Wednesday, December 31, 2014


Former Chief Minister Frank Walker & CEO Bill (GOLDEN HANDSHAKE) Ogley

Matt Tapp -6

Take your time reading this

Former Chief Of Police Graham Power Replies.

The Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up

This Posting concerns;

Former Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup

Former Chief Minister Frank Walker

And last but not least; Former Chief Executive Bill Ogley and Media Consultant Matt Tapp

Just like I did with the BDO Review I followed my hunch. I new something wasn't quite right and investigated. The role of outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp has bugged me for a long time. I found it strange how not long after Warcup turned up in Jersey Matt Tapp wasn't far behind.

Stranger still, is how this report found its way to the Defence council in the pre-trial of Donnelly, Wateridge & Aubin. We had Judge Pitchers quoting it in open court as some kind of Gospel on Operation Rectangle. We then have the Jersey Evening Post forgetting about an abuser being jailed and using it through Judge Pitchers judgements to trash the living daylights out of Operation Rectangle under former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper.

This just isn't right. It doesn't look right.

To use the phrase of the former Chief Of Police "It Stinks"

Read carefully what Graham Power is saying here.

Even more bizarre is the actions of Judge Pitchers and his use of this report in court.

Matt Tapp gave a statement to Wiltshire. It must be very reveling to say the least. Anyone who has an understanding of what went on during the lead up to Graham Powers suspension on the 12th November 2008 will understand the gravity of what is unfolding here.

This is only the beginning. I have uncovered more. A lot more.

I have said before that when Graham Power was suspended they didn't use anything to do with the Metropolitan Police but in fact they used the Tapp Report and Warcups own opinions. The Tapp report that was put together under strange circumstances. This is what Graham Power says;

"I since learned that shortly after his meeting with me Mr Tapp had a further meeting with the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and the Chief Minister Frank Walker (Matt Tapp Communications Review page 5.) It was agreed at that meeting that Mr Tapp would produce a report for the "States of Jersey." (Tapp review page 5.) This might be significant. Having originally been engaged by the Police it appears that Mr Tapp now accepted a second commission, from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that it was this second commission which resulted in the production of his report. I have no information as to what fee was agreed for that commission"

Please keep following my posts as very soon I will blow the lid completely off

Years of very hard work is now paying off. The bloggers have not gone away but stuck to the task at hand

What Im producing will have a profound effect on Operation Rectangle under the leadership of Warcup & Gradwell. We already know what Gradwell was up to and his no show at the Scrutiny Review. We already know about the lies and misleading of the States Chamber by former Chief Minister Terry Le Suer. There are many more who should be worried. This cant go on.



I will now let the former Chief of Police Graham Power explain exactly what happened with Media Consultant Matt Tapp and his report.

This is just the beginning

After reading the reply from Graham Power read again the answer given by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand in reply to a written question from Former Deputy Daniel Wimberly on this very subject. No mention of the issues raised by Graham Power and submitted by Matt Tapp under oath.

Don't underestimate how serious this is

Rico Sorda - Team Voice

Graham Power QPM

I have been asked to make comment on the role of a Mr Matt Tapp, a media consultant, in some of events relating to the abuse enquiry in 2008. I base my comments on my recollections of events and on documents which came legitimately into my possession during the course of the disciplinary enquiries by Wiltshire Police which followed my suspension from duty. Where I make reference to information which is in a document I have given the relevant document and page reference in brackets.
I met Mr Tapp only once, that was on 8th October 2008. The meeting had been arranged by David Warcup who was the new Deputy Chief Officer. At some time previous to that meeting Mr Warcup had told me something to the effect that he was taking advice from a media person who he had worked with earlier in his career. I made no objection to that although by nature I am not sympathetic to the engagement of expensive consultants. I believed then and I believe now that highly paid senior officers should for the most part be able to manage without this kind of assistance. I have since learned from other documents that Mr Tapp was in fact approached by David Warcup in August 2008 and formally engaged in mid-September of that year. My meeting with Mr Tapp did not go well. He began by telling me that we needed a plan to announce that "the murder investigation had finished." (Statement made by M Tapp to Wilts Police paragraph 14.) Given that over a period of time we had been repeatedly stating that there was no murder investigation I did not see this as an impressive proposal. Mr Tapp went on to suggest that we should stage a high profile media conference in which the force should effectively denounce some aspects of the early enquiry. I saw this as a bad idea. A gradual and carefully managed process of expectation management had been taking place for months and it was my view that it should be allowed to continue in a careful and balanced way. I felt that the type of event which he proposed would re-ignite sensationalist media interest, create controversy and divisions within the Island, and confuse and demoralise victims and witnesses. I believe that subsequent events have shown that I was correct in those beliefs. At the end of that meeting I concluded that Mr Tapp was not a suitable person to assist the Force and that the further expenditure of public funds for his services could not be justified.
I since learned that shortly after his meeting with me Mr Tapp had a further meeting with the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and the Chief Minister Frank Walker (Matt Tapp Communications Review page 5.) It was agreed at that meeting that Mr Tapp would produce a report for the "States of Jersey." (Tapp review page 5.) This might be significant. Having originally been engaged by the Police it appears that Mr Tapp now accepted a second commission, from the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that it was this second commission which resulted in the production of his report. I have no information as to what fee was agreed for that commission.
I have seen the report which Mr Tapp produced in consequence of that meeting. It is dated "November 2008." but no specific date is given. This may be significant because I was suspended on 12th November 2008. I do not know whether or not the report by Mr Tapp was available to the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister prior to that date. In the conclusions of his report Mr Tapp is critical of the media performance of the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Lenny Harper. It is these conclusions which are most often quoted and referred to, particularly by those who are sympathetic of Mr Tapps position. But an examination of the full report reveals that the evidence which is offered in support of this conclusion is less straightforward. Media releases and statements made by Mr Harper and quoted in the report include references such as "we have no allegations that anyone died or was murdered here" and " Haute de la Garenne would be treated as a crime scene although there were no allegations that anyone died or had been murdered there." (Tapp report page 22.) Elsewhere in the report there are references to the role of the media attention in persuading witness and victims to come forward. To some extent this aspect of the Tapp report is similar to the work undertaken by Wiltshire Police who tasked an officer to review records of media interviews by Mr Harper, perhaps in the expectation of finding something inappropriate, only to discover that the officer could find only records of repeated attempts to "tone down" the media coverage and a repeated emphasis that there were no allegations of murder (Wilts Media Report pages 586-582.)
Some time during my suspension I read in a newspaper that evidence from Mr Tapp had been given at a Court hearing connected to an abuse trial and that apparently Mr Tapp's evidence had been critical of myself, and that the Court had made some negative comment relating to my role. I cannot offer further informaiton in relation to this. I was never told of any hearing, let alone asked to contribute or to challenge whatever it was that Mr Tapp had to offer. I have since leared that apparently the report by Mr Tapp was used in some evidential way the the defence team representing a person who was subsequently convicted of Child Abuse.

