jersey and the Met who, when they found out what had happened, refused to allow their work to be used any further for disciplinary purposes.

I have been asked to try to explain why the use of information from the review produced such a strong reaction from the Metropolitan Police. The main reason is because such reviews are seen as vital in supporting major enquiries. To be fully effective they have to be conducted in a “safe” environment in which officers feel confident that they can share their candid thoughts without fear of any adverse consequences. The use of review information for a disciplinary purpose undermines this principle. If what happened in Jersey became a precedent then it would change the whole nature of reviews. Officers in any force who were dealing with a challenging enquiry, where difficult decisions had been taken under pressure, might hesitate to commission a review which looked at their actions with the benefit of hindsight and which posed a disciplinary risk. If that became the case then reviews would become less frequent and less challenging, and the quality of future investigations and the public interest would suffer.

rico sorda said...

There is another reason why review material should never be used for disciplinary purposes. This involves the important principle of justice, respected in Western Civilisations, that nobody should be compelled to incriminate themselves. In a review, staff are encouraged and often required to “tell all” to the reviewing team. The use of evidence gained under such circumstances for disciplinary purposes would be a breach of this important principle of justice.

For decades in all parts of the UK the review process has been carried out in a frank and safe manner for the benefit of victims of crime and criminal justice. The important principle that the evidence from a review should not be used as a means of “self incrimination” has been respected and observed by public authorities everywhere. Review teams have operated in the confident expectation that this important principle of justice would be respected by the governing authorities in the location in which a review was conducted. That is after all the expectation of how public authorities would behave in a Western Democracy. Until that is, information from a review fell into the hands of the governing authorities in Jersey. Then the rules changed.

I hope that readers find this information helpful in forming their own views of the circumstances surrounding the “Met Review.”

Ian Evans said...

Sweeeeeeeet :)

Anonymous said...

Truth is Rico you're exposing this dirty Jersey swamp matter spot on. You seek truth, honesty and integrity and you reveal the opposite behaviours, not fitting of anyone, yet alone Jersey's corporate parent.
By way of contrast, the survivors who were abused while under the care of the States of Jersey have remained dignified and courageous throughout this re-vicitimisation and stenched cover-up by the States of Jersey.
Thank you and very well done.

Res nullius said...

Rico,

Without trying to water down the seriousness of this posting (because I can't) readers ought to know that there is a difference between lying in a police statement and lying "on oath".

A police statement is not an oath sworn. A verbal statement made in a court is on oath and, if a lie, is a criminal offence called perjury. A person cannot perjure themselves in a police statement. Only in court.

That is not to say that serious criminal offences cannot result from lies told in a police statement, they can. It is not however - on oath.

Lewis has told lies. No doubt. Both versions cannot be true.

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Great work as always. You are a journalist worthy of the title, something no one can honestly say about any mainstream media reporters in Jersey.

Don't you think voting in favor of exposing all this in camera discussion about being "misled" would have been akin to voting for criminal charges against their cronies, especially Lewis?

Remember, they had to continue to find new justifications for these multiple suspensions of Graham Power partly because you blew them out of the water with your questions about the infamous Interim Met Report.

Refresh our memories. In the end, after millions spent investigating him, didn't their final reason for the Power suspension come down to a pricey meal by his lead detective?

Woo hoo! The book will be a stunner.

B

Anonymous said...

"The Met review team were on the ground during the second half of 2008. As they went about their review they communicated their views verbally. Everything of significance was acted upon and was in place before their report was written."

This needs to be remembered.

Anonymous said...

No wonder he wanted back in & thank god he was not re elected,but then too many of his ilk were.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This document would, (in any functioning Democracy with the proper rule of law) have the cops knocking on Andrew Lewis' door.

Andrew Lewis said.

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”

Then in the Napier Review we have this

“101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

It doesn’t stop there because in Lenny Harper’s complaint to the IPCC “Operation Tuma” it was revealed and I quote.

“Para. 4.36 "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

Any reasonable, and objective observer can only conclude, in my opinion, that Andrew Lewis, and others, have been telling lies. You’ve published the evidence.

Furthermore (yet again) serious questions need to be asked as to why it was you (a Blogger) that got leaked this document? Whoever leaked it to you would no doubt have been aware that it would be a waste of time giving it to the State Media.

It is no coincidence that Bloggers are leaked all these crucial documents. It demonstrates that the mainstream (State) media over here are clearly not trusted and that is a scary place to be in a supposed “Democracy” with a free Press.

Thirty States Members voted that the public should not see this transcript. Will the State Media be asking ANY of them why? Will the State Media even mention it? Will Andrew Lewis face any consequences?

This island has really gone to the dogs and it is frightening to know that this can be done to a Chief Police Officer, decorated by the Queen and with an exemplary record and nobody gets held to account.

Last, but in no way least, we must remember this is all about Child Abuse and the Victims/Survivors who had their childhoods/lives crushed by the very people who were trusted with their “care”………..The States of Jersey.

rico sorda said...

Here we have a reply fro the former Chief of Police Graham Power regarding his illegal suspension during a live investigation into decades long Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle)


I have been asked to provide more information on some of the events and issues which emerged after I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on Wednesday 12th November 2008. I understand that this is because both the “Warcup Letter” and the “Britton Memo” (sometimes wrongly referred to as the “Met Interim Report”) have been published and have attracted some comment and interest.

Regular readers will be aware that on 10th November 2008 the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, regarding what he claimed were the findings of an “Interim Report” by the “Metropolitan Police” in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry. It was claimed that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, saw the Warcup letter on 11th November 2008. On 12th November 2008 I was called in from leave to see the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs and I was suspended from duty. The suspension was carried out without prior notice, without a hearing, without representation and without me being shown the letter on which the action was allegedly based. These events have been described in more detail in earlier postings.

rico sorda said...

