Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Who is the real Chief Minister (part 2)


In part 2 of this series, part one being HERE we bring you an excerpt from the sworn affidavit of Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Below that are some questions that arose from it in our States Chamber as recorded on Hansard.




Excerpt from sworn affidavit of Graham Power QPM.

13.  The feeling in the room was tense and there was general talk about the questions asked by the Health Minister and the need for some sort of action in response. I had the feeling that “something was going on” to which I was not a party. After the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, asked me to stay behind. Also remaining were the head of States H.R., Ian Crich, the Chief Officer of Health, Mike Pollard and the then Chief Officer of Education, (Tom McKeon who has since retired.) The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this. I was told that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was due to meet at the same time as we were meeting and that arrangements had been made for it to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister. It was then suggested that as the heads of the relevant public services we should do something similar and that this would give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.

14. I was shocked by this and initially did not know what to say. I eventually made two points. Firstly I said that the Minister was entitled to ask difficult questions. As I saw things that was his role and it was our role to provide a response, and secondly, even if that was not agreed, what was being proposed was civil servant and police engagement in political activity. I stated clearly that I did not see that as acceptable and that I would have nothing to do with it. At this point the Chief Executive asked me to leave the meeting which I did. I then made contact with a police colleague who had been at the C.PC. and discovered that this colleague had also had left their meeting for similar reasons. Shortly afterwards we both made brief notes in relation to what had happened. This was my first noteworthy experience of the formation of an “inner circle” of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the Chief Minister. The Chief Executive and the head of H.R. subsequently played a significant role in my suspension. (End)

Hansard 19th Jan 2010

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the involvement of the C.M.B. in discussions relating to the dismissal of the Minister for Health and Social Services in July 2007:

Did a meeting led by the Chief Executive take place after the C.M.B. (Corporate Management Board) meeting on 25th July 2007 to discuss matters relating to then Minister for Health and Social Services, and if so who was present at the meeting? Was the possible removal from office of the then Minister discussed, and if so would the Chief Minister suspend all those present from their duties pending a full investigation into the matter?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The Chief Executive has confirmed that there was a meeting of some chief officers following a meeting of the Corporate Management Board on 25th July 2007 to discuss the impact, which the then Minister for Health and Social Services’ criticism of Social Services staff was having on staff morale. Those present at the meeting were the Chief Executive, the Chief Officer of Police, the Director of Human Resources, the Chief Officer of Education, Sport and Culture and the Chief Officer of Health and Social Services. The Chief Police Officer did not attend the entire meeting. The Chief Executive confirmed that at no time was there discussed at this meeting the possible removal of the then Minister from office.

[11:30]

3.   6.1  Deputy T.M. Ptman:

I have a copy of the file note from the Chief of Police on my desk. Could the Chief Minister just clarify, the States C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) stands effectively accused by the Island’s most senior police officer with what he concluded was a lead involvement in an attempt to remove a Minister from office regardless of the rights and wrongs of what that Minister did? How can this not result in suspension as a neutral act while this is investigated, particularly given that the C.E.O. was later to play a major part and a contentious part in the suspension of the Chief of Police?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have to be fully careful here because I am not sure whether this file note may have any relevance to the investigation that is currently underway and I maybe urge caution in answering this but say merely that I believe that any reference to a file note, which may be contained in some blog or other source should be treated with the appropriate level of certainty.






Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is a copy of the file note; it is not in some blog.

The Bailiff:

Sorry, what is your question, Deputy? Deputy what is your question? Deputy, this is question time, were you asking a question? Deputy, I am speaking to you, please stand up when I am speaking to you.







Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I was not aware you were talking to me, Sir, apologies.








The Bailiff:

Well I am not sure who else I was talking to, but anyway ...









3.6.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I was just quite shocked at the dismissive nature that everything comes from a blog; it is a proper file note so perhaps my question would be, would the Chief Minister perhaps now take that more seriously?






Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I will treat it to the extent that I need to treat it at this stage, with the appropriate level of seriousness, yes.