It might be that the purpose of the Tapp Review has been misunderstood and that it has mistakenly been seen or even represented as an independent review prepared on behalf of the Force to assist the investigation. That does not appear to be the case, and for those with the will to find them, Mr Tapps own words make his mandate somewhat different from the norm. The significant revelation appears to me to be that in the text of page 5 where Mr Tapp tells us that he prepared his report following a meeting with the Chief Executive and the Chief Minister and that the report was for the the use of the Islands Government and not the Force. It is probable that Mr Tapp did not know it at the time, but it has since been revealed in the report by Brian Napier QC, that the two persons with whom he met and who commissioned his report had for some months been meeting secretly with others to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended from duty. Against that background their meeting with Mr Tapp, fresh from his disappointment with his meeting with me, and ready to be critical of the Abuse Enquiry, could have appeared as a golden opportunity to move their secret agenda forward.
In this context it is difficult to see how either Mr Tapp, or his report, could be fairly described as "independent."

In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?
In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:
  • That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.
  • That the public were presented with accurate facts.
The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014








There are only two options open to then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis regarding his suspension of former Police Chief Graham Power.

1. He knew what he was doing when going along with the diabolical actions of then Chief Minister Frank Walker and then Chief Executive Bill Ogley 

2. Andrew Lewis simply had the wool pulled over his eyes. 

I'm personally going for option No1.  They needed a weak yes man in position and  Andrew Lewis was that man. All he had to do was hand Graham Power three notes in a certain order during the infamous meeting where Chief Executive Ogley was shredding everything insight. He got it wrong. This will explained below. In fact they got everything wrong. I really hope they have to explain this to the Committee of Enquiry. The multiple suspensions of the Police Chief go to the very heart of this Child Abuse cover-up.  I have exposed the  suspension of Graham Power in fine detail on my blog. An in depth investigative look. 

Andrew Lewis made one horrendous decision on the 12th November 2008. It follows him around to this very day. 

1.   The chain of events which he set in motion by the suspension has so far cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of pounds which could have been spent on much needed public services.   This raises concerns as to whether he is the right person to be taking important decisions where public funds are at risk.

2.   The controversy is still very much alive 6 years later.   There is no sign of it going away and it is likely to be re-activated by the committee of enquiry.   

Let us look at what Graham Power wrote in 2012. This was during the course of my investigation into his suspension.

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

I have been asked to provide more information on some of the events and issues which emerged after I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on Wednesday 12th November 2008.   I understand that this is because both the “Warcup Letter” and the “Britton Memo” (sometimes wrongly referred to as the “Met Interim Report”) have been published and have attracted some comment and interest.
Regular readers will be aware that on 10th November 2008 the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, regarding what he claimed were the findings of an “Interim Report” by the “Metropolitan Police” in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   It was claimed that the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, saw the Warcup letter on 11thNovember 2008.   On 12th November 2008 I was called in from leave to see the Chief Executive and the Minister for Home Affairs and I was suspended from duty.   The suspension was carried out without prior notice, without a hearing, without representation and without me being shown the letter on which the action was allegedly based.   These events have been described in more detail in earlier postings.

