Wednesday, 30 August 2017

Constable Chris Taylor and the Truth/Lies/Facts/Confidence.



Constable Chris Taylor.


I was going to publish a Blog Posting on the subject of asking "How Tenable is the Position of St. John Constable Chris Taylor?" Regular readers will know that he (still) sits on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and also sits on the Privileges and Procedures Committee. (PPC)

Recently the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) found that former Home Affairs Minister and current PAC Chairman Deputy Andrew Lewis lied, not only to the Care Inquiry but to the States Assembly. Indeed the IJCI found that Deputy Lewis told a number of lies.

The alleged lie that is being most reported is the one he told the States Assembly after he had (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power QPM. Deputy Lewis told the in-camera (secret) States debate:

"I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE."

Of course we now know that he didn't read a report from the Metropolitan Police (or so he says) and the report that the MET did publish wasn't alarming either. Deputy Lewis looks to have suspended the former Chief Police Officer on a pack of lies and to this day nobody knows why he did suspended the Chief Police Officer.

After the IJCI published its REPORT PPC looked into the conduct of Deputy Lewis and found that he had breached the Code of Conduct for elected Members. Subsequently a Vote of Censure was lodged against the Deputy by PPC, of which Constable Taylor is a signatory.

After the Vote of Censure was lodged and it became apparent that Deputy Lewis (still) wasn't going to do the honourable thing and step down as Chairman of PAC. Two Members (Constable Simon Crowcroft and Deputy Judy Martin) resigned from the committee apparently having lost confidence in its Chairman. This left only one States Member (besides the Chairman) on the Panel and that is/was Constable Chris Taylor. He has been reported as saying he will resign if Deputy Lewis is censured by the States. But not before?

In preparation for the Blog I intended publishing ("How Tenable is the Position of St. John Constable Chris Taylor?") I contacted (e-mails below) the Constable in the hope he would agree to an interview so that I could publish the most fair, balanced, and accurate Blog possible but what transpired was utterly bizarre and merited a Blog of its own.

E-mails between VFC and Constable Taylor.











Wednesday 23 August.

"Constable. 

As it appears you still have confidence in your (PAC) Chairman. I am considering publishing a Blog questioning how tenable your own position is? 

Would you be willing or available for an interview on this subject?
Kind Regards. 
N.McMurray."

Didn’t get an acknowledgement/reply for 6 days so sent a polite reminder.




Tuesday 29 August. 12:41

"Constable.

Just a polite reminder that I am awaiting a reply to my previous e-mail and request for an interview?

Kind Regards.

N.McMurray."



Tuesday 29 August 12:58

"Dear Mr McMurray,

Thank you for your email but I do not partake in social media.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Taylor"






Tuesday 29 August 13:21

"Constable.

Thank you for your reply and it is unfortunate that you do not partake in Social Media, in the 21st century, this is almost unheard of.

I want to publish a Blog questioning how tenable your position is by still having confidence in your PAC Chairman, Deputy Andrew Lewis, after you agree with the Care Inquiry report that he has told a number of lies, both to the States Assembly and the Care Inquiry and indeed the findings of PPC that he has breached the Code of Conduct for elected members. I will be asking exactly what does an elected member have to do in order for you to lose confidence in them?

A fair and balanced Blog article would hugely benefit with some input from yourself. If you don't feel comfortable being interviewed, perhaps you might consider an official comment that I could publish on the Blog as to why you haven't joined Constable Crowcroft and Deputy Judy Martin in resigning from PAC and why you still have confidence in the Chairman? Why you need to see if he survives a Vote of censure before you will act (or not) on what you already know?

Kind Regards.
N.McMurray."


Tuesday 29 August 2017 13:30

"Dear Mr McMurray,

Your statement second paragraph below is incorrect. It is precisely this type of misreporting that I do not wish to be involved in.

You say in your second paragraph “A fair and balanced article….” Well simply in cannot be either fair or balance if you start with a false statement.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Taylor"



Tuesday 29 August 2017 13:42

"Constable.

You have made my point/argument for me. If you don't engage then false information can be published, this is exactly why I have contacted you in order to publish a fair and balanced article. If you don't tell your side of the story then the full facts can never get out.

If you could be specific as to what I have got wrong and tell me what you see to be more accurate then this will help a fair/balanced and accurate article being published. If you refuse to engage you can hardly blame me for publishing something that is not as factual as it might be. I am attempting to publish something factual and in order to do that I am seeking your input. I'm not sure what else I can do? Please tell me what is incorrect that I have written and I will seek to correct it before I publish it on my Blog?

Kind Regards.
N.McMurray"



Tuesday 29 August 2017 18:38

"Constable.

As things stand I find myself in a surreal, if not bizarre, situation. Firstly I have never credibly been accused of publishing anything that is not factual. Secondly I have never been accused of publishing something about somebody that is not factual and then have the person NOT tell me what the facts are.

I believe I have done everything in my power in order to get the facts, as you see them, and thus far you have not/will not supply me with those facts. Hopefully you WILL tell me where you believe I have been "incorrect" in order that a factual Blog will be published.

Naturally I will hold you responsible (to the readers) for any inaccuracies discussed (or not) in this e-mail chain. Indeed in order to demonstrate (to readers of the Blog) the lengths I have gone to in order to get a factual, fair, and balanced article together it might mean that I will have to publish this e-mail chain.

As mentioned in the first paragraph of this e-mail; this is an utterly bizarre situation and one that I have never had to deal with previously. If you believe I am going to publish something that is incorrect/not-factual about yourself, why wouldn't you want to make sure the facts are known beforehand?

I hope you will supply me with the facts as you see them and in the spirit of goodwill and an attempt to give you every opportunity to put right any "false facts" before they are published I'll hold back 24 hours before drafting/publishing the Blog Posting.

