Sunday, 30 May 2010
We believe the first two interviews were pretty tuff with the questioning of Stuart and this final part will bring a bit of balance to the interview. Here we try to concentrate on the personal cost to Stuart and is it all worth it?
Submitted by VFC.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Question. How does a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (which is only found in mammals) turn into a piece of coconut?
Answer. Put a picture of a coconut lampshade on all States Members seats and hey presto! A coconut a la Ian Le Marquand.
This is the sort of nonsense that States Members, and the general public, are fed by the Home Affairs Minister and expected to believe. This is the same Minister that tried to tell us that 65 children’s teeth fell through a gap in the floorboards at Haut de la Garenne, in the exact same place. So let’s just think about how that must work. A child is walking towards this gap in the floorboards and somebody shouts “don’t get too close to that gap in the floorboard, one or more of your teeth will fall out with root still attached and land on top of all the other one’s down there”. Or the other “explanation” we’ve been given they were left there by the bl--dy tooth fairy!
It is high time that the Home Affairs Minister comes to the realisation that the general public are not convinced by tooth fairy stories and pictures of coconuts. We want facts, evidence and scientific data. Lenny Harper has given us these in abundance, Graham Power has given us these in abundance, the Association of Chief Police Officers have given us these in abundance. What have we had in return? A fairy Tale and a photograph! Why didn’t Ian Le Marquand put a photograph of the Child’s Skull or coconut, showing it’s weight, size shape, colour and texture before it left Jersey, and then another photograph of it’s appearance when it ended up at Kew Gardens?
Below is an interview with Deputy Bob “The Guvn’r” Hill who is none the wiser for asking questions of the Home Affairs Minister.
Submitted by VFC.
Saturday, 22 May 2010
We believe we have been fairly objective in the two interviews with Stuart and have put some pretty tuff questions his way, which in fairness to him, he has answered “in depth”
Part three of the this trilogy, will concentrate on the “personal” side of his battle with the establishment, what has been his personal cost?
Part one of the interview can be seen Here
Submitted by VFC.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
After talking on the phone today with a senior editor at CTV we have been informed, they will not be broadcasting any of the meeting any time soon, because among other reasons, they found there was nothing that was “news worthy” contained in the meeting. So once more it has been left to Citizens Media to broadcast the stuff that our “accredited” media won’t.
We decided the clip to use would be that of a dissenter challenging Mr. Syvret and Mr. Syvret’s response. Respect has to go to the gentleman for speaking out against Mr.Syvret because the Town Hall was full with a huge majority being in favour of Mr.Syvret and his “message.” It must be said that Mr. Syvret spent a great deal of time at the beginning of the meeting explaining why he went to London and what he was doing over there which would have caused some of the “heckling” the questioner received.
The reason we chose this clip is because we believe it is the clip the “accredited” media would have used, had they broadcast any of the meeting. Well saying that, personally I believe they would have showed the question but not the answer, but maybe that’s me just being too sceptical!
Furthermore I would like to say that the Senior Editor at CTV agreed that there was DOUBLE the amount of 120 people at the meeting as reported in the JEP. Viewers will be able to make their own estimation of the amount of people present.
VFC would like to say we have no evidence to substantiate the claims made by Senator Syvret concerning the Crown Officers/Offices and 7 Bedford Row and they are entirely the opinion of Mr. Syvret……………and the huge majority of the crowd.
This isn’t a case of “you saw it here first” it is a case of you ONLY saw it here.
Perhaps I will publish what Stuart had to say at the meeting about the Mainstream Media next?
Submitted by VFC.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Team Voice wanted to put the questions to the former Senator that we believed the public would want answers to and in particular, those of his detractors. So much did we want his detractors questions put to him, we actually contacted an alleged victim of his Blog and asked that person for the questions they wanted asked……and we asked them - which will be the next instalment of this in-depth interview.
Submitted by VFC.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Before I do that credit has to be given to the Senator. Firstly he does engage, he does reply to e-mails and does tackle the questions put to him. If the rest of our elected “representatives” were as willing to engage with the public as he is, then there would be a smaller divide between them and us. I might not agree with the Senator but respect him for his willingness to engage.