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

At the time of my suspension, and in order to comply with the law, the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, handed me three notices in the form of detailed letters telling me the suspension was to take immediate effect and there would be a disciplinary enquiry.    During the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, took written notes of what was being said.   I said straight away that I would challenge the legality of the suspension and soon afterwards I gave written notice that I would be seeking a review by the Royal Court.   I asked for a copy of the notes taken by the Chief Executive.   I was told they had been destroyed.   I was given what was claimed to be a typed record of the meeting which had allegedly been prepared from the handwritten notes.   The typed document said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting. 
All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12th November 2008.   The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,”  at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.”   That was untrue.   There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered.   I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting.   The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.” 
The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away.   He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made.   He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while.   That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said.  The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me.   But he botched the job.   He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter.  Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened.   It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration.   During the suspension meeting the Minister let it slip that the media conference to announce my suspension had already been planned for that afternoon and that a media statement had been drafted the previous evening.   He therefore found himself attempting to keep to a planned order of events under time-pressure and he simply failed to cope.   These are the best explanations I can think of for the reference in the letter to an earlier meeting which everyone agrees did not take place.   Nobody, including the Jersey Government, has suggested better ones.

I also examined the presentation and content of the letters.   They claimed that the Minister was acting upon information received on the previous day in the form of the Warcup letter.  The implication of this was that the three letters had been prepared after the Warcup document had been received.   I did not think that to be plausible.   I came to this view following a consideration of the detailed and legalistic tone of the letters and my assessment of the abilities of those who would have been responsible for producing the documents within the timescale which was being claimed.   In plain terms the letters were to complex, too legalistic and too “good” to have been produced in the time available by the people involved.   I could not think of anyone at the heart of the Jersey Government who would have the ability to produce the three documents between the Minister seeing the Warcup letter on 11th November 2008 and the suspension meeting on the morning of 12th.   It turned out that I was right in that assessment.   But my efforts to confirm that suspicion revealed a great deal about the Jersey regime’s attitude to transparency, fair play and justice. 
I served written notice on the Chief Ministers Department that I was requesting technical information from the government database regarding the times and dates on which the three letters were created.   Under the States of Jersey Code on Access to Information I was not obliged to give any reason for this request but I nevertheless, at various stages, indicated that the information was needed by me to assist with my Judicial Review, my defence against disciplinary allegations and to test the integrity and reliability of those who may be witnesses against me.   My application was fiercely contested by the then Chief Minister of the Jersey Government, Senator Terry Le Sueur, with the full support and representation of the Jersey Law Officers Department.   The matter dragged on for almost a year and eventually went to a full hearing before a Complaints Board convened under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.   The Chief Minister was represented by the Law Officers Department.   I represented myself with the able assistance of the Connétable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft.   After a full hearing the Complaints Board found in my favour and said that the Chief Minister should release the information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It might now be worth recapping on what is understood to be the stated position of the Jersey Government in respect of the justification for the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police during an investigation into long running child abuse in establishments managed by the same Jersey Government.   As it is commonly understood, their third position, taken subsequent to the revelations in the Napier report, and after their first two accounts had been demolished by the evidence, is that the suspension was justified on two grounds. Firstly the Warcup Letter of 10th November 2008 and secondly the evidence gained (but for some reason not recorded) in the preceding months.   So it appears that there are two grounds said to justify the current Jersey Government’s position which might be summarised as follows:
  • The first of the two grounds is the Warcup Letter dated 10th November 2008 which contains allegations of deficiencies in the command and control of the investigation, the pivotal allegation being “There is no evidence of a strategic coordinating group (Gold Group) which is required to set, review and update the strategy.”  (Warcup letter third page.).......... AND:

  • Concerns which had built up over a period of months as a consequence of “information coming out of meetings of the Gold Group.” (Napier Report paragraph 79.)

Readers with a sharp eye for the customary rules of logic may have spotted that something is not quite right with this position.   They are correct.  

While the holding of two contradictory views at the same time is not an unknown feature of Jersey politics, readers might find this a particularly interesting example.   The Jersey government position appears to be that the suspension was justified on grounds which included there not being a Gold Group, and also on the basis of negative evidence emerging from the Gold Group.   Perhaps history will pass its own judgement on the ethical and intellectual qualities of those supporting this argument.

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

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

Graham Power went for Judicial Review. Although losing his review the court made this observation of his suspension.

"We are conscious that the Minister has not responded to these criticisms of Mr Power (because the events of 12th November are not the subject of the application) and that we should therefore be slow to criticise the way Mr Power appears to have been treated. However, we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister. He was dealing with a person holding the most senior post in the police force and who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and, if so, whether he should be suspended during that investigation. Whatever disputes there may be as to precisely what occurred at the meeting with the Previous Minister, it is clear that no such opportunity was afforded to Mr Power." 

Even the Jersey Evening Post went with this headline:

By Diane Simon

Former States police chief Graham Power
FORMER Police Chief Graham Power was suspended without proper evidence of incompetence in handling the historical child abuse inquiry, a report has revealed.
The independent report by employment law specialist Brian Napier QC released today says that there were procedural failings in the handling of the suspension of Mr Power in November 2008 which was carried out by the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, in the presence of States chief executive Bill Ogley.
Mr Power was suspended on the same day that it was revealed by acting police chief David Warcup and Det Supt Mick Gradwell that there had been no child murders or bodies buried at Haut de la Garenne.
• See Friday’s Jersey Evening Post for the full report
Article posted on 8th October, 2010 - 3.00pm

Sunday, November 9, 2014


Just a recap on my families Cyber Stalker. Least we Forget.


