Monday, 15 November 2010

Who is the real Chief Minister (3)

With P166/2010 due to be debated this week we bring you an update on our Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur’s, response to Deputy Bob Hill’s proposition.


The Foot Stamping Lackey’s of the Motherland (FSLM) are going to have a field day!

Chief Minster Le Sueur’s comments could, and no doubt will be, torn apart, as he once more appears to be ducking and diving the questions in his rabid obsession of protecting The Real Chief Minister and others.

Readers can make up their own minds with the hope that not only will the FSLM be having a field day, but the commenter who goes by the name “has-the-question-been-answered” does also.

 (a) to request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the Chief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in particular to provide information in respect of the following matters





 (i) what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension meeting and what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the future;









 (i) the reporting of what takes place at any official meeting needs to be complete and accurate, and policies are already in place to ensure that this occurs. Whilst in some cases it is to be expected that original handwritten notes will be retained even after formal, typed-up versions have been produced and signed off as a true version of events, in other cases such an approach would be unnecessary and excessive. Officers have been advised to continue to use their discretion on these matters, but where there is any doubt, to err on the side of caution.






 (ii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in respect of that matter;









 (ii) as I have already indicated in response to questions in the States, I do not believe that the actions taken in respect of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police were contrary to legal advice. On the contrary, the action was taken in full awareness of such advice, but also in the light of all other relevant information and considerations. I have had regard to all such advice and other information when undertaking and assessing the disciplinary issues to be addressed as a result of the report.






 (iii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions, and what action, if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code;







 (iii) Paragraphs 107 and 108 summarise the views expressed in earlier paragraphs, and in themselves can be encapsulated in Mr. Napier's own words: "the basis on which he (the former Chief Officer of Police) was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate (my emphasis)". I accept that this is a conclusion which he is entitled to draw from the information provided to him. However in my view it is not the only conclusion which can be drawn. Indeed various other parties both before and after the event have come to the conclusion that suspension was justified, even though the procedure could have been improved upon. I have had to weigh up these differing points of view when determining what action I needed to take, if any, in respect of disciplinary issues arising out of the suspension process.


(iv) why there has been no formal presentation of the report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author?











 (iv) The author of the report was invited to present his findings to a meeting of States members, but declined to do so. Such a presentation was not part of the terms of reference, nor part of his contractual duties. In the view of the author, the report speaks for itself.









 (v) what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;










 (v) Procedures are regularly reviewed as part of normal activities. I am satisfied that procedures and training for disciplinary matters are regularly reviewed. However, I am concerned to ensure that particular disciplinary codes for individual senior employees are more critically examined, and as an example I am of the opinion that there is room for improvement in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police.







(vi) whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update members on the outcome of those proceedings;










(vi) I have already indicated in answers to questions in the States that I was addressing any disciplinary issues arising from the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police. That process is now complete, and as indicated in my answers in the States, the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.









Part (b) to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out in the Disciplinary Code;









Part (b) In respect of part (b) of the Proposition, I have already been asked in the States at question time whether I would be prepared to issue an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for the manner of his suspension. I stated then, and, in case any member is in any doubt, I reiterate now, that I do not intend to make any such apology, and that indeed in my view no apology whatsoever in that respect could be justified.

On the contrary, it would perhaps be more appropriate for the former Chief Officer of Police, and also the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police, who were jointly responsible for the mismanagement of the Haut de la Garenne investigation into child abuse, to apologise to the people of Jersey, and in particular those who may have suffered abuse at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere in Jersey, for the unnecessary suffering and distress which they have caused through the erroneous approach which they adopted as identified in the report of the Wiltshire Police. However, I accept that this will not be forthcoming, and indeed the parties concerned seem to show no remorse for their actions.

