Pages

Friday, 15 January 2010

Is our "Leader" showing (impartial) "Leadership"?

Regular readers will be aware of the letter sent to Chief Minister Senator Terry Le Sueur from Deputy of St Martin, Bob Hill, which was the subject of the last Blog.

Deputy Hill wanted a reply to his letter by 5pm today Friday the 15th of January 2009.

Well the Chief Minister did reply to the Deputy two days ago, the reply to his letter is reproduced below. Furthermore Deputy Hill has wasted little time in responding to the Chief Minister in which Deputy Hill outlines the Chief Ministers refusal to address the major concerns in Deputy Hill’s original letter and failure to produce "explanations" for his actions or lack of them.

One can’t help thinking that if Chief Officer Power had something to hide he would have “considered his position” (in which he was given about an hour to do so) and just retired quietly without a blemish to his name.

Also one can’t help thinking that if the Chief Minister had nothing to hide then he wouldn’t have strongly contested the Chief Officer’s request for the information concerning the dates certain letters were created.

The exchange of letters below make for fascinating reading. Somebody around here has something to hide and after reading the exchange below it appears blatantly obvious who that somebody is.

You've got a week to respond Chief Minister, please don't leave it that long the Chief Officer and the people of Jersey deserve answers NOW.

Terry's response.............




Dear Deputy Hill

SUSPENSION OF CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE

I refer to your e-mail of 10th January, copied to all States members and local media.

May I commence by stating that the contract of employment entered into by the Chief of Police requires that any disciplinary proceedings are conducted under terms of total confidentiality which preclude the parties from making any public comment. I intend to abide by the terms of that disciplinary code.

However your letter goes on to complain about the allegedly dismissive action taken by the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I do not intend to enter into those discussions and believe that the Chairman is well able to defend her actions if and when called upon to do so.

I will therefore limit my reply to answering the request you make in your final paragraph, where you suggest that the issues raised by Mr. Power point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government.

You will not be surprised to learn that I totally refute that suggestion. However it does demonstrate to me that the need for a full and impartial enquiry to be carried out by an experienced external authority (such as Wiltshire Police), and why I would wish to base my judgement on the evidence produced and the conclusions reached by that investigation. I am aware of comments made that could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. Until such time, it is in my view unacceptable for one party to be making what could be seen as defamatory comments when there is a confidentiality agreement in place.

I too would like to have seen this matter resolved earlier, but as a former police officer you will be more aware than most members of the speed at which such investigations seem to proceed. Clearly a person’s character and livelihood are at stake here, and any investigation has to be totally thorough and transparent.

I am satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control”, and I hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer.

Yours sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur.
Chief Minister



Dear Terry,
Thank you for your letter dated 13th January. (above)
I note that you totally refute that the issues raised by Mr Power which point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government. Unfortunately you have not given any explanation as to how you came to that conclusion.

I claimed that you had not acted in an impartial manner by not providing Mr Power with the times and dates on which the suspension documents dated 12th November 2008 were actually created. Not only have you failed to explain why? but in addition you have provided no explanation as to why you maintained your stance for more than nine months until you had to disclose the information following Mr Power’s successfully contested application to the Complaints Board.

However following the release of the details it now appears that the "official version" is at variance with the substantiated evidence provided by Mr Power. This revelation to the ordinary people of the Island could cause them to believe that the reason you refused to act impartially and suppress the information was because you were protecting the authors of the letters. It must be apparent that the statement read to Members at the States Sitting on 2nd December 2008 was inaccurate and misled Members.

You state that you are satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control” and hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer. Given that the investigation has already taken 14 months at a cost nearing a million pounds, it does appear that the matter has already run out of control.

You state that you are aware that comments made could be the subject of challenge in terms of accuracy and that these will be fully addressed as part of Wiltshire investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mandate of the Wilts Police does not cover any aspect of the suspension itself nor whether it was ever justified. Therefore the confidentiality requirements of the code do not apply to the suspension itself. For clarification the investigation is into the management of the enquiry. The suspension is "out of play" and accordingly does not fall under the code.