He is still out there on Facebook under his multiple names. Still targeting my wife on his blog. Well I have some special postings coming up in the new year. I just keep the powder dry and wait.   And as people who read my blog know. I don't disappoint. And seeing as he is so happy to attack my wife and put her up online I believe it's only right that all my readers see what he looks like. 



You can find the stalker here:




Over the coming weeks I will be explaining to my readers the actions I had to take to try and protect my wife. Everything I do and say on my blog is my opinion based on research and fact.  My wife is not political, does not contribute to my blog and simply gets on with her own life.  So why she should become a target of a  Jersey Cyber Stalker is beyond me. Or, does he see her as my Achilles heel? If he did, then that was a mistake on his part. One of many that he has made. 

Having got married in September 2013, I decided to change my Facebook picture. Having kept my wife away from someones prying eyes for years I decided to put a picture up of us getting married. That was a mistake on my part.  She was identified and then it started. October 2013 the comments started coming to my blog - anonymously of course.  Vile comments. This time I just took stock. I then acted. Kept it quiet. Did what I do best. Investigated. Time to tell our story. 

I had to wait for permission to come through before I could start explaining what has gone on. This has now been obtained. There will be a Guest Posting coming up in part 2 or 3.  That person, along with myself, will be explaining on camera exactly what has gone on. No, it will not be my wife for all the above reasons. 

Not long after getting married my wife became pregnant. She became very ill during her pregnancy. This was a worry to all of us and a very dark time.  But still the stalker carried on. Still the Stalker hiding behind anonimity and his multiple fake Facebook accounts carried on. On June 23rd 2014 our baby was born safe and well. That was the greatest feeling in the whole world.

Now I can focus on the Stalker.

I have had enough.

 Everything has been put in place. Even if you think about sending more emails - we are waiting. Who did I get permission from to do this I hear you ask……. wait till Part 2 for the answer. 

What a story we have coming.

How many chances did I give you? How many times have I asked you to come down the police station and sort this out?  You might still get one more chance.

Cyber Stalking is alive and kicking in Jersey. It can be mainly found on a Facebook group called Politics Jersey With Free Speech.  I will be honest. The Fake profiles on there,  ones such as Sue Young - James Pearce etc have been used to harass but were only a small part of my investigation. No. I had to go beyond the screen. I had to go to the fingertips and then start the journey up. Only then do you start finding the answers. Computers aren't to blame. Its the people operating them. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Here are my previous two postings on the subject

Below is a question asked by Deputy Higgins in the States of Jersey in June 2014

3.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the States of Jersey Police internet investigations into cyber bullying complaints:
Will the Minister give Members an update on the work of the police internet investigators who took up their post on 31st January 2014 and inform Members how many cyber bullying complaints have been received since the beginning of 2014 and how they have been dealt with, including how many prosecutions have been brought against the perpetrators of these acts and the penalties imposed on those convicted of an offence?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):
The States of Jersey Police internet investigator has been actively involved with reports of cyber bullying - currently recorded as harassment - and has also assisted in a wide range of other cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crimes reported to the organisation - for example, drugs importations, assaults, road traffic offences and sudden deaths, et cetera - and in the development of online intelligence, thereby helping the force to most effectively prioritise their work.  This particular role is linked to the continuing force-wide development of all cyber-related matters, a theme that features as a high risk, high harm focus within strategic assessment and one that continues to increasingly impact upon all areas of policing.  Since 31st January 2014, the States of Jersey Police have recorded 9 criminal reports of either harassment or bullying over the internet.  Of these 9 allegations, 3 of the alleged offenders received words of advice from the police.  In 2 others, harassment notices were served.  Two offenders were charged and prosecuted with the offence of harassment, one receiving a 12-month binding-over order, the other a 6-month binding-over order and a 2-year restraining order.  The other 2 cases are currently under investigation.
3.8.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
A supplementary.  Just looking at his previous answer given to Deputy Trevor Pitman on 10th December, I see he has included some of those figures, which happened in the 6 months prior to the investigator coming forward.  The Minister has just said that this officer has a range of other duties.  Cyber bullying is a particularly horrendous offence.  It has led to the death of a number of people in this Island.  Does he not feel that it should be highly prioritised given the damage that can be done?  What can he tell the States about a prolific offender who has been repeatedly reported to the police who has yet not been brought before trial, a person who brought, with others, a data protection complaint against former Senator Stuart Syvret?  That person is going around this Island causing all sorts of mayhem, going to employers, telling them that people have committed all sorts of acts and so on, and yet the police are taking no action.  So, 2 questions: should a cyber investigator first of all be giving a much higher priority to cyber bullying and, secondly, what can he tell us about this prolific offender and the lack of action?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
In relation to the alleged prolific offender, I know absolutely nothing.  It is not my role as Minister to get involved in operational matters.  Indeed, since we now have a Police Authority I am even further removed from operational matters and my role is setting policy and priority.  I recognise and have recognised that there is a priority area and hence why this role has been set up, but hence my fairly lengthy answer to demonstrate this is not just a question of employing one person who is going to play a particular role.  We are trying to change the culture of the police force so that there is a general awareness.  In the last 6 months, a States of Jersey Police cyber policing strategy and action plan has been developed under the chairmanship of the Superintendent of Crime Services.  A programme of work subsequently commissioned involves all members of the organisation.  Partnership working features heavily in the plan.  One area of particular relevance has been the development of appropriate legislation to cater for those instances of grossly offensive or abusive messages that are not captured by current harassment legislation.  That work is being led not by Home Affairs but by Economic Development, however supported by the States of Jersey Police and the Law Officers’ Department.
3.8.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
It is all very well the Minister ... in fact, he has answered a question on this before and he has mentioned that Economic Development is leading on this and earlier he expressed dissatisfaction at it.  Is the Minister pleased with the progress of the work of the Economic Development Department and how soon does he expect legislation or new policies to be brought forward?  In fact, can I ask one other thing ...
The Bailiff:
Well, no ...
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
No, it is in answer to his question.  He said that they had come up with a strategy.  When is it going to be on their website so we can all see what the strategy is as well?
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I have not seen the draft strategy myself and will be interested to look at that and to see that finalised.  In relation to the piece of legislation, I have previously expressed disappointment that it was not Home Affairs who were running with this as a priority because the danger is with it being with E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) that it will not get the same high priority as it would have been given by Home Affairs.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
I did ask the question was the Minister satisfied with the progress of E.D.D. at the present time.
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
I am unaware of the progress they have made, in fact.  They have not been talking to me about it.








