Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Chief Minister Gorst - An Email? Answers please









Senator Bailhace - The Real Chief Minister?


From: rico sorda
Subject: Committee of Enquiry


To: i.lemarquand@gov.je, "His Excellency" , i.gorst@gov.je
Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, "a pryke" , "Jersey Care Leavers Association" , "ben queree" , "gerrard baudains" , "james baker" , "cswiseman" , "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "e noel" , "Francis" , g.southern@gov.je, "jon gripton" , "roy herissier" , "j refault" , j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, "judy martin" , "k moore" , k.lewis@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "m letroquer" , "s luce" , m.tadier@gov.je, "m paddock" , news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan"


Dear All,

One simple and honest question.

Why has it taken so long to bring a Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse in the Jersey Care Home System?



We have a new Chief Minister and Council Of Ministers "COM". What amazes me, and others, is the total lack of any empathy this council and previous councils have shown the Victims of Abuse. 


What is it with the 'COM' and reports they don't like? What is it with getting rid of people who don't follow the party line? 


Is it just a coincidence that the Chief of Police gets suspended and his DCO gets denigrated for uncovering  decades long hushed up child abuse?


Is it just a coincidence that the man held responsible for the Lime Grove fiasco was non other than the independent,un- impeachable Comptroller and Auditor General Chris Swinson? 


Is it just a coincidence that when they get a report they don't like they just change the Terms of Reference or just get another person in or in the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General hang him out to dry?


Is it just a coincidence that 'YOU' states members are yet to receive the Report from Verita which was handed over to the Chief Minister in November 2011? You are now expected to attend a meeting with Andrew Williamson on the 3rd September without having the Verita Report or Mr Williams re-working of their Terms of Reference.


Now, here is the comically, but tragically sad bit. The reason the Chief Minister called in Andrew Williamson, was, that he said t the Verita Tors's were to broad.  This is simply ridiculous. I believe the Chief Minister is a better man than that. The only way I can work out the ludicrous actions of the Chief minister is that he is being out muscled in the Council Of Ministers. I believe, that if the Chief Minister was not being pressured, we would already have a Committee of Enquiry.

Here are the simple Terms of Reference that the Chief Minister and his Council of Minister just couldn't deal with. They are the most basic, ideal starting block, for any Committee of Enquiry.

If the Chief Minister & Andrew Williamson deliver a weaker Terms of Reference than the ones delivered by Verita (below)  then I will expect nothing but outrage from the States of Jersey. 



Terms Of Reference



The Committee of Inquiry is asked to do the following:



Establish the facts

. Establish the type and nature of children's homes and fostering services in Jersey in the post-war period with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services

. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children's homes and the social norms under which they operated.

. Examine the political oversight of childrens homes and fostering services by the various education committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various health and social services committees between 1996 and 2005 and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

. Establish a chronology of significant changes in child care practice and policy during this period with reference to Jersey, the UK and, if appropriate, France

. Consider and appraise the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007


What was done in response to concerns of abuse?

. Consider the experiences of those witness who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse and hear staff who worked in these services.

. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how and to whom they were reported. Did systems exist to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing?

. Consider how the education, health and social services department dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took and whether they were in line with the policies and procedures of the day.

. Establish, where abuse was suspected, whether it was reported to the appropriate bodies including the States of Jersey Police and what action was taken by persons or entities including the police and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day

. Determine whether the concerns of 2007 were sufficiant to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train Operation Rectangle

. Determine whether, on reviewing files submitted by the States of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether, on reviewing files submitted by the states of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought, those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a consistent and impartial approach and whether the process was free from any political interference at any level


Children's services in 2011

. Set out what lessons can be learnt for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey



Government 

Review what actions the government took when concerns came to light in 2008 and what, if any, lessons there are to be learned 


General 

. Report on any other issues arising during the inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care

The inquiry should make full use of all the work conducted since 2007

At an appropriate moment, the inquiry should hold a seminar(s) to enable a broader discussion of some of the themes raised by the evidence. The seminar(s) will not make recommendations to the chair but will provide ideas and information that will form of the material to be considered as the report is drafted - END


This is about defenceless Children being abused for decades. Yes, all the authorities were informed over the decades and I MEAN ALL. 


