Friday, 7 May 2010

Confused?….You will be! (part one).

As regular readers/viewers of the Team Voice Blogsites will be aware, we like to deal in relevant “facts” and documented “evidence” and question the acts and omissions employed by our ruling elite and do what we can to make some sense of it all to our audience.

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?

24 comments:

  1. Hi VFC

    The original 'MET INTERIM' report is the most crucial bit of evidence concerning the suspension of Graham Power. The Original suspension must be properly looked at by all sides because that is the reason Power is suspended.If you don't then you could walk into any workplace, suspend the boss, try and find something,now that is wrong but it has happened to Graham Power.

    Suspended in november 2008 and in May 2010 still waiting lol so serious in 2008 and still waiting.

    A COMPLETE AND UTTER JOKE

    A COMPLETE AND UTTER JOKE TANKS TO

    OGLEY,WALKER AND LEWIS

    These guys have caused a mess and chuck in WARCUP/GRADWELL its a huge bloody mess

    Now before the 'FARCE BOYS' explode ask yourself this, why no disciplinary, why nothing just Zero

    They have Feck All

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rico.

    The part of the Law used to suspend Graham Power (2.3.3) as far as I am aware basically says you have to be caught red handed in a criminal act!

    So if they had something so damming to suspend Graham Power, why have they never charged him with it? This all just reeks of noble cause corruption, get rid of him, and come up with a reason later. Although here we are some 18months down the line and nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Deputy Bob "The Guvn'r" Hill would put it. "dimissal by stealth"

    ReplyDelete
  4. " dismissal by corruption"

    ReplyDelete
  5. All very suspicious and probably another farcical and embarrassing situation that our 'esteemed' have now got to wriggle and squirm their way out of.

    Time will tell I suppose, but how much time?? Given the time scales so far it could be a long wait.

    Meanwhile Mr Power's retirement looms large, but I guess that (hopefully) he ain't going to go away until his good name and reputation is restored, and let's face it, why should he.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are all aware of the other use of the word 'scandalise' I assume?

    Nautical. to spill the wind from or reduce the exposed area of (a sail) in an unusual manner.

    The usual interpretation is related to a gaff sail (old style one with a boom high up that makes a trapezium shape) where coming through the pier heads you drop the top of the gaff (to scandalise) to reduce your headway.
    In the case of Ian Le Marquand 'spilling wind in an unusual manner' may now be something that the OED should be aware of for future editions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Deputy Hill's oral question 8 in the States on Tuesday, regarding the recent removal of the HDLG bath, from the 7ft high cellars, will be a good one, because who, why, and when(the removal), will be very revealing answers from ILM. And he is going to have to give answers especialy with Tadier, Pitman and maybe even Wimberly and Higgins now very much on the case.

    The bath removal will be a mystery to ILM along with the hights of the cellars, but he will have to muddle through to keep the respect he is very very fast loosing!!??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes the bath question will make for an interesting answer. If memory serves me correctly the Bedfordshire Police found bloodstains in it didn't they?

    Why would anybody possibly want to get rid of it? Hasn't it been there since before the 1920's? A piece of local history? Still I'm sure ILM has been given a perfectly valid reason for its removal.......

    ReplyDelete
  9. It appears there is a lot of evidence missing or about to be missing from HDLG. Evidence is supposed to be extremely well guarded, with a clear chain of official command listing those responsible for preserving it against the possible need for future retesting and/or use for prosecutions. There is no excuse for any modern police department to fail to maintain evidence and the bath tub is but one outrageous example of deliberate destruction or contamination of forensic materials. The importance of protecting evidence can be verified by contacting any policing agencuy in any modern society. This failure of the current police team in Jersey is yet another scandal in itself.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Warcup maybe, could get away with removing/destroying bones, because they are relatively small.Buta bath!

    Come on!?

    Then again Ogley has got away(so far), with destroying vital evidence with a shreader, but Warcup would have needed help and a skip....

    Surely?!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bedfordshire Police did indeed test the bath for blood and the tests were positive. This followed the positive reaction from both dogs that we were using - the same dogs that Andrew Lewis and Frank Walker saw in action and professed themselves very impressed. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lenny.

    Thanks for the comfirmation, that blood was found in the bath by an outside Police Force.

    Are you able to give us an idea why anybody would want to get rid of the bath from a Police perspective?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dismissed for being an HONEST and UPRIGHT copper.

    Only in Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If my memory serves me correctly, this is not the only evidence that the Wierdcop gang have destroyed.

    I will need to rack my brains, but I am 100% certain that somewhere, relatively recently there has been mention of other evidence being disposed of.

    Not very professional is it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. VFC

    Surely a before and after photo of the bath would be good evidence to give Deputy Hill for Tuesday.

    Is this possible?

    Is the chiminy stack still in place for direction?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "VFC

    Surely a before and after photo of the bath would be good evidence to give Deputy Hill for Tuesday.

    Is this possible?

    Is the chiminy stack still in place for direction?"

    Not a bad idea/question. I will look at the video footage I have from my visit there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi VFC - If you open your e-mails I have sent you a link with a picture that shows the bath 'in situ' which may help.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The bath is now a jacuzzi, it sits in Warcups back garden.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In answer to a question that won't be getting published. The vitims/survivors and the "good" people of Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2 very interesting questions on Tuesday.

    1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

    “Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many of the 30 alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne are still part of the ongoing historic abuse investigations; how many, if any, are not being pursued, when it was decided to discontinue their investigation and for what reason?”

    8. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

    “Will the Minister inform Members how many allegations were made in relation to abuse in the stone bath or immediate area at Haut de la Garenne; why and when was the bath demolished, who gave authority to demolish it and what did its demolition and removal cost?”

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Jill for the picture of the bath and the room that it was in. I have studied my video footage and so far it looks like I never went in that particular room.

    I am very much looking forward to ILM's answer to Bob "The Guvn'r" Hill's question, and also the answer to Trevor "Big Trev" Pitmans question.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maybe we are approaching the 'third stage'.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    ReplyDelete
  23. VFC. No - we cut a small bit of the bath out - the bit where the blood was found - and sent it off for further tests. The results had not come back when I left the island. We handed HDLG back in July, I never went in again, and have no recollection whatsoever of anything further with the bath. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  24. It has been pointed out many times that David Weirdcop had much to gain from Graham Power's departure but aren't we missing the point...
    He had already been appointed a Chief Officer Designate so in effect he had only to sit back and wait for Graham's retirement. He did not stand to gain much from Graham's earlier departure.

    ReplyDelete

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