"Jon S Haworth Can we just stop talking about Rico? We all have him blocked, nobody knows his wife or appears to. Nobody knows about his tax problems, Nobody knows about anything so he is harassing people. Keep him blocked and forget about him."

June 12 at 9:48pm
 · Like · 1

  • Jon S Haworth I really worry about the level of intelligence we are dealing with here MM.
  • Rico Sorda has written numerous hate posts about a trial I was in (that was none of his business) and then proceeded to insult me online over matters that had nothing to do with me and then has the nerve to call me a troll !
  • The Police know all about him, his postings and his behaviour since it started and Pitman is almost identical.
  • He tries to write an offensive post about me with a drunken picture of a man in the street which Evans did a few years ago and the Police look at that and wonder what he is all about.
  • He then tries to go online and play a victim.
  • Its like a pantomime in which they pretend their own blog postings attacking others don't exist.
  • Like one of Littlejohn's catchphrases - You couldn't make it up.

  • June 27 at 10:10pm
     · Edited · Like · 2
  • Jon S Haworth Oh I am wholly responsible for everything! I was even accused a month back of being involved in somebody's tax matters! I keep the Police apprised of all this lunacy and they always guess the right people behind it all, but boy it gets weird!
    July 4 at 8:42am · Like · 1

    James Pearce Sorda thinks he can use his blog to threaten you JH.
    3 hrs · Like

    Jon S Haworth Already know about it and reported it to the Police even though whatever he writes is just going to be a pack of lies anyway. I am sick and tired of telling his mate and him 2 months ago that I have nothing to do with the ****ing tax or any e-mails to wife. Its like talking to a brick wall and he needs to get into his thick head that since he made another stupid complaint to the Police about me 3 years ago that got nowhere he is supposed to stay away from me..
    2 hrs · Like

Jon S Haworth I have him blocked. I only speak to 1 blogger who has never insulted me online out of all of them but my time is getting tighter and like I said to our mutual friend, I have never seen his wife insulted online anyway. Maureen told him to stop blogging and start looking after her. I am seriously uninterested in his life. it means **** all to me.
2 hrs · Like

  • Jon S Haworth Thanks for the messages re: Sorda and his continued hate campaign and public threats, I have him blocked and he knows he should not even be attempting to contact me.
  • I will just carry on e-mailing them to the Police. It seems ironic that he is arguing with other people online for all to see yet I carry on getting blamed for it! I guess these are the limits he will go to trump up accusations that have no merit against me in order to honour a friend of his I won a case against. Such bitterness but let him carry on playing the jester, I have so many options if this carries on
    July 22 at 7:04pm · Edited · Like · 2

  • Jon S Haworth He should not be threatening anybody. He has it in his head that I've been stalking his wife??? He has been telling people that I will be in tears and he is going to do blogs about me etc. I 've already e-mailed the Police with more of these threats and I will be seeing them shortly with a view to taking things to another level. I am not putting up with this rubbish, its pathetic and nobody else should either. These bloggers and their use of the Internet to harass others are coming to an end anyway and besides, what good has it ever done for anybody?
    36 mins · Like
  • Jon S Haworth The Police said to me back in the Spring that the amount of abuse I have had to suffer online by bloggers has been unprecedented. They jokingly thanked me for taking the heat off them so if by any reason Higgins was targeting me with these claims its hypocrisy off the scale. I will say it again as was said to me 5 years ago, that these people cannot cope with other peoples freedom of speech and I think the Pitmans proved that when they were unable to cope with a satirical cartoon. I have actually advised people how to cope with this kind of thing by experience. I have kept up to speed with 3 States Members on a Cyber Insult Law, I even suggested it via a change to the Jersey Telecommunications Law in 2012. Its a long time coming but will be well received.
    Yesterday at 1:43pm · Like · 1
  • Jon S Haworth In my mind it is time he was charged with the online harassment of others. He is writing crap, again, on the back of a hunch and he has even admitted to stalking people online. I've dismissed all his ridiculous claims about tax and his wife in the past and have even gone so far as to raise his weirdness directly with the Police. Nothing further to add anymore because my conscience is clear that's for sure.
    13 hrs · Like · 1
  • Jon S Haworth Take his tax claim.
  • The Tax department get tip offs regularly but to actually get somebody pulled in you would need hard evidence or be in a powerful position to get them to act. He just cannot see that whoever is targeting him is much more powerful and influential than a member of the Public.
    1 hr · Like

 Today is just the first part of  looking at my family's "CYBER STALKER" Jon S Haworth.  As I stated in my previous posting, he crossed the line when he went for my wife.  I fully appreciate that my blogging activities will open me up to a degree of criticism, but this should not extend to my wife, or any other family member for that matter.  