I will now attempt to summarise some of the events which followed. For the benefit of international readers the term “Minister” refers to a person holding Ministerial Office in the Jersey Government. The Jersey Parliament is known as “The States” and members of that Parliament are referred to as “States Members.” Elected States Members can be Deputies, Senators or Connétables. The background to these events concerns “Operation Rectangle” which was an investigation into allegations concerning decades of child abuse in institutions operated by the Jersey Government. Many victims and witnesses alleged that some of the abusers and persons covering up the abuse were in positions of authority in the Island

At the time of my suspension, and in order to comply with the law, the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, handed me three notices in the form of detailed letters telling me the suspension was to take immediate effect and there would be a disciplinary enquiry. During the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, took written notes of what was being said. I said straight away that I would challenge the legality of the suspension and soon afterwards I gave written notice that I would be seeking a review by the Royal Court. I asked for a copy of the notes taken by the Chief Executive. I was told they had been destroyed. I was given what was claimed to be a typed record of the meeting which had allegedly been prepared from the handwritten notes. The typed document said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting.

rico sorda said...

All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12th November 2008. The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,” at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.” That was untrue. There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered. I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting. The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.

The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away. He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made. He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while. That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said. The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me. But he botched the job. He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter. Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened. It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration. During the suspension meeting the Minister let it slip that the media conference to announce my suspension had already been planned for that afternoon and that a media statement had been drafted the previous evening. He therefore found himself attempting to keep to a planned order of events under time-pressure and he simply failed to cope. These are the best explanations I can think of for the reference in the letter to an earlier meeting which everyone agrees did not take place. Nobody, including the Jersey Government, has suggested better ones.

rico sorda said...

I also examined the presentation and content of the letters. They claimed that the Minister was acting upon information received on the previous day in the form of the Warcup letter. The implication of this was that the three letters had been prepared after the Warcup document had been received. I did not think that to be plausible. I came to this view following a consideration of the detailed and legalistic tone of the letters and my assessment of the abilities of those who would have been responsible for producing the documents within the timescale which was being claimed. In plain terms the letters were to complex, too legalistic and too “good” to have been produced in the time available by the people involved. I could not think of anyone at the heart of the Jersey Government who would have the ability to produce the three documents between the Minister seeing the Warcup letter on 11th November 2008 and the suspension meeting on the morning of 12th. It turned out that I was right in that assessment. But my efforts to confirm that suspicion revealed a great deal about the Jersey regime’s attitude to transparency, fair play and justice.

I served written notice on the Chief Ministers Department that I was requesting technical information from the government database regarding the times and dates on which the three letters were created. Under the States of Jersey Code on Access to Information I was not obliged to give any reason for this request but I nevertheless, at various stages, indicated that the information was needed by me to assist with my Judicial Review, my defence against disciplinary allegations and to test the integrity and reliability of those who may be witnesses against me. My application was fiercely contested by the then Chief Minister of the Jersey Government, Senator Terry Le Sueur, with the full support and representation of the Jersey Law Officers Department. The matter dragged on for almost a year and eventually went to a full hearing before a Complaints Board convened under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. The Chief Minister was represented by the Law Officers Department. I represented myself with the able assistance of the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft. After a full hearing the Complaints Board found in my favour and said that the Chief Minister should release the informatio

rico sorda said...

Once the Complaints Board had published its decision the information which I had requested almost a year earlier was finally disclosed on behalf of the Chief Minister. I received written details from a person responsible for information technology services for the Jersey Government informing me of when the three letters issued at the suspension meeting were first created. One of the letters, the one in which the Minister told the Chief Executive that he was considering disciplinary action, was first created at 1400 hours on 11th November 2008. That was the day on which Andrew Lewis said that he first saw the Warcup letter, although elsewhere he had indicated that he was also influenced by a presentation he had received on the evening of 11th, which casts some doubt on the credibility of the letter created at 1400 hours that day. If he did take a decision after seeing the Warcup letter then he did not take much time over such an important matter. However, in respect of the other two letters the position is more straightforward. The letter from the Minister telling me that he was starting the disciplinary process was first created at 0844 hours on Saturday 8th November 2008. The actual suspension notice was first created at 0848 hours, also on Saturday 8th November 2008. In other words the key disciplinary and suspension documents were created days before the alleged “Interim Report” had been received, days before the Warcup Letter was even typed and days before Lewis claimed that he had taken his decisions. It is also worth noting that under the Disciplinary Code the letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive is supposed to be the document which starts the process. Yet it was the last to be drafted. By the time Lewis recorded his decision on Tuesday 11th November 2008 to ask the Chief Executive to begin the implementation of the Disciplinary Code the suspension notice had already been in existence since the previous Saturday.

rico sorda said...

“Bang to Rights” you might think. Surely the Jersey Government had been caught red handed. The most obvious interpretation of the known information was that the decision to suspend had been taken first, and the necessary documents prepared and checked by unidentified senior figures who were the real decision makers in this matter. After that task had been completed, others had been given the job of “finding some evidence” to justify a decision which had already been taken, and to produce a “cover story” to be agreed between the parties. Not so according to the then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur. After the information regarding the times at which the letters had been created was disclosed he stated that the drawing up of the discipline and suspension notices in advance of the evidence being received was just “contingency planning.”

It is worth taking a step back and looking at the sheer implausibility of what we were being asked to believe in this explanation. We were asked to accept that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 senior staff in the Chief Ministers Department decided to come to work and prepare suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police as a contingency for the possibility that the Minister for Home Affairs might want to take action on the basis of a report which had not been received and which neither they or the Minister would be allowed to see, and a letter which had not been written. Amazingly, some States Members appeared to believe this account. Some plainly did not. Led by Deputy Bob Hill a growing number of States Members decided that they wanted to know more, and they wanted to hear it from a more independent and trustworthy source than the Jersey Chief Ministers Department.

rico sorda said...

