Friday, 8 January 2010

The “POWER” of PPC

The interesting thing about this letter from PPC to Chief Officer Graham Power is - it doesn’t appear to be from PPC!

For those of you that have read the previous post you will be aware that Chief Officer Power wrote a letter addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. This letter contained “evidence” that the sequence of events, according to the official line, surrounding his suspension just did not stack up. And without answers to certain questions it looked remarkably like certain members of our Council of Ministers and certain Civil Servants might have acted, shall we say, “improperly”.

You will note by the reply the Chief Officer received to his letter sent to PPC that the reply is authored by Connetable Juliette Gallichan who is the Chairman of PPC and she refers only to herself in it. That is to say at the start of the letter she says “ . I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry” and goes onto use the word “I” rather than “we” or “the committee”.

Now as if the contents of the letter aren’t alarming enough the question has to be asked “do the PPC members even know about Chief Officer Power’s letter”? “Has the Chairman come to the conclusions all on her own?”.

Team Voice e-mailed all the members of PPC to ask them these questions and up to now have only had a reply from Senator Ian Le Marquand, who has stated he wasn’t aware of the letter ‘til last week. Some might say well there’s no point in telling him about it because he is conflicted anyway, which is something else Senator Le Marquand has stated in his e-mail.

This is true but one could also argue he should have been informed of it’s existence purely for the minutes of any meeting where he would declare he was conflicted, so it is then a matter of public record.

Again we must remember we are talking about a highly respected and decorated member of Her Majesty’s Police Force with an exemplary policing pedigree………until he came to Jersey! Also he is not complaining about a minor misdemeanour. He is providing evidence of a possible “government within a government”, the very strong chance that Civil Servants might have co-opted or manipulated elected officials to break the law!

The reply he received from Connetable Gallichan just goes to show if such a powerful man as the Chief of Police can be treated like this by our government what chance have the rest of us got?

There are still a multitude of questions that need some kind of an answer like “what can the Chief Constable do with his evidence”? Who are the Council of Ministers accountable to?” and many, many, more questions far too many to list here.
Below is the reply the Chief Officer got from Connetable Gallichan and if her “recommendation” to the chief Constable wasn’t so chillingly frightening it would almost be laughable. But the sorry thing is she is deadly serious.

Below Connetable Gallichan’s reply to the Chief Officer is the e-mail sent by Team Voice to all members of PPC, to which only Senator Le Marquand has replied.


Privileges and Procedures Committee
Our ref: 1240/9(134)
Mr. G. Power
13 November 2009 Dear Mr. Power,
Outcome of your appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Jersey) Law 1982. Complaint arising from the disclosure of information regarding the events preceding your suspension

Thank you for your letter dated 30 October 2009. I have been giving considerable thought to your enquiry and to whether the Privileges and Procedures Committee is able to assist you further.

Clearly, the process relating to your complaint under the above Law is complete. having been able to reverse the decision that you had complained about, and obtained the information you sought.

On page 3 of your letter, you list matters that you consider fall within the remit of the PPC. I’m afraid I am unable to agree that these do fall within the area that PPC covers. It is for the Council of Ministers to oversee the work of Ministers, and in this it is guided by the Code of Conduct for Ministers (R.14/2006) and through the Chief Minister, the work of officers supporting the executive function, PPC has authority to enquire into the conduct of a member where a complaint has been received, and in this is guided by the Code of Conduct for Elected Members to be found at Appendix 3 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. Any complaint against a Minister or Assistant Minister acting in an official capacity would be dealt with under the procedure set out in R.14/2006.

I must also say that the PPC has no remit to investigate “a general complaint against the conduct of government” (your page 5). I appreciate that you are seeking a remedy, and I note that you copied your letter to the Connétable of St. Helier. It may be that he can assist you from a political perspective.
I am sorry that I can’t offer more specific help in this matter but you will appreciate that Standing Orders determine the parameters within which PPC is able to work.
Yours sincerely,
Connétable de Ste Marie
Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee j
States Greffe I Morier House St Helierl Jersey I JE1 1DD
Tel; 01534 441033 I Fax: 01534 441098 email: jg.gallichan@gov.je

Dear PPC member.

