Wednesday, October 24, 2012

THE CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT - A REMINDER BEFORE WE START




SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND  HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER





This is a re-visit to an old posting


This is a look at the workings of our Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand



This is the lead in to  a number of postings titled "THE CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT"


THE UK IS ASKING "HOW DID IT HAPPEN"


LOOK TO JERSEY FOR YOUR ANSWERS


WE HAVE IT ALL


JUST READ THIS POSTING. IT IS A WARM UP. YOU MUST EVEN DISCREDIT ACPO IN THE "CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT"





OPERATION END-GAME 4



THE ROLE OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER SENATOR IAN LE MARQUAND




WHY DID THE 4 ACPO REPORTS HAVE TO BE DISCREDITED?



FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE GRAHAM POWER QPM GIVES THE READERS HIS OPINION 



I must thank the http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/  for supplying the audio for this Blog Posting.



During the previous blog postings we have been looking at the complete breakdown of the rule of law in Jersey. The actions of the former Chief Executive Bill Ogley, former Chief Minister Frank Walker, former DCO David Warcup and then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis have been well documented. The politicised removal of former Chief of Police Graham Power is now a documented fact. 



Now is the time to turn our attention to the present Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand (ILM).  For all the faults we can lay at the door of Andrew Lewis, and let's be under no illusion, there are many, the actions of ILM  far surpass his predecessor. When you put the actions of ILM under the spotlight and scrutinise his handling of the Graham Power suspension and related issues it leaves one feeling shocked and amazed at his  total incompetence, arrogance, lack of natural justice, kangaroo courts and his failure to up hold the law and good governance in public office. 

Today I want to focus on the issue of the 4 reports by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)  and reasons given by ILM for not using them.  During the suspension reviews  conducted by ILM on 13 February and 5 March 2009 we discover that he has done exactly what Andrew Lewis did previously.


2008 - Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis suspends GP on;

A letter from David Warcup, a briefing given by David Warcup on the evening of the 11 November 2008 with reference to a Metropolitan Police "Interim" report.

2009  5 March -  Home Affairs Minister ILM after two suspension review meetings keeps Graham Power suspended on the Warcup letter,  briefing notes from the Warcup and public opinion. 


Now, I really want you to think about this. What's missing  from the above? What never ever seems to get a look in? What is missing from the original suspension and the continued suspension of Graham Power? What's missing that could have added some balance? I will tell you what.


4 -ACPO  REPORTS - 





The ACPO Reports caused the establishment a big problem. How could they keep their story going.  The ACPO Reports had to be discredited.

 This is where the Audio by "THEJERSEYWAY" comes into play.  

On 21 March 2010 there was a Sunday Talkack programe featuring Deputy Roy Le Herissier and ILM. The part im interested in concerns  the ACPO Reports,  what ILM says about them and how he discredits them.  

You must remember that ILM is prepared to form a judgement on public opinion and not the 4 Reports produced by Andy Baker (SOCA), Anne Harrison and John Mooney (NPIA). This is what we are dealing with here. You just can't make this up. Even when Graham Power sought Judicial Review the ACPO Reports were not permitted as evidence.  Why could this be? Why had the ACPO Reports turned into the establishment's very own Kryptonite? The answer I believe is a very simple one. I will allow you to form your own opinions on this as mine are obvious.



PLEASE LISTEN TO THE AUDIO BEFORE CARRYING ON WITH THIS POSTING. 


THE AUDIO IS A MUST LISTEN - The whole programe can be listened to here:



The Audio takes some seconds to load up. 


21/3/2010 








I have published the urgent Oral Question that was lodged by then Deputy Bob HIll after listening to this talkback programe. It is reproduced below. 



4. Urgent Oral Question
The Bailiff:
We then come to an urgent oral question which was due to be asked at the last sitting but was unable to proceed because the Minister was unable to be present and so it was agreed it be held over to today’s sitting.
[9:45]

4.1 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding comments made during the BBC Talkback programme about a senior ACPO officer:
Will the Minister inform Members whether he broke a confidentiality clause by claiming on the B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation) Talkback programme that the Wiltshire Police had identified what the Minister claimed to be a “scandal” involving a senior A.C.P.O. (Association of Chief Police Officers) officer, and if so, why?  Would he further state what the conflict of interest was and with whom the person involved agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in A.C.P.O. reports?  Has the Minister made an official complaint to A.C.P.O.?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
I want to first of all explain to Members why I was not here on the last occasion.  Both myself and my wife were struck down on the evening of the Monday at about 9.30 p.m. with a Norwalk-type virus which was not very pleasant and it would not have been very pleasant either for me or for other Members if I had attended on the next day.  In answer to the question, there are 2 assertions contained in the question which I do not think are factually correct.  In addition to that I will try and answer as briefly as I can but, as is the habit of the Deputy of St. Martin, it is a multi-part question.  Firstly, I do not believe that I have broken a confidentiality clause and that is for the reason set out in some detail in my written answer to 5302 to which I would refer Members.  Secondly, I do not think that I mentioned the Wiltshire Police in this context.  I am not sure of that, and I have not had a chance to check any transcript, but I do not think that I did.  My intention on the Talkback programme was to attempt to achieve a better and fairer factual balance in relation to the situation.  In particular, my intention was to deal with issues which had been put into the public domain, some by the Deputy of St. Martin himself, presumably on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, and also by others.  Those issues included an assertion that the first and second reports of the A.C.P.O. Homicide Working Group provided a complete defence to the Chief Officer of Police.  Now, I have not made any factual decisions on these matters and cannot do so because of the fact that I am involved in a disciplinary matter but when matters were asserted in this way which were not, in my view, in any way balanced, I believe it to be a public duty of mine, as the Minister involved, to correct and to seek to balance the situation where there are clear imbalances in what has been put to the public.  There are a number of issues in relation to the A.C.P.O. reports.  There are various issues and, of course, it all depends upon what their status was.  Were they just a friendly policeman coming alongside to give friendly advice or were they in some sense intended to be independent advice?  If they were intended to be the latter and it was my understanding at that time that that was the intention, then there are a number of issues that arise.  In particular ...

The Bailiff:
Minister, I appreciate this is quite a lengthy question but this is turning into an extremely lengthy answer.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I cannot avoid that.  [Laughter]

The Bailiff:
How much longer do you have?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
About a third of a page, Sir.  It was, after all, given the status of being an urgent oral question.  I think it is not improper for me to respond in some detail to a matter which has been deemed to be urgent [Laughter] if I may put it that way.  I shall try and be as brief as I can.  The issue to which I alluded was an issue as to whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the senior officer involved.  That conflict of interest would be in the area of the fact that that officer was about to apply in Jersey for a senior post in the Jersey police force.  Now in my view there was an obvious potential conflict of interest in that sort of situation and the conflict is between the person’s desire to be objective, if it was going to be an objective report, and the temptation to say and to do things to please the senior officers already in the force.  That is the issue.  I do not believe that I have at any time said that this officer agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in reports.  I have, however, said I believe that certain recommendations which were made by the officers were not contained in reports.  Finally, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make an official complaint at this stage.

4.1.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I know my question was lengthy but I have difficulty finding out where the answers were.  I think most people were looking really at the “scandal” and I really feel it hardly could be said it was a scandal.  Could I ask the Minister whether in actual fact he has seen any of the 4 A.C.P.O. reports and, if so, will he agree then that the senior applicant from A.C.P.O. who was applying for the job had?  Two of the reports were published before the actual interview and 2 were published after the interview; would he agree with that also?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
The 2 reports which are particularly being relied upon were before the interview.  I am not sure of the timing of the other 2; they may well have been after.

