Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Open letter To Home Affairs Minister.

 



This e-mail from former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, is self explanatory and came about because of Mr. Harper's, Former Police Chief Mr Graham Power's, the Victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse atrocities and a couple of Bloggers determination to get to the truth behind the State Media's and government's spin and "official line."

We, as Bloggers, have ripped apart with documented facts and evidence all the spin and Tooth Fairy nonsense given to us by the State Media and government concerning the Child Abuse atrocities. This e-mail further adds to it..........And there is much more to come!


 from Lenny Harper
to: "i.lemarquand@gov.je"
cc:
 voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren ,
 ricosorda ,
 "ASibcy@jerseyeveningpost.com" ,
 BenQueree ,
 "chris.stone.01@bbc.co.uk" ,
 "news@channel103.com" ,
 "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk"
date: 24 January 2012 19:41
subject:
 Revelations in Met Report to IPCC

Dear Mr Le Marquand;
 
I am unaware if you have read the latest blog from Rico Sorda, but in that he talks about the Met Interim and final reports which you, Andrew Lewis,  and David Warcup regularly and frequently used as the reason and justification for suspending Graham Power and the savage smear campaign against myself in which you referred to me as an "incompetent maverick", and also, I presume, authorised the States of Jersey Police to tell Scotland Yard that I would be facing a discipline investigation over the Child Abuse Enquiry if I was still in the force.
 
Whilst I am grateful for your subsequent clarification that nothing in the decision to enter HDLG justified discipline considerations and that indeed Mick Gradwell would be the person facing serious discipline charges were he still in the force, the revelations contained in the Met report submitted to the Independent Complaints Commission (as a result of my complaint against the author of the Met reports), that in fact neither the Met Interim report nor the final report contained any critical or damning comments about myself or any other officer, raises series questions as to where you received the information that it did, and even more significantly, if it didn't come from the Met, where did it come from.
 
As for your own part in spreading the perception that the Met reports (interim and final) were indeed critical and damning of myself and Graham Power, I have been quoted in the blog posting as asking a number of questions concerning your role.  I reproduce the relevant excerpt below and would ask that you give me the answer to the questions in respect of your role.
 
My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT. Paragraph 5.3 of the Sweeting Met report lists the complaints that I had made, i.e.; that the report was “critical and damning of me without ever speaking to me. That it had criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, my victim support policy, the lack of a Gold Group, the finding and labelling of human remains, my use of the term ‘shackles’ and the use of the term ‘cellars.’ In reality, according to the Met report to the IPCC, “having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.” The report goes on to say in Para. 5.4, “The report was neither critical nor damning.”
 
The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.”
 
So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else?
 
It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes?
As you can see, in the final paragraph of the excerpt, (immediately preceding this paragraph,) I pose three questions about yourself.  Put simply, Mr Warcup did not send the Met report to the HA Minister.  He summarised it in a letter.  Were you indeed duped, or did you know the whole story about the so called critical Met interim report was a charade and a pack of lies?
 
I would appreciate answers to the questions above.

Lenny Harper. (END)

Readers will note that Jersey's State Media are copied into this e-mail. Mr. Harper has not received as much as an acknowledgement of it from the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, let alone had his questions answered.  Questions are - will the State Media even report on this huge turn of events? Will they seek to get the answers from Ian Le Marquand that not only the victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse deserve but so do Mr. Harper, Mr. Power QPM, all the good officers that worked on the Child Abuse Enquiry under Mr. Power and Harper but the tax paying public who have paid for the smear campaign, witch-hunts and vendetta's against these people?

82 comments:

  1. Have just noticed that the "Award Winning" Channel Television don't appear to be copied into Mr. Harper's open letter. Not sure if this was deliberate but if so we've got an idea as to WHY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian Le Marquand, have the good grace to do the 'right' thing and put this great wrong right whilst you still have time. The thirty pieces of silver which plate the Royal Mace are not worth the false hōn(ours)...