From:Ian Le Marquand
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Dear voice for children, now that I understand that your questions related to the interim report alone and not to the final report, I shall amend my answers.
I have not read the interim report but I have electronically seen the e-mail to which it was attached as an attachment. I am also aware that there is a quotation from the interim report in another document which was produced the same day or the next day (I cannot recall which).I do not know who, other than Mr. Warcup, has seen the report in its interim form as opposed to in its final form. I have already given an answer in relation to the final form. I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.
As I mentioned to your representative in the Royal Square two days ago, I am genuinely puzzled as to why anybody would want to allege that the interim report never existed but only a final report. The reason why I am puzzled is that most of the criticism of Mr. Warcup (unfair and inaccurate criticism in my view) is based upon his having requested that some form of report be produced at an early date.
In relation to the reason why i have declined to be interviewed, your representative will know that at the same time I declined to be interviewed by Channel TV. I do not want to be interviewed at this time in relation to any matters which may impinge upon the disciplinary matters concerning Mr. Power. There are good reasons for this at this time which I cannot go into. I am afraid that your readers and participants are going to have to be patient for 2 to 3 months longer until I arrive at the point at which I can properly put mopre detailed information into the public domain.
I am happy that you re-produce my e-mails but would ask that you re-produce both e-mails in relation to your recent questions. Best wishes, Ian Le Marquand.
So the Senator has seen the e-mail the interim report (if it exists) was attached to but not the report? What the crucial question must be is were the words “MET Interim Report” written anywhere on that e-mail, when was the Report compiled, when and why was it asked for and were there any other “Interim” Reports submitted before early November??
You will note that the Senator tells us “I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.” and he goes on to say “I am genuinely puzzled as to why anybody would want to allege that the interim report never existed but only a final report. The reason why I am puzzled is that most of the criticism of Mr. Warcup (unfair and inaccurate criticism in my view) is based upon his having requested that some form of report be produced at an early date.”
To that I would reply there is a school of thought that says David Warcup requested something and that is something that would assist the efforts of getting rid of CPO Graham Power. Some of us believe, rather than an “interim report”, it might be better described as “a favour from a mate”?
Also where the Senator says this “I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.” Well like I have said there are those of us that do doubt the existence of an “official MET Interim Report.” Among those doubters are Deputy Bob Hill- who under the Freedom Of Information Act- asked Scotland Yard for confirmation of its existence. SCOTLAND YARD WOULD NEITHER CONFIRM, NOR DENY, ITS EXISTENCE.
That might not give Senator Le Marquand any reason to doubt that it exists, because perhaps on the e-mail that he has seen he did read the words “MET Interim Report” and he could confirm this for us?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
In this posting we are going to look at the “Interim” Report, or rather, the confusion surrounding it, (if it exists).
Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand appears just as confused as the rest of us when it comes to separating the two (The MET Report and the MET “Interim” Report, if it exists).
You will see by the e-mail exchange below between VFC and Senator Le Marquand, that the Senator has been offered the opportunity of a “guest posting” or an interview to explain to readers/viewers of this Blog all about the “Interim” Report (if it exists) but he has subsequently declined the offer………..can’t think why? You will also see that there are some un-answered questions (so what’s new?) regarding both reports, (if one exists).
Senator Le Marquand did tell me yesterday, outside the States Building, that in our e-mail exchange, he had confused the MET “Report” with the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists) and will explain where he confused the two by e-mail. As I am sure he is busy with States Sittings at the minute, he’s not had the time to do this yet but I will publish the e-mail if/when it arrives.
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Subject Met "Interim" Report
I intend on publishing a Blog in the hope of unravelling the mysteries surrounding the Metropolitan Police "Interim" Report used (or not as it turned out) by David Warcup to "back up" his concerns regarding CPO Graham Power and Operation Rectangle.
Would you be so kind as to let me know.
Have you seen this "interim" Report, if not why not?
Who, to the best of your knowledge, has seen it besides David Warcup?
Do the MET Police themselves acknowledge its existence? If not, why not?
