Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, STILL, after FOUR MONTHS, has not acknowledged the e-mail from Former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation Lenny Harper.
We thought we would re-post it to remind readers, Ian Le Marquand, States Members and State Media that the revelations contained in Mr. Harper's e-mail STILL need addressing.
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:|| "firstname.lastname@example.org" |
|date:||24 January 2012 19:41|
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.”
FOUR MONTHS LATER it turns out the answer to all the questions in the paragraph above is a resounding "NO."