      Delete
  2. You are correct VFC. It was deliberate. As they know all about and support the cover up,it did not seem worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nothing mentioned in any national accredited media source about this story so far I am afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Must be commotion up at The Flithy Rag, as at 2pm today their "Have Your Say If We Don't Censor It" 'forum' still hasn't been updated since 9pm last night!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Has mr Harper had any response from the state media? This all destroys the party line and should be headline stuff all over the local media.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Has mr Harper had any response from the state media?”

    We are led to believe the only part of the State Media to make contact with Mr. Harper is the BBC.

    Experience tells us that the BBC will report the bare minimum in order to keep up the façade of an independent, fair and impartial “news” broadcaster and then spill out the Establishment Spin.

    The BBC, as regular readers will be aware, broadcast and published parts of the prosecution case against Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power. They were handed, on a plate, Mr. Power’s defense case some FOUR MONTHS AGO and have not reported/published/broadcast a word of it. So don’t expect any real searching, investigative “journalism” from the BBC concerning “Operation Tuma.” Indeed it’s because of their lack of any questioning of our government’s party line that Operation Tuma exists in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The BBC have tried to contact Le Marquand. He is 'unavailable' for comment.

    I bet he is!

    But really what does this say about our Ministers and ILM especially when so often they simply ignore the difficult questions.

    What a plonker.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The BBC has an obligation to get the answers from Ian Le Marquand considering the magnitude of this turn of events. As was said earlier, they’ll do the bare minimum and come out with the old “wasn’t available for comment” sketch. Job done in the eyes of the BBC. We see it time, and time, again, they’ll want this buried with minimum fuss and that’s what they’ll do………”Journalism” a la Jersey…….And Ian Le Marquand will know this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Poor old Le Marquand, they only have powdered MILK in prison!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The question BBC should be putting to Le Marquand is were you a willing participant in the web of lies and deceit in order to discredit Lenny Harper and suspend Graham Power or were you too duped. Simples and then resign.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whether he was duped or not I am afraid it is time for Le Marquand to tender his resignation.

    Can't remember, maybe, perhaps, don't know, I seem to recall - this is the only sort of response we can expect from this man and now IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH - simple as, end of.

    I think there are a lot of heads that should be rolling right now. Let us see what Ian Gorst is really made of (another who is not overly rapid in his answers to e-mails).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Finally. Now let justice commence!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Justice in Jersey?? Don't think for a minute that Justice is going to commence on this island. Us Bloggers have been exposing all this stuff for years now, the State Media cover it up and nothing changes. Ian Le Marquand will get asked a couple of uncomfortable questions in the States, he'll reply by dodging the questions, personally insult either Lenny Harper or Graham Power, and the State Media will totally ignore what ILM ignored and run with the headline of whatever personal insult Le Marquand could come up with to further smear the two Police Officer's who lifted the lid off of Jersey's dirt secret.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "voiceforchildren said...

    Have just noticed that the "Award Winning" Channel Television don't appear to be copied into Mr. Harper's open letter. Not sure if this was deliberate but if so we've got an idea as to WHY"

    Your link in that comment doesn't work because you've left quotation marks on the end.

    ReplyDelete
  15. State Media's REPORTING on Rico's Investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  16. sue him Lenny,sue him, I would love to see him in the dock

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not a pip from State media.

    PR must be busy working on the States of Jersey press release for the credited media.

    If, the citing of a pr mans opinions, was the basis, of evidence given in a child abuse court case, then I fear for the people of Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not a pip from State media.

    PR must be busy working on the States of Jersey press release for the credited media.

    If, the citing of a pr mans opinions, was the basis, of evidence given in a child abuse court case, then I fear for the people of Jersey.


    BANG ON THE MONEY

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think Rico deserves to take the award from CTV's foyer :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. The issue is should our Media by biased or not?

    The BBC has a mandate to "report" fairly - very rarely will they investigate unless it is for Panorama or Newsnight so they will report information given to them that they can verify and does not potentially expose them to legal claim. Is Jersey BBC doing this? Personally I say no and would like them to justify their (what appears to be) one sided reporting.

    The JEP, CTV and Channel 103 as commercial entities do not have to be unbiased,

    There is an argument that as the only regular newspaper the JEP should be unbiased but I doubt there is any Jersey Law or Regulation that says they have to. We know that the JEP has a falling circulation and therefore is more reliant on their advertising revenue especially the £300,000 annually from SOJ so they will obviously be biased towards their paymasters/advertisers.