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Subject RE: Met "Interim" Report
Dear voice for children, I have answered a lot of oral and written questions in the States about this and you may wish to refer to these. There is absolutely no doubt about the existence of this report. I have seen the following personally:-
a) the e-mail to which it was enclosed as an attachment;
b) the document itself (but not its contents); and
c) the bill for the work done on it (the dates of the work done correspond with what I would expect and the bill can only refer to this.
I have not looked at the contents of the report for two reasons as follows:-
a) firstly, because I decided to not look at the report for disciplinary purposes in relation to Mr. Power; once I decided this, it would not have been right to read the report as it might have influenced me in my decisions concerning the suspension etc. of Mr. Power; and
b) secondly, because most of the report deals with individual investigations and gives advice in relation to these; I do not get involved in operational matters or individual investigations and frankly, would prefer not to read such highly confidential material unless I absolutely have to.
The report has been seen by Mr. Warcup, Mr. Taylor, a number of other police officers who were involved with individual cases and a number of lawyers who were involved as prosecutors in relation to individual cases.
Of course the Met acknowledge the existence of the report. I understand from Deputy Bob Hill who has tried to make contact with individual officers that the Met are not prepared to provide the names of individual officers because of past experiences of abusive messages in relation to such matters. However, I have provided Deputy Hill with the name of the most senior Met officer who was involved.
You have not asked this question but I will answer it any way. The reason why the Met police objected to my using the report for disciplinary purposes concerning Mr. Power is that the interim and final reports were not produced for disciplinary purposes but for the purpose of reviewing the state of the overall investigation and of individual cases. Notwithstanding that, there was no reason why Mr. Warcup should not rely upon the contents of the report as confirming his own concerns.
Finally, I have been aware for some time of the rumour that the interim report never existed. This rumour is false. Furthermore, I think that you should note that Mr. Power has never denied the existence of the interim report. In fact, I believe that at some stage he asserted that the report had been produced at his request although I cannot recall where and when he stated this. I hope that this information, which I have already provided in terms of answers to written and oral questions in the States will help your readers and blogers to understand the situation. Ian Le Marquand
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Subject Re: Met "Interim" Report.
Thank you for your prompt reply. In answer to the question "Have you seen the MET Interim Report?, a simple "no" would have sufficed. I can't help but feel you were getting a little confused with the MET Report and the "Interim" MET Report when you had this to say.
"Of course the Met acknowledge the existence of the report." Can you just confirm that you are referring to the "Interim" Report there? and further when you had this to say. "Finally, I have been aware for some time of the rumour that the interim report never existed. This rumour is false. Furthermore, I think that you should note that Mr. Power has never denied the existence of the interim report. In fact, I believe that at some stage he asserted that the report had been produced at his request"
It certainly does look like you have mixed up the two reports in that last statement. Of course I always stand to be corrected, but I don't think it is correct to say that CPO Power has ever asserted that the "Interim" report had been produced at his request. Again could you clarify if you are referring to the "Interim" Report?
One of the criticisms levelled at us Bloggers is that we are bias and don't report "the other side" of the story. Unfortunately the main reason the other side of the story doesn't get told is because nobody will tell us it!
In order to get the full story to my readers/viewers I would like to offer you the opportunity to tell us everything we can, and need to know about the MET "interim" Report. You could either do this by way of a "Guest Posting" by that I mean write/type a piece for a Blog, which I will publish for you. Or perhaps you would consider giving me an interview? Either way, I am as keen as you are to have my readers/viewers as fully informed as possible, and I'm sure you would agree one of the two options above would be a way of doing this?
I would like to assure readers (and Senator Le Marquand) that the mysteries surrounding the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists) will be un-ravelled on here in the coming weeks.
Friday, 7 May 2010
In a series of a couple of postings we will be addressing the mystery of the “interim” MET Report and the “MET Report”, their significance in the suspension of our Chief Police Officer Graham Power, their purpose and indeed their very existence (or not) as the case may be.
First of all the “official” Met Report which we understand was submitted to The Wiltshire Constabulary in July 2009.
