Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Facts, Evidence, Untruths, and is somebody telling “LIES“?

Out of sheer necessity this Blog posting is somewhat longer than the norm and really has to be read in it’s entirety, perhaps 4 or 5 times in order to be able to untangle the web of confusion that surrounds the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power.

Although, without wishing to fall foul of any defamation, or libel laws, one is led to believe, after reading the “evidence” in the letter below that somebody has been telling some rather large Porky Pies.

The truly frightening thing about this letter (below) to the Privileges and Procedures committee is that it’s from none other than the top law enforcement officer in the land, Chief Police Officer Graham Power. The Chief Officer is a highly decorated, distinguished and extremely well respected man in his field of Law Enforcement.

Look the “facts” and “evidence” speak for themselves - the document below has to be read - and read again until it is digested. The “facts and “evidence” can be cross checked with Chief Officer Power’s Judicial Review.

The reply from the Privileges and Procedures committee will (hopefully) be published on here in a few days, possibly a week, and if you think this makes for frightening reading, wait ’til you see the reply they gave the Chief Officer.

Dear Chairman,
Outcome of my appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding my suspension

This letter arises from the recent disclosure of information regarding the times and dates on which documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created. You will be aware that this information was first requested by me in November 2008, and that its release has been consistently opposed by the Chief Minister and others. You will also be aware that as a result of a hearing before the Complaints Board under the above law, the information has now been released.

Enclosed with this letter are documents relevant to the complaint which will be set out below. It is believed that the documents are largely self explanatory and that it is not necessary to repeat the content in any detail. The relevant documents are:

A copy of the document bundle setting out details of my appeal to the Complaints Board at a hearing on 16 September 2009, which was conducted in accordance with the law set out in the heading to this letter. My application to the Board related to the refusal of the Chief Minister to disclose details of the times and dates on which certain documents relating to my suspension from duty were actually created.

A copy of the findings of the Board published on 14 October 2009 and presented to the States on 20 October 2009.

A copy of a letter from the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009 providing the information requested in the initial application.

It is requested that the Committee study all of the attached documents in conjunction with this letter.

In my application to the Board I summarised what I described as the “Official Version” of the events which led to my suspension. I can find no record of any claim on behalf of the Chief Minister or others that the “Official Version” was not effectively summarised in my application. In brief, the “Official Version” of the sequence of events is that on 10 November 2008 the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, (document bundle page 28.) This was received on 11 November 2008 by Mr Ogley who, the same day, wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. (Statement of W Ogley, document bundle page 30.) In his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement of A Lewis, document bundle page 33.) The Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing the same evening, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing on 11 November 2008 is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

Ministers and others have consistently put forward the claim that the decision to initiate the disciplinary process was taken in consequence of information which came to the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs in the form of the correspondence received, and the briefing given, on Tuesday 11 November 2008. I understand from States Members that this line has been repeated during “in camera” discussions of the suspension. I also understand that it is the line taken in response to States members who have made individual enquiries.
Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.
The Disciplinary Process relating to the Chief Officer is set out in Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 and in the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police, which sets out the process to be applied in the exercise of powers under Article 9. A copy of the relevant Disciplinary Code is at page13 of the document bundle.

It will be noted that no person other than the Minister for Home Affairs has any disciplinary powers in respect of the Chief Officer of Police, and that the disciplinary process can only be initiated by a letter from the Minister to the Chief Executive under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Code. The code does not appear to permit action on any other basis. Suspension powers are set out in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Code and are again, vested entirely in the Minister for Home Affairs.
It might now be appropriate to examine the information which has subsequently been disclosed. In the interests of consistency I have followed the sequence set out in the letter of the Director of Information Services dated 19 October 2009. All of the three letters referred to are dated 12 November 2008 and refer to information received on 11 November 2008. They can be found at page 21 of the document bundle. (It may be noted that the letters make reference to a review by the Metropolitan Police. The comments made in the review were subsequently withdrawn by that force in respect of their use for suspension or disciplinary purposes.) The information which has now been provided in relation to the three letters is as follows:
The letter from then Deputy Andrew Lewis to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action under paragraph 2.1.1 of the Disciplinary Code
It is now disclosed that this was created at l400hrs on Tuesday 11 November 2008. This is the day on which it is stated that Mr Ogley received the letter from Mr Warcup, which he forwarded to the Minister for Home Affairs the same day. The time of the letter does however precede the presentation and briefing which took place later that day.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue.
Written notification that I was suspended from duty

It is now disclosed that this letter was created at 0848hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This date is three days prior to the receipt of the information which is alleged to have given rise to the suspension, and four days before the disciplinary meeting at which the Minister allegedly “decided” that I was to be suspended from duty. It should also be noted that the suspension letter was created three days prior to the letter which, under paragraph 2.1.1 of the code, is required to commence the disciplinary process.

While there remains uncertainty regarding some of the events surrounding the creation of the documents, it is evident that the “Official Version” of the decision-making process cannot now be sustained. The claim that the decision to suspend was a result of a proper process entered into in consequence of evidence viewed on 11 November 2008 is plainly false. Against this background and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following questions would appear to fall within the remit of the Committee:

Whether any person in Government has made false and misleading statements to myself or persons enquiring on my behalf, during the suspension and disciplinary process which could have denied me my entitlement to fair treatment under the Disciplinary Code.

Whether the proper preparation of my defence has been wilfully impeded by false information provided from within the Island’s Government.

Whether false and misleading statements have been made to the States and to those States members who have enquired about the integrity of the process.

Whether any person has made a false statement to the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether any person currently in office has been a party to a “cover up” of the facts which have now come to light.

Whether any person who had a duty to ensure that processes conducted under the law and the disciplinary code were carried out in a proper and lawful manner, failed in that duty.