Having got married in September 2013 and been away on honeymoon, I noticed my wife had become the topic of vile comments sent anonymously to my blog.   I decided to just ignore them at first as there were far more important things going on in our life.   My wife had become pregnant. Then, in a very short space of time, everything changed.

It was late October coming into November 2013 when I had a meeting with Voiceforchildren ("VFC"). We were having a chat about politics when he asked me about my blog and how it was going.  

I said "I am starting to get very annoyed at all the vile comments sent anonymously to my blog about my wife and, not only that, the person is also mentioning her place of employment  which means they are researching her". 
"That's strange" said VFC "I have had Jon S Haworth on the phone and he was mentioning your wife by name and where she worked." 
"You what" said I. "In what context could that man be mentioning my wife in a telephone conversation." 

VFC couldn't remember and then I made the decision. I supplied the equipment to enable VFC to record all their telephone conversations with Jon S Haworth. And so it began. From late October 2013 to the present day I have a recording of every phone call that was made. That is how I gathered my intelligence. Simple really. 

Jon S Haworth, I bet your jaw has just hit the floor. You are sat at home now thinking "what the hell have I said on the phone since October 2013?"  You have said plenty sunshine. 

My wife had, since falling pregnant, become very ill. We were into November 2013 and I was keeping the vile comments to myself. Also during this time I was aware that Jon S Haworth was looking into my wife. He had mentioned to VFC that he was getting his information from Deputy Sean Power. I decided to act. On 1st  December 2013 I did a blog posting called Blog Abuse 2. It was a shot across the bow at Mr Haworth. At the bottom of the posting I said quite explicitly stay away from my family. 

This part of the story will now be covered in the interview with VFC. 

I now want to move onto the very serious issue of our Income Tax Return. 

Jon S Haworth has stated he knows what I put on my income tax return. You can hear that quite clearly from the audio below. How serious is that He has contacts that can look into my Income Tax affairs. I want answers and I want the truth. I spent 4 hours with the Tax Department. It was very productive but we are all looking for answers.  He was so specific and I'm under no illusion that he has been disclosed information. 

Here you can listen to Jon S Haworth talking to VFC on the Phone. Listen to what he say's about our Tax and my wife. It is disgusting and toxic.

Audio can now be heard below. Youtube removed the above copy.

Is it just coincidence that when Jon Haworth was going on about fcuking up my wife's career with financial services their were fake profiles on  Politics Jersey Free Speech called James Pearce and Julie Hanning. ThIs is what they (He) posted. 

"James Pearce "Sorda is a hypocrite, wife working in finance whilst he promotes tax haven haters and I am surprised the JFSC have not been told about it. After all they fu**ing licence Trust Managers."
15 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Lawrence Byrne "I think someone has now Julie Hanning lol."
15 hours ago · Like

This is just the first part. 

I want everyone to listen to the Audio very carefully. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

(Protecting my Family)








After gaining intelligence through the VILE anonymous comments sent to my blog concerning my wife - the fake profiles on Faceboook harassing and intimidating my wife - the emails sent to her work and the Audio Recordings we decided to go to the States of Jersey Police (SOJP) in February 2013.

What happened between February and July 2014 is shocking. The  SOJP failed to do anything. What I have laid out on this blog posting is a timeline of events leading up to July 20th and the subsequent decision to post  the Audio on August 5th 2014. I have also done an interview with Voiceforchildren. In this interview I talk about the past 5 months.

12th February 2014:

Emails are sent to my wife's work. The line has been crossed and I must now act.  Some days later I phone the SOJP. I ask to speak to an officer called Jeremy Perceval. He is familiar with complaints made against Jon Haworth. When I explain to him what has been going on he tells me to come down the station but don't ask for him.

With the alarm bells ringing I then contact BBC Jersey and ask them if they would like to follow our case as we take it to the Police. They said yes. I wanted them to follow it in real time. All I said was lets see how seriously the SOJP take this. They might be brilliant or they might not. Let them decide the outcome of this. They said yes. I copied the BBC into everything. There wasn't much to be honest as you will see. I just thought that no one would believe me if I tried explaining it all at a latter date. 

17th February 2014:

I went to the Police Station and got the ball rolling. I talk to two young officers. One of them was to stay on our case. I explain what is happening to my wife and our problems concerning my Tax Details being discussed. With my wife being ill I said that I would deal with the Tax Issue first and then sort out the threats and intimidation that she was receiving.

20th February 2014:

Have first meeting with the Tax Dept. Explain what the problem is and let them listen to the audio. They take it very seriously and say they will be in touch.

4th March 2014:

Meeting with Tax Dept. They say they are conducting an internal investigation as to who has accessed my tax details.

