Ms. Rodrigues, in the Mail article, claimed she had a 2 year affair with a prisoner, Curtis Warren, while she was employed at the prison.
Naturally if these claims are true then they raise some very serious questions as to how this affair, with a maximum security prisoner, was able to take place and to go on for so long?
The discredited, and disgraced,Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, still hasn't grasped how a so-called "Democracy" is supposed to work and has reverted to his dictatorial and totalitarian ways and refuses to answer any questions surrounding these extremely serious allegations. In the absence of an independent mainstream media, it looks like he/his Department won't be held to account and any questions will remain unanswered.
But that is what Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) is there for right?
Constable Steve Pallet is the Chair Person of the Scrutiny Panel who are supposed to "Scrutinise" the disgraced Home Affairs Minister and his Department. The only other Member on his Panel is another Constable Michel Le Troquer who actually voted for Geoff Southern to be Chairman. But guess who voted for Steve Pallet (besides the rest of the establishment members)? None other than the disgraced Home Affairs Minister himself!
So it will come as no surprise to learn that although Panel Member Constable Le Troquer believes questions need to be asked/answered, Steve Pallet, the Chairman, does not. "Why not" you might ask?
I suggest it is because Constable Pallet doesn't know how Scrutiny is supposed to work. But just as alarmingly the Constable won't be Scrutinising the Minister (who voted for him) seemingly because The Mail has said some horrible things about a friend of his!
Below are extracts from an e-mail exchange between the Scrutiny Panel, and VFC, which demonstrate the mess this Island is in because of no checks and balances, an unwillingness/refusal of the "Scrutiny" Chairman to "Scrutinise" the guy who voted for him because a newspaper said some horrible things about his friend and why the Chairman should resign, with immediate effect and give the position, to a non-conflicted, and capable Member.
Constables.
I contact you in your capacity of Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Chairman/Member and bring to your attention an article in today's Mail Online http://www.dailymail.
Could I ask if either of you will be submitting an urgent question to the Home Affairs Minister this coming Tuesday, will you be asking him to make a statement and, as a Scrutiny Panel, will you be scrutinising the policy/procedures that allowed a maximum security prisoner to spend so much time alone with a (presumably vulnerable) female member of staff let alone allegedly be involved in an illicit sexual relationship with her for 2 years?
I await your reply/answers with anticipation.
Reply From Constable Michel Le Troquer 16th Feb 2014
Thanks for the information. I’ll be speaking with the Chairman Constable Steve Pallet and I’m sure this is the start of something that will go on for some time. If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations. We shall update you after we have discussed the matter. There are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation. Thanks again for advising us.
Kind regards,
Reply from VFC 16th Feb 2014
Constable.
Thank you for your reply, if no answers to my questions, as yet.
You'll forgive me for not sharing your optimism in "there are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation"
The Assembly (if you'll excuse my bluntness) is full of head nodding lobby-fodder who don't seem to have the ability to ask a question and I would be very surprised if anybody, other than Deputies Tadier, Higgins, and possibly Le Herissier, will ask anything.
Hopefully yourself, and Constable Pallet, will put pressure on the Home Affairs Minister to issue a Statement to the Assembly and possibly the Media concerning this grave matter?
I look forward to my questions being addressed (answered) in due course.
Reply from Scrutiny Panel Chairman and Constable Pallet. 17th Feb 2014
Further to your e-mail below,I will not be asking the Home Affairs Minister to make a statement or be submitting an urgent question to the Minister in regards to comments made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday either as a back bencher or as Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.
I for one have no faith in the journalistic credibility of this newspaper especially after the printing of a story very recently linking the local radio presenter Murray Norton to the death of charity organiser and blogger Simon Abbott.So called facts in the article were totally flawed and bear no resemblance to the truth.
In regards to these latest allegations,the Minister has stated publicly this morning that he considers them to have no basis and did not want to give any creedance to the article by commenting on it to any great degree.Undoubtedly the Minister will carry on an informal internal investigation but I am sure he believes that this so-called affair was ,more than likely,a figment of Miss Rodrigues imagination.
There will though be an opportunity to question the Home Affairs Minister at the next Quarterly Hearing if necessary to investigate the current procedures for professional visitors to inmates at HMP La Moye which I have little doubt is extremely stringent, as I have seen on visits I have made to the prison in the past.One of these visits was with the Scrutiny Panel in late 2012 whilst Curtis Warren was still held at La Moye.
