Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Letter from former DCO Lenny Harper.

On Saturday the 18th of December 2010 Jersey’s only “news”paper, the Jersey Evening Post published, what many of us believe to be, another propaganda exercise and an attempt to re-write history. It came in the form of an interview with the out-going Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup.

Mr. Warcup appeared to come across in that interview as though he was a victim, which to say the least was very distasteful and yet another slap in the face for the victims and survivors of Child Abuse.

In response to the published interview, which was also published by  Rico Sorda with Mr. Warcup - former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle Lenny Harper wrote a letter to the Jersey Evening Post. It remains to be seen as to whether it will be published, or not, so we have decided to publish it on here in full, un-edited or un-redacted.

Dear Sir,

So David Warcup maintains he had to give out the now discredited misinformation at the infamous press conference to “protect prosecutions.” He becomes the latest police officer to fail to recognise that untruths and misinformation actually damage the chance of justice. He also persists in ignoring the clear fact that none of those prosecutions in any shape or form featured children’s bones or teeth. When one thinks of the massive publicity and speculation surrounding some notorious trials it is difficult to imagine how anything in Warcup’s world could ever get to trial. He did not seem too concerned when the trial of the British drugs dealer widely reported as being on the Sunday Times rich list went ahead with all sorts of lurid reporting including the publicity over the extraordinary armed security.

When what he said at that press conference is examined then his claims are even more bizarre. He states it was necessary to tell the world that there were no cellars – only three feet voids. We all know this was untrue. Not only was Robert Hall of Panorama filmed in the cellar and seen by the world, Jersey’s own Bob Hill blew that untruth out of the water recently. So why does Mr Warcup still insist it was necessary to brand the victims of the abuse in those “voids” as liars?

Then of course we had his claim that there was only one possible human bone and that was hundreds of years old. He forgot all about the statement of the UK pathologist and his evidence of the “fleshed and fresh” juvenile human bones being burnt and buried. Where did that statement go?

He also had to say of course, that I whipped up the media about the shackles which he said were no such thing. He conveniently ignored the fact that it was builders who identified them as shackles five years before I found them and they told Diane Simon and other reporters that we would find shackles. All this of course, despite Diane Simon’s JEP report being still accessible in which she clearly states that I had refused to confirm the existence of shackles despite her asking me about them. Come to think of it, Mr Warcup could have clarified this exact point with Diane when she interviewed him.

Now, what else was it that he had to say at the press conference to protect future prosecutions? Oh yes. My team and I had no policy to cater for victims. Well, the statements of the Jersey Abuse survivors seem to contradict that and indeed point the finger at his lack of care for them.

And finally of course, his claim that the tooth fairy does exist, further enlarged upon by his great supporter the Home Affairs Minister who said the teeth all fell out the same spot and went through the same hole in the floor. Of course they did!

Mr Warcup says he believes he left a legacy. He did indeed, but it is not one the victims will thank him for. He whines about the unjustified criticism of him in blogs which tell the truths the accredited media are afraid or unwilling to print. He should have thought of that before he spouted that load of nonsense in that press conference two years ago.

Lenny Harper

Ayrshire, Scotland.

We must also remember that Mick Gradwell and David Warcup showed the world's media, (while "Operation Rectangle" was a live investigation) items found at Haute de la Garenne ("shackles") which were potential evidence. When we read what the then Attorney General, and now Deputy Balliff William Bailache had to say when deciding not to prosecute a number of cases, then one has to ask just what were they thinking?

"In three of the cases, the complainants are intrinsically not credible for different reasons, one of them being that the complainant described assaults taking place in a cellar, in the bath and with the use of the shackles described in the media reports, the statement being made for the first time after the media reports had been published."

So far from "protecting prosecutions" being a reason for Warcup and Gradwell holding their infamous Press Conference, it might be argued that the only "protection" that was given was to the perpetrators!. Lenny Harper had refused to confirm the existence of shackles, David Warcup and Mick Gradwell not only mentioned them but showed them to the whole world!..............during a live investigation!!!!!!!

Submitted by Team Voice.

Thursday, 23 December 2010

A Press Statement from JCLA

The Jersey Care Leavers Association have released the following Press Statement. A Press Statement that reads they have been let down, or failed by this government and the “accredited” media. Interestingly in stark contrast to what certain parts of the media would have us believe; the majority of Care Leavers had, and has, full confidence in Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

David Warcup and Mick Gradwell will not be remembered fondly by most, and Warcup being portrayed as the “victim” in last Saturday’s Jersey Evening Post only demonstrates just how big a mountain the Abuse Survivors and their supporters have to climb, and will climb.

Press Statement - JCLA.
Having had some time of reflection after the apology from the Chief Minister, and the announcement of the closing of the historical abuse enquiry we, the Jersey Care Leavers Association would like the opportunity of putting our feelings into the public domain.

Firstly, we must make it quite clear that our issues with the handling of the inquiry both by the States of Jersey and the officers who took over from Mr. Power and Mr. Harper, are absolutely nothing to do with compensation matters, revenge or anything else. Indeed it is all related to justice, which ultimately there was very little of. There were one hundred and fifty one suspects, out of which thirty may now be deceased. That leaves one hundred and twenty one, from which seven were prosecuted, not to mention two cases which were dropped at the eleventh hour.

No-one wishes to see people either in, or approaching old age locked away in prison, but to have known that some who were never brought to trial could have been found guilty would have been reward enough for those whose suffering they caused, not forgetting that some of these people still hold high positions in the States of Jersey.

Lame apologies are all very well, even when they do not come across as sincere, but survivors feel very, very let down. Since Lenny Harper and Graham Power left the States of Jersey Police Force, confidence that the inquiry would progress further was seriously in doubt. These two officers and their team treated us with respect, sympathy and in a most professional manner. We were kept informed at all times of the progress of our cases and felt comfortable and at ease with the team. The manner in which the survivors were treated when they were no longer handling the inquiry did not instill a feeling that Gradwell and Warcup were committed to resolving any more cases, and indeed when cases were dropped, no one even had the courtesy to inform all of the abused. No small wonder that it is still questionable as to why these two officers were brought to the Island.

Now we learn that the inquiry is effectively over, we have still had no personal contact from the Police or any other authority to officially inform us. The victims become the victims yet again, treated in a most contemptuous manner as if we did not ever exist. Indeed, it has come to our attention that not all victims and witnesses have even been officially told that their cases have been closed let alone the enquiry! That rather speaks volumes about the way we have been made to feel, and no small wonder that we still have reservations.