How and Why has our Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers struggled with something so simple? Are we still trying to hide our past?    It will be our future  if its not dealt with in a fully robust and transparent way.


The reason I believe for all the hard work in stalling and basically trying to stop this Committee of Enquiry is 'FEAR'


Pandoras box is open. 

Someone give me a very good reason as to why it has taken so long.

Rico Sorda




http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/

Citizen Investigator

Monday, August 27, 2012

CHIEF MINISTER GORST - TIME TO STEP DOWN?




"THE TERMS OF REFERENCE  WERE TO FAR REACHING" 




I ASK YOU, THE READERS, TO LOOK AGAIN AT THE TOR'S AS SUPPLIED BY VERITA AND ASK YOURSELF ARE THESE REALLY TO FAR REACHING?




I ASK THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO READ THIS BLOG FROM OUTSIDE OF JERSEY  - ARE THESE TOR'S INTO DECADES OF CHILD ABUSE IN THE JERSEY CARE HOMES REALLY TO FAR RANGING FOR A COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY?



THIS IS WHY CHIEF MINISTER GORST SAYS HE CALLED IN ANDREW WILLIAMSON. 


I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.


UK Child Care Expert Andrew Williamson has been here before. Does Andrew Williamson have a conflict of interest here. 


In June 2008 Andrew Williamson was appointed by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers of the states of Jersey on the 23rd August 2007 to undertake an inquiry into issues relating to child protection in Jersey.  In his report, Williamson gives the Jersey Care Homes a clean bill of health. His report doesn't look at past care only the present.




There are many questions and overlaps between the Williamson Report and a future Committee of Enquiry. Who did he interview? Were the people interviewed in place during the decades of abuse? If so, did they know? What action did they take? 


This is the overlap I'm seeing between Williamson and a Committee of Enquiry:





Here are the Terms of Reference as supplied by Verita 




Terms Of Reference


The Committee of Inquiry is asked to do the following:



Establish the facts

. Establish the type and nature of children's homes and fostering services in Jersey in the post-war period with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services

. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children's homes and the social norms under which they operated.

. Examine the political oversight of childrens homes and fostering services by the various education committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various health and social services committees between 1996 and 2005 and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

. Establish a chronology of significant changes in child care practice and policy during this period with reference to Jersey, the UK and, if appropriate, France

. Consider and appraise the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007


What was done in response to concerns of abuse?

. Consider the experiences of those witness who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse and hear staff who worked in these services.

. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how and to whom they were reported. Did systems exist to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing?

. Consider how the education, health and social services department dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took and whether they were in line with the policies and procedures of the day.

. Establish, where abuse was suspected, whether it was reported to the appropriate bodies including the States of Jersey Police and what action was taken by persons or entities including the police and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day

. Determine whether the concerns of 2007 were sufficiant to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train Operation Rectangle

. Determine whether, on reviewing files submitted by the States of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether, on reviewing files submitted by the states of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought, those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a consistent and impartial approach and whether the process was free from any political interference at any level


Children's services in 2011

. Set out what lessons can be learnt for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey



Government 

Review what actions the government took when concerns came to light in 2008 and what, if any, lessons there are to be learned 


General 

. Report on any other issues arising during the inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care

The inquiry should make full use of all the work conducted since 2007

At an appropriate moment, the inquiry should hold a seminar(s) to enable a broader discussion of some of the themes raised by the evidence. The seminar(s) will not make recommendations to the chair but will provide ideas and information that will form of the material to be considered as the report is drafted - END





I ask you, the readers - Is this really to far reaching when talking about decades long Child Abuse?