3.6.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

We have heard the positions of certain people who were kept behind, will the Minister explain as to why the majority or the whole of the Corporate Management Board were not asked to discuss this particular issue?








Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I made it clear that the purpose of the meeting was the effect of criticism on staff morale. The meeting was directed at those officers directly concerned with staff morale.

3.6.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:

Just following on from Deputy Pitman’s question, first of all has the Chief Minister seen the file note, which the Chief of Police recorded at police headquarters after his meeting with the Chief Management Board? Has he seen this first of all and, secondly, if he has not, if he takes a copy of it will he please act on it? Because it does seem to indicate there was far more to that meeting than meets the eye.




Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have not seen the original file note, I have seen a copy of it and as I have previously said it will be treated with the appropriate level of seriousness.

3.6.5 Deputy S. Pitman:

I would like to refer to that file note on 25th July from the former Chief Officer and he does say coming back from that meeting: “I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me [that was the C.M.B.] in my capacity as the Chief of Police into a Civil Service-led attempt to remove a Minister from office.” I add there that the Chief Executive was also there. Bearing that in mind - and the Chief Executive was also involved in the organisation of Operation Blast and he burnt the notes of the meeting that was held in the Chief Officer’s suspension - surely the Chief Minister should be taking some leadership and looking into these issues of the Chief Executive? He should be taking them very seriously.


Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The file note in question and contents of it may form a matter of the disciplinary investigation. I do not feel inclined at this stage to make any comment on the content of that file note.

3.6.6 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

If, as the Chief Minister alleges, the meeting was held in respect of staff morale, why was the Chief of Police not requested to leave the meeting? Why was it a matter of his own choice to leave the meeting? Secondly, were any notes taken of the meeting?





Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The decision of the Chief of Police to attend or not attend is a matter for the person concerned and not for me. To the best of my knowledge no notes of the meeting were taken; it was an informal meeting.








3.6.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The question will be what is the Chief Minister saying was not discussed? I just want to refer to the file note. The discussion was led by B.O. (Bill Ogley), who we know is the Chief Executive Officer, who disclosed: “The Child Protection Committee will this afternoon be discussing a vote of no confidence in the Minister … Attempts were made by the C.E.O. to draw me into this. I was told that my people were part of the Island’s arrangements and I should show collective support by opposing the criticisms of the Minister.” Could the Chief Minister tell us what was not being discussed?



Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not think I can. I do not believe it is appropriate to speculate on the content of that file note, as I say, while there is still a disciplinary process ongoing.









3.6.8 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I stand to be corrected, but I believe I heard the Chief Minister imply that this could not be looked at because there was an inquiry into the suspension of the Chief Officer. Could he just clarify how the 2 are in any way related? How can that stop him taking action to investigate allegations against another senior civil servant?




Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

My comment was that the content of the file note might form part of an ongoing disciplinary investigation. (End Hansard)








So here we are left with a few more questions. A couple being are we expected to believe that our most Senior Police Officer is making up a complete pack of lies about the Chief Executive Officer, Bill Ogley, by not only submitting a file note, but is willing to risk possible imprisonment for perjury by swearing an affidavit that he knows to be false?

Now that all disciplinary action against the former Chief Police Officer has been abandoned by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, there are no more “investigations” going on, why hasn’t the Chief Minister initiated an investigation into the claims made against Mr. Ogley in the sworn affidavit of Graham Power QPM?

Something very untoward appears to have gone on and it is the “duty” of our supposed Chief Minister to get to the bottom of it, why hasn’t he?......................Who is “the real Chief Minister?”

Submitted by Team Voice.

41 comments:

  1. ''The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office''

    Prey tell me, how exactly do you anticipate ministers be asked to pass a vote of no confidence unless of course it has been discussed?

    Once again private meetings outside the States once again Bill Ogley involved

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once again private meetings outside the States once again Bill Ogley involved

    Yeah and once again no notes taken even though they’d have probably been destroyed anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. GP made a timed & stamped note as did his police associate at the other meeting stating the same position is TLS stating the got together to make these comments then stamped them for proof of content after "meeting".
    Where is the other officer now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I’ve had a comment submitted by what appears to be a young angry school girl. If you would care to take out the childish remarks then I would be happy to publish your comment, and indeed answer your question, although it has absolutely nothing to do with this Blog posting. I don’t now how to put this to you, but Santa Clause doesn’t really exist.