The Mainstream Jersey Media, we feel, have been instrumental in marginalizing the abuse survivors. Everybody’s story has been told by the media, everybody’s, that is, but the survivors. Only last Saturday David Warcup was presented by the media as a, or “the”, victim in the Historic Abuse Enquiry. None of the Mainstream media have ever asked us survivors for an in-depth interview like they have Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup. We all have a traumatic story to tell but we are not afforded the same press privileges as some. Mr. Warcup being presented as a victim encapsulates the way this horrible affair has been portrayed by certain parts of the media from the outset.

We, the Jersey Care Leavers Association, have only distributed this Press Release to a number of “Bloggers” because we don’t feel confident that the mainstream media will publish it, or publish it in its entirety. We hope it does get picked up by the mainstream media and published in full but our confidence is low.

There are still more questions than answers, questions that we would still wish to be answered, and also the whereabouts and findings relating to some of the evidence taken from Haut de la Garenne. We as survivors were given strict legal guidelines on 'contamination of evidence', but it appears over the last two years the police have not adhered to this policy in any way, shape or form.

We can only hope that for those in care at present and in the future, very large and important lessons have been learnt. However, for those of us for whom it is too late, we were badly let down by the States of Jersey when we were children, and in the hope that as adults that very same Government would believe us and be able to bring us some closure on this matter, we have been let down very badly once again.

We would like to thank Graham Power and Lenny Harper, not only for the way they, and their team, treated us and the enquiry, but for restoring our faith in the Police Force. A faith that, for the most of us, diminished with their departure.

We have shown patience and restraint under very difficult circumstances. For us this will never go away.


Chair JCLA. (End)

To use the words of Bill Maloney, "God bless all victims and survivors of Child Abuse".  And once again, thanks to Ozzy for uploading this video to Youtube.............The fight continues in 2011!!

Submitted by Team Voice.

Thursday, 16 December 2010

Operation Rectangle.........Case closed?

After David Warcup, the out-going Acting Chief of Police, issued a Press Release announcing the closure of “Operation Rectangle” (Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse investigation) the “accredited” media have done what they do best…………..nothing.

That is to say the Press Release, and in particular, the statistics contained in it (or not) have not been scrutinized or questioned by any of our “accredited” media, they’ve just published the Press Release and that’s “journalism“ a la Jersey!

Among the statistics NOT given by Mr. Warcup and NOT asked about by our “accredited” media is how many of the cases dropped by the Attorney General involve suspects who are STILL in a position of power, or are STILL employed by the States? How many cases were put before the Attorney General, and as a percentage, how many of them reached a court room and how many didn’t? From those cases that were dropped, how many didn’t meet “the evidential test” and how many were dropped because it wasn’t “in the public interest” to prosecute? And what does “not in the public interest” mean?

Not being a mathematician I don’t know what the statistics are that “curiously” weren’t among those of David Warcup’s in his Press Release. But I have put a few numbers together that a mathematician might want to put as statistics/percentages.

There were 151 suspects, of which 30 are no longer living, so that leaves 121 suspects. Out of those 121 suspects 8 of them were charged, having met “the evidential test” and it being in “the public interest” to charge them. So that means 113 suspects didn’t face prosecution, what’s that as a percentage and why didn’t David Warcup use it in his Press Release?

Naturally there are hundreds and hundreds of un-answered questions involving “Operation Rectangle” and its closure, and naturally our good old “accredited” media aren’t asking them and one has to ask “why not”? Not least is the question of child murder up at Haute de la Garenne?, or at the very least, the disposing of child remains. Child’s Tibia, Femur, skull, teeth, shin bone, fresh and fleshed bone when burnt and much, much more. What happened to all the testing that was going to be done? How did all those remains get there?

So far we’ve been told by the “accredited” media that the piece of child’s skull (JAR/6) that contained 1.6 percent collagen (only found in mammals) turned into a piece of Coconut! But they’ve shown us no “evidence” as to how that happened!

The 65 children’s teeth found up at the Home, we were told by our Home Affairs Minister on a live Radio show, (un-challenged by the host!) that they all fell out of children’s mouths in the exact same spot and slipped through a gap in the floor boards! Some with ROOT STILL ATTACHED???????

On the 24th of March 2010 Rico Sorda published This on VFP. It is a “Summary Report” of Operation Rectangle. I re-produce extracts below., but the full report should be read in its entirety.

Extracts from Operation Rectangle Summary

"Among the victims were a few who said that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming and had then disappeared. Two others said they had knowledge of human remains at the location but were not specific. A local advocate also came to police and said he had a client who knew there were human remains buried at the home.”

“Information exists of the previous finding of buried bones co mingled with a pair of children’s shoes and fragments of cloth.”

“Anecdotal witness evidence suggested that bones found by builders completing renovations near to the north west stairwell may have been of human origin. An alert indication by the EVRD in this area resulted in the excavation of the site by forensic archaeologists. During this intrusive procedure a 2 inch X 2 inch piece of what appeared to be bone was recovered. This was preliminarily identified ‘in the field’ as possibly being juvenile human skull by the forensic anthropologist and was submitted for confirmation including species carbon dating and DNA.”

“The teeth recovered from cellars 3-4 were identified as juvenile human deciduous teeth and have been conveyed to the UK for further analysis.”

“Anecdotal witness evidence was suggestive of juvenile human bones being recovered from the area of the north-western stairwell during recent building renovations in 2003.”

“Human remains deposited within the ground in that area would contaminate the ground, and any porous material within it. The dog’s reactions were therefore consistent with this scenario.”

“A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human. The remains are at the present time undergoing forensic testing including carbon dating procedures.”

“Control testing of the EVRD would suggest that although the dog alerted to specific areas where human remains were situated the entire top two inches of soil within this area is contaminated with human cadaver odour. Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.”

“Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.”

"Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.

“The series of tests involved the use of samples of soot and debris from the chimney situated in the plant room that was in use at the time the solid fuel furnace was in operation. The tests were completed in such a way as to isolate the samples from containers, human ‘live’ scent and other distracters."

"The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.” (END)

The argument that “no children were reported as missing” just does not cut the mustard. We recently had a dead body washed up at Havre Des Pas beach. Interpol, the FBI and just about every agency under the sun were contacted in order to identify the body. Nobody of that description has been reported as missing, does that mean he didn’t wash up dead on our beach? Not to mention the poor record keeping of not only Haute de la Garenne but children’s Homes in general.