The one positive part of your letter is that you do agree that the comments made (in Mr Power’s letter) could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. However as Wiltshire Police will not be investigating the suspension issue, the investigation must be undertaken by some other body.

You did not address Wiltshire Police’s apparent pointless exercise in continuing with their investigation which in all likelihood will never be resolved because Mr Power will have reached retirement. I would like to know why the investigation should continue.
In my letter I did urge you to show leadership and this could be demonstrated by fully addressing the issues raised above and by lodging a proposition to investigate/review the circumstances of Mr Power’s suspension. This would be in line with P182/2008 (Review of Procedure regarding suspension) lodged by Connétable Crowcroft. Or P131/2009 Exclusion of the Consultant Gynaecologist lodged by me in August last year.
I look forward to hearing your response within the next 7 days.
Regards

Deputy Bob Hill.,BEM,
Deputy of St Martin.

52 comments:

  1. Well done once again Deputy Hill - please keep the pressure on.

    Mr Le Sueur - stop prevaricating, You could not show leadership to a tribe of meerkats from a glass bubble, let alone an out of control Government and 'others'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The usual response avoid the facts and issues raised. Well done Deputy Hill it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall dealing with the COM, but eventually the more people banging the quicker the wall will collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Deputy Hill,

    There are a few politicians in Jersey who are doing what they were elected to do. I am glad to say that you are one of them.

    While not wishing to rubbish the more 'mundane' political issues that require attention, it has to be said that this matter is of such significant importance to every one of us in Jersey that I am astounded that only a handful of politicians are taking up the fight.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is procedure so why carry on making a meal of it? This isn't even a story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you want to get a real exclusive do the down fall of Stuart Syvret and Lenny Harper. Lenny Harper's slanderous posting today is being looked into by the law officers and to top it up Syvret's arrest order has not changed. Come on VFC be the unbiased media you claim to be and get in there first!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apologies to my more serious readers and contributors for allowing the last comment (or two) through.

    I let it through in order to demonstrate the desperation some have to get away from the topic, and I Knew it would give Rico a giggle.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the only people that are laughing are your critics and regulars of Planet Jersey. Syvret is going on about Roy Boshat. This guy was cleared and awarded financial damages so whatever Syvret or Harper says now will never change anything so come on who is desperate! This story of yours is a no-brainer. Procedure says its confidential so you can run this as long as you want but you will never know the truth about it all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul.

    I'm taking a stab in the dark that this is you again.

    You said "you can run this as long as you want but you will never know the truth about it all."

    Oh! Paul, if only you knew how wrong you are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well interview Ian Le Marquand then and I bet the answer is....wair for it....confidential!

    I was just reading your mates blog and he hates so many people in the Jersey Government and Civil Service now I have actually now lost count of them all. So come on how can so many people be wrong and he be so right? Dick Shenton lol, he was a great bloke and did a lot for the left. His stance on GST was one of the best out of all of them so I for one am getting very weary of these bitter and twisted attacks on people and wish he would sort his life out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul.

    So I will take it that you believe, after reading all the "facts" and "evidence" concerning the possible illegal suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power, that Chief Minister has been showing leadership in an impartial manner.

    That being the case could you explain to me, and the readers, just why it is that Terry Le Sueur fought tooth and nail in order to prevent the Chief Officer Graham Power from gaining evidence in the form of the dates letters were created? why did the Chief Minister fight so hard?

    How is it that the said letters were created days before the report they were allegedly quoting from even existed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are missing the build up to his suspension which I think went back months when the truth about the remains came to light. From TLS's response I cannot foresee this getting any further because if they do release more information than they are allowed to about the suspension then I understand they can be sued for it. Its a stalemate so whatever the conspiracy, it will never be out in the open and it will just remain a conspiracy so thats why I beleive this story is a no brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul.

    That's a shame you couldn't answer the questions. But what about this one.

    How is it that Chief Officer Power can write to the PPC and get an answer from the Chairman, and members of PPC know nothing about the letter from the Chief Officer or the reply sent by the Chairman?

