Thursday, November 14, 2013

RICO SORDA - CITIZEN JOURNALIST- BLOCKED ON THE GOV.JE - WAS IT FEAR?










"BLOCKED ON GOV.JE - THE STATES OF JERSEY EMAIL ADDRESS"


"MARCH 19TH 2012"



"I HAVE ASKED FOR ANSWERS"



"THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE"



"STATES MEMBERS REPRESENT YOU - THE PEOPLE OF JERSEY"


"We have investigated the issue you reported and we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails."


Let me explain what happened. 



During 2012 I was sending out very well researched and evidenced based emails concerning the illegal suspension in November 2008 of then Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM. The evidence got quite alarming when I started on Operation Blast  - the so called secret files on states members. (Links will be added in the comment section). The reason for copying all states members into these emails was so they had some understanding as to what was going on when questions were asked on the floor of the States  of Jersey. I didn't want anyone to say "I DIDN'T KNOW."

As the weeks and months  went by I became increasingly more frustrated that no one would reply to my emails or simply acknowledge what I had sent.  These covered a range of topics. Even though I never received replies I continued to keep them informed. I did find this a little strange but  let it go. 


Things came to a head when I started researching the Le Rocquier School Starting Pistol Incident that can be followed here:












I had emailed the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - The Minister for Education and his Assistant Minister regarding this serious incident and the secrecy surrounding the internal reports. I received no replies. I contacted Deputy Tadier on his personal email address and along with VFC organised a meeting. At this meeting I asked the members present, along with the scrutiny officer, if they had received my emails - they said no. I said. I think my email address has been blocked. I got the look of "Yeah right" and who could blame them.

I asked Deputy Tadier if he would look into this for me as this was very serious. I had been angry that previous important sensitive emails concerning a private matter on the gov.je might also have been blocked. I was also thinking who had the right to block me. There is always a spam box for states members if they don't want to read or receive emails. But from a member of the public I would say this is very last resort. 


There was only one place to go and that was to the States of Jersey IT Department. 


They have been most helpful. I again thank Deputy Tadier for representing in this matter. Let me now take you through the chain of events. 


On the 29TH October 2013, Deputy Tadier, contacted the SoJ IT Department and explained that he couldn't receive emails from me.  They then sent me some test emails and discovered that my email was in fact  blocked. 



From: 
Sent: 30 October 2013 16:22
To: Montfort Tadier
Subject: rico sorder

Dear Deputy Tadier,

We have investigated the issue you reported and we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails.

We have a responsibility to protect SoJ employees from such emails.

Kind Regards




From: Montfort Tadier <M.Tadier@gov.jeM.Tadier@gov.je
>>
Date: 30 October 2013 16:30:50 GMT
To: ……. …….
Subject: RE: rico sorder
Hi ……..,

Thank you for looking into this and for your response.
Can I ask who asked you to block Mr Sorda's email and why the emails were blocked to all addresses, not simply that of that complainant?

I understand your comments about needing to protect SoJ employees, however, we as States Members are not employees, but public representatives. As such, it is important that constituents are free and able to contact us when they need to.

I am also concerned that we were not told that Mr Sorda has been blocked.

I would be grateful for a response to the above points.

Many thanks and Kind regards,

Montfort


From: 
Sent: 31 October 2013 13:21
To: Montfort Tadier
Cc: ……. ……….
Subject: Re: Rico Sorder

Dear Deputy Tadier,

In response to your questions,

The request to block Mr Sorder was made by the then Deputy Director of ISD.

The policy then (and it is still the policy now though I will instigate a review) is when such a blocking is implemented (which is only ever done in extremis) it is across the whole of the email system. The concept being if a person sends an extremely abusive email we have a duty of care to the SoJ staff and other users of the email system.

The majority of such blocking requests, of which there are very few, tend to be initiated by States Members, and will be authorised by the Head of Information Services or appointed deputy. In some cases the approval of HR (usually the Director of Employment Relations ) will also be sort.

Following your request we will immediately unblock Mr Ricos email address. We will also review our policy and other blocked email addresses. Part of the process review will be to determine the best way of handling States Members email under different processes to that of the civil servant side.

It is however likely that if further abusive emails are sent then some form of action will need to be taken.

I'm happy to discuss further if required,

Regards,





From: Montfort Tadier 
Sent: 01 November 2013 16:19
To: …… ……
Cc: …….. ……..
Subject: RE: Rico Sorder

Hi ……..,

Thanks again for that information.

I do have further questions, however.

1. Can you advise me who made the original complaint?

2. What date was the complaint received and when was the block put on?

3. Can you send me a copy of the offending email(s)? And failing this, can you advise what the nature of the abusive/inappropriate material was and to whom it was sent?

4. Can you send me any policy you have on this matter, including any warning that would be given (i) to the alleged offending party and (ii) what notice would be given to potential recipients, who may be in regular legitimate contact with the alleged offender on other matters? And what appeals process there are in place against such blocks?


Many thanks.

In the meantime, I wish you a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Montfort



From: Montfort Tadier 
Sent: 06 November 2013 13:45
To: Montfort Tadier; 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Rico Sorder

Dear ….. et Al.

Can I ask if you have had a chance to consider these questions? 
I have now been asked by the individual in question to raise this matter directly with you, as the block resulted in the individual not being able to contact the Health Department on a very sensitive and urgent matter - as a result, he presumed that his emails were being ignored. This caused unnecessary anxiety and is, in my opinion, quite unacceptable.

I would appreciate it if you would could get back to me at your earliest convenience so I know what avenue to pursue.

Kind regards, 

Montfort




From: …… …..
Sent: 11 November 2013 10:27
To: Montfort Tadier
Subject: RE: FW: oral question 6792

Dear Deputy Tadier,

We have managed to restore our service desk system to a point prior to the upgrade and have discovered the call relating to Mr Sorder. The call was logged in our system at 10:48 on the 19th March 2012.

The actual request, which was made by a state’s member, was to block all messages to themselves from  ....... ..... .......... 

In this case it seems that no request was made for the block to be implemented states wide. The fact it was implemented in that way was an error on behalf of the officer actioning  the call.

As discussed we are reviewing our process relating to email blocking and I will ensure that you are kept informed.

The IS department apologises to Mr Sorda for any distress this has caused, I am of course willing to do so in person.

Regards,


 As one can imagine I found it hard to believe what Deputy Tadier was telling me so I asked to see the emails.  It has taken from the 29th October to the 14th November to get some simple answers. What concerns me is the change in tone from the first email to the last one as explained in my email to the SoJ IT Department below. 


Dear All,

I must thank Deputy Tadier for taking up my concerns regarding my blocked email address. 

I'm  left with more questions than I have answers. This has been a very serious issue and has caused me great concern. I will lay out your previous answers in a timeline so that we can follow them more easily. 

Having replied to  test emails from Connor King and establishing that my email had been blocked on the Gov.je system Deputy Tadier received a reply from ..... ...... Mr .......  stated that from their investigation I had been accused of sending inappropriate and abusive emails. I strongly refute these allegation and would like to see the evidence . I have sent out a lot of evidence and facts that might be hard for some States Members to digest but never abuse. 