Going by the “facts”, “evidence” and documentation in the public domain, not only could one be forgiven that Child Abuse and Abuser’s have been swept under the carpet, so has Child Murder. If this is the case, then how was it able to go on? What part have the “accredited” media played in it? What questions have they asked? When have they ever “seriously” challenged the Jersey authority? Look at what has happened to people like Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power QPM, those who have challenged the Jersey authority.

The “accredited” media are obviously content that Operation Rectangle has been closed down, with still more questions than answers remaining……..why? There are obviously others that are happy the investigation has come to an end and that the “accredited” media will not try and challenge this in any way, but “Case Closed?”…………………. not as far as some are concerned.

Sunday, 12 December 2010

A Conspiracy theory.

Further to a recent posting, where I published an e-mail that I had sent to the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, I bring you an update and a Conspiracy Theory.

You see, in the absence of proof, evidence, documentation etc. as explained in the e-mail to the Chief Minister; people tend to make up their own version of events, which is not an ideal scenario, but one that the Chief Minister and his cohorts appear to favour……and I shall explain one of many reasons why I believe this to be.

Ten days ago I sent THIS e-mail, to the Chief Minister, referred to above. In that e-mail I explained that after he (TLS) had given an answer in the States, documentation had been published by Rico Sorda to suggest that the Chief Minister misled the house, either knowingly or otherwise.

The published document on Rico's Blog was a letter from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM, to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (DCEO) John Richardson dated the 31st of March 2010. This letter, the Chief Minister claims, is where Graham Power QPM had agreed to take part in the Napier Review. This as regular readers will be aware, turned out to be as divorced from the truth as 65 childrens teeth falling through the exact same gap in a floor board at Haute de la Garenne.  Rico had sought and gained permission from the former Chief Police Officer to publish that letter.

But that’s only half the story and I wanted the other half, in the interest of fairness and balance and just as importantly to prevent any conspiracy theories appearing. I was informed that there were two letters in existence from the DCEO to the former Police Chief and I asked the Chief Minister if he would provide me with them so the full story could be told. Like I said, that was TEN DAYS AGO and the Chief Minister hasn’t even acknowledged the e-mail.

In stark contrast I was able to make contact with the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM and asked him if I could, not only have sight of, but publish his two letters to John Richardson (DCEO). Mr. Power replied to me the very same day and granted me permission.

The two letters – re-produced below – add much more weight to the argument that contrary to what the Chief Minister had told the States, Graham Power QPM had not given his assurance in his letter dated the 31st of March 2010 that he was able to participate in the Napier Review. Indeed the first sign that Mr. Power QPM had given any kind of assurance that he was able to participate in the Napier Review was on the 22nd of April 2010 and even then it is questionable that all issues had been dealt with in order that Mr. Power QPM could FULLY participate.

Graham Power

(address redacted)

North Yorkshire,

22rd April 2010.

The Deputy Chief Executive,

States of Jersey,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Mr Richardson,

Your letter dated 16th April 2010 regarding the Napier review.

Thank you for your letter dated 16th April which was received by me on 21st April, and which addresses issues regarding the Napier review which were first raised by me in a letter to you dated 25th February 2010.

I am grateful for the detailed response which you have provided which seeks to address the issues of confidentiality and evidential admissibility which I raised in February. While not removing all of my concerns your letter can nevertheless be taken as providing a pragmatic basis for me to assist Mr Napier in his work. You will recall that I have repeatedly expressed my wish to engage fully with his enquiry once my queries were resolved, and I am ready to do so at the first opportunity.

In your letter you offer to address the matter which I raised concerning my need to have access to my files when speaking to Mr Napier, and you helpfully offer to assist with this on the apparent assumption that these are files held in Jersey. Perhaps I should have been clearer on this point. The files to which I refer are those which contain documents and correspondence which relate to the defence of my position since November 2008, and are now substantial in volume. They are currently held securely in the UK.

I suggest that the next step is for you to provide Mr Napier with my contact details at the first opportunity. I will then do all that I can to assist with his work.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Power.

Cc Dr T Brain. (END)

The letter dated the 16th of April 2010 from the DCEO which this letter is in response to, is one of the letters I have asked the Chief Minister for, and thus far, been ignored.

We then have this letter from the former Police Chief to the DCEO.

Graham Power

North Yorkshire,

(Address redacted)

23rd April 2010.

Mr John Richardson,

Chief Ministers Department,

States of Jersey.

Dear Mr Richardson,

Your letter dated 21st April 2010 regarding the review by Mr Brian Napier QC.

I have today received the above letter which seeks to “chase up” a reply to your letter dated 16th April 2010, and to set deadlines regarding my participation in the review being conducted by Mr Brian Napier QC.

Although it bears the date 16th April 2010, your letter was not received until 21st April and I sent you a full reply the following day. In case it is not to hand I attach a photocopy of that reply.

It might now be appropriate to contrast my own prompt management of this correspondence with that of yourself acting on behalf of the Chief Minister. I first wrote to you in February 2010 telling you that I had heard from media sources that some form of review was to take place of my suspension and asked for details of what was happening. You took five weeks to reply to my letter, and in a letter dated 29th March 2010 you wrote and gave me information regarding the Napier review and its terms of reference. This was the first formal notification I had received in relation to this matter. I received your letter on 30th March 2010 and the following day wrote to you expressing my full commitment to participation in the review subject to the resolution of some simple issues regarding the relationship between the Napier review and the disciplinary process. It was a further three weeks before you responded and, as stated above, I replied the following day confirming my intention to participate to the full.

It is against this background that you complain of delay, and seek to set deadlines supported by threats of my exclusion from the review.

I hope that you will understand that I now feel entitled to take the position that I have consistently shown enthusiasm and commitment to support the work of Mr Napier, but that my participation has been persistently impeded by delays and denial of basic information emanating from your office. It is these delays which have created what is now being presented as a form of “crisis” in the work of the review, which is in some way attributable to my actions. This is a clear reversal of the truth.

I would now be grateful if you would progress the matter in accordance with my letter dated 22nd April 2010. I am hopeful that you will do this soon, particularly as I believe that I have evidence to offer from myself and from others, which goes beyond that which has already been made available.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I am content for Mr Napier to have copies of all of the correspondence which has passed between us, or indeed, for all of the correspondence to be published.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Power.