Kind Regards.
N.McMurray."


30 August 2017 08:27

"Dear Mr McMurray,

There are millions of “blogs” around the world, and from what I have seen many publish rubbish and untruths. I work between 70 and 80 hours a week as Connetable and States Member, doing my best to improve lives of Parishioners and Islanders. I do not have the time to go around correcting “blogs”. This is why I do not engage in social media.

I have told you that your statement is incorrect and it is your duty to ensure you publish the truth. If therefore you decide to publish, you will be doing so in the full knowledge that you are spreading lies.

I have said previously I do not partake in social media and so this subject is now closed.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Taylor"


30August 2017 10:24 

"Constable.

I am fairly certain, although there are millions of Blogs around the world, that they are not contacting you in order to put out a fair, balanced and accurate article. Indeed I would go as far as to say that I am probably the only one that has. I am not asking you to correct my Blog. You have told me that I have e-mailed you something that is incorrect but bizarrely you won't tell me what it is and further, you refuse to correct it before it's published. 

I don't know what I have written that is incorrect, or a lie..........Only you do but you are keeping it a secret. As mentioned previously I have never in my life came across something so surreal or bizarre. 

You wrote: 

"I have told you that your statement is incorrect and it is your duty to ensure you publish the truth." I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is my duty to publish the truth. My problem is that the person (you) who seemingly knows the truth won't tell me it. Again I ask what am I supposed to do? I ask you for the truth and you won't tell it to me. What option have I got other than to publish the truth as I see it if the truth, as you see it, is being kept a secret? 

Unless you supply me with your truth it is you who will be allowing something to be published in the full knowledge that lies are being spread.

I hope you will do what you can to help the truth get published.

N.McMurray."(END) 

So as readers should be able to see I have done far more than I should be expected to do in order to publish a fair, balanced and accurate Blog Posting. Further if anybody has published/allowed to be published something "in the full knowledge that you are spreading lies" then the blame must be put at the door of Constable Taylor.

It is still a mystery as to what an elected Member has to do in order to lose the confidence of the Constable......................................And what the lies are that Constable Taylor has allowed to be spread...................?

106 comments:

  1. One last e-mail just sent to Constable Taylor.

    "Constable.

    It is regrettable that you don't wish the truth to be told although it might go some way to explaining why you still have confidence in your Chairman Deputy Andrew Lewis.

    As a result of your refusal to tell the truth I have had to "spread a pack of lies" instead and published the Blog here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/08/constable-chris-taylor-and.html"

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are only two assertions in your second paragraph, namely that he has confidence in his chairman, and that he agrees that Lewis lied.

    Given that he hasn't resigned, it seems safe to assume that he took a minority view in PPC and disagrees with the committee's acceptance that Lewis lied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see that he disagrees with the finding of the Care Inquiry. If he does then he has "spread a pack of lies" through the Chairman of PPC who said this at the Andrew Lewis PPC Hearing:

      "This hearing is not an opportunity to determine whether or not Deputy Lewis lied to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry or States Assembly. The committee does not seek to challenge the conclusions drawn by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry panel."(END)

      The Care Inquiry concluded that Andrew Lewis lied. If he disagreed with that conclusion then he would (or should) have made that clear at the PPC Hearing. If he didn't then he, through the Chairman of PPC has inadvertently misled the public.

      Delete
    2. Can't really agree. Committees usually operate on a majority vote. A member who votes against the majority isn't obliged to issue a minority report.

      It seems likely (to me) that Taylor refuses to accept that Lewis lied and is hoping that the states will vote against the no confidence motion so he can hide behind that.

      Delete
    3. Or perhaps they are both Freemasons, because Lewis definitely is! Notably Taylor did not utter one single word at the Public Hearing.

      Delete
  3. Quite extraordinary, really, when you think about it. This is a man who sits on arguably the two most important committees in the States, in his first term in office, and has a democratic mandate of precisely zero votes. Among his achievements in the States is bringing a vote of no confidence in the chief minister, despite having no mandate to even sit in the states.

    Oh, and he is far too important to actually talk to the plebs who didn't elect him, because he doesn't do social media.

    Why the fuck aren't we in the royal square with pitch forks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it right that 11 out of 12 of the current constables were returned unopposed?

      Delete
    2. Pitchforks indeed! We peasants are entitled to have a revolt in the same style as Constable Taylor recommended for the person who leaked the debate where Lewis lied. He suggested they should be dragged to the Royal Square and put in stocks (or some other similar medieval punishment).

      This is the man who said that he could not possibly swear an oath stating that he - as a States Member - could be a corporate parent for any child in States Care!

      Where are you Watt Tyler?

      Delete
    3. Now we have Duh? What? Taylor.

      Delete
    4. Why aren't we in the Royal Square with pitch forks? probably because we need brave leaders who will stand up and take the lead no matter what happens to them.

      We don't have that any more. We probably need a new political party formed. One that will appeal to significant numbers and has brave, inspiring leadership.

      Delete
    5. 21:01... completely agree.

      Delete
  4. Constable Taylor doesn't strike me as anything different to the other Constables. Only interested in themselves and toadying to the COM. Too many people are happy to know that Lewis is a bad egg, should be sacked but will effectively look the other way. We even saw this attitude in the unexpected attitude of Deputy Mezec in working with him on the shambolic super-constituency proposals. I am sorry to say it but I think the only way we will get rid of Lewis is voting him out at the election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam you worked with Lewis on the reform proposals and cosied up to him on the living wage. We know so from inside knowledge.

      Delete
    2. Ooh inside knowledge. You sound like JSH with that sort of talk.

      Delete
    3. You are rather good at that your self.