At present there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a ‘sensationalised’ story from a national newspaper with little in the way of evidence to support the allegations.
At present I do not see a role for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in this matter.
I thankyou for your e-mail and for alerting the Panel of this story.
Reply from VFC 17th Feb 2014
Constable.
Thank you for your response and for demonstrating that you do not understand how the Scrutiny Process is supposed to work.
I have only 2 questions, before I consider a substantive reply to your e-mail.
1. Are you a friend of Murray Norton's?
2. On the strength of your e-mail will you be submitting your resignation from Scrutiny?
Please do as you see fit.I have no intention of entering into a dialogue with you over your interpretation of the Scrutiny process.
1.Yes I do consider myself a friend of Murray Norton’s and make no excuse for being so.Neither do I or have I hidden the fact.
2.No.
Kind Regards Steve
Ps Please do not waste either your or your own time on a substantive reply to past e-mails
Reply from VFC 17 Feb 2014.
I find your tone extremely dismissive and offensive and in contravention of States Members Code of Conduct, and on that basis I intend submitting a complaint to PPC citing our e-mail exchange as evidence.
I'll take your advice on not substantively responding to your previous e-mail but instead will publish our correspondence in a Blog Posting where I will be suggesting that you are willing to turn your back on the scrutiny Process because a newspaper has given negative press to a friend of yours. Furthermore that you believe if the Minister (who you are supposed to be "scrutinising") says he is not going to answer questions then that's good enough for you.
Being a responsible Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) I would like to offer you a video interview on this subject so you are given the opportunity to explain your actions on this matter?
I intend on publishing the Blog tomorrow, containing extracts from our correspondence, but am willing to postpone for 24 hours if you would like to defend your actions in a video interview.(END)
The (rude and offensive) Constable has not replied to the last e-mail so it looks like he has declined the offer of an interview.
It should also be mentioned that Teresa Rodrigues has a very colourful and worrying past, as a counsellor, which I'll not go into just now and questions need to be asked as to "why" she "left" the prison in 2011 and how the hell she got the job in the first place?
But as we know the "Scrutiny" Chairman isn't looking to "Scrutinise" any of it.
VFC acknowledges that Curtis Warren strenuously denies the claims made by Ms. Rodrigues.
.jpg)
If Murray Norton was so "innocent" of Mail on Sunday accusation why did he suddenlt disappear from BBC job?
ReplyDeleteAlso being Murray's "mate" did Pallett push for him to get the extra area outside his restaurant no doubt to take extra seating when finished
I have to confess that I have had to read this posting twice such is the incredulity of Constable Pallet's response and reasoning. So he is refusing to bring this very serious matter to Scrutiny because he did not agree with a totally unrelated article in the Mail in regard to a friend of his!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIs this really for real? Is this the way we police matters in Jersey? Well I guess reading this e-mail exchange it would appear so. Not what you know, but who you know and if the face or story doesn't fit basically 'up yours'! Beggars all belief, and perhaps Mr Pallet can tell us exactly what he thinks the purpose of Scrutiny is?
He may not feel there is any substance to this story, but I can assure him that there certainly is, and it will not be going away for some time yet. Indeed it seems it is gathering momentum on a daily basis. Disregard what Curtis Warren is saying, disregard what Advocate Baker is saying, disregard what Warren's UK legal team are saying because they would make denials wouldn't they?
This particular part of Mr Pallet's e-mail to you VFC stood out to me and shows how little he knows about this matter.
'There will though be an opportunity to question the Home Affairs Minister at the next Quarterly Hearing if necessary to investigate the current procedures for professional visitors to inmates at HMP La Moye which I have little doubt is extremely stringent, as I have seen on visits I have made to the prison in the past.One of these visits was with the Scrutiny Panel in late 2012 whilst Curtis Warren was still held at La Moye'.
Ms Rodrigues was not a professional VISITOR. She was a permanent member of staff based there fulfilling a full-time role as a drugs and alcohol 'counsellor', and had accommodation very close by. Those 'stringent' procedures probably did not apply to her, therefore making a nonsense of that statement. Indeed you may well find that she was able to get away with quite a lot, and it is to be hoped that in time those who know in depth exactly what was going on up there will feel able to speak openly, even if anonymously.