The Deputy of St. Martin:
Could I ask the Minister again, has he seen any of the 4 reports?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Yes, I have indeed.

The Deputy of St. Martin:
I did ask, would the Minister then agree that the 4 reports were consistent in the way in which they reported favourably about the way in which the States of Jersey Police were conducting the investigation?  Therefore, if there was any scandal surely it would be the fact that there was no scandal because the reports were consistent in the way they reported favourably from before the interviews for the job and then after the interviews for the job.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I do not want to go into detail and expressing a view in relation to the contents of the reports because this is part of the disciplinary process that I am part of.  It was the first and second reports which were particularly relied upon and put into the public domain and it is in relation to those that I was seeking to achieve a greater balance.

4.1.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:
Given that the Minister is, as he says, so essential to the eventual decision on the Chief Police Officer’s suspension, in terms of talking about providing a fairer picture does the Minister not believe that using terms like “scandal” and “scoop” for theJ.E.P(Jersey Evening Post) as he used to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel can only paint the exact opposite picture, intentional or otherwise?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct.  If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper.  The term “scoop” was used by me rather light-heartedly in a particular context and that particular context which I checked from the transcript of the hearing was the context that I had given an interview with the J.E.P.specifically in relation to the timescales in relation to the different reports.  I do not want to start talking to the Scrutiny Panel about that detail.  I do not find that was being reported before the main Article.  That was the meaning of the word “scoop” in that context.

4.1.3 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:
I just want to ask the Minister about the review hearing into the suspension.  He has talked in his answer at length about balance and I just would like him to comment on the impression given by the transcript which is that the letter from the acting Chief Officer of Police, which is then rebutted by Dr. Brain, seems to be the only evidence that he took serious cognisance of.  He said that he could not look at other things like A.C.P.O. reports and so on which gave the other side of the picture and found reasons for not doing so, and I just would like his comments on that.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The factual matters that I had before me in relation to the suspension hearings which I conducted in February and March 2008 were indeed the letter from the now acting Chief Officer setting out concerns in relation to various issues and an extract - I think it was the outline - of the press conference, for want of a better word, which took place in November 2008 which stated certain specific matters.  I excluded certain other matters from what I was considering.  The decision I had to make was as to whether I should start looking at any of the evidence in relation to the matter.  The problem with this, if you start looking at partial evidence, where do you end: you end up in a sort of mini-trial.  I am very experienced in the parallel situation which is bail applications where exactly the same situation arises.  You make a decision based upon the allegations and the broad sweep of things.  You do not allow yourself to be drawn into looking into detailed evidence.  The specific issue which is raised by the Deputy of St. Mary was challenged, of course, as part of judicial review proceedings before the Royal Court and the Royal Court upheld the approach which I had taken.

4.1.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:
Can I ask a supplementary on that?  The Minister said that in the review hearing he excluded certain other matters and that is the point, I put it to him, why people are uneasy about this process.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, Deputy, how does this arise out of this question?  This question is related to the A.C.P.O. report.
[10:00]

The Deputy of St. Mary:
Well that is exactly it, that those reports do not seem to have been taken into account in the review hearing, so only one side of the story, if you like, and then that is treated and assessed but not the other side and excluded certain other matters and I do not understand why.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Well that is exactly what I have just explained, that the A.C.P.O. reports would have been part of the evidence in relation to the matter.  Even if I had looked at the A.C.P.O. reports, and I have subsequently, it would have made no difference to my decision because I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained.  I do not know whether they were followed out properly; I do not know whether they even make sense.  Now all these are issues which have to be looked at in a wider context.

4.1.5 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:
I was obviously there during the scrutiny review.  I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that using terms like “scoop”, which may be appropriate for an ice cream salesman but not necessarily for a statesman, and sensationalising issues by talking of “scandal” on the radio and then not giving evidence on the radio, is partaking in the exact kind of behaviour for which the Deputy Chief of Police ...

The Bailiff:
Deputy, that is an exact repetition of the question that Deputy Trevor Pitman just asked.

Deputy M. Tadier:
Well, in that case I will leave it.

4.1.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:
I will just ask the Minister would he not really agree that the real scandal is the Chief Executive Officer’s role?  He was the person who appointed the Deputy Police Chief.  He was then involved directly again with the suspension of the Police Chief with the Deputy Chief Police Officer and now has come forward with recommending that the Deputy Chief Officer should have the suspended police officer’s job.  Would he not really think that is the real scandal of what is going on at the moment?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
No.


This suspension of the former Chief of Police has been a sham from start to finish.

 The Home Affairs Minister must be made to explain his actions. They are not befitting of someone who holds public office. When you look at his actions and the evidence it leaves you baffled as to why a former Magistrate acted in the way he did. Could it be, this is only my opinion, that he gave up his very well paid magistrate job to do exactly this. The establishment needed someone with some form of legal background. They needed someone to help put it to bed. It didn't happen. Some decent politicians along with Bloggers started investigating and have now unravelled a cover-up and suspension  that goes to the very heart of the Government and Law Office.


Rico Sorda


Team Voice


We now come to the reply from Former Chief Of Police Graham Power regarding these issues;


I have been asked by the blog authors to comment on the “ACPO Reports” in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry (Operation Rectangle.).   My attention has been drawn to a radio interview and other comments made over the past two years by the current Minister for Home Affairs Senator Ian le Marquand.   When commenting on the ACPO reports the Minister has made references to a “scandal” and a serious conflict of interest.   He said that the reputation of ACPO would be damaged by the nature of their involvement in the Enquiry.

It might be helpful for readers not familiar with the role of ACPO for me to attempt to summarise the nature of the organisation and its role in relation to Operation Rectangle.   The term “ACPO” is an abbreviation for the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.   Police officers and civilian staff who operate at or above the level of Assistant Chief Constable in police forces in those three countries are members of ACPO.   Senior Police Officers in Scotland have a separate professional association.   The role of ACPO is not to be confused with that of a Staff Association or similar representative body.   The professional and employment interests of Chief Officers are represented by a separate organisation which is the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA.)   ACPO is concerned entirely with professional matters.   Its role includes the development of best practice in policing and the provision of guidance and support to forces facing an exceptional challenge.   

ACPO is divided into Business Areas each of which is led by a senior figure, normally a Chief Constable who, in addition to his or her leadership of their own force, will have a wider responsibility for a particular area of policing and will provide guidance and leadership at National Level.   The Business Area for the purposes of Operation Rectangle was the one concerned with Crime.   At the time of the abuse enquiry it was led by the Chief Constable of an English force.

Once it became clear that “Rectangle” was to become a major enquiry I arranged for the part of ACPO responsible for Crime to be contacted and asked to provide advice and support.   Shortly afterwards members of the ACPO Homicide Working Group (HWG) arrived in the Island.   They were led by an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of major crime.   At that time the person concerned held a senior executive position in the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.)   It might be worth making the point that the experience, qualifications, seniority and credibility of the ACPO team which advised officers engaged in the abuse enquiry exceeded by a huge distance that of any other body which has expressed an opinion on the matter since that time.   This includes Wiltshire Police and it certainly includes David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.