We have already expended significant and largely wasteful levels of money and manpower on the Haut de la Garenne saga, and the time has come to declare that 'enough is enough'. We cannot turn back the clock or re-write history, but we can declare a conclusion to this sad and distasteful episode, and I hope that all Members will wish to do just that. (end)



We are able to inform readers that the Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper has sent a letter to our only "news" paper, the Jersey Evening Post, addressing, among other things, the comments of Chief Minister Le Sueur regarding an apology, and his "priority suspects" Morag and Anthony Jordan. We shall see if it appears in their paper before publishing it on here.

Submitted by Team Voice...........a trusted media.

54 comments:

  1. And this is the big story? Jeezzze......

    ReplyDelete
  2. omfg

    Sack him now

    ReplyDelete
  3. It should be recalled that on the day (today) that the Chief Minister is being critical of Lenny Harper and Graham Power, the Jordan’s are appearing in the Royal Court charged with 30 odd charges of abuse against 11 residents at HDLG. 

    You would have thought that Bill Ogley or John Richardson or whoever has drafted TLS’s Comments would have given some thought to what they were circulating to the world. But then again anything that comes from TLS has to be believed because he is the Chief Minister.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another narrow minded post. Who else runs the police do you think and who has been running it for over 2 years now and still convicting people? Where this nonsence is going only you seem to know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is is quite clearly, in my opinion, a total clown!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, in the words of the Chief Minister "wasteful levels of money have been spent on the HDLG saga" and it is time to "conclude this sad and distasteful episode." This certainly shows where his sympathy and priorities lie, and it is not with the victims. Those who suffered Rape, sodomy, and other cruelties in that place might think of a better description than "sad and distasteful." I should point out also that the two appearing in court today where among our list of priority suspects well before Gradwell and Warcup had arrived in Jersey, had been interviewed in Scotland, and indeed, had happily given a press conference on their doorstep protesting their innocence. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lenny.

    I have been contacted by a Child Abuse survivor (too scared to be identified) who wants to thank you, your team and Graham Power QPM.

    The person in question believes the people that should be apologising are Mick Gradwell, David Warcup and the majority of States Members, not to include Deputy Hill, Trevor Pitman, Daniel Wimberley and others.

    The Person wants me to make it as clear as I possibly can that he/she, and other survivors lost all hope of any justice when Gradwell and Warcup took over.

    So to be clear, it's a massive thank-you from the people who really matter in all this and that's the people who suffered horrendous abuse at the hands of our government institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. VFC, please pass on my thanks. It is messages like that which condemn to total irrelevance the rantings and ramblings, not to mention the downright untruths of Gradwell, Warcup, the Bailhache brothers,TLS, ILM and all their lapdogs. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh dear, oh dear - where is this man coming from, and realistically is he in denial?

    Enough is enough eh Terry? I think you could be referring to yourself, because your answer to the final question in Bob Hill's proposition is nothing short of shameful and beneath contempt.

    Angry - no fuming. As I understand it survivors of abuse at States run establishments felt confident in trusting Mr Harper and Mr Power's team. That same team secured, and are still responsible for convictions and ongoing cases. It would appear that since the current Chief stepped quite conveniently into Graham Power's shoes the whole investigation has been scaled down!! Convenient or what?

    No Mr Le Sueur, YOU owe not only Graham Power, but Lenny Harper and all the abuse survivors a very, very humble apology, not only for what they have all suffered by the
    disgrace that is the States of Jersey, but for the very words you hae chosen to use, which should go down in history as the words of a leader who has shamed himself totally and utterly.

    Yes VFC the FSLM will no doubt have their day tomorrow. We all know without being there just who they will be. Shame on them too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. has-the-question-been-answered15 November 2010 at 13:00

    BH-Q-i-1 what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension meeting

    TLS-A-i-1 the reporting of what takes place at any official meeting needs to be complete and accurate, and policies are already in place to ensure that this occurs.

    Verdict: Not answered, but can only be interpreted as - No action taken!