Cc Dr T Brain. (END)

The letter dated the 21st of April 2010 from the DCEO, which this is in response to, is the other letter I have asked the Chief Minister for and thus far been ignored.

So the fact that Graham Power QPM has agreed to the publication of these letters would suggest that he is eager for the facts to be known. The fact that the Chief Minister has not even acknowledged my e-mail would suggest that he is not so eager, which brings us on to the Conspiracy Theory..........................thanks to the Chief Minister.

Rico Sorda has just published documentation from Graham Power QPM which details the former Police Chief’s thoughts and beliefs as to why part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference “mysteriously” disappeared and other issues and is a MUST READ for those of us that don’t buy into Conspiracy Theories and like only to deal in the facts.

It should also be remembered that the Chief Minister, or his advisors, to date have given, I believe at least three different accounts as to why part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference went missing and none of them stack up.

A plausible Conspiracy Theory could be that the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and/or others purposely and surreptitiously deleted part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference in order to prevent Mr. Napier QC from discovering the truth behind the possibly unlawful suspension of the Chief Police Officer so as to make things easier to cover up all the skulduggery indulged in by the Law Offices Department, certain Senior Civil Servants and politicians in order to protect Child Abusers (who could “bring down the government”) from facing prosecution.

Let us hope that Conspiracy theories like that are not permitted to prevail. But if the Chief Minister and his cohorts insist on depriving the public of the facts, then it must be inevitable that Conspiracy Theories will be able to thrive. And those concealing the facts will only have themselves to blame.

Submitted by VFC.

Thursday, 9 December 2010

The Appropriate authorities.

Could the Education Minister please tell us, just who “the appropriate authorities” are?

In this posting I have set out to explore who they could be because he (the Education Minister) hasn’t told us. One would expect them to be the Attorney General, the Police, the Minister himself, and/or the States Employment Board when dealing with the subject of a Senior Civil Servant being named in connection with a Child Abuse trial.

On June the 3rd 2009 the then Attorney General, and now Deputy Balliff, William Bailhache released a Press Statement after deciding not to prosecute some alleged Child Abusers. The Press Statement was published by channelonline and can be read HERE
I reproduce a paragraph from that Press Release, where it says this.

A decision not to bring criminal proceedings doesn't, he says, “mean that those who have made complaints are not believed, nor does it necessarily mean that any account given by a suspect has been believed, A decision not to prosecute means only that the Attorney General, having fully considered all of the available evidence and other information, has decided that an acquittal is more likely than a conviction.”

The above paragraph basically explains that a suspect has not been proved innocent. The suspect could quite well be guilty but proving it in court is a different matter.

It is however legitimate to focus on whether there is any conduct or any matters relating to a suspect which, although not meeting the standards for criminal prosecution, cast doubt regarding their suitability to hold the position he/she might be in. Criminal charges have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" disciplinary issues have to be proven "on the balance of probabilities" which is a lesser test. In any event it is possible for action to fall short of being a "crime" but still be misconduct.

The other question is one of “confidence” in our Education Minister, a Senior Civil Servant and the department. How is it that a Police Chief can be suspended without due regard to due process on disputed allegations of a managerial nature, and a Civil Servant in the Education Department can be a suspect in a Child Abuse Investigation and remain in post? It just doesn’t stack up, it doesn’t make sense.

It is paramount that the public have confidence in public administration and parents must have the right to know, that any allegations involving Child Abuse, have been dealt with thoroughly, with no stone left un-turned. So far this doesn't look to have been the case. The Minister for Education Sport and Culture has been deafeningly silent after a Senior Civil Servant from his Department has been named in open court, by witnesses under oath, in connection with Child Abuse. Furthermore the Senior Civil Servant has been named in the "accredited" media, but still the Minister remained silent up until Deputy Shona Pitman asked him this question in the States.

“Following the naming of a senior Civil Servant from the Education, Sport and Culture Department in court by alleged victims within the current historic abuse proceedings, will the Minister give members and parents assurances that the matter has been fully investigated by his department?”. The audio of which can be listened to on TJW.

In answer(s) to that question, the Education Minister said things like “all States employees come under the remit of the State’s Employment Board” (S.E.B.). He also repeatedly said “all allegation had been thoroughly investigated by THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES” So we could be led into believing that the decision "not" to suspend this Senior Civil Servant was taken by the S.E.B.

The Education Minister goes on to say “the S.E.B. are the body that oversees all issues to do with staff”. So again it looks/sounds like the S.E.B. are wholly, or partly, responsible for any investigation concerning the Senior Civil Servant at the Education Department.

Deputy Shona Pitman then asks why the Civil Servant was not suspended and the Education Minister replies “I cannot answer for the States Employment Board”. (S.E.B.)

So from all those answers we can be forgiven for believing that the S.E.B. have investigated and concluded there was no need to suspend the Senior Civil Servant and he appears to be innocent of any wrong-doing. (Although that’s not how the former Attorney General explains it).

OK then, let’s buy into that scenario.

One of the S.E.B. members is none other than Bill Ogley, the Chief Executive Officer to the Council Of Ministers, who it is widely believed, as a result of the Napier Report, was disciplined by the Chief Minister for his handling of the possibly illegal suspension of our most Senior Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

Why is that significant?

Well as we know the former Police Chief submitted a sworn affidavit. And in that affidavit he swears this.

"The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension.”

So if we are to assume that the Civil Servant named in the sworn affidavit is the same Civil Servant at the Education Department, and we accept that the former Police Chief did not commit perjury by knowingly giving false testimony in his affidavit, then it would appear that the CEO, Bill Ogley (of the State’s Employment Board) has said “the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”.

But this is all, of course, if we buy into the scenario, as we have been led to believe by the Education Minister, that this all has nothing to do with him and it’s all down to the S.E.B. Them being “The Appropriate Authorities”.

Right at the end of this question period, in the States, another member of the S.E.B. (I think it was Deputy Debbie de Sousa) stood up and said “The S.E.B. do not make judgments as to whether somebody is suspended or not”. So was the Education Minister being economical with the truth?

Who are “The Appropriate Authorities?” if it is the Police, and subsequently the Attorney General, then the suspect has not been proved innocent. If it was the States Employment Board then was Bill Ogley involved in any part of it? And if so doesn’t the Education Minister see any kind of a perceived conflict of interest there?