    CTV does have a charter to adhere to but they have nailed their reputation (with an award) to the anti Power/Harper mast and I believe just do not have the guts to come out and say they were wrong. They swallowed the SOJ/Warcop/Gradwell spin and would look extremely foolish to admit their "investigation" was no more than report the script they had been given by the SOJ. Again they rely on advertisers who are majority Establishment supporters so have no wish to rock the boat.

    Thats how I see the present MSM position. Will it change? I believe there is no point in answering that question as it takes the power out of the bloggers hands.

    I believe the way forward is to have an alternative online Newspaper for Jersey. I'm sure there are people who read the blogs who have the IT/Webpage ability to create an identical website to that of the JEP where the news will be that reported by yourself and all other non MSM contributors. The comment section like here could be incorporated into the new umbrella website.

    I firmly believe the way forward now is that all the online bloggers should pool their skills to take on the MSM through one portal. I believe the combined strengths of bloggers like Trevor Monty and Bob Hill doing a Politics section; Rico Stuart and VCF doing an Investigate section; Tony doing his brilliant daily articles; Tom with his Jersey History; The Jersey Way with his audio archives with others dealing with current events from uploads from the general public eg written and/or mobile phone capture (picture/video) reports on incidents.

    This is the way forward. I'm sure their are (unfortunately) many unemployed former students of Highlands IT courses who have the skills and contacts to make such a suggestion work. The current Political/Establishment situation is maintained because of the apathy of the younger (non)voters. Get them involved in this project. Make them the current affairs reporters (allow easy upload of article written/media; give them a voice in a form they see as relevant i.e. The Internet. I know my thinking is overtaking things but the new websites Google App has to be a must lol!

    Food for thought.

    Lets beat the MSM at their own game. Lets become Jersey's biggest online News outlet. Then and only then will the truth of how Jersey is run.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No wonder why dear Wendy jumped when she did!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. The red vans, which deliver the JEPs to newsagents these days.
    Are collecting nearly as many RAGS the next morning as they delivered the night before.

    This is ever since their bias election campagne, their rise in price by 5p....

    And their very boring and frightened journalists!?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The JEP circulation declining and the Blog traffic “breaking records” on the number of hits tells us what the future holds for the JEP.........

    ReplyDelete
  24. The most honest thing Warcup ever did was to blame Jersey bloggers for his choice to flee. The olliepollies weren't able to silence the blogs so he must have known they would get to the truth eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The BBC last night made some effort to report on Deputy Pitmans question to ILM next Tuesday in the local bit after the 10pm news. It was fleeting but gave a passing impression of taking an interest.

    I don't wish to defend the BBC who have in the main been inept in all of this but I got the feeling that they, and the rest of the MSM, are waiting for ILM to give his answer before deciding how to report on it. If at all!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I take it VFC that Lenny has not had the courtesy of a reply some 3 days later?

    In Jersey if you ask an Establishment politician a difficult question they invariably accuse you of being an unpatriotic meddler.

    If you ask them a question that they know they cannot answer publicly they just ignore you and pretend it does not exist.

    What kind of messed up place is this?

    Am I alone in thinking this is really quite scary?

    And the vaccuous media tossers go along with it because I'm alright jack?

    What a weak, insecure, immature and painfully polite society we have become.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "If you ask them a question that they know they cannot answer publicly they just ignore you and pretend it does not exist."

    The same might be said for the BBC. For weeks now we have been asking why they won't publish Graham Power's 62,000 word defence case to the discredited Wiltshire Report and the question only gets ignored. The BBC Charter is not worth the paper it is written on.

    The BBC broadcast selected pieces from the prosecution case against Mr. Power, therefore have an obligation to report parts of the defence case. FOUR MONTHS after receiving the defence case......deafening silence despite repeated requests to publish it (Hash-tag Statmedia).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi VFC.

    Just put up the Audio of Deputy T Pitman giving the BBC a Interview.
    You can Listen to it HERE

    ReplyDelete
  29. Timeline/dates needed please for
    Napier
    Met.
    Tapp
    Wiltshire

    There are no other reports,are there?
    And where can i read the Napier report?