I am left puzzled by the last email that totally contradicts the previous emails. I have no doubt  that Mr ........ knows how to conduct an investigation and could not have got it  so wrong. 

The question is an easy one. Who made the call on the 19th March 2012? 

I know from talking to other states members that they have been advised to mark annoying emails down as spam. It really is that simple. I was blocked across the whole system.

 An investigation by Mr ....... that's now wrong -  someone pushing wrong buttons that blocks me across the whole gov.je  the best way to clear this up is for me to meet with you and Deputy Tadier. 

The blocking of my email was very serious for reasons I can't divulge here. A


I thank you for your help in these matters. 


I'm free between 12.30 and 2pm on weekdays 


Kind Regards 



Now, and this is just my hunch, the truth of the blocking lies in the first email. Who phoned or emailed the complaint? Who was I emailing at the time of the blocking? The Jersey Law Office and more specifically the Office of Attorney General. An IT Expert just accidentally pushed the wrong button and banned me across the whole gov.je data base? Not having it.


This was the email I sent on the 16th March 2012 to the Jersey Law Office and all States Members. A member of the public doing the work, research and asking the questions. 


Even I have to admit that the last email I sent before been blocked was just about perfect That was an email full of facts  from a Citizen Blogger.

I have a meeting next week where I will be looking for answers.


THEY NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist


From: rico sorda 

Sent: 16 March 2012 13:45

To: Tim Allen

Cc: Ian Le Marquand; Alan Breckon; Anne Pryke; Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator); ben queree; Gerard Baudains; James Baker; Rod Bryans; cswiseman; Deidre Mezbourian; dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com; JEP Editorial; Edward Noel; Francis Le Gresley; Geoffrey Southern; jon gripton; Bob Hill; Roy Le Herissier; Ian Gorst; John Refault; Jacqueline Hilton; John Le Fondre; John Le Sueur Gallichan; Jeremy Macon; James Reed; Kristina Moore; Kevin Lewis; Michel Le Troquer (Connetable POSMN); Judith Martin; Michael J. Paddock; Montfort Tadier; news@channeltv.co.uk; Patrick Ryan; Philip Ozouf; Philip Rondel; Paul Routier; Susie Pinel; Shona Pitman; Steve Luce; Simon Crowcroft; Tracey Vallois; Trevor Pitman

Subject: Attorney General Most Urgent


Dear Attorney General,

During my research into the illegal suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power some alarming develoments have occured. Former Chief of Police Graham power wanted access to his secure safe through his  represenative. ACO David Warcup wasn't happy about this

December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office.  Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate  representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.



December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.


January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable  Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The letter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.



January 22nd 2009 -  Acting Chief of Police opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne  of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham.  Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office.  This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was  Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors"  of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?


An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret.



I have  also reproduced part of a letter from former Head of HR Ian Critch to Graham Power dated 22nd December 2008. What jumps out at me is that David Warcup was getting legal advice.



I will quote Mr Critch;



"Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advise therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful"


1.What  legal advice did David warcup receive that resulted in him breaking into Graham Powers secure Safe when Graham Power was suspended under a neutral act and could be returning to work very shortly.



2. What legal advice did David Warcup receive that resulted in a locksmith being able to attend and open Mr Powers secure safe and not a lawyer or Constable? On the 9th January 2009 Ian Critch writes to Graham Power saying there are problems which Mr Power replies to on the 12th January 2009 and states;



"The searching of the locked cabinet in my office in order to establish whether it contains a copy of my terms and conditions is a ten minute task which has now been subject of correspondence for over a month.   Throughout all of this time I have asked only that a person representing my interests be present when this was done.   This was to ensure fairness, vouch for the authenticity of anything which was found, or confirm that nothing was found, and to recover on my behalf a document to which I was entitled.   We appeared to agree that this person would be Advocate Lakeman, and he was therefore provided with a sealed envelope containing the information necessary for this agreement to move forward.   Since that apparently fair and acceptable arrangement was agreed, objections have been made through you, the latest being in your letter dated 9th January 2009 in which you state that it is not possible for him to be present because the cabinet contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of.   As you are aware, it was never the intention that my representative would take an interest in any matters other than the task for which they were appointed, namely attempting to recover a true copy of my terms and conditions on my behalf.   Given that the copy which should be held in your department is inexplicably missing, my concerns on this issue are natural and understandable.   You state that you offer your personal assurance that any personal items contained in the cabinet will be delivered to me, but do not say how this will be achieved, given that you also appear to be in the category of persons who will not be allowed to be present or view the contents



3. Why does David Warcup then lie under Oath to Wiltshire where he states and I quote;



"In view of the fact that I did not have access to the safe combination contact was made with Mr Power to obtain the combination. Following an exchange of messages between Mr Power's appointed contact and the force, I established that Mr Power refused to disclose the combination of the safe as a result of which I arranged for a locksmith to attend."


"At 14"30 hrs onn 22nd January 2009 I was present along with Detective Superintendent Bonnie (Wiltshire..rs) and Inspector Burmingham when the safe was opened. A check was made of the contents and a schedule prepared of the items contained therein"


"The following documents were removed from the safe were later copied and forwarded to Detective Superintendent Bonnie."


"In the safe I also found a sealed white envelope marked as follows 'S Syvret' which was date stamped 10th April 2007. When opened the envelope was found to contain an audio tape. A transcript of the audio tape was subsequently made and is contained on 41 pages. A copy of the transcript has been forwarded to Superintendent Bonnie" End



This needs explaining. It all comes down to what legal advice David Warcup was getting. did the Law Office give David warcup the green light to break into Graham poers secure safe/cabinet yes or no.    Or, did david warcup decide to break into Graham Powers off his own back? I don't think so.


He was receiving advice from the Law office. this would have been fromm the SG of the time Tim le Cocq or the Attorney General William Bailhache.


Did one of the above advice David warcup to go ahead and break into Graham powers secure Safe /Cabinet whilest he was suspended as a neutral act? If not then what did David Warcup think he was doing - there are excellent fishing locations around Jersey apart from Graham Powers secure safe.


Look Forward to your prompt reply



Kind Regards



Rico Sorda


HERE IS THE REPLY ON THE DAY OF THE BLOCKING


Tim Allen

To Me

19 Mar 2012

Dear Mr Sorda,

The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your email.

It would not be appropriate for this office to enter into correspondence with a member of the public about a matter in which they have no direct interest.

We do not propose to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the contents of your email in any way. However, as a matter of general application, and for your future guidance, what advice may or may not have been given by this department to any person on any matter and whether or not any advice has been given at all is a matter that remains confidential and any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege.

Yours sincerely

Tim Allen


Tim Allen | Chief Clerk
Law Officers' Department
Morier House | St Helie

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

Waaay beyond the pale! That is too outrageous. Not to mention that in the Crown protectorate of Jersey it is a Data Protection crime to link to the official (Hansard) record of Public Motions. Would that even be illegal in North Korea?