    Either submit your comment in an adult manner or ask your mum to help you and I’ll publish it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Once again TLS failing to take action.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two things are unfortunately crystal clear:

    i) Senior civil servants colluded in removing Stuart Syvret from ministerial office

    ii) The government will never voluntarily admit this and no further documentary proof of it will be forthcoming

    THe political reality is that TLS will just stonewall and refuse to answer any similar questions along these lines because, having the support of the House and no effective Press scrutiny, he doesn't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A handful of people single handedly destroying Jerseys reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes I agree but that’s Terry and his advisors for you. They just won't be told.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the other officer was Inspector Allison Fossey.

    ReplyDelete
  10. VCF I hope you did not think I meant posters on this blog destroying Jerseys reputation.

    Terry and his advisors were who I was referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The District Line9 November 2010 at 17:49

    I mean honestly! What on earth does your Chief Minister think he's playing at? I've been following this story for some time from London and the amount of information in the public domain is just staggering. How can he reasonably expect to be taken seriously when at every turn his thin excuses and non answers are so ruthelessly exposed? To be quite frank it seems to me the guy is politically inept, a lightweight weakling, who will evade reasonable questions with half truth's and spin. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. It's a very sceptic isle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. the chief minister is a puppet cunningly disguised as a clown

    the ring masters are bailhache and birt

    birt:- "...deputy, i am speaking to you, please stand when i am speaking to you."

    so our elected members have to stand when being spoken to by an
    unelected tosspot in an ill fitting santa costume

    the jersey way, doncha just love it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let us find out if this was a casual informal meeting?

    "Senator T.A. Le Sueur:


    The decision of the Chief of Police to attend or not attend is a matter for the person concerned and not for me. To the best of my knowledge no notes of the meeting were taken; it was an informal meeting.


    When does it become an "informal meeting" is it when no notes are taken? are notes ever taken at meetings over here?

    Check out TLS'S answers he uses two phrases and they look like he is giving an answer when really he is doing no such thing. When a question is asked in the states, written or oral the minister has time to prepare his answer which should be factual and evidenced based.

    "to the best of my knowledge no notes of the meeting were taken; it was an informal meeting."

    What is "To the best of my knowledge" he should say yes or no

    The other one he always uses is " I believe", when no one is asking him what he believes but what the actual facts are.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  14. The District Line.

    Our lot are in a time warp, they think that if it's not in the Jersey Evening Post, then no-one will know.

    Unfortunately for our powers that be, the days of the JEP wielding all the power are swiftly dissapearing. The whole world is now aware of what has been going on over here, but Terry Le Sueur, the Law Offices and certain Civil Servants just can't accept that they have now lost "complete" control.

    More truth is coming and it's going to hurt!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I find myself cringing with embarrassment reading about the behaviour of our Senior Civil Servants.

    Surely someone somewhere has the power to put an end to the damage these Senior players are causing Jeseys reputation.

    Who can make it stop. This is our Islands reputation being destroyed to protect a select few who have neither the will or desire to correct their own behaviour. Who is advising these people?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "A handful of people single handedly destroying Jerseys reputation."

    You're quite right, we must let truth and justice get in the way of Jerseys reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “Who is advising these people?” Either directly, or indirectly they will be getting advised by the Law Offices. The likes of Tim Le Coq and Howard Sharp among others.

    Team Voice will be Blogging about the Law Offices and its members some time in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As I said when this story first broke.

    "Let us hope that Graham Power had the good sense to take a dictaphone in the meeting with him".

    Well, did you Graham?

    ha ha word v "messe"

    ReplyDelete
  19. What kind of advise has the law office offering?

    A) Rubbish Stuart Syvret Health Minister engineer his dismissal?

    B) Rubbish Lenny Harper with JEP assistance?