It is understood that the terms of reference for the Homicide Working Group are in the public domain as are their reports in relation to the enquiry.   I think that it would be fair to summarise the role of the HWG as providing expert advice and support for the investigation and to give a measure of quality assurance.

Readers of the HWG reports will see that they are thorough and professional and go into some of the fine detail of the enquiry.   They identify positive aspects of the investigation and they also make recommendations for improvement.   Their reports also contain a running commentary on how their recommendations were acted upon.   In my view it is fair to summarise that aspect of their work as positive and sometimes complimentary both in relation to the enquiry, and the speed with which the recommendations were implemented.   Readers of the HWG reports are entitled to come to their own view on these matters and are encouraged to do so.

In addition to their written reports the working party also provided face to face briefings.   I was briefed on a regular basis and attended meetings at which members of the working group communicated their thoughts in detail.   I also arranged a series of briefings to key political and government figures.   These included the then Minister for Home Affairs Wendy Kinnard, the then Deputy Minister Andrew Lewis, the Chief Minister Frank Walker, and the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers Bill Ogley.   I also established a rule that neither me nor any other member of the force should be present during these briefings.   This was arranged so that the discussions could be as open as possible and that there could be no suggestion that the free exchange of information and views had been inhibited by the presence of me or another senior officer.   The verbal feedback from Ministers was that this arrangement was useful and in his statement to the Wiltshire enquiry Andrew Lewis says that he and others were told at these briefings that the force was offering a “shining example” of how such an enquiry should be conducted.

Subsequent to my suspension the use of the ACPO reports became controversial in a number of areas, the primary two of which were their non-use in considering whether to impose or maintain the suspension and the derogatory comments, referred to earlier, made by the current Minister.

The issue regarding the non-use of the reports has been explored in detail in other forums and I will attempt to summarise it briefly here.   Neither Andrew Lewis in imposing the suspension, or Ian le Marquand in maintaining the suspension, would allow themselves to read the ACPO reports, or to be strictly correct, would not allow themselves to consider them “on the record” when the suspension was being officially considered.   What they did or what they read when nothing was being recorded may remain a mystery.   What we know for sure is that Lewis enacted the suspension on the basis of a letter from David Warcup which included some very selective quotes from a memorandum by a member of the Metropolitan Police who were separately reviewing the enquiry as a result of a recommendation by the Homicide Working Group.   By the time Ian le Marquand reviewed the suspension the Met had insisted on the withdrawal of its material from the process which left le Marquand with even less evidence than his predecessor.   This led to a situation whereby the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was being kept suspended entirely on the basis of comments made in a letter by the Deputy Chief Officer (made Acting Chief Officer with a salary increase subsequent to the letter,) David Warcup, but the detailed and documented views of the ACPO Homicide Working Group were ruled out of play.   As indicated earlier, the ACPO working group was staffed by recognised experts whose advice was widely sought at international level.   There is no record of anybody of note seeking the opinions of David Warcup on matters of major crime.   Readers can come to their own view as to what this situation indicates regarding the desire of the Jersey authorities to come to a well informed and fair decision regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of their Police Service.   In considering this matter it might be helpful for the reader to consider whether, had the ACPO reports contained something damming and highly critical, Ministers would have been equally determined to rule them out of play.   Readers may also wish to consider the plainly conflicted position of David Warcup in the context of the Ministers subsequent comments, which I will now attempt to summarise, as to what in his view constituted a conflict of interest.

The second issue of note relating to the reports are the critical comments of the current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, in which he refers to “scandalous” matters relating to a conflict of interest concerning the role of ACPO.   This aspect was “trailed” by the Minister in a series of comments which built up interest and exposure until he eventually revealed what was on his mind.   We were told by the Minister that the senior member of the Homicide Working Group had applied unsuccessfully for the position of Deputy Chief Officer of the Force.   That was it.   That was the “scandal.”

But the implications of the repeated comments of the Minister were plain enough.   The suggestion was that the status of the person concerned as a candidate for an appointment in the force had led to some toning down or perhaps outright misrepresentation of what ACPO had to say.   It might be worth thinking this through.

To help with this process it might be useful for the reader to consider just whose thoughts were supposed to be influenced by such a deception.   Certainly not mine.   The selection and appointment of the new Deputy Chief Officer was made by a panel consisting of Wendy Kinnard, Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley and an advisor from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.   It was done in a Jersey hotel several miles from Police Headquarters.   I took no part in the process and did not enter or go within miles the hotel building until the selection had been made and I was to be informed of the result.   It therefore could not have been me who was supposed to be influenced by positive comments in relation to the enquiry.   If it was anyone it was Ministers and the Chief Executive.   But readers may have spotted that there is something not quite right with this aspect of the Minister’s argument.   The Minister for Home Affairs is suggesting that a candidate sought to gain improper influence with the Jersey establishment by saying positive things about the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   If indeed he was, then he had got it the wrong way round.   The Minister for Home Affairs appears to be saying that ACPO reports in relation to the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry were corruptly influenced in a positive direction in order to gain favour with Jersey Ministers.   Given the undisguised hostility to the enquiry demonstrated by the Islands government at that time this does not seem probable.   So far as I know the Minister has never tried to explain how this would make sense from the perspective of a candidate and I cannot work it out either.

The remaining aspect of this curious set of allegations which readers may wish to consider is the sheer gravity and magnitude of what the Minister is alleging, and his lack of follow-through with the serious allegations he has made.   There is no record of the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs writing to the Serious and Organised Crime agency and formally putting to them his allegation that one of their senior executives is corrupt.   There is no record of any complaint made to ACPO.   There is no record of any request for an independent investigation of the serious allegations made by the Minister.   There is just a record of words thrown into the air on Radio Jersey and in the sanctuary of the States.   There does not appear to have been any attempt to back those words with evidence or an investigation.   Readers can come to their own conclusions with regard to the sincerity, consistency, integrity and truthfulness of those involved.   They might also come to their own conclusions regarding whose word can or cannot be trusted in these matters.

And finally, some readers may be concerned that, notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of evidence, the Jersey Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian le Marquand, may have been accurate in predicting that his comments would be damaging to the reputation of ACPO.   Given the high standing in which that organisation is held throughout the world, that would be a matter of concern.   I have therefore taken the trouble to contact former ACPO colleagues, who are still in senior positions in that organisation, and checked with them as to whether there are grounds for concern.   So far I have not found a senior member of ACPO who has heard of Senator Ian le Marquand.   Or his comments.   So perhaps there is no longer any need to worry over that issue.   Some readers may be relieved to hear this news.






43 comments:

Mac said...

Rico,

It's funny how ILM and others will use terms like this when it supports there own perverse view, yet when the same thing is pointed out about people they support they would have us all believe that the same rules don't apply!

ILM said "The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct. If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper."

Anonymous said...

ILM in his answer given in the states. ''The issue to which I alluded was an issue as to whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the senior officer involved.''

in answer to question asked about the radio interview.

In the interview he was not speaking of senior officer involved he was speaking about lower level officers 4:01 They set up sub groups which are not composed of chief officers or deputy chief officers but of lower level officers in order to advise or assist on particular things.

The problem in this particular case is, there is a scandal in relation to conflict of interest of one, of the people who was involved and whether he should of been there at all. There is a 2nd issue and that is this,

4:31 According to the Wiltshire report there were other recommendations which they made, which they did not put in writing, because they were told that Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Office did not want to do those things and those are, in one particular area absolutely key area, I think thats scandalous that they should have advised things verbally and not put them in writing.

