voiceforchildren

Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report.

2012-02-01T09:11:00.000Z

Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.” It is patently nothing of the sort."

In his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.” As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue. I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.” The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.) He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force. Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences. The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper. This recommendation was accepted.
In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities. The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries. It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London. In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008. That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place. Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented. Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
On 10^th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK. The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.) He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.” He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained. (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment have not been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction. Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain. Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
On 11^th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis. Mr Lewis was about to leave office. He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time. It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career. In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11^th November 2008. The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue. Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended. To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate. That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon. He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home. He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
On 12^th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley. The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room. After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty. Events determined that he never returned to duty. The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles. The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met. He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare. He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association. Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions. The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire. The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney. With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions. It did not work. What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid. Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence. In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer. He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case. A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation. He rejected all of these approaches. He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative. The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain. During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey. He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry. They deliver statements and other documents to his home address. The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people. The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond. The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes. A deadline is set. The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such. But is it not. Plans have been made. Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors. The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline. The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.) At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response. He has never done so.
Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police. One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership. The other is a different type of document. It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team. The report is not bound. It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.” The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton. It is heavily qualified. It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed. Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.” It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.” It is patently nothing of the sort. In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent. We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum. In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth. It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force. There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date. No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond. It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review. The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle. Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events. In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.

He Could Be In The Toilet.

2012-01-30T10:00:00.000Z

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where we published an open letter from Former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Enquiry, Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that the Home Affairs Minister did not even acknowledge receipt of the e-mail let alone answer the questions it contained. This type of behaviour is not uncommon for the Minister who has form when it comes to "uncomfortable situations"

For those who listen to State Radio you would have heard Deputy Trevor Pitman, Friday just gone, (28th January 2012) being interviewed concerning his up-coming questions to the Home Affairs Minister. Despite attempts the State Media were unable to make contact with the Home Affairs Minister as they wanted him to be a participant on the radio programme also. For those who missed the interview it can be listened to HERE

This is in stark contrast to when the Home Affairs Minister received the discredited Wiltshire Report (prosecution case against Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM). The Minister was all over the State Media telling anybody who would listen that in the Wiltshire Report there were "findings" against the Former Police Chief, when they were nothing of the sort. They were un-tested, un-proven "allegations" or "the prosecution case" against the Chief Police Officer. The Home Affairs Minister, in the words of the Former Police Chief, "Chickened out of a fair fight." The Minister abandoned the disciplinary action and published, broadcast, the prosecution case, and not a single word of Mr. Power's 62,000 word defence case. We called it a KANGAROO COURT.

So there was a "no show" from the Home affairs Minister when he had some uncomfortable questions to answer live on State Radio with Deputy Trevor Pitman. Regular readers will be aware that the Minister told us some time previously that he was going to reveal "A Scandal" he had concerning an Officer from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group (HWG) who was mentoring, the then Senior Investigating Officer in the Child Abuse investigation Lenny Harper. He was going to deliver this "Scandal" in the island's Parliament but guess what? HE DIDN'T TURN UP!

So it appears fair to say that the Home Affairs Minister can be elusive when uncomfortable situations arise which brings us on to why we believe he could have been on/in the toilet on these occasions.

We had happenstance to be chatting with an acquaintance of the Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM. This person, relayed to us, a situation that was so comical and almost unbelievable that we had to verify it with Mr. Power for ourselves. We promptly did this and offer it to our readers as it was told to us by Mr. Power QPM.

"In early 2009 I prepared an application and affidavit for my suspension to be reviewed by the Royal Court. The Court told me that I had to serve a copy of the papers on the Minister. I did not think that it was appropriate for me to serve them personally. So my wife arranged to visit the Home Affairs Department offices and serve them on the Minister.

She made an appointment. She was shown in by staff. They went to the Ministers office but he was not there. They thought that was strange because he had been there when she knocked on the door and the appointment was in his diary. So she waited...............and she waited..................staff searched the building but the Minister could not be found.

He had not left the building so the only place he could be was in the toilet. So they waited..........And they waited. But the Minister remained locked in the toilet and showed no sign of coming out.

After it all became very embarrassing a member of the department agreed to accept service on the Minister's behalf..................... they apologised. And she left the building.............with the Minister still locked in the toilet.........................."(END)

The Home Affairs Minister will no doubt have his own version of this story. Unfortunately he won't acknowledge our e-mails either. So if anybody would like to ask him his version, if they can get him out of/off the toilet for long enough we would like to hear it.

This coming Tuesday the Minister has a number of "uncomfortable" questions to answer from back-bench politicians in the parliament. He is also up for "Questions Without ~~Answers~~ Notice"..............................Somebody had better start warming the seat up..............And he might be in there for a while!

Open letter To Home Affairs Minister.

2012-01-25T13:01:00.000Z

		This e-mail from former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, is self explanatory and came about because of Mr. Harper's, Former Police Chief Mr Graham Power's, the Victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse atrocities and a couple of Bloggers determination to get to the truth behind the State Media's and government's spin and "official line." We, as Bloggers, have ripped apart with documented facts and evidence all the spin and Tooth Fairy nonsense given to us by the State Media and government concerning the Child Abuse atrocities. This e-mail further adds to it..........And there is much more to come! from Lenny Harper