    C) Rubbish Graham Power with JEP assistance. Suspend him allow him no means of appeal?

    Reminiscent of a bully in the playground trying to get their own way and boosting their own egos in the process.

    Bullies are not used to being confronted. Here is where the Law office have it wrong. They do not know how to advise these bullies what to do when people stand up and say no more this is wrong enough is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Looks like Mr. Birt was all in a fluster me thinks he might be one of the legal advisers.

    The Bailiff:

    Sorry, what is your question, Deputy? Deputy what is your question? Deputy, this is question time, were you asking a question? Deputy, I am speaking to you, please stand up when I am speaking to you.

    Deputy T.M. Pitman:

    I was not aware you were talking to me, Sir, apologies

    The Bailiff:

    Well I am not sure who else I was talking to, but anyway ...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not like King Birt to get in a flap, interesting times.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thinking about this, Is the reason we are not getting answers by Mr. Le Sueur to avoid implicating anyone?

    Is TLS protecting his Senior Members by not answering questions.

    This is surely criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why and how is nevertobesir Birt allowed to move awkward questions on, before being properly answered?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous said...
    "I find myself cringing with embarrassment reading about the behaviour of our Senior Civil Servants.

    Surely someone somewhere has the power to put an end to the damage these Senior players are causing Jeseys reputation.

    Who can make it stop. This is our Islands reputation being destroyed to protect a select few who have neither the will or desire to correct their own behaviour. Who is advising these people?"


    THE LOCAL MEDIA WOULD BE A GOOD START

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  25. There is no doubt in my mind, nor has there ever been as to who is to be believed and who's heads should roll in this disgraceful saga.

    Terry Le Sueur seems to be totally incapable of giving any straight answers to direct questions and is quite clearly covering Ogley's back. Again and again we have to question - why?

    He must surely realise that he holds no respect or credibility with either the electorate or a number of politicians.

    A man not fit for purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  26. has-the-question-been-answered10 November 2010 at 00:32

    Hansard 19th Jan 2010

    TMP = Deputy T.M. Pitman
    TLS = Senator T.A. Le Sueur (Chief Minister)

    Questions and answers!

    TMP-Q1) Did a meeting led by the Chief Executive take place after the C.M.B. (Corporate Management Board) meeting on 25th July 2007 to discuss matters relating to then Minister for Health and Social Services

    TLS-A1) The Chief Executive has confirmed that there was a meeting of some chief officers following a meeting of the Corporate Management Board on 25th July 2007 to discuss the impact, which the then Minister for Health and Social Services’ criticism of Social Services staff was having on staff morale.


    TMP-Q2) if so who was present at the meeting?

    TLS-A2) Those present at the meeting were the Chief Executive, the Chief Officer of Police, the
    Director of Human Resources, the Chief Officer of Education, Sport and Culture and the Chief
    Officer of Health and Social Services. The Chief Police Officer did not attend the entire meeting.

    TMP-Q3) Was the possible removal from office of the then Minister discussed

    TLS-A3) The Chief Executive confirmed that at no time was there discussed at this meeting the possible removal of the then Minister from office.

    ----------------------

    Technically it could be argued TLS was correct, as Bill Ogley was asking those present at that meeting to 'pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister', whereas the question was aimed at an issue that had obviously already been discussed in some other previous meeting as the outcome of that lead to Bill Ogley stating 'that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office.'


    A new question should be framed slightly differently, perhaps along the lines of:

    At the meeting led by the Chief Executive after the C.M.B. (Corporate Management Board) meeting on 25th July 2007. did the Chief Executive say 'it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the then Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office' and did he suggest that those present should pass a vote of "no confidence" in that Minister or something similar to give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.?


    It could also be asked:

    Why did Bill Ogley ask the then Chief of Police to stay behind for the 'said' meeting and why did he ask him leave the meeting?