    ReplyDelete
  30. The heavily redact Wiltshire Report (prosecution case against Graham Power QPM) can be viewed here http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

    The Napier Report can be viewed here http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2010/2942-24460-15112010.pdf

    The so called Met "interim" Report, we offer the view that it was no such thing and nothing more than an e-mail sent to David Warcup has not been published but was sent to Warcup on the 10th of November 2008

    The Tapp Report is covered extensively by Rico Sorda HERE

    Hope this is of help.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The heavily redacted Wiltshire Report link didn't appear to work, so here it is again http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  32. If this link doesn't work perhaps a reader could help?

    http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-16767461

    Just maybe they don't want to be dragged into the same mire as the JEP/CTV.

    Getting one MSM to at least report the concerns is a small step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have at last read the Napier report.
    He concludes that there were was insufficient evidence for suspending Mr. Power.

    He also states that he has seen Mr. Powers copy of the Interim Met. report and that it differs slightly from the other one that he has seen.
    So at least two copies exist!!!

    What is going on? Napier page 98

    ReplyDelete
  35. More than one set of books, typical Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "What is going on? Napier page 98"

    In paragraph (not page) 98 of the Napier Report Mr. Napier says this;

    "98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008. Mr Warcup confirmed to me that he wanted the Interim Report in advance of the scheduled press conference on the 12 November, but was unsure of the date when he received it. The version of the Interim Report which was shown me
    by Mr Warcup has a different title page, and clearly indicates it is an official Metropolitan Police document."

    With that in mind it shouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that David Warcup and/or others simply placed an official Met crest paper on the "Interim" Report (e-mail attachment) he had to make it look the part.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Taken from Napier report

    98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
    Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
    of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page
    on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an
    individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008. Mr Warcup
    confirmed to me that he wanted the Interim Report in advance of the
    scheduled press conference on the 12 November, but was unsure of the date
    when he received it. The version of the Interim Report which was shown me by Mr Warcup has a different title page, and clearly indicates it is an official
    Metropolitan Police document.

    99. Mr Warcup, I should add, was adamant that he wanted the Interim Report to
    assist him in dealing with the issues being discussed at the press conference.
    He wanted it to help him clear a way through the mistakes that had been made
    by DCO Harper and which threatened to derail the criminal trials that were
    about to start. He insisted that he wanted it only for that reason and none
    other. He was not looking to the Interim Report as providing a reason for the
    taking of disciplinary action against Mr Power. I have no reason to think that
    is not an honest representation of his views at the time, although it is clear that
    as it turned out the Report was used for much wider purposes by the Minister
    and his advisors. In my view the prospect of the report being used for the
    taking of disciplinary measures against Mr Power is something that was
    probably known to Mr Warcup when he delivered his letter dated 10
    November to Mr Ogley

    ReplyDelete
  38. Paragraph 100 from Napier Report could leave one with the impression that Graham PowerQPM might have seen fit to wear a stab-vest (most notably for his back) even in his own office with David Warcup.

    100. That letter makes express reference to him (Mr Warcup) receiving an “interim report” from the Metropolitan Police on 10 November. It does not, however, refer to the qualifications which were an important part of that report. I am surprised that, in circumstances where Mr Warcup did not disclose the primary document to either Mr Ogley or Mr Lewis, he did not see fit to mention the qualifications that were, on any view, of some importance. By not doing so, he gave the document an importance and status which, in my view, it did not merit. When Mr Ogley then wrote to Deputy Lewis on 11 November, Mr Ogley referred to the report which Mr Warcup (at his request) had provided, and said “I am assured [the report] draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation.” That assurance could only have come from Mr Warcup himself.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Napier.

    105. In circumstances where the report was used as a mainstay in establishing the grounds for the immediate suspension of Mr Power, no one in authority had access to anything more than a partial summary of its contents, provided by Mr Warcup. I do not regard that as a satisfactory basis on which to take a decision of such importance.

    ReplyDelete
  40. So we have this from the Napier Report.

    "101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it."

    But Andrew Lewis had said this.