Of course it's fear. Intense fear.

Anonymous said...

You need answers we ALL need answers. Who has the power to order a member of the public be denied contact with his representatives? If I read it right your emails were also banned from the whole states site which includes every states department I think I've got that right? Now the guy from IT won't tell you what states member it was who asked for you to be banned! How many more people are banned which nobody knows about? You have a right to see the email you supposedly sent which was offensive and should make sure you get to see it. This smells of the Law Office me thinks.

DenverGal said...

You have to just laugh sadly at Tim Allen for pretending they live in the age of full totalitarian control. If Jersey was considered a secrecy jurisdiction before, this shreds that "thin veneer of democracy," as journalist Nick Shaxson described it.

Bigger. Hole. Dug. Hourly.

rico sorda said...

You are correct. The banning was across all States Departments. That is why I want answers. Even if a states member phoned up the IT Department for advise surely they would say mark it down as spam.

I don't know if the click on to block me from one states member is right next to a carpet blocking.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A wrong button was pushed so you got banned from the entire gov.je address? I recall a couple of years ago my Blogsite was banned from the States site and Bill (Golden handshake) Ogley came out with the old "pushed the wrong button sketch" or something very similar.

Somebody doesn't want the truth "facts" getting to States Members or States employees and they need to be named.

Look forward to hearing about (and possibly reporting on) your up-coming meeting, and if needs be, Access to information request and complaints board hearing.

These people just get more and more desperate while the UK (and local State Media) keeps turning a blind eye.

Anonymous said...

JESUS H CHRIST!!!!!!!!!! Who thought the cover up merchants couldn't get any more desperate in Jersey!? Blocking a blogger from communicating either with their elected representers or anyone employed by the government!? This is totalitarian tactics at there best.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope there is a good employee in the IT Department, willing to blow the whistle on this. How many other people are blocked? Is VFC one of them? This may explain why ILM can't be bothered to answer his e-mails. This issue has a huge impact on islanders Human Rights and they know it, hence the feeble apology to blame human error. Let's hope a Jersey Snowden tells us what is really going going on. Knowing how Jersey really is (thanks to bloggers) I suspect an eye on the IT Department would be very ing.revealing.

rico sorda said...

As far as I know VFC is ok.

I was the one who would email all states members. I explain in the main posting why I did this.

You know, they represent us, the public. Some don't like reading about an illegal suspension of a Police Chief or covering up- the cover up -on decades long child abuse.

I will stand by my actions

rs

Anonymous said...

great email to the attorney general. lol, that would have dropped in their inbox like a ton of Semtex. A little more probing than one asking for a quote on the legality of a turd from a jep hack.

Anonymous said...

Has any of the state media ever "accidentally" been blocked or is it just a blogger thing?

Zoompad said...

"after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails."

Rico, I cannot imagine you ever sending an abusive email, I just know you wouldn't do it, it would wreck your credibility for a start and you're just too smart to do such a thing, so what on earth are they talking about?

rico sorda said...

Ah, but what is classed as abusive? Evidence and facts?

rs

Anonymous said...

Link to comments Ricos blog as at 17th March 2012

Possible clue in the comments as of the date you were blocked.

Anonymous said...

A early comment on Ricos blog

Could this be the offending email?

Re: Simon Crowcroft.

I have twice tried to publish a couple of reasonable questions without success,

The latest attempt reads:

"Constable Crowcroft,

I recently submitted a reasonable comment which, to my regret you have not posted. (If is is simply a matter of you not updating your blog recently, my apologies).

As I am a believer in democracy for Jersey, I hope you will allow some free speech here.

I repeat my questions:

Will you please give us your thoughts on the latest shocking revelations and implications of Rico Sorda's blog.

In particular, the part where you are mentioned.

Are you, or any of the other right minded politicians, going to follow these up on behalf of the decent people of Jersey?

Is anyone confident of obtaining full & honest answers to the questions these allegations pose?

If not, please have your questions worded very carefully to let their non-answers speak volumes.

The wider public must be made fully aware of what is going on.

Please help by responding soon.

Although he has not yet responded, I posted the same comments on Deputy Tadier's blog, these have appeared with no censorship.

I do hope you are not trying to hide something!

Thanks"

We'll see

March 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Anonymous said...

On reflection the comment I left
at November 14, 2013 at 10:43 PM
can't be the offending email, as that states it had been submitted to Mr Crowcrofts blog? I do not know if that was his personal or States blog?

Anonymous said...

Of course it bears repeating, if the msm had been doing their job properly in the best interest of the public, they should have been asking those exact questions.

Anonymous said...

Staggering.

I expect you will be exercising all of your rights under the DP law to access a copy of this personal information held about you? I believe that you also have right to insist that they do not destroy this service desk request data, pending any future action that you wish to take.

Your meeting next week should be interesting. Keep digging, as I know you will.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Sorda,




The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your email.




It would not be appropriate for this office to enter into correspondence with a member of the public about a matter in which they have no direct interest.

How very dare he. ''a member of the public'' no less. You told.

Deputy Trebor Pitman (not signed in!) said...

It is most interesting to note the contradictions evident here. About a year ago I asked that a rather unpleasant and genuinely highly abusive internet troll be 'blocked' from sending me e-mails. I asked this as a last resort. Nevertheless, I was told that it could not be done. Now you, Rico, who have never been abusive have been blocked for no justifiable reason. This demands answers and urgently to. Why? Well, how many other constituents who have tried to contact me, Monty or anyone else will simply have thought that the person just did not bother to reply? frankly its shocking.

Anonymous said...

You do this all the time, ask questions about confidential material (which they can be sued for if they release), and then you claim they must have something to hide for not answering your questions. Surely Deputy Tadier can explain this to you?

Anonymous said...

I am told reliably at least a couple of senator candidates in the last elections had e-mails addresses blocked at the JEP. Unfortunately the 'regrettable' administration issues precented press releases and other copy making publication. No intentional bias of course.

Anonymous said...

The email to the office of Attorney General is brilliant.
No wonder you were blocked. One call from a very important person and the rest is history.

Anonymous said...

How long before it dawns on people? The Jersey powers that be simply thumb their noses at reasonable questions regarding public interest concerns. They know they do not have to reply or enter into potentially difficult communication. They will not be taken down by conventional methods. Here, people get sent to prison for dissent. Ask yourselves, why is there no intervention from greater world at large? It is all about money and centuries old corrupt loyalties. Is this Sodom or Gomorrah?

Anonymous said...

The modern establishment exists to keep Jersey as a Tax Haven to allow the City of London Corporation - Bank of England to trade through the Jersey Tax-Haven to bankroll the UK Government and H.M. The Queen's armed forces.

This is what all this is really about.

Anonymous said...

''You do this all the time, ask questions about confidential material (which they can be sued for if they release), and then you claim they must have something to hide for not answering your questions. Surely Deputy Tadier can explain this to you?''