As some of you might be aware we at "Team Voice" recently published the letter sent to you by Chief Officer Graham Power on one of our Blogsites. For those of you that haven't read it yet it can be found here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/01/facts-evidence-untruths-and-is-somebody.html

As you will see by a comment left on the Blog, by a member of Team Voice, there is confusion as to how the decision making process of PPC works.

After looking at the minutes of PPC meetings on the States website, there appears to be no record of a meeting taken place to discuss the truly alarming contents of Chief Officer Power's letter nor how Connetable Gallichan came to her "findings" in her letter to Cheif Officer Power dated the 13th of November 2009.

Would somebody be so kind as to inform members of the public.

1. Did a meeting of PPC take place to discuss Chief officer Power's letter? and if so, where can one find a public record of this meeting?

2. If a meeting wasn't held, does this mean the decision making process was entirely down to Connetable Gallichan? baring in mind the Chief Officer's letter was addressed to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and not exclusively to the Connetable.

3. If it is the case that the decision making process comes down soley to the Connetable what is the point of having a committee?

In the interests of fair and open government we hope one, or all of you, can clear these questions up with clear and concise answers?

Kind Regards.

Team Voice.

26 comments:

  1. So what is the point of PPC?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The point of the PPC? There is none. This is exactly the response made when I complained about the leaking of e mails by a member of the Government to the pro-paedophile journalist compiling material for the Mail. It was also, you may recall, much the same with the complaints against Warcup and Gradwell - "the law doesn't apply to them" was the answer from the Head of the Jersey Police Complaints Board. You couldn't make up a feasible fictional story with this!!
    Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mac.

    This is yet another question I am trying to find the answer to, as I'm sure Chief Officer Power is.

    I have to say, the more I learn (or don't) about our government, the more it frightens the sh1t out of me.

    This response from Connetable Gallichan, in my opinion, says that it doesn't matter what evidence you might have or how you can prove corruption in our government the only thing open to you is to get Simon Crowcroft to ask a question in the States.

    As I have been writing this response I see Lenny Harper has given you an answer, just about sums it up i'm sorry to say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Speechless!! - a letter written to a Committee which has not been discussed by them and responded to by the Chairman alone. What on earth is this all about, and how can she respond on behalf of a committte which it would appear have not even had sight of this letter!!

    However, this IS Jersey, and as ever we can expect such farcical situations to arise which as you say VFC, if they were not so serious would be laughable. But it is very, very serious - it appears our 'Government' are a law unto themselves which should be a source of great concern to us all.

    VFC - there ia an excellent website - www.internationalmensorganisation.info which would relish a story of this magnitude I am sure. I think you would find it a good read in any event. It has an article about the power of the internet in relation to governments etc.

    How disappointing that only Senator le Marquand has chosen to reply to your e-mail. Again deafening silences which speak for themselves I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jill.

    As yet it is unconfirmed as to whether there was a meeting or not to discuss the Chief Officer's letter by the PPC.

    However it does look extremely likely but I must stress it has not been confirmed. I have looked all over the States website and can find no record of any meeting concerning this case. As I have written I have e-mailed all PPC members and have only had one reply by Senator Ian Le Marquand, who it would appear knew nothing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Basically, this is a classic "pass the buck" letter which deliberately does not comment on the matters raised but just says "it's not my responsibility" where the matters raised are significant enough to warrant a comment that it might not be PPC's remit, but as a private States member it would be hers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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
  8. Tony, Rob.

    You both make extremely good points.

    Connetable Gallichan could bring something to the States as an elected representative, but looks to have "passed the buck" on to Connetable Crowcroft and washed her hands of it, that is very curious!!

    As for the work Rico and I have been doing on this. Myself and Rico are always saying to eachother "we shouldn't have to be doing this". "Our ACCREDITED media should be doing this".

    We both live with the fear that our front doors are going to be getting bashed in by the police at any time just because we are trying to get some truth.