    "I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code.”

    So what Andrew Lewis meant by that statement is that he hasn't seen the Report?

    ReplyDelete
  41. in reply to 28 January 2012 16:45
    The whole of Napier 101 makes for interesting reading.
    101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the
    Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the
    nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a
    police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have 47
    access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and
    Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr
    Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not
    explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such
    advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must
    therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided,
    and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place. I
    have to say I am not convinced that operational confidentiality was a sufficient
    reason for not looking at what the Interim Report had to say about the
    management of the enquiry. Criticisms of Mr Power’s leadership and
    management skills are matters which have no obvious connection with
    pending criminal prosecutions. It would have been possible for Mr Warcup to
    have redacted it, so as to exclude any material that it was not appropriate for
    anyone outside the Police to see, but retaining the parts which expressed
    crit icism of the handling of the historic abuse enquiry. Yet, so far as I am
    aware, no such approach was made to Mr Warcup. And neither did Mr
    Warcup himself suggest such a course of action.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Re: ``That letter makes express reference to him (Mr Warcup) receiving an “interim report” from the Metropolitan Police on 10 November''

    But we know that he didn't recieve any such report because there is no such report! The `Interim Metropoltan Police Report'' is in fact a bogus report based on Matt Tapps report. The Met have made clear that they never produced an 1interim report so, if one exists it's a fake!

    ReplyDelete
  43. The interim Met.report must exist for both Napier and Power have seen it.
    Mr Power had a copy and maybe still has.It was given him by Wiltshire, sometime between November 10th 2009 and the time that he was interviewed by Napier.This is confirmed by Napier on page
    98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
    Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
    of the Wiltshire Inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is how we see it.

    Warcup did receive a document on the 10th of November 2008 (at his request) by e-mail. It has since been labeled the Met “Interim” Report. But Brian Sweeting, of the met denied one had been sent. Something was sent to Warcup, it appears, by somebody in the Met, was it Sweeting who sent it, or Peter Britton or somebody else? Of that we are not sure yet.

    We offer the view that Warcup asked for something from the, still ongoing, Met Report so he could help nail Graham Power. The person who sent the so-called “interim” Report might have had no idea as to what Warcup and others wanted to use it for.

    There is one thing of which we are certain and that’s that this exercise severely p1ssed the Met police off and very much strained relations with Jersey and them (the Met).

    ReplyDelete
  45. vfc thanks for the explanation re. 28 January 2012 17:49

    98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
    Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
    of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page
    on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an
    individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008.


    Napier says that it is the SAME document IN CONTENT.

    Same as what?

    So now we know that there ARE at least two copies,but whose copy had Napier been comparing to, keeping in mind that Warcup kept his copy to himself,and our hierarchy had no copy...............or did they?
    Assuming Mr Power still has possession of it,then its quite easy to confirm the contents(redacted of course).

    ReplyDelete
  46. It appears to a simpleton like me that a report, any report, that could be used to damn Graham was wanted in a hurry.

    I wonder why?

    The Beano is not the Rag

    ReplyDelete
  47. Taken from Rico’s blog

    Re:
    the Bogus (faked) `Met Interim report’

    Anonymous said...
    Please can you clarify as to whether or not there exists a report issued by the Metropolitan Police that is called: the `interim Metropolitan police Report'?

    The reason I ask, is that I am sure that the Met had made it clear, that they did not write an `Interim report'! The only report that the Met lay claim to is `The Metropolitan Police Report'....that being the only report compiled by them.

    Please can you clear this issue up for me?

    Rico replied

    A civilian employee of the Met who was working on the Met Review of Operation Rectangle sent David Warcup some briefing notes on the 10th November 2008.

    These notes where then turned into a MET Interim report in Jersey - they were just notes- Interim Report is a name made up by the Jersey Authorities.

    Re read the posting over and over and you will start to get it.

    This is why the suspension letters were drafted before the 10th - they already new what they were doing - they were using the Tapp Report

    Tapp probably never had a clue what it was going to lead to.

    You cat very well saying where going to suspend GP because of a report we commissioned that is why the name METROPOLITAN came in - just to give the suspension some balls

    So in Fact, the Interim Metropolitan Police Report was fabricated in Jersey and did not originate in Uk or from The Metropolitan Police! This is highly important!!