    BH-Q-i-2 what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the future;

    TLS-A-i-2 Officers have been advised to continue to use their discretion on these matters, but where there is any doubt, to err on the side of caution.

    Verdict: Not answered, but can only be interpreted as - No new guidelines issued!



    BH-Q-ii-1 whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers and

    TLS-A-ii-1 as I have already indicated in response to questions in the States, I do not believe that the actions taken in respect of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police were contrary to legal advice. On the contrary, the action was taken in full awareness of such advice, but also in the light of all other relevant information and considerations. I have had regard to all such advice and other information when undertaking and assessing the disciplinary issues to be addressed as a result of the report.

    Verdict: Not answered, but can only be interpreted as – He does not accept the conclusion's!

    BH-Q-ii-2 what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in respect of that matter;

    Verdict: Relatively answered as – I do not accept the conclusion's therefore no action will be taken.

    (I can't help noting that when a question requires a detailed reply, TLS is at times very abrupt and when a short yes/no is all that is required, we get verbal diarrhoea)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Haut de la Garenne was a waste of public money period.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ''We have already expended significant and largely wasteful levels of money and manpower on the Haut de la Garenne saga,''

    Absolutely disgusting way to describe the events which happened at HDLG.

    TLS is terrified to upset the status Quo. What is he terrified of?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just wish that all the survivors and their supporters, would get together and confront this clown (and his lackeys) in front of the VFC camera.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BH-Q-iii-1 whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the suspension process did not meet the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions

    TLS-A-iii-1 blah, blah, blah

    Verdict: Not answered, but can only be interpreted as – He does not accept the conclusion's!

    BH-Q-iii-2 what action, if any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process specified in the Code

    TLS-A-iii-2 blah, blah, blah...

    Verdict: Not answered, but can only be interpreted as – As he does not accept the conclusion's, then no action is likely to arise.

    BH-Q-iv-1 why there has been no formal presentation of the report to members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the author?

    TLS-A-iv-1 In the view of the author, the report speaks for itself.

    Verdict: Answered. But it does leave more questions to be asked, especially as TLS does not accept many of the conclusions In fact, I am coming to the conclusion that TLS does not really accept the report full stop, with the one exclusion, he readily repeats – there is no conspiracy – even though the author never stated it in that manner, nor did he fully investigate it as it wasn't in his remit)

    ReplyDelete
  15. TLS never gets torn to shreds because he is teflon Tel.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I see that the JEP have a REAL SCOOP today!

    haha, word V "winge"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bill Ogley head man of all the Jersey departmental chief executives, decides not to get a secretary or clerk from the States greffier to attend the very important meeting, to suspend the Chief of police, if he will not resign.

    Mr Ogley, takes it upon himself to scribble minutes on a pad which at a later date he then orders to be typed up.

    Minutes are supposed to be a true reflection of discussion and views expressed.

    Anyone could on reflection, make a mistake regarding the taking of minutes, this is the reason for the minutes to be signed off by all parties.

    The truth is that Mr Graham Power did not sign the typed version. This in itself should sent warning bells. Mr Graham Power as the Police of Chief (retired) is entitled to question minutes from a meeting that he attended.

    The question has to be asked, why when asked about future protocol, in the States Assembly,has Terry Le Suer not issued instructions that all high profile senior meetings in the future will be tape recorded and minutes kept by a third party, which can then be sited (as with Hansard) as a true record.

    Instead it will be at the DISCRETION of senior civil servants how minutes will be taken says the Chief Minister. What are you afraid of, or trying to hide Chief Minister Le Suer of Jerseys Government ?

    No wonder Jerseys administration is getting a reputation for being corrupt. This view is underpinned by the actions of Jerseys Chief Minister , who is now in the habit of giving silly, and strange non fact based answers, to back benchers in the States Assembly. These can be read on the gov. web site, for the moment at least.