What does that tell you?

It tells me something illegal happened within the department or person that Rico is questioning if you believe ''they'' could be sued then what did ''they'' do?

Judge made law & Jersey's secret Emperors said...

The following old (2009) question dug up by "Boatyboy"

Deputy Tadier asked in the States: "Will H.M Attorney General explain to members what steps he takes and has taken to ensure against any apparent conflict of
him being both the legal adviser to the Council of Ministers on child abuse matters, whilst at the same time being the person responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute in such cases?"

He said: "This is not about Mr Bailhache as a person and one is certainly not questioning his integrity. [ perish the thought LOL ]

"There are, however, fundamental questions which need to be asked.

"For example, due to the dual nature of the position, the attorney general is, on the one hand, the person who decides whether or not to pursue cases in the historic child abuse inquiry and on the other hand the lawyer who advises the Council of Ministers on child abuse and presumably how they can minimise their liability with regards to future claims.

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2163.msg34975.html#msg34975

"..... William Bailhache said he would reveal details behind his advice on cases
Jersey Attorney General William Bailhache is facing questions over an alleged conflict of interest.

The questions on Monday by Montfort Tadier follows Mr Bailhache's advice to police to drop 11 cases in the Jersey historic abuse inquiry. ......."

Anonymous said...

If Stuart Syvret was not at present supressed, in HMS La Moye Prison, locked up, a political prisoner. He would say, as he has said many a time before....

David Warcup is a proven liar, and criminal!

Anonymous said...

Will you be putting a formal complaint to Emma Martins.
Someone is accusing you of sending abusive emails.Surely that person is breaking data protection laws and should be sent to prison - like Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret Blog entry: 24th Jan 2012:A Liar And A Crook

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:36
These older postings are more revealing the second time through - a gold mine of info as someone else just pointed out to me.

Anonymous said...

They think real journalism is abuse? They think real abuse is just teacher's perks! Vulnerable abuse victims are jailed and deported in pyjamas but the abuser's defended because he is from a family of, ahem, means.

Anonymous said...

You are quiet right to point out the change in tone between the first e-mail and the last one.

The truth lies more in the first e-mail as the complaint is new.A year has passed since the blocking was introduced. The real problem, and I'm not saying the other issues arn't as bad, is when you asked for the name.

The name is causing them problems.

""We have investigated the issue you reported and we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails."

Anonymous said...

"Did one of the above advice David warcup to go ahead and break into Graham powers secure Safe /Cabinet whilest he was suspended as a neutral act? If not then what did David Warcup think he was doing - there are excellent fishing locations around Jersey apart from Graham Powers secure safe"

That was very abusive mr sorda. Could you provide some links to operation blast as you said you were going to do in the main posting. Will there also be an update on stuart syvret soon? It would be nice to know that he is ok in the jersey prison. He might be approached to join the brotherhood of st ouen whilst in there.... He must refuse.

Anonymous said...


If my understanding is correct they broke into the locked cabinet in Mr Powers office then removed his signed copy of his work contract. In the contract it stipulated that in the case of any legal problems and as head of the police force, he was authorised to employ legal representation at the cost to the States.

Both Mr Powers personal contract, and the copy held by the States human resources department suddenly went missing.

No legal protection for Mr Power without great cost to himself.

Is not theft illegal, and did the police under Warcup, or Le Marquand if you prefer carry out an investigation or admit liability ?

Anonymous said...

The comment at 8:42 is a threat or warning that in Jersey, there is no room for public interest journalism. Jersey is a feudalist tax haven in desperate fear of democracy and human rights.

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

Rico, just a few points.

Firstly, the email you wrote (to Tim Allen 16 March 2012) which appears to have precipitated your blocking is very impressive.
A shedload of linked and embarrassing facts, spiked with probing questions which our elected representatives so needed to be protected from.
Perhaps your little touch of acerbic wit (RE. fishing expeditions) was just too much for the delicate legal/law-enforcement egos to bear.

Now, quite apart from the other contents of Chief of Police Graham Power's secure cabinet, readers may not be fully aware of the significance of Police Chief's Terms of Employment.

A very boring document, but of critical importance to the game plan of "the dark side".

Unbelievably* the Jersey HR copy of the Police Chief's Terms of Employment had already gone missing !!!!
The one surviving copy was in Graham Power's safe. This was his copy and he was legally entitled to it.

After considerable and unnecessary delay Warcup & his little gang broke into the safe so as to avoid any representative of Police Chief Graham Power being present to take a true copy of this document before it too "inexplicably disappeared"

As said it was of critical importance to the dark side that these documents disappeared because the Police Chief's Terms of Employment entitled him to funding for LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
Even this slight semblance of "equity of arms" could not be tolerated by Jersey Law as it might risk further unravelling their hair brained corruption.

Jersey's legitimate and highly capable Police Chief Graham Power QPM nonetheless put up a robust defence of his record while his suspensions were strung out beyond his retirement age, in effect a constructive dismissal. All in spite of equally capable representations of senior UK officers such as Dr.Brain on g.Power's behalf.

One suspects that Graham Power's Judicial Review application was lost before it even began because the proven paedophile protecting Jurat Le Breton had been selected to sit on his case.
[ref. Le Breton: see the Sharp Report on decades of sexual abuse at Victoria College {Chairman of governors Philip Bailhache btw -see also HDLG}]


Getting back to the email blocking issue.
In the 30 October 2013 email : "...... we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails."

We have yet to see evidence of anything which could be appropriately described as "abusive" ....... but where authorities abuse the population, abuse their children and abuse democracy ....... I believe that one of the traditional ways of resolving matters is to hang the perpetrators from the lampposts !!!!!
....so in most jurisdictions a few unkind words and annoying questions from an upright citizen such as Mr.Sorda would be deemed mild and reasonable and not at all "inappropriate".

-Why is Jersey and Jersey Law so different?
-Why do Terms of Employment and even HDLG child abuse witness statements and evidence inexplicably go missing?
-Why do the same names keep cropping up where there is child abuse, corruption and cover up?
-Why is the Jersey population too stupid to notice, or too "I'm alright Jack" to care?

The complacent deserve it; but it is the kids, the blighted lives and the resultant suicides which make the good people of this island weep.

Our collective prosperity does not rely on child abuse or it's cover up, but some individuals position and power do.

Or do you want to "tweet" how happy you are in JEP-land and "like" their site?

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

I see that my main point about them stripping Police Chief Graham Power's legal protection .....so that he could be hung out to dry ........has been far more concisely made by poster @10:20am.

Thank you and well done.

/Keep it simple stupid :-)

Go to Hell said...

"Is not theft illegal, and did the police under Warcup, or Le Marquand if you prefer carry out an investigation or admit liability ?" @10:20

I think that Minister Le Marquand would take the view that neither document was "stolen". Far more likely surely that both Mr. Powers contracts disappeared into the ether in a modern day miracle - an act of God - if you like.