    Anonymous said...

    Thank you for clarifying the question regarding: `the Met `Interim Report’! May I suggest that when you refer to it in future that you label it the ` Faked Metropolitan Police Interim Report’, just to make it crystalline to your readers that it was a faked by the SOJ and that no such report from the Met ever existed in reality?

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are some very enlightening comments here. Your Jersey blog readers rock!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Deffinition of the word `fake':

    Pronunciation: /feɪk/

    adjective
    not genuine; imitation or counterfeit:

    she got on the plane with a fake passport

    a fake Cockney accent(of a person) claiming to be something that one is not: a fake doctor


    a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham:

    fakes of Old Masters a person who falsely claims to be something:
    I felt sure that some of the nuns were fakes

    verb
    [with object]forge or counterfeit (something):

    she faked her spouse’s signature pretend to feel or have (an emotion, illness, or injury):


    and so on!

    ReplyDelete
  50. I posted this on Rico's and Stuarts blog also!

    No wonder poor old ILM got lumbered with the Home Affairs ministers post again, when he clearly didn't want it!

    After all, he must have had had doubts about the authenticity of what has now been proved to be a faked `Met Interim Report'.

    A bogus report which was contrived with the intent to fraudulently and criminally remove an honest and respected police officer from his post and dish dirt on another.

    A bogus and faked document compiled by the two leading representatives of the States of Jersey at the time......how low can people sink, how disgusting!

    All of those involved in this attempt to pervert the course of justice and deceive the people of this Island, and indeed the world at large should be behind bars!

    ReplyDelete
  51. What better way of getting rid of a hugely embarrassing scandal than to create an even bigger scandal!!! Jersey‘s Chief of Police is suspended over botched job over his handling of the HCAE

    ReplyDelete
  52. My apologies for repeating myself VFC
    but i really would like an explanation as to how it is that Napier clearly states that Mr. Power has a copy of the Interim Met.report.

    NAPIER
    98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
    Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
    of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page
    on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an
    individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008.

    Napier says that it is the SAME document IN CONTENT.

    Same as what?

    So now we know that there ARE at least two copies,but whose copy had Napier been comparing to, keeping in mind that Warcup kept his copy to himself,and our hierarchy had no copy...............or did they?

    Have the Met. stated that there is no such document or have they said that they didnt send one to Mr. Warcup. Thats a big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  53. “but i really would like an explanation as to how it is that Napier clearly states that Mr. Power has a copy of the Interim Met.report.”

    Mr. Power does indeed have an 18 page document that has been labeled, by some, as the Met “Interim” Report. The document Mr. Power was given has been described as “an officer’s Report” authored by “Peter Britton.” That is not to say it was Peter Britton who sent it to Warcup on the 10th of November 2008.

    The “Officer’s Report” in Mr. Power’s possession does not bear the Met crest or make any claim to be a Report from the “Metropolitan Police.”

    It appears, as mentioned earlier, that Napier was shown the same document, by Warcup, but that particular document possibly did have, as its front page, a Met crest or something similar.

    Brian Sweeting, of the Met, we are led to believe, has denied any document called an “interim Report” existed, let alone sent. We are also led to believe the Met Police refuse(d) to confirm its existence.

    We hope, in the coming days, to publish a Blog that will explain this better, but for now hope these answers help.

    ReplyDelete
  54. FW's Stiffy (above) said.

    "The BBC have tried to contact Le Marquand. He is 'unavailable' for comment.

    I bet he is!"

    We believe that Senator Le Marquand might have been locked in a toilet and will explain why we believe this in a new Blog Posting later today/tomorrow morning.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thanks VFC for that prompt reply r. Mr Powers 'interim'.
    Though it does raise more questions,I will await your detailed blog on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Soooo, the 'damning' report into the police investigation under Power/Harper that carried so much weight was a dodgy journalists report being passed off as an official`interim Met Police report!

    ReplyDelete
  57. This has been coppied from Rico's post and, confirms that ther is no `Interim Metropolitan Police Report'. So any report going by that title is at the very least bogus!