Far from instilling confidence in the Minister, the Senior Civil Servant and the Education Department, I’m sure the public, and in particular, parents of children in the Education Department, will be filled with terror and fear………………….I know I am.

We want "assurances" Deputy Reed, we want the truth, we should have the right to know that our children are safe and we still don't know who are the appropriate authorities?

Submitted by VFC.

Thursday, 2 December 2010

Let’s see the letters.

After the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur’s answer to a question submitted by Deputy Bob Hill, and in the quest to separate fact from fiction, truth from conspiracy theories I have sent an e-mail (below) to the Chief Minister.

The e-mail is self explanatory and offers the Chief Minister the opportunity to have the public informed of all the facts and explain why his answer(s) to questions in the States don’t stack up with the relevant documentation.

from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren


date Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

subject Presumption of openness.

Dear Chief Minister.

I write to you concerning an answer you gave in the States on Tuesday 30th November 2010 to a question from the Deputy of St Martin Bob Hill B.E.M. where you answered thus.

“The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated the 31st of March that he would fully participate in the investigation . that date being well before R39 was brought to the states”

As you might be aware the letter from the former Chief Police Officer to the Deputy Chief Executive dated the 31st March 2010 has now been published on a Blog which can be viewed here and it says no such thing. At first sight it appears that you might have been misled, or you yourself might have misled the House? It further suggests that you clearly had not read the letter before giving your answer in the States.

I have been made aware of further written correspondence between the Deputy Chief Executive and the former Chief Officer concerning his (Mr. Power’s) willingness and ability to participate in the review conducted by Brian Napier QC. In particular two letters that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer sent the former Chief  Police Officer, one dated the 16th April 2010 and the other dated 21st April 2010. I am led to believe that these are marked as “private and confidential” but will further go to prove that even by then it was not established whether or not Mr. Power was able to participate in the Napier Review, which is long after the Terms Of Reference had been changed by the deletion of part (d).

You will also be aware that I and others have been “Blogging” extensively on the subject of the former Chief Police Officer’s  unprecedented  suspension and the related issues. We have, to the best of our ability tried to stick with the “facts” and have only ever sought to find the “truth”. It is with this in mind that I ask you to grant Mr. Power the permission to release the two letters mentioned above in order that I can share them with my readers in the quest for truth and facts?

The unfortunate consequence of not having the relevant facts in the public domain is that people will start making up their own versions of events and conspiracy theories start to develop and the truth gets lost. I am, (and I believe the former Police Chief Mr. Power QPM is) very anxious that these conspiracy theories are not able to materialize and hope that you are of the same opinion and in the interest of openness and transparency will permit the release of the letters?

To demonstrate Mr. Power’s commitment to ensure the public are furnished with the facts, he did give a fellow Blogger permission to publish his letter to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer dated the 31st March 2010 and is happy to supply me with, and publish the other two letters if you are in agreement?

I hope you share the same commitment as Mr. Power QPM and will agree to this request. Should you not be so inclined I wish this communication to be considered as an application under the Code of Practice on Access to Information for the release of both letters and draw your attention to Paragraph 1.2.2.(a) of the Code which specifies that there shall be a presumption of openness.

If for any reason you are inclined not to agree with my request I would ask that you state which exemption under the code is being claimed in support of the refusal in order that I can consider whether there is a basis for a complaint or an appeal.  I would also like to ask for an early acknowledgement, and for a full response within 21 days as required under paragraph 2.1.1 (c) of the Code.

Although I am hopeful there will be no need for this and that you are as anxious as the rest of us to show that if you have been misled you are ready and willing to take the necessary action. And indeed that you are committed to ensuring that truth prevails over conspiracy theories.

I intend, (in the interests of open government) publishing this e-mail on my Blog and possibly your reply.

Kind Regards.

VFC. (End e-mail)

It may be that the information given to the Chief Minister was not ENTIRELY ACCURATE and that there may have been some PROCEDURAL ERRORS. But whatever the case, he’s not got a good track record when it comes to giving straight answers involving the suspension of our most Senior Police Officer………..Why not?

And just as importantly why haven't our "accredited" media asked him any "real" questions?

Submitted by VFC.

Friday, 26 November 2010

Culture of Fear.

Deputy Paul Le Claire gives Citizen’s Media an in-depth interview on how, is in his opinion, our Government and Civil Service operates. Due to uploading restrictions we have edited this interview in order to comply with these restrictions and at the same time represent the views of the Deputy.

The Deputy talks about such subjects as the removal of former Senator and Health Minister Stuart Syvret. The suspension of the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. The Deputy’s own speech in the States Chamber (which can be listened to HERE) concerning the conversation he allegedly overheard of the former Chief Minister and Former Home Affairs Minister about the retired DCO Lenny Harper.

There is a culture of Fear that runs through this island that is not only felt by us mere mortals, it is also felt by the elected members of our Parliament. Deputy Le Claire fully expects reprisals for speaking out so should be applauded for doing so.

Team Voice would like to thank Deputy Le Claire, not only for showing the courage of speaking out, but for supporting Citizen’s media by giving us a full and frank interview and an insight to the workings of our government machinery…………………………The Culture of Fear.

Submitted by VFC.

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

The Establishment Party?

In conjunction with Rico Sorda’s latest POSTING where he has published the 19 politicians who could not bring themselves to vote in favour of part (a) (v) in Deputy Bob Hill’s proposition P166/2010, we bring you 15 from those 19 WHO voted against Connetable Simon Crowcroft’s P182 back in January 2009.

Part (v) of Deputy Hill’s P166/2010 (below) is self explanatory and asks for nothing more than what most of us would assume is good governance. But still the 15 just could not bring themselves to support it…………why not?

Part (a)

To request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the Chief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in particular to provide information in respect of the following matters –

(v) What training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;

This part of the proposition was agreed by the house but with no thanks to the 15. None of which, incidentally, even spoke on the debate!!

Connetable Crowcroft’s P182 would, or could, have saved the tax payer possibly in the millions of pounds and brought out in the open just what did go on with the, possibly illegal, suspension of former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM without having to line Mr. Napier’s pocket to the tune of FIFTY GRAND, and the MILLION PLUS pounds spent on Wiltshire. But the 15 could not bring themselves to vote for it. The proposition (which was defeated) was published on one of our sister sites HERE. Below is a snippet from it.