So it does shed a great deal of problems in relation to those reports.

Observation

If not in writing in Wiltshire report how did ILM know without viewing ACPO?


Also the Interviewer part 1 7.00 said FW had been on the week before and discussed Graham Powers affidavit he said about the affidavit it wasn't evidence to convince him that what Mr Power was saying was the black and white truth

From the affidavit of Mr. Power ''The investigation took place against a background of widespread rumor, speculation and political controversy. The establishments which the police were investigating were owned and run by the States of Jersey, and for which members of the Council of Ministers had political responsibility. In the early stages a significant number of people were named as “suspects”, either of abuse or of covering up abuse in a way which may have constituted a perversion of the course of justice. Although the suspect list was later refined as the evidential picture became clearer it was extensive in the early stages and, significantly, included a number of people who, currently or recently, held positions of seniority or influence in public services. This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature. Maintaining the independence of police operations, difficult enough in ordinary times under the accountability arrangements described above, became a full time challenge as the enquiry unfolded.'' Mr Power himself had divulged information about the recommendations in the partnership working model common elsewhere that ILM cites to be an issue that Wiltshire did not write down. In the interview ILM is asked what he thinks about the affidavit and answers ''I do not have a view on this I think what we're talking about if I understand correctly um its issues to do with Stuart Syvret and ah have I misunderstood.

FW was aware of Graham Powers dilemma with regard the tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature. In my view it was the one thing to attack him on.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

How, and why, this cover up could happen is explained in just one paragraph from the Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM.

"The establishments which the police were investigating were owned and run by the States of Jersey, and for which members of the Council of Ministers had political responsibility. In the early stages a significant number of people were named as “suspects”, either of abuse or of covering up abuse in a way which may have constituted a perversion of the course of justice.

Anonymous said...

I didn't see your post come in last night Rico and now I've got to go work....damm.

thank you- gives me something to look forward to.
Any chance of a Blog TV soon?

theTruth said...

Thanks for the reminder of what ILM said "I believe it to be a public duty of mine, as the Minister involved, to correct and to seek to balance the situation where there are clear imbalances in what has been put to the public."

Erm, so what happened to releasing Graham Powers defence!!?

ILM also talks about conflict of interest, whereas the real conflict was that Warcup was looking for early promotion.

ILM also talks about evidence:

" The decision I had to make was as to whether I should start looking at any of the evidence in relation to the matter. The problem with this, if you start looking at partial evidence, where do you end: you end up in a sort of mini-trial."

he also states:

"Even if I had looked at the A.C.P.O. reports, and I have subsequently, it would have made no difference to my decision because I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained. I do not know whether they were followed out properly; I do not know whether they even make sense. Now all these are issues which have to be looked at in a wider context. "

"The factual matters that I had before me in relation to the suspension hearings which I conducted in February and March 2008 were indeed the letter from the now acting Chief Officer setting out concerns in relation to various issues and an extract - I think it was the outline - of the press conference"

Surely factual matters are evidence, but putting that aside, how could ILM be sure that the Warcup letter was "I do not know the circumstances in which they were obtained. I do not know whether they were followed out properly; I do not know whether they even make sense.", as ILM had never seen the so called Interim Met Report, how could he be sure!!

Ian Evans said...

Excellent in depth posting about our worst crook Rico.

Anonymous said...

"FW was aware of Graham Powers dilemma with regard the tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature. In my view it was the one thing to attack him on."

Frank Walker generated some other well founded reasons for attack, but you are right.

Anonymous said...

)ILM on 21/3/2010 claiming at the time of the 2 hearings he had been bound by confidentiality he has kept strictly to it. he did not look at ACPO in the 1st or 2nd review hearings. in Feb and March.
radio shock horror gasp ACPO is in public domain '' I mean once matters are put in the public domain they cant possibly be any confidentiality issues''

REGARDLESS of ACPO at time of BBC radio interview being in public domain this could not now affect ILM position at time of 2 hearings in Feb and March he was bound then to the confidentiality issue and he claimed kept strictly to it.

BBC INTERVIEWER ''Speaking of asking questions you've got the very first question of the week in the states Tues'' it is about the affidavit that they know is testable in terms of evidence and serious allegations the Chief Minister FW is burying his head in the sand.

BBC INTERVIEWER. We heard him say on this programme last week the affidavit wasn't enough evidence to convince him. (Chief Minister was conflicted as the affidavit concerned FW himself and he was on BBC radio saying the affidavit wasn't enough evidence how can Frank walker say that under what authority?)

BBC INTERVIEWER. What do you think Senator Le Marquand?

ILM ''I dont have a view on this'' I think what we talking about if I understand it correctly its issues to do with Stuart Syvret''

ILM CONFUSED ABOVE changing the subject, what issues with SS is he refering to waffle in this context? How could he express a view on what the interviewer asks him about the affidavit and Mr. walkers expressed previous views on it. knowing a question will be asked in the States of Mr Walker and also knowing in the affidavit Mr. Power has testable serious allegations and explanations of issues Mr. Le Marquand is in this very interview about to pull Graham Power up on. From Graham Powers affidavit ''This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature''

ILM proceeds to defend himself why he never looked at ACPO reports as evidence even stating it was Mr. powers strongest point in his Judicial review application before the Royal Court went on to say his position was upheld by that decision.

ILM Then goes on about the evidence that he knows of, which is, according to the Wiltshire report but not in writing? There were recomendationdations they were told that the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief officer did not want to do them (''This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature'') This must be causing ILM concern, knowing questions are coming to the Chief Minister

ATTACK IS THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE.

ILM knew Wiltshire report could not be used in disciplinary even though it was refferred to in the Judicial Court hearing in the context of them not referring to it, it could not of been in the context Mr. Le Marquand claims as it was forbidden to be used in formal disciplinary hearing.

Anonymous said...

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.html
On part 5 3:39

ILM one of the recomendations that I've allready said, of one, of the ACPO reports? (of one of them? ILM knew there were more than one) was, to have a proper review of matters in relation to the historical abuse inquiry. How did Ian Le Marquand know this at that time, if he had not read the ACPO report?

Anonymous said...

Why was an interim report requested, after, David Warcup had been taking his concerns to politicians who, coincidentaly were named, in Graham Powers afidavit?

Were the Met who commenced there review in Sept 2008 criminally leaking to warcup or was Warcup criminally leaking to politicans?

Why could the Met review not run its course? Why did Warcup need the backup of the interim report if everything was above board?

rico sorda said...

"The Culture of Concealment"

The Senator ILM should be having a good hard look at himself.

There were times in the past when he had the opportunity to be a shinning light in all this darkness. Granted, the opportunity was a small one but it was there.

He had a choice of paths as soon as he was elected Home Affairs Minister - some would say his path was pre-chosen - hence giving up his job as a Magistrate so as to give the illegal suspension of Graham Power some mumbo jumbo legal speak that he doesn't even have a clue about.

Look at the actions of this Minister. They are both shocking and deplorable.

The question that must be asked.. "how was he able to get away with it?" Why didn't the States pull him over the coals and sack him? The Culture of Concealment runs through everything. The vast majority of our politicians backed the Senator because they saw Graham Power and Lenny Harper as the bogey men who caused Jersey so much harm. No such hatred towards the abusers of such heinous crimes. They let their personal interest and blind loyalty cloud their better judgements - hence we get this culture of concealment.