God is clearly on their side - they even have the Right Reverend and untainted Dean of Jersey Robert Key, no less, to back them up on this

The notion that these people kneel to the false god of money, good living and power, is frankly ridiculous ;-)

ILM friends/followers, eternity awaits. Prepare thyselves for flaying.

Anonymous said...

Page 34 hansard link

the Criminal Justice information technology group come under the home affairs department

Chief Officer, Home Affairs; ISD Representative; Chief
Probation Officer; Magistrate’s Court Greffier; Director,
Jersey Legal Information Board;
Head of Custodial Care, Jersey Prison Service; Director of
Court Services; Representative of the Chefs de Police;
Director of Criminal Justice, States of Jersey Police; Assistant
Director, Customs & Immigration; Head of ICT, States of

Anonymous said...

From my past days setting up a company email system, I could do the following with a click of a mouse>

1) block emails from an email or ip address from reaching a selected or group of persons.

2) redirect emails to another address

3) copy all incoming emails to another address

4) just about any combination you could think of could easily be done.

Basically, anyone with power of the system, could be getting copies all all States emails, they could be sent through a parsing filter to highlight any with selected key words.

No email sent to any government email address can be considered secure from being read/copied/redirected.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of the unholy clique, All Bloggers, help! the diocese of Winchester are intimidating me, why, I do not know, they have been asked not to harass me but they are doing, and terrifying me, please raise awareness that they are directly intimidating me and bypassing Bob, and please retweet my protest. HG

rico sorda said...

This was the reply I sent to the Jersey Law Office on March 19th but did they get it?



From: Tim Allen
Subject: RE: Attorney General Most Urgent
To: "rico sorda"
Date: Monday, 19 March, 2012, 16:38

Dear Mr Sorda,

The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your email.

It would not be appropriate for this office to enter into correspondence with a member of the public about a matter in which they have no direct interest.

We do not propose to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the contents of your email in any way. However, as a matter of general application, and for your future guidance, what advice may or may not have been given by this department to any person on any matter and whether or not any advice has been given at all is a matter that remains confidential and any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege.

Yours sincerely

Tim Allen



From: rico sorda
Subject: RE: Attorney General Most Urgent
To: "Tim Allen"
Date: Monday, 19 March, 2012, 21:22

Dear Mr Allen,

I thank the Attorney General for his reply.

As you can imagine,the issues raised, are of grave importance.

The former Chief of Police Graham Power was suspended 3 times between November 12th 2008 and the 31st July 2009 - this, in itself, must be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. Has a Chief of Police ever been suspended so many times? and, in such a short space of time? Graham Power then waits 11/2 years for the Home Affairs Minister who drops all disciplinary action. The Minister then character assassinates Mr Power with the help of the local media.

This all happens in the middle of a live investigation into decades of Child Abuse in the Jersey Care Homes.

Now, it absolutely does concern me. The actions of David Warcup concern me. The fact that David Warcup broke into the secure cabinet/safe with the help of a locksmith without allowing Graham Power to have representation is of grave concern. Graham Power was suspended under a neutral act and should have been returning to work on March 5th 2009 - until, that is, Senator Le Marquand lost all sense of natural justice.

Acting Chief of Police Warcup was getting advice about the safe situation. By natural deduction, I would say that advice was coming from the Jersey Law Office.

Mr Warcup broke into Graham Powers secure safe/cabinet. He then lied to Wiltshire, under Oath, about his actions.

If the Jersey Law Office gave the green light for this then it raises very serious questions

If the Jersey Law Office didn't sanction this then one has to ask what was David Warcup thinking. His actions are extraordinary. Why the lies?

This is about people being accountable for their actions or explanations for them.


It concerns me greatly

Kind Regards

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

Hi HG @4:47,
Sorry you are feeling frightened.

They agreed to only contact you through Ex Met. Policeman Bob Hill. Have they tried to contact you directly?

Try not to worry. There is nothing they can realisticly do to harm you. And if they did, there would be hell to pay.
They just want to take advantage of your vulnerabilities in the hope that you will go away.
Don't let them bully you. Email or comment Bob with the details if there have been any new developments.

Great open letter you did for Bob's blog. :-) Straight from the heart, and pouring some home truths into Jersey's decadent pulpits.

I have found it so interesting conversing with you in the comments sections.

Please try not to worry. It will be fine and there are some very good like Bob working on your behalf.

Take care of yourself.

Anonymous said...

HG how are the Diocese of Winchester harassing and intimidating you?

Anonymous said...

That was a brilliant email to Mr Allen. Unfortunately, your government doesn't want you to have those answers. It doesn't want you to tell the truth. Your questions could inspire a decent person to leak solid evidence from inside the government. TPTB can't take that chance. They are gangsters, banksters and worse.

Anonymous said...

I believe their unwanted email contact to HG and their demands that she read and respond to their emails is concerning and frightening to her. She is understandably upset about their gaining access to her private contact info without her permission. That makes it hard for her to know who and what to trust right now.

Elle

rico sorda said...

I have been going over some of old posts concerning the suspension of Graham Power and I pretty much nailed it. What a shower we have governing us. Off the richter scale.

How dare I ask any questions. What was I thinking. Well i'm still asking the questions but not getting many answers. I'm not giving up.

rs

Stuart Syvret said...

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said... March 2012

Rico


The Jersey Evening Post has, for over 100 years, been the instrument of power in Jersey.

The Guiton Group and its shareholders were never going to let that iron grip on power slip.

So as this new fangled broadcast media began to exist in the Channel Islands - beginning with Channel Television - the Guiton Group has known that the local broadcast media had to play the same tune as the JEP - or the power of The Rag was finished. It would either have to start reporting honestly and ethically - or it would be revealed as ridiculous and corrupt in contrast with local broadcast media that would be reporting the truth.

Which is why some hacks in the broadcast media in Jersey have always been on "contracts", as it were, with paymasters other than their official employers.

So, no surprise - no surprise at all - at the ubiquity of the atrocity-supporting corruption to be observed uniformly across all of Jersey's mainstream media - including the BBC.

I invite anyone familiar with the local msm scene to research for themselves just how many different people with different 'skills' migrated from the JEP / Guiton Group to the other Jersey media since the 1960s.

There are some fascinating correlations in editorial policy to be observed.

But there is another reason - a powerful reason - why the JEP/ Guiton Group has led such on overtly corrupt campaign against proper, objective policing during the last few years - and why they've had to exercise every possible control, and call-in every possible influence, over the rest of the Jersey msm.

I'll leave it at that for the moment.

I'll just say this; Mr Power makes a very perspicacious observation when he summons the condition of Mcbeth - and that "point of no return" syndrome.

But it is not only Le Marquand and Warcup who chose to place their destiny in the corruption of vaulting ambition which o'er-leaps itself; the whole Jersey oligarhcy - the "court", let us call it what it is - has been taken in a fit of collective madness from which no backward steps can be taken. As I've observed before - a path of 'total war'.