      Delete
  5. Taylor, Another case of all piss and wind, but that's ok still receiving 42 plus a year for doing f-ck all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Connetable Taylor is a snake - he brought in that proposition against Gorst because the Bailhache mob want him out. Never trust Connetable Taylor - he is a unelected member of the states who does what William and Philip Baillhache want him to do

      Delete
  6. Taylor accepts the COI findings that Lewis lied. Taylor does not have confidence in Lewis as chairman of PAC and if Lewis doesn't resign after the next states sitting then
    Taylor will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has he actually stated this?

      Delete
  7. A reader who is having difficulty leaving comments has sent me the below comment.

    "Have a read of Mr Taylor's comments here http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=48DBB35A-5B5D-46B6-9670-ED95D205B7ED#_Toc487550307 … Hansard is a true record of what is said rather than "lies" Make your own mind up. His views on the importance of "Children" added to the fact that he felt a Parish Jolly (Branchage) was more important than staying in the States for the full debate. Are his views from the dark ages or just another example of "The Jersey Way"?
    When you look into this mans actions you really have to question the timing of his VONC in Ian Gorst. Opportunistic or Diversionary make your own mind up"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Constable Taylor prioritising walls and trees (Branchage) over a damming report concerning horrific Child Abuse is pretty much "The Jersey Way." Unless the law has since been changed a wall or a tree has more legal rights than a child in Jersey. That is to say a wall or a tree has an automatic right to legal representation in court where a child doesn't.

      See HERE.

      Delete
    2. Can't see the wood for the branchage ......... http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/dannie-jarman-in-memory-tribute/

      Cherry picking a couple of phrases from Taylor's drivel:

      "The electorate elect us according to our ability and ....." [Connétable Taylor was not elected so in this case perhaps the lack of votes is commensurate with his lack of ability?]

      ".......... These are a few of my observations and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate and making a decision in due course"......[Connétable Taylor's opening phrase was "May I start firstly by apologising for this afternoon, I have the Parish branchage and so I shall NOT be here ....."

      Delete
  8. A very interesting and useful historic evidential e-mail exchange, VFC.

    It reminds me so much of an even more inescapable - terminal - e-mail thread I had with Advocate / part-time "judge" Julian Clyde-Smith - via the "Bailiff's" (whatever that fairyland nonsense is supposed to be) "judicial" secretary - beginning at 14:39, 10th April, 2012.

    It's all archived.

    In the hands of campaigners.

    Around the world.

    No hiding-place.

    No stopping it.

    As you did with Connetable Taylor - I gave every possible, reasonable opportunity to Julian Clyde-Smith to 'clarify his position'.

    I even went so far, as to explain to the less-than-bright Julian Clyde-Smith in plain words, how I was helping him - aiding him - providing him with a more than reasonable opportunity to correct - to dismiss - some most profound and apocalyptic information being supplied by witnesses, in connection with alleged conflicts-of-interest engulfing him.

    I went out of my way - to explain to him that unless he "corrected" the information, it would - unavoidably - be made public - and that, then - because of his sudden reticence - he'd have zero legal claim or defence.

    I asked him to correct any inaccuracy in what I had been told be witnesses.

    He could not do it.

    The fate of "The-Jersey-Way" was sealed, from that moment.

    And running the Jersey child-abuse purported "public-inquiry" from the same building as The Ogier Group, did not achieve, what these people sought - burying crimes via witness-intimidation - but, rather, simply amplified - dramatically - the evidence of the corruption of The-Jersey-Way.

    Hey, let us be grateful for these people's stupidities and incompetencies.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure about your reference to the Ogier Group? The Jersey Independent Care Inquiry was co-located with Aztec Group, a fund administration business; not Ogier. As far as I understand, Ogier occupy the building immediately next door.

      Delete
    2. What are you talking about, the COI inquiry did an excellent job and produced an excellent report.

      Delete
    3. Oh for God's sake, stop treating us like fools, eh?

      It is the same building. The "front" portion of it faces on to the Esplanade - the "rear" portion faces on to Seaton Place. Indeed, right next door to the Aztec Group entrance on Seaton Place is the "trade delivery entrance" to The Ogier Group office.

      It's all photographed.

      Documented.

      As is the e-mail I wrote to the CoI - asking them a number of freedom of information questions - concerning "how - and why - they came to be based there?"

      "Could they demonstrate a legitimate - lawful - open - advertised - tendering process - for accommodation?"

      Indeed - "Why - in fact - did they use an immensely expensive - and witness intimidating - private-sector location - when any number of Jersey's public and / or community buildings would have sufficed - at a fraction of the cost?"

      "What 'due-diligence' was undertaken - by the CoI - to ensure that the property it occupied was not in any way linked with those who might be conflicted in the matters under inquiry?"

      "What 'due-diligence' was undertaken by the CoI to ensure the vast public funds it was spending would - in no way - benefit those culpably conflicted in the matters under inquiry?"

      "How much did the CoI spend on the accommodation?"

      Etc.

      Naturally - and predictably - the CoI being the wretched "thing" it was - they refused to answer those perfectly reasonable questions.

      As I said - it is all documented.

      Most damningly - and as we fully predicted before I even wrote the questions - the terrified refusal of the CoI – and think about the gravity of this, this was supposedly a “statutory public-inquiry” – refusing to answer such rudimentary, standard, public-interest / FoI requests is - in-and-of-itself - most significant. And telling.

      You see? The problem with employing 'Useful-Idiots' - is always that the 'exercise' crumbles - at the first and most basic of probings.

      But more important than any of the above - is this terrible fact. The rear of the Esplanade building occupied by The Ogier Group - http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/ - which faces on to Seaton Place - and was the location of the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" - was a matter of about 40 meters away from the small, lonely flat - in which Jersey establishment child-abuse victim - and strong campaigner - and vital witness - Dannie Jarman - mysteriously "died"- on the 18th December 2015.

      Dannie had, that very evening of the 17th / 18th - been perfectly happy – socialising at the Radisson Blu Waterfront Hotel.