19th March 2014:

Meeting with Tax Dept. They have conducted their investigation. They can do nothing without a name. I said I would get them that name. I haven't lost hope on that issue yet. It is very serious and needs to be sorted. I let the Police know the outcome. 

18th April 2014

My wife and I go down to the Police Station. We hand over the Audio that you listeners have heard in the last posting. She explains to the Policeman just how serious this is. The harassment - threats -intimidation and emails to work. The stress and fear that these attacks have caused and not least because a baby was due in June. No problem said the Policeman leave it with us and we will be in touch in the next day or two for a statement. Brilliant. We are finally getting somewhere

28th April 2014:

I phone the Police Station angry. No one has phoned. Nothing. Someone will phone me right back they said. I waited and I waited. 

29th April 2014:

Emailed the Police asking if my wife could please make her statement. As if there wasn't enough stress the last thing I needed was to be chasing this up.

1st May 2014:

The Police come to the house and my wife finally makes her statement. We hand over copies of the harassment/ intimidation of the fake Facebook profiles. This was coinciding with the audio. Police also get a copy of two of the emails. We are told that the High Tec Crime Squad will be in touch in a couple of days to get the computer copy of the emails.  Brilliant. Now we are really starting.

7th May 2014:

Forward more evidence from the fake Facebook Avatars to the Police. Getting Angry. No one has been in touch from the High Tec Crime Squad. 

11th May 2014:

Very Angry. No one has been in touch from the High Tec Crime Squad. My wife's maternity leave is coming up and she is very worried about leaving her post incase he sends more emails. She lets the Police know this.  No one has contacted my wife to check on her. They know the situation. There has been no support. We are chasing everything up. My wife says enough is enough. She then emails the Chief of Police Himself, Mike Bowron.  She explains her situation. We will be looking at this in the comment section. At last, we should now see some action. Who better to approach than the Chief himself. We are getting desperate.

12th May 2014:

Wife gets a holding email from Mike Bowron's PA saying that the email had been received. 

Still no news from the High Tec Crime Unit

19th May 2014: 

No news from the High Tec 'can't be bothered' Unit and nothing from Chief Bowron. I walk into town as I know there is a good chance that he will be outside TopShop. He is there. Resplendent in sun tan and regalia. I ask him about my wife's email. "What email?" is the reply. This is explained in the interview with VFC above. I go home and tell the wife that I have spoken to Chief Bowron and I expect you will get an email from him in the next day or two. I email our Policeman and ask how are they getting on with the Financial Services and checking ref bogus emails concerning my wife. I'm informed that this does not form part of the investigation. Im left speechless.

12th June 2014:

Nothing has happened on any level - she has gone on maternity leave - and we don't have a clue what is going on.  Wife emails Bowron again. This is getting ridiculous. All the time BBC Jersey are following this in the background.

13th June 2014:

Chief Bowron PA Replies. We will be in contact in the near future.

22nd June 2014:

Wife emails Police again and asks what is going on. She can't believe it. None of us can. 

20th July 2014:

Police come to the house. They basically tell us nothing has been done. I felt really sorry for our Policeman as he was obviously out of his depth with this. There you have it in a nutshell. A person trying to destroy me wife's career and that is the response I get from the SOJP. I inform them that I will take care of it if you can't. I will put the Audio out so people can hear. "Sounds like a good idea came the reply." 

28th July 2014:

I email the Chief of Police reproduced here:

From: rico sorda
Sent: 27 July 2014 20:40
To: Bowron, Mike
Cc: bbc jersey
Subject: Cyber Crime

Dear Chief Officer,

My name is Rico Sorda and write to you as a very concerned husband and father.  It gives me no pleasure in writing that I believe the States Of Jersey Police (SOJP) have failed my wife **** ****. Failed her on so many levels. We came to the the SOJP with concerns and evidence regarding the cyber abuse/harassment that she has been receiving over many months. This was at a time when she was having a very difficult pregnancy and was extremely ill. Just how seriously does the SOJP take cyber bulling? We have the media releases saying how you are doing this and that but to my mind it's all just PR. 

The SOJP has a responsibility. Where does it leave me, a concerned husband/father that your police force will not do anything, whether it be through lack of will or the person involved, Jon Haworth, being protected? I need to do something. I need answers. I go public. 

I thank PC ********* for trying his best for us but it is quite obvious that this young officer who is starting out on his career is way out of his depth when it comes to cyber bullying/harassment . He himself has been let down by his superiors. When we first met with him he informed us that he expected to be taken off the case and it would probably go to CID who have the experience. He never was. 

When I first contacted the SOJP in February 2014 with my concerns I spoke to a Jeremy Percival. I had been informed he was the person to speak to concerning Mr Haworth. When he asked me if I knew who was causing us all the concern I said yes Mr Haworth. This was met with silence and a parting shot of come down the station but don't ask for me. I knew from that moment onwards that this wasn't going to be easy. 

The reason I have copied in Matthew Price from BBC Radio Jersey into the email is that I approached them and asked if they would like to see how seriously the SOJP take cyber bullying. They have been privy to everything. From my very first meeting with the Police to where we are at the moment. They know that my wife twice contacted you personally Mr Bowron with her concerns and you haven't even had the courtesy to reply to them in person. You can stand in the high street smiling and doing the meet and greet every day but you cant reply to a member of the public who contacts you looking for assurance and help. There is no excuse. If you have time to stand outside Topshop you have time for an email. Simple as that. I even stopped you and asked you about it after my wife's first attempt. All she received was holding emails 

Months and months have passed and absolutely nothing has happened. I'm a strong believer in where there is a will there is a way.  