    It's not as if we are money laundering or drug trafficking, we're just asking for the truth but in Jersey that puts you in the same league as major criminals.

    Yes the BBC done an excellent piece on this ghastly affair this morning, but guess where they got the story from? yep right here!

    The question must be asked would any of this seen the light of day if it wasn't for Citizens Media?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Rob

    Team Voice have been putting some serious work in, when we walked out of the complaint board hearing we knew there was a very serious problem and action was needed.

    People should still go back and read the Judicial Review there is so much information in it. I will listen to the bbc tonight and then comment on what was said.

    Team Voice broke this story but it should have been a journalist, this is what i find so very very sad and shocking. Team Voice will do all it can in finding the truth. Every Abuse Survivor past/present deserves it.

    Now if BBC jersey are 'breaking' news from voiceforchildren i will give them an exclusive.

    GO AND CHECK A BLOG WRITTEN BY STUART SYVRET IT WILL GIVE YOU FECKIN BREAKING NEWS TILL THE YEAR 2050

    Searching for the truth

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd never seen Graham Power's letter or the reply in the public domain before. I've never seen them in the JEP, or on the States web sites.

    Mr Bara's "piecing together" is a nonsense, as these are primary documents which have not been available to the public.

    That is not to say the details may have been alluded to by either BBC Radio or the JEP, but the problems of chronology certainly can't have stood out as clearly or I would have remembered it.

    All I can remember is that Mr Power managed to obtain the right to the information when the suspension documents were created, and that was the last I'd heard until the letter from him appeared here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I should also mention that Deputy Bob Hill and Connetable Simon Crowcroft have been, and are, working tirelessly in order to get answers and justice for the Chief Officer. And without them, very little of this information would get into the public domain.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who believes that Juliette Gallichan is smart or articulate enough to have crafted that letter? It's too obviously the work of a Sir Humphrey civil servant and Gallichan has just signed it off.

    The legal point about PPC having power only over the conduct of individual members looks like it is probably correct. What it reveals however is the pretty sinister fact that the Council of Ministers is "responsible" for policing themselves.

    A mini play.

    COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: "Minister - you and your assistant have been naughty boys"... (thinks) but you are part of us... (thinks) if you are part of us and we chastise you and stop you doing stuff like this, then the general public will see that we are not as great as we would like to think we are... (big thinks) they would lose faith in us... (rosily glowing thinks) we are certain that we are amazingly wonderful, supremely gifted, individuals, even though too many of the vociferous moaners in the public don't realise it.... (thinks) it would be unfair to the blessed silent majority, who know that we are actually pretty wonderful, if this unpleasantness would corrupt their views... (thinks) we can't allow this incident to falsely sway the minds of the fantastically smart and educated silent majority, who rightly support us though thick and thin... (thinks) if we acknowledge this piece of skulduggery, it will only give ammunition to the disaffected and the malcontents and the malicious and the ignorant AND THAT WOULD BE VERY BAD FOR THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS... WHOOPS... JERSEY'S INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION...


    MINISTER AND ASSISTANT MINISTER (in Oliver North mode): "OK, we did it but it was for the best to maintain the good reputation of the Council of Ministers... whoops... Jersey."


    COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: "Oh. Well, don't get caught out again... whoops... do it again. We'll actually do and say nothing about it because you too are superlatively great - like us - indeed, you are part of us." (thinks) we are so so utterly brilliant that everything that we do and have done and will ever do is for the best, in this best of all possible worlds that we have created ... (thinks) God bless us everyone... (thinks) and, God, BTW, frustrate the knavish tricks of our enemies - who must be bonkers - E Pluribus Unum!


    Banana republic? Lunatics have taken over the asylum? Hardline dictatorship of the bureaucracy bamboozled executive? Kafkaesque idiocy? All of these? You choose!

    You couldn't make it up!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Since the secret process used to suspend Graham Power seems remarkably similar to the one used to sack Senator Syvret, perhaps Radio Jersey would like to let the public know how that came about as well.