Purpose of the proposition

This proposition seeks a simple check by an appropriately qualified body such as the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, or any other independent body with expertise in the interpretation of industrial relations, into the actions taken by the Minister of Home Affairs in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008.

Any employee of the States of Jersey should be able to expect any complaints against them to be dealt with correctly. Therefore, the proposition has more general relevance as a willingness by the States to have their employment procedures checked for compliance should reassure all States of Jersey employees that their employer, the States, will not disregard the principles of good employment relations and of natural justice in their dealings with their employees.

Financial and manpower implications

Should this proposition be approved I would estimate that the work in reviewing the suspension procedure could be undertaken by a local, appropriately qualified and experienced Human Relations practitioner in half a day. The cost of this work would therefore be relatively insignificant.


We may never know as it was debated in secret.

So is it the case that these 15, against the odds of possibly trillions to one are voting “independently”, or are they voting with the “Establishment Party?”. Of course there are more members who vote almost identically along the establishment lines and over the coming few weeks/months Team Voice will be looking at them in-depth and in some cases individually.













As always the featured politicians have a right of reply, indeed we would encourage them to leave a comment so as we can understand why they vote how they do and how they manage to vote "independently" the same way so often..................If they are not in The Establishment Party.

Submitted by Team Voice.


Saturday, 20 November 2010

Who is The Real Chief Minister? (4)

Below is the openenig speech to P166/2010 from Deputy Bob Hill B.E.M.

The proposition was, predictably, defeated which demonstrates how natural justice counts for nothing as far as the majority of our elected "representatives" are concerned and accountability is non existent.

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and his cohorts were given - by Deputy Bob Hill B.E.M.- the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and put this whole ghastly affair to bed, they chose not to.............The fight for truth and Justice continues.

Two years ago, some of the Island’s most senior Ministers, civil servants and a police officer were involved in the unprecedented suspension of the Island’s Chief of Police. Since then there has been a disproportionate amount time and money spent by Ministers attempting to justify that decision and regretfully attempting to conceal the truth. There has also been a disproportionate amount of time spent by Members seeking the truth.

It is apparent that those wishing to suspend the Police Chief were given a very short window of opportunity which they took with complete disregard to advice given by Crown Officers and the provisions contained within the Discipline Code made under the 1974 Police Jersey Law.

Following reviews, court cases and answers given during question time, it is now evident that some Ministers and civil servants conspired or colluded to suspend the former police chief some weeks before 12th November. It is also apparent that they botched the suspension process but are not being held to account for their actions.

Those responsible have now been identified in a Report paid for at public expense. Some serious failings have been identified and it is quite evident that the Chief Minister has avoided taking the appropriate action to address the failing. This has led my proposition being lodged.

The purpose of my Proposition is to request the Chief Minister to respond to a set of proposals which he should have dealt with ages ago. At the 11th hour the Chief Minister has lodged his Comments which he hopes will be sufficient for me to withdraw my proposition. I regret that cannot happen. Had the Chief Minister come up with responses that were clear, convincing, and offered a prospect of closure, I would have led the Assembly in congratulating him on his achievement.

However, the sad truth is that neither myself, nor I suspect any other member, whatever their voting intentions, can genuinely claim to be convinced, or in most cases actually understand, just what the Chief Minister is actually saying in most of his response to my proposition.

Members will now note that the Chief Minister he has now at long last published the Napier Report via R 132/2010 but has not stated why it took a Backbencher’s Proposition to make him do so. He is the Chief Minister, he is not supposed to be continually reacting to the initiatives of others. He is supposed to lead this Assembly and inspire us all with his vision.

The controversy arising from the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008 has continued for over two years. That is not for any irrational reason. It is because many States Members and ordinary Islanders have genuine concerns regarding those events. These concerns deserve to be treated with respect. They do not deserve to be dismissed out of hand or fobbed off with shallow promises and evasion.

And I regret to say that unless the concerns arising from this issue are addressed today in a clear and transparent fashion they will not go away. My proposition offers members a chance to bring this matter to a close in a proper transparent manner, not brushed under the carpet.

My proposition is also about an important principle. It is about a key position in the good governance of our Island, namely the post of Chief Officer of the States Police.

The position of Head of the Force is important but it is also inevitably controversial and to a degree vulnerable. That is why our predecessors were careful to put in place a strict set of rules to ensure that any difficulty should be addressed in a way which allows for the political independence of that office to be preserved.

Break those rules and we are on a slippery slope on which none of us are safe. However we now have evidence that the rules were indeed broken, deliberately, cynically and with intent.

The authority to dismiss the Chief Officer of the Force is vested in this Assembly by law. If members feel that that the authority of the Assembly has been usurped, and there has been a “dismissal by stealth” outside of the legal process, then as States Members we have a duty to do something about, irrespective of whether we are members of the Executive or the non Executive side of Government.

Today we have the opportunity to grasp this issue and to seek some form of resolution because there have been other opportunities but these were not taken by Ministers.

In January 2009 the chance was lost by not approving Connétable of St Helier’s proposition.

In the summer of 2009 another chance was lost when the Royal Court heavily criticised the manner of the original suspension. Ministers who were duty bound to act with neutrality, took no notice.

The Wilts investigation was concluded last November yet no attempts were taken to instigate disciplinary proceedings. In January this year the Chief Officer announced his long expected retirement and said that he would leave the service before the end of July. Again no-one took a grip on the matter. Yet more enquiries were authorised, more money spent, and more time wasted.

In February this year Members had the opportunity to support my proposal for a local and public Committee of Inquiry to review the Suspension. However Members’, who still pinned their faith in the Chief Minister, rejected that opportunity in favour of the Chief Minister’s simpler and quicker review by a Commissioner.

That Report has proved to be at least 5 times over budget and months late. However even though the TOR were watered down the Commissioner has concurred with the Royal Court’s view in that the suspension process was unfair. The Commissioner has gone even further in that he has identified serious failings and named the individuals concerned.

I now turn to the specifics of the proposition; whose purpose is to request the Chief Minister to report on the outcome of a Review he commissioned on behalf of the States. By now Lodging the Napier Report as R132/2010 the Chief Minister, with some reluctance but with no explanation has complied with Part (c) of my Proposition.

Part (i) I ask what action if any , the Ch Minister has taken in respect of the destruction by the Chief Executive of the original notes taken at the suspension . AND

What guidelines if any the Ch Minister has issued regarding the recording of suspension meetings in the future.