These are the questions being asked about Savile -they are the questions that need to be asked here in Jersey.

The HA Minister should be very worried. The climate is changing by the day. He sold his sole to those he thinks he should respect. They will sell him down the river when the heat gets turned up. The actions of ILM are so well documented on this blog and elsewhere that he is one paxman like interview away from disaster.

I challenged ILM just like the JEP to a face to face debate live on the radio. Let the evidence speak is all I wanted. No bravado, no rhetoric just the evidence. Both have declined that invitation.

My Blog has focused mainly on ILM, Gradwell and Warcup. I went for them in an investigative way. A skill I learnt along the way. Trust your instinct and never ever be afraid to ask the questions. I stand by all my blog posts. The outside world is now catching up with them. The Internet has allowed me to express myself in a way I never thought I could. I now fully appreciate the work I did during the BDO, Matt Tapp and Operation End Game.

What is contained in those postings is the

"Culture of Concealment"

Anonymous said...

Rico, this is so true.

"The actions of ILM are so well documented on this blog and elsewhere that he is one paxman like interview away from disaster."

All the legal mumbo jumbo is the world will not erase the fact that he has lied and contradicted himself and the available evidence too many times to count. There is no defense left for him to try except insanity. Do you think he recognizes this yet?

He has placed his trust fully in the hands of the State Media, which inadvertently let him down under the pressure of the Savile scandal. Just as 4 men have bet their futures on the misapplication of Data Protection laws to be upheld by an unlawful court system, despite the facts being legally placed in the public domain by John Hemming, MP. Just as Warcup, Gradwell, and perhaps Bowron, had faith Jersey could prevent exposure of their complicity, only to find the only Jersey policing experts of interest to the world now are Messrs Harper and Power.

The system of paedophilic currency, as described by Stuart, whereby the most sordid of criminal secrets are used as insurance of mutual destruction, can't hold up much longer when the State Media is under investigation by the International Media and World Wide web.

Countless individuals and some very powerful institutions are but a Paxman-style interview away from criminal exposure. The future can't be dictated by those who have invented a non-existant writer's visa because the overwhelming evidence of institutionalized criminality can be seen from around the world.

Anonymous said...

(Part 6 0:06)BBC radio Jersey

ILM
Sections from the Royal Court Judgement Was by a commissioner from off the Island who came over to do this, where he heard, the abuse of process argument. Now, he's absolutely scathing in relation to his comments about the press is dealt with, and he actually quotes and this is why I'm free'r to talk about it, he actually quotes what can only be a section from the INTERIM MET report.

Its in the judgement, he refers to ''an expert has given an opinion Nov 2008'' that can only be the MET REPORT. and so its quite clear it existed at that time (No not at all)a for goodness sake a ROYAl COURT JUDGE from away has quoted from it and I think the public need to look very carefully at the written answer I'm going to produce, and the sections from that judgement..(WHY? Is something deliberate taking place here?)
Because that judgement then goes on to say that one of the contributing factors, one of the Major contributing factors to the case as not being thrown out, was the way in which David Warcup and Mick Gradwell dealt with the publicity, the fact that they did come clean and correct some of the mistakes to which were made before.

You can see what Ian Le Marquand has done, the quote attributed by Ian Le Marquand as being in the judgement attributed to the commissioner is the MET REPORT.

The description of the quote attributed to the commissioner by Ian Le Marquand is the INTERIM MET REPORT.

Regardless of even looking at that judgement Ian Le Marquand is deliberately confusing the issue.

I do not believe David Warcup received his requested interim Met report as the concrete evidence he needed in Nov 2008 to confirm his own concerns. I believe the Met investigation produced a report I am not sure what is being passed off as an interim report. perhaps just terms of reference of the commissioned report of David Warcup under Graham Powers consent

Neither an interim or a full Met report should of been part of the suspension process but the deception being played out is for a reason

Anonymous said...

I'm looking at Andrew Lewis Bill Ogley and Frank Walker, David Warcup could have had some legitimate concerns, that is all they were until investigated.

What part did the others play and why?

Anonymous said...

Rico I hope you dont mind me posting these notes a sort of timeline. I find it helpful to have information I'm looking at, all together. these Notes with the above postings and info is beneficial kept together. If it clutters up your page and makes no sense dont worry. I have it all written down on pages of paper.


DAVID WARCUP 4th August 2008 Senior Investigating officer. Acting Chief of police Nov 2008 after Graham Powers suspension.

According to ILM the operational investigation had raised concerns with Mr Warcup If the Met review started in September what serious concerns known to David Warcup in August 2008?

He could not of confirmed the concerns Sept 2008 review only commenced then.

MET REVIEW commissioned Aug 2008 Mr Warcup, with the authority of Mr Power commissioned the Metropolitan police to carry out a review of operation rectangle the historic abuse inquiry which commenced in Sept and from which an interim report was issued in November.
or, requested in November? ILM (There was a huge concern of David Warcup & Mick Gradwell and others (Bill Ogley Frank Walker Andrew Lewis my guess) in relation to abuse of process arguments, what you must understand is, if the police behave improperly
by putting exagerated things into public domain then there is a serious risk that whole prosecutions could, will be lost and people could who otherwise should be found guilty would get away with it.

The Affidavit was due to be questioned in the States sitting, naming the people David Warcup took his concerns to (politicians) We know in the affidavit Graham Power gives his concerns ''This provided further grounds for tension and prevented the adoption of a partnership
working model common elsewhere for enquiries of this nature''


ILM audio 5 4.50 David Warcup starts sharing information'' You've got the situation where more work is being done by the Met in relation to different issues, and eventually we arrive at the point, where they're nearly ready to deliver there report'' (NOT DONE)

(Met report has not concluded no confirmed concerns from the Met as yet just issues they are looking at of which David Warcup is aware of)

(Met commissioned to do a review they would have no need to be concerned unless ILM is saying they are criminally releasing information outside of that investigation?

Mick Gradwell Senior Investigating officer Sept 2008

ACPO Started in Sept 2008 and one of the recomendations that ILM already said of one of the reports was to have a proper review of matters in relation to the historic abuse inquiry in particular in relation to the individuals cases but also covering an overview of that..and they started work on that in I believe in Sept.



ACPO people had suggested it would be right to get an independent police force, namely the met to do an independent report in relation to matters concerning the investigation, that was primarily an operational investigation in relation to the handling of individual cases, but at the same time, that investigation raised very serious issues.

Mick Gradwell came in Nov 2008 two months after ACPO had started and made recomendations, curiously enough he suggests the same as is in line with the ACPO people?

WILT OPERATION BLAST ILM In 2009, I commissioned a further investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Blast), which was completed at a cost of £301,088. 3 Police Officers and a civil servant were given ‘Words of Advice’.(END)

Anonymous said...

I think Ian might like this one.



http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham.html


I am looking at the transcript of the suspension hearing what just caught my eye The below transcripts, might have some typo errors which could have arisen from converting the document to a word format from the original PDF format. Although every care has been taken for this not to be the case, there is always the chance that errors could have occured and apologise if this is the case.

We should mention that the name "Walker" in the transcript is how it appears in the original transcript. However we believe this is an error on behalf of the transcriber and should be the name "Warcup" although we stand to be corrected.

If Walker is in the transcript I think It is there for a reason and not a mistake.