      And all of us “in-the-know” – know who has a regular presence there.

      Don’t we - boys & girls?

      Strange how the toxicology reports into Dannie’s death could detect no fatal toxins – post-mortem.

      The CoI – the Jersey child-abuse supposed “public-inquiry” – and this is saying a lot, given how jaw-droppingly crap it was – in what was certainly its most profoundly - startlingly undisguised - act of overt corruption – failed to ask either Philip Bailhache – or William Bailhache – so much as one – single – question – between them - about the Blanche Pierre / Maguire child-abuse cover-up – which both brothers were – and are – both so profoundly - fatally – conflicted in.

      And the CoI – of course – went on to corruptly whitewash the failure to prosecute the child-abusing Maguires.

      And – obviously - Dannie Jarman would have had a great deal of strong – condemnatory – CoI-credibility-destroying – things to say about that. When its report was published.

      But she had to be alive – to express those inevitable condemnations.

      How “terribly convenient” – that she isn’t.

      We know.

      We’re not fools.

      We see – we understand - what’s going down here.

      No hiding place.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. Stuart with all due respect you have an apparent grudge against a number of Major Law Firms in Jersey who employ a lot of people. Ogiers, Appleby, Baker and Partners and God knows who else you have a problem with.
      Why is everything so personal for you and who cares who was involved, it's about getting to the truth not confirming any dreamed up lies.

      Delete
    5. It isn't personal.

      That's a classic gambit of the spin-doctor - attempting to trivialize the points.

      And VFC, may I suggest that if you publish comments which make allegations of "lying" - you should at least require the commenter to be specific, and state clearly what particular thing it is they claim to be a "lie"?

      There is not one lie in my comment above at 00:33.

      The issues raised are about the abuse, oppression, suppression and intimidation the powerful in Jersey are able to - lawlessly - inflict upon the powerless - without being held to account for it.

      Come on! - What is a "public-inquiry" doing, basing itself in the same building occupied by a profoundly - directly - conflicted law-firm - and how much public-money did the CoI spend in so doing? And why not use any number of far cheaper, more neutral venues?

      And why - then - if the above is all "perfectly innocent" - why did the CoI flatly refuse to answer FoI questions about such basic matters?

      The fact is, the issues raised above are factual - and important - and form a part of the historic record.

      And in any law-abiding society - the conduct of the CoI would have been judicially reviewed. And had Jersey a lawfully, non-politicised, working, judicial function - one in which, for example, directly conflicted judges were not allowed to sit on cases they were involved in - and judges were not chosen and selected by directly conflicted parties - and courts which did not allow overt perjury - you know, courts compliant with Article 6 of the ECHR - the conduct of the CoI would have been condemned. On many grounds - it's conduct as a "public-body" not being remotely compatible with so much of the key administrative-law case-law as described in the excellent Judicial Review Handbook.

      Indeed - the defiance of so much settled, uncontroversial public-law by the CoI easily renders it the most dysfunctional "public-inquiry" to have taken place in Britain since 1966, at least.

      And there's no escaping the - awful - monstrous - act of betrayal - by the CoI - towards Dannie Jaraman and the other Blanche Pierre survivors - in failing to ask so much as one - single - question - to either Bailhache brother - in spite of their two-and-a-half-decade - extensively evidenced - involvement in that cover-up.

      The Bailhache brothers let-off - not so much as one question; - and - Dannie Jarman- dead.

      Thats what failure looks like.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    6. My understanding is the the IJCI was based on the first floor of the building presently occupied by Aztec Group which is immediately next door to the building owned and occupied by Ogier Group. Unless the Ogier Group own the building or occupy some part of the front of that building, I am not sure how it can be said that the COI was occupying the same building as the law firm. If you have information to this effect, please provide it. It would not surprise me at all if the COI occupied a building with links to Ogier, or other well connected citizens however it is also possible that the COI itself sought accommodation that was large enough to act as a quasi Court while being relatively neutral in decor. At the time, I seem to recall that it was a newly constructed and decorated building that was being let on the open market.

      I am personally disappointed that you did not make evidence available to the COI. I do not know whether the any injunctions or super injunctions against you may have been operative. I do agree that the COI was absolutely wrong to deny you legal representation in all the circumstances, in the knowledge that your contribution was absolutely critical. I do believe that the COI prepared their report in an equivocal way in certain places to avoid holding the establishment to account, The references to perceived injustice in relation to the Jersey Way make it easy for the establishment to challenge their findings. And their findings that the removal of the then incumbent police officers did not have an effect on the investigation. Power was removed to bring the investigation under the political control of the establishment, and Messrs Bailache no question.

      Delete
    7. You are such a sick man Stuart you cannot even see that you let Danny down by not giving evidence to the Inquiry.
      The last thing a vulnerable survivor needed was your heartless bullshit.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous September 2017 at 10:05 - you have no idea of what you are talking about. If you want me to prove to you that you have no idea then id be happy to meet up with you to explain and prove why.

      What Stuart is telling you is going right over your head - you just cant comprehend it like so many people over here. Have you any idea of the place you live in ? Im from here and over the past 5 years ive seen things that i just couldn't have ever imagined was going on

      Delete
  9. I can only assume he does not have confidence in(PAC) Chairman Andrew Lewis as per your second statement.But is not prepared or man enough to stand by his belief and prefers to bow to the Jersey Way and wait for the (nod) censure to be provided.

    ReplyDelete
  10. VFC. Constable Taylor says to you : "If therefore you decide to publish, you will be doing so in the full knowledge that you are spreading lies." Is this a threat?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous @ 0:17

    Hit the nail on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know Constable Taylor well, and you, by writing attention seeking guff like this, only distances yourself from the real Media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not "attention seeking" it's "truth seeking." Something that the Constable has trouble speaking/telling as the e-mail exchange clearly demonstrates. Being "distanced from the "real media" I will take as a compliment and thank you.