    Rico sorda said...

    As mentioned in the previous email I raised concerns about the Met Interim report that was quoted by DCO David Warcup on the 12th November 2008 and the serious concerns raised within it

    I now turn my attention to the - Metropolitan Police Service Directorate of Professional Standards - this investigation went under the heading of Operation Tuma - investigation of public complaint by Mr Lenny Harper.

    Operation Tuma covered the alleged 'Interim Report' and the full Metropolitan Police Report

    Thanks to the persistent efforts of Mr Lenny Harper, the Met have finally released a report which confirms that the only purpose of their review was to assist in the investigation and that no criticisms were made of Mr Harper.

    It also appears that there was no 'Interim' report. What was sent on the 10th of November 2008 was a memorandum by Peter Britton, a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police who was involved in the review.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I’m not altogether sure that Peter Britton is/was a civilian member of staff. I seem to recall he might have been/is a Detective Superintendent. Hopefully more will be revealed in the up-coming Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Can anyone guess or predict headlines for Tuesday/Wednesday State media press release


    Attack being the best form of defence I would expect BLAST will get a mention

    Look out bloggers look out Lenny

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes the State Media is that predicable as to come out with something that never reportedly even existed. “Blast” only exists in Ian Le Marquand’s imagination….. more will be explained soon.

    As for a guess as to what the State "news" will be headlining on Wednesday? "Harper kidnapped Shergar to take the heat off of Graham Power holding Lord Lucan hostage."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Comment 14-37.

    We understand what you keep making a point of saying. The word is darn right FORGERY.

    And its frightening that everyone is so blase by this evidenced FORGERY!

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Yes the State Media is that predicable as to come out with something that never reportedly even existed. “Blast” only exists in Ian Le Marquand’s imagination….. more will be explained soon."

    You have got to be kidding, where is this all going to end!!

    My guess is that ILM will stand down from the States altogether next week on the grounds of poor health! Farnham will take over, a younger fresher legal mind but will there be more cover-ups or, will there be a one off media frenzy of admitting things were not done correctly, dictate to us that leasons have been learnt and then move us along!

    ReplyDelete
  63. should Tuesdays question time prove to be another example of spin ,bluff and bluster,would the time be right to release the Graham Power statement on the blogs?

    ReplyDelete
  64. But whi is this mysterious Peter Britton? WHO IS HE?????

    ReplyDelete
  65. This is the reply to questions put to the Former Chief of Police Graham Powers QPM and which I have copied from Rico’s Blog. This is highly important in terms of the so called `Met Interim Report’ and clearly, along with other evidenced facts, identifies the so called `Met Interim Report’ as bogus and a fake!

    Like Mr power I’ll leave it to you to speculate as to the motive for faking a `Metropolitan police' report, and as to why the apperance of the document changed over time?

    Graham Power:
    `` I have also been asked if I can case any further light on a document which has been described as an "interim report" from the Metropolitan Police, which is the document which David Warcup claimed was the basis of his letter to the Minister.

    During the course of their disciplinary investigation Wiltshire Police disclosed to me a significant number of documents reletive to their enquiries. Among these was an "Officers Report" in the form of a memorandum. It was in the name of a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police who had been assisting with the Review. It contained some of the words which have since been quoted as being from the alleged "interim report." I have since spoken to people who were later given a copy of what appears to be the same document, in that it contains the same words.

    However, others who were shown the document describe it as more official-looking with a printed cover which indicates that it is an official report from the "Metropolitan Police." The document which was disclosed to me by Wiltshire Police is a report by one person. It does not have a crest or cover and makes no claim to be an official "Metropolitan Police" report.

    I can offer no more information in relation to this matter and have decided not to speculate as to when the apperance of the document was apparently changed and for what motive.’’

    ReplyDelete
  66. Re this part of Graham Power’s statement: ``However, others who were shown the document describe it as more official-looking with a printed cover which indicates that it is an official report from the "Metropolitan Police." The document which was disclosed to me by Wiltshire Police is a report by one person. It does not have a crest or cover and makes no claim to be an official "Metropolitan Police" report. I can offer no more information in relation to this matter and have decided not to speculate as to when the appearance of the document was apparently changed and for what motive.’’

