Monday, 27 August 2012

Stuart Syvret, The Rule of Law, and The BBC.

In part two of our in-depth and exclusive interview with Former Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret we discuss, very briefly, some contents contained in the 62,000 word document submitted by the Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, to the Wiltshire Constabulary as published by Mr. Syvret.

Mr. Power's submission to the Wiltshire Constabulary was published by Mr. Syvret after it became apparent that the BBC, who have been in possession of it for eleven months and five days, had no intention of publishing it. This, as regular readers will be aware, is despite the BBC, and all other island State Media publishing the prosecution case or parts of, against the former Police Chief. Mr. Power's submission to Wiltshire is viewed as his defence case, yet the BBC still won't publish it.

We discuss the implications of this apparent decision by the BBC and point out the documents that HAVE been leaked to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) and NOT the BBC, CTV, or the JEP.

When was the last time, you the reader, can remember a leaked document that was given to, and reported by, the State Media? In the interview below, we name but a few, that have been leaked to Bloggers,  there are many more that could have been mentioned with yet still more to come. (we are told)

It is becoming more and more apparent that Jersey's mainstream media are not trusted and we believe with good reason. Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have blown apart (to smithereens) the official version of events surrounding the Child Abuse atrocities and related matters. We have done this purely by asking questions. When have the BBC, or any of our State Media, seriously challenged or scrutinised ANYTHING churned out by the states Communications Unit? Could Decades of Child Abuse have been possible without the complicity of the mainstream media? What part, if any, have they (State Media) played over the decades in keeping the lid on controversial issues for our government? Why were the documents leaked to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) and not leaked to Jersey's "accredited" media?

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE.

Sunday, 19 August 2012

Stuart Syvret (The Rule of Law)

Former Senator Stuart Syvret has flown to London (yesterday Sat 18th Aug 20012) in order to prepare tabling an action against the UK Justice Secretary (Ken Clarke) for failing, according to Mr. Syvret, to ensure the Rule Of Law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

There appears to be a growing number of people who strongly believe the Rule of Law has broken down over here and that we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this belief.

The former Senator, in this interview, gives us just a couple of examples of this anecdotal evidence and spells out, in his view, what translates as "The Rule Of Law" and how he, and others, believe it has broken down in Jersey.

There has also, since the time of this interview, been growing speculation that Mr Syvret is the subject of a Super-Injunction, or something similar. Unfortunately he is being extremely tight lipped about this and despite some pretty hard badgering he will neither confirm nor deny it. We have been aware of something going on since last Thursday 16th August when he asked for Citizen's Media to be at the Royal Square at 6:30pm. We were only granted this interview on the proviso we didn't ask him, either on or off camera, just what THIS is/was all about.

Knowing there are a number of Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) that are investigating this we are sure it is only a matter of time before the truth is revealed. In the meantime we are asking the questions (The State Media won't) has the Rule Of Law broken down in Jersey? Do we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System? Should the UK step in? Is (as Mr. Syvret believes) Jersey more akin to Putin's Russia than a 21st century "Democracy?" Will Mr. Syvret's action against the Justice Secretary be successful? What are the implications if it is? What are the implications if it isn't? Will Jersey's State Media Report on the tabling of Mr. Syvret's action against the UK Justice Secretary? Why, after Reporting on the prosecution case against the Former Police Chief, won't the State Media Report on the defence case?

We explore that final question in part two (coming soon) of this interview.

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

Former Police Chief Exclusive.

In November 2008 Jersey's most senior Police Officer was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation Jersey has ever witnessed. Regular readers will be aware that the "official line" surrounding this suspension as portrayed by the Jersey government along with its State Media just doesn't stack up and has been torn apart by this Blogsite and others including RICO SORDA'S

The latest turn of events has seen the publication of a 62,000 word document submitted by the former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, to the Wiltshire Constabulary who were tasked with producing evidence against him to take to a disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing that never could have, or ever did take place but still cost the Jersey Taxpayer in excess of ONE MILLION POUNDS

Mr. Powers 62,000 word, 94 page, submission to Wiltshire was leaked to former Jersey politician and Health Minister Stuart Syvret who most will know spoke out, or blew the whistle, while still in post, on the institutional, decades long, Child Abuse in Jersey State run institutions and "care" homes. Mr. Syvret too was removed from his post as Health Minister. 

The document itself is, as previously described, "DYNAMITE" and for those with an interest in the full picture of this whole sordid and ghastly affair the document can, and should be, read HERE.

It should also be mentioned that Mr. Syvret gave a copy of this document to BBC Jersey State Radio, over TEN MONTHS AGO back in September 2011 and despite reporting on the case AGAINST Mr. Power they have kept his defence case buried ever since. (More about that in an up-coming Blog).

As a result of Mr. Power's document being published we contacted him in order to verify its authenticity and asked him if he could explain to us its significance, how it came about and related matters. This is in stark contrast to BBC Jersey State Radio, and the rest of the island's State Media who have not sought to ask him a single question, either on its authenticity nor its contents, which in a functioning "Democracy" with an independent media would seem quite staggering, but in Jersey, alas it is quite the norm where Bloggers are the only real independent media there is.

Below is Mr. Power's response to our request and we thank him for his willingness to respond to any, and all, questions put to him in order that history can record a true reflection of the Jersey Child Abuse Atrocities and related issues which you'll not find anywhere in the State Media.

I have been approached by the “Voiceforchildren” website and asked if I want to comment on the apparent publication on another website of my 62,000 word written statement to Wiltshire Police which I prepared in response to the disciplinary investigation into my management of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, when I was Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire was appointed to conduct the disciplinary investigation in December 2008.

I have viewed the website on which the statement is said to be published. I have not read the full publication or compared it word-for-word with my copy of the original. I have however checked some randomly selected extracts from the website and found them to be an accurate reproduction of the original document. It appears from the available evidence that the publication on the website is a true copy of the original document, albeit with some redactions for the protection of third parties. I did not provide a copy of my statement to the website or the person who operates that website.

I prepared the statement in 2009 because I was required to do by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who activated the relevant part of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of the Force, which requires that such a statement be provided. I should perhaps record at this stage that the provision of a statement was not the first option which was considered. I was at first approached by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, and asked if I would agree to be interviewed. It was proposed that the interview would be conducted in a Jersey hotel or similar location and would last for about a week. I know of no precedent for an interview of that duration in a disciplinary enquiry. In a criminal investigation the law would normally prohibit an interview of that length other than in exceptional cases with the agreement of a Court. Terrorism investigations are an example of the type of enquiry where authority might be given for an interview lasting for a week.

In spite of the exceptional nature of the request I nevertheless entered into correspondence to establish whether it would be possible for me to give my agreement to what was proposed. I noted that Mr Moore and his team were benefiting from legal advice funded by the Jersey Government. I therefore asked for a similar facility which would enable me to be advised in respect of the request for an interview, and to be represented during any interview which was agreed. This request was considered by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who decided that he would not allow funding for me to have any legal advice or representation, stating that any legal costs would have to be met from my own personal resources.

Given that the subject matter of the interview was entirely concerned with things I had done in the course of my duties as Chief Officer of the Force, and that the investigating Officers and the Minister were benefiting from full legal advice, I did not think that the Ministers decision was fair or consistent with the principles of Natural Justice. I therefore declined to attend for interview but said that I would comply with the Code and provide a written statement. I was then given a list of points to cover and a deadline for the submission of the final document.

It might be worth recording at this point that apart from the lack of fairness, I did not think that the Ministers decision to require me to provide a written statement was wise. In my opinion few people in his situation would have done the same. The consequence of his decision was that I would produce a full and candid written account of the investigation from my perspective. This would include previously undisclosed information regarding the role and actions of Jersey Ministers and other key figures. Once the statement had been created it would exist thereafter, copies would be made, and interest would be expressed in its content. Given the nature of things in Jersey it would inevitably find its way into the public domain by one means or another. If another person had been the Minister they might have preferred not to have compelled the document to be created in the first place. They may have seen it as a future source of conflict and embarrassment. They could have found another way of dealing with the situation. Senator Le Marquand apparently thought otherwise. That might be one of the reasons why the controversy is still live over three years afterwards. In the circumstances another Minister may have sought a way to “close down” the matter of my suspension and move on to address the core issues of the decades of child abuse, and the reasons for the abuse being covered-up by people whose duty it was to act. That has not happened.

If the publication of my statement and any issues which arise from that publication are troublesome to the Minister, then it is trouble that he has made for himself. He took the decision to require me to write it. All that has followed could have been foreseen.

Once it was clear that I would be providing a written statement and that there was a deadline to be met I set about the task. At this time both the Wiltshire Police team and the Minister were benefitting, not just from the comprehensive legal advice which I have described earlier, but also from fully staffed administrative support and modern office facilities. I on the other hand did my own typing on a laptop computer with family members acting as proof-readers. Looking back on those events I am confident that a situation was deliberately contrived in order to create feelings of isolation and hopelessness on my part. This would have been done in the hope that I would break under the pressure and quietly slip away. That did not happen.

It is now a matter of record that in spite of a long investigation and suspension costing well over a million pounds, no disciplinary charges were brought and no hearing was ever called. I retired in July 2010 three years after my “normal retirement age” as set out in my conditions of service.

I was surprised when, shortly before I retired, the Minister made it clear that he intended to publish a redacted version of the Wilshire report. This document was effectively the “prosecution case” which would have been used at the hearing which the Minister never called. I thought that this was unfair and said so in clear terms. It had been made clear from the onset that all documents in the case were to be kept strictly confidential. The Minister was breaching that rule. He also sought to present the Wiltshire report as some form of “independent review” which it plainly was not. The idea of a thorough management review of the investigation, and the lessons to be learned, to which I was happy to contribute, had been considered and turned down by the Minister early in 2009. The document which he eventually published was designed to be presented at a disciplinary hearing which never happened. Had the hearing taken place the contents of the report would have been subjected to significant challenge and opposing evidence would have been brought.

When I learned of the Ministers intentions I said that firstly, the Wiltshire report should not have been published, but if it was to be published, there should be at least a parallel publication of my own written statement. This was communicated by a variety of means including a letter to the Chief Minister dated 3rd April 2010. Under some political pressure Senator Le Marquand promised that he would do this, but his promise was never kept and it has now been overtaken by events.

All that said, I believe that the statement which has now entered the public domain is a valuable contribution to the understanding of a significant period in the Island’s history. I believe that it is revealing, not only with regard to the abuse enquiry, but also the cultures, attitudes, and style of governance which existed at the time.

If it serves any purpose in assisting the victims, or preventing similar events in the future, then the time spent compiling it will have been worthwhile.

Graham Power.

North Yorkshire.

August 2012.(END)

Is there any wonder why this story continues to attract NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL media interest?