I can back up everything I'm saying. The Police have the audio of Mr Haworth telling a friend of mine how he is going to F**k up my wife's career with her work and financial services. This is extremely serious. I have spent hours with the Tax Department as he has been given information regarding my returns. I have it all on the audio recordings. We were even told that we had to investigate the emails to the Jersey Financial Services Commission ourselves when my wife had put it in her statement. Shall I conduct the whole investigation?

I see nothing but failure across the board. If you can come up with something better then I will be more than pleased to read it. 

This is just the opening shot. If you would like a timeline of the events then please feel free to ask.

I asked Mr Haworth to stay away from my family in early December. I did this on my blog.  I had gathered enough intelligence through the audio as to know what his game was. It worked for a while. He came back and I came to the SOJP for help. Not for me but for my wife.

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

From: Bowron, Mike
Sent: ‎28/‎07/‎2014 01:17 PM
Subject: RE: Cyber Crime
Dear Mr Sorda,

Thank you for your comprehensive email. I am sorry that you feel the States of Jersey Police have not responded to this incident in the manner that you would expect. It is unfortunate that complaints such as that made by your wife cannot always conclude positively for all parties involved.

At Mr Bowron’s direction I have passed your email on to Chief Inspector Williamson who has knowledge of the case and will ensure the concerns you highlight continue to be looked into.

For clarity, Mr Bowron would never personally involve himself in an investigation given his role as Chief Officer. That is why all contact you and your wife have had so far has been acknowledged and then directed to the appropriate person for review.

Kind regards,


Dominic Clayson
Sergeant 260
Staff Officer to Mike Bowron QPM
Chief Offic

It has now fallen on me to protect my wife and family.

The Police have failed us on so many levels 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

This is the Audio for those new readers to these postings.










As I go through these postings the most obvious thing that stands out is that JON S HAWORTH knows exactly what's going on. He always has. He talks about the content of the emails when no one else has seen them. He likes to bring other people in. This could be because they are genuinely involved with him or he is trying to distance themselves.

Listen to the new audio of Mr Haworth. 

I really don't think you need to be a super cop to put this together. It simply  looks like they can't be bothered -  or is it because Mr Haworth was used in a secret court case? Remember he was used as 1 of 4 proxies in getting Mr Syvret's blog removed from Google.  I will be revisiting this idea over the coming weeks as the bigger picture unfolds. Has all the attacks on my wife been because I covered his court case? He also has a crazy idea that somehow I do what Mr Syvret tells me?

In the audio Mr Haworth states that I have cost people money. Well who? And what a coincidence that is exactly what it say's in one of the emails. He states that "Were going to fu*k her completely" 
He also states that "They have already contacted financial services"  and at the time of saying this, by pure coincidence, on a Facebook site called Politics Jersey With Free Speech this turned up. 

The Fake Facebook profiles of James Pearce - Julie Hanning and Sue Young. The link to the site is here:

"James Pearce "Sorda is a hypocrite, wife working in finance whilst he promotes tax haven haters and I am surprised the JFSC have not been told about it. After all they fu**ing licence Trust Managers."
15 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Lawrence Byrne "I think someone has now Julie Hanning lol."
15 hours ago · Like

Jon Haworth say's I have powerful enemies. So powerful that they go on Facebook and start up false accounts to use on Politics Jersey lol. #BONKERS

So Jon Haworth. Who told you about the Yacht Club then? You said you don't go down there. You are implicating Terry Le Main quite clearly. Should I be asking Terry Le Main what the issues with me are? Jon Haworth you said it comes from the horses mouth. You know the contents of the emails yet you say it's nothing to do with you. Are you saying it's Terry Le Main? Really?  You say that my life is of no interest to you yet you keep saying how you are going to fu*k my wife's career up. Are you a pathological liar? I would love to know what you said in court during that secret case. There are many questions that come from the audio.  You know everything yet claim you no nothing. You contradict yourself so many times it's off the scale. Is anybody helping you about this? Family? Friends? Anybody? Because someone should be.

To all my readers.

How many people do you know make telephone calls like Jon Haworth? I would imaging people would talk about the Football, Weather, what you have been doing etc etc but oh no, this one gets on the phone and tells the listener how he is going to fu*ck this fu*ck that about my life and family. 


Audio can now be heard below as Youtube removed the above.

There you have it. More deranged mutterings from Mr Jon S Haworth 

I want the truth and I'm not stopping until I get it. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative  Journalist

Protecting the family

Regarding your account: Rico Sorda
The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:
Evidence Gathering (part 3)
For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center
Yours sincerely,
The YouTube Team

Recently Youtube has received complaints which are now subject to appeal and as a result have removed two recordings of Mr J.S Haworth explaining amongst other things the destroying of my wife's career.  In my quest for the truth it is imperative that these recordings remain online.

The recordings are also back in the original blog postings which can be viewed HERE and HERE.

Part 6 will be up midweek.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

(Protecting the family)