    On a second point of interest, how on Gods earth can chief minister Terry Le Suer ever dare to quote the Wiltshire report, when roughly 68% of it was redacted ( for redacted read hidden ). Then to make matters worse no right of reply was allowed by those being criticized. This is supposed to pass as Justice in Jersey.


    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous at 4.36
    Excellent comments.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Based on his reported views and statements TLS is either mad, stupid or deceitful.

    His "logic" seems to run like this - HDLG cost Jersey a lot of money and attracted a lot of hyperbolic shock horror journalism - most of this was because it was treated as a potential murder scene - cadaver dog, excavations etc. A second set of police judged/claimed that there was insufficient evidence EVENTUALLY found to prove whether or not children died un-naturally at HDLG and that, somehow, the first set of police should have used their psychic powers and foreseen that it would all (officially) come to not very much apart from "standard" children's home rape, violence and abuse.

    The first set of police had to decide what strategy to adopt before the full weight of evidence was accumulated (before the excavation/sifting/forensics).

    There was absolutely enough prima facie evidence, largely from forensic scientists, to make it essential that the probability of multiple murder/manslaughter needed to be ascertained and ruled out or in.

    TLS's current attitude can only be justified if he truly believes that he and his fellow travellers "knew all along" what the truth was. This attitude is essentially moronic. No-one could have known what the truth was in advance, apart from the victims.

    Elements of the forensic reports are skated over to this day.

    TLS and his ilk, the FSLM, seem to think the first set of police - LH and GP - should have known, in advance of the final Warcup/Gradwell/Wiltshire "verdict", to abandon the big investigation, scale everything down and thereby not "shaft Jersey internationally" and also save us a pretty penny into the bargain.

    TLS, Warcup, Gradwell and the rest of the FSLM (not to mention most of the Law officer's legal machinery) are guilty of the "Negative proof fallacy": that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

    TLS and co are also massively guilty of the Hindsight Bias problem commonly known as 20 20 rear-view vision.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A narcissist will never accept responsibility or criticism for their actions...they would rather point the finger elsewhere, than to publicly or even inwardly admit to any wrongdoing, or flaws to their own character, beliefs, or those who share them... and to keep prodding at their conscience is pretty useless, when they are more adamant on proving themselves and their own causes right, than actually being, or doing right.
    Whilst i totally sympathise with those people who have survived,( and i use the word survivor as victims lay down and play defeat) the fact is that you are dealing with a bunch of spoilt brats who are used to getting their own way. They have been like that since childhood, unlike the hdlg sufferers who have had nothing... Because they are all backed up by their sycophantic friends they have nothing to fear...in my own opinion fear is what makes a person good, that and empathy (a lot of people like think they are good people, but their intentions are not, they are self based and praise-needy).. which is something most learn from experience, considering most of the high ranking politicians have no personal experience of real hardship, or friendships with anyone who suffered at hdlg or any of the other care homes, or know not what it feels like to be abused and have no where to turn, they cant empathise with anyone who suffered there, only with what they know... its a shame that a lot of our politicians and their friends are so deficient and ruined, but you cannot fix something in someone else, or their own beliefs, that they don't see as broken. It may be blatantly obvious to us, but to them its an attack on their own character, way of life..they will simply go on the defence/attack and they will do whatever it takes to protect it,and try to downsize and squash the beliefs and reputation of any person who challenges them.
    People think of money and power as some kind of privilege, personally i see it as an emotional hindrance and i am very grateful to know from experience the meaning of humility.
    A very wise man once said : "our greatest glory is not in never failing but in rising up each time we fail". I wish that our politicians had the inner courage do this for Jersey. I would have far more respect for them if they admitted they had got it wrong and did something to help fix the problems than they are doing right now, but that is part of the pretentious, narcissistic world we live in. ( I apologise to any nit pickers, for my spelling mistakes, poor grammar and punctuation, im not perfect but then who is? )

    ReplyDelete
  21. BH-Q-v-1 what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in the future;

    TLS-A-v-1 blah, blah, blah

    Verdict: Nearly answered, but should be interpreted as – No training, procedural and other corrective measures have been taken, as TLS does not accept the conclusion's.