This led, early in 2010, to the appointment of Brian Napier QC to conduct a review and publish a report. This appointment was achieved in the face of reluctance by Ministers and some still unexplained watering-down of the terms of reference after the appointment had been agreed. By that time it was apparent that heads had been got together and it had been agreed that the “contingency planning” story could no longer stand up to examination. This was particularly the case once it became clear Napier would discover that the Chief Executive had spoken to the Solicitor General regarding powers to dismiss the Chief of Police on 24th September 2008 and preparatory work for a suspension was underway in mid-October, (Napier report paragraphs 28 and 79.) So in making their submissions to Napier, Ministers and their allies came up with a third account of events. The “third version” claimed there had been concerns (albeit according to Napier not documented) which had been growing for some time and that these justified suspension when taken together with the Warcup letter. When asked by Napier on what basis these concerns had been formed it was said were “coming out in meetings of the Gold Group” (Napier Report paragraph 79) on which the Chief Ministers Department was represented. In exchanges in the States following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Ministers representation on the Gold Group and the (undocumented) negative messages which his representative was allegedly bringing to Ministers were used as a lifeline and were repeatedly relied upon by the Chief Minister and others.
But in taking this line other problems were created.

To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation. These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted. Lewis and others signed to say they had been made aware of that possibility.

rico sorda said...

In his statement to Wiltshire, Lewis said “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” The statement made by Lewis was supported to varying degrees by the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and other members of the governing group. But according to the information revealed in the Napier report, Lewis and others, who included Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, had been secretly meeting and communicating for months to discuss the means by which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police could be removed from office. This is no longer denied by anyone. So the written statement made by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, to an investigation conducted by Wiltshire Police under the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, gives a false and misleading account of how the Minister came to his decision. It is difficult to see how such a material inaccuracy could have been recorded other than with a clear and calculated intent to deceive readers of the statement, and to conceal from myself, my defence team, the Jersey public and States Members the true circumstances surrounding the unprecedented action taken by Lewis.


It might at this point be worth reflecting on what the reaction might have been had this revelation emerged in respect of me or Lenny Harper (my former Deputy who initiated the Historic Abuse Enquiry.) What would have been the reaction of Ministers had it become known that we had knowingly made false and misleading written statement to an enquiry of this nature? Or for that matter what might have happened had we been found to have destroyed the original notes of a meeting in an apparent attempt to prevent them being seen by the Royal Court as happened with the notes taken by Ogley at the suspension meeting? No doubt there would have been high-minded political condemnation and perhaps calls for prosecutions. The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have felt that it was his duty to spend one or two million pounds on an “independent report” into the matter which could then be launched in a public fanfare with no right of reply. As it was the revelations related to loyal and obedient servants of the regime so nothing happened. It was all quietly buried.

rico sorda said...

In order to remove any confusion, the true position regarding the Gold Group is as follows. The formation of a multi-agency Gold Group was considered in the early stages of the investigation. The problem at that time was that the detailed and far reaching nature of many of the allegations had not been fully assessed. There were a number of allegations which touched upon senior figures in government agencies. The establishment of a multi-agency group would have presented the risk of potential suspects or their associates having an oversight of the enquiry. The complications and risk of compromise which this would present were considerable. It was therefore decided that it would be unsafe to create a multi-agency group until the position clarified. After further assessment I gave approval for a Gold Group to be formed in the summer of 2008 and it operated from that time. This position is not accurately reflected in the Warcup letter, nor could it be if it was to serve its intended purpose. The Gold Group and other issues had to be presented in that letter as part of a crisis which required immediate and ruthless resolution. Had it been made clear that the Gold Group was an issue which had been identified, addressed and resolved some months earlier it would have been hard to argue that drastic action was justified. But that is now history


In spite of all of the conflicting and contradictory accounts offered by the Jersey Government we can be sure of some things which have emerged from this issue. The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other. And this is not a story about me. I am not a victim of child abuse. I do not have to seek justice from the very authorities whose conduct and ethics have been exposed by their actions in this case. It is no wonder that the survivors of decades of abuse in Jersey Government institutions have little faith in the Island’s political and legal system. If the regime will lie about one thing then they will lie about another thing. If they will destroy evidence in one case then they will destroy evidence in another. If they are willing to collude and cover up the truth in relation to one matter then they will do the same about other things. If the Jersey regime could do this to me and get away with it then think what they could do to others. Think what they could do to the victims of abuse. Think what they could do to you. Think about it.

Graham Power

Anonymous said...

These are some powerful words from Graham Power.

"It is worth taking a step back and looking at the sheer implausibility of what we were being asked to believe in this explanation. We were asked to accept that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 senior staff in the Chief Ministers Department decided to come to work and prepare suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police as a contingency for the possibility that the Minister for Home Affairs might want to take action on the basis of a report which had not been received and which neither they or the Minister would be allowed to see, and a letter which had not been written. Amazingly, some States Members appeared to believe this account."

"The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other."

Wait! Is it true that ministers responsible for the proper governance of Jersey, including some of those involved in Mr Power's suspension, were able to vote to keep this secret?

Anonymous said...

There is a highly revealing interjection from the chair in the transcript of the in camera debate. Lewis admits to having seen the interim met report and goes onto state that "lord only knows" what else will be forthcoming in the final report. The chairs response "that he shouldn't go down that road" indicates to me that he realises that Lewis has made a grave mistake but contradicting the official line. To my mind this shows the chair was aware of the improper nature of the actions taken against Power and he has implicated himself in the cover up. Of course this is very difficult to prove at this stage but it does suggest that Lord Carswell's reccomendations that the roles of head of the judiciary and also the parliament need to be separated.

Anonymous said...

"If Jersey Government Ministers are prepared to lie and cover up about one thing then we are all entitled to assume that they will lie and cover up about other things"

It is not good enough to say that these things happened in 2008 and things have since changed. Within the last few days the Jersey Government and their cronies have voted to continue the cover-up. From henceforth we are entitled to assume as a matter of proven fact that the Jersey Government is an organisation which lies and covers up the truth, and to keep on assuming this until the contrary is proved. They are a dishonest, if not criminal organisation masquerading as a Government. They deserve no respect and nobody in the world should believe anything they say. Their word is worthless, their promises are worthless, their assurances are worthless. They will only be believed and trusted by fools.

Look at what happened to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It carries on unchecked.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Andrew Lewis lied to the States is interesting enough. Equally interesting is who else was present in the Assembly at the time who knew that he was lying and chose to remain silent both at the time and subsequently. Did the Chief Minister and his fellow Ministers know the truth? Did the Law Officers know the truth? Did they sit and do nothing while the legal and democratic process was subverted before their eyes? And did they care.

