tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post6277030755377782868..comments2024-03-20T11:09:50.796+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: Open Letter to Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. (Unhappy Anniversary 6)voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-84612869274973682452014-11-26T19:23:41.089+00:002014-11-26T19:23:41.089+00:00"The culture of self supporting invulnerabili..."The culture of self supporting invulnerability demonstrated by senior officers is now going to come to an end whether they like it or not". A quote from our sacked Health & Social Services Minister from 6 years ago. Which is still destine to come true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-10915239358328041342014-11-26T10:35:22.989+00:002014-11-26T10:35:22.989+00:00It didn’t “find” anything. The contents of the Wil...It didn’t “find” anything. The contents of the Wilts Report are no more than un-tried, un-tested, allegations because the (then) Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand made sure they couldn’t be tried and tested by abandoning the disciplinary hearing, the very purpose the Wilts Report was meant for.<br /><br />Instead, as mentioned previously, he used the Report to go on a media campaign with it. If you believe there was enough public interest in Wilts being redacted and published (contrary to the confidentiality clauses and FOI exemptions) then surely the same should stand for the redaction and publication of Graham Power’s interim defense case?<br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-68227798279032745422014-11-25T21:38:40.013+00:002014-11-25T21:38:40.013+00:00I totally disagree.
I think there was enough publi...I totally disagree.<br />I think there was enough public interest in Wiltshire to merit its redacted publication and I believe if it had not been released then people would have made claims it had found nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-12446503899838913322014-11-25T21:09:10.361+00:002014-11-25T21:09:10.361+00:00I’m not sure how you think anybody is trying to ch...I’m not sure how you think anybody is trying to change history? The history has been published (on here)<br /><br />The former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, contrary to the Wilts confidentiality/FOI exemptions, published a document he shouldn’t have.<br /><br />The suspicion arises when Ian Le Marquand (a former Magistrate) believes it is fair to go on a <a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/07/kangaroo-court.html" rel="nofollow">MEDIA ROADSHOW</a> with the prosecution case against somebody while burying the defence case. This is against all known natural justice. And when asked to publish the defence case he refuses.<br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-68831635450646113032014-11-25T20:05:17.712+00:002014-11-25T20:05:17.712+00:00What are you trying to do, change history?
If they...What are you trying to do, change history?<br />If they hadn't released Wiltshire you people would be seeing that as suspicious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-32039742753254868632014-11-25T18:58:01.930+00:002014-11-25T18:58:01.930+00:00We must not lose sight of the fact that former Hom...We must not lose sight of the fact that former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand should never have published the Wilts Report in the first place as there was never an "outcome" after ILM abandoned the disciplinary action. Or as Mr. Power QPM tells it <a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/06/publish-defence-case.html" rel="nofollow">CHICKENED OUT OF A FAIR FIGHT.</a><br /><br />Below are the confidentiality clauses and FOI exemptions contained in the Wilts Report, and breached by former Senator Ian Le Marquand.<br /><br />"Highly Confidential – Personal Information<br /><br />An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.<br /><br />Obligation to confidentiality<br /><br />1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and/or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.<br /><br />2. This report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000.<br /><br />3. This report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).<br /><br />4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000).(END)<br /><br />So the Home Affairs Minister is prepared to break data protection and possibly "prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey" but is not willing to risk libel in order to see that justice is done?<br /><br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-24022194461419859742014-11-25T14:32:03.733+00:002014-11-25T14:32:03.733+00:00Question
Will the Minister advise members whether ...Question<br />Will the Minister advise members whether she will be publishing to members a redacted copy of the submission of the former States of Jersey Police Chief to the Wiltshire Police (Operation Haven) which her predecessor advised the Assembly would be published after the release of the Wiltshire Report?<br />Answer<br />On 11 September 2012, in response to an oral question by the former Deputy Shona Pitman, when asked about the publication of the affidavit submitted to the Wiltshire investigation by the former Chief of Police, my predecessor said the following:<br />As a follow-on from previous answers, I needed to obtain specialist legal advice on the issue of libel. That advice was that, as I was not under any legal duty to make the statement - it is a statement, not an affidavit - public, the risks of a libel action were substantial. As a result of this, it became clear that there would need to be substantially more redaction of the document, probably with whole sections being redacted. Indeed I wondered whether it might be better to ask the former Chief of Police to rewrite his statement so as to explain his position while omitting the potentially libellous references. However, during the summer there was a further development with what purports to be the majority of the statement being placed with minimal redaction on a blog site. In the light of this I cannot now properly proceed with this task as originally envisaged because any person reading a fully redacted version could then find elsewhere the full text, which would completely defeat the whole purpose of redaction. I have to say that throughout this process, including the disciplinary process, I have constantly faced a situation in which confidential documents have been put into the public domain and this is yet a further example of that.