Saturday, 15 May 2010

Something exists……but what is it?

Below is the last e-mail I received from Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, where he has set out to clear up the confusion between the MET Report into Operation Rectangle and the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists).
There is very little doubt that something exists, that has never been the issue, but it’s what that “something” is that is the issue. You will see by the e-mail below that the only person to have set eyes on this “Interim” Report (if it exists) appears to be David Warcup who arguably has the most to gain by the departure of CPO Graham Power.
I will re-produce Senator Le Marquand’s e-mail - and below that I will make a couple of observations and set a question or two.

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
Subject: RE: Met "Interim" Report.
To: voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

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?

15 comments:

  1. For readers who would have missed the comment recently submitted by Lenny Harper on the previous Blog posting, I reproduce it here.

    "Well, we might get a bit closer to the truth now as the Independent Police Complaints Commission have refused the Met's request to "bin" my complaint about this review and ordered them to reverse their decision not to investigate it."

    Interesting times ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi VFC

    Remember everything comes back to november 2008.

    We must find out what happened with the original suspension of Graham Power

    David Warcup and the 'INTERIM REPORT'lol what a little mystery we have here. This magical INTERIM REPORT, so it was sent as an attachment on an email, ILM has seen the email but not the report, Andrew Lewis has not seen the report but suspended anyway oh what a little mystery we have here.

    This is a question for any states member who is up for asking it and ask they should. Looking at ILM'S email response this question now needs asking.
    '
    'Can the Minister for Home Affairs confirm to the house that the Metropolitan Interim Police report sent to David Warcup on the 10th november 2008 was in fact written on Metropolitan Police Headed Paper'

    Now it might need tinkering with so who is up for asking it, the reason for asking is so we can rule out someone doing Dave Warcup a favour simples.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the email had an attachment that ILM did not read he would not be aware or have knowledge if it was on "headed paper" surely unless the email itself was "headed ".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point anonymous.

    Call me naive, and I probably am, but is not Ian Le Marquand equally naive when he says he has not read the attachment, so in effect is saying a paper clip will suffice as proof!!

    On such an important issue surely he should be looking at the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts.

    Quite incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We may do a study of this investigation ourselves in the future but would prefer a conclusion to the suspension and public enquiry first.

    Gazza :-x

    ReplyDelete
  6. I took it that ILM had been forwarded the original email from the Met but without its attachment. Therefore he would have read the Met's email and Warcup's comments on it but not the report.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ironic that 'Gazza' as there will be no need for your investigation after the public enquiry and suspension conclusion!!

    Let VFC get on with the excellent job they are doing, and you get on with the slanging match which you are better suited to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are correct Rico, everything does come back to November 2008. Gradwell invited some of the care leavers to the police station incedent room on 18th November 2008 at 2pm and to their utter disgust he proceeded to show them evidence found at HDLG. Everything seems to stem around that one week in November 2008!!!

    Keep up the good work guys.

    Carrie

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is it that no one can give a clear concise answer too anything that they are asked?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Carrie - that is a very interesting comment as in the States on Tuesday Ian Le Marquand was unable to tell us whether or not victims had been shown evidence at HdelaG, but did indicate when pressed that this would not be part of the normal process.

    Perhaps our Home Affairs Minister would care to find out exactly what the purpose was, and why Mr Gradwell acted in this way.

    After all, he was quick enough to slate Lenny Harper on his handling of the abuse enquiry, but it seems double standards apply here.

    Perhaps he would care to do what Lenny does and give his own slant on this??!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as I see it Mick Gradwell showed the whole bl00dy world potential evidence on the 12 November 2008 when he showed the worlds media the alleged restraints, among other things.

    If anybody's media strategy needs scrutinizing, it's Gradwell's and Warcup's, but something tells me that's not going to happen!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "As far as I see it Mick Gradwell showed the whole bl00dy world potential evidence on the 12 November 2008 when he showed the worlds media the alleged restraints, among other things."

    What Gradwell did by explaining away the alleged restraints as being only bedsprings actually went beyond any UK accepted police proceedure, and he had to have known it. That alone should have caused public outrage and attracted national press coverage.

    One can only wonder what opinion the MET and other policing organizations would have if asked to comment on that infamous press conference.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For everybody, an actual statement from Ian Le Marquand may put this to sleep.

    Gazza :-x

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gazza.

    A statement from ILM or anybody else is never going to put this all to sleep.

    Clear concice answers to questions, like those set out in this posting, will go some way to putting this to sleep.

    We have had statements, we want answers, we just want the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I wish cyber insults against everybody would stop now. Unnecassary, irritating and pointless.

    ReplyDelete

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