Anonymous said...

Nobody who knows Andrew lewis could possibly suspect that he had either the brains or the initiative to construct this conspiracy of lies all by himself. Because he was the Minister for Home Affairs, and therefore the person with the legal authority to act, he had to be the "front man." In the light of all that has emerged we are entitled to speculate as to who were the hidden forces pulling his strings. And more interesting than that. Just what precisely were their motives and what was it that they were wanting to hide.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

From Graham Power's sworn AFFIDAVIT (Andrew Lewis hasn't written one)

Mr. Power says;

"However, at the time neither myself, nor I believe anyone else in the room, had any doubt that this was an invitation to resign."

Then we have Andrew Lewis saying in the "in camera" (secret) debate.

"I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part."

So if we were to put, in place of the dots, "Uh Um I mean retire to another room" then it sheds another light on the statement.

He also accuses Mr. Power of "complete fabrication." Well somebody is "fabricating" around here and it doesn't look like it's Mr. Power. Considering Bill Ogley destroyed the handwritten notes we might never find out the truth of that episode.

Anonymous said...

Lewis has been caught out bang to rights for lying yet it will still be covered up.

Anonymous said...

Remember that we are talking about late 2008. Lewis was not standing for re-election so, in November, he knew that in a month or so's time he would no longer be a States Member.
He was "buttered up" and told he could do his Island's reputation a great service by getting rid of Graham Power as his swan song. He was told that there would be a bit of a fuss initially but that it would all blow away, that his service to the Island would be remembered and that he could make a return to the political fold in a few years with due recognition for his outstanding past service.
Lewis is not an unintelligent man. But he was young and naive. He was being used by the likes of Ogley and Walker (and probably some of the Law Officers) who, in terms of intellect, ruthlessness and sheer cold blooded determination to have their own way were in a class of their own.
Lewis was the sacrificial lamb.
Now, as a result of you persistent bloggers, the truth is out. Lewis has clearly committed the crime of perjury simply because he was not sufficiently adept at lying consistently. Or should I say, not capable of following his orders properly.
In such a case, one would ordinarily expect the police to initiate an investigation and to submit a report to the AG for a decision on whether to prosecute for perjury.
Shall we start holding our breath?

Anonymous said...

Fantastic work, Rico. You genuinely put the island's mainstream media to shame - I don't know how they can face themselves in the mirror each morning.

Nobody who reads Graham Power's clear, measured and intelligent statements can have any doubt as to the man's integrity.

Contrast this with the muddled, contradictory and downright dishonest statements from our government and associated cronies.

The simple truth is that Graham Power was removed, unlawfully, in order to prevent him doing his job in prosecuting serious crime by well-connected people within the island.

True to form, those involved in this crime were so cocky and so stupid, they couldn't even get their lies straight.

The eyes of the world are currently on Jersey. Those involved should be very, very worried.

Anonymous said...

States members have to take some sought of oath of office. Is it a criminal offence to lie in the States Chamber?

Rob Kent said...

Re perjury: Can someone explain if lying to Napier is perjury? I suspect Lewis was telling the truth to Napier but lying to the House.

Lying to the House seems to be not uncommon in Jersey. In the UK it would be a resigning offence but since Lewis is no longer a States member that is irrelevant anyway.

We now know for sure why Ogley shredded his contemporaneous notes of the Power meeting, because he wanted to hide the fact that they had no evidence and had not observed the legally required process of suspension. That is, they were acting illegally.

It's interesting that the uncovering of this tawdry sequence of events has resolved itself through the gradual revelation of documents.

It started with Ogley shredding his notes, then Power discovering that his suspension documents were written a week before Lewis said the decision was made.

Without the Internet, they would have kept all this secret. Which is why pretty much every government in the world wants to control the Internet.

Don't believe them when they tell you it's a fight against paedophiles and terrorists - they will find other networks. It's an attempt by governments to control the messages we receive.

Anonymous said...

Well so much for those shouting conspiracy theories in your direction.

Evidenced proven facts. For all to see.

Well done Rico. Keep it up

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,
Thank you (& Stuart & VFC) for your brave and persistent efforts.
Ex Senator Syvret will be able to give you some tips & advice on how to fill your time at La Moye prison while you are held at "The Bailiff's pleasure", no doubt similarly having had your public interest defence disallowed. (yes overseas readers; that really happened).
You probably know in your heart that, like Stuart, you will not escape retribution because Jersey has long been a "Company Town" and the men you criticise ARE the law.
International media attention protected the child abuse investigations while it lasted. But when it became old news the creatures crept out from under their stones and made their plans, helped by the oh-so-willing-to-please Andy Lewis.
(It's ironic that they used someone in short pants to cover up the abuse of people in short pants)
Hopefully media attention and your contacts will be sufficient to protect you until the war is won - otherwise they will do it because they can. If you think it is bad now, just wait till UDI.

Meanwhile ("back at the ranch") let's see what the "real" journalists at he JEP are up to via www.thisisjersey.com/news
Well, hot of the press : Sunday 1st July 2012, 6:00AM BST. "Deputy warns of dangerous parking in Wellington Road"
Well how are you going to compete with that Rico ? lol

I always like to watch the JEP go into spasm when confronted by a real story that they were trying to pretend does not exist.
The "you-say" has been stuck for 14 hours on "Constipated Planning costing jobs in construction industry"
Can I proffer the headline :

"Constipated pretend Newspaper fails to deliver News"
(17,000 Island Sheeple fail to notice)

The JEP, "At the ROTTEN heart of the Island"

Boycott It !
You get more real news at "Jersey Today" and it is not a waste of trees or 50p's

Anonymous said...

So Philip Bailhache acting as the the Bailiff is seen here directing Andrew Lewis. The only reason that one can think as to why is that he knew what was and wasn't in that report. Was he involved with the legal advice that Andrew Lewis sought from the "Legal Officers"?

No wonder Philip Bailhache would look favourably at full independence from the Crown.


Bravo Zulu Rico.
The Beano is not the rag

Ian Evans said...

"States members have to take some sought of oath of office. Is it a criminal offence to lie in the States Chamber?"