      Delete
    2. "I know Constable Taylor well and..."

      This sentence exemplifies the good old Jersey Way: the system of cronyism and "who you know". Need a room in a parish care home? Don't worry, I know the Constable, I'll have a word and get you the next available. Teenage son in a spot of bother with the law? Don't worry, I know the Constable, I'll have a word and get it sorted. Having a spot of bother with a neighbour? Don't worry, I know the constable, I'll have a word and have him send a couple of Centeniers round to put him in his place.

      Well, I don't know the Constable. I can only judge him on what he says and what he does, not who's backs he scratches. I tried to read the Hansard extract of his speech, but frankly couldn't make it past the first few paragraphs, it was such unmitigated bollocks of the "it never did me any harm" variety. On the fact that he describes himself as elected, when he isn't. On the fact that poncing around the country lanes looking at trees, a display of absolute contempt to victims of child abuse, was more important to him than attending the full sitting in which the child abuse report was debated. On the fact that an unelected member from a rural parish, with no democratic mandate whatsoever, had the gall to bring a vote of no confidence against the chief minister. On the fact that he could actually condemn a States member for leaking the transcript of an in camera States debate where a minister lied to justify his unlawful suspension of the chief of police. On the fact that he is too arrogant to engage with the public of this island because he doesn't do social media.

      No, I don't need to know the Constable. I don't need one of his family members or friends to tell me what a nice chap he is and how he would do anything for anybody. I'll judge him by his own words and actions, thanks.

      Delete
    3. ANON" 10.04 "I know Constable Taylor Very well"

      WELCOME TO THE JERSEY WAY ! i know that man personally - i will ignore all logic and reason and attack any person trying to make him accountable - whoever you are anon - deal with it ! Your jersey old boys club days are over !

      If he was a Minister - he would have breached the Ministerial Code Of Conduct.

      http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2015/R.11-2015.pdf

      Delete
    4. I know him , i know her , ive seen you around , you're alright you are ! Wake up ANON 10.04

      We have Ministerial Government now - You can't sit on the fence like this ! Even if you try - Constable Taylor actions and comments are not fitting of any member of parliament - they are deceptive and dishonest - YOU CANT DO THAT ! He is refusing to set the record straight and therefore doing a disservice to the public !

      If i were you NEIL - I would send him the same questions in a letter and copy in all states members - lets see if he then carry on refusing to answer questions.

      Its quite simple , Taylor is the JERSEY WAY ! His politics dont make sense, his responses dont make sense, and he treats members of the public with contempt if they want him to clarify his position on a particular matter.

      This happens alot with "jersey way" states members - they dont do it the correct way, the parliamentary way , the transparent and accountable way .. I DO IT MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ! CONNETABLE TAYLOR IS THE JERSEY WAY !

      Delete
    5. Constable Taylor's refusal to engage reasonably with a knowledgeable and concerned member of the public is rather a demonstration of how (unelected) parish officials should not be sitting in an island wide parliament.

      Constable Taylor has shown by a series of actions how he is (possibly) suitable for making decisions on shrubbery, but is not suitable for making decisions affecting children or other islanders.

      Delete
  13. Does the fact that Lewis used to be St john deputy mean anything between these two?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Voice are you saying that YOU have seen the actual Met Report re Graham Power : "the report that the MET did publish wasn't alarming either"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link was provided HERE The MET Interim Report was also published on Rico Sorda's Blog. Will try and get a link to that later.

      Delete
  15. Where are the lies someone has some explaining to do. 70 -80 hours a week (Oh please) Hands up if your a parishioner or Islander non relative friend who can account for these hours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can well imagine some St Helier Deputies doing this amount. The likes of the former Deputies Pitman, Jackie Hilton, Southern or Higgins because they had or have a name for constituent work and a dedicated work ethic. But a Constable in a hick parish with more frogs than people? Nah!

      Delete
  16. Yes, he felt he had to justify himself for some reason 70 TO 80 hours a week doing what?
    Carry on Voice he is digging a hole.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re-reading the Met iterim report has been an interesting experience. Andrew Lewis said in the States that he had "seen an alarming report" and yet he now says he was not allowed to see it. The fact that the Met Report when it was published by Rico Sorda showed that it was not in the least alarming meant that Andrew Lewis and othrs had to deny knowledge of the actual content of the Met Report and say they relied on David Warcup's letter. The very letter that was never mentioned in the States when the suspension of the Police Chief was announced. It is obvious to me that Bill Ogley, Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were made aware of the likely inconclusive findings of the Met Interim Report and Bill Ogley was charged with putting pressure on Dvid Warcup to "sex up" and selectively misrepresent the findings in his report/letter as the Deputy Chief. Andrew Lewis, Frank Walker and Bill Ogley now have to deny they Knew the real contents of the Met Interim Report. In either event they lay themselves open to the offence of misconduct in public office. It was an exceptionally significant act to suspend the police chief. The Met Interim Report does not justify the act. They have to have relied on David Warcup's sexed-up version to do the deed. Yet States Members would not have countenanced suspension of the chief solely on the criticisms of his Deputy. They were given to understand that the criticisms came from an independent adjudicator. That is why Andrew Lewis refered to "an alarming report" and failed at every opportunity available to him to make clear he was refering to the letter/report of the Deputy Chief and failed to correct the impression he intended to give that he had seen the Met Report. The Report he later denied seeing. Oh wahat a wicked web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the best explanations I have ever read of the events running up to the suspension of Graham Power

      Frankly, the above paragraph ought to be printed out and posted to every household in Jersey.

      We really are into the realms of misconduct in public office, in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely and to think of the golden handshake offered out to certain parties.

      Delete
    3. One more guilty one?