Chief Minister has completely ignored the first part of the paragraph.

It is in fact from answers given in the past by Ch Minister that the original notes were destroyed before the typed copy had been agreed by the 3 participants and only signed by former Minister and Chief Executive.

When former Police Chief asked for the original notes, because he was taking the matter to Royal Court he told that they had been destroyed. When handed the typed copy they were not an accurate account of the suspension process. This action is totally unacceptable.

The destruction was not by some probationer police Officer but by the most senior and highest paid civil servant, who apart from being aware of the need for accuracy must have been aware of the seriousness of the suspension and for the need to safeguard the integrity of the process.

Chief Minister gives no explanation for the Ch Executive’s action other than to say that he is satisfied with the answers he has received from the Ch Executive. Sir, this is not good enough.

The second half of the paragraph is again unsatisfactory.

Ch Minister is sidestepping the matter. He says that Policies are already in place but Members not provided with the copies.

Deputy Le Claire asked the Ch Minister for copies during Oral question on 3rd February last year, but still not to hand.

However it appears that if there is a policy in existence then it advises Officers to use their discretion but if in doubt err on the side of caution. I hope that does not apply to the Police because they will in trouble from the Courts. The Ch Minister’s explanation is unsatisfactory and should be rejected.

Part (ii) is about the legal advice and asks the Chief Minister if he accepts the conclusion set out in various parts of the Napier Report that action was taken on a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers and what action, if any, he proposes to take in respect of that matter.

It is interesting to note that there are any number of occasions when Ministers do not take action expected of them, and when challenged they say that is because they are acting on the advice of the Crown Officers.

However we now have a case where Ministers and senior civil servants have blatantly acted against Law Officers advice and Members are expected to accept that failure without question.

Members may feel that Napier is particularly straightforward on this matter. In his report Mr Napier sets out the advice of the Law Officers in respect of the Metropolitan Police report. In paragraphs 69 and 72 Mr Napier expresses the strong view that the Metropolitan Police report, when it arrived, was, “in heavily qualified terms” and that it did not meet the stringent terms of the legal advice.

We also now know how this difficulty was dealt with by those involved in the suspension process. Parts of the Metropolitan Police report which suited the argument for suspension were extracted and included in a letter from the heavily conflicted Deputy Chief Officer, who would immediately step into his boss’ shoes when the suspension was implemented.

Those parts of the Met report which did not fit the argument, and in particular the heavy qualifications described by Napier, were excluded. We do not know if the then Minister was part of the arrangement or whether he was misled. But what we can be sure of, is that the stringent terms of the legal advice were not followed and as a consequence this sorry, totally expensive and futile saga was set in motion.

After paying for a Queen’s Councillor to review the suspension process which concurs with the Royal Court’s view, the Chief Minister is now telling Members that those findings are wrong, and he is right.

Originally it was claimed that the suspension was as a result of a letter received by the former Home Affairs Minister the day before the suspension. That Minister’s statement made under oath to the Wiltshire Police has now been proven to be untrue. There were plots a foot, months before the actual suspension.

Apparently the discussion between the former Ch Minister and the former Home Affairs Minister about the possible suspension was overheard by a States Minister who hopefully will clarify that matter.

Mr Napier has been clear in his report, the legal advice was not followed and no matter what excuses the Ch Minister is attempting to make, the facts speak for them selves.

Those involved with the suspension got it wrong and Members have every right to expect the Chief Minister to accept Mr Napier’s finding and inform Members what action he has taken.

Part (iii) deals with the Discipline Code copies of which I circulated to Members over the weekend. I am asking whether the Chief Minister accepts the conclusion set out in various parts of the Napier Report, that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Police Chief, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force Jersey Law 1974, and again, what action if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code?

Having read the Discipline Code and Members will note that there is set procedure to be followed before a suspension can be implemented.

Mr Napier is of the view that there was no justification for an instant suspension. However again, we have the Chief Minister disagreeing with the QC he appointed, although graciously stating the Mr Napier is entitled to his view. However the Chief Minister states that in his view, Mr Napier’s conclusion is not the only one which can be drawn. However unlike Mr Napier, the Chief Minister has not stated how his view can be justified.

It should be noted that in answer to several questions on this matter the Chief Minister has gone on record as describing these matters as "procedural errors". In other words until lodging his Comments he accepted that errors had occurred but has now done a u turn without any explanation.

Given the seniority of the participants it can hardly be said that their calculated breach is no more than procedural. It is a gross interference in the constitutional framework which exists to protect the liberties of us all.

Nor should we be deceived into regarding these breaches as coincidental. The resignation of Home Affairs Minister, just 3 weeks previously, the brief elevation of the former Assistant Minister to Ministerial Office, and his imminent retirement along with the former Chief Minister and the absence of the Chief Officer on a few days leave provided a window of opportunity which was ruthlessly and cynically grasped.

In his Comments the Chief Minister has stated that he has had to weigh up the differing views when determining what action he needed to take, but has not said what action he has actually taken.

Part (a) (iv) asks why there has been no formal presentation of the Napier report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author. The Chief Minister knows that it is customary for Ministers who commission reports to arrange for its author to be present when the Report is released. At first he gave an undertaking that there would be a presentation to States Members. Later he reversed his position and said that such a presentation was not possible. This is because the customary need to make a presentation was not included in Mr Napier’s contractual responsibilities.

Members will note however that the Chief Minister has not chosen to tell us why this customary requirement was not included in the contractual arrangement and who took that decision. We should insist that he tells us more on this issue, such as why and when did Mr Napier change his mind. The Chief Minister has also not informed Members why he did not make the usual presentation to Members.

Part (v) Requests the Chief Minister to inform Members what training, procedural and other corrective measures he has taken to ensure personnel and disciplinary issues are managed appropriately in the future.

He tells us that such matters are “regularly reviewed as part of normal activities.” I ask how often they are reviewed because in July 2008 only a few months before the suspension, the former Chief Minister lodged R75 of 2008 which reported on the findings following a Review undertaken by Professor Upex.

The Professor was highly critical of the mishandling of the dismissal of another States Employee. We had the usual platitudes that lessons must be learnt and we must move on. But lessons clearly were not learnt because three of the main participants in the dismissal process were also involved with the former Police Chief’s suspension.