In the light of the disclosures, the real reasons for the suspension must be regarded as uncertain. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory position to be in after a year, and places me at an unfair disadvantage in the preparation of my defence.
The 1974 Police Law and the Disciplinary Code set out arrangements for the Political Oversight of the Chief Officer. There is a widely held view that these arrangements are imperfect. The absence of a Police Authority and of the checks and balances common in other jurisdictions are seen as significant defects. Nevertheless the Law and the Code, taken together, clearly identify the intention of legislators that the power of suspension should be vested entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs, and that this power should only be exercised through due process and the proper consideration of evidence.

If Ministers and others have colluded in a common endeavour to frustrate the intentions of the Law and the Code and to produce a misleading account of events, then this would be a serious matter. In the course of the Complaints Board Hearing, which was held in public, I had an opportunity to respond to the Chief Ministers submissions on the question of public interest. In doing so I said “Mr Chairman, if Ministers, assisted by Civil Servants, have, for whatever motive, put together a false account of events, and have produced paperwork and made statements to sup port that false account, and if others have subsequently become aware of what has been done, and have used their position to cover up the truth and attempt to prevent it from becoming known, then there is certainly an issue of public interest.” In setting out the reasons why I believed that the Board should support disclosure I said “Finally on this issue, but certainly not least, there is the question of the integrity of government, and the degree of trust we can place in the statements made, and assurances given, by those in executive positions.” The Committee will be aware that the Board found in my favour.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers requires them to act in accordance with the relevant laws and procedures and emphasises the importance of providing “accurate and truthful information to the States” (paragraph 3ii.) Additionally Ministers are required by the Code to be “as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take” (paragraph 3) and to “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the publics trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey,” (paragraph 8.) The Committee will be aware that the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, provides the Committee with the relevant powers to investigate any alleged breach of the Code.

It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.

In considering these issues the Committee might find it helpful to be alerted to the apparent relationship between the suspension, and what was said to the media and the outside world in general on Wednesday 12 November 2008. During the course of his enquiries on behalf of the Minister, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has disclosed to me a number of documents. The two most relevant in respect of this issue are the draft media presentation script which was shown to me by Mr Warcup on 5 November 2008, my last working day before a short period of leave, and the script actually used on 12 November 2008. There are significant differences between the two which must have resulted from changes made between 5 and 11 November 2008. For example, the draft script says “It has never been suggested by the States of Jersey Police that Child Murder took place at Haut de Ia Garenne.” The script actually used in the briefings on 11 and 12 November 2008 says “Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children had been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.” Other differences between the scripts are of a similar nature. Against this background it is legitimate to consider another possible explanation for the actual sequence of events. That is, the decision to suspend was taken on or before 8 November 2008 by persons unknown for reasons at present unknown. The media script was then subjected to significant changes (I believe that “sexed up” is a popular term used to describe this type of process) in order to enable the Minister to claim that he took a decision after being shown the content of the presentation on 11 November 2008, and in order to conceal the real reason or purpose behind the action taken. This may or may not be what actually occurred. Until the truth is known we cannot be sure.
Finally, in assessing the integrity of Government actions in this matter the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded of the following:

Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

It is a matter of public record that the Chief Executive has admitted destroying the original notes of the suspension meeting on 12 November 2008.
Although there may be insufficient information to formulate specific complaints against named individuals at this stage, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is a sufficient basis to provide reason to believe that one or more persons at the heart of Government have used their positions in order to engage in a deliberate abuse of process, and have made false and misleading statements to conceal their actions.

I am aware that complaints which are specific against serving Ministers should be addressed to the Council of Ministers. However, given the difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what, and the possibility that one or more members of the Council of Ministers may or may not be implicated, the Committee may agree that the general complaint against the conduct of Government falls within its remit and merits further enquiry.

Although some of the facts remain in contention it is believed that the following are not in dispute:

The suspension is almost one year old.

The public cost is reported to be in excess of half a million pounds and rising.

No disciplinary charges have been brought.

No hearing has been called.

No conclusion is in sight.

This matter is placed in the hands of the Committee in the belief that its remit covers the circumstances of this complaint and that the Committee will see the need to take further action. However, if the Committee considers that I should progress this matter by some other route then I will of course consider whatever is recommended, in consultation with my professional advisors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes at this time, and that you will ask if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely
Graham Power
Cc Dr I Brain. Chairman. Chief Police Officers Staff Association.
The Connétable of St Helier

79 comments:

  1. "Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark"-Hamlet

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abuse of process seems to be the modus operandi of the States of Jersey.

    Ogley should be suspended with immediate effect, and investigated for possible criminal offences - oops who would be in charge of such an investigation - why that would be Wierdcop who might be an accessory.

    This island is not fit to govern itself.

    Today it's Graham Power tomorrow it could be you or me.

    Stuart Syvret's comparison with North Korea doesn't seem quite so far fetched now does it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This did not require reading more than once to see that this whole affair stinks, it really STINKS!

    Anyone who is so naive not to see it now really needs their head examining.

    Time for the truth and ....thanks VFC for providing us with FACTS and proper news.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is just so ridiculous now, it reads like a black comedy sketch. Some of us filmmakers are going to try to do something with this material. Michael Palin and co would consider this a gift, and they would only have to play it straight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What do we want?
    POWER
    When do we want him?
    NOW

    ReplyDelete
  6. What do we want?...THE TRUTH
    When do we want it? ....NOW

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is apocalyptic.

    The Jersey oligarchy - exposed as the collection of not terribly bright gangsters, spivs and fascists that they are.

    Read this information - in conjunction with my present blog-post - and, really - what is there left to say.

    The government of Jersey is simply nakedly corrupt, anti-democratic - and a danger to the public good.

    The timing of this information is extremely useful - as it will be added to the pre-action protocol communications with the Justice Secretary.

    If you are a rational person, there is, now, no longer any pretending - even if you really wanted to - that the ruling establishment in Jersey and its perversions of the institutions of the state - can be tolerated.

    Are you reading this, Mr. Straw?

    We'll be seeing you in court soon.

    Unless you - very quickly - wake-up to the foul mountain of lies your department has been fed by the Jersey oligarchy and its supporters - and intervene to restore good governance, democracy and the rule of law - perhaps by this coming weekend.

    And it has to be so - because I've seen the reply this letter or Mr. Power, received from the States of Jersey PPC.

