Saturday, 17 July 2010

Redaction.



Below is an e-mail sent by Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM in response to an e-mail he had received from, shall we say “an interested party”. The recipient of the e-mail has requested that I do not include their e-mail in this Blog……..so I’ve REDACTED IT!! The e-mail has also been viewed by a number of politicians with an interest, which incidentally is growing.

For those of us who read the Blog Tony's Musings we are aware of the research, objectivity, impartiality, humour, satire and most importantly, in my opinion, his search for facts. He is meticulous with his research and does his utmost to inform his readers of “balanced facts”. Tony recently published a Blog about the 70% “redaction” of the Wiltshire Report.

Well the 70%, as Tony now knows might be a little “economical” and there is a strong chance that the true figure could be more than NINETY PER CENT REDACTED!

If this is correct, then the tax payer has paid well over a million quid and Ian Le Marquand is trying to convince anybody that will listen that he is being “fair” to Chief Officer Graham Power with less than TEN PER CENT of a report, after denying him a fair trial.

I was ready to show some humility to the Wiltshire Constabulary, believing that ILM and his cohorts had approved all the redacting, but after re-reading the Chief Officer’s e-mail, it reads to me as though Wiltshire have joined in with the redaction game.

Naturally, this is all truly alarming, if true, and just exposes, even further, what a sham this all is and what an utter Kangaroo Court ILM is conducting and expecting us all to swallow!

Probably the most frightening aspect of all is, if this is what can be done to the most Senior Police Officer -what have they - and what can they - do to us, the plebs?

We also must remember that the 4 ACPO Reports and the HMIC Reports scrutinizing Lenny Harper and Graham Power can be viewed in their entirety, thanks to Citizens Media (ACPO Reports) why are we only allowed to see less than TEN PER CENT of Wiltshire?

I might be thinking a little optimistic, (which is a very rare treat for me) and reading something that isn’t there (Graham Power’s e-mail below) but I could be forgiven for believing that Graham Power intends on publishing his defence somewhere along the line. It is reported to be in the region of SIXTY TWO THOUSAND words and up to a hundred pages long.

One thing is for sure - every single word of it will appear on this Blog given half the chance.

As I have explained, this document/e-mail has been redacted and slightly edited and does not make for comfortable reading.

The e-mail from CPO Power QPM in response to questions he had received from an interested party.

The problem here is that he is dealing with the redaction of a redaction.  
The "Wiltshire Report" that I have fills three and a half crates. The "report" part is the investigating officers selective summary of the evidence extracted from a huge quantity of statements and documents.   The defence case would have been that he has been unfairly selective in focusing on the negative elements of the evidence. So before the second "redaction" there has been a first "redaction" which in the view of the defence ignores witness evidence and documents friendly to my case.
 
Balance can only be achieved if the Wilts summary is read alongside my own statement.   There is no other way. And my own statement should certainly be part of any archive.
 
Let me bore you with an example. The Wilts summary of the evidence criticises media lines taken by Lenny. But when I search through the piles of paperwork I discover that a PC (name redacted) was tasked with researching Lenny’s broadcasts and producing a summary. In that exercise he failed to find any record of claims of buried bodies and the like. On the contrary he extracts quotes such as "there is no evidence that anyone was murdered or died at HDLG in these rooms but there is evidence of abuse there."  (covered in my statement para 302)........................  consequence??..............this evidence is completely ignored by Wilts in their "report" because it does not fit their agenda.......................Again.............the selectively include negative evidence offered by a media consultant named (name redacted)..............but when I dig out his report from the files I find that he also quotes Lenny as saying "We have no allegations that anyone died or was murdered there."..................(my stat para 301.)  result??...............again.....totally ignored in the Wilts report...............which is selective and biased enough before being further redacted by the Minister to make it look even worse. Only the more general availability of my statement can redress this balance.
 
Some States Members have attempted to work out how much of the "evidence" has been redacted..............they may not be aware that a massive redaction has already taken place before the second redaction.
 
At a very rough assessment the evidence made available to States Members is probably less than 10% of the total.
 
I hope that this note is helpful..
Regards.
 
Graham.

Submitted by VFC.

22 comments:

  1. See also my other post at:

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-problems-over-redacted-material.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well,

    Who didn't see that coming?

    NOT MANY HANDS UP

    ReplyDelete
  3. This surely has got to be some kind of world record hasn’t it? Normally when reports are redacted, it’s to stop people being identified and the likes of, how can this be justified? Does anybody know of any similarly redacted report, as in excess of NINETY PER CENT REDACTED?

    I would like to think with all the “leaking” that goes on, one day the FULL Wiltshire will find its way onto the Blogs, I wonder if ILM shares my optimism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whoaaa! Taken to its logical conclusion, there must have been far more urgent motives for destroying GP's credibility than mentioned in the redacted rubbishings, such as his alleged failure to reign in a few lunch expenses and upgraded airline tickets.

    Anyone interested in keeping up with the truth already knew from printed evidence that the police never did sensationalize any allegations of murder, so that point is moot and that ship sailed long ago with their undocumented coconut theory, captained by the truth fairy. Media sensationalism was simply the responsibility of the media itself, including someone working for the JEP.