Should the above Tor's supplied by Verita really be causing the Chief Minister and his Council of Minister problems?????


The simple answer is NO


It's a complete and utter farce


And yet it just carries on.


Rico Sorda 

Investigative Journalist 

Thursday, August 2, 2012

WHY DID WARCUP NOT KNOW? OR SAY ANYTHING?



ACTING CHIEF OFFICER DAVID WARCUP





WHY DIDN'T HE SAY ANYTHING?????



THE METROPOLITAN POLICE WERE CALLED INTO REVIEW OPERATION RECTANGLE  BY BOTH WARCUP AND GRAHAM POWER



WHY DIDN'T A HIGH RANKING POLICE OFFICER LIKE DAVID WARCUP KNOW EXACTLY WHAT A POLICE REVIEW WAS ABOUT??????       OR DID HE??????



I SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DAVID WARCUP DIDN'T COME  OUT WITH ALL GUNS BLAZING WHEN THE TOXIC DUO OF WALKER - OGLEY AND THE LAP DOG LEWIS SIMPLY LOST THE PLOT????


It is very important that we take a good hard look at David Warcup. David Warcup took over  Operation Rectangle when Lenny Harper left at the end of July 2008. He was also helped by Dept Supt Mick Gradwell. 


It's  Warcup and the Met Interim Report I want to concentrate on.




The ACPO Team recommended that a Review of Operation Rectangle should take place as this would also help with the change over of leadership regarding operation rectangle.  The review team were only looking up till the time Lenny Harper retired. Now, high ranking Police Officers, know exactly what these reviews are - why then didn't David Warcup know?  



When David Warcup wrote to the Chief Executive Bill Ogley on the 10th November 2008 he included parts of the Met Review findings. Now, in David Warcup's defence, he could say that he had no idea that Graham Power was going to be suspended when he wrote the letter, no idea he was going to be suspended when he gave a presentation to Ministers on the 11th and no idea about suspension when he gave a press briefing on the day of the 12th - The very same day that Graham Power was actually suspended. 



WARCUP CAN SAY "I SIMPLY HAD NO IDEA" - TRUE IT DOESN'T STACK UP - BUT HE COULD SAY IT.


What I'm concentrating is on the day after. David Warcup knows that Graham Power has been suspended - David Warcup knows that the Met Interim Report has been used - David Warcup knows it was a review and should never have been used…


WHAT DOES WARCUP SAY??????


HE SAY'S NOTHING



HE HAS BEEN COMPROMISED WETHER HE LIKES IT OR NOT



AND HE KNOWS THE SH*T IS ABOUT TO HIT THE FAN


David Warcup came through the ranks at Northumbria Police and rose to the rank of Deputy Chief Constable. The reason he couldn't become Chief of Northumbria is because you cannot become Chief whilst only serving in one force. This is very  unusual for an officer of that rank.   Senior officers are encouraged and in many cases expected to move between police forces.   Preferably ones of different size and nature.Nobody can join the Met and rise to be Commissioner. ALL potential commissioners are required to serve time as a Chief Constable or other senior rank in another force.This helps them get used to different environments and to adjust to different cultures and challenges. Graham Power QPM served in three forces before jersey and the inspectorate.

Warcup had never done this and appeared to be disorientated by the unfamiliarity of Jersey. 

Did he retreate into his comfort zone and labelled everything which was done differently from Northumbria as wrong???????   

Could this be part of the problem.   He just could not grasp the nature of the problems that being a high ranking Policeman in the toxic environment of Jersey would bring, or the fact that he had been brought in to make a seamless transition to a more UK type format. 

 Just where  was the praise for what had been achieved in smashing the decades of Child Abuse in Jersey? Where was the praise for the incredible hard work of the Operation Rectangle team? The hard work had been completed by the time Warcup and Gradleak had turned up. Jersey has a tiny police force that isn't set up or equipped  to handle such a large scale operation.     YES, there would be mistakes  YES there would be lessons learnt but where was the praise?????????