    BH-Q-vi-1 whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a result of the findings of the Napier Report

    TLS-A-vi-1 I have already indicated in answers to questions in the States that I was addressing any disciplinary issues arising from the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police.

    Verdict: Not answered, but should be interpreted as – I am not telling you if there actually are any disciplinary proceedings, although its hardly unlikely from the Napier Report because I do not accept the findings, oh, except there was no conspiracy, did I mention there was no conspiracy.

    BH-Q-vi-2 if so, to update members on the outcome of those proceedings;

    TLS-A-vi-2 That process is now complete, and as indicated in my answers in the States, the outcomes remain confidential to the parties concerned.

    Verdict: Not quite answered, but should be interpreted as – I have now fully addressed the disciplinary issues arising from the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police (not that it relates to the Napier Report). But I'm not telling you if anything will or will not be done and if so what would be done, but I can tell you there was no conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. has-the-question-been-answered15 November 2010 at 18:04

    BH-Q-vi-part-b - to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out in the Disciplinary Code;

    TLS-A-vi-part-b In respect of part (b) of the Proposition, I have already been asked in the States at question time whether I would be prepared to issue an apology to the former Chief Officer of Police for the manner of his suspension. I stated then, and, in case any member is in any doubt, I reiterate now, that I do not intend to make any such apology, and that indeed in my view no apology whatsoever in that respect could be justified.

    Verdict: Answered, but should be interpreted as: No matter what it says in the Napier Report, I do not accept any of its findings, as I have come to a different conclusion and therefore I conclude that no apology whatsoever in regards to the way Mr Power's suspension was dealt with, could be justified. Although I do accept there was no conspiracy, I think I might have mentioned there was no conspiracy before, but just in case there should be any doubt, there wasn't one.



    TLS-A-vi-part-b (way off topic): On the contrary, it would perhaps be more appropriate for the former Chief Officer of Police, and also the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police, who were jointly responsible for the mismanagement of the Haut de la Garenne investigation into child abuse, to apologise to the people of Jersey, and in particular those who may have suffered abuse at Haut de la Garenne or elsewhere in Jersey, for the unnecessary suffering and distress which they have caused through the erroneous approach which they adopted as identified in the report of the Wiltshire Police. However, I accept that this will not be forthcoming, and indeed the parties concerned seem to show no remorse for their actions.

    Verdict: This was not an answer to any question posed by Deputy Bob Hill, but rather a deranged response to questions on the suspension procedure. Should be interpreted as verbal diarrhoea of a clown. As was the rest of it

    I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY

    ReplyDelete
  23. with all that is now known plus reading some of these fine comments where does this TLS the Chief Minister?
    What conclusions have we reached on TLS.

    Liar? Clown? Stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  24. has-the-question-been-asked15 November 2010 at 20:07

    TLS: We have already expended significant and largely wasteful levels of money and manpower on the Haut de la Garenne saga,

    Comment: what has that view got to do with whether correct procedures were followed in the suspension of Mr Graham Power!!


    TLS: and the time has come to declare that 'enough is enough'.

    Comment: Is he a Donna Summer fan!!

    TLS: We cannot turn back the clock or re-write history,

    Comment: Is he really sure some history has not been re-written, ie: the words, evidence and back-fitting, spring to mind

    TLS: but we can declare a conclusion to this sad and distasteful episode,and I hope that all Members will wish to do just that.

    Comment: what is he really saying here, tell us more Chief Minister!

    ReplyDelete
  25. TLS is going to try and "declare a conclusion"(?) to this sad and distasteful episode(his words)and he hopes all members will wish to do just that.

    Unless something drastic happens tomorrow the vote on Deputy Hills P166 proposition will be the same predictable 38 to 15 against.