Perhaps Mr Pallet will the have a change of mind, but personally I feel that by using a totally unrelated excuse not to investigate this serious matter (which has been rumoured for over 2 years now) means he should be removed from this panel forthwith.
Interestingly there has been no denial as the JEP called it from either the Prison Governor or Home Affairs Minister although I see the latter is being asked an urgent question on this later in the day. I think his answer can be pre-empted.
Finally, I can add my voice to VFC's to confirm that this 'lady' had certainly had a questionable past, and also am at a loss to know how she secured her position at La Moye.
Jill.
DeleteI have received information from a "prison insider" that suggests Ms Rodrigues should be investigated by the police for her "activities" up at La Moye and hope to publish a Blog on this in the coming days.
Steve Pallet has shown, in our e-mail exchange, that he is not fit to sit on Scrutiny and, as we have both said, should resign forthwith. There's a lot more to the "Rodrigues story" to come out that SHOULD force Constable Pallet's resignation.
It is my understanding that the "affair" was common knowledge amongst prison staff some of whom submitted official RSI's (reports to the governor) if the Home Affairs Minister and or the Governor continue to deny the allegations I believe prison staff will produce evidence of collusion and cover up.
ReplyDeleteI too believe that it was common knowledge, but as we now know our Home Affairs Minister feels it is too fanciful to believe, hence does not warrant further investigation!
ReplyDeleteDoncha just love some of our naïve States Members!
Let us just remind ourselves as to what Scrutiny Panel Member Constable Le Troquer said in his e-mail (main posting).
ReplyDelete"If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations."
Deputy Tadier lodged an urgent oral question which was asked in the States (parliament) this morning.
Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following urgent oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“Would the Minister advise whether a former prison employee had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner at HMP La Moye and, if so, what assurances can he give that correct safeguards are in place so that such alleged practice may not occur in future?”
The question enables other members ten minutes to question the Home Affairs Minister on the subject. Yet Constable Le Troquer who had this to say in his e-mail to me;
"If true then there are a lot of explanations to be made……..and I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations." didn't ask a single question to the Home Affairs Minister.
"I don’t know how anyone will be able explain away such allegations.?"
Well if they're not asked to they certainly won't be able to.
Constable Le Troquer also said in his e-mail;
"There are likely to be many other Members who too will be seeking an explanation." But not you though Constable eh?
As someone on the left of politics, I am no fan of the Daily Mail. I think their role in whipping up tension against minorities in Britain is utterly disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteBut if the Mail said blue was blue, I wouldn't stand up and say "no, it's red!" just to contradict them. To do so would be an unscientific way of forming opinions.
The Mail, like any paper, is capable of getting it spectacularly wrong and spectacularly right. Just look at the brave stance the Mail took over the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
The allegations that were made in the Mail about Curtis Warren having an affair whilst in prison may well turn out to be a pack of lies. But for the head of scrutiny to say that he won't investigate it because a) he doesn't trust the Mail and b) the Minister has said everything is A-okay, you have to ask yourself; what is the point in scrutiny when the leaders of it are just yes men appointed by those are meant to be scrutinised?
Now, after the election of Constable Rennard to the Panel, one has to ask just what interest she has ever shown in Education and Home Affairs? How many questions has she submitted on the subject? And why she was as silent as the rest of the Panel this morning concerning Deputy Tadier's urgent oral question?
DeleteCould be an election year and the Constables want to top up their CV?
Three establishment Constables who are tasked with scrutinizing the establishment tells you what a state Jersey is in.
DeleteEvidence of the Jersey Way.
ReplyDeleteIt's not what you know, but who you know.
I would like independent corroboration from another source for the Mail Article. At the moment, we just have Ms Rodrigues word, which could be genuine, or fantasy. Until there are other sources, for instance, other witnesses, then it is clearly Ms Rodrigues word against Mr Warren's.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you get permission to reprint the emails from the two Constables before placing them online?
What faith can the public have with a committee of inquiry into child abuse when Ian Le Marquand has at the wave of a hand dismissed Curtis Warren alleged relationship with a prison staff member as fantasy and will not review the claim?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the public interest in the implications if true?
Ian has tied himself up in a nasty knot.
DeleteIn refusing to review Andrew Lewis's decision to suspend Graham Power, QPM, Ian gave to understand that, on the basis of corporate sole, he was himself also Andrew Lewis, and could not therefore review himself. That got him out of that one pro tem.