SO HOW COME WARCUP GOT IT SO WRONG WITH THE MET REVIEW????


There was a huge falling out between the Metropolitan Police and Jersey.


The buck stopped with Warcup



BUT NOTHING HAPPENED


Here are some guidelines by Cumbria Constabulary. There are many to choose from concerning reviews.


Remember Warcup said nothing. I have my own opinions concerning David Warcup and the evidence doesn't look good. Remember the Matt Tapp saga - remember the safe blowing at Police HQ - remember that farcical Operation Blast the list goes on..

But this man was running Operation Rectangle after the retirement of Lenny Harper


This man helped shut it down


You bet they don't want a Committee of Enquiry 


Warcup is in it neck deep


Rico Sorda 


Part Time Investigative Jouranlist


Team Voice 





Cumbria Constabulary
Policy Document
Title: POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF MAJOR CRIME INVESTIGATIONS 
POLICY STATEMENT



To establish a review process that will promote a culture of continuous improvement in order to enhance performance and achieve best value in relation to major crime investigation. 
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
Policy File Reference:
Policy Owner: Detective Superintendent (Operations)
Approved at: Operations Board - August 2005
Policy signed off by:    Assistant Chief Constable(Operations)  
Effective from: 1 September 2005 

1st Review date: 1 September 2007


1. INTRODUCTION

The ACPO Crime Committee has advised that all forces should have a clear policy with regards to expectations in relation to the conduct of Major Crime Investigation Reviews. It is extremely important that policy makes a clear distinction between the formal review process and the day-to-day senior management supervision of the investigation. This process will promote a culture of continuous improvement in order to enhance performance and achieve best value.

2. AIMS
The fundamental objective of any review is to constructively evaluate the conduct of any major crime investigation to ensure that:
It conforms to nationally approved standards.
Is thorough.
Has been conducted with integrity and objectivity.
No investigative opportunities have been overlooked.
To identify good practice.  

The policy will also define the strategic role of the ACC (Ops) in respect of:
Commissioning reviews.
Determining terms of reference.
Appointing a reviewing officer.
3. APPLICATION

This policy applies to all police and police staff involved in the process.

4. LEGAL AND OTHER REFERENCES

The Chief Constable is empowered with operational control of Cumbria Constabulary and is ultimately accountable in law for the actions and policies of the organisation.  Particularly relevant to major crime investigation are:
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000.
The European Convention of Human Rights. Human Rights Act 198.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.
Other references include:
ACPO Crime Committee Review.
ACPO Murder Investigation Manual.
Major incident room standardisation administrative procedures (MIRSAP). 
ACPO Major Crime Review.
HMIC – ‘Policing London – Winning Consent’


5. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - EXEMPTION STATUS 

This policy is not exempt from the provisions of the above Act.


6. COMMENTS ON THIS POLICY
Comments on this policy should be directed in the first instance to the Detective Superintendent (Operations), Operational Support Department, Police Headquarters, Carleton Hall, PENRITH, Cumbria CA10 2AU.


7. POLICY DETAILS

7.1 Introduction
The concept of reviewing major crime investigation is well established and a properly conducted review will deliver a number of benefits.

A review of a major enquiry takes place for the following reasons:

To assist the senior investigating officer in the investigation and detection of the crime.

For this purpose the review team will mainly focus on Investigative Opportunities.

To assure the force that the investigation is being managed effectively and conducted with integrity.

To identify good and weak practices at an organisational level in order to improve future major crime investigation.

For this purpose the Review Team will focus on management issues, compliance and process issues.

Set against the objective is the absolute need for the review to be carried out in the spirit of co-operation between the Reviewing Officer and the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO). The review will be to assist and support the SIO and the investigation team in identifying the offender and bring the investigation to a successful conclusion. Review must not been seen as an intrusive, threatening process.

All reviews will be undertaken in accordance with the national methodology and review guidelines by ACPO Crime Committee on 25/03/99