    But it will just be another delaying tactic. Because there is no way that any kind of conclusion will have been declared.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Page 4 JEP
    Names Removed.

    THE NAMES OF NON-STATES MEMBERS recorded in states transcripts could be stripped OUT OF THE RECORDS

    Does that mean Sir Philip and his brother William Bailhache
    Michael Birt, David Warcup Mick Gradwell

    BILL OGLEY
    MARIO LUNDY
    DANNY WHERY
    Etc, etc, etc,

    JERSEY, re writing history yet again



    ,






    ?

    .,

    ReplyDelete
  27. completely off corse
    Can someone please enlighten me ,is Shaun Rankin related to Glen Rankin
    Reason being, he has been on every advert break on Channel T V since 6 o'clock

    By the way , I hate treacle tart

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi, it's a nice post. So, go ahead and keep us informed with your news.

    ReplyDelete
  29. TLS said "I accept that this is a conclusion which he is entitled to draw from the information provided to him."

    So is TLS admitting that information was withheld from Mr Napier?

    ReplyDelete
  30. AAAAArgh - 30 minutes into States meeting and I cannot believe what I am hearing today.

    Once again repeat after me -

    TERRY LE SUEUR IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Its seems from this mornings States sitting that Deputy Paul Le Claire is ready and willing to be a witness/give evidence regarding the witnessing of the conspirasy to remove Graham Power.

    And the only person he is willing to tell this to is Brian Napier.

    Not if, but when he comes back to Jersey to answer unanswered questions!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I could not listen in this morning.

    Any chance of a breakdown of what happened???

    ReplyDelete
  33. No it's Rankine and he's spending all his time at home with his wife and family at present. (While she is out earning).

    Quite times on the PR front I fear.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Any chance of a breakdown of what happened???"

    Plenty happened, too much for me to summarise. However thejerseyway blogsite will be putting up an audio selection of today's sitting later tonight.

    One of the many interesting things to come out of today's questioning in the States is that Terry Le Sueur had to concede that Graham Power QPM IS INNOCENT. Something tells me that the "accredited" media won't be shouting too much about that though!

    ReplyDelete
  35. VFC - from what I was able to listen to Bob Hill got rather irate (quite understandably given who he was asking questions of)no less than CM Le Sueur who flustered and blustered his way through without convincing anybody that he was being 100% upfront and truthful. Well done Bob Hill - your frustration must be immense.

    Good, forceful questioning from Trevor Pitman, Daniel Wimberley, Monty Tadier and others. A feeling that nothing is going to bed quite as early as CM Le Sueur would like it to, as I sensed a more determined sense of purpose from the backbenchers.

    Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rico has published Deputy Daniel Wimberley's questions to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Maequand here.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It would seem that The States will be getting to P-166 by tomorrow afternoon.

    Anyone with a better estimate?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Although good old Terry gave little away today in questions (apart from shooting himself in the foot over Napier) one should not overlook his apparent admission that shortly after he received the Napier report he started disciplinary proceedings against an unnamed person in consequence of the findings in the report and that these proceedings were concluded about 2 weeks ago. (behind closed doors)  

    He did of course not identify the person but a well placed source has confirmed that it was none other than "Teflon Bill." (as if nobody knew) But while Ministers feel entitled to pontificate in public, and even publish allegations, regarding disciplinary matters affecting others, like Graham Power, there appears to be a determination to keep this latest revelation well under wraps. Is this because Teflon Bill could spill the beans on just about every powerful figure on the island?
     
    Another contradiction. Never embarrassed to hold two conflicting opinions at the same time the Chief Minister appears to have achieved this unusual feat yet again.

    His defence on his stance on Napier seems to involve two positions. The first is that there was nothing done in relation to the suspension of Graham Power QPM for which those involved need to apologise.