And if Warcup has been the Mcbeth in the crazed enterprise - William Bailhache was the Lady Mcbeth, who urged him on.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

The Diocese contacted me directly not through Bob and they know I don't read their emails and they were trying to make me read their emails, further developments to that is that someone went behind my back in trying to get the church of england to house me, of all the things to do! why am I homeless?! And I have been very shocked.
Anyone who would like to write to the Bishop and ask him to refrain from harassing me, I would be grateful. HG

Anonymous said...

The Bishop of Winchester uses his chaplain's email address for some reason bishops.chaplain@winchester.anglican.org
I am not encouraging spamming, but the more people who show him that it is known he is hurting me, the better. HG

Anonymous said...

Hang on there, HG. Good people are risking all to expose the same Jersey Way you are a victim of. Keep your spirits up and know you are part of a wider support network even if some of us are not named yet. Take heart from what Rico, Voice, Bob and Stuart Syvret and others have done to establish evidence and call attention to those responsible for terrible destruction of innocent people. Remember the good policemen like Graham Power and Lenny Harper who refused to back down at risk of losing everything. These men have all been willing to share some of your pain by taking those risks.

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

Thank you Elle & HG.

Readers should be aware that HG is a victim of the Church of Jersey/CofE as documented on Bob Hill's blog

HG is autistic. Autism is a spectrum condition which can affect different individuals in very different ways. Autistics can have varying mainly social disabilities and occasionally incredible abilities in certain areas.

Autistics commonly find human interaction quite scary so unsolicited and unwarranted contact can quite easily feel like an attack upon their person. This is likely why Winchester & Jersey are only supposed to communicate with HG through Bob Hill. If they are contacting her directly one assumes that it is either through incompetence or malice. These are people and organisations with whom HG has already had very bad experiences.

Some of HG's reactions may seem strange to many of us but HG particularly does not trust the Church of England

Autistics are generally more comfortable within a small trusted of family group. Bob Hill is trusted which is why he is supposed to be the intermediary for ALL contact with HG for the moment.

HG. Do please correct me if I am wrong. Some of the above is in general terms rather than specifically about you.

Anonymous said...

After several years of her living on the streets of the UK, following her "constructive deportation from Jersey, it is a bit late for CofE to now be looking to house her.

The delay and previous lack of care suggests that their change of heart may be a PR exercise.
If They are not able to regain her trust it seems that she would rather spend another winter mostly on the streets than accept their help.

Anonymous said...

Thank you anons, the church of england have hurt me badly and constantly for a very long time now, and one of the reasons they are only to communicate through Bob is the Bishop making veiled threats to me when I begged the diocese to leave me alone and not return to violating my life, their violations of my life on my retun from Jersey to winchester led to me retaliating and them getting me further police trouble, although the police refused to protect me from diocesan intervention, hence me going on the run and remaining on the streets. HG

Anonymous said...

Anon who has been explaining autism on this blog and Bob's blog, thank you, I appreciate it and I am sure that others do, and you are correct and obviously understand the spectrum. It is so rare to be understood. HG

Anonymous said...

anon 10.33pm. My fourth winter on the streets, and it cannot be worse than the winter of 2010/11 which was my first winter on the streets. HG

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

Thank you poster of Stuart Syvret's words, re-posted 9:45pm

I believe Stuart is still detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" so it might be best to call yourself something like "Stuart Syvret's Echo" to avoid any confusion
If you can, please provide a source for the quote, which on this occasion would be:
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/03/operation-end-game-10-timeline.html?showComment=1332029628217#c8565448344293018839

(specific comment reference is optional)

It is so helpful to be reminded of these valuable words

Yo might also want to paste them here:
http://sammezec.blogspot.com/2013/11/bbc-complaints-procedure-is-evidently.html

Anonymous said...

The Church of England has no excuse for attempting any unwelcome contact. Of course it is a PR move. They have known for years about the vulnerability of HG. They also know their mistreatment of her is suddenly gaining much wider exposure. What they may now finally realise too, is that HG is a powerful and articulate writer, who tells her story in a most compelling way.

In my view, Stuart's imprisonment has brought a rapidly growing awareness of The Jersey Way, and issues such as Rico's email being blocked, the illegal suspension of Graham Power, the infamous nurse, and even Haut de la Garenne are all suddenly much more at the forefront outside of Jersey.

The Church of England's inner power plays, Phil Bailhache's abusive disregard for HG's privacy, their inability to place HG's needs above that of the social regard of a abuser, and their apparently innate ethical deficits have led to this. Well, as someone said, "So Be It."

Elle

Bob Hill said...

Rico,

I have been asked if I was aware that HG has been posting comments on your Blog. I have posted the comment below on my blog which I hope will explain what caused HG concern that led to her actions which could have been avoided had Winchester kept to agreed guidelines.

"Yes, I have been made aware and she has been upset because Winchester has been in touch with her contrary to accepted guidelines.

I was aware at the outset and asked that she ignored the email and to let me sort out that issue but HG chose to express her concerns to a wider arena.

I have been in touch with Winchester and await a reply.

I understand that HG is now calm and it is hoped that Winchester and any other body involved with the investigation will communicate via me so as to avoid upsetting HG.

Can I thank those readers who have been in touch expressing their concerns."

Anonymous said...

European Convention on Human Rights, "Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

I would say that the States IT department blocking you from contacting your elected representatives via their official email addresses is a pretty fundamental interference by a public authority.

I urge you report this crime to the police. Of course they will try to ignore you, but if you pursue it vigorously, this could prove highly damaging to the Establishment. "Oops, I pushed the wrong button" just isn't going to wash, is it? At some point, some minion might just decide that it's safer to tell the truth than carry on peddling the "honest mistake" line.

rico sorda said...

When I found out that I had been blocked I made contact with two States Members that I thought might have flagged me up. Even though I didn't think they carried enough clout to get me blocked across all the gov.je I thought it best to ask. They both came back very quickly and assured me it wasn't them - which I believe - and it shouldn't have been done.

Who carries enough clout - as a states member - that when they contact the DD OF ISD he gets it done..

"The request to block Mr Sorder was made by the then Deputy Director of ISD."

Who contacts this man and gets me blocked.

rs

Anonymous said...

That's why you need to report it to the police. You shouldn't have to guess - it should be subject of a formal police investigation with the associated legal powers to arrest and question under caution if need be.

As an aside, I suspect that even selective blocking on a single email account at the request of the addressee could potentially be considered a breach of your right to expression, where it involves the official email address of an elected representative, and the blocking is perpetrated by the state. A States member does, of course, have the right to ignore your emails, but to actually have them blocked by the state is a very different matter.

rico sorda said...

November 12th 2008 - Graham Power Suspended


December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.


December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The latter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.


January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office. This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors" of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?

An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret.

rico sorda said...