    ReplyDelete
  13. VFC you say 'possible illegal suspension' but wasn't this looked into by the new Home Affairs Minister and the Royal Court? I get the impression that you just want to get this guy off and you are totally ignoring the facts that a tremendous amount of money was wasted on what many view as a wild goose chase up Haute de la Garenne. Many see what happened as a tangent away from the real issue of helping people that had been abused. Even you have to admit somewhere down the line that something dreadfully went wrong because from the start to the end its on two different levels? I guess that until we know more facts about his suspension then whether it is illegal or not will be up to independent investigators. Yet more money down the drain and it hits supporters and critics alike in the pocket as per usual.

    ReplyDelete
  14. VFC,

    Again, Paul et al are not going to engage in critical thinking, and they damn sure will not address the most incriminating facts. Never, ever ever.

    Their examples are right out of the introductory level political spin manuals on how to keep the larger truth from being examined by the masses. There is never any point at all to their comments except to direct thoughtful discussion away from what is truly meaningful in your post.

    If they are being paid with tax dollars, let us hope they are not paid much. They are possibly the most transparent part of the oligarchy PR arsenal right now, hardly the more sophisticated level one would expect if things were going well on their side.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul.

    You said.

    "VFC you say 'possible illegal suspension' but wasn't this looked into by the new Home Affairs Minister and the Royal Court?"

    Indeed you are correct and here is some of what the Judicial review had to say about the Chief Officer's original suspension by former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.

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

    You also said.

    "and you are totally ignoring the facts"

    Well one of us are Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have a read ofthis Paul.

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

    ReplyDelete
  17. WIth all due respect 'Boo' I am not interested in characteur attacks for having an opinion.

    I don't know VFC because this is a grey area of 'he says, she says'.

    Whatever questions are asked the response will be the same so you will be just as much in the dark this time next week. I am surprised (or should I not be) that T Pitman is even wasting time on this issue. I think TLS's letter is clear and why rico sorda is getting excited only he knows.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To those who suggest that the cost of the HDLG investigation was too outrageous, there is probably common ground for agreement on both sides.

    However, it may be that the money trail ultimately points to the cost of Harper and G. Power's initial HDLG criminal investigation being drawfed by the massive investment in an illegal government cover-up.

    In that case, Jersey will have to invest a great deal more money in establishing a real democracy or continually pay the price for being a semi-fuedal and glaringly corrupt banana republic.

    Follow the money.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you VFC. At least you try to steer the trolls back on topic instead of arguing about personalities. You realy know how to refuse the bait.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Media ("accredited" I should wonder) release that was mentioned above.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "HDLG criminal investigation being drawfed by the massive investment in an illegal government cover-up".

    You can only take such theory with a pinch of salt because so many independent people have been involved to date, now the likelihood of this gets slimmer by the month. 'Cover up' or 'white wash' is also the easiest explanation for some people that don't like what they hear.

    With regard to the costs of HdlG, well, you would have to have a one track mind to say it was money well spent because it sure as hell wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Again, just follow the money.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  23. Boo.

    Deputy Roy Le Herissier looks to be taking your advice.

    H.M. Attorney General will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour –



    “Would H.M. Attorney General provide a graph showing, year by year, the growth in the number of legally qualified staff employed in the Law Officers Department in the last ten years?



    How many of the legally qualified staff recruited over the last ten years have, at some point, been Members of Chambers at 7 Bedford Row?



    What payments have been made over each of the last 3 years to Counsel at Bedford Row and what percentage does this constitute of the total amounts paid for external legal advice over each of the last 3 years?



    Would H.M. Attorney General provide a copy of the tendering document used for inviting applications to provide external legal advice?



    What sums, if any, have been paid, over each of the last 3 years to legal firms based in Jersey for criminal prosecution and defense work and would H.M. Attorney General identify the firm in each year which received the highest payment?”

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry VFC but I would take this 7 Bedford Row story and it is a 'story' with an even bigger pinch of salt than anything else we have heard of late. People that work in law have actually laughed at this and that is why there is nothing in the media about it because its beeen dissmissed as poppycock. But if people choose to believe such material then its a free world I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  25. VFC,
    You will learn soon enough whether or not "people in law" are laughing at this.