<br />In response to the follow-up question he then added:<br />I must make the position clear. In relation to this situation, I was not under a duty to do this piece of work. I was urged to do so by the former Scrutiny Panel. I decided so to do, so that alongside the Wiltshire Report could stand, for posterity, the former Chief Officer’s statements in a redacted form. Redaction was incredibly important because there were all sorts of allegations contained there that should not be in the public domain: references to individuals. I have to think about fairness to the other individuals involved. Now, the fact is that purported versions of the document now do exist on another website. Frankly, I cannot go ahead. It would simply be totally unfair to the people who should have the benefit of the process of redaction. I do, however, still leave open the possibility of going back to the former Chief Officer, as I have mentioned, and saying to him: “Look, we cannot now do this as originally intended because this has been cut across by the irresponsible actions of people who have put an unredacted form into the public domain but would you like, as an alternative, to have the opportunity to produce a more truthful statement which takes out the potentially libellous matters?” That, I think, is the very best I can do.<br />On first consideration the concerns that my predecessor expressed in 2012 appear to me to be as valid today as they were at the time of his statement in this Assembly. Even were I, after further advice, to consider it otherwise I would also need to consider whether or not it would be appropriate now to publish a redacted copy of the submission in the light of the terms of reference of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-53045276243086868842014-11-24T17:27:33.031+00:002014-11-24T17:27:33.031+00:00Although it's important to remember that a thi...Although it's important to remember that a third of the States Assembly has not been voted in at all. This includes 11 out of 12 Constables.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-20871230796303852142014-11-24T15:44:49.470+00:002014-11-24T15:44:49.470+00:00DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT ,enough muppets voted in ...DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT ,enough muppets voted in this time to more than replace them,sorry Muppets did not mean to denigrate your name!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-19860899678635238082014-11-23T17:29:06.399+00:002014-11-23T17:29:06.399+00:00With Walker, Le Sueur, Ogley, Warcup, Gradwell, &a...With Walker, Le Sueur, Ogley, Warcup, Gradwell, & Le Marquand, now gone....<br />Lewis will be on his own!? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-4360533047049697002014-11-23T12:50:44.717+00:002014-11-23T12:50:44.717+00:00Pretty much but I am offering another opportunity ...Pretty much but I am offering another opportunity (e-mail today) to reconsider his stance.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-79618370905161413612014-11-23T12:45:50.263+00:002014-11-23T12:45:50.263+00:00What did he have nothing to say for himself?What did he have nothing to say for himself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-24119513133667335852014-11-23T12:14:08.829+00:002014-11-23T12:14:08.829+00:00I have had a reply but NO answers. I will look to ...I have had a reply but NO answers. I will look to publish the recent e-mail correspondence between myself and Deputy Lewis in my next Blog Posting.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-40096942761741060112014-11-23T12:09:12.779+00:002014-11-23T12:09:12.779+00:00You had an answer from Lewis yet?You had an answer from Lewis yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-16933690514265362312014-11-20T20:21:04.193+00:002014-11-20T20:21:04.193+00:008. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an ans...8. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier -<br />“Will the Minister advise members whether she will be publishing to members a redacted copy of the submission of the former States of Jersey Police Chief to the Wiltshire Police (Operation Haven) which her predecessor advised the Assembly would be published after the release of the Wiltshire Report?”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-10000180289879105462014-11-17T21:27:19.087+00:002014-11-17T21:27:19.087+00:00http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/andr...http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/andrew-lewis-a-liar-and-a-crook/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-64003769035385282692014-11-17T19:35:48.966+00:002014-11-17T19:35:48.966+00:00More from G.Power (Ex chief of Jersey Police), rep...More from G.Power (Ex chief of Jersey Police), republished on<br />http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2014/11/former-home-affairs-minister-andrew_12.html<br /><br />"...In spite of all of the conflicting and contradictory accounts offered by the Jersey Government we can be sure of some things which have emerged from this issue. The facts of this story support a view that senior figures in the Jersey Government are willing to lie, to make false statements, to destroy evidence, to withhold the truth, to invent accounts and to cover-up for each other. And this is not a story about me. I am not a victim of child abuse. I do not have to seek justice from the very authorities whose conduct and ethics have been exposed by their actions in this case. It is no wonder that the survivors of decades of abuse in Jersey Government institutions have little faith in the Island’s political and legal system. If the regime will lie about one thing then they will lie about another thing. If they will destroy evidence in one case then they will destroy evidence in another. If they are willing to collude and cover up the truth in relation to one matter then they will do the same about other things. If the Jersey regime could do this to me [the Chief of Police] and get away with it then think what they could do to others. Think what they could do to the victims of abuse......"<br />[and have done BTW]The Jersey Paedophile Partyhttp://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2014/11/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-6.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-89958938244388043512014-11-17T18:28:45.418+00:002014-11-17T18:28:45.418+00:00Lewis even creates a paper trail of lies and incom...Lewis even creates a paper trail of lies and incompetence.<br /><br />Lewis was a man totally out of his depth. He was told to get rid of the island's Chief of Police, and probably even given the three letters to do it with.