    It constitutes yet more utterly damning evidence that the Jersey oligarhcy is corrupt, out of control, inadequate and not capable of enacting any effective checks and balances.

    Just how much deeper does the hole have to get - before someone in authority in in London finally comes to their senses - and does what is necessary to prevent a collection of used car salesmen, estate agents, accountants and assorted spivs staining the good name of the Crown?

    Stuart.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well said Mr Power. It is disgusting how they have treated you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In reality this is what countless Jersey hearts have been yearning for for so many years.

    Intellect and integrity were always going to triumph over ignorance and deceit. Now, there can be nowhere to hide.

    Thank you Mr Graham Power, we stand in line behind you to tell our stories. The time has come.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why am I not surprised by this, during Mr. Powers complaints board hearing Terry Le Sewer said the information he (Mr. Power) wanted did not exist. As soon as the board ruled against him he said he would send Mr. Power the information within 24 hours!!

    Now Ogley has been caught out lying.

    Get rid of the pair of them NOW

    ReplyDelete
  11. So - the original draft of the press statement confirms that at no time did I nor any of my team make the claims attributed to us by Messrs. Warcup and Gradwell. Who changed that press statement then? Police or politicians? The politicians puling the strings of their puppets perhaps. Who knew about the changes? It seems obvious that Gradwell and Warcup must have known it was untrue when they accused us of stirring up stories of murder and grandly said that "contrary to what Lenny Harper said, there is no evidence of murder." This was obviously a case of senior police officers going along with a plot to dispose of someone trying to do their job honestly. Unlike Graham Power himself who refused to get drawn into the same game against Stuart. The difference in integrity is stunning! Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi

    I think it would be a good idea if people started asking questions about this post from team voice.

    Keep reading it because believe me more and more jumps out at you. What has gone on is shocking.

    We will try our very best to answer points raised

    searching for the truth

    Team Voice

    ReplyDelete
  13. I hope at long last the people in power in this Island who believe they are untouchable have met there match in Police Chief Officer Graham Power. It would have been so easy for him to take the early retirement option and walk away with a nice pay off.

    I have the greatest respect for him and Lenny Harper (something I thought I would never say about any copper) and wish him and his family all the best.

    I look forward to reading the response from PPC, but have the feeling they will be only digging a bigger hole.

    I'm sure we'll have the usual posters on here and forums dismissing this letter and other facts, without being able to show any facts for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To the previous poster who asked how many exclusives you'd posted that other media had picked up.

    I think this proves that the exclusives are definitely available on these blogs. The fact that the other media don't run with them is kind of interesting don't you think.

    It proves our thesis that they will never step out of line with the establishment. With the JEP it's even worse than that - they collude in the establishment lies, decorate them with rhetoric, and publish them with all the pomp of pretend wisdom.

    But it seems that the truth is slowly eating away at the foundations of their corrupt ways and soon they will have to eat their own lying words.

    "I was then perswaded, & remain confirm'd; that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote."

    William Blake

    ReplyDelete
  15. Has a copy of this letter been sent to all the national media?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lenny

    Yes - it's breathtaking.

    No doubt they and others thought I was bluffing when I said that Warcup and Gradwell would have to count themselves lucky not to be jailed - eventually - as a result of all this.

    What on earth did they imagine they were doing?

    What possessed them?

    I observed back at the time of the infamous Gradwell & Warcup press conference that their action - in seeking to destroy the credibility of the entire investigation - was utterly without precedent in all modern British policing.

    Did they seriously imagine they'd get away with it?

    Gradwell has retired - but warcup is finished. End of.

    If he hasn't announced his resignation tomorrow morning - then Ian le Marquand must suspend him by Friday.

    And if that doesn't happen - then, Mr, Straw - the good, decent law-abiding respectable majority of the people of Jersey will need immediate rescuing from this collection of shysters.

    Restore Graham Power QPM - Jersey's widely admired, decent, straight, honest, high-integrity Chief Constable.

    London - be aware! - The broad community of the island are losing faith in the institutions of the state.

    Just how much longer does this madness have to go on for?

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  17. I cannot help but see it is the same half dozen people making a meal out of nothing. 99.9% of the rest of us are waiting for the outcome of the report believe it or not......

    ReplyDelete
  18. I read with interest the roll of Mr Warcup, who should have been suspended over my complaints against him. Namely (perverting the course of justice & dereliction of duty) but I am only a poxy carpet fitter. Mr Power on the other hand, an upstanding, decorated, law abiding citizen, has been taken note of, and rightly so.
    We did not need this post today too know of the Jersey Governments roll in all of this, that is as it always is, totally corrupt. So what will become of the lawbreakers in this case? prison I hope.
    The States of Jersey have finally dug the hole deep enough so as not to be able to climb out of, all that is needed now is for the rain to come !!!

    It is said, "that honour dies, where interest lies"

    ReplyDelete
  19. As Lenny Harper mentioned in his post here - it IS all about integrity!

    We should all be thankful that Police Chief Officer Graham Power has integrity in abundance.


    By resolutely staying and fighting his corner Police Chief Officer Graham Power gives POWER back to the people and the abused.

    Police Chief Officer Graham Power did not bow to pressure and retire and run away at the first hint of trouble, and threats brewing from our obviously now so failed government, he sought good advice and is fighting for justice for himself, the people of Jersey and the abused.

    Seek and Ye Shall Find It (The Truth That Is)Eventually!

    May your God Bless you Police Chief Officer Graham Power and Lenny Harper for your bravery in the face of adversity.



    The more people who can read this the better.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The first post of 2010 by a local blogger bringing you breaking news, laden with facts and evidence.

    Gosh that's gotta hurt eh Paul?

    Well done Team Voice, this is truly a shocking state of affairs. I thought it might be bad, I had no idea it was this bad.

    SOJ, how on earth are you going to deal with this rot that is eating away at you from under your feet?

    Like men? Come on, show us what you are made of!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said...
    I cannot help but see it is the same half dozen people making a meal out of nothing. 99.9% of the rest of us are waiting for the outcome of the report believe it or not......