      "deputy don't go there"

      Delete
    4. NB.
      The Care Inquiry Report concluded that the suspension of Graham Power had no effect on Operation Rectangle.

      Delete
    5. This certainly highlights the mis-match between the 'crime' and the action.the only way of resolving this mis-match is to have other more critical factors in play and in the minds of Walker ,Ogley et al at that very specific time.
      The land sale corruption involving Mr Bright Socks and others is a big one but not THAT big.The ONLY pressing factor was the planned interview of 737 on the following Thursday , That is the ONLY thing big enough to warrant decapitation of the Police.

      Delete
    6. I was about to take issue with Anonymous @ 07:27 when Anonymous @ 08:10 took the words out of my mouth.

      The Inquiry was able to make this statement only because they did not follow through on whether Gradwell interviewed 737 under caution as a suspect or did not.

      In any event, they cannot ignore Gradwell's schedule which was submitted to them by Gradwell himself. And they cannot plead as justification that 737 was not involved in CHILD abuse. This was a litmus test of political/outside interference in an investigation and they are studiously silent on it.

      The inquiry have blamed a few for various lapses but gone out of their way to avoid getting involved in the suspension of Graham Power which should have been a central aspect of their inquiry.

      Let us see if 737 keeps his job in the forthcoming shake-up.

      Delete
  18. "Dear Mr McMurray,
    I do not partake in social media unless or course, you ever give me a Mason's handshake.
    Yours sincerely,Christopher Taylor"

    ReplyDelete
  19. Following on from Stuart Syvret's comment higher up, the Bailhache brothers were never questioned about their involvement in the Blanche Pierre coverup. Why not? OMG......That's why Dannie was killed OMG. This is beyond words. How I hate the Bailhaches, the Jersey Way, Cuntsables, f'ing Honaries at the best of times. Bailhaches need to explain themselves fast on this one. It won't go away. If I was a relative of Dannie's, I would be involving the Police immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We can't even say that we elected this bozo.. It just gets worse

    ReplyDelete
  21. NB.
    The Care Inquiry Report concluded that the suspension of Graham Power had no effect on Operation Rectangle.

    Of course if did that is what Francis Oldham wrote. This is an example of the Child abuse enquiry panel report being taken with a pinch of salt and using your own brain. @7.27 above.

    Let is not forget Warcup parachuted in replacing Graham Power and Lenny Harper retiring, The new team leaders then set about contradicting the original evidence, in public all over the media, during an ongoing police investigation. Not cellars, just bed springs, or the 64 childrens teeth, why have a large bath in a cellar, remember all the hype ?

    Talking of policeman.

    Mike Bowron will be fully aware that misconduct in public office is not let off free after certain time elapse's. If he really wants the respect of the Government and people then opening an investigation into Walker, Ogley and Lewis and the suspension of his fellow and now retired colleague Graham Power and the real reasons for the removal of the police chief would lift Bowron high in the respect stakes of Jersey society. Lewis already has a formal complaint against him by the ex police chief which should be investigated at the highest level meaning the police.

    Should the one man ( Jersey Way ) Crown Prosecution Service the AG decide not to press charges, this could, should and would be open to external examination by competent authorities and universities who are studying small island policing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not wanting to step in but is this not cherry picking the Care Inquiry Report?
      Oh we like the Deputy Andrew Lewis lies stuff and PB has no right to question it, but other stuff like the suspension of Graham Power had no effect on Operation Rectangle should be taken with a pinch of salt.
      Come on.

      Delete
    2. It is quite legitimate to adopt a critical attitude to the Inquiry. What it has revealed is very useful both for closure for some and for future reform.

      It is quite legitimate to point out what it glossed over and to seek to follow it up.

      They have not shown that Graham Power's suspension is not relevant to the Inquiry. They have asserted it on the basis that the Police Inquiry did not exactly collapse following his departure. Not good enough.

      Delete
    3. You mean lets only select what we like from the Report and then re-write our own.

      Delete
    4. "You mean lets only select what we like from the Report and then re-write our own."

      I think a more accurate summary would be "the COI selected what it wanted to investigate from reports already published on the internet, and re-wrote them as its own".

      Do you really think that the comments here about Andrew Lewis being a liar are based on the COI report, rather than all the evidence that was documented and published several years before the COI was even thought of?

      Delete
    5. As feared the "care" inquiry was a £23 Million crock of manure

      This crock of manure is not worthless. With constant gardening (& stamping on the maggots) it can form the compost heap that we can grow a safe and functioning future on.

      There is still clearly an infestation of pests.

      Delete
  22. But the Police Inquiry came unstable and did finally collapse soon after Power and Harpers departure. For an example. How long exactly did Warcup and Gradwell last?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 13:35

      Not disagreeing with you. Perhaps I should have said "immediately" collapse. There seems to have been enough subsequent "activity" to allow the Inquiry to run away from this one.

      Delete
    2. However "enough subsequent activity" included *inactivity* under the Warcup - Gradwell leadership when a HDLG resident came forward with accounts of abuse by BBC's Jimmy Savile (before his unmasking)

      Harper would have pursued him.

      Delete
  23. What effect the suspension had on the abuse inquiry can be debated and it is quite separate from the point that the suspension had an effect upon Graham Power. It is a very serious matter to wrongfully suspend a Police Chief. The Napier Report concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify suspension. The Care Inquiry found Andrew Lewis lied to the States that he had seen an "alarming report" by the Met. The interim met report when published turns out to be not alarming after all. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis are now using the Wiltshire Report to bolster their claim that somehow the ends justify the means. This is no justification. Only Machiavelli could be proud of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These redneck shysters don't care how much money they flush trying to save their own skins.

      Does anyone recall how much the so called Wiltshire Report cost?