Nothing our politicians do is criminal, or didn't you know?

Their Oath of Office (I assume) would be a Common Law OoO to the Queen and the people, breaking this OoO is TREASON!

Anonymous said...

So the next step is?????

Anonymous said...

This is what Andrew Lewis signed in his Wiltshire statement....................“This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”

If anybody can put up what his oath of office is to the states it would be helpful?

rico sorda said...

The next step is to keep going. The next step is to get a fully robust Committee of Enquiry.

rs

Ian Evans said...

Ask Trevor :)

Anonymous said...

Contacted by the Guardian this week, Lewis insisted the reasons for suspending Power were "compelling". He said: "The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and was a neutral act in order to give the chief officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office." He could not go into more detail about the evidence which led him to suspend Power, he said, because he was "bound by the confidentiality requirements in the chief police officer's discipline code." He strongly rejected any allegations of a conspiracy.

Oh dear.

Anonymous said...

"
Lying to the House seems to be not uncommon in Jersey. In the UK it would be a resigning offence but since Lewis is no longer a States member that is irrelevant anyway."


In Jersey the Ministerial Code of Conduct demands a resignation for the same.

But this being Jersey, it never seems to matter.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This is what it's all about and, so History shall RECORD

Anonymous said...

Gwyn G. B. from BBC Jersey radio seemed a bit mifted this morning when her male guest, live, called The Guardian, liars.

Anonymous said...

I feel this has been disgusting behavior by all involved in the removal of the Police Chief.

Mr. Warcups letter to Mr. Ogley with the deceitful use of the interim Met report partial review, being wickedly spun as an investigation into Mr. Power for what I can only see as a deliberate purpose of removing Mr Power from the job in hand and closing down the investigation into child abuse that was destroying Jerseys reputation.

Anonymous said...

You say, "The next step is to keep going. The next step is to get a fully robust Committee of Enquiry."

The best way to do that would be for all Jersey bloggers and politicians of integrity to coordinate with the survivors groups, the Guardian, the international journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, and all the bloggers and others outside Jersey who support your efforts. All attention must be focused on the sure to be immense effort to water down the terms of the COI, which will need to be exposed as a scandal in itself.

Anonymous said...

A conspiracy is a secret plan by officials to do something illegal or wrong. This is the manner in which Jersey conducts itself. Jersey defends its corrupt practices by labeling those who speak the truth about it as nutters and conspiracy theorists. Stuart Syvret was correct in his assessment of the situation discussed during the in-camera debate and he was ridiculed. Now there is no senator of his calibre left to challenge those whom evidence shows have conspired against the rule of law.

rico sorda said...

Here is the email I sent Brian Napier QC today. It is a straightforward question


From: rico sorda <
Subject: The Napier Report - Jersey
To: bwnapier
Date: Sunday, 1 July, 2012, 17:44


Dear Mr Napier QC

During my investigations into the suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power I have come across the transcripts of the "in camera" debate given by then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Having read your report, in paragraph 101, you state that both the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis hadn't seen the Metropolitan Police "Interim" Report. The

I quote it here:

"101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources."

The reason for contacting you is very simple. Did you have access to the Statement and consequent questions that Andrew Lewis faced in the States of Jersey during November 2008. During this debate Andrew Lewis say's that he has in fact seen the Met "Interim" Report.


Here are his quotes:


Andrew Lewis at 1.17 says:

. "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."


" Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."

The only other document in circulation at the time was the David Warcup letter dated the 10th November 2008.

I hope you can clear this issue up for me.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda


http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator

Anonymous said...

rico looks like the guardian are keeping a close eye on this excellent work.

Helen Pidd ‏@helenpidd
Jersey-watchers: @ricosorda has an important leak re the minister who suspended the police chief leading abuse inquiry http://bit.ly/MKDDc8

Anonymous said...

Your email to Brian Napier is a timely one. If he has any desire to make an ethical contribution to the pursuit of justice for abuse survivors, he should move forward now. His confidentiality clause with Jersey's government was surely predicated upon their official promise of honest communication and complete access to those documents establishing the solid evidence. He now can see that he was unethically used by those who lied, misled and withheld evidence, and those who edited and misrepresented Mr Napier's own professional product for nefarious purposes. What he does now in response to this will permanently and historically define him as a human being, to an increasingly international audience.

Anonymous said...

Great job, Rico and VFC.

Now that National and international journalists are following your blog, it would be an ideal time to quickly cover the facts they would consider most newsworthy.

Anonymous said...

Philip Baihace on lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJo9JbZ3z-o

rico sorda said...

This is the reply I received by Brian Napier QC.

Dear Mr Sorda

Thank you for your email.

I regret I am unable to help you with information about what matters were or were not known or available to me in writing my report. Because of the
duties I owe towards the States of Jersey as the body which commissioned my report, I am unable to respond to queries which come from any other source.

I hope you will accept that I am not trying to be obstructive or unhelpful to you in your continued investigations; it is simply a matter of me acting
in accordance with the obligation of confidentiality I owe as a legal professional to my client.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Napier


He achieved something that 90%of States Members fail so badly on. He replied in double quick time.

rs

Anonymous said...

I would like a peek at his contract because I suspect the client breached it, which will harm Mr Napier's reputation in the long term. His work did not appear to be that of a man willing to sell his integrity and reputation, but they will drag him down if he makes no further challenge to the historic record.

Anonymous said...

He replied in double quick time because he is smart enough to see the writing is already on the wall for this scandal. You are mentioned and your blog is linked to a Guardian article. He seems more aware than the oligarchy does of your having taken up the mantle of investigative journalist inside a State Media stronghold.

Anonymous said...

Mr Napier's reply is professional, carefully balanced and carefully worded. Pay close attention to his words. He says:

"Because of the duties I owe towards the States of Jersey as the body which commissioned my report, I am unable to respond to queries which come from any other source."

This is quite correct. He cannot answer your question. BUT if the States of Jersey (and I think it was the States Employment Board to be precise) were to ask him the exact same question, he would answer it.

Mr Napier is virtually encouraging you, in polite legalese, to get the right person to ask the question and he will answer it.