    Can you back up your claim that 99.9% of the Island aren't bothered about Illegal, unethical and corrupt actions of certain senior figures in this Island.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Re "I cannot help but see it is the same half dozen people making a meal out of nothing. 99.9% of the rest of us are waiting for the outcome of the report believe it or not......"

    You are so many and we are so few! What on earth are you talking about? Who knows how many sympathetic or antipathetic readers there are or what people are thinking. The majority of people don't comment on what they read on the web.

    You say you are waiting for a report: there have been numerous reports and reams of evidence that have all gone against the Jersey establishment's line.

    Frankly, all the evidence in the world will not convince some apologists. And, like the Iraq war, you can keep the malfactors and liars in their jobs for a long time by announcing reports and inquiries, saying we cannot possibly comment until this inquiry is over.

    Meanwhile 99% of the public know for a fact that we were lied to. It's only people like you who cannot bear to admit that you might be wrong and have backed the wrong horse.

    Wouldn't you just rather live in an Island that is run by honest people and not by a claque of corrupt petty officials who are prepared to lie and break the law to make things happen the way that they want them?

    Bloody hell, I'm starting to sound like Stuart Syvret!

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'Bloody hell, I'm starting to sound like Stuart Syvret'!

    No bad thing Rob, no bad thing. We need more and more like you, Stuart and Team Voice.

    It will be most interesting to see, now that the 'accredited' media have the press release from VFJ, and will be aware of this posting on VFC, if and how they will deal with all this.

    Methinks, as ever, the silence will be deafening.

    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" - Martin Luther King Jnr.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Breaking news! from Oligarchy Watch.

    Large numbers of the above swarming in M&S mens underwear department, buying all the stock of underpants.

    There will be none left for Ogley!

    ReplyDelete
  25. This paragraph might suggest that the previous Home Affaors Minister just might be getting "hung out to dry".


    Although the Royal Court, in considering my application for Judicial Review, was not able to formally pass judgement on the initial suspension, it did say “we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister.” (Published judgement of the Royal Court, paragraph 19.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous said " cannot help but see it is the same half dozen people making a meal out of nothing. 99.9% of the rest of us are waiting for the outcome of the report believe it or not......"

    Not actually. I think you are the fraction of the percent shuddering in your new M&S underpants. You remember the story of the boy with his finger in the dyke? Just wait for the explosion of a huge amount of filthy putrid water that is about to land on you very soon

    Very enlightening posting VFC

    Lorna (Have I been removed from you followers? Hope not!)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lorna.

    I can't see you on my followers but I certainly haven't removed you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Self-explanatory E-mail correspondence with BBC Jersey

    5 January 2010 15:17
    Subject RE: State Controlled Media
    Mailed-by bbc.co.uk
    15:17 (20 hours ago)

    Dear Senator Syvret,

    Thank you for your e-mail. Should we decide to avail ourselves of your kind offer to be interviewed, we shall be in touch.

    With best wishes for the New Year.

    Denzil Dudley, Editor BBC Jersey

    Date 5 January 2010 16:21
    Subject Re: State Controlled Media
    Mailed-bygmail.com
    16:21 (19 hours ago)

    Dear Mr. Dudley

    Thank you for your response.

    However, my offer to be interviewed is not really the central issue.

    Instead, the issue - which is of great public interest importance - is the dramatic breakdown in public administration - as is evidenced in the blog posting. For example, I'm simply not aware of an incident occurring in any other western European democracy in recent decades whereby a Chief of Police has made a written record of the fact he witnessed an unlawful and anti-democratic plot to oust an elected Minister.

    The three issues described in the blog are of the utmost significance.

    I don't, therefore, think the question before you and the BBC is whether to interview me. Rather, it is whether the BBC as an organisation is going to report - or ignore - the dramatic breakdown in functioning checks and balances evidenced in the blog?

    I offer myself for interview, merely to assist you in finding a 'way in' to the story - and to satisfy you of the robustness of the evidence.

    Frankly - whether you interview me is largely immaterial. By far the larger and more inescapable responsibility on the shoulders of the BBC is that it report the issues.

    That said, I remain willing to be interviewed should you so require as a part of your coverage of the story.

    I'd be grateful if you could let me know when you expect to have made a decision?

    Thanks you for your assistance.

    Stuart Syvret

    Date 6 January 2010 11:14
    Subject t Re: State Controlled Media
    Mailed-bygmail.com
    11:14 (17 minutes ago)

    Dear Mr. Dudley

    I don't appear to have received a reply to the message [above].

    I was hoping you might be able to speak for the BBC, and inform me whether the corporation is going to report the extremely serious public interest issues exposed and evidenced on my blog?

    Might I suggest that you also examine the Voice for Children blog? You will find that it published last night a letter authored by the Chief Constable of Jersey's Police Force, Graham Power. In the letter, to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Mr. Power explains evidence he has uncovered - and just what that evidence means.

    For example - and I just can't imagine a Jersey news story of greater gravity - than that the police officers involve in the unlawful usurping of Mr. Power's position - dramatically altered the press-release and presentation they delivered at their infamous press-conference in 2008 - by which they sought to discredit the historic child abuse investigation.

    Those revelations - read in conjunction with the evidence in my present blog posting - cast the profoundest doubts upon Jersey's ability to self-govern safely.

    It is actually extremely difficult to credibly imagine a news story of greater significance in the Jersey context.

    I would, therefore, be grateful if you would at least respond, and inform me of whether BBC Jersey is going to report these issues?

    As I observed in my previous e-mail, the issue is not really about whether I am interviewed; that question being of an altogether secondary nature. The real questions is: 'are BBC Jersey going to ignore what is the most fundamentally important political news story to have occurred in Jersey during the last 50 years?'

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Senator Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lorna.

    Have re-checked and you are there. Thank you for following.

    Stuart.