February 13th 2009 - Graham Power has his first Suspension Review Meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand. Senator Le Marquand informs Graham Power and his representative T. Brain that he, as Home Affairs Minister:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do



February 18th 2009 - Graham Power attends Royal Court and seeks judicial Review into his suspension. Solicitor General advices an adjournment because the Minister for Home Affairs is conducting a Suspension Review


March 5th 2009 - Graham Power has second suspension meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - The Minister decides to keep Graham Power suspended. What readers must take note of here is the exchange between Graham Powers representative Constable T . Brain and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand about the amount of time Wiltshire is taking. It now appears that Wiltshire wouldn't be completed until June 2009 - remember this when going down the timescale.

Dr. T Brain:
No, I did not know that, but that merely re-emphasises my gratitude. Thank you very much. It has been done as swiftly as possible and the only observations to make are that I am grateful that you have done it within a reasonable amount of time. The point that I am going to make now though is in relation to the fact that we have this 2-stage… just over a fortnight between each stage. It is just the general fact that it must be obvious to you that it 4 months since Graham was suspended, all but a week. That is a very long period of time and I just must register my concerns about the length of time that the inquiry is taking because with every day that passes it will be more difficult for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through no fault of his own.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
Can I just ask Mr. Pinel if he has any update on timescales? Because the last information I had was that the report was unlikely to be available until May.

Mr. M. Pinel:
Yes, the last information I have, Minister, which is very recent, is that Wiltshire are expecting to conclude their investigation by the end of June.

Dr. T. Brain:
I am very grateful for Mr. Pinel’s comment. I must say, Minister, that is staggering.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
That is news to me, I have to say.

rico sorda said...

Dr. T. Brain:
It will become obvious in a moment why I find that staggering. That, I think, re-emphasises the point that I have just made. That with every day that passes it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through absolutely no fault of his own; certainly not the length of time this inquiry is taking. While the longer the delay the greater the disruption to the command of the force, the uncertainties of the staff, and if there is an issue of public confidence that has been created it has been generated entirely by the suspension process. I re-emphasise I am talking about the suspension process here. I am not talking about the facts of the case that may or may not come to a tribunal at some point. If Wiltshire do not anticipate finishing this before June I suspect we will not be hearing it before perhaps Christmas next year, by which tie Graham would have been suspended for over a year. I cannot believe that the States of Jersey wish this to be an outcome of this process. I appreciate from the very helpful disposition that you gave last time and further information I received from Mr. Pinel that you are a corporation sole and that gives you a clear range of obligations and authorities but I do not think it requires you to be bound by a manifestly bad decision made by any predecessor in your office, so I think you have a clear run at being able to make a good decision on the basis of the information that you have before you now.

rico sorda said...

April 6th 2009 - Stuart Syvret has his home raided by the Police and is arrested for alleged offences under the Data Protection Law. One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. They were looking for their smoking gun - their end game - the well was dry.



April 30th 2009 - Solicitor General writes to the Home Affairs Minister and informs him of general details of Operation Blast . The Home Affairs Minister then writes to Acting Chief of Police David Warcup asking for details concerning Operation Blast




May 11th 2009 - Graham Power makes a revised application for Judicial Review due to his continued suspension on the 5th March 2009



June 2nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and discloses details of some files held down at Police HQ under the code name 'Operation Blast.' These files contain information relating to States Members and former States Members. David Warcup states that he has brought it to the attention of Ian Le Marquand as it may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police. He also informs the Minister for Home Affairs that he has had previous discussions with the Solicitor General about these files.



June 11th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand writes to Graham Power regarding Operation Blast and informs him that there is now two more possible areas of complaint against him. He also informs Chief Executive Bill Ogley about the new issues regarding Operation Blast



June 14th 2009 - Graham Power replies to the Home Affairs Ministers letter. In Mr Powers 4,000 word reply he explains to the Minister some of the matters regarding to Operation Blast. This 4,000 word reply was leaked by someone as the media got hold of it and published parts. The leak was not from Mr Power.



June 16th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister brings Operation Blast to the States of Jersey with plenty of fanfare and little else. This turns people and hopefully States Members against Graham Power.



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

rico sorda said...


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


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



September 8th 2009 - Graham Power losses his Judicial Review. There is not a chance that he could have won this Judicial Review. If he had, and returned to work, then David Warcup and Ian Le Marquand were finished. Their positions and actions were then, and are now, seeing as the Home Affairs Minister is still in post totally and completely untenable.


Senator Le Marquand now has two suspensions running. This after Wiltshire have already missed deadlines. Is this down to his incompetence?

NO


Me Abusive - NO - JUST ON THE MONEY.

rico sorda said...

You raise some very valid points. I will be taking these into my meeting next week.

Thank you

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

TPTB might call in Brian Napier QC to conclude there has been some >A HREF="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/10/procedural-errors.html">PROCEDURAL ERRORS">/A>

Anonymous said...

Rico I would take the action as a personal affront.

Why were you not given notice of the blocking, thus giving you opportunity to discuss how your emails more than one, questions can be considered inappropriate and offensive.

''We have a responsibility to protect SoJ employees from such emails''

Above is very telling.

Protecting states members from your emails with that any responsibility of their duties as States members to consider your questions.

Anonymous said...

code of conduct

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They
should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest, or rules on
freedom of information, data protection or confidentiality clearly demand.

Anonymous said...

Rico, if you went to the data protection office with complaints they would laugh at you.

rico sorda said...

Thank you for the comments. I will using them. I deserve answers. States members are there to represent us, the public, they might not like what the hear sometimes but that is politics. I wasn't getting any bounce backs I though I was just being ignored. I will explain this to some members who I thought had just ignored me.

Anonymous said...

Information services strategy

Anonymous said...

It stands to reason that the same people who organised the very questionable, and shocking, opening of a safe, which we and G Power would have thought without doubt would, and should of been the safest place on Earth....

Would have no problem whatsoever blocking a truthful, and troublesome(?)....

Jersey Way wrecker?!

Anonymous said...

Rico,

Is this department out of control.Taken from the excellent link at 5:08

States of Jersey Information Services Strategy 2011-2013 Page 6 of 6 Version: SG-draft

Owner: Head of IS

Date issued: 8mar11 Date printed: 21/06/2012

The owner is not the head of IS, he is paid by the taxpayer and EVERYTHING belongs to the residents of Jersey including the building he works in.


Anonymous said...

From page 2 of the Information services strategy .

2.1 Common IS user support. ''The workstations will be of sufficient power and capacity to allow users to perform their roles without undue restrictions''

Reply to the comment at 10:07

Is the owner not referring to the draft strategy?

Anonymous said...

"The owner is not the head of IS, he is paid by the taxpayer and EVERYTHING belongs to the residents of Jersey including the building he works in"

Its the owner of the document, in other words the person responsible for creating it.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Discredited, and disgraced BBC reach NEW LOW

Anonymous said...

"RICO SORDA - CITIZEN JOURNALIST- BLOCKED ON THE GOV.JE - WAS IT FEAR?"

No - probably sheer boredom.