I fear it may mean another proposition being brought to the States Assembly, but wise heads on the SEB (if there are any) might prefer to avoid the embarrassment that would bring and will just ask him anyway. Now is the time for transparency.

RICO, find out which actual entity commissioned Napier and pressure that entity to ask the same questions as you have.

rico sorda said...

1. On 25 March 2010 I was commissioned by the Chief Minister of the States of Jersey to produce a report into the suspension of the then Chief Officer of Police, Mr Graham Power, in November 2008. The terms of reference given to me required me to look into the sequence of events leading up to the decision by the then Minister of Home Affairs to suspend Mr Power and the conduct of the principal officers involved in that decision.

rico sorda said...

The culture continues. Just look at the Chris Swinson debacle.

They attacked his integrity. That is the classic Jersey Way.

Out of control. No one ever learns lessons in Jersey. Lets move on - lets move on. lol

No one ever learns the lessons.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Both sides of the story and one side doesn't STACK-UP

Anonymous said...

I am not convinced that a proposition need s to be brought to ask Mr Napier this question. Any States member should be able to drop him a line.

Trevor?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting how the chair steps into save Andrew Lewis from putting his foot in it.

On the 12/06/2012 the Deputy Bailiff also pipped up. Should the Deputy Bailiff be telling the Minister what to say?


2.11.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Minister is wrong. It was not just the George Burrows case that I was going to raise. There are a number of cases. Members are contacted by members of the public in fact far too frequently on matters concerning the police force including further reports of police officers entering property without lawful cause. In other words, entering without a warrant and so on or taking property from premises and then losing the property. We have incidents reported where the cases have involved former police officers and all of a sudden the inquiry has come to an end. Those types of matters, who should we take those to? Is it you or is to whichever?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think it is a matter of choice. I would always suggest that matters be taken initially to senior police officers. But if people are dissatisfied with the outcome of that, they should come to me, because I have the wider role of oversight. In such cases, I will pass on information and request a brief report in relation to the matter, so that I can assess what is going on and whether it is being dealt with properly. As I say, I would always, in relation to any of the Home Affairs departments, urge people to go first of all to the senior officers of the department and only if that fails then to come to me and I will then intervene.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister, I hesitate to intervene, but public confidence in the police is very important. Is it worth adding something about the Police Complaints Authority? You have mentioned it briefly, but Members perhaps have not focused on that.

Anonymous said...

"If Jersey Government Ministers are prepared to lie and cover up about one thing then we are all entitled to assume that they will lie and cover up about other things"

It is not good enough to say that these things happened in 2008 and things have since changed. Within the last few days the Jersey Government and their cronies have voted to continue the cover-up. From henceforth we are entitled to assume as a matter of proven fact that the Jersey Government is an organisation which lies and covers up the truth, and to keep on assuming this until the contrary is proved. They are a dishonest, if not criminal organisation masquerading as a Government. They deserve no respect and nobody in the world should believe anything they say. Their word is worthless, their promises are worthless, their assurances are worthless. They will only be believed and trusted by fools.

Look at what happened to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It carries on unchecked.

Now that is correct. Ozouf stays Swinson goes. What a joke the island is.

Child Abuse Cover-up says it all about this place.

Anonymous said...

Reply to comment 3.11

Some members of the States who sat through the original in camera debate have surely by their inactions been prepared to accept the cover up.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many blog readers saw the article by Rod Liddle on page 19 of the Sunday Times in which he offered the view that Jersey had become more trouble than it was worth and should be offered to Argentina as a straight swap for the Falklands. So far this idea does not appear to have gained significant political support. All the same, Islanders might want to book a few Spanish lessons just in case.

Anonymous said...

I saw the Rod Liddle comment piece and thought what I always thought, namely that he's an irrelevant plonker.

He intends his work to be humourous. It often isn't.

He'd be better off using a few column inches to highlght what Rico has uncovered.

rico sorda said...

It looks like the shambles continues unabated with the resignation of the Comptroller and Auditor General. How amazing that the person who was in-trusted to compile the report is the one who finds himself having to resign.

Nothing has really changed since the illegal suspension of Graham Power. Jersey is run by egomaniacs.

Look at the out of control Senator Bailhache. He is the real Chief Minister. He is the one stalling the Committee of Enquiry. He is the one who hijacked the Electoral Commission.

People need to have a serious look at the level of representation they are getting.


The States of Jersey is not fit for purpose.

90% of the Politicians can't even submit a written or oral question.

There should be an Political and Economic IQ test for States Members.

And people still think the Children are safe

rs

rico sorda said...

I find it quite alarming that Brian Napier QC didn't have the transcripts from the "in camera" debate. What else didn't Napier have? We know our toxic representative nobbled the TOR's that had the former Chief Minister Terry Le Suer lying in the States.

rs

Ian Evans said...

LAW SOCIETY LETTERS

Anonymous said...

"There should be an Political and Economic IQ test for States Members."

I don't agree with that.

The public should be allowed to elect whoever they chose.

Once you start bringing qualification criteria into the equation, which of course would be determined by politicians themselves, you open up some very undemocratic possibilities. You of all people should realise that.

With Jersey's unique non-party system of government what's needed is a system to be put in place which allows greater public accountabilty for politicians after they have been elected.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"An american journalist being refused entry into the UK and Jersey seemingly because she is investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey and our State Media don't even think it's worth a mention?"

rico sorda said...

I listen to nearly every States sitting and read hansard rather more than I should - believe me - every States member should have a Political and Economic IQ test.

I don't think people realise just how awful this current assembly is. Most of them don't have a clue about anything. Yes, there are some who can step up but the majority are playing at it and picking up 45 grand.

They are not fit for purpose.

The States of Jersey is not fit for purpose

Step back and take a good hard look.

Look at the Lime Grove fiasco.

How is the current Home Affairs Minister still in post when he should be in court for his shambolic and corrupt handling of the Graham Power affair.

The Constable of St Saviour picks up 45 grand of our money and for what exactly? Turning up twice a month and pushing a button?

There are many of them.

They are not what we need in these difficult times

rs

rico sorda said...