    Yesterday I also published a press release on VFJ from the "Friends of Graham Power". To the best of my knowledge that press release was sent to all the local "accredited" media, yet I've not seen nor heard a word of it other than on my Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think blogs or critics of the establishment count as worthy news sources to any of the Jersey media. Their worthy, local sources are:

    - Press releases or leaks from the States.

    - Press releases or information released by other official organisations, such as the police, charities, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.

    - Neutral, newsworthy events such as the airport being closed, a cow with dropsy, the Grouville flower show, a murder.

    - Some scandal that they would not rather discuss but cannot avoid because other media are covering it or the public are visibly and audibly outraged.

    The information revealed on these blogs should fall into the last category except they have already decided it's history and only a small group of troublemakers are trying to keep it alive.

    It makes sense for them to say that there was no cover-up and that 99% of the population agree with them that it was a 'lurid fantasy'.

    But, to be honest, you don't expect the mainstream media to think differently, do you. They'll only report stuff that is safe; media organisations do not hire people who are bolshy, difficult to get along with, and think differently. They want people who are self-censoring.

    For a nice discussion of how this works, see this interview between Chomsky and Andrew Marr. About four minutes in Chomsky talks about how George Orwell said that the censorship he described occurring in totalitarian states operates in the UK by different means.

    My favourite bit is where Andrew Marr objects to being described as self-censoring and Chomsky replies, "If you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."

    So, if you want to hear something different about what is currently happening in Jersey, don't go to the mainstream media - follow the blogs. Because it will only end up on the mainstream media if and when they can no longer ignore it any more.

    Of course, if the Jersey powers that engineered the cover-up - and the dismissal of Syvret and Power - manage to survive in power and to face-down all the evidence of their critics, it will never reach the mainstream media, because they are always on the side of power (not Power, in this case).

    But if Power had been prepared to go along with Syvret's illegal dismissal and the following cover-up, you can be sure he would now be a trusted correspondent for the JEP.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rob

    Yes, absolutely correct.

    Many years ago - when the Jersey oligarhcy still permitted it - I was on the BBC Jersey talk-back program one Sunday. It was being hosted by Hamish Marett-Crosby.

    In the course of the discussion, I spoke of Chomsky, and his books, such as Manufacturing Consent, and Necessary Illusions. Crosby didn't really know how to respond.

    After the show he, Denzil Dudley and I were speaking in the office down stairs, and HMC confessed he'd never heard of Chomsky, so I proceeded to explain the 5-filter media model.

    At which point DD said, "oh yes, I've heard all about that. It's a load of old crap."

    Well, in any argument designed to show that it is not "a load of old crap" - and is, in fact, a highly accurate and useful tool in understanding how mainstream media works - we could cite the present deafening silence of Jersey's media - and especially BBC jersey - as the proof.

    How ironic.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi

    We must start looking at what has been said by Graham Power and start having a real good look.

    This will not or cannot just be another blog posting.All The local media must be emailed and sent the link, all the politicians must be emailed and sent the limks it must be pushed home.

    Stuart on your next blog as a thought it might be an idea to satrt putting all our facts together then present it to the local media?.

    Lets start getting some bloody justice

    searching for the truth

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stuart, I guess that is why a paper like the Guardian ended up supporting the Iraq War and smearing it's opponents, such as Noam Chomsky.

    I stopped reading it when they did that but have relented a bit and just stopped buying it.

    The smear of the post

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Yesterday I also published a press release on VFJ from the "Friends of Graham Power". To the best of my knowledge that press release was sent to all the local "accredited" media, yet I've not seen nor heard a word of it other than on my Blog."

    The answer is simple and you will not like it. The contributors on here and Syvret's blog are now being ignored and it is basically down to their behaviour towards other people.

    The media will take no interest in what you have to say anymore and I understand it may be down to the States of Jersey Police as well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Re. "it is basically down to their behaviour towards other people"

    Ha ha - you really believe that?

    Although you might be right about the police - the present regime will certainly not be liking what is written about them on these blogs.

    Especially as it is their behaviour towards other people that is being highlighted. I guess you consider naming people and providing evidence of law-breaking by people in authority to be worse behaviour than that of the people who break the law?

    Illegally organising a coup to remove from office a senior politician and a senior police office is okay, is it? While telling the world that that was done is 'bad behaviour'.

    Well, at least we now know why the local media isn't reporting all this illegal activity by their ministers and civil servants. Thanks for enlightening us.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is hearsay until proven illegal. This moning we had somebody on morning radio who (guilty or not guilty) has been crassly attacked on a blog for sometime now. So where do you draw the line with this citizens media?

    I imagine the main media is waiting for the outside police report and action from Home Affairs on Graham Power. Whatever people do in-between has no relevance to the public in the interim and that goes for un-official press statements from people who are already getting a reputation for attacking others.

    This also raises the question as to whether the only way uncredited media can get momentum is to get credited, but then again that would mean they are wide open to libel suits if they just so happen to say something thats morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Paul.

    I'm guessing you've turned up again.

    Have you actually read the Blog posting? Have you any idea what it means? Can you not grasp the gravity of what might have been done to the most senior police officer in the island?

    There are people who are for, or against Bloggers, that pails into insignificants once you have read the "facts" and "evidence" published on this Blog posting.

    The fact that the "accredited" media don't report any of it says a lot more about them than it does Bloggers.

    I would thank you to keep to the subject of the Blog posting or i'll be unable to guarentee your comment(s) being published.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi VFC, sorry being a bit if a critic again but at least you are open to discussion on this.

    When I heard this person on the radio this morning I recognised the name immediately but thought 'hang on, this person has had some very serious comments made about him on a blog, so what is he doing on here?'

    Then I thought...... Blogs are being totally ignored, but you are implying that anyway, though it still beggars the question as to whether citizens media is fair and equitable? This morning's radio was a kick in the face for a certain blog.

    Paul L

    ReplyDelete
  39. Re "It is hearsay until proven illegal."

    The media transmits lots of facts and opinions that have no legal status. They gave acres or coverage to Gradwell's trashing of Lenny Harper which happened to be his own opinion, not the result of an inquiry.