<br /><br />The notion that shoolboy Lewis made the decision to suspend G.P. is farcical<br /><br />All Lewis had to do was give G.Power the three letters in the right sequence and timing. He couldn't even get that right. <br /><br />Ogley, Frank Walker and the hoods must have been furious with him<br /><br />Details from G.Power, republished on<br />http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2014/11/former-home-affairs-minister-andrew_12.html<br /><br />"....The typed document [meeting notes to replace handwritten notes destroyed by Ogley] said things which were not true and left out things which were in my favour. I examined the three notices given to me at the meeting. <br /> <br />All were signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis and dated 12th November 2008. The letter formally notifying me that I was to be suspended with immediate effect referred to matters which the Minister had allegedly discussed with me “At our meeting earlier today,” at which it was alleged that he had informed me that “I was considering whether you should be suspended from duty.” That was untrue. There had been no earlier meeting and I had been given no prior notice that suspension was being considered. I understand that nobody disputes this or has attempted to explain why the Minister falsely claimed in his letter that there had been an earlier meeting. The letter then goes on to say “I have now decided, in accordance with the terms of the Disciplinary Code and the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 to suspend you from duty.” <br /> <br />The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Minister for Home Affair, Andrew Lewis, had been advised that the letter telling me that I was to be suspended should not be given to me straight away. He had been told to meet with me first and pretend to take account of any representations I made. He was then supposed to say that he would consider the matter, close the meeting and delay announcing his decision for a short while. That might enable him to claim he had given careful consideration to anything I had said. The next step would be for him to arrange for someone else to hand me the letter telling me that after considering the issue he had decided to suspend me. But he botched the job. He got flustered and gave me the signed letter telling me that I was suspended within moments of me entering the door, without closing the meeting and pretending to “consider” the matter. Hence I was given a letter referring to an earlier meeting which had never happened. It is also possible that he just did not allow himself enough time to pretend that he was giving the issue proper consideration......."Schoolboy errorhttp://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/resign-jerseys-child-abuse-public-inquiry/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-66586507955812693422014-11-16T23:48:09.825+00:002014-11-16T23:48:09.825+00:00it isn't libel if it is true.
Yes it is in Je...it isn't libel if it is true.<br /><br />Yes it is in Jersey under data protection laws,a first in civilised wester society, if you tell the truth about a lowlife sharrocks type person who is a proven troll, the truth will not save you, but the trial will be held in secret to hide the records. <br /><br />This is a fact with a proven banana administration like Jersey.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-62144421360983940002014-11-16T19:27:39.366+00:002014-11-16T19:27:39.366+00:00Its sad to see apprentice politicians going straig...Its sad to see apprentice politicians going straight into assistant minister positions. These new kids on the block were voted in for their popularity, likeability and their gift of letting people know they can change things.... <br />Lets see if they cope, with their voting public not liking them as much anymore, when they have to go along with their ministers?! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-60750435913891213962014-11-16T18:41:53.445+00:002014-11-16T18:41:53.445+00:00SLANDER
noun
1.
the action or crime of making a FA...SLANDER<br />noun<br />1.<br />the action or crime of making a FALSE spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.<br /><br />verb<br />1.<br />make FALSE and damaging statements about (someone)<br /><br />So it appears that to qualify as "slander" a (spoken) statement must be materially untrue<br /><br />Maybe you meant "libel" (which relates to written statements BTW)<br /><br />psssssst ..........it isn't libel if it is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-17073523837450398142014-11-16T18:16:47.143+00:002014-11-16T18:16:47.143+00:00@17:14
It is not slander
because it appears to be...@17:14<br />It is not slander <br />because it appears to be trueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-20221983759551299002014-11-16T17:14:13.820+00:002014-11-16T17:14:13.820+00:00Slander.Slander.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88745253413138450462014-11-16T16:20:40.180+00:002014-11-16T16:20:40.180+00:00For Lewis, lying is like breathing.
Born for a ca...For Lewis, lying is like breathing.<br /><br />Born for a career in PR and Jersey establishment politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-31951927340267802392014-11-16T11:37:00.081+00:002014-11-16T11:37:00.081+00:00Andrew Lewis has, by the looks of things, made con...Andrew Lewis has, by the looks of things, made contradictory statements to the Island’s parliament once again in this latest Hansard reproduced above. In answer to Deputy Higgins’ question he says;<br /><br />“I did not commit any kind of illegal act and I have never lied to this House”<br /><br />Again both statements cannot be true. He told the States (Island’s Parliament)<br /><br />“I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”<br /><br />Then we read from <a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/09/napier-report-imminent.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> in paragraph 5 from Mr. Power.<br /><br />"5. In his recent statement Mr Lewis says “I had been aware for some time of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse Enquiry.” In his formal statement to Wiltshire Police he states “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.) Is Mr Lewis now admitting that his statement to Wiltshire Police is not true? If it helps, it appears that prior to signing his statement to Wiltshire Police, Mr Lewis signed a declaration which among other things (such as page numbers and the like) states “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” If the signed statement to Wiltshire Police is not true then it is a serious matter. On the face of it, his recent public statement, and the statement to Wiltshire cannot both be true. This is something which may require a more formal investigation."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.com