    Stuart has given a detailed analysis of the official story along with the documentary evidence that proves that that also is 'distant from the truth', to quote Graham Power.

    Hey, maybe that should be the new slogan for Jersey Tourism:

    'Jersey, not far from the mainland, but distant from the truth'

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey - anonymous!

    "You couldn't make it up."

    That's my cliche.

    Find your own!

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  15. It appears that CTV are now going to give some coverage to this on tonights programme, so where does this leave our esteemed RAG.

    Numerous pages about snow again, but very quiet on this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rico and Neil, I am so pleased that you have finally got into the meat of the issue by obtaining these important documents. Please keep it up - the more you did the more you will find.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear VFC

    Well who would have believed it? Citizen Media sets the agenda and that great British Stalwart the BBC follows.

    An excellent analysis by the Dud, but the question must be asked ... if VFC had not published Graham Power's letter would the Dud have picked it up?

    I don't think so.

    You had a scoop VFC - well done, without your website this might never have reached the consciousness of Jersey.

    Please keep up the fight - never give up.

    Truth and integrity will prevail,

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think you are over rating yourselves a bit here. Registered media will not do any story until its been authenticated. Well the real people in the know, know that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yesterday a statement was read out on the radio, the statement was from former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.

    Team Voice tried to obtain a copy of this statement but were unsuccessful.

    Not to be out done "Gee Gee" (Team Voice member) listened back to the broadcast and noted down Mr. Lewis' statement which makes for interesting reading and disection.

    The statement is re-produced below.

    "My knowledge of this matter stems from my role as Home Affairs Minister. As such I am bound by the confidentiality requirements in the Chief Police Officers disciplinary code.

    Once again I must re-iterate that we were at all times advised by the Law Officers and followed that advice to the letter. To the best of my knowledge the actual decisions were taken on the date recorded in the correspondance.
    The earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisors which was contingency preparation in the event that the full disclosure of information by the Deputy Police Officer might result in a decision to invoke the disciplinary code. This was sensible contingency planning."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re Andrew Lewis and: "The earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisors which was contingency preparation in the event that the full disclosure of information by the Deputy Police Officer might result in a decision to invoke the disciplinary code. "

    BBC Jersey pointed out the fallacy in this statement. He had previously said that he was completely happy with the SOJ investigation and had no reason to question Power's performance before he received the letter from Warcup on the 11th November.

    If that was the case, why were HR and legal people preparing documents related to his possible suspension on the 8th, three days before Warcup's letter?

    Could it be possible that somebody else told them to do it? As Power says, since the Home Affairs Minister is the only one who can legally initiate proceedings against the Police Chief, if somone else told them to do it, that was illegal.

    Alternatively, Andrew Lewis is not telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Guys, Like I have said before FW along with his conspiring side kick Ogley were doing their best to rubbish the investigation from day 1.

    I think a decision was taken to make Graham Power the scape goat some time much earlier. Hence when Wendy Kinnard learned of the plot she resigned. All in my opinion. To me it's as plain as the nose on your face. Frank Walker wanted more than anything a Knighthood. This was his way of ensuring that he looked like an excellent Chief Minister. Now we could give him a suitable medal not too sure what we should call it however.

    No I do not live on Jersey, sometimes it is easier to make intelligent observations from a distance.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Billingsgate
    one of the letters written to Graham Power was typed at 08.49 on Saturday 8th November,not Friday afternoon or Monday morning but on a non working day.Is this significant?
    who typed it?
    on which computer?
    was it a states computer in a states building?
    If as Andrew Lewis stats ,this was just a contingency someone went to a great deal of trouble. Why Saturday morning?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "one of the letters written to Graham Power was typed at 08.49 on Saturday 8th November"

    How very observant of you!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Guys, Like I have said before FW along with his conspiring side kick Ogley were doing their best to rubbish the investigation from day 1."

    No one here would argue against you on that.

    But what is needed is evidence, facts, proof.

    And slowly but surely and through an awful lot of work, that is exactly what is surfacing.

    As they say, the truth will out.

    ReplyDelete

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