    How long has Power been suspended now, and he still hasn't been told what for? Is everyone supposed to keep quiet about it until an inquiry reports? That is a well-known procrastinating strategy to silence your opposition.

    And the JEP smears people all the time based on hearsay. I remember writing the to editor of the JEP a couple of years back because they had a front-page article implying that Stuart Syvret was mentally unbalanced. The Editor's excuse was that the question was asked by another States member. Presumably that makes it fair game to put on the front page of the paper.

    Just rewind the last two years and go through the Jersey media and count up how many times they have denigrated the victims of child abuse, calling them 'disturbed individuals' etc. The AG's comment that the real crime was the tarnishing of Jersey's good name. The attempt to ruin the reputation of two senior police officers, merely on hearsay.

    They've been getting away with it for years but if you don't like it, don't read it.

    The gist of the question is not, why don't the media take blogs seriously? The question is, regardless of the source of the information, how can the media ignore evidence of illegal behaviour by government officials?

    Given that these documents are from official sources but just happen to end up on blogs, shouldn't they at least be questioning them?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul.

    I hope you will agree I have given you the opportunity to voice your opinions on topics totally unrelated to this Blog posting.

    Now that's an end to it. If you have any comments you would like to make on the subject of the Blog posting I will be pleased to hear them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Re Paul L "This morning's radio was a kick in the face for a certain blog."

    There is definitely an issue to be discussed around the responsibility of blogs and I really dislike personal attacks. But when you are talking about public officials who seem to be untouchable, and when you - like Stuart has - are the recipient of their vendettas, I think you have a right to reply.

    And it is ironic that BBC radio can kick his blog in the face but he is not given radio time to reply. It exemplifies the very problem we are talking about.

    The media is controlled by a small group of people but the Internet isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I cannot comment on this situation because I don't know the whole story as Graham Power could be disciplined at anytime and I don't know what the detailed charges are. I think to say though "abuse of process seems to be the modus operandi of the States of Jersey" is premature, a very serious allegation and probably yet another reason why this story with its comments wont be taken seriously. But maybe it is time for the fat lady to sing because nobody can be any the wiser to what is going on at the moment. There is just not enough information to go on and sorry Mr Power, but I don't trust any copper! They take an oath of office and perhaps people should not lose sight of that, we are all human! (Just another view point). Be back at weekend VFC.

    ReplyDelete
  43. VFC

    Is that Pope' Jon' paul the 100th incarnation leaving comments.

    Great scoop

    ReplyDelete
  44. Paul.

    After reading the "evidence" and "facts" presented on the Blog and still be able to make a statement such as "Graham Power could be disciplined at anytime" absolutely baffles me.

    However I thank you for your contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  45. AAAAhhhh please don't ban Paul L....he's so funny.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Whoever this "Paul" is - who is saying - manifestly dishonestly - that "there is just not enough information to go on" - is either an idiot or a liar.

    Or an oligarchy spin-doctor - in which case they're both.

    I stopped giving blog space to such obvious trolling a long time ago - and I suggest The Voice sites do the same.

    If you don't - you will end up as literally as non-credible as PJ - and as sabotaged as every actually independent CI web site.

    There is "enough evidence to go on" - facts, facts evidenced facts - enough to bring down any respectable government.

    Those facts - those items of evidence - are there - on this site - on my site.

    So why give space to Jersey oligarhcy liars to just waste everyone's times by asserting over and over against - 'there is no evidence' - when there plainly is?

    Let anyone who supports the Jersey oligarchy - and has any cogent, evidence-based answer to the evidence and criticisms posted on these blogs - answer with rational counter-argument and evidence.

    Until then - an end to the diversionary, lying, time-wasting, child-abuse supporting trolling.

    People like "Paul" have no answer to the evidenced facts.

    Until the paeds - and the supporters of the paeds - can produce any cogent answers - let them confine their diversionary nonsense to The Rag and the Bridget Broadcasting Corporation.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ah, the same old establishment troll comments are made no matter what facts are produced on VFC or Stuart's blog.

    VFC, you could provide video of the COM ordering Stuart's, Lenny's and Graham's demise, whist admitting to witnessing multiple child murders and paying off the local press hacks and it would not even budge the "minds" of some.

    Obviously, the "REAL FACTS THAT MATTER" now are the ones below:

    1. No one reads Stuart's blog, or maybe just the same 10 people. We will even stay up all night to post comments proving no one pays any attention either. Some of us on PJ have posted over a hundred times about how tired we are about this topic and how we just don't care. Really. Did we mention that we do not care? We DO NOT CARE YOU *&^@(s!

    2. Only JEP, BBC Jersey, CTV and similar LOCAL accredited media can be trusted, and that is because thy have the real TRUTH as provided by the most TRUSTWORTHY Jersey officials.

    3. Otherwise, facts in evidence are just NOT real facts because they come from outside the approved sources. Oh, unless they are opinions expressed by Gradwell and Warcup, in which case they turn into absolute facts and cannot be questioned. Ever.

    4. Tooth fairies? Oh, that was just a kindly dentist bringing milk teeth with long roots down into dark punishment cellars (OOPS! those were NOT cellars, they were just harmless under-floor gaps) to burn and bury them in an act of some mysterios generosity. It is not ours to question or to test such things. Besides, the bones and teeth got kind of lost.

    5. Just because you have evidence in the form of official documents from our own approved government officials does not mean facts are facts. We will tell you through our press outlets whether or not it is a fact. Until then, if it does not look good for us it is not a fact. That is a fact and you know it.

    6. So, just because you have what might be concrete evidence, does not mean we will ever ever discuss it rationally. Patriotism for us can mean even defending the utterly indefensible and that is just the Jersy Way. So you might as well get it through your heads that we will never address your facts. We can prove anything we wish through the opinions expressed in the local media, or, at least by ignoring the whole story if your facts are stacked up too high against us. Besides, there is always a boat in the morning for you fact fanatics.