    If it is nothing to them, they will have nothing to hide. If they make every effort to obstruct knowledge of payments of taxpayer money to 7BR, you will have an answer of a different kind.

    It will be costly for both 7BR and the Jersey power structure to continue to hide what they are suspected of hiding and it will require some additional scrambling to keep it from leaking out, eventually.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  26. Boo.

    Any silence will be deafening.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Boys/Girls, Stuart has been saying a lot of stuff for 2 years now and nothing ever comes of it and even when he tries to bring up ancient material thats dead and buried its equally getting nowhere. 7 Bedford Row to me is just a non event and whilst there are a lot of questions being raised this week in the States none of this will have any impact. This is a personal opinion and I know some people out there pray that his blog will create a stir, but when we see certain un-named people smiling to the camera and being interviewed like last week, it is having no effect. I think there is a post on there somewhere asking whether the blog is just satire because thats how it is being viewed by the media now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. VFC,
    Anonymous postings are starting to take a familiar tone, ignore the facts, imply that they speak to and on behalf of the legal profession, media, COM etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  29. We are not talking of thousands of pounds tax payers money to 7BR.

    We are talking of tens of millions and there is no hiding, by anyone now that it has been exposed.

    The truth is now out and questions are being asked.

    ReplyDelete
  30. All the same stuff on here, Syvret's blog and Planet Jersey but only a few people getting all excited about it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Paul.

    "but only a few people getting all excited about it."

    Including you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. No but it is a little repetitive. See how next week pans out and if it doesn't get anywhere just wait for the final Wiltshire Report and be patient.

    ReplyDelete
  33. rico sorda keeps on ranting about Bob Hill but Bob Hill has no proper power. He can asked questions yes but so can any other deputy or even member of the public and it does not mean they will be answered. The letter you published from TLS said it all. You can ask but that does not mean you will get a response. Maybe it is time to really trim the States down because most of the deputies have no muscle and I bet next week we will witness this yet again?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi umm god not sure what name to use so will go with

    Pope "jon" paul

    Questions are very important because you are committing a minister to answer.

    Terry and gang will have to come up with something you then listen and take it forward.

    They know information is getting out they have lost control and all thanks to the internet

    Watch and listen sometimes you might think he said sod all but in fact said loads.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jon Paul? Have you got JTM on the brain or summut, he is not the only poster in cyber space unless you just don't know anybody else?

    "Questions are very important because you are committing a minister to answer.

    Terry and gang will have to come up with something you then listen and take it forward."

    Terry does not have to come up with anything because he has already answered the question in his letter by saying he is not authorised to discuss a disiplinary matter so why do you and VFC keep on bringing it up in a vain hope of them giving in. They won't because they can't thats all there is to it. So next weeks questions will be pushed aside in seconds and I would put money on it. You are trying to use a rock hammer to smash a mountain but its entertainment so keep it going if you so wish.

    If you do get something out of next week I will be shocked never mind surprised. Two years on and even further away from justice than ever, Thats how most of us critics see it all now.

    ReplyDelete
  36. VFC - your patience in indulging your Anonymous poster who can only find negatives and seems to know everybody and everything is commendable. It is a great shame he is unable to comment on PJ anymore as I feel he would be far better suited to that forum.

    However, on to more important matters, and next week should be very interesting to say the least. Thank goodness for Deputy Hill and the other Deputies who are asking pertinent and important questions. Time for more of our elected to have the courage to start doing what we expect them to do.

    It is to be hoped that maybe TLeS will see the light and realise that more and more people are questioning very important issues which are costing us, the taxpayer.
    We want straightforward, HONEST answers Mr Le Sueur, no beating about the bush and hiding behind this excuse and another.

    This whole sorry affair is painting the Jersey government in a very bad light, and not only in the Island either.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Take out the "dumbass" and i'll publish it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Government Issue Blog and Forum Troll Manual:

    Section 1.