Its Significance in the suspension of CPO Graham Power? Well in theory it should have no significance whatsoever, that was not the purpose of the report. So what was the purpose of the report? It is standard practice for an outside force to be asked to review a major enquiry such as, in this case “Operation Rectangle” (HDLG Enquiry) It can be seen that this was discussed with ACPO and is mentioned in their reports. The advice was that a review would be done by the Met and timed to set an agenda for the new management team, Gradwell and Warcup. CPO Graham Power not only agreed to this, but welcomed it as a recommendation from ACPO.
Reviewing teams are encouraged to be "critical friends" and to present challenges for the investigating force. While the final report is an important document it is usual for verbal updates to be given regularly and for the investigating force to make changes on the move. This happened with Operation Rectangle and effectively all of the observations, (we are led to believe) of the Met team were acted upon before the events of November 2008 CPO, Power’s suspension along with Gradwell and Warcup’s infamous Press Conference.
The Met have resisted any use of their report in relation to suspension or discipline of CPO Graham Power and during the suspension review meetings Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand was obliged to rule their report "out of play." The attitude of the Met on this issue, and for that matter the Service as a whole is obvious and understandable. Reviews of this kind are important. A critical and challenging attitude is also important. If they are to be used to suspend the Chief officer then which Chief Officer would ever again commission such a review??...and which reviewing team would make hard challenges of the kind currently encouraged??..........and in consequence the public interest suffers, and Police Forces would not be able to advance their skills in conducting major enquiries in fear of losing their jobs!
The Met review is not to be confused with the investigation led by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. That IS a disciplinary enquiry. When “The Powers that be” (in our opinion) realised that they could not rely on the Met report to get rid of Graham Power they could have paused, assessed the situation, and looked for a way out. But they didn't (never underestimate the stupidity of our oligarchy) They tasked the Wiltshire Constabulary to start all over again. Now more than one and a half years on, the disciplinary process is still in its preliminary stages! At what cost to the tax payer? Probably around the million quid mark. The relevant part of Operation Rectangle was Feb 2008 and the months immediately thereafter. So the "investigation into the investigation" has taken three times as long as the investigation itself and still isn’t finished!
Chief Police Officer Graham Power was suspended in November 2008 by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis with the only Ministerial decision he made during his very short time as Minister and still the Chief Officer has not faced any disciplinary action, why not?
So in conclusion.
The “official” Met Report does exist, the Metropolitan Police lay claim to it, they have insisted it is not used in relation to disciplinary proceedings against CPO Graham Power.
The “interim” MET Report, we would be as bold as we dare to be, and say there is a very strong possibility it doesn’t even exist! And we will explain why we believe that in the next posting. Unless of course anybody in the meantime could provide us with "evidence" that it does exist?
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Some weeks ago Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand told listeners to our local BBC Radio show “Talkback” that he had a scandal to tell us all concerning the Association Of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) who were advising and mentoring the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of the Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse investigation Lenny Harper and his team. He (Senator Le Marquand) told listeners that he would reveal this “scandal” that could bring the good name of ACPO into disrepute at the next States Sitting.
Naturally there was a great deal of interest in what this “scandal” could be, the public gallery at the States Sitting was (unusually) well attended and plenty of others tuned into the live radio broadcast of the sitting. Only to find out that the Senator had contracted a twenty four hour bug and didn’t turn up to the sitting and his Assistant Minister (Deputy Jackie Hilton) didn’t know anything about the “scandal”, what’s the chances of that? In fact his Assistant Minister appeared to know next to nothing, about anything! So we would all have to wait with bated breath for a few weeks before the Home Affairs Minister could reveal what this “scandal” was that might discredit ACPO and possibly throw their "very positive" Reports and reputation into disrepute.
“The term “scandal” as I understand it from having looked it up in a dictionary is wide enough to cover improper conduct. If a senior officer puts himself into a position where there is a conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, that is, in my view, improper.”
One can only believe you have been mis-quoted and that you said you had a “sandal” not a “scandal”. A sandal would prevent your foot from getting covered in sh-t should you inadvertently step in some. However a pair of waders would be more appropriate because you have stepped in some and you’re up to your neck in it!……..Not to worry though Senator eh? God will be the judge.
Submitted by VFC. Graphics kindly supplied by Web Guru