    7. Clearly, all this hunt for facts has already cost far too much. There is nothing wrong with paying possible millions for certain not-so-independent "independent UK legal opinions" or for the money to send cops out to stalk the Father of the House, to fund the the former top cop's suspension. But iƒ we had to find forensic evidence we lost or have it retested or even apologise to those abuse survivors, well, it would obviously be too costly. The poor would suffer if we used more money, there would never be enough baby milk, and that would all be the fault of the disturbed abuse survivors and that crazy Stuart.

    8. We are not cold and uncaring. We are very concerned with the tender feelings of those civil servants who are named by multiple survivors and witnesses as being violent. The true victims are the feelings of those abusers all because of those mean bullies who blog. Nothing else matters, since we now KNOW that no one died at their hands because we have no names of missing persons. We know there were no lists of missing children because there was never a full list of names of those in care, you see.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yes, plase keep Paul. It keeps him employed and there are not many other jobs around for those in his state of mind.

    ReplyDelete
  49. VFC

    Please don't ban him every blog needs a Troll, look at some forums and they have loads.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Is it possible that the resignation of Wendy Kinnard has something to do with the politics of this!

    Is it just possible that Warcup was given an agenda when he was appointed to Deputy of Graham Power. Is it just possible that this was a laid down plan by Frank Walker to ensure that when he left office he would be seen as squeaky clean - thus he may get recognition by HM Queen for his service to Jersey, (or should I say lack of).

    I believe the Chief of Police has every right to take this matter to a tribunal away from the Island. He like Stuart will never get Justice in a crooked Judicial System. I am more than sure the parties involved have all not been named YET!!!! They are hoping to stretch this out long enough to ensure that Mr Power retires and Justice in their eyes will not need to be seen to be done.

    Well done VFC and thank you for placing this in the public domain. Perhaps a copy should be posted through every letter box in Jersey - it is time that everyone on your Island is made aware of the TRUTH.

    ReplyDelete
  51. (Trying to bring this back on topic)

    Re "I imagine the main media is waiting for the outside police report and action from Home Affairs on Graham Power. "

    Isn't the outside report from the Wiltshire Police only into Operation Rectangle?

    This has gone beyond that into a potentially illegal process of removing Power from office.

    To use an analogy, waiting for the police report is the equivalent of waiting for the police report into the burglary at Watergate.

    If, as Power's letter strongly suggests based on the dates of the documents, a "Government within the Government" conspired to remove him from office and then lied about it, it's a completely different story to the HdlG investigation.

    If it was the same group of people who conspired to remove Stuart Syvret from his post, it reinforces a lot of what he has been saying on his blog.

    I think that is why it is an important story that the media should be covering.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Re Anonymous and "Obviously, the "REAL FACTS THAT MATTER" now are the ones below:"

    That's brilliant! You've completely summarized the Government within the Government's position. They could use it as a manifesto for the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The poster that was asking if anything on the blogs had been picked up by the media, BBC radio Jersey this morning was talking about the Friends of Graham Power press release and Graham Powers letter to PPC, they will be talking about more tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Rob.

    The Wiltshire reports. There is Wiltshire(1) and Wiltshire(2).

    Wiltshire(1) is an investigation into "Operation Rectangle" (the handling of the HDLG investigation).

    Wiltshire(2) is an investigation into "Operation Blast".

    ReplyDelete
  55. Paul, Jon, Anonymous, whoever you are - just which part of this posting do you not understand, are can your brain not absorb too much information at one time?
    I would suggest you read it over and over again then it may just sink in. This is a letter produced by Mr Power and sent to PPC. It is based on facts and dates which Mr Power requested and was initially told by none other than our CM that this was not available.
    Only after taking this matter further was Mr Power able to obtain this information.
    Were you at this Complaints Hearing Paul, Jon, Anonymous or whoever, because I was, and I do not think I have ever witnessed anything quite as embarrassing as the 'case' for not producing this information as put forward by Mr Le Sueur and his legal advisor.
    I do feel however that regardless of whether or not you do accept the FACTS, or if you had been present at the hearing, you would still choose to dispute and argue.
    This I feel is borne out by one statement in one of your comments, namely....
    'There is just not enough information to go on and sorry Mr Power, but I don't trust any copper'!
    You are generalising and obviously believe all police are bent and suspect, and you clearly have a bias which cannot be countered in any reasonable way.
    As expected VFC the silence from the media has been deafening on this matter and the press release from VFJ.
    Good suggestion from last comment to get some of this into the public domain via 'letter boxes' and distribution in the form of leaflets. A lot of people do not have a clue what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you go to the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p005t61g/Jersey_Today_07_01_2010/

    and listen at 2.07 you will hear what they said

    ReplyDelete
  57. Right here is something else that confuses me.

    Chief Officer Graham Power's letter addressed to the Pivileges and Procedures Committee was dated the 30th of October 2009.

    The reply (soon to be published on this Blogsite) from Connetable Gallichan, chairman of PPC was dated the 13th of November 2009.

    I have scoured the governments website, and in particular, the minutes of PPC meetings and can find NO PUBLIC RECORD of any meeting being held to either discuss Cheif Officer Power's letter or the subsequent outcome of it (Connetable Gallichan's response)

    So I am left wondering how is the decision making process of PPC dealt with? Did Connetable Gallichan keep Chief Officer Power's letter to herself without sharing it with her committee?

    Were Connetable Gallichan's "findings" all her own? If this is the case then what would be the point of having a committee if only one person makes the decision(s)? and why can't I find any public record of any of this?

    Something just doesn't smell right.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Indeed - curiouser and curiouser!

    Where can we get answers to this one?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous.

    RE; Indeed - curiouser and curiouser!

    "Where can we get answers to this one"?

    Team Voice has just e-mailed all PPC members in order to get some answers.

    That e-mail and any replies will be published on here shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The answer to the "missing minutes" is that like the Council of Ministers, there are A and B agendas to the PPC minutes, and only A are public. Probably for the same reason that debates on the Chief Police Officer are conducted in camera, the law may well require this to be private as well. I think it is a bad law, but if that is the case, PPC cannot be blamed for having to comply with it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Tony.

    I'm hoping the (soon to be published) e-mail sent to PPC will give us the answer in their reply.