    Always us terms like: "Everybody knows" or "Everyone says" blah, blah, blah. Represent your voice as being that of "everybody" as though you actually know everybody.

    The single most crucial message to repeat is that "Nobody cares" and "Nothing will ever come of it," and "I don't personally care one bit," because "It does not matter."

    Overlook the logical conclusions anyone would take from your Herculean efforts to appear to not care even as you rant about this on line 24/7, just as you overlook facts, evidence, and any looming reality they may lead to for your masters.

    Next Chapter

    (To be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have gotten third opinions on 7 Bedford Row and have been told that what Syvret is suggesting doesn't even have any teeth and thats why the media are not interested in his accusations against this law firm. He is going to have to start making these accustions on camera to be taken seriously me thinks. So if you are taking bets on how far Daniel Wimberly's question is going to go next week can you give us some odds?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi jon

    8/1 me thinks who did you use for third opinions

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  41. Wrong my name is not Jon but if you wanna blame him for all my posts feel free ha ha ha !

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is cool, if anybody has anything critical to say about Syvret & Co don't worry and just say it cause Jon Howarth will get blamed for it!!! Couldn't make it up eh?!

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I have gotten third opinions on 7 Bedford Row and have been told that what Syvret is suggesting doesn't even have any teeth and thats why the media are not interested..."

    See Chapter one, above, for government isuue trolli-ollies.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "See Chapter one, above, for government isuue trolli-ollies."

    This is where debate fails on this blog or citizens media because if you read something you don't agree with the Troll card is the easiest way out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Where the problem is, is "Blogs like this" and "Citizens media" are publishing "facts" and "evidence" and the people who disagree with this never bring any of their own "facts" and "evidince" that can disprove the stuff published.

    They come on giving their "opinion" and start commenting on completely different topics becaue they can't disprove the "facts" and "evidence"

    If you disagree with what is posted on the Blog "prove" it please, otherwise you will look like a Troll.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Who did you use for third opinions

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have asked other States members about 7 Bedford Row rico sorda and it has been dismissed as having no credibility already, but wait until Tuesday to hear it for yourself.

    The problem with your blog is everything you read on Syvret's blog you take as 100% accurate and it is only 5% accurate and it shows by your posts everywhere else. Anybody can go onto a blog and say X is guilty of corruption. But if you are serious about it you would phone up the national media and this is something he is too scared to do.

    The recent assaults on a police officer who was cleared of any wrong doing today is disgraceful and again questions blog use in Jersey and its credibilty for 'factual' information.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Paul.

    I'm guessing this is you.

    "and again questions blog use in Jersey and its credibilty for 'factual' information."

    But it doesn't stop you using them.
    Where in this post can you say is not "factual"?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Again Anonymous - WHO did you get the third opinion from. You can't generalise and just say 'other States Members'. They, unlike you, do have names you know, so name them.

    This is why blogs are invaluable, because they give us facts and names. All Rico is asking is that you do the same, and make your comments worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I know the number of posts is important to Team Voice, but can you please cut out the troll crap. Let them set up their own little ollie site.

    You are under no obligation whatsoever to publish their crap.

    You can be as biased as you like, it's your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Is the troll saying he knows, because he asked them, that there is no strong interdependant connection between Jersey justice system and 7BR or is he saying there was not a huge payout to 7BR on the HDLG related expenditures?

    If he does not answer any relevant questions, or bring new factual information to the discussion, he is trolling. Expect him to come back attacking in response when you call him on his lack of relevent evidence. He brings no credibility to his side of the argument. If he had any intellegent, evidenced based case, I would actually like to hear it. Instead, he makes his position appear desperate and spiteful.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "The problem with your blog is everything you read on Syvret's blog you take as 100% accurate and it is only 5% accurate and it shows by your posts everywhere else. Anybody can go onto a blog and say X is guilty of corruption."

    Anybody can go into a blog and say only 5% of what someone posts is accurate, and that it shows by your posts everywhere else. Whatever that means, it certainly is not factually persuasive of much.

    Projection anyone?

    ReplyDelete