    The second is that the senior civil servant involved in the process has been disciplined for what was done!!! Perhaps it is too much to expect our Chief Minister to operate within the commonly expected rules of logic!!………..keep digging Terry!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. A serving Chief Executive16 November 2010 at 20:29

    The Royal Court is the place to be. Its a total "Education" in Jersey Law

    ReplyDelete
  40. This may be of interest,

    Islanders named on sex offenders register.

    Dozens of islanders in both Jersey and Guernsey have been included on an unofficial online sex offenders register.

    The site was set up by a Devon-based child abuse campaigner who describes it as the world's biggest database of UK paedophiles.

    Around 10 Guernsey residents, and 20 Jersey residents are named on the website.

    Guernsey's data protection commissioner says the site falls outside his jurisdiction but he is discussing it with his UK counterparts.


    http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=491826

    ReplyDelete
  41. Posted on Proudjerseyman


    Colin Machon said...
    So it comes to pass. The ex Father of the House has a Christmas sojourn pleasuring Her Majesty.

    Had not my friend Eli Le Moignard and his late friend Jack 'My son' Renault as well as Isabella Borgward not coughed up for his flight from exile, then the' powers that be 'would not have been able to rent their spleen upon him.

    These people have undertaken their civic duty beyond the call and are looking forward to receiving their due accolade. A suggestion I have heard is that the Reginald Jeune Eisteddford cup for Free Speech is to be melted down and made into 'plaque' for these heroes of the constitution . This would not come near the sacrifice they have made.

    As my grandfather said .. repeatedly " Jerri Libre bug*er that!"

    ReplyDelete
  42. Suart Syvret to appear in the Royal Court today on Bail applisation 14.00

    ReplyDelete
  43. And who is paying this idiots bail? Go along and support this fool but I garantee you it wont get you anywhere because the law has spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And whats happened?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stuart Syvret may not always go about his work in the most diplomatic and team building manner. This is a problem he has, but who wants to throw the first stone.

    His honesty, intellect and integrity are beyond reproach. Now must be added courage, stamina and detailed investigative legal understanding.

    The problem that the judiciary of Jersey has introduced in his trial, is quite perverse. It must be odd to hear a magistrate asking the prosecution lawyer, a Mr Stephen Baker for his advice time and time again.

    This however, is not the full story

    Another trial being enacted in the Royal court at this time, is of the couple accused of battering and physically abusing children and no doubt is to be conducted with integrity by the judge, and to use a metaphor , he is wearing a blindfold and only interested in the truth, supported by the facts.

    Obviously to support the defence case they are allowed to call witnesses.

    The difference being, the couple are allowed to call defence witnesses. Stuart Syvret was not allowed to call expert witnesses to support his defence. Mr Baker would have had every opportunity to cross-exam to his heart’s content.

    Will the Jersey media ask the question, why in one case but not the other ? if Jerseys’ media do not, then as a middle class reasonable type of person, my personal view will be that Stuart Syvret maybe had to much information of good value. Giving the prosecution lawyer to much and to tough a piece to chew on.

    A bigger problem for the magistrate should the witnesses be effective and evidenced.

    Why am I writing a “ problem for the magistrate “ Is she not also wearing a blindfold ?

    Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The whole system is buckled. I have washed my hand of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Well done Stuart, keep on fighting there are many more people supporting your cause.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Anonymous, "my personal view will be that Stuart Syvret maybe had to much information of good value."

    Good point. Stuart has always said that he is happy to defend everything that is on his blog in the courts.

    However, if when he gets to court, they do not let him advance his evidence or call his witnesses, what are we to deduce?

    The judiciary and the Jersey authorities are running scared of taking him on in open court, afraid of being defeated on the evidence.

    That has been a leitmotif of the last two years: they have the power and the media, but they don't have the evidence.

    The truth will win out in this battle, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Baker? Is he wearing a blind fold?Or as Syvret said to him. Are you schizophrenic?
    Or is his real incentive: Just a lawyer, without a conscience, making loads and loads of money.

    While he can!?

    ReplyDelete

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