    Everything about the entrenched Jersey stance against the original HDLG inquiry smacks of truly terrible desperation and fear by those in power. Who it really involves and what this means simply must be investigated further by the outside press.

    Really, how can it NOT be because LH and GP were on the verge of exposing something far more sinister than has been publicly alleged? Does any other theory even make sense? We can bend over backwards to a ridiculous extent to be fair to both sides of the inquiry, but the more objective we are, the less credibility the official version ever demonstrates.

    Boo

    ReplyDelete
  5. VFC

    Great work, once again. You and your team are bringing real investigative journalism to the place it is most needed.

    That level of redaction, if it is supposedly due to snsitive information like names of suspects and victims, could lead to the impression there were countless more suspects and victims and witnesses than the public realized. Hard to believe that was the real Wiltshire or oligarchy intent in those excessive redactions, though.

    Now what will this do to the reputation and credibility of Wiltshire? What does it say about all that favorable (ACPO) reporting that leads to such a different conclusion? What will those agencies eventually say, at least off the record, about this?

    Bottom line: GP and LH obviously want the public to know a whole lot more. That alone makes it very easy to believe them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surprised - no not really. Nothing surprises any more.

    More questions for the 'good' States Members to be asking I think.

    Incidentally VFC, is Skippy now a llama? Seems to be chewing on his cud. Could soon be choking on his own words.

    Word verification - feste(r)

    ReplyDelete
  7. P.S. Is a redaction of a redaction an over-re(d)action?

    Just a thought!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know about redacted, I would call this report misleading at best and absolutely criminal .
    Wasn't there talk about Warcup being a third degree Mason
    It would be interesting to find out who the main players have been concerning this report and what links they have to the Masonic Temple

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just taken a quick look on Wikileaks. sadly no Wiltshire report over there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes,but what are the states members going to say about it. It is so redacted Im surprised it's not in the critical care unit down the general.

    I must give credit to the BBC for last weeks reporting I think the penny has dropped for them, well something has so fair play.

    Diane ' shackles' Simon and the JEP they just leave me more and more stunned

    So what are our states members going to say? will they just go along with this? or will it still be the same decent members speaking out.

    Sarah Ferguson even wants the bent coppers reinstated, you cant make this place up ( HOT FUZZ)

    ILM on talkback this morning ya beauty bring it on

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why are so many professionals afraid to be seen to disclose corruption and truth!

    ReplyDelete
  12. ILM on talkback now knows what it is like to have part of his statement/report redacted as he had to explain he had apparently apologised to abuse survivors before Jersey's image.

    However, I ask, did he, or as there been a 'back fitting' cover up.

    I must say, if I am expected to believe what the JEP have printed about GP why should I still not believe that ILM apologised for Jersey's image before abuse survivors.

    Surely the JEP did not get his priority of apologies incorrect!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. It wasn't only reported in the JEPropaganda that Ian le Marqaund apologised to Islanders before apologising to the abuse survivors.
    It came from his own mouth in his interview on TV

    ReplyDelete
  14. Skippy has most definitely lost the plot. He should go hopping into the outback.

    He most certainly apologised to the Island before the abuse survivors from the word go. It was even on his statement on www.gov.je which if I am not mistaken has disappeared!!!

    The man is clearly totally confused and we have left him in charge of this lot. It beggars belief.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, let me get this right.

    We're now looking at a cherry-picked redaction of a cherry-picked redaction, served loudly and proudly to the public as neutral evidence by our government and their Quisling media?

    It's time someone did Jersey a huge favour and lodged a motion of no confidence against both Le Marquand and the entire Council of Ministers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Firstly, I apologise to the people of this Island for the serious reputational
    damage which occurred both to this Island and to its people as a direct result
    of serious mishandling of the press conferences and by virtue of the
    misleading information which was put out in these press conferences during
    February 2008 onwards.

    http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=424

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks Anonymous - yes it is still there. My mistake.

    However in Saturday's JEP interview he further goes on to state 'other mistakes had included to a much lesser degree, the unfortunate focus in the Liberation Day speech by former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache on the damage caused to the Island's reputation by the lurid publicity surrounding the historical child abuse inquiry'.

    He seems to have forgotten that this is exactly what he did, and gave priority to only days before!!

    BOING!

    ReplyDelete
  18. " Anonymous said...

    It wasn't only reported in the JEPropaganda that Ian le Marqaund apologised to Islanders before apologising to the abuse survivors.
    It came from his own mouth in his interview on TV"

    Is this anywhere online that isn't the ctv wesbite because there old news videos won;t play.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well done to the fighters in Jersey.

    We in the North East are elated by the news that you have chased Warcup out of office.

    Jersey children will be much safer now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Anonymous said...

    ILM on talkback now knows what it is like to have part of his statement/report redacted as he had to explain he had apparently apologised to abuse survivors before Jersey's image. "

    I was going to listen to this on the Talback recording on the website but it's so long and I don't have time right now. Do you know roughly how long into it he said that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I.L.M says that names, addresses etc
    were redacted to protect peoples identities.
    After putting down the wiltshire report to have his lunch, brandy or whatever I can only assume that by accident he picked up the telephone book when he resumed his redaction.

    70% redacted, possibly 90%
    it's not funny

    ReplyDelete

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