Unfortunately, if he is now also Andrew Lewis, under corporate sole, then the WHOLE Warren Curtis affair occurred on his watch. This will get him in to this one.
Perhaps he'd like to give VFC, one of the island's independent media, a wee interview and explain himself, without tripping over his shoelaces.
Can't wait.
And maybe, while he's at the corporate sole act thing, he could tell us why Wendy Kinnard resigned?
DeleteFascinating. The implications for ILM and his remarkable stance on being the Corporate Sole are potentially mind-boggling. He must have been thinking in the old Jersey Way - you know - back when there was no top-knotch independent investigative journalism to hold power to account.
DeleteConstable Pallet should take note. Evidence-based blogs like this have changed everything. Misdeeds and the traditional unwillingness to scrutinize them will no longer go unaddressed. Statements and correspondence from VFC are more professional, reasonable and logical than most of the published responses of the Jersey authorities.
So given the two options who would you believe Tony?
ReplyDeleteI also think if you read VFC's blog properly he pre-warned Constable Pallett of his intention to reproduce his e-mail response, which as a concerned member of the public who asked a pertinent question and got a rather rude reply, I am sure this is in the public interest.
Maybe you feel otherwise?
The public have every right to know if the prison is a safe and secure institution.
ReplyDeleteIf the Home Affairs minister and Scrutiny panel members act on their own feelings without consideration or action outside those beliefs the public lose out every time.
Here we go. Start joining the dots. Get that Pallet chap the hell away from scrutiny. He is just bolsting his cv for the next election. Up the stinking chain for him. What next?
ReplyDeleteWhere did Warren grt thr phones?
The Liverpool Echo reports..
Curtis Warren Crimelord Curtis Warren orchestrated a heroin smuggle into Britain from a Jersey prison cell, prosecutors seeking his alleged £200m drugs fortune claimed.
The Liverpool criminal was awaiting trial on the island’s La Moye prison over a £1m cannabis importation when he allegedly used a stash of illicit mobile phones to make hundreds of calls and texts to drug trafficker Christopher Burgan.
Burgan and his right-hand-man Jerome Stevens – said to be a known contact of Warren – were caught with a hidden haul of heroin after travelling from mainland Europe to Dover in July 2008.
Jersey's Royal Court was yesterday told that in the four months before the arrests, Warren allegedly made and received 1,689 calls and messages to and from Burgan.
The details were revealed at the 50-year-old gangster's confiscation hearing where state authorities believe Warren has made £198m through a “staggering” global drug dealing network.
They suspect his fortunes are squirrelled away in a murky web of hidden assets. If a court agrees, the Toxteth-born former bouncer could face another decade behind bars if he fails to pay back his ill-gotten gains.
Warren is fighting those claims, saying he has “no money” after being incarcerated in Holland and Jersey prisons for a near-continuous 17 years.
But prosecutors accuse Warren of running his empire from prison, claiming he owned seven illicit phones while on remand in Jersey prison.
Yesterday the court heard that those phones made and received 35,000 calls and texts across 41 countries between March 2008 and October 2009.
They included calls and texts to Australia (eight calls/texts to two contacts), France (1,750 to 85 people), Mexico (58 to three contacts), Netherlands (924 to 61 numbers), Portugal (3,312 to 24 people), South Africa (65 to eight contacts) and Swaziland (nine to three numbers).
The court was also told of contact between the alleged Warren prison phones and Christopher Burgan, a drug crook who was jailed for his role in a conspiracy to smuggle heroin into Britain through Dover in July 2008.
It is thought he had been to Amsterdam before travelling back to the UK via Calais.
Intelligence analyst Emma Hughes, from the National Crime Agency, said Burgan and two of the alleged Warren prison phones were behind 1,689 calls and messages between May 15 and July 11, 2008.
Giving evidence, Mrs Hughes told how one of the alleged Warren phones was saved as “C” and set to speed-dial in Burgan's phone. On May 29 a message was sent saying: “Happy birthday mate, talk to you later”. Warren’s birthday, the court heard, is May 31. She also claimed that the alleged Warren phones were in contact simultaneously with 13 Dutch numbers and that after Burgan’s arrest all contact with him stopped.
The court also heard that an average of 62 calls/texts were made every day between March 2008 and October 2009 from the seven prison phone numbers.