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I accept that. Part of the process that I have been doing is trying to set things out very clearly and carefully should you wish to judicially review the matters. It assists the court and is part of the reason for the tape recording.


further down we get
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have restarted the tape.


What happened in between? When did the tape get turned off, for B.I. Le Marquand to state he has restarted it?

I think I have something to keep me busy for the next few nights.

Anonymous said...

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham.html

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
Good morning. I am Ian Le Marquand, the Home Affairs Minister, and this is a review of the suspension of the Police Chief, Mr. Graham Power. Today is 13th February at just after 11.45 a.m. It would be helpful for the tape if I asked all the other people who are here just to speak and identify themselves so if there was a transcript produced at any stage it helps the transcriber.

On tape It is said by ILM that this is a review of the suspension notice people asked to speak clearly so recording will show it is a review of ''the'' suspension.

Not a review of the continuation of a suspension

Mr. M. Pinel:
What will happen, Minister, is that I would sit with you representing the Director of H.R. (Human Resources) who is Ian Crich and who will have left his post by then. I do not know who will present the case but I think the idea is that Jane Pollard in the Human Resources Department would be the H.R. officer who would present the case.

Is the tape turned off for the above? and why because the next paragraph ILM says he has the wrong personnel there (? above) Yet he did not make an obvious error.? HMmm will need to look at Mr. M Pinels position.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


Sorry, I got the wrong personnel there but just to let you know what is suggested in relation to that. I have read the very helpful letter from Mr. Power, which was dated 12th February. Thank you for that. I also, of course, have made reference to the judicial review of documentation which conveniently puts together a lot of different matters. What I have done in preparation for today is I have sought to analyse that letter and points which are raised in the judicial review stuff. I have tried to analyse the letter from Dr. Brain and I have also analysed my own letter to try and work out what was the best way of proceeding and what were the different issues. I want to give you the opportunity to address me on the different issues. There are quite a number of different issues but I think we probably need to start somewhere in the area of the interplay of the disciplinary code, the law, the change of roles from committee to minister and so on. The point is that whereas in my letter I presupposed we would start in relation to construction of the disciplinary code and the law in terms of my receiving submissions as to what was the right procedure to follow in relation to what we are doing today, I am aware that Mr. Power has some misgivings in relation to the change from committee to minister, which he sets out in some depth. I do not want to make any submissions on that. In a sense, we are looking at the issues as to what procedure I should be following.


Anonymous said...

Cont...

I am guessing the above is taped

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have to say it was not my intention to do that and I am sorry if the letter did not make it clear. My intention today is, and always has been, to conduct a review of the issue as to whether Mr. Power should continue to be suspended and not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally he was properly suspended in November


Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you. I think it is, however, important to consider whether he was properly suspended on 12th November because, of course, if he was not properly suspended on 12th November that would negate his suspension and therefore it would be necessary to consider whether he would need to be suspended again in the event of us finding that all that is at issue is the correctness of the procedure on the 12th. If I am allowed in due course to develop the argument it is that the procedures of 12th November were improperly applied, therefore the suspension was inappropriate and improper; I will hesitate to use the word “illegal” in these circumstances. Then there is the one of proportionality as to whether the suspension should be re-imposed. So Iwould invite you to consider whether the suspension was properly imposed on 12th November. What I am, for the sake of clarity this morning, proposing is that we do not consider at the first instance the mix of issues that you have raised that are quite proper to consider and quite right to be the circumstances of the judicial review. It is simply this morning that we should look at the issues of 12th November to see whether they were properly applied because, as I say, that does have a material bearing on Mr. Power’s current status. Then we can consider whether suspension is any longer appropriate. I think it will come as no surprise to you that I will be suggesting that that is not any longer appropriate.


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


Thank you for that but I am not going to look at the original circumstances. That is my decision on that.


Dr. T. Brain:
May I clarify, Minister, whether therefore you will not be hearing what I have to say about the issues of 12th November?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is correct, yes.


Dr. T. Brain:
May I consult with Mr. Power?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Indeed, yes.
(a short break)


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have restarted the tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WTF WTF WTF

When was the tape turned off?


Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have to say it was not my intention (from here until we get I have restarted the tape)

To be continued.

If Graham Power was to sue for not being given a legal review of his suspension, I bet T Brain statements will not appear on the recording.

Anonymous said...

Rico If I am throwing your page off subject let me know.

I am following where ILM is leading me.

rico sorda said...

Lenny Harper has just been on Radio 5.

Oh, how its changing by the day.

Not Mick Gradwell but Lenny Harper

Stay with it as this dam will surely burst

rs

Anonymous said...

rico said keep going.

Zoompad said...

"Lenny Harper has just been on Radio 5.

Oh, how its changing by the day.

Not Mick Gradwell but Lenny Harper

Stay with it as this dam will surely burst"

Dear God, I do hope so! I am so very very very tired.

Anonymous said...

It make you wonder what ILM had in mind when he made his career change from lawyer to politician.

If all had gone the way he and others had planed.

He could have been the next Chief Minister....

But never now!?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

Keep posting your comments. I enjoy reading your breakdown of the evidence.

Thanks

rs

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed the similarities with what is happening in the UK and what happened here. Huge press interest, the Police saying that arrests are imminent - people should expect a knock on the door. Are the police raising the hopes of some of the abused? Yes, Savile is dead but what of others??????

I hear Wiltshire are all ready to go once someone suspends the Chief at the Met...

Ian Evans said...

Adventures and "EMBARRASSMENTS" in legal land!

Anonymous said...

Rico
There are more incidents listed in the timeline from this article, but here are a few highlights which should help deflect the unfair suspicion being heaped on Savile's victims.
Elle

http://www.wrex.com/story/19924407/jimmy-savile-how-could-his-crimes-go-unnoticed#

By RAPHAEL SATTER
LONDON (AP) - Jimmy Savile was one of the best-known faces on British television. So how was he able to become one of the country's worst child sex predators without ever being caught?

Since the revelations began earlier this month, it's become clear that victims raised the alarm, police were aware of the allegations and journalists suspected that something was up.

Here's a look at a few points where Savile's abuse might have been stopped.

IN 1994:

Sunday Mirror editor Paul Connew met with two women who alleged abuse by Savile. Connew said he found their testimony compelling, but said the alleged victims were afraid of the clout of an entertainer who had rubbed shoulders with royalty and had been honored by the Vatican.

"One of them said memorably: 'Who's going to believe us in the witness box against Jimmy Savile? He's friends with Prince Charles, Princess Diana ... he's been blessed by the pope,'" Connew said. He told The Associated Press that Britain's strict defamation laws meant that he was left with little to run with. "They had to be prepared to go on the record and face what would've been an almost certain libel action from Savile," he said.

IN 2007:

Police in Surrey, in southern England, received an eyewitness report about the abuse of a girl at a children's home in the 1970s. A further investigation turned up three alleged victims of Savile. The first was a fellow resident of the children's home; the second was a girl who was allegedly assaulted at a specialist hospital in or around 1973; and the third was assaulted in southern England in 1970.

Although police questioned Savile, all three alleged victims declined to press charges and authorities dropped the case in 2009. In a statement published Thursday, chief British prosecutor Keir Starmer said there were "obvious problems" in pursuing a case where victims were reluctant to come forward, where there was no forensic evidence and where there was limited witness testimony, "particularly in relation to allegations which date back a number of years."