"With Jersey's unique non-party system of government what's needed is a system to be put in place which allows greater public accountabilty for politicians after they have been elected."

Cant argue with that

The Chris Swinson saga along with the Graham Power episode shows us everything that is wrong and toxic in Jersey,

rs

Anonymous said...

News - 2 hours 6 minutes ago Abuse Of Care Home Children 'Truly Horrific'Sky News -
..Abuse Of Care Home Children 'Truly Horrific'
Sky News – 3 hours ago....
EmailPrint......Related Content.
....Children in care homes are being subjected to sexual abuse of a "violent and sadistic nature", England's deputy children's commissioner Sue Berelowitz has warned.

She made the comments as the Government announced new reforms that aim to better protect youngsters who reside in the country's 455 children's homes.

The action comes following a report published by Ms Berelowitz, which was ordered after the jailing of a sex abuse ring in May which preyed on vulnerable girls in Rochdale.

Only one of the girls was in care at the time of the abuse but all were said to have been known to social services at some point in their childhood.

The ongoing inquiry has highlighted evidence that children in care are particularly vulnerable to child sex exploitation, with some residential homes being specifically targeted by abusers.

Ms Berelowitz said her research found perpetrators come from all ethnic groups, as do their victims, who are as young as 11 and are largely but not exclusively girls.

Speaking alongside Tim Loughton, the children's minister, as he announced the new measures, she said she had been shocked by what she had found out.

Ms Berelowitz said of the abuse: "It is of a violent and sadistic nature.

"I've been in the children's services field for a very long time, and I have never come across the scale of violence and sadism that I'm encountering now.

"The stories that children and young people tell us are truly horrific.

"I think it's quite right and proper that the Government is paying special attention to this group of children as the state is their parent and therefore we have a special duty of care to children who are under care orders of one kind or another."

Mr Loughton said three steps of immediate action would be taken.

Although police figures show that an estimated 10,000 children go missing from care every year, the Government's official data recorded only 930 children disappearing.

Mr Loughton said a new system of measuring how many children go missing each year would be used, while more would be done to ensure that children's homes are properly protected and located as police and local authorities are not currently able to share information about where they are.

More will also be done to make sure children are sent to homes closer to where they are from.

Mr Loughton said there were currently clusters of children's homes in certain areas, particularly coastal resorts like Margate in Kent, and in his own constituency in Worthing, West Sussex.

Parts of the West Midlands and north west also suffer from a disproportionate number of children's homes, he said, while Kent has a particularly large amount, with research finding that some were even located in the same street as convicted sex offenders.

Ministers also want to see the quality and effectiveness of children's homes improving by making inspections tougher.

Mr Loughton said the Government wanted to tackle the "out of sight, out of mind culture" that allows abuse to go on.

He said: "We are talking about a very vulnerable group of children.

"Children who come into care should expect a degree of safety in the care of the state.

"Children who come from very traumatic backgrounds, they may have been abused or neglected for a long time, need to know they are safe in the form of care the state is providing for them.

"These reports lift the lid on very serious weaknesses in the system.

"There are good children's homes and excellent care workers but it is clear
that far too many of the most vulnerable children in society are being exposed
to harm and danger.

Anonymous said...

#1of2
This is a personal take on the situation - those who are more knowledgeable should feel free to correct me where necessary.

Thank you unon @8:24am ref. the nine men convicted in the latest Rotchdale child sexploitation cases.
It is of course different (with the religious and racial angles) from our Jersey cases but there are some areas where it is useful to compare and contrast.
child abuse and sexploitation do indeed occur everywhere. Unbelievably some people on ThisIsJersey seem even to cite this as a reason why nothing can (or should?) be done about it. This complacency is dangerous and contributes eventually to a cultural acceptance of child abuse.
No community will achieve zero occurrence of child abuse, partially due to the strength and persistence of the (at least male) sexual urge which will ultimately find a way, at least amongst a proportion of potential offenders.
Safe and layered systems are required because risk taking behaviours of individuals, particularly those who would score well above average in psychopathic assessment tests will MAKE OPPORTUNITIES until they are caught. Disbelief protects the perpetrator who will often have spent years building up a reputation of good works, a network of supportive friends and colleagues and even a myth of irreplacability.
Paedophilic appetites cover a whole range of conditions - some must be viewed as being on the cusp of normal behaviours. There are inevitably borderline situations and one can view the variation in consent laws and ages, even in western countries, with some confusion or even concern and defining sexual morality is an ongoing challenge to all societies as they develop. Children are (to varying extents) sexual beings (shock, horror) and certainly become so in the years that they change from a child into an adult. Sex is not a civilised affair - it is routed in our most basic nature and is as intensely competitive as any other biological survival mechanism and historical biological reality means that there is a significant potential for persistence and coercion hard wired into the male sex drive.
It is a legislative and a moral maize where we could all get lost.

Anonymous said...

#2of2
This persistence and potential for coercion may be amongst the male strategies that is successful biologically but this becomes an ongoing challenge ans source of confusion for civilised man.
For recipients of male attention it is potentially problematic; even for the adult and able bodied, but it is beyond the comprehension or fortitude of a child who is not physically or mentally equipped to resist.
It seems that perpetrators regularly use all weapons at their disposal; money/bribery, trickery/misinformation, alcohol/drugs, fear/threats and actual bodily harm.
The intensity of biological urges means that even otherwise apparently civilised people seem to be able to do these things.

To most people an image of a child tends to produce a protective response. Brain scans on paedophiles show a sexual response to an image of a child - they cannot help it - it is (arguably) not their fault, but their uninhibited activities are almost universally viewed as damaging (and in many cases are undeniably so)
Sexual orientation (however formed) is probably not alterable to any great extent, so paedophiles are destined to a lifetime of resisting or redirecting their urges or becoming amongst society's most despised offenders and potentially leaving trail of damaged lives behind them.
Perhaps some resist all their lives and some resist initially, but over the years their condition becomes normalised and rationalised in their minds and they start abusing.