to:		"i.lemarquand@gov.je"
cc:		voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren , ricosorda , "ASibcy@jerseyeveningpost.com" , BenQueree , "chris.stone.01@bbc.co.uk" , "news@channel103.com" , "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk"
date:		24 January 2012 19:41
subject:		Revelations in Met Report to IPCC Dear Mr Le Marquand; I am unaware if you have read the latest blog from Rico Sorda, but in that he talks about the Met Interim and final reports which you, Andrew Lewis, and David Warcup regularly and frequently used as the reason and justification for suspending Graham Power and the savage smear campaign against myself in which you referred to me as an "incompetent maverick", and also, I presume, authorised the States of Jersey Police to tell Scotland Yard that I would be facing a discipline investigation over the Child Abuse Enquiry if I was still in the force. Whilst I am grateful for your subsequent clarification that nothing in the decision to enter HDLG justified discipline considerations and that indeed Mick Gradwell would be the person facing serious discipline charges were he still in the force, the revelations contained in the Met report submitted to the Independent Complaints Commission (as a result of my complaint against the author of the Met reports), that in fact neither the Met Interim report nor the final report contained any critical or damning comments about myself or any other officer, raises series questions as to where you received the information that it did, and even more significantly, if it didn't come from the Met, where did it come from. As for your own part in spreading the perception that the Met reports (interim and final) were indeed critical and damning of myself and Graham Power, I have been quoted in the blog posting as asking a number of questions concerning your role. I reproduce the relevant excerpt below and would ask that you give me the answer to the questions in respect of your role. My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT. Paragraph 5.3 of the Sweeting Met report lists the complaints that I had made, i.e.; that the report was “critical and damning of me without ever speaking to me. That it had criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, my victim support policy, the lack of a Gold Group, the finding and labelling of human remains, my use of the term ‘shackles’ and the use of the term ‘cellars.’ In reality, according to the Met report to the IPCC, “having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.” The report goes on to say in Para. 5.4, “The report was neither critical nor damning.” The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.” So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else? It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes? As you can see, in the final paragraph of the excerpt, (immediately preceding this paragraph,) I pose three questions about yourself. Put simply, Mr Warcup did not send the Met report to the HA Minister. He summarised it in a letter. Were you indeed duped, or did you know the whole story about the so called critical Met interim report was a charade and a pack of lies? I would appreciate answers to the questions above. Lenny Harper. (END) Readers will note that Jersey's State Media are copied into this e-mail. Mr. Harper has not received as much as an acknowledgement of it from the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, let alone had his questions answered. Questions are - will the State Media even report on this huge turn of events? Will they seek to get the answers from Ian Le Marquand that not only the victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse deserve but so do Mr. Harper, Mr. Power QPM, all the good officers that worked on the Child Abuse Enquiry under Mr. Power and Harper but the tax paying public who have paid for the smear campaign, witch-hunts and vendetta's against these people?

Andrew Lewis or CPO Graham Power QPM Re-Post.

2012-01-24T18:17:00.000Z

We offer this re-posting in conjunction with the posting of Rico Sorda where he has published the findings of "OPERATION TUMA."

Operation Tuma was an investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Police in response to a complaint made to them by Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM (DCO Harper's Boss) was suspended on very dubious circumstances during the ongoing "Operation Rectangle" and DCO Harper had already retired.

Below is a posting we published back in February 2010 and readers are advised to take note of what was said by Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis concerning "The Met Report."

Andrew Lewis Or CPO Graham Power

Below is a statement written by former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis in response to Chief Police Officer Graham Power’s sworn affidavit.

But below that is Chief Police Officer Power’s response to the former Home Affairs Minister. I believe it is fairly safe to say that one of these two gentlemen look way out of their depth and are being somewhat more than economical with the truth.

It might be a slightly lengthy read but for those who take the 10-15 minutes out to read it you will be left with little doubt that somebody’s version of events just do not stack up.

From Andrew Lewis.

Response to P9 and allegations by Graham Power in his recently published Affidavit
　
February 2010
　
Suspension of the States Of Jersey Chief of Police

My knowledge of this matter stems from my role as Home Affairs Minister. As such I am bound by the confidentiality requirements in the Chief Police Officer's disciplinary code. Although the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was my decision, at all times I sought legal advice and that of HR professionals and took this advice into account.

To the best of my knowledge the actual decisions were taken on the dates recorded in the correspondence. The earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisers, which was contingency preparation in the event that the full disclosure of information by the Deputy Chief Officer might result in a decision to invoke the disciplinary code. This was sensible contingency planning.　
Up until the 11th February I was not aware of Mr Power’s Affidavit despite his claimthat he had sent it to me. Consequently I feel I have no alternative other than to make a brief and measured response to the allegations contained in the document.
　
1. I have sympathy for the concerns that Mr Power has for his family but it must be pointed out that the reason that his daughter became aware of his plight whilst driving to work in Australia was because Mr Power, upon leaving the meeting with me and Mr Ogley at Cyril Le Marquand House, went directly to the BBC radio station to make a statement despite being advised not to do so. This story was immediately syndicated across the world.
　
2. Mr Power also suggests that I should have discussed my actions with the previous Minister Senator Wendy Kinnard before carrying them out. In the context of the reasons for his suspension this would have been quite inappropriate as the Minister had handed over responsibility for oversight of the abuse inquiry many months before due a conflict of interest.

3. The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and is designed as a neutral act in order to give the Chief Officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office. The code has a clear process of appeal despite Mr Power’s allegations that such provision does not exist.
　
4. Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading. The nature of the code was not rewritten it was simply amended for use under the new ministerial government system, which involved replacing the word committee with that of minister. The same has applied to numerous documents right across the States since the inception of ministerial government
　
5. Both Mr Power and Deputy Hill claim that the decision to suspend the Chief of Police was somehow rushed, “done on a whim with little consideration and without seeking advise”. I refute this suggestion most strongly. I had been aware for sometime of concerns about the command and control of the Child Abuse enquiry and in my capacity as Minister had been regularly briefed by the Deputy Chief Officer on the progress of an independent review of the case, being carried out by The Metropolitan Police.
　
6. Mr Power had also been regularly briefed on the progress of the review in even more detail than I. He was also informed that the Deputy Chief Of Police was planning to brief Ministers on the 11thNovember on the findings of the review that were expected to be shocking. Despite this Mr Power decided to go on holiday. I questioned this with him but he claimed that there was nothing in the Met report to be concerned about. Subsequent revelations that are now well documented were of course quite the opposite.
　
7. During my final meeting with Mr Power he was not asked to resign he never has been, it was an action that I did not wish to invoke because it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. However I refute strongly the repeated suggestion by Mr Power that he does not know why he has been suspended, full details of the reasons are contained in the two page letter that was given to him at our meeting with him on the 12th　November 2008.
　
8. Mr Power also claims that the notes taken at the meeting on the 12thNovember which were later typed from Mr Ogley’s notes some how differed from Mr Power’s recollection of the meeting. The transcripts of the meeting were forwarded to me for my approval. I can categorically state that they were a true and accurate record of the meeting. Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.
　
9. I am deeply concerned that the subsequent enquiry into this matter conducted by Wiltshire constabulary has taken so long. I was advised that such an investigation would only take until March 2009. The longer such matters are left the more open they are to wild allegations of conspiracy. Such allegations I most strongly refute. The reasons for suspension were compelling; the process was diligent, professional and painstakingly considered in accordance with the disciplinary code. I took full legal and HR advice from highly competent professionals and followed the prescribed procedure of the day.
　
10. I had on a number of occasions publicly and privately extolled my respect and admiration for Mr Power as competent manager and Chief Police Officer. Which was why I was deeply shocked by the revelations and allegations presented by other competent independent policing authorities concerning Mr Powers command and control of Jerseys biggest ever criminal investigation.
　
11. Such allegations must be and I am led to believe have now been thoroughly investigated. I now look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report, which I have fully cooperated with. If further enquires are proved necessary I would fully support and cooperate with such a process.
　
Andrew Lewis-19th February 2010