Mrs Hughes told how the communications, routed through the phone mast at La Moye, stopped when Warren was in court and after he was moved from the island.
In an astonishing break-down, Ms Hughes revealed that 57% of all the communication involved the North West of England.
She added that there were 157 common contacts between the phones responsible for 17,649 calls and texts, 36 known associates of Curtis Warren and 10 common contacts between the phones of Burgen and the prison phones.
Jersey solicitor general Howard Sharp, QC, said in his opening: “It is very clear that Mr Warren was using these phones and they were in operation from La Moye during his period on remand.”
Steve Baker, representing Warren, said many of the calls analysed by Mrs Hughes were short in duration and may have gone unanswered or to voicemail.
Was Rodrigues searched before entering the prison?
DeleteThat's a question any "scrutineer" worth their salt would be asking.
DeleteListen very carefuly to the answer given by Le Marquand. He said there was access to cells by drugs councellors. Are they checked when they enter the wing or did they come and go as they please. Who had easy access to the number 1 criminal that he could get his hands on the phones. You bet Le Marquand is batting this away. Did Le marquand say that it can't be true because Curtis warren has denied it? I can't wait to hear the audio. You know the cow has a serious case of the sh@ts if the word of warren is now god. How stupid are some.
ReplyDeleteBut prosecutors accuse Warren of running his empire from prison, claiming he owned seven illicit phones while on remand in Jersey prison.
ReplyDeleteYesterday the court heard that those phones made and received 35,000 calls and texts across 41 countries between March 2008 and October 2009.
They included calls and texts to Australia (eight calls/texts to two contacts), France (1,750 to 85 people), Mexico (58 to three contacts), Netherlands (924 to 61 numbers), Portugal (3,312 to 24 people), South Africa (65 to eight contacts) and Swaziland (nine to three numbers).
Pay as you go or contract? If what the jersey law office say is correct,
and he did the above, then I can safely safe that all that credit was stuffed up someones backside or in the palm of a lady when visting. Think about it for a minute. It could not have been contract as that is easily traced it had to be pay as you go. Who could have got that much credit to Warren? Not rocket science is it. That is why Le Marquand is playing he usal dumb self.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mTKDaKa6Q
ReplyDeleteSteve Pallet as the then Chairman of the Jersey Democratic Alliance, speaking at a No to GST meeting.
From arguing for the interests of ordinary islanders, to a supporter of Option B, and now this.
Clearly been knobbled by the Establishment.
The link takes you to a Michael Moore video, not the Steve Pallet one.
DeleteSteve Pallet
DeleteSteve Pallet as the then Chairman of the Jersey Democratic Alliance, speaking at a No to GST meeting.
From arguing for the interests of ordinary islanders, to a supporter of Option B, and now this.
Clearly been knobbled by the Establishment.
"The court also heard that an average of 62 calls/texts were made every day between March 2008 and October 2009 from the seven prison phone numbers"
ReplyDeleteWhen did the lady in question say she was spending all that time in the Warren Cell? Look at how easy it is to raise some questions from looking at what has gone on. They are a joke. Constable Pallet and Le Marquand.
Word is that the JEP had this story years ago but couldn't run it without evidence. Be interesting to see if they can revisit their notes now and join up the dots, following the alleged confession by the drug counsellor?
ReplyDeleteWhen has the JEP ever bothered about evidence before printing a story? If it did have this story years ago and didn't publish it the reason will be it was ordered not to by the establishment.
DeleteCurtis Warren denied being a drug taker, if his word is to now be believed then what accepted need had he, to receive drug councillor visits in his cell, at all?
ReplyDeleteGood spot.
DeleteBy her own words "He has never taken drugs or even tasted alcohol so he didn’t need my help" yet there she is, pictured grinning in his cell, cuddling up and clearly familiar with one another.
The trouble with all liars (whoever they are, and whoever it is that is doing the lying) is that one lie leads to another lie that leads to another lie. The Jersey mob aren't even very good at it, that's why it's so easy to spot and why they keep getting found out.
Le Marquand "teeth through the floorboards" thinks this is fantasy hahahahaha
ReplyDeleteAmazing isn't it? All the questions that have been asked on this posting that not one of the Scrutiny Panel could think of any of them to ask the disgraced Home Affairs Minister this morning in the States.
ReplyDeleteMast picked up the phone calls.