    Although there is no mention of the minutes on the States Site, there is also no mention of the letter mentioned in any "agenda". Do they not publish part B agenda's?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi

    I think everyone should read Tonys blog VFC can you link it.

    With all the evidence and facts now out there in the public domain we should all be getting some answers.

    It should not be up to normal plebs like us at Team Voice to go out and find this information post it online and have sleepless nights waiting for the front door to come in.

    Untill we get the truth and justice we will keep on searching and posting.

    All readers of the blogs leave us comments please and ask us questions no matter what it is

    Our media has done one

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  63. If they are like the Council of Ministers, yes - before the meeting, but after the meeting the agenda's vanish into the void.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Rico.

    There is a permanent link to Tony's Blog on the left hand side of the main page of this Blogsite.

    Tony has indeed compiled a very interesting, thought provoking, Blog on this subject which can be seen here http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/powerful-arguments.html

    But once again we have nothing but questions, and as you have rightly pointed out. It shouldn't be our job to be asking them, or indeed answering them, where is the "accredited" media in all of this?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Stuart. (Senator Syvret)

    I pressed "reject" instead of "publish" your last comment.

    However I was able to salvage it from the e-mail notification and re-produce it here.

    Tony & Everyone

    It is true that certain types of information will be legally constrained from publication by Ministers, Committees or Panels.

    However - the Part A & Part B agenda items and minutes - are not defined of constrained by law.

    The relevant guidance is to be found in the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information.

    There are certain exemptions in that code - which allow authorities to keep the information failing within those exemptions confidential.

    But, obviously, it's certainly true that those exemptions are abused in favour of greater secrecy.

    However - the key point I wished to make is that the exemptions in the Code - unless covered by some other legal obligation of confidentiality - are not obligatory.

    If a public authority of any kind wishes to be more open - and not cite some of the exemptions - then it is perfectly able to do so.

    Indeed, the Code defines a 'minimum' standard of openness.

    So PPC, Minister, the CoM, etc are at liberty to be as transparent as they want provided they're not breaching some actual legislation by being so.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  66. HI

    I have seen some funny pictures in my time but this is the best. I just love the caption

    Bloody hell someone shout 'its behind you'

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/jersey/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8206000/8206052.stm

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  67. Rico.

    Thanks for the link, it will come in handy for "doorstepping"

    I had to laugh when one of the captions said "the news room is a hive of activity when a news story breaks"

    I bet it fackin is! it'll go something like "quick phone the Chuckle brothers and co. there's real news out there what can we do? the snow won't last for ever and there might come a point where we will have to report something of substance before the local Bloggers show us up for the waste of time that we are".

    What a joke.............

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mind you.

    I hear they are going to be discussing Chief Officer Power's letter to the PPC tomorrow with Roger Barra.......Wonder where they got that story from?????????

    ReplyDelete
  69. Funny how they need a day before they cover the story properly, isn't it? It could almost make one think that the BBC needs to wait for certain people to tell it what to say....

    ReplyDelete
  70. Why do the pair of you have such a problem with the BBC, you angry at the licence fee or summut?

    ReplyDelete
  71. You're right VFC, what on earth are our 'accredited media' going to do when the half an inch of snow in Trinity going to talk about when it melts? I'm so ashamed to be from Jersey sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "With all the evidence and facts now out there in the public domain we should all be getting some answers".

    I don't mean to chuck water over your excitement but is anybody else actually interested in this story apart from you? If Graham Power retires before a displinary what does that prove? Who else will lose sleep about it? So he is not coming back, wow. As long as they eventually give the Chief of Police's job to a local person from a political angle thats all I would be interested in. Jersey life does move on you know but tell me if I am missing something here because as far as I see things Graham Power isn't even local so why should we care......?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I don't think readers of this blog have a problem with the BBC.

    Rather,they have a problem with the "gone-native" out-post of BBC JERSEY.

    And - I can guarantee you now - that problem with BBC Jersey will be confirmed - by the broadcast tomorrow morning.

    Well - it already is - being over 48 hours late after the story broke.

    But even if they cover it tomorrow - will they do it justice?

    Of course not.

    Because if the local crew were doing it justice - we'd be hearing the story on the Today program on BBC Radio 4 - such is it's magnitude.

    Just think - the BBC nationally reported faithfully all that cobblers as issued by Warcup and Gradwell at that infamous press-conference in 2008.

    It is now proven that the BBC nationally - and ITN - and Sky - were lied to; lied to by Warcup & Gradwell - working to the corrupt agenda of their paymasters.

    So what's the BBC as an entity going to do about it?

    Well - if they leave the thought and the feed up to the BBC Jersey hacks - we know what the answer is.

    Nothing.

    But, I suppose we should look on the bright side - at least BBC Jersey has been forced to acknowledge Mr. Power's letter.

    They've still contrived to continue ignoring the evidence showing the corrupt civil service conspiracy against me as published on my blog.

    But maybe there are storm-clouds brewing?

    word verification: squal.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  74. Just wanted to congratulate you on an excellent post. Unbelievably, the verification word is "Medici" as in the that historic ruling family.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I wish to nominate the following for the title of your next VFC blog post on the "accredited" media:

    "The news room is a hive of activity when a news story breaks"

    That line is simply too fabulous to forget quite yet!

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  76. VFC, congratulations on driving this out into the open.

    I laughed when Roger Barra said to Crowcroft, "All this information is already out there, it has just been pieced together."

    Well, yes... isn't that what journalism is supposed to do? How come it's being left to bloggers?

    But all credit to BBC Jersey - that was an excellent synopsis of what you and Rico have been blogging about for quite a while.

    We are keenly awaiting the results of your latest 'piecing together' of the response from the PPC.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wow, that has to be the crapiest news report CTV have ever dished out. 30 secs into the Power story and not one single fact of any interest.

    Keep it up CTV, you'll hang your self in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Graham Power isn't even local so why should we care......? Yeah yeah and shadap!!! We are all aware what the worst of Jersey can be and you are proving that to be the case.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.