IN 2008:

Savile's name comes up during an investigation into abuse at a children's home on the Channel Island of Jersey. The inquiry's chief recently told the Guardian newspaper that "there definitely wasn't enough to question him at the time."

Anonymous said...

definition of REVIEW (Black's Law Dictionary)
A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision ; consideration for purposes of correcti

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.html 21/3/2010
PART 2 0:06
ILM.'' Can I just explain the situation, in relation to my decision in FEB & MARCH on suspension.
Feb & March i held two hearings on two seperate days to determine whether Mr. Power should be suspended.
I completely reheard matters because I was concerned about the speed and the procedures followed in the
suspension.

observation on 21/3/2010 on talkback Mr. Ian Le Marquand states he was concerned with
the speed and procedures followed in the first suspension

observation on 13th Feb 2009 Ian Le Marquand - not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally
he was properly suspended in November.

SUSPENSION REVIEW HEARING 1 13 feb 2009
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/03/suspension-review-meeting-of-cpo-graham.html

STATES OF JERSEY
SUSPENSION REVIEW MEETING
FRIDAY, 13th FEBRUARY 2009
Present:
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):
Dr. T. Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire):
Mr. M. Pinel (Head Of Employee Relations, States of Jersey):

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
Good morning. I am Ian Le Marquand, the Home Affairs Minister, and this is a review of the suspension of the Police Chief, Mr. Graham Power.
Today is 13th February at just after 11.45 a.m. It would be helpful for the tape if I asked all the other people who are here just to speak and identify
themselves so if there was a transcript produced at any stage it helps the transcriber.
(Observation reference to a tape recorder and this is a review of the suspension)

Dr. T. Brain:
I am not in any way seeking to infer any criticism on you but I simply wished to say thank you very much for the review today. You do have reference
to Mr. Power’s affidavit for judicial review and he does indeed raise a number of issues around the propriety of the procedures and the general status
of the Chief Officer Discipline Code and its relationship to other legislation. If I can be of assistance this morning I think it is to invite you to consider the
circumstances of the suspension first. I think if you do wish to consider other matters about the status of the code, its applicability its relevancy, how it is
developed, I would invite you to consider that after considering the actual application of the code on 12th November and its continued relevancy since then.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have to say it was not my intention to do that and I am sorry if the letter did not make it clear. My intention today is, and always has been, to conduct a review
of the issue as to whether Mr. Power should continue to be suspended and not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally he was properly suspended in November.

(Observation the tape has been restarted. No announcement of Tape being suspended at any stage although there was a short break prior to tape
restarting. There is a possibility the tape could of been turned off when ILM announces ''I am sorry it is not my intention to do that.'')

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have restarted the tape.

13th Feb 2009 (Observation This is a review of the suspension)
13th Feb 2009 (Observation My intention today is ''not to conduct a review as to whether or not procedurally he was properly suspended)
21st March 2010 (Observation on talkback Mr. Ian Le Marquand states he was concerned with the speed and procedures followed in the 1st suspension)

Zoompad said...

"I hear Wiltshire are all ready to go once someone suspends the Chief at the Met..."

http://zoompad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/peter-spindler-met-police-his-name-sums.html

Look at Peter Spindler's track record, as far as cover ups are concerned it is not good!

Anonymous said...

Rico, can you confirm that Jersey does not have a sex-offenders register? My recollection is that a law to introduce one was drafted but that ILM, in one of his first acts as newly-appointed Home Affairs Minister, claimed it wasn't fit for purpose and would need to be re-written. I cannot recall hearing anything more about this law.

Is this correct? Is it true that Jersey, of all places (given events of the last few years) still has no sex-offenders register?

Is it also correct that the draft law was pulled by ILM? Is there any precedent for a minister doing this - i.e. unilaterally binning a draft law.

If so, what exactly was so deficient about it? Presumably, our laws are drafted by very expensive law officers, so how did they manage to produce something so deficient that it could not simply be amended rather than re-written?

Anonymous said...

The second biggest spender was Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf who spent £13,627 during the year, marginally less than he did the year before.

At lunch Longueville Manor last thursday Birt,Bailanche P. & Ozouf who picked up the tab for that one?

Anonymous said...

Why is Ian Le Marquand contradicting himself 2 days apart.
21st March 2010 Sunday talkback ILM
http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.html
Tape 6 0:06 Quote from a Royal Court Judgement ''He quotes what can only be a section from the interim Met report its in the judgement he refers to an expert as given an opinion 2008 that can only be the met report. ''

23rd March 2010 Tuesday States Assembly
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2010/Deputy%20of%20St%20Martin%20to%20HA%20re%20Metropolitan%20Police%20Report.pdf
Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General
v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A.
I am now going to quote from section 14 to 19 of that judgment

Readers to Ricos blog and States members read the next two paragraphs after No 19 on the link they would be aware of who provided the quote not as Implied by ILM on BBC talkback
part 6 0:06

Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008.

The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.
Interim Met report is not used in the royal court Judgement neither is quote given by ILM evidence of the quote coming from Interim Met report the quote in the Royal court judgement came from outside

media expert. Royal court Judge
1 9 . For all those reasons I do not find that the publicity in this case was such as to prevent any of these
defendants receiving a fair trial.” From the Royal Court Judgement did not support that stated by Ian Le Marquand.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jersey.police.uk/news/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsItemId=248

Mick Gradwell appointment Aug 27 2008 Detective Super intendent until he becomes SIO

Currently Detective superintendent with Lancashire police.

It is hoped that Det Supt Gradwell, who is currently serving on the Major Investigation Team at Lancashire Police, will begin his new role as the SIO of the enquiry in September.


http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2010/Deputy%20of%20St%20Martin%20to%20HA%20re%20Metropolitan%20Police%20Report.pdf

Q(3) Who asked the States of Jersey Police to request it and who was it made to?

A(3) (3) That is explained above. The Acting Chief Officer of Police was not asked to do what he did by
anyone. The answer to the second question is a Detective Superintendent, the name of whom has been supplied to the questioner.


There was no written request for Met Interim report There was a request made to an unnamed Det Superintendent. If is is known that No Met report interim or complete can be used in suspension if it does not exist what difference will it make to those covering up for it? apart from having to give some explanation and answers of which will never be verified. David Warcups cover could be he requested it from Mick Gradwell Superintendent (that Mick Gradwell never requested it from Met is neither here nor there it cant be used anyway.
I am also wondering if the media report quoted as being in ROYAL Court JUDGEMENT came from Mick Gradwell given his experience below.

Dealing with such cases has given Det Supt Gradwell extensive experience of dealing with the media on a local, national and international level. He has also built strong relationships with other law enforcement agencies, some of which are from international jurisdictions.

All the above are my views thoughts and opinions

Anonymous said...

On Sunday on 21st March Ian Le Marquand knew he would be giving answers in the States assembly on the coming Tuesday 23rd March 2010

The answer he gave on Sunday talkback show, about the quote, that was in the Royal Court Judgement and went on to say it can only be a quote from a section of the interim met report,

Yet two days letter his own answer in the States assembly provided evidence that the quote is from an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.

Why did he on Sunday not tell the listeners the quote was from a media ''expert''

Also that Royal Court Judgement was not scathing of Lenny Harper on the contrary.
From the judgement below
For all those reasons I do not find that the publicity in this case was such as to prevent any of these defendants receiving a fair trial.”

approach this case in the same way as the Court of Appeal did in the case of Abu Hamza [2006]
EWCA Crim 2918, than whom no-one could have had worse personal publicity.