ReplyDeleteWere cell searches carried out daily? For someone within prison to be able to make the calls daily then someone held the phones and delivered them daily to the caller if cell searches were made daily.
Was the female staff members mobile on the list of numbers Curtis warren called? The employer would have the contact mobile of the staff member was this scrutinised?
ReplyDeleteWere the authorities aware of what allegedly took place (discovered through service provider) Was she pushed or did she jump? Golden handshake?
ReplyDeleteJersey Evening Post Armed police escort
ReplyDeleteGiven the article above. Were inmates at risk in La Moye when a prisoner is able to have seven mobile phones within the prison especially if the prisoners themselves were aware of the situation.?
Of cause it is in the tax paying public interest. We the tax paying public are allegedly paying for 2 years of mushy mushy, with a civil servant at work and a high security prisoner serving his time !
ReplyDeleteWell done.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the Mail Article but I think the shirty e-mails you got back in response to some basic questions were a little alarming.
JH
"She claims it lasted two years and only ended when he was convicted of drugs smuggling and transferred to a prison on the mainland". Warren left Jersey for Belmarsh Prison October 2009....
ReplyDelete62 international calls were made by Warren between March 2008 & October 2009!!??
It looks to me as if the Jersey authorities were pretty relaxed about Curtis Warren obtaining and using seven easily monitorable mobile phones...
ReplyDeleteUse your imagination people. Do I have to spell it out for you?
Yes, that would help
DeleteTo lead to the holy grail of £200 million
DeleteThe Beano is not the Rag
He (pallet) was put there by the COM with the collusion of Steve Luce ? It was all part of Duhamel gate.
ReplyDeleteHe is a bully pure and simple. Also a bit thick.
'Walk-through' searches are carried out in all prisoners' cells each day. For most prisoners most of the time, these searches will be - reasonably enough - a fairly low-level examination of the cell - checking for signs of tampering with any of the fittings & fixtures - home-brewing of alcohol - the smell of dope - that kind of thing. Most prisoners most of the time don't pose those problems.
ReplyDeleteBut prisoners known or suspected of banned activity, or possession of contraband, will have their cells spun - some times pretty frequently.
For what its worth, my take on the front-line prison staff is that of a high-level of professionalism; they maintain a disciplined - but civilised & constructive day-to-day relationship with prisoners.
I cannot say the same of the senior management. The impression I have of the prison leadership is another typical Jersey high-pay - "anything-for-a-quite-life" - establishment yes-man, like Bowron at the Police - or Gripton at the BBC.
So if the powers-that-be in Jersey wanted Warren to receive "special-treatment" - then that's what will have happened. Orders-from-above.
And let's face it - we all know why Warren was targeted in Jersey - and why all parts of what passes for the "criminal justice system" in the island & further afield - prosecutors, judges, lawyers - including defence-lawyers - etc - have all been so particularly keen on getting at - or getting to - Warren - in one way - or another.
What's he alleged to have? £200 million?
That's an awful lot of money to be swallowed-up by Jersey's "Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund".
Why - the state's cut of that will keep a few lawyers - and judges - in career annuities, country houses and retirement funds.
And, handily - the COCF is not publically accounted or transparently audited. It's a big fat resource - under the "gift" of the Jersey Attorney General.
But the COCF has to fed.
That big slush-fund won't grow itself - the funds have to come from somewhere.
£200 million?
From a universally reviled drug-dealer - a source no-one will shed a tear for?
Perfect!
That'll do nicely.
It was just too much for the "system" to resist.
In fact - so tempting and juicy and perfect - like an inviting desert mirage to a man lost & dying of thirst - the object they craved was an hallucination?
Maybe, the £200 million just doesn't exist?
Perhaps it was just a fantasy - and the supposed "riches" of this guy who's spent most of his adult life in prison, are nothing more than a "confidence-game"? But those in the "system" - who'd banked on grabbing these millions into the Jersey COCF just can't bring themselves to face it?
Maybe they were so desperate to keep their hallucination going, they allowed Warren to be plied with phones - and female company - in the hope it would reveal something - anything?
Whatever the truth may be - he's certainly more "attractive" to the Jersey system than me. Mobile phones - women - millions of pounds worth of defence legal representation?
They wouldn't even give me a non-conflicted and unfunded legal-aid lawyer.