Unenviable -but this (by my understanding) is the "nature of the beast".
While we rightly think beast, it is probably unhelpful to say it. Let us say "sufferer" of the condition.
The sufferer (who is generally male) is someone's son, someone's brother, father, someone's uncle. They are generally likable because beasts do not get near children. (The notable exception being in detention/residential centres!)

Small, interdependent, connected insular societies are the most susceptible to corruption and this includes the protection of sexual corruption. All societies have have that insidious small percentage of paedophilia "sufferers", some of whom will be in position so wealth and power, but compare the UK report mentioned by unon above and the UK's clear determination to treat the problem and improve the safety of vulnerable young people. Compare this with Jersey's reaction "it didn't happen", "it's better now", "time to move on", "lessons have been learned" -NO THEY HAVEN'T !

An (eventual) willingness to convict in Rotchdale and not waiting decades for the cases to go cold appears to have achieved a reasonable conviction rate in this latest UK case

The child, the circumstances and the nature of the abuse will determine the level of damage caused.
I imagine that the more intense the coercion the worse the damage. It may be in "mild" cases of inappropriate seduction that societies reaction might be as damaging as the abuse itself -because of the guilt and confusion that is a result of this whole area being a social taboo. -Treading on eggshells springs to mind.

Anonymous said...

There is an archaic and in some ways actually primitive view in Jersey regarding the sexual abuse of children, as is reflected in the Roger Holland affair, and the willful ignorance of the lifelong compulsion paedophiles suffer from and the often lifelong damage that abuse causes its victims.

The balance between the protection of vulnerable children and the humane treatment of paedophile sex offenders is understandably controversial, but there are treatments which can help prevent recidivism of convicted molesters after they become released prisoners. They must be permanently isolated from children and provided with group home-type support, preferably with ankle monitors and other monitoring systems. Psychological counseling alone is dangerously ineffective.

The most humane way to deal with child abusers is to rigorously protect children from them and to also protect the molester from the opportunity to act on the sexual compulsion. These offenders do not transform into normal sexual beings, and at best, can learn to appreciate having their dangerous impulses kept in check by monitoring.

A compassionate view of those driven by the paedophilic urge is to understand that they are often suicidal and many do beg for help or even ask for chemical castration. We do them no favours by offering them freedom to submit to their own compulsions.

Anonymous said...

The Constable of St Saviour picks up 45 grand of our money and for what exactly? Turning up twice a month and pushing a button?

same as previous constable thats why they should NOT be in states

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A little off subject but thought this comment from an earlier Blog would give you a chuckle.

"If you want to read a proper political blog which deals solely with politics and not cheap point scoring check out Philip Ozouf's blog.

No wonder this man will end up being the CM, he knows how to behave himself."

From HERE

Anonymous said...

Let's be frank here. The current Constable of St Saviour, Sadie Rennard did not get voted into her position because of her ideology, her passion or her experience. She got voted in because Peter Hanning was so appalling bad at the job.

When one considers that she was one of Bailhache's proposers it is easy to see what happened. The establishment knew that Hanning would get ousted and so put up an acceptable face to stand against him.

Sadly Sadie Rennard has turned out to be everything that she 'claimed' she disliked about Hanning. In effect, another puppet forthe establishment and another vote in their pocket.

Anonymous said...

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE: IN CAMERA DEBATE
Presented to the States on 16th April 2009 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee


15. PPC wishes to stress that it does not believe it is relevant that Senator Syvret considered that the remarks he made were in the public interest. During the discussion on the matter of privilege on 3rd January 2009 he stated: “I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever about publishing the information I did. It was a profoundly important piece of public disclosure information, the public good required that it be known.” PPC wishes to point out most strongly that the public interest test cannot be applied by members in relation to in camera proceedings. If members take the view that they can disclose information from an in camera debate simply because it is in the public interest, members will not be able to speak freely during such debates for fear of having their remarks reported and their privileges will therefore be breached.


16. PPC has considered whether any action could be taken against the Jersey Evening Post for publishing the material it did. The Committee has concluded that realistically there is no action that can be taken by the Assembly against the media and would stress that the real “culprits” in this matter are the unnamed members who spoke to that newspaper.

That should help you Rico.

Anonymous said...

Come on now... This is Jersey!!!

Just because it was considered that no action could realistically be taken against the government's propaganda machine does not mean that the same rules apply to Rico.

Ian Evans said...

Malfeasance & Perjury part 2

Anonymous said...

Thank you unon @ July 3, 2012 8:46 PM for mentioning the "C" word !

Chemical Castration is indeed a more realistic alternative to physical castration (pass me the scalpel -or perhaps the block and mallet ! CALM DOWN)

Chemical Castration is probably quite effective as long as the "sufferer" remembers to keep taking the tablets. Implants might be available/developed to make the dosing more verifiable.
I have heard Chemical Castration mentioned before in this context and I believe that it has been used voluntarily in some countries. Does anyone have information on the extent of use and any data/experience on the effectiveness ?

As discussed earlier by unon above & myself shortly before, due to the nature and strength etc. of the sex drive, this sort of treatment is the only thing likely to genuinely rehabilitate offenders and prevent a high proportion re-offending. However chemical castration is very unlikely to become widely used because it contains the word "Castration" - which in fact it is NOT.

I like being a liberal (small L) and chemical castration is likely to be more liberally palatable if it is re-branded as "chemical curbing" or "chemical behaviour management" or something more with a more catchy and more user friendly sound to it ?

Any suggestions ?

Anonymous said...

Good suggestions. Chemical castrations does sound much worse than almost any other term imaginable. The problem with this treatment is that it does not always work to prevent sex crimes. Some acts, like rape, are frequently tied to innate rage and the desire to dominate or humiliate the victim, adult or child, and the perpetrator is not always able to perform sexually. anyway. But paedophiles are one group of sex criminals which can be treated successfully with this medication as part of a permanently supervised multimodal treatment and compliance program. Do Jersey police, social service and judicial officials even know or care about any of this?

Anonymous said...

Any one see that film The Whistleblower about corrution in Bosnia, the UN, security firm which is now employed by the Americans in Iraq and Aafghanistan,
and cops all involved in trafficking of young girls and all coved up the whistleblower got no were, its on sky now