　
The following statement has been issued by Graham Power QPM.　Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. 22nd February 2010.　

Since my suspension in November 2008 I have complied with the confidentiality requirements of the disciplinary code. I have however always made it clear that if the code is breached by Ministers, or those acting on their behalf, I would not hesitate to respond.

I have tonight seen the statement issued by the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. In my view his statement constitutes a clear breach of the code and one to which I am entitled to respond. Accordingly I do so in the comments set out below. It may be noted that my comments relate entirely to the statements of Andrew Lewis. I have attempted not to stray into other areas in order to stay within the spirit of the code. I offer this compliance in spite of the totally unfair, unjust and disproportionate manner of my treatment. Andrew Lewis and his associates are assisted by the full wealth and power of the state. I have been refused legal assistance and in consequence I am required to defend myself with only the resources of myself, family and supporters. I do my own research and I type my own letters. I do not have expensive staff, civil servants, or legal advisors supporting my work. I have only the resources of a private individual. Nevertheless, I hope that the following comments will assist in the growing debate relating to the actions of Ministers and others in November 2008.

I do not have the technical capability to insert my comments alongside those of Andrew Lewis. It may therefore be necessary for the reader to be in possession of the comments of the former Minister while reading my comments. If this causes difficulty I apologise. It is the best I can do with the resources available.

Preamble.

In the introduction to his recent statement Mr Lewis says　“at all times I sought legal advice and that of HR professionals and took this advice into account.” In his statement to the disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police he says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Statement to Wiltshire Police paragraph 3.) In his statement to the disciplinary enquiry, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley states “On 11th November I received a letter from David WARCUP .......... I then wrote to Andrew Lewis that day.”　(Statement to Wiltshire Police page 7.) It follows therefore that the evidential statements made by Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley claim that the letter which led to the suspension was received on 11th November 2008, and Mr Lewis states that until he received that letter “I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” On the evening of 11th November Andrew Lewis asked me to attend a meeting the following morning, and I was suspended on the morning of 12th November 2008. It follows therefore that if the statements of both Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley are true the “legal advice and that of HR professionals” must have taken place between 11th and 12th November 2008 which is a tight time frame and hard to reconcile with the claim that this advice was taken “at all times.” What we now know, from separate disclosures obtained in the face of strong opposition from the current Chief Minister, is that the suspension documents were in fact prepared early in the morning of Saturday 8th　November 2008, a fact which is hard to reconcile with the previous statements made by Andrew Lewis, presumably with the advice and support of the legal and HR professional experts upon whom he relies. If such experts have in fact assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his statement, then they are inevitably associated with what he has said and done and they may therefore be compromised. This would appear to re-enforce the need for any review of these issues to be fully independent.

The dates on which the suspension documents were created is referred to by Mr Lewis in his recent statement when he says “the earlier dates of creation simply reflect the preliminary work by the legal and HR advisors.” Given that under the Police Law and the Disciplinary Code it is the Minister for Home Affairs and nobody, literally nobody else, who has any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to the Chief Officer of Police, we are entitled to ask on whose authority the Law Officers Department and “HR advisors” determined that on a Saturday morning in November 2008 it would be appropriate to draft suspension notices for the Chief Officer of the Islands Police Force. In his statement to Wiltshire Police the timeframe given by Mr Lewis indicates that it could not have been him. So who was it? Or is it possible that the truth is not being told?

On a relatively minor point in the preamble Mr Lewis states “Until 11th February (2010) I was not aware of Mr Power’s affidavit despite his claim that he had sent it to me.” Just for the record, no such claim was made. It has been truthfully stated that the affidavit, sworn in January 2009, was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs. This was of course another person by that time. It rather appears that the legal and HR professionals who have apparently assisted Mr Lewis in preparing his release have let him down on this point of detail.

I now turn to the numbered paragraphs in the recent release by Andrew Lewis:

1. In this paragraph Mr Lewis attempts to blame me for the publicity regarding the suspension. During the suspension interview he made it clear that it had already been decided that he and the then Chief Minister (who had no lawful role in the matter whatsoever) would shortly be giving a press conference, the arrangements for which had been put in place the previous day, presumably in anticipation of the outcome of the suspension meeting on 12th. It is natural and understandable that in light of this information I should decide to ensure that my side of the story was given comparable coverage.
　
2. Mr Lewis claims that any consultation with the previous Minister would have been a conflict of interest. He misses the point. The relevant period of the historic abuse enquiry was undertaken under the political oversight of another person who is not recorded as having expressed any formal concerns. In his actions of 12th November 2008 Mr Lewis was applying retrospective judgement in respect of actions which occurred prior to him assuming office. He was, in common parlance, moving the goalposts after the event. His failure to consult with the person who was actually in political office at the relevant time is a breach of the basic principles of fairness.
　
3. Mr Lewis claims that the process he applied was in accordance with the disciplinary code and he appears to imply that it was in some way fair and “neutral.” This claim is made in spite of the strong criticism of his actions by the Royal Court. He does not address this criticism and appears to prefer to pretend that it does not exist. Contrary to his claim, the disciplinary code provides for no appeal against suspension. There is a right of appeal against the findings of a disciplinary hearing. No such hearing has yet occurred and none has been arranged.
　
4. Lewis says　“Mr Power also claims that the code was rewritten hours before it was invoked, this is quite misleading.” If this is genuinely misleading then I am quite happy to be led towards the truth. If it was re-written at an earlier time, who did this and who asked for it to be done? Could it by any chance be the same as yet unidentified person or persons who decided, apparently without any Ministerial authority, to spend a Saturday morning drafting suspension notices for the Chief Officer of Police on the off-chance that the Minister, who according to his statement to Wiltshire Police, “had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well” might suddenly change his mind? Or was it intended that the Minister would have his mind changed for him? Without a proper enquiry we will never know.
　
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. I will return to this issue later.
　
6. Mr Lewis states that I was aware of the planned briefing to Ministers on 11th November 2008. This is just plain untrue. Pure and simple. This was planned and executed without my knowledge. If he claims that I was aware it might be useful for him to state who told me, and when. He then states “Despite this Mr Power chose to go on holiday.” This is almost a total reversal of the truth. Mr Lewis knows, or at least he should know, that my absence was not a “holiday.” I was attending to family welfare issues in the UK which had by that time been postponed for too long due to work commitments. The evidence indicates that far from my absence being some form of abdication of responsibility on my part, it was seized upon in a series of events which bear all of the characteristics of a planned coup d’ état. The first day of my leave was 7th November 2008. By the following morning persons unknown were preparing suspension notices and, on the evening of my return to the island I was told to attend a meeting the following morning.　　
　
7. Lewis states that I was not “asked to resign.” All parties agree on at least one thing. That is that at the start of the meeting I was asked to“consider my position.” I leave it to others to decide what is commonly understood to be meant by this statement. Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements.
　
8. In his recent statement Lewis refers to the typed notes which are alleged to be a true record of the disciplinary meeting and says　“Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they did not reflect the meeting.” In a letter addressed to the Minister dated 1st　December 2008 I begin “Dear Minister.” I then go on to list a number of issues. In paragraph 5 and 6 I refer to the alleged typed notes of the meeting and list areas of the notes which I consider to be untrue.　On 5th　December 2008 I received a reply which had been sent on the Ministers behalf. I have copies of both letters. The recent claim by Lewis that　“Mr Power has never corresponded with me to the effect that they　(the notes)　did not reflect the meeting”　is a further transparent falsehood and can be shown to be so.
　
9. I am grateful for the comments of Andrew Lewis in this paragraph.
He confirms that he and others were apparently misled as to the duration of the disciplinary enquiry, stating that he was told that it would be concluded by March 2009. It is now of course almost March 2010 and the matter is still outstanding. He does not say who misled him or speculate as to their motives. He says that he is “deeply concerned” about this issue. His concerns, if authentic, are appreciated. During this time he has of course been getting on with his life. I am the one who has been suspended until such time as there is no possibility of a return to work, and I have therefore effectively been dismissed.　　
　
10. In this paragraph Mr Lewis praises my professional virtues. He then says that he was shocked by the revelations presented by “competent independent policing authorities.” He does not say who these authorities were. Whoever they were they could not have been the Metropolitan Police whose report he “never saw.” (Witness statement paragraph 14.)
　
11. Mr Lewis states that he will now “look forward to the publication of the Wiltshire Constabulary’s report.” In that respect he may be disappointed, given that Wiltshire have ruled their report to be confidential and stated that their report is exempt from any Freedom of Information laws on a number or grounds, including the claim that any disclosure would be “likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”(Confidentiality rules. Wiltshire report.) I will of course abide by the confidentiality rules imposed by Wiltshire. Andrew Lewis apparently intends otherwise. In this paragraph Mr Lewis goes on to state that he would fully co-operate with any further enquiries which may be necessary. I am pleased to hear this in view of what I have to say below with regard to this issue.
　
Personal Comment.　

Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts:　

Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident. Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.
　
There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.

There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now. There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.

In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate. This is of course a matter for others to decide. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008.(END)

Inside.

2012-01-23T16:22:00.000Z

As a direct result of our PREVIOUS POSTING we were contacted by, and subsequently have had a meeting with, "An Insider" of the States of Jersey Police Force.

The insider, (who is neither a supporter, nor a detractor of, the Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM) contacted us after being a long time reader of the Blog and thought it would be beneficial to share with us (you the reader) a chain of thought/theory that exists from within the Police Force in Jersey.

Regular readers will be aware that Mr Power QPM was the Chief Police Officer who was suspended (possibly illegally) from duty in the middle of the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this island has ever seen. An act (the illegal(?) Suspension) that the Police Force, according to our insider, has still not recovered from and might take many years yet to recover from. Mr. Power's suspension and, subsequent events, were covered in-depth as part of an exclusive and possibly the most revealing interview ever conducted with the former Chief Officer published HERE.

Mr. Power was replaced by the discredited David Warcup, who according to our insider, united the force in one respect. Whether they (the Police Force/Civilian staff) were supporters of Graham Power, or not, the huge majority were not supporters of David Warcup, regular readers will have a good idea as to why this could be the case.

In our previous posting we published the answers given by the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to Deputy Trevor Pitman's questions regarding the cost, and outcomes, of a number of external police investigations the Home Affairs Minister is responsible for since November 2008 to date.

The answers the Home Affairs Minister gave, regarding the cost of these Investigations, are widely believed to be just a fraction of the true cost to the taxpayer, which is something we will be following up on in an up-coming Blog.

It was the "purpose" of these external (and other internal) Police Investigations that prompted our insider to contact us. The Investigations were into Jersey Police Officers allegedly involved in professional/criminal misconduct. Unsurprisingly, to some, (in the force) out of the four separate external Investigations not one of them brought a single successful criminal or disciplinary charge against any Officer.

We have also been told there were a number of Internal disciplinary enquiries initiated by David Warcup, under the leadership of Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Since Senator Ian Le Marquand has been in post as Home Affairs Minister, our insiders tells us, there has been some kind of a witch-hunt for those who show/have shown any support for the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

Whatever the claimed intention of some of these investigations the real effect has been to isolate and put under stress a number of officers who are suspected of loyalty to the former Chief Officer with the consequence that a number have left the service rather than endure what they see as persecution by the regime led by Senator LeMarquand and the now departed David Warcup.

If what our Insider tells us is fact then, Senator Le Marquand's multi million pound witch hunt is only serving to divide and demoralise the States of Jersey Police Force. Forcing good cops to leave a career they intended would be for life.

For a number of those still left in the force, we were told, they live in the daily fear at work of showing any loyalty to the Former Police Chief incase word gets back to the Home Affairs Minister and they will be next in the firing line.

Of course we have no way of verifying what our source has told us although it has been substantiate by others either in or close to the force but we offer this posting as "A Theory" It will be up to readers to draw their own conclusions. We can verify that the source is genuine and is trustworthy in our opinion.

A question arises, once more, as to why our Insider hasn't taken these concerns to Jersey's State Media and we offer this as a reason WHY.

The (Multi?) Million £ Minister

2012-01-20T08:22:00.001Z

As a result of written questions asked by Deputy Trevor Pitman of the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, we can see that under the Ministers leadership he has cost the Taxpayer in the region of £1m on at least four investigations into alleged police misconduct. Not one of these investigations have resulted in a single disciplinary charge against any Police Officer let alone a criminal charge.

It would appear that, in the Minister's answers (below), legal advice and Lawyers fees are not included which means the true cost of these investigations could be millions of pounds.

Millions of pounds, in these times of austerity, spent so ‘Words of Advice’ can be given. The most notorious of these investigations has got to be that of the Wiltshire Constabulary's bungled Investigation where Chief Constable Moore never did get back to us.

Regular readers will be aware that Senator Le Marquand released, to Jersey's State Media, parts of the Wiltshire Report (the Prosecution case against Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM) but still has not released Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire (the Defence Case). Naturally the State Media were only too happy to peddle it out to all and sundry. A disciplinary investigation that cost in the region of a million pounds (possibly lots more) that produced not a single disciplinary charge just like all the others that Senator Le Marquand has been responsible for.

BBC Jersey has been in possession of Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire (defence case) for approximately FOUR MONTHS yet despite the fact that they have reported on the prosecution case, they've still not published/broadcast a single word of the defence. More about that in an up-coming Blog.

The questions and answers below beg the question "can the Jersey Taxpayer carry on paying for this multi million pound Minister?" Another question is "why have Jersey's State Media never challenged the Minister on his waste of Taxpayers money?"

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JANUARY 2012

Question

What investigations, if any, have taken place in respect of the allegations that States of Jersey Police officers acted illegally during the investigation of the case of Curtis Warren and others; and if there has been an investigation, what was the total cost and the outcome?

Answer

An independent operational review followed by a criminal and misconduct investigation has been conducted by Hampshire Constabulary in respect of this matter.

The Cost of the Investigation is £17,084.

Case considered by Law Officers’ Department – now the subject of consideration of internal discipline.

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JANUARY 2012

Question

Will the Minister provide details of how much money has been spent on external inquiries and reviews in respect of alleged disciplinary issues since November 2008 and how many police officers, if any, have been convicted of any criminal or disciplinary charges as a consequence?

Answer

The States of Jersey Police has engaged four UK Police Forces since November 2008 to conduct enquiries into alleged misconduct matters –

1. 2008 – Thames Valley Police

Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel costs of £690 met. No officer convicted of criminal or misconduct charges.

2. 2009/2010 – West Midlands Police

Internal Personnel matter Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel costs of approximately £1,800 met. One officer given ‘Words of Advice’.

3. 2009 – Warwickshire Police

Organisational complaint Investigation conducted at nil cost to the States of Jersey Police Travel and accommodation costs of approximately £1,200 met. Complaint Unsubstantiated.

4. 2011/2012 – Hampshire Constabulary

Operational Review; Criminal and Misconduct investigation Cost of Investigation £17,084. Case considered by Law Officers’ Department – now the subject of consideration of internal discipline.

Additionally, in November 2008 the Chief Minister’s Department engaged the Wiltshire Constabulary to investigate the management and supervision of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry by the Chief Officer of Police. The cost of that investigation was £572,532.

In 2009, I commissioned a further investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Blast), which was completed at a cost of £301,088. 3 Police Officers and a civil servant were given ‘Words of Advice’.(END)

A word of advice (that won't cost millions of pounds) for Senator Le Marquand: Stop wasting time and money on what appears to be a personal vendetta against the Former Police Chief, give him, and the survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse, something that resembles justice and then resign.

"Historic" Abuse? A Guest Posting From Tom Perry.

2012-01-16T09:29:00.000Z

For those readers who have not yet watched the BAFTA Award Winning Documentary "Chosen" you might not have heard the names Tom Perry, Mark Payge or Alistair Rolfe.

BAFTA for Chosen from True Vision on Vimeo.

These three men, with the help of multiple Award Winning "independent" Television Production Company "True Vision" and Director Brian Woods, brought the taboo subject of Paedophilia to the world of mainstream media thanks to the courage of Channel 4.......Notably not ITV or BBC.

Their story is humbling, heart wrenching, educational, emotional, frightening, graphic, sad, inspirational, courageous, and for those who have read "The Sharp Report" the private school talked about in their story could quite easily have been Jersey's very own Victoria College.

This is a story that cannot be covered in a single Blog posting and one we shall be returning to in the near future. The guest posting came about after we received an e-mail from Mr. Perry where he brought to our attention the (mis)used word "Historic." We subsequently replied and asked if he would consider a "Guest Posting" and thankfully he agreed.

From Tom:

I am writing to Voice for Children as someone who in 2001 filed a police complaint about the sexual abuse I experienced as a child. The Case was stayed in 2003 using a pre-trial "abuse of process hearing grounded on the Selwyn Bell precedent which was established just a few months earlier. It says - "as a result of the passage of time the defendant cannot receive a fair trial." This meant that the man I accused of abusing me did not have to answer the question in court, and no stayed criminal case has ever returned to court. Following the ruling I approached an independent television production company and four years later the BAFTA award winning documentary Chosen was broadcast.

When in adulthood I finally managed to face the abuse I’d experienced as a child, even I referred to it as ‘historic abuse.’ The police did the same and media reports on similar cases were and continue to be peppered with the adjective and just look at the Voice blog and others that do such sterling work on the Jersey child abuse cover up, all of them describe child abuse complaints made in adulthood as: ‘historic.’

People wishing to see truth and justice for abusees should cease using this offensive description. Why?

It is prejudicial and serves to discount, denigrate and dismiss the crimes that abusees have experienced. “Oh that was all in the past, things are different now.” In reality little in safeguarding has changed since the 50’s. There is still no mandatory requirement in England, Wales or Scotland to report allegations of child abuse or actual rape to the police or social services. Just in case you don’t believe

it:http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/child_protection_legislation_in_the_uk_pdf_wdf48953.pdf - see page 3 or search key word ‘mandatory.’

Regrettably the appalling description “historic abuse” entered the lexicon sometime ago unnoticed and to the detriment of complainants. It needs to cease. The mainstream media on Jersey are addicted to this offensive description and here is just one example from the BBC with their latest effort. In England the recent conviction of Father Nick White for child abuse when he was teaching at Downside was reported by all parts of the media in the default ‘historic’ format despite the abuse on which the trial was predicated occurring only nineteen years ago. Nineteen years!

Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the ‘historic’ word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not? Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm, drug smuggling, or assault, and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse?

For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime they wish would vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.

Its child abuse.

Lenny Harper Responds to State Media.

2012-01-11T15:13:00.000Z

As a result of yesterday's (Tuesday10 Jan 2012) editorial in Jersey's only "news"paper, re-produced HERE where the paper described former SIO Mick Gradwell as a "whistle-blower" we sought, and obtained, the reaction from the man who preceded Mr Gradwell Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of the Child Abuse Enquiry "Operation Rectangle" or "Jersey's Dirty Secret" as it has been described.

Mr. Harper, under the leadership of Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, unmasked the veil of secrecy, in that children in State Run "care" Institutions, had been abused FOR DECADES. Mr. Harper, nor Mr. Power, have ever been called, by the JEP or any of Jersey's State Media "whistle-blowers." Yet Mick Gradwell is accused of leaking confidential police information, during a live Child Abuse Enquiry, to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and the JEP herald him as a whistle-blower?

Thankfully for them (The JEP) they have no credibility left to lose and this latest editorial, in our opinion, displays its total disregard for the documented facts and evidence in order to pursue their agenda of discrediting those who sought/seek the truth behind "Jersey's Dirty Secret."

Mick Gradwell was the man who told us there were NO CELLARS AT HAUT DE LA GARENNE.

The JEP wrote, about Mick Gradwell "He quite correctly identified the frantic pursuit of forensic evidence that was never there." Again we see a blatant disregard, by the JEP, to the facts. There was more forensic "evidence" than one could shake a Sh-tty stick at HERE.

Once again, in our opinion, the JEP demonstrates its true agenda by making play of the oh so sacred "good name of Jersey" and they fail to acknowledge any pain and suffering of those children who were abused for decades in Jersey's State run Institutions and still fail to ask how it was able to go on for decades until Lenny Harper and his team exposed it.

In this interview with the former SIO, among much more, we hear his reaction to the JEP editorial, his opinion of the JEP and its agenda. He questions the motives of Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, and how he (Mr. Harper) believes Mick Gradwell might be auditioning for the lead role in "The Invisible Man."

Stuart Syvret and The Fourth Estate.

2012-01-09T10:55:00.000Z

In this next instalment of our exclusive and in-depth interview with Former Senator Stuart Syvret we discuss Jersey's media, or "State Media" as it is increasingly becoming known. In particular we look at the BBC and its role as a credible, reliable and impartial news source.

Mr Syvret's opinion of the BBC is, just like a growing number of others, very sceptical and untrusting and, in our opinion, deservedly so.

The BBC has reported on the "prosecution case" against Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM, The prosecution case being the discredited "Wiltshire Report." This Report has been, by a number of our State Media, peddled as an "independent" Report and that it's contents are "findings." We offer the view that firstly this Report was not independent it was commissioned for disciplinary purposes which produced not a single disciplinary action against the Former Police Chief. It's "findings" are nothing more, in our opinion, than unfounded, un-proven allegations, yet our Home Affairs Minister and the State Media cling on to it as if it has some kind of credibility.

The BBC has been in possession of the Former Police Chief's response (defence case) to the Wiltshire Report (prosecution case) for somewhere in the region of 3 months or so yet they've not reported a single word of it as they have the prosecution case. It is believed that the Former Police Chief's defence case, on a journalistic level, is "dynamite" and could blow the official version of events surrounding the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry clean out of the water, although we have already done that on this, and other Blogs. But regardless of whether this document is dynamite, or not, it is still the defence case and the BBC have an obligation, in the interest of fairness and balance, to publish it, or parts of it like they have, parts of the prosecution case.

Bloggers in Jersey are fast becoming the Fourth Estate because of this perceived, or actual, bias displayed by the State Media and it is a burden none of us should have to shoulder. Mr. Syvret tells us in the Interview (below) that he might be forced into publishing, on his Blog, Mr. Power's defence case if the State Media won't, should he or any Blogger have to do this just to add some balance to the stories put out by the State Media?

Of course we must concede that we are not professional "accredited" journalists and there could be a plausible explanation as to why the BBC can report on a prosecution case, then hang onto the defence case for so long, which it has been said, could be redacted in two hours and a bottle of Typex . If there is a plausible explanation for this then we would like to hear it.

The distrust of Jersey's State Media is compounded by the Press Statement released by the Jersey Care Leavers Association (below). It was sent to, as far as we know, all island Media. The JCLA is not convinced it will be published in any of the island's State Media so we are more than happy to publish it, in its entirety here. It is another reminder of the part played by the island's media concerning the Child Abuse atrocities that were able to occur, for decades, until the veil of secrecy was lifted by Former DCO Lenny Harper, Graham Power QPM, and their team who were the first Police Officers, in Jersey's History, to investigate the allegations concerning institutional Child Abuse. It is also another reminder that amongst all the legal/political wrangling there are real people who have had their lives, dreams, hopes, confidence and trust in humanity shattered by the very people who were supposed to care for them............The State of Jersey.

PRESS STATEMENT

Further to the Home Affairs Ministers statement on the Historic Abuse Police Enquiry and the role of the accredited media, the JCLA would like to offer the following response.

Whilst it is some small comfort, to at last have Senator Le Marquand’s recognition of the fact that matters were grossly exaggerated many times by the press, it could also be said to be too little, too late, as indeed Mr Harper has stated.

Had the BDO Alto Review not been held, it is doubtful that this statement would have ever been made. We must also, not lose sight of the fact that this review was held due to the hard work of a local blogger and the determination of the Scrutiny Panel headed by Deputy Trevor Pitman.

Notwithstanding the above, the reputations of two honourable police officers, and abuse survivors have also been brought into question, and the three conclusions mentioned by Senator Le Marquand from the Wiltshire Reports clearly show that the media frenzy that surrounded this whole sorry affair was very misjudged.

Indeed, Senator Le Marquand himself allowed this misinformation to be published, and indeed at times fanned the fire by his defensive answers to questions in the States Chamber. It was not helped at all by calling Mr Harper ‘an incompetent maverick’, amongst other derogatory statements which are well documented.

Part of an editorial comment in the JEP dated Monday 24^th August 2009 says: ‘In addition, on the strength of what was clearly a flawed investigation from its very outset and the hype which surrounded it, the Island has paid a terrible price through the enormous cost of misdirected police work and, more importantly, in terms of its reputation’. Quite clearly Wiltshire did not think this the case.

There will always be a case of ‘we beg to differ’ over the question of the child’s skull/coconut, but it cannot be dismissed that 65 children’s teeth were found under the floorboards, fresh, fleshed and burnt bones were found, the matter of the lime pits and many other questions left unanswered. There are the abused whose cases were never brought before the Courts despite ample evidence, who will never feel that the Police investigations were full and properly concluded, and questions relating to the behaviour of Mr Gradwell.

Only when a full, transparent and thorough Committee of Inquiry is approved and finalised will it be possible to say that there is a conclusion to this affair. (END)

It remains to be seen if this Press Statement will see the light of day in any of Jersey's State Media.

It also remains to be seen who will publish the defence case of Mr. Graham Power QPM first, a Blogger (The Fourth Estate in Jersey) or the State Media.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Stuart Syvret Exclusive Interview (Part 1 of 3)

2012-01-05T16:06:00.000Z

Subsequent to our exclusive brief interview with Former Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret, on his release from PRISON we have, as requested, been able to interview Mr. Syvret in-depth and exclusively.

In part one of this interview (below), among the subjects discussed is, "Data protection." Is this being used as a political tool to silence people who speak out against the government in Jersey? Is the Data Protection Law applied fairly? Has the Jersey government captured the courts/judicial system and the police? If you speak out against the Jersey government will you get a fair trial?

Have you got a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a Blog or website and live in Jersey? Do you believe the charges faced by Mr. Syvret have no significance to you?

Stuart Syvret Released from Prison.

2011-12-30T13:57:00.000Z

Former senior Jersey Politician, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret was today released from prison after serving approximately two months for Data Protection/contempt of court charges.

Mr. Syvret who in 2007 stood up in Jersey's Parliament, while still Health Minister, and said.

Senator Syvret in 2007 as Health Minister

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

Did this statement trigger the political downfall of the former Senator? How many other Data Protection offences have warranted a 10 strong police squad, without a search warrant, turning over a place of residence in what has been described as "a fishing expedition?"

There will be an in-depth and exclusive interview coming up with Mr. Syvret at the beginning of 2012.

Team Voice.

Hope

2011-12-24T16:30:00.000Z

Below is a video created by OZZY a survivor of Haute de la Garenne and we would like, once more, to share it with our readers and viewers and pay tribute to those who have, and are still, suffering from the atrocities committed in that place (HDLG) and others.

Here's hoping 2012 will bring us a judicial system that will be there to protect, rather than, crush and oppress those of us seeking the truth. Here's hoping 2012 will bring us an independent media who will hold our Law Offices and government to account. Here's hoping 2012 will bring an open and transparent Committee of Enquiry with a fit for purpose Terms of Reference.

For the Paedophiles and those protecting them who are hoping there will be a let up in 2012......BOB and NO.

Merry Christmas to all our readers across the world and a happy and safe New Year.

Team Voice.

Lucy Panton and Lenny Harper.

2011-12-19T15:36:00.000Z

Not for the first time there are those conspiracy theorists and people wishing to link Jersey's Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper with some kind of improper dealings concerning the (then) Chief Crime Reporter on the News of The World Lucy Panton.

First off we must stress that Mrs. Panton, to the best of our knowledge, has not been charged with any offence. She certainly hasn't been found guilty of any offence so in the eyes of the law she is innocent.

But this does not prevent those who are hell-bent on trashing the name of the first Police Officer in Jersey's history to lead an investigation into widespread and DECADES of Child Abuse in the State run institutions with innuendo and gossip.

Regular readers/viewers will be aware the we (Team Voice) pride ourselves with dealing, as best we can, in "evidence and facts." The "fact" is somebody from the States of Jersey Police was leaking information, during the live Child Abuse investigation to at least one "journalist." The "evidence" points us in the direction of the officer who took over from Mr. Harper and that is Mick Gradwell.

Mick Gradwell has been named by a number of witnesses (under oath) as the officer leaking this information. He has also been named by Jersey's Home Affairs Minister as the leak. The Home Affairs Minister has also told the SCRUTINY REVIEW that if Mr. Gradwell had not been seconded and was a States of Jersey Police Officer then he would very likely be facing serious disciplinary action. Yet still Jersey's State Media don't think any of this is newsworthy or of public interest? But what Lenny Harper "might" have done is?

The first time it was inferred that Mr. Harper "might" have had improper relations with the NOTW Chief Crime Reporter "Lucy Panton" was back in July this year when Former Senator's Perchard and Shenton with current Deputy Sean Power took their concerns to Jersey's Attorney General.

We at Team Voice put the accusations to Mr. Harper as part of an exclusive and in-depth interview we did with him and here is what he told us.

Every move Mr. Harper has made and every penny he spent during the Child Abuse Enquiry has been meticulously scrutinised by all and sundry including the State Media. Should our (or their) attention now be turned towards Mick Gradwell................And why hasn't it been??

Revisit the credibility of State Media

2011-12-13T12:26:00.003Z

As the credibility of the BBC is once more being called into question surrounding the alleged duping of the public in the "Frozen Planet" episode recently screened concerning the baby Polar Bears. We thought this would be an ideal opportunity to revisit a Blog posting we published back in October last year (2010)

Of course there are any number of occasions that could be mentioned when it comes to the BBC allegedly duping the public, whether it be Panorama and the supposed sweat shops, the Blue Peter child being asked to pose as a competition winner, the Queen being edited to look like she was walking out of a photo shoot, when in fact she was walking IN. Again there are probably many more that could be mentioned, not least The Wiltshire Report, or as it is commonly known, the (discredited) prosecution case against Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

The BBC, along with the rest of Jersey's State Media, published/broadcast/reported on this Wiltshire Report (prosecution case) quite extensively. The BBC has now been in possession of Mr. Power's 62,000 word submission to Wiltshire (the defence case) for TWO MONTHS and have not reported a single word of it. What are the chances that the BBC will be leaked anything again in Jersey? Haven't they got an obligation to tell both sides of a story? How can they expect trust and credibility? Why won't they report it?

"Leaks, Trust and Credibility Revisited" (October 2010)

After today’s announcement that Mike Bowron is the preferred choice of our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian (P9-26) Le Marquand, to be our next Chief Police Officer very serious and very probing questions need to be asked of our “accredited” media.

These questions should go right to the very top echelons of the BBC, ITV and the “Independent” Press Complaints Commission, or whoever it is that are tasked with the job of watching over the JEP .

The Home Affairs Minister’s announcement raises many, many questions to the credibility and trustworthiness of our “accredited” media. Regular Readers/viewers of this site will be aware that we were provided with information, not only to the identity of the new (subject to States approval) Chief Police Officer, but the alleged “cover story” that enabled David Warcup to secure his pension, that the selection process was just a PR exercise, Mr. Bowron was “the chosen one” before the selection process had even commenced and It enabled him (David Warcup) to resign before the Napier report became public and thereby claim that he was leaving because of political and Blog criticism.

After doing everything we could to substantiate the information we were given, we decided to publish it HERE

NINE DAYS LATER the “accredited” media announce that Mike Bowron is “the chosen one”. It is a known fact that the “accredited” media read this Blog, and have in the past, used it as a source for their own news, but why not this story? So a few of the questions that need to be asked are “how long have they been in possession of this information?” How is it that they report it as “news” NINE DAYS after it appeared on here? Why wasn’t this information provided directly to them? And many more questions besides.

For now we’ll just concentrate on the “trustworthiness” of the “accredited” media, their credibility and that of Team Voice. If this information wasn’t given to the accredited media, then why not? Could it be that they could not be trusted with it? And Team Voice could? Let us just suppose they were provided with this information then we must ask, why didn’t they report it? Are they as “independent” as they claim to be? Were they “encouraged” by our powers that be to keep it under wraps? If so then how can they claim to be an independent media? Either scenario suggests that they cannot be trusted.

As for the credibility, we at Team Voice, believe ours has never been in question. That is because, to the best of our (somewhat limited in comparison to the “accredited” media) ability, we research the facts and rely on documentation to substantiate these facts. We do as best we can to only publish evidenced facts. By doing this and reporting “in-depth” on the more embarrassing (to our government) stories we have gained the trust of some very courageous, knowledgeable, trustworthy, and conscientious people from inside the very heart of our government/Civil Service. These contacts can not be thanked enough, they are taking a huge risk to their livelihoods, their pensions, mortgages and so forth in order to have the truth told. They are, along with the Abuse Survivors, the unsung heroes in this very dark period in Jersey’s History……But why are they not giving, or leaking, this information to the “accredited” and “independent” media?

Our source was right about the name of the successful candidate and it is reasonable to assume that they were also right about the other things in the same story. Or are we to assume that getting the name right was a lucky guess and the rest should be ignored? This is further evidence of how Ministers could be systematically lying to the public about these issues and how the "accredited” media are falling for it hook line and sinker, or are complicit in their party line and deliberately keeping the public ignorant. If Ministers are willing to lie and cover up about these things what else are they willing to lie/cover up about?? Can anything they say be trusted and can we believe anything the Jersey media repeats on their behalf?

It must be said that we (Team Voice) know little about Mr Bowron himself apart from what is available on the internet. From what we do know he appears to be a respected and capable officer and wish him well in his new position. However, his apparent (alleged) association with David Warcup and the "cover story" for Warcup’s departure is not a good start and we hope that Mr Bowron will take an early opportunity to assert his independence from the “untrustworthy?” political leadership of this island. We hope that he will strive to create a politically independent Police Force. We hope that he will also strive to rigorously pursue the perpetrators of Child Abuse and bring them to justice without fear or favour.

What (or who) must also be in serious question is the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Regular readers/viewers will be aware that he gave the Wiltshire Report to the “accredited” media before he gave it to his fellