Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Humility to the bitter end.

Below is a press release from “the friends of Graham Power. Below that is a hand delivered letter from Chief Officer Power to the Minister for Home Affairs Ian Le Marquand.

If anybody in this world has good reason to be bitter, vengeful or angry then it is Chief Officer Power. He has been through possibly the most traumatic and stressful time of his life, when he should have been relaxing, taking things a little easy and looking forward to his well deserved retirement.

But instead he has witnessed first hand “the Jersey way”, he has been suspended from the job he has devoted his life to, without even being told why. Has been given no opportunity to contest any allegations made against him and only ever faced brick walls when he has attempted to prove the facts behind his (illegal?) suspension.

But despite this, somehow unbelievably he manages to remain humble which is evident in his letter to the Home Affairs Minister (below).

Chief Officer Power can I, as a “good” Jersey person, apologise to you for the way you have been treated by our government and reassure you that they (not all) are in no way representative of me nor anybody I know.

You can rest assured that there are a growing number of “good” Jersey people who will not stop until the truth is out and the corruption, at the highest level is exposed.

Naturally you have to put yourself and your family first and think about enjoying your retirement, which one would imagine would be as far away from these shores as is humanly possible.

The “good” people of Jersey will wish you all the best in your retirement and thank you and Lenny Harper for not bowing to “the Jersey way” and doing what policemen are supposed to do and that is to apply the law “without fear or favour”.

There is only one request, please write a book on your experiences in the Jersey Police Force, the world needs to know the truth.


MEDIA RELEASE
This release has been issued by friends of Graham Power QPM, Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.   It is intended to assist editors in reporting matters relating to his suspension.

THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE IS TO RETIRE IN THE SUMMER OF THIS YEAR WHEN HE WILL HAVE REACHED THE AGE OF 63.
THE “NORMAL RETIRING AGE” FOR HIS POSITION IS 60.
In accordance with the terms of his contract, Graham Power QPM has given the Minister for Home Affairs six months notice of his retirement intentions.   His contract requires that he must retire in 2010.

Mr Power joined the police service as a Constable in 1966 and was appointed Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in 2000 on a five year contract, having previously held a number of senior positions in the Scottish Police Service.   He has twice had his contract extended.   The Home Affairs Committee extended his contract from 2005 to 2007, and in 2007 he was asked by Ministers to work for an extended period beyond his designated “Normal Retiring Age” of 60.   His extended contact is subject to six months notice and ends this year.
Since 2008 Mr Power and friends acting on his behalf have made a series of announcements stating his commitment to retire in 2010.   This is now confirmed by today’s announcement.

In his letter to the Minister for Home Affairs Mr Power expresses his frustration that the investigation by Wiltshire Police into the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, which started in 2008, has yet to be concluded.
His letter also praises both the Force and the Island and offers best wishes for the future.

A copy of Mr Power’s letter to the Minister for Home Affairs is attached to this release.
Under the terms of his current suspension Mr Power is not able to speak directly to the media in relation to issues which may be under investigation.   He has however offered the following comment regarding the confirmation of his retirement:
“It has been widely known for some time that I would retire during the course of 2010 and there has been understandable speculation as to the intended date.   In confirming that I will retire before August, I hope to bring the uncertainty to an end and allow all concerned to plan for the future.  How others respond to this information is of course a matter for them.   For my own part I will now be working with my family to plan for a successful retirement in the summer of this year.”
Note to Editors.
Mr Power was suspended from duty in 2008 by the former Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, and told that he may face disciplinary action.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2008.
No disciplinary action was taken in 2009.
No disciplinary action has been taken in 2010 and no notification has been given of any intention to take disciplinary action.
Since the beginning of his suspension Mr Power has made it clear that in 2010 he would name the date on which he intended to retire.
Mr Power has always denied any wrong-doing in relation to the investigation of the Historic Abuse Enquiry.  That remains his position today.   No disciplinary charges have been brought against him and no disciplinary hearing has been arranged.



By hand
The Minister for Home Affairs,
11 Royal Square,
St Helier.
Dear Minister,
NOTIFICATION OF THE DATE OF MY RETIREMENT AS CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have now settled my retirement plans.  I therefore give the required six months notice from today’s date, that I will be retiring as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.
You will be aware that I first took up my position in 2000 on a five year “J” category contract, which I completed to the satisfaction of the Home Affairs Committee.   At the request of the Committee I subsequently agreed to a second contract which provided for an extension of a further two years.   This meant that I would be leaving the service shortly after reaching my “Normal Retiring Age” under the Jersey Public Employees Retirement Scheme.  There is no known history of a Chief Officer of the Force working for a significant period beyond the specified retirement age.

You will also be aware that in 2007 I had detailed discussions with the then Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Wendy Kinnard, and her Assistant Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis, regarding continuity problems which had arisen in the management team, and after some reflection I agreed to sign a third contract for a further three years.   This was not an anticipated event and it took me into the unusual position of serving for a significant period beyond the date when I should have retired.   As you know I have described these discussions in more detail in my statement made under paragraph 2.1.2 of the Disciplinary Code which I provided in July 2009 (Statement of Chief Officer paragraph 56.)    In my statement I made it clear that I agreed to the three year extension with some reluctance for a number of reasons, one of which was “it did not fit well with a number of plans and commitments, one of which was (and remains) family welfare issues in the UK” (paragraph 57.)   You are also aware from my statement that although the contract ran to the end of 2010 “I made no secret of the fact that I wished to leave earlier” (paragraph 61.)

During 2008 it appeared to be right, and consistent with the spirit of the extended contract, that I supported the then Minister through her final months in office.   However, by this time I had concluded that once the new Ministerial team had been selected, it would once again be appropriate to return to the subject of my continued service beyond my retirement date.   I envisaged that these discussions would occur in early 2009 (Statement of Chief Officer paragraph 93.)

As we know, events from my perspective, took an unforeseen turn in November 2008 when I was suspended from duty by Deputy Andrew Lewis, who had taken office briefly as Minister for Home Affairs following the unexpected resignation of Senator Kinnard.   This naturally caused me to reflect on how I should respond to this development against the background of my need to resolve the issue of my retirement.   In coming to a decision, I was influenced by correspondence from your Investigating Officer, Mr Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, which encouraged me to believe that a resolution in the first half of 2009 was possible.   You will recall that in a live radio interview on 20th November 2009 you personally indicated that shortly after your appointment as Minister you had been led to believe that the final report from Wiltshire would be available by March 2009.   It was with such assurances in mind that I decided to postpone any plans for retirement in 2009 and concentrate on challenging the legitimacy of my suspension and assisting the Wiltshire investigation.   You are aware that since the beginning of my suspension my position has been that I totally deny any wrong-doing whatsoever in relation to the historic abuse enquiry, and that I would vigorously contest any disciplinary allegations which were brought against me.   My position has not changed in that regard.

As 2009 progressed it became clear that anticipated timescales would not be met.   This was reflected in some of the exchanges which took place in open Court during the hearing of my Judicial Review Application in July 2009.   During the hearing I drew the attention of the Court to the likely timescales of the enquiry as they appeared at that time, and questioned whether there was a realistic prospect of a resolution before I reached retirement.   On the matter of my retirement plans, I told the Court that although my contract ran to the end of 2010, I had stated on a number of occasions that I would retire during 2010, without wishing to indicate an intended date at that time.

All of the above is of course in addition to those public statements which I have been able to make, and those made by others on my behalf, which have repeatedly placed in the public domain my commitment to retire in 2010.
I have set out this account of my approach to the question of retirement during the years 2007 to 2009 in order to counter any unfair allegation that I am now acting in a manner which is in any way different from the position which I have consistently taken over a long period of time, both in public and in private.
I now turn briefly to developments in the latter part of 2009, and how these influenced my thinking.   As last year approached its close, it became clear that even the amended assessments of likely timescales made at the time of the Judicial Review had been too optimistic.   It was apparent that the matter would continue well into 2010.   A few days before Xmas 2009, presumably as some kind of attempted gesture of activity before the year ended, I was presented with an incomplete copy of a draft report by Wiltshire Police.   The report made no reference to the evidence of a key witness, who, it was stated, had not been interviewed when the report had been written.   Additionally, areas of the terms of reference relating to the financial management of the abuse enquiry were not addressed.  I was informed that enquiries were incomplete and that a further report was to follow at a later date.   One month later no further report has been received.

I had for some time been anticipating continuing delays of this nature and, in consultation with others, had considered how I might respond in order to bring some certainty to the position.   After giving the issue some thought in the latter part of 2009, I drafted an application to the States Employment Board seeking an amendment to my current contract.   The amendment for which I was minded to apply, was one which would make it clear that the Board would provide whatever extension to my contract might be necessary, if required, to complete the full disciplinary and appeal process; which I estimate could take up to a year, and in addition, to provide for a return to work for a period of at least six months once I had been exonerated.   The latter point is of course important from my perspective.   In my present position there is limited incentive to devote a further year of my time to these matters if there is no prospect of any positive benefit following an outcome in my favour.   I recognised that any application to potentially extend the terms of my contract ran counter to my stated intention to retire during 2010, but I was resolved to explore all of the possible options before a final decision was taken.   I then examined to what extent this possible approach was feasible in the context of retirement planning and family circumstances.   Work in this direction included visits to family members in the UK during the early weeks of 2010, and a fresh assessment of the welfare and related issues which gave me concern when extending my contract in 2007.  Once I had completed this assessment it became clear that any extension of my service in Jersey beyond 2010 was not feasible.
From that point onwards consideration of the issue unavoidably focussed on the practicalities of retirement in 2010, and how this could be most effectively achieved.   One of the key considerations was the decided intention to move to the UK to establish a family home.  From previous experiences in moving home, I am aware that success is heavily dependent on seasonal factors, and that a move in the winter months presents complications to what is already a difficult task.   This is particularly so when re-locating to or from an island.   However, more significantly, it became clear in the early weeks of 2010 that the family welfare issues, which I drew to your attention in July 2009, had become acute and that an early decision was essential.

Running alongside these pressing personal issues was my continuing concern for the well being and effectiveness of the Force, and the value in bringing to an end the uncertainty which has existed since 2008.   Given that my notice period is six months it therefore became imperative that notice of retirement be given as soon as possible, thereby enabling all parties to plan for the future on the basis of my known intentions.
I hope that you will appreciate that the detailed nature of this account arises from a desire to demonstrate that I have tried, at some significant personal and family inconvenience, to assist the Wiltshire investigation and any process which may follow.  Neverthless, I have in the end been frustrated in this intention by constant slippages in timescales, and the approaching deadline by which a retirement decision needed to be taken.   It is a matter of record that I have provided abundant information to the Wilshire enquiry.   My initial statement to the Investigating Officer, submitted in July 2009, was over 62,000 words, and I have expressed a willingness to provide as much further information as the enquiry might require.   However, the passage of time has thwarted these good intentions leaving me with no alternative other than to take the course of action set out at the beginning of this letter.

It might now be appropriate for me to set out a few words summarising my experience in the Force and to offer my best wishes for the future.   Jersey is a fine place with many good people.   It can be justly proud of its police officers, whose dedication and professionalism in the defence of their community has been evident throughout my service.   I have been proud to lead the force and will miss many of the people I have come to know so well.   I am also grateful for their support in the achievements which have been recorded during the decade in which I have been their Chief Officer.   During this time crime figures have consistently fallen, and detection rates have been maintained at a level well above the average for the U.K.   Surveys have indicated levels of public confidence and support for the police which are exceptionally high, and would be a cause of envy in many other jurisdictions.   These findings have been reinforced by independent assessments by H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary who have consistently published positive reports on the performance of the Force and the quality of its leadership.   I am conscious that none of this could have been achieved without the dedication of the entire workforce, both police officers and civilian.    In my estimation they are not only a beacon of excellence in the public service, but also a model of diversity, as candidates from all sections of the islands community have committed themselves to a career in what I consider to be Jersey’s premier public service.
Throughout my leadership of the Force I have sought to emphasise the values of practical common-sense policing which is tightly focussed on the concerns of islanders.   The most evident symbol of this approach has been the emphasis on high visibility foot patrols at times and places where the risk of crime and disorder is at its greatest.   You may be aware that I have frequently sought to lead by example in this respect by regularly undertaking foot patrols in uniform, and how I have encouraged other senior officers to do the same, irrespective of rank or age.

I am aware that none of these things could have been achieved by the Force working in isolation, and I take this opportunity to place on record my recognition of our many supporters and partners who have worked to maintain the common goal of “making Jersey safer.”   In particular I am grateful to the men and women of the Honorary Police whose support and partnership I have always valued.   I am proud to be one of the joint signatories of the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the forces, and have been grateful for their support and good humour at major incidents and public events.
At a more strategic level the achievements of the Force have been equally evident.   Independent assessments by the Inspectorate of the International Monetary Fund have reported positively on the vital but often unseen work of the Financial Crime Unit, and their contribution to maintaining the integrity of what is undoubtedly the cornerstone of the Island’s economy.   There has also been sometimes visible, but more often less visible, success in defending the island against incursions by major criminal organisations.

The role of the Chief Officer of the Force requires a wide range of qualities.   In addition to the relevant operational experience and background, the Chief Officer must be able to maintain the confidence and respect of both the Force and all sections of the community.   The position is one which is highly visible. This often requires high levels self assurance, fluency and skill in communicating both with the media and the wider public.   While the role may seem daunting, it is one which offers significant professional and personal satisfaction.   In carrying out my duty of representing the interests of the Island in meetings with the wider policing community in the British Isles, I have met many officers who display evidence of the required qualities, and I wish you success in your search for a new Chief Officer who can rise to this exceptional challenge.
Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you success in the future in the demanding role of Minister for Home Affairs.

                                          Yours sincerely

                                          Graham Power.
Cc.   Dr T Brain.   Chief Police Officers Staff Association

21 comments:

  1. Humbling indeed, and I am ashamed that an honourable and good man like Mr Power and his family have been subjected to such an appalling miscarriage of any sort of justice thanks to the 'Jersey Way'.

    The sadness I feel to have been a resident here whilst all this has been going on cannot in any way be matched by the bitter taste that will remain in Mr Power's mouth when he does leave the Island, and I am sure that for him whenever it is will not be a day too soon. I really do feel like getting away from here as well.

    I do hope Mr Power that you do not tar all of us on this tainted little piece of rock with the same brush, because you DO have friends and supporters who will do their utmost to get to the TRUTH of this matter, whatever it takes and however long it takes. Nothing, but nothing will sway our belief that you have been treated in the most abysmal manner.

    In conclusion, may I wish both yourself and your good wife the sincerest best wishes and may you find more happiness in your retirement than you have in your last years here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another good man - driven out by our collection of despicable gangsters.

    Do the people of Jersey not see the bedlam the traditional establishment has brought upon the community?

    Outstanding professionals like Graham Power - holder of the Queens Police Medal - oppressed and driven out by a collection of liars, spivs and charlatans.

    And leaving criminals like Bill Ogley, Bill Bailhache, Warcup, Marnie Baudains in post.

    If Le Sueur, Bailhache, Ozouf, Ogley - the rests of the crooks - are not overthrown through massed protests in the coming weeks - then you have the government you deserve.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done for yet again providing primary documents in full for your news service.

    I'm not a betting individual, but I wouldn't place a bet if I were on Mr Power's retirement coming before the suspension matter can be resolved. In that case, there would I understand, be no need to resolve it, which seems extremely unsatisfactory as far as justice is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It makes one embarassed to be local when one considers how this fine man has been treated so shabbily by our elected in-breds.

    To Graham Power I can only offer my thanks for his excellent leadership; I wish him well in his retirement and apologise again for our chinless states members who once again have brought shame on this island.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED... AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Power gone, Syvret gone, Harper gone, Kinnard gone, Lewis gone, Walker gone and Comical Terry surely going....
    who will be left to blame or explain?
    Any volunteers please apply at the Scrutiny Office.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So here it is what next?

    A vote of no confidence in the chief minister must be lodged now "comical terry" is finished and a bloody liar, a church boy too i believe, forgivnes comes on a sunday lol

    Senator Ian le marquand

    What next for this politician, its quicker putting a man on the moon than getting a police report unless that is you don't want the said police report. We have a stinking cess pit of a government its corrupt and rotten to its core

    We have 6 months untill mr power retires we need some answers and we need some politicians to stand up and be counted.

    What a mess on every level warp speed towards the back hole and no one in control

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  8. How can HA Minister Ian Le Marquand reply to that?

    If he doesnt reply or react in some kind of at least human way,
    he doesnt deserve to get to be Chief Minister.

    If he doesnt get this totaly embarrising situation sorted very soon he doesnt even deserve to stay in this current position!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is looking more, and more, like Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand is a "team player".

    It was said at Chief Officer Power's Judicial Review that the circumstances surrounding his suspension were suspect, or words to that effect.

    Comical Terry should have asked for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the suspension, then and there. Failing that, Ian Le Marquand should have ordered an investigation...neither of them did/have.

    It's time for Ian Le Marquand to step up to the plate and demonstrate some leadership skills, and just as importantly give the Chief Officer some justice!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here is just a snippet of what the Judicial Review had to say about the former Home Affairs minister's suspension of the Chief Officer.

    "However, we feel constrained to voice our serious concern as to the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister."

    By reading that it would appear the former Home Affairs Minister has some explaining to do!

    So come on Ian Le Marquand or Comical Terry let's have an investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Time for a vote of no confidence for Comical Terry.

    Who has the b*ll*x to bring one forward? No,they will all stick together with that extra tight UHU they have bought in vast quantities, and we will all be left with the legacy of this most corrupt and dire of government.

    ReplyDelete
  12. VCR

    It stands to reason that they have always planned to blame it all on the "previous minister".

    Throw him into that position when they knew that he was leaving politics anyway, then blame it all on him.

    But he will not be accountable,
    because hes left!

    Problem solved!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. VCR? sorry it should of been VFC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have been called a lot worse than "VCR" since I have been speaking out for the Abuse Victims and exposing what's really going on in our cesspit of a government, but thanks for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Headline in last nights rag is doing a lot of "institutionalised" rag readers heads in.

    Even they are thinking enough is enough....

    But what can they do, they have believed in and had complete faith in the rag for a long long time.

    What can they do other than to carry on taking the rags s**t?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lenny's Response, Part 1

    Stuart has kindly sent me the latest piece of desperate rearguard action by the comic masquerading as a newspaper in Jersey. I am not sure that I should be the headline on the front page at the expense of the very newsworthy fact that two sick perverts have had their appeals refused. It was hidden away so deeply by the JEP reporter that one would think it didn’t really matter. Of course, it never really has to them. No mention either of the fact that Wateridge was only charged because I ignored an e mail the Attorney General sent to Advocate Robin Morris at the Law Officer’s office instructing that I should not charge him. But of course, all of these pale into insignificance in the face of the saga of the non-existent day books.

    Let me run through this again for the benefit of anyone who might have been on Planet Zonk with the JEP journalists over the last year and who have not read this before. I was not, and was never informed that I would be, a witness in either of these trials. One late evening as I was heading out of the country I was told that a note had been pushed through my door telling me to contact Strathclyde Police. I did so to find out that I was wanted at court in Jersey the next day. Perhaps I could just beam myself up there? I had no idea what it was about. Eventually I managed to get hold of a Crown Officer in Edinburgh who dealt with applications and requests from foreign jurisdictions. He explained that the AG wanted me to produce some day books. I explained to him there were none. He told me that there was no witness summons of any kind issued and that it was up to me to return to Jersey or not. He told me they would be willing to facilitate my appearance at court in Scotland if I preferred to do it that way. I said I would be happy to do that.

    There was also a bizarre series of e mails between myself and the AG during which I explained that I had not kept day books on the instructions of Scotland Yard. All my decisions were in the policy books (which incidentally Gradwell said were rubbish but which the ACPO Homicide team said were kept properly.) I had indeed been carrying a “red and black” book in those last few months. I was after all, retiring, leaving the island with all my furniture and belongings, trying to juggle substantial renovations to my 300 year old house, and coping with a family illness. And oh yes – the small matter of the Historic Abuse Enquiry, defending myself, for example from politicians for first of all not caring about the money I was spending, and then against Bill Ogley’s attack on me for even considering the cost, as it was in his words, “irrelevant.” So was it really so surprising that I should have a book with me to keep tabs on builders, moving, and everything else?

    Part 2 to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lenny's response to The Rag: Part 2.

    Eventually, after I had reminded the AG that Scotland Yard had corroborated what I had said in a statement and had also told the enquiry team that at none of the meetings had I ever used such a book, he made the pathetic request for me to hand over the retirement cards I had been given by my colleagues, “in case there was anything relevant to the case in them.” After removing officers’ names I sent him copies.

    This did not stop lawyers acting for the perverts trying to claim that my withholding these non-existent books was affecting their chance of a fair trial and asking the case be dismissed because of “Harper’s behaviour.” Now who, I wonder, put them on to the subject of the Day Books that never were? Suggestions welcome. Incidentally, my offer to testify and answer any questions in a court in the UK was forwarded to Jersey. I have never even had an acknowledgement. Instead the lie has been peddled that I refused to return and defied an imaginary court order to hand over imaginary books. Once again the JEP were at the forefront of this.

    So why should the judge today make a statement as she did, saying that she “was prepared to assume that Mr Harper’s contacts with the Press were the product of wilful misconduct on his part.” I shall be writing to ask her why she “assumed” this. Should she not be making statements like this only on hard fact? I suspect that she was lied to. Defence advocate for the perverts made the bizarre accusation that I stole the daybooks. Boy, am I glad he has never defended me. How can I steal my own personal notebooks? Who told him that these daybooks existed? Did he not have access to the Scotland Yard statements from the AG’s office? It all seems a bit convenient. He claims that these books would have helped his defence and that I was perhaps keeping them for my memoirs. I had forgotten any notion of writing a book about what went on in Jersey but with each passing passage of lies from the JEP the notion seems more attractive!

    In a strange comment on my “disgraceful contacts with the press” the judge said they had no effect on the process and that a fair trial took place. I respectfully disagree with her. They did have an effect on the process. If it had not been for my contacts with the National Press then the cases we did get to court would have been buried, (no pun intended.) My contact with the national media ensured that the establishment did not find it as easy as previously to hide the scandal away.

    I suppose I should be flattered that the JEP think it more important to make a false and misleading attack on me than to report that two perverts have had their appeals dismissed. Or, for that matter, that it was the enquiry I led that brought them to court in the first instance and against the wishes of the Attorney General. Wasn’t that a carefully worded statement he put out to say that he had not tried to stop Wateridge from being charged? I didn’t hear him say that he had not sent an e mail instructing someone else to do it.

    So there it is. On a day where anywhere else the big story would be two convicted child abusers in the island’s biggest ever scandal are refused their appeals, the professional and upstanding editors of the JEP feel it better for the island’s people that they regurgitate material they have already been told is untrue. Sort of sums it up doesn’t it?

    Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  18. VFC - perhaps you could send Lenny's response by way of one of your media releases to 'that' paper, and ask them if they will reproduce some, or all of it by way of putting the record straight on this matter.

    'They' really have scraped the barrel this time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In the view of this retiree, now far away from Jersey, reading the RAG is almost the re-experience of reading PRAVDA from the old Soviet Union. That is not a great stretch.

    For a newspaper to invest so much in vilifying Mr. Harper at this late date just points to a curious degree of blatant editorial desperation. The latest headline regarding the criminal sentence appeal shows complete disregard for journalistic integrity.

    I know too little to comment on the merit of Mr. Harper's or anyone else's case, but the RAG tactics on this story must cause great personal humiliation for those employees, if any, who are not prone to abuse the public trust.

    Any ethical journalist I have known would resign in protest before being associated with such glaring propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "For a newspaper to invest so much in vilifying Mr. Harper at this late date just points to a curious degree of blatant editorial desperation."

    You know I think he may have been pushing the JEP to do this. Your blog condems the JEP together with the Vile Blog literally every week and then you wonder why they bite back?

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What the JEP (FILTHY RAG) print a load of old shite because people say nasty things about them on the internet?

    As utterly ridiculous as that sounds, you know what? I wouldn't rule it out. Indeed I wouldn't rule anything out when it comes to ANY of our local "accredited" media.

    ReplyDelete