      Delete
  24. If you were a vulnerable survivor of child abuse, and had just summoned-up the courage to go to the police to give evidence, having been reassured that the most senior officers in the force were sincere about believing victims, how would you react if the chief officer was sacked (let's not pretend he was suspended) in an overt display of criminality, and two reptilian mercenaries shipped-in for their 40 pieces of silver, who's first act was to publicly rubbish the investigation. Would you still go ahead?

    No effect my arse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on Anonymous. Let there be no mistake here, as soon as Graham Power and Lenny Harper were no longer involved with Operation Rectangle the trust and confidence that abuse survivors in the Police rapidly dropped to nothing. Notwithstanding the actions of Gradwell calling rhe survivors to a meeting at Police HQ, showing them evidence??!! and effectively telling them there would be no further prosecutions. I have no doubt in my mind that Gradwell and Warcup were lined up to trash the investigation and felt no shame in the damage they did to the 'good guys', ruining their reputations and cleaning up for Walker, Lewis 'et al'.

      Personally, I hope Graham Power takes them to the cleaners.

      Delete
  25. Realistically "The invisible Masterminds(?)", behind the illegal suspension of Graham Power need to be trapped and exposed. Its got to be remembered that these Invisible Masterminds also instigated the illegal Jersey Police HQ safe breaking, to remove Graham Power's works contract so that he could not fight back....
    Clever really!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You use the word "Masterminds" in the loosest possible sense.

      These things were acts of sheer panic and jaw dropping stupidity.

      That these people are not already behind bars is an indication that the rot goes to the top.

      Delete
  26. Why has there been no overall inspection of the States of Jersey Police by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary since 2008? Might it be the case that they might question the legitimacy of the suspension/ removal of the former Chief of Police, Graham Power? Why has no States Member taken this up?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Suggest some homework would be worthwhile. Find out who signed Constable Taylor's nomination paper

    ReplyDelete
  28. Even unopposed elections need nominations made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did wonder that as if no one else is standing maybe he just plopped himseld into the position

      Delete
    2. Be interesting if Andrew Lewis's name popped up? Didn't he live out there? Then wouldn't there be a conflict of interest going on?

      Delete
  29. Don't be so mean. Constable Taylor was very good at helping people stuck in the snow. Got to count for something.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nearly every comment since and including September 1st has been interesting and thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  31. First we had the "should be taken to the harbour and flogged"

    .....and now

    "Dear Mr McMurray,
    Thank you for your email but I do not partake in social media.
    Yours sincerely,
    Christopher Taylor"

    It is hilarious that this 21c [un]elected representative offers the excuse that he does not errr..... "partake" in social media in order to avoid giving an interview/comment to explain his actions.

    The CTs of this world have been lampooned for at least the last 100years

    https://youtu.be/zSGWoXDFM64?t=26

    "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Parish-Constable"

    ReplyDelete
  32. The League of (Not) Gentlemen5 September 2017 at 20:01

    He should get a job in that town Hot Fuzz was set in. Or Royston Vasey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Characters like Taylor, Andrew Lewis, Warcup and Mick The Leak Gradwell are far too ridiculous and unbelievable to even be taken sriously in Royston Vasey.

      Delete
  33. Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee:
    "We will be determining whether his actions maintained and strengthened the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members or not.
    We will therefore be wanting to ascertain whether and when Deputy Lewis recognised that the way in which he had described the document on which the decision to suspend the former Chief of Police had been misleading and had been misconstrued by members.
    We will be wanting to know what steps, if any, he took to remedy this situation.
    The Committee would also like to know why he declined to answer some of the questions put to him by the IJCI."

    Which questions did Liar Lewis decline to answer at the care inquiry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Len really use the word 'misconstrue'?! How silly.

      Len, the word misconstrue means you misunderstood what a person was saying; you got the wrong end of the stick.

      It doesn't mean getting the sharp end of the stick shoved forcibly up your jacksie by a brazen liar.

      What I would really like to see is PPC ask those members who claim they weren't mislead by Lewis to explain themselves, because they were either in on the plot, or psychic. Or, more likely, just more liars toeing the establishment line.

      Delete

  34. Comment off http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/statement-of-andrew-lewis-in-response.html
    "Andrew Lewis buys his car fuel from the garage at Sion, I saw him paying the other day, there were 7 people in the shop, no one spoke to him, but as soon as he left they all starting talking about him, comments like lying git, what a clown taking all the blame and the dicks who advised and pushed him to do it go free because maybe, they have something on him, his reputation will be ruined while his advisers go free and keep getting full pay, He must know he is on his way out, so why not resign before the vote and take the others down with him? then all the focus would not be on him. Other comments were to the effect that he will never be voted in to the states again. And St John are well rid of him. Personally I think he should write a short report stating the facts and naming anyone involved in this saga and read it out in the next states sitting and take them down with him this is what many islanders want but it must be the truth, Mr Lewis you have to go so to gain any creditability take them down with you."

    What a mess this man's unbridled opportunism has made
    -Jersey's reputation
    -Jersey's police force recaptured by abusive power
    -His own life and that of his family

    The commenter is right. Lewis has to fess up and nail the shysters who put him in this position.

    This is not going away.
    Not for Lewis and not for Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lewis will not "fess up" to anything hes got to much at stake to do that. If he tells everyone what really went on he and many others may very well be facing criminal charges. Not to mention that most likely the guys down the lodge will financially ruin him or worse!

      This is not about trying to tough it out, salvage his tattered reputation, or simply last the course and try for re-election, which is the biggest long shot I can imagine. No this is almost certainly about protecting people who he is in hock to big time.

      Delete
  35. If Lewis tried to make a " confessional" statement the bailiff would surely intervene " lets not go there (again) Mr Lewis"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off with his head.

      Shut off his mic.

      Delete
    2. Who Polo, the Baliff or Lewis, or both?