    -------------------------

    However, I believe it is best to have possible follow up questions, as TLS seems relatively confident when answering a question he/his advisor/s have had time to craft, whereas, follow up's appear at times to be quite challenging and are more likely to get him 'flapping'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. dear vfc

    you will not get any answer from tls and hes footstapping idiot,s he will stand down next year then you get po and more of the same what is needed is for a uk paper to fully investigate what is going on here that could make some reporter,s career.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Could you imagine the kind of report, Wiltshire style Napier or otherwise that would come back if we request one on our Chief Minister or Bill O come to that matter.

    Lets do it. Get a report on their conduct with NO opportunity for them to defend themselves.

    Lets get a private fund together.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Is the Napier report also buying Mr. Napiers silence?

    Who does this Napier report benefit it TLS is not acting on it?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wouldn't bother with Marret-Crosby.
    The contempt he has for you is so apparent.
    If he lent anymore to the right he would fall over.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes it’s blatantly obvious that Hamish is a good old establishment chap. He’s not that stupid, he knows that the BBC are looking less than ordinary as a “news” outlet. It should be embarrassing to them that all these questions are still being asked. Why haven’t the BBC interviewed Bill Ogley, Ian Critch, Andrew Lewis or David Warcup on the Napier Report? Or the AG and SG?

    The BBC’s line is “coincidently” the same as the establishment’s line. “Let’s put this to bed.” “Ahh! Not more questions over the suspension of Graham Power.” When we get the answers the questions will stop. Our Powers that be won’t give us the answers, and our “accredited” media aren’t even asking the questions!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Try listening to the Guernsey version on 1116 AM, it's still BBC but in a totally different league! They d o n t t a l k s l o w l y f o r t h e e l d e r l y, it's lively and interesting! Couldn't be a bigger contrast :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. JEP Page 13
    The right to intervene.
    Worth a read.

    I live in hope that the UK will ride to Jersey rescue please.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Interesting that the UK Gov't will only intervene in serious circumstances such as endemic corruption. Not much chance of that in Jersey because the corruption law can only be prosecuted by the Attorney General, well, actually it is possible but it requires the recusation of the AG & SG. Just so happens that may be on the cards.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi

    Before I say this I will point out that I have not seen the JEP printed version, only a picture on thisisjersey.

    What struck me from the online version is that the headline news was about your help is needed more than ever. So I asked someone I know to look on the website and choose which one of the available news links on the homepage would they put as the headline. The answer was the 'the former nurse aho abused boys'. Which would have been my headline, I might be wrong but the item below the headline doesnt look like that either but it is only a small picture so could be wrong.

    I asked why he thought that was after all the HDLG stuff and he replied that he didnt think anything happened at Hdlg. I pointed out that there have been a quite a few prosecutions since the hdlg investigation but I was unable to say if any prosecutions have been literally related to Hdlg itself and not just the investigation. Could you let me know if they have?

    All I could say at the time was that their have been quite a few prosecutions since it all started and he was surprised. He doesn't read the JEP just uses the website or bbc jersey website.

    After I had pointed out that there had been prosecutions, and like I said not sure if any directly involving hdlg, I asked the same question about what should be the headline.

    The answer was, the nurse but then I suppose they want to try to keep it fairly quiet!

    ReplyDelete
  36. The audio of the Hansard on the main posting of this Blog is on TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

    ".... I believe that any reference to a file note, which may be contained in some blog or other source should be treated with the appropriate level of certainty."

    HE LATER SAYS

    "I will treat it to the extent that I need to treat it at this stage, with the appropriate level of seriousness, yes."

    --------------------

    It would appear that TLS is saying as there is not certainty in a file note posted on a blog, I will treat it with [very low level] appropriate seriousness.

    However, TLS later responds with:

    ----------

    "I have not seen the original file note, I have seen a copy of it and as I have previously said it will be treated with the appropriate level of seriousness."

    ------

    This comment made the first (above) comment, redundant and showed he up for the evasive person he is. However surely his "level of seriousness" rating had changed from uncertainty to fact!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Some BAD NEWS for Paedophiles and great news for victims.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think TLS has difficulty with facts i think of him as the riddler ie he talks in riddles.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this."

    Measures had apparently been put in place to facilitate this? Jersey democracy at its finest.

    ReplyDelete

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