If you want to post something useful and truly revelatory (not to mention NEW) why not give us a list of what you and Stuart Syvret and Team Voice have actually achieved over the past five years, or so.
e.g.
How many States members have been forced to resign because of your revelations?
How many corrupt and dishonest, or simply inept Civil Servants, including SOJP officers, have been sacked, or even disciplined as a result of your efforts?
How many arrests have there been based on the "evidence" you purport to reveal?
How many of the lines of investigation with respect to HDLG which were closed in November 2007 have been re-opened because of what you have written?
How many cases of "perverting the Course of Justice" and "Malfeasance in a Public Office" have you actually managed to have brought?
How many States policies have you directly affected?
How many decisions by the Law Officers have you managed to have reversed, or changed?
To how many court cases for child abuse have your efforts been significant, or even germane?
How many complaints against the "Mainstream Media" have actually been upheld by the respective investigating bodies?
How close are you to achieving public official exoneration for Graham Power? etc etc.

And, most importantly, to how many victims of abuse have you afforded direct and pracitcal assistance?

In every case, the answer is simply - "None!" ( in the case of Graham Power it's "Not at all!")

Looking back over the past five years, it's remarkably difficult to see anything other than a massive catalogue of continuous futility and ineffectiveness.

So, at the risk of being repetitive, your e-mails were probably blocked because you are boring, repetitive, irrelevant and of insufficient impact and importance to be allowed to waste so much of our elected representatives' time.

Anonymous said...

‪Anonymous‬ @ November 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM
said...
"Rico, if you went to the data protection office with complaints they would laugh at you."

Data Protection has made it quite clear that your type of abuse (so-called abusive emails) would not rise to the level of abusers they endeavor to solicit, protect and serve.

rico sorda said...

I will tell you now that apart from David Warcup not becoming Chief of Police - Ian Le Marquand not becoming Chief Minister and there are others the most satisfying achievement is this.

DOING SOMETHING

Then a Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse in Jersey.

Can'y get better than that. Giving victims a voice.

You are an intelligent person.

rs

Zoompad said...

"Looking back over the past five years, it's remarkably difficult to see anything other than a massive catalogue of continuous futility and ineffectiveness."

Isn't it remarkable that someone who chooses to be anonymous comes to this blog and posts such a comment?

This immoral coward has done a summing up of the cover ups for the last 5 years. To me, to my heart, it reads like a goading "Neh ne ne neh neh! you can't touch me, so there" Theres something schoolboyish about that comment, and yet I know it wasn't just a grown up who wrote it, but a very well respected and person in high authority. You can see that from the way the comment is set out, that person has had a very good education. In fact, I think I recognise from his writing style who that anonymous poster is, I could be wrong, but I think I know.

And how is he using his privelaged De La Salle education? Covering up institutional child abuse and writing goading comments onto whistleblowers and child abuse victims blogs.

How sad is that?

Zoompad said...

It's never a waste of time to try to protect children from being abused.

No matter how successful you feel you are, no matter how much you long to be more successful, no matter how frustrating it is, its never a waste of time.

Its a noble cause, trying to protect the weak from the strong, and I can't think of anything that isn't a more noble use of any man or woman's time.

Anonymous said...

DOING SOMETHING

Agree absolutely Rico and you are doing a sterling job, with much to be very proud of!

To answer the commentator above, if I try this, and I try that, and everything else I can possibly think of I should give up? That's a fine example to set. What about dogged perseverance shown by Rico and numerous others, who never give up in the face of adversity. I suggest that you stop trying to goad Rico into a petty battle and concentrate on the war that Rico and others are slowly but surely winning against all the sad sick cowardly bastards like you. (sorry Rico you can sanitize that last statement if you like).

JRCbean

Judge made law #FreeSyvretNow said...

Yeah Rico, That told you

But APART from David Warcup not becoming Chief of Police - Ian Le Marquand not becoming Chief Minister [& not resigning like he said he would] etc. etc. etc.
and being among the pivotal people achieving the long awaited Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse in Jersey and giving victims a voice etc. etc.
(or did the mainstream media do all those things?)

APART from that ....... what have you achieved?

PMSL

So (1) at the risk of being repetitive I must ask Anonymous @12:59 why he put such effort and flawed/uncritical thought into writing such a long question ?

(a) Was he that boooored ? LOL

(b) Was he that scared ?

and (2) was he Anonymously taxpayer/publicly funded ?

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 12:59.

Your list of "failures yet to be remedied" is quite telling.

Are you really defending each of the points listed are some kind of badge of honour & success for the pro-paedophile protecting wing of the establishment?

You give the impression that you are proud of that.

Or is it that you feel safer under their protection?

Perhaps only when each of your points is countered, Jersey's children & the vulnerable will be safe.






Anonymous said...

"So, at the risk of being repetitive, your e-mails were probably blocked because you are boring, repetitive, irrelevant and of insufficient impact and importance to be allowed to waste so much of our elected representatives' time."

I guess quite a few people said the same thing to the mothers of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster. Some of them are quite probably awaiting the 6.00 a.m. knock on the door. Repetitive? No. An arsehole? Yes.

Judge made law Jersey #FreeSyvretNow said...

A lesson in the NON-futility of Blogging (November update)

Jersey child protection activist and blogger helps get paedophile sex-doll removed from worldwide sale on wholesaler "DHGate" website

"highly realistic and flexible and all three holes of this [aprox 9 year old] can be used." DELIGHTFUL !

details at:
http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/11/normalising-paedophilia-chinese-way.html

This issue needs careful consideration but IMO it is far more likely that the availability of these items creates and nurtures (and mainstreams) paedophile demand rather than perminantly satisfies it in a realatively harmless (but distasteful) way.

Well done Richard Bougeard ! ......... But not before over 57 of them have been sold to customers in the US, UK, Japan, Germany, and more......

Anon, what have yo done lately to make this world a better or safer place? ...... or is Jersey well placed to "take advantage" of this growing niche market ?

Anonymous said...

I think Rico was blogged protecting those who were emailed from hearing valued questions that could not be answered.

Daniel said...

I have just read through this thread. Absolutely amazing. The email to States members about the opening of the safe is simply a setting out of the factes with virtually no way of being refuted.

This is a really big one. It is easy to grasp, and it poses some serious questions. It goes right to the heart of the matter.

It shows, in black and white, if Rico's quotes are correct, that Warcup lied to Wiltshire, for example.

Monty, Rico, and whoever else is pursuing this, keep at it. Who told the DD of ISD to do this? And is the "I pushed the wrong button" AT ALL plausible?

But the first thing is to establish this as indeed important. Who in the MSM should be approached with this??? It is a BIG story and they should be interested.

And now, just an aside. When I was a States member, about half way through my term, my laptop played up.

I went to the computer services department. They fixed it. When I got it back, all my email archive had vanished. That is, the emails which I had saved "below the line" all sorted into folders - the current ones, which I also sort, were OK.

It is not a hard and fast distinction, the "current" ones are simply those which are active, though of course, some are less active than others, and some are, if truth be told, merely awaiting DW's next sweep-file into the "archive of emails"

The thing is they live in two different "places" on the laptop.

I protested but there was nothing they could do. A mistake, sorry.

Probably just a coincidence, but I thought it worth mentioning.