      Delete
  36. Next year's election should be cancelled. There won't be any decent candidates apart from Higgins if he is standing again.

    If a Eoropean country can run for many months with no government then surely Jersey can. There is no alternative to the Council of Muppets if Mezec and Reform is all we have.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Not sure what you expect to get out of Lewis thing.
    A vote of censor for him is neither here nor there and its not as if his position on PAC was the biggest title. I cannot foresee much happening and Lewis will never admit to any lying no matter what petty punishment they decide.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Today the UK news is full of those who have been charged over the Hillsborough tragedy and appear in court today. Interestingly one of them, Sir Norman Bettison, is accused of lying and as a result will face a charge (or charges) of misconduct in a public office. Below is a quote from today's Guardian newspaper:
    "Sir Norman Bettison, the former chief constable of Merseyside and West Yorkshire police, who was an inspector in the South Yorkshire force at the time of the disaster, has been charged with four counts of misconduct in a public office.
    Of those charges, Hemming said Bettison allegedly told lies about his involvement in the disaster. “Given his role as a senior police officer, we will ask the jury to find that this was misconduct of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder,” she said. Andrew Lewis held a similarly important office as former Home Affairs Minister. He should feel worried by this latest development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lewis's serial lying is one thing and it is fairly straightforward. But he also carried out the suspension and nothing should be allowed to detract from that. The motivation for the suspension and its mechanics, by all the parties involved, known and unknown, has not been dealt with.

      Delete
    2. Sadly, as is 'The Jersey Way' Lweis is to protected for him to feel worried. The lalaw in Jersey is an ass and does not apply as it does in the UK. If it did be sure a lot more of our Establishment would be quaking in their boots, but they never do.

      However they and Lewis should all be shamed at the gravity which the offence of Norman Bettison has been viewed, and the casual manner that the Lewis actions will be dealt with and forgotten (but not by the general and voting public).

      Delete
    3. Is Lewis still the churchwarden of St. John's parish church?

      Surely a fiery end awaits a good number of Jersey's most upstanding Christians.

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/parallel-universes/

      [Feb2008] "During the last year I have had to continuously gauge my assessment of events by seeking the objective opinions of people from that place called Reality; independent experts in the field, often of national or international reputation – just to verify that ‘no – I wasn’t being unreasonable – or undergoing psychotic delusions – when I got angry at things like the systemic failure of the entire child “protection” apparatus of Jersey to save a child from eighteen months of abuse by two paedophiles. Or the systematic, well-documented illegal use of coercive and punitive solitary confinement against vulnerable children in care. Or the wilful and deliberate concealment from the police of systemic abuse taking place in a States of Jersey ‘group-home’.
      No. I was right to be, shall we say, unhappy at these occurrences.
      Yet – returning to the place called Unreality, here in Jersey – to this day, most States members, 90% of senior civil servants and virtually every single local journalist remain convinced that the Establishment spin is correct. That all this fuss just happened because I was being some kind of anarchic and thuggish extremist in expecting people being paid £100,000 of tax-payers money per annum, plus big fat pension, to run social services – to, like, you know – do their bloody jobs properly?
      The fascinating thing about so much of what passes for politics in Jersey are these repeated displays of Groupthink. A self-supporting, smug, self-satisfied power claque of journalists, politicians and civil servants – convinced that the “consensus trance” which grips them represents an adequate apprehension of the real world."

      I'm sure that Ex Health Minister Syvret was not referring to persons the least bit like Constable Taylor
      [Sigh]

      Delete
    4. The Law of Misconduct in Public Office does apply in Jersey. It requires a complaint to the Police for it to be investigated. Graham Power has the obvious locus standi for such a complaint. The question is whether the current leadership of the States of Jersey Police would investigate such a complaint. It took several years of pressure from the families and sympathetic journalists and politicians to get to where they are with the Hillsborough prosecutions. I suspect it would take a great amount of pressure to achieve a similar outcome in Jersey.

      Delete
    5. "Lewis's serial lying is one thing and it is fairly straightforward. But he also carried out the suspension and nothing should be allowed to detract from that. The motivation for the suspension and its mechanics, by all the parties involved, known and unknown, has not been dealt with."

      Quite so Póló

      It is reasonable to assume that the reasons for the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief were multiple, and we can make educated guesses as to which of the reasons were most important to the conspirators

      -to punish Graham Power fro allowing the investigation into child abuse?

      -to bring the police force back under tight establishment control?

      -to prevent the imminent investigation of rape allegations by multiple women by establishment linchpin 737?

      -to stop the investigation into "Planning corruption on an industrial scale"?

      Delete
  39. All those four reasons were as important to the conspirators. So Power was asked if he would drop them, he said no. "So be it" was said then the dirty, unlawful, illegal, suspension was soon to follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So be it" being uttered by one of the Bailhache boys, I take it?

      Delete
  40. I forced myself to read through all that drivel. Boy, Pip's knickers really have been twisted over this.

    To save others the bother of wading through, it can be distilled into "500 years of tradition can't be wrong".

    His main concern seems to be that if the role of speaker is removed from the office of bailiff, it will inevitably erode the status of the bailiff as civic head of the island. This is, of course, a matter of huge concern to the ordinary people of this island. It's something us serfs talk about all the time while out in the fields threshing and herding our livestock to market.

    In a display of unparalelled magnanimosity, Pip has even tabled a motion allowing us oiks the privilege of basking in his reflected glory and confirming that we know our place.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yep, and with less than a year to go to an election, Sir Pip has put himself on a collision course with Ian Gorst.

    https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/bailhache-clashes-gorst-over-brothers-bailiff-role

    The one moment of light relief, for us serfs, is the knowledge that around the Council of Ministers table, they f****** hate one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 08:19

      Wow. What looks like a genuine piece of reporting.

      Delete