    Well in my humble opinion, the reason it changed appearance is that there were two editions. The edition which looked like an official Metropolitan Police document was intended for those who wouldn’t know the difference and could be duped! The other version, the one that made no claim to be an official `Met’ document was intended for the professional who, had it been presented to them as an official `Met’ document would have sort collaboration from the `Met’ themselves. Hence the two versions!

    Either way, they were both drafted with the same intention in mind……..and that was to pervert the course of justice!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sorry, my link did not work

    Taken from Professor Tony's blog, dated 6 DECEMBER 2010

    "Will no one rid me of this turbulent policeman?"

    In a recent Hansard, Paul Le Claire reported the following exchange:

    Not long after Deputy Andrew Lewis took over as the Minister for Home Affairs I walked through the Chamber to the top of the stairs and in his company was the former Chief Minister, Mr. Frank Walker. They were discussing the former Deputy Chief of Police, Mr. Lenny Harper. The Chief Minister at the time said: "Why did you not get rid of him?" I found that a little strange at the time for that to be expressed but I entered into the conversation by standing with them and partook in the conversation. The response - which I think is the important thing, the key thing - from the Minister was: "We were going to get rid of him but he only had a week to go so we thought it best just to let him go."

    The exact date I am afraid I did not record. It was shortly after, if not the day, that the announcement was made that Deputy Lewis had taken over as the Minister.

    Senator Ian Le Marquand commented on this, and I don't know if his words carried a sarcastic tone, but they are certainly there in the transcript (which I think is unduly unfair to Deputy Le Claire's honesty):

    "Of course we all waited today with baited breath to see what Deputy Le Claire would add to the situation. What would his evidence be? Would that change things? With great diffidence he told us that what he had overheard was a conversation between 2 States Members, he says, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs at the time, in relation to why action had not been taken against the Deputy Chief Officer. Frankly, this is no evidence whatsoever in relation to conspiracy. There is no evidence of the sort of conspiracy alleged. What there is evidence of is that there were concerns some time before and those concerns had been transmitted from the Acting Chief Officer via the Chief Executive to the Minister for Home Affairs of the time."

    In fact at that time, David Warcup was not Acting Chief Officer - until the suspension, he was only Deputy Chief Officer. According to the Le Marquand narrative, then, there was no conspiracy but only "concerns" - but Deputy Le Claire saw no evidence of what I would call "concerns" - "Why did you not get rid of him?" doesn't sound much like a concern to me, but rather a discussion of definite action which might be taken. I don't think simple "concerns" were on the table; the Le Marquand narrative simply ignores the personal equation and downplays it, and that just doesn't hold up either.

    It is also clear that Mr Walker was involved in the discussions about the suspension of Graham Power as well. As Napier comments:

    There was a meeting on 3 November, attended by Mr Ogley, Mr Walker and Mr Crich. At that meeting there was discussion of the possibility of suspension [of Mr Power] when he was on holiday.

    And it is also clear from Napier that relations between Mr Power and his Deputy had deteriorated, and Mr Walker and Mr Ogley were already critical of Mr Power:

    It is clear to me, in the light of the investigations I have carried out, that the criticisms of Mr Power, made by implication in the Interim Report and, separately, in the report of Mr Warcup, found a receptive audience when they came to the attention of Mr Walker and Mr Ogley.

    ReplyDelete
  68. State media.

    JEP former boss Frank Walker.

    Frank Walker marries former BBC Jersey stalwart.

    Glen rankine, public relations advisor to establishment politicians, married to the MD of Channel TV.

    Captured.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Zoompad.

    One wonders when it became part of the BBC Charter to report on a prosecution case and bury the defense case. The BBC, after reporting on the prosecution case against Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM, are handed, on a plate, Mr. Power’s defense case and they keep it a secret. Complaining to a self-regulatory body will be fruitless as we are discovering from the Leveson Inquiry.

    The BBC, one would believe have an obligation to balance, impartiality, and objectivity, this has proved not to be the case when it comes to Graham Power.

    Good on you for taking the time to complain though!

    ReplyDelete