Anonymous said...

Rico

This is not a request for Interim report as a written request was not made. This is the full Met report request.

ACPO recommended a Full review
6th August 2008,David Warcup wrote with the authority of Graham Power to the Metropolitan Police Force requesting the production of such a report.

Subsequently a detailed terms of reference were agreed for such a report

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2010/Deputy%20of%20St%20Martin%20to%20HA%20re%20Metropolitan%20Police%20Report.pdf

SEPT 2008 Met report work starts. Part 5 4:10

Anonymous said...

If the Met commenced September after terms of reference were agreed What were the Serious concers prior to September when the Met commenced.

Met are doing a serious investigation of the Historical Abuse Enquiry, the main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation
to the conduct of individual investigations.

No written request for an interim report according to ILM

the request was made to a Detective Superintendent Late oct/early Nov ? Was that Detective Superintendent based in Jersey? Did that Detective Superintendent followed through formally with a written request to Met?

Anonymous said...

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/03/talkback-on-210310.htm
The post below is my views and interjections based on No. 5 audio 21/3/2010

Rico you do not need post as this is quite long but I think there may be one or two things you may have not considered and It may point you in new directions or give you ideas for new questions to ask.

Very early days David Warcup is passing concerns onto other people Warcup knows the concerns as does Graham Power because the Met are providing assistance and guidance in the historical abuse investigation and possibly the terms of reference under consideration for the Met Review.

He knows the areas being looked at he does not known and cannot know the outcome of the investigation. He starts feeding information to people like Andrew Lewis, Bill Ogley he is in the process of expressing his concerns to Graham Power and isn't getting very far? Like Graham Power was expressing his, to David Warcup?

They are nearly ready to deliver there report but there is one further person they want to interview and that is Lenny harper.

There is a huge issue on the part of David Warcup and Mick Gradwell and others? (Andrew Lewis Bill Ogley Attorney General?)about abuse of process arguments ( I bet there were) if the police behave improperly, part 5 5:17 There is a very serious risk that whole prosecutions will be lost.

The concerns about the media were not backed up by the Royal Court Judgement 23/3/2010 States Assembly Questions for the Home Affairs Minister Deputy of St Martins.
19 ''For all those reasons I do not questions find that the publicity in this case was such as to prevent any of these
defendants receiving a fair trial.”


The huge concern on the part of the police had to of been the person leaking to politicians and speaking to Attorney General and having nothing concrete to back up and confirm his own concerns, of which he could then properly release a press report.

(That is why David Warcup wanted an Interim report to confirm his own concerns he had nothing to back up what he thinks)

There is also Mick Gradwell on the scene, another Senior officer involved. Mick Gradwell is also sharing these concerns.

What then happens of course is theres a press release goes out and at the same time there are other people politicians sharing other concerns, issues to do with the suspension or not. They are not matters for David Warcup, all he is doing is telling the senior bosses that he ''thinks'' there are serious failings on the part of the police and the part of Graham Power and thats what he does.

If he hadn't done that, then he would be charged with being guilty of a cover up? (David Warcup has concerns, thinks there are serious failings on the part of Police and Graham Power he has nothing concrete to back it up and thats it)

He did not request interim report in writing it has not been used in any subsequent judgements,
contrary to ILM claim.

What then subsequently happens of course is, although David Warcup is working on the basis of his own opinions, (this is after the press release) still working on the basis of his own opinions his discussions with obviously people like Mick Gradwell and also, backed up claims IAN LE MARQUAND by the Interim report 7:04 The Interim report is not produced for disciplinary purposes, its produced for management purposes, but it also throws up all this other concerns and details(the original Met Review investigative details and concerns which Graham Power and David Warcup are partie in assisting with)

And so, clearly that is the reason why the Met people they dont withdraw this report, there's strange nonsence going on, that this reports being withdrawn its never been withdrawn what actually happened was subsequently they produced a final report which basically said very much the same thing, I haven't compared the two but it was never withdrawn.

(Observation I have seen no evidence produced supporting anInterim report)

INTERIM MET REPORT AND THE FINAL REPORT COULD NOT BE USED FOR SUSPENSION

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure the above posts about Davd Warcup, etc, help anyone's understanding. I found them a bit convoluted and difficult to follow. That's just my opinion, sorry.

Anyway, that was not my reason for posting.

In yesterday's JEP (Sat 27th Oct 2012) there was an article on p2 about Senator Gorst's plan to lodge his States' proposition for the Committee of Inquiry next week. Worth a read. I know you don't but the JEP, but borrow a copy of this one.


Anonymous said...

In the Royal Court Judgement the media was not actually an issue the Interim met report could not be used for suspension

What were the serious concerns that caused Graham Power to be suspended when he was.

The answers must lie with Andrew Lewis Bill Ogley and the Attorney General as they had concerns and Ian Le Marquand in giving the impression a Met Interim report is used to back up the concerns.

I am going now to look in detail at the 1st review by Ian Le Marquand.

Anonymous said...

I realise this is stepping into Ians area, but here goes.

Would Jurat Le Breton be a member of the private bar guild.

It could be that he swore a solemn secret oath to their guild then acts as a public agent of the gov or public official by making additional oaths of public office that could openly and contradict their private superior oaths to their own guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected the claim stands that the private bar guilds members are leg public servants.

I found the above w on a frum. It' s worth consideration.

Anonymous said...

I believe the Met police investigation, commissioned in August, started in September never intended to be used in the way some have spun its intended purpose.

I do not believe that the Met provided to Graham Warcup or Mick Gradwell any interim report for the purpose of adding concrete evidence and backup to the concerns and thoughts that David Warcup needed.

I think it's likely the terms of reference of the Met report commissioned were being used by interested parties to add weight to their own thoughs and concerns yet until the Ultimate Met Investigative report was concluded no evidence could of existed in the terms of reference of that report.

I also believe Ian Le Marquand has tried to mislead the public into believing the Met supported David Warcup in his actions and the reason I believe that, is the deliberate misleading answer given on talkback radio 2 days before his answer given in the States Chamber

Answer
Before I answer the detailed question, I want to give some general background to the production of the Interim
Report by the Metropolitan Police.

The ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended that a full review be conducted by an outside police force of
the Historical Abuse Enquiry. Accordingly, on 6th August 2008, the now Acting Chief Officer of Police wrote to
the Metropolitan Police Force requesting the production of such a report.

(NOTE ACPO recommended a full review David Warcup wrote requesting with Graham Powers authority requesting such a report not a partial not an interim but a full report.)



T here was not a written request for an Interim Report. The matter was dealt with as stated above, on an
informal basis

I do believe the Met report exists in its full version as was commissioned.

For all Ian Le Marquand waffle about what people are saying about the report not existing is code for confusion.

The only thing being discussed as not existing is the Interim Met report.

Ian Evans said...

A rather LAWFUL PUBLIC NOTICE to the States of Jersey

Anonymous said...

So to be clear, the commenter is suggesting the possible existence of a more definitive, or full, Met report? If such a report does exist, would that not be the most important information since the false claims about the Interim Report were initially made? The odds are that any full Met report would have been favourable to Graham Power. This could be a timely area of inquiry, because the Met is under the microscope even as it heads the Savile investigation. Would the MET fall on its sword for the Jersey mafia? I would bet it would not, particularly at this extraordinary time in its history.