The Chief Minister says that there is room for improvement in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police. I agree but that was apparent 2 years ago. So what has he done about it? What action has he taken to date? What changes does he propose? And by which date will he be presenting his proposals to this Assembly?

The Chief Ministers response is shallow, dismissive and should be rejected by this Assembly. I believe that we should tell the Chief Minister that he must do better and offer something more convincing.

Part (a) (vi) asks the Chief Minister to clarify his position with regard to any disciplinary action in consequence of what has emerged from the report.

Given the gravity of the suspension and the failings that have now been identified, Members and the public are entitled to know whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and if so, to update Members on the outcome of those proceedings.

I am not the only Member who has asked what action the Chief Minister has or is taking. Members will recall that I received a confidential email from the Chief Minister on 27th September regarding a disciplinary matter.

Members will also recall that at the last States Sitting I asked if the Chief Minister would make the contents of a confidential email available to all States Members but he declined on the grounds that it contained the name of a States Employee.

In the Chief Minister’s Comments he now tells us that the Disciplinary process is now complete and the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.

It is not disputed that the Island’s most senior civil servant destroyed the suspension notes. Mr Napier has also reported that the same civil servant chose not to follow the Crown Officers advice and went ahead with a suspension process which was also contrary the Discipline Code.

The suspension set off a chain of events which saw the former Police Chief dismissed by stealth and has cost the taxpayer around a million pounds. It is not disputed that the Wilts Police produced a set of allegations but they were withdrawn. Therefore legally the allegations do not exist and the taxpayer’s money has been wasted.

As indeed has the Wiltshire Police Officer’s time, although no doubt their officers will have enjoyed spending over £200K on wining and dining at our taxpayer’s expense.

Both the Royal Court and Mr Napier have concluded that the suspension was unfair, yet despite the repercussions, States Members and the public are not allowed to be told what disciplinary action, if any, has ensued.

As the Chief Minister has stated he has taken disciplinary action I believe I am at liberty to divulge the contents of the Confidential email I referred to earlier, but I shall not divulge the name of the civil servant.

The Chief Minister informed me that he was instituting disciplinary action, however the employee concerned was out of the office and he had to wait until the employee returned. I did think the absence was ironic because the former Police Chief was also out of Office when he was called in to be suspended,

Given the time it normally takes to collate the evidence and arrange for a disciplinary hearing I am most impressed by the speed in which the process was completed because it is apparent that the process was concluded by the 19th October because as Members will see on page 9 of my proposition that the Chief Minister stated that he had investigated the disciplinary issues and he had nothing further to add.

It appears that yet again we have an apparently firm resolve followed by back-tracking and evasion. The Chief Minister is not appointed in order that he can be an advocate on behalf of his staff. He is supposed to be the person who holds his staff to account. There are worrying indications that the tail is wagging the dog.

In his response to this part of my proposition the Chief Minister seeks to hide behind the confidentiality rules which normally apply in disciplinary cases. But this is no ordinary case. This disciplinary matter strikes at the heart of our government.

In this debate we should not be hindered by rules created for the protection of public servants. We are the government of this Island. We make the rules. We should demand that the Chief Minister comes clean. We deserve to be told the truth. We do not deserve to be told that matters relating to the conduct of our highest paid employee are none of our business.

In Part (b) of the proposition I ask the Assembly to agree to seek closure of this long running issue by agreeing that an apology should be made to the former Chief Officer.

Members will note that the proposed apology is specific in its terms and relates entirely to his treatment during the suspension process and in particular the denial of those rights and protections to which he was entitled to under the Code.

The entitlements are clearly set out by Napier and are in any event no more than basic decency, common-sense and justice.

The Disciplinary Code which has been circulated to Members forms part of the Chief Officers Conditions of Service. They are his entitlements which are intended to ensure fair play and dignity of treatment.

The Police Chief was entitled to have concerns drawn to his attention at early stage and be given an opportunity to seek a resolution. That did not happen.

He was entitled to be able to argue his case at a preliminary hearing before suspension was considered. Again that did not happen.

What he was not entitled to was to be called into work in the midst of a family holiday and suspended without warning in the space of a few minutes without representation and without a hearing.

The process which was applied on that day in November 2008 was not only a breach of the Code, it was shameful, and by association shames us all. And let us not forget the service background against which these events occurred.

The Chief Officer had a long and unblemished record of service.

He had been decorated by the Queen for distinguished service. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Committee Members, the Home Affairs Minister and even the local media had gone on record praising his leadership of the Force.

He was described, and I quote, as a “high performing Chief Officer” who was able to ensure “that the operational independence of the Police is never compromised,” and who “continues to modernise and enhance the professionalism of the service.”

Members might ask “who said that?” I can tell Member who said it. It was none other than the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers in the Chief Officer’s most recent performance appraisal.

In responding to this issue the Chief Minister has sought to confuse the situation by inappropriate references to the HDLG investigation and making most derogatory remarks relating the abuse victims. He has referred to the now abandoned disciplinary case and has chosen to compound matters by making further unsubstantiated allegations against the former Chief Officer.

I will again remind Members that all disciplinary proceedings were abandoned. No charges were brought and no hearing was called. No compromises were reached and no deals were done.

From day one the Chief Officer challenged Ministers to come up with the evidence to justify what they alleged and to take their allegations to a fair hearing.

In spite of nearly two years and over a million pounds of expenditure they failed to do so. Allegations which emanated from the Wiltshire debacle were withdrawn because I submit it was not in the Minister’s interest to pursue them.

The Chief Minister should accept that the Wiltshire Investigation was a disaster which began with the botched suspension The Chief Minister should have the grace and seek closure. There is no honour in hitting after the bell. The contest is over.

The Chief Officer retired with an unblemished record. It is now clear that the entitlements of his conditions of service were not met. Apologise for that, and that alone, and move on.

I will not dwell on the Chief Minister’s suggestion that the former Police Chief and his Deputy should apologise to those who suffered at HDLG. I don’t know who drafted the Comments on the Chief Minister’s behalf, but Members should ask each one the 11 former residents whose allegations of abuse some 30 years ago are now being considered in the Royal Court. We should ask if they concur with the Chief Minister’s call for an apology.

Without the former Police Chief and his Deputy’s dedication to service to our Island, the allegation which had been swept under the carpet would not have come to light.

I propose my proposition and asked that it seconded. (end)

Submitted by Team Voice..........a media that digs that little DEEPER