Still - that's the difference between being a penniless whistle-blower, political opponent on the one had - and on the other hand, a drugs-dealer with alleged millions the system might get hold of.
My career choice was so foolish; if only I'd become a major drug-gangster - instead of trying to protect constituents from child-abuse, rape & murder.
Maybe I too would then have sex with a councillor when they jail me - and Stephen Baker would be my defence-lawyer - instead of prosecuting me for whistle-blowing, and he colluding with the NMC - and then lying about it in court?
Jersey, eh?
You couldn't make it up.
Stuart
If it was you who had been getting your end away with a staff member and making phone calls from mobiles do you think Ian Le Marquand and Steve Pallet would have taken the allegations seriously and instigated an investigation Stuart?
DeleteI'd've got another ten years, straight.
DeleteStuart
Ten years in prison? Add the placement of your picture with plenty of exposure of your conduct, on the front page of the JEP throughout those ten years. Of course, a special news segment on your shocking jail cell behaviour would no doubt win an award for a local television crew. In fact, it would probably be run as an ongoing series.
Deleteif ever the cover up at the prison becomes public knowledge there will be heads swinging believe me
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if it was possible the female was given a job within the prison deliberately as a chosen one. How many years would it take to hold the same position outside of Jersey. Ex addict to gov employee in such a time quick time frame. Did she hold any relevant professional qualifications, was she the only person interviewed, who appointed her, recommended her for the position What experience did she hold in counselling? Did she receive any bonus payments?
ReplyDeleteSo many questions?
That kind of scenario is entirely feasible.
DeleteIt is absolutely common in Jersey. Indeed, the supposed "independent" Appointments Commission seems to have frequently been little more than a device designed to confer "credibility" on senior Jersey appointments.
Unbeknown to me at the time, the appointment of Mike Pollard as Health & Social Services Chief Executive was rigged. I took part in the Appointment Commission's interview and appointment process - and I preferred a different candidate. But the rest - Bill Ogley in particular - were insistent on Pollard, so I naively went along with it.
And, of course - as a number of us now know - there were very serious "issues" over the appointment of Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins. The appointment process had proceeded to a point whereby it was closed - and another preferred candidate was the prominent choice. But - for some reason - the process got stopped - and Martins entered the frame - and was then appointed.
So yes - appointments to posts - in Jersey - are frequently "strategic".
Stuart
The last few days have seen serious failings from the local media, scrutiny, the Home Affairs Minister and HMP La Moye to deal openly with a very serious allegation. If these claims are true then the prison is the final link in the Island's dysfunctional judicial system and I would hope the Home Affairs Minister or at the very least the Prison Governor to resign over this matter.
ReplyDeleteIf UK doesn't at least make a show of feigning interest, their inaction will be profoundly telling.
ReplyDelete"and on the other hand, a drugs-dealer with alleged millions the system might get hold of. " - When reading this, I immediately thought it odd that a big dealer could accumulate £200m in funds, froms activities that most governments deplore because of the misery they help to pile upon those who are hooked on drugs, and yet that same government are happy to use that money to effectively line the pockets of the legal profession, whereas, the funds should really be ring-fenced and used in full by the various drug support agencies that deal with those whose lives have been wrecked by drugs (including those who get hooked on drugs to help them temporarily forget about past abuse conducted in government homes etc..). I guess in Jersey this would never be accepted, they would rather use more funds to pay the legal profession to reduce payouts to those abused, than actually paid out to the abused!.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought, is it not strange that the police officers who conducted the illegal surveillance, get hounded, but it appears that ILM doesn't think an inquiry is necessary for a serious breach at the prison!! - surely it was not condoned as another activity that will be strenously denied, yet illegally sanctioned just to get the pot of imaginary gold!
Okay, off topic, but I think it is worth bearing in mind!
Just one credible witness is required for le marquAnd to resign. Unfortunately for constable pallet he needs to resign now.
ReplyDeleteBBC Radio Jersey said this morning that procedures have been changed in the last couple of years at HMP La Moye. Apparently, prisoners meeting with drug counsellors & other "professional" visits must now to be held in a secure room with a glass wall.
ReplyDeleteWhatever could have prompted such a change in the first place?
Could it have been honest Prison Officers reporting suspicious goings on in Prisoner Warren's cell, to senior Management?
Hopefully one of them can let VFC know......
"Hopefully one of them can let VFC know......"
DeleteStay tuned!
The visits were not from outsiders this was a member of the prison staff. What changes have been put in place in that instance?
DeleteHave the Daily Mail responded to this post given the quote from Constable Steve Pallet Chair person of Scrutiny panel. .''I for one have no faith in the journalistic credibility of this newspaper especially after the printing of a story very recently linking the local radio presenter Murray Norton to the death of charity organiser and blogger Simon Abbott.So called facts in the article were totally flawed and bear no resemblance to the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to these latest allegations, the Minister has stated publicly this morning that he considers them to have no basis and did not want to give any creedance to the article by commenting on it to any great degree.Undoubtedly the Minister will carry on an informal internal investigation but I am sure he believes that this so-called affair was ,more than likely,a figment of Miss Rodrigues imagination''. It would be interesting to know if he has a source outside of Miss Rodrigues's imagination.?
Hi VFC.
ReplyDeletePut up the Audio from yesterdays Questions without Answers, You and your readers can listen HERE
TJW.
Can Le Marquand, or anyone else for that matter explain this farce?
ReplyDeleteLe Marquand simply believes Warren is telling the truth when denying this story, just because he says so, therefore he must presumably be an honest & honorable chap. On the other hand, Le Marquand doesn't believe him, when he denies the charges for which he is jailed. (In ILM world he must simultaneously be a thoroughly dishonest & dishonorable scoundrel too).
If he can't explain that, perhaps he can explain how illegal bugging & monitoring can be carried out OVERSEAS, without a court order to enable him to be convicted, yet according to the Liverpool Echo, Warren can apparently be using multiple mobile phones inside a prison, making 000's of calls & texts, to run his business operation, under the noses of the authorities ON ISLAND. If that is so, could they not have used their well honed surveillance skills on the mobile mast at La Moye?
If monitoring of calls was carried out, was it done with or without a court order? Does Le Marquand even know that? If it was without a court order, who decided to act outside the law? (Perhaps Le Marquand was deliberately not told anything as he is such a buffoon, the whole thing would be an even worse mess than it is now).
Can Le Marquand explain how Warren managed to top up his mobile as surely getting a contract would require a utility bill as proof of address! Was allowed to pop out to the shops at Red Houses. He was after all a man of his word!
Some many question, so few answers.
Have interviewed Deputy Montfort Tadier concerning the "Rodrigues and Prison Problem" which will be published on the Blog tomorrow. In the meantime here is an 18 second TRAILER
ReplyDeleteShe was known as The B.J Queen, amounts staff and prisoners, she also serviced(?) staff and prisoners.
ReplyDeleteStaff who attempted to make complaint's to Management were told to put it in writing....
Of course no one did because they would have been classed as Whistleblowers and their jobs would have also been at risk.
This does corroborate information we have received.
DeleteHey Curtis, I hope HMP provides free tests. Starting to sound like one might me a good idea. No wonder you don't want to admit anything.
DeleteAlso fact: A Lesbian Prison Officer was sacked for having a relationship with a female prisoner.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have been the same one who impregnated a female prisoner then..
DeleteNo wonder Stuart was smiling when he left the place, sounds like a madhouse in there!
ReplyDeleteVFC write in their post:
ReplyDelete"But guess who voted for Steve Pallet (besides the rest of the establishment members)? None other than the disgraced Home Affairs Minister himself"
And Sam Mezec in his comment says:
"what is the point in scrutiny when the leaders of it are just yes men appointed by those are meant to be scrutinised?"
Just to put folk in the picture on this, I brought a proposition which should have been debated at the last sitting I was in the States. It had two elements. The first would have tackled “misleading information” (lying to you and me) in the States, as practised by certain Ministers.
The second part would have solved VFC’s and Sam’s problem. It asked PPC to review “whether it is appropriate that all States members are entitled to vote both for Ministers and for the Chairmen and members of Scrutiny Panels and the PAC.”
I originally proposed that Scrutiny and PAC chairs be elected only by members who are NOT Ministers or Assistant Ministers, precisely to ensure that the same majority which elects the Ministers does not also have the power over who gets to scrutinise the said Ministers. Problem solved!
However, this would have involved changing Standing Orders and I did not have much time for redrafting, so we did a quick fix change to the wording.
What happened to this interesting proposition? Certain manoeuvres were carried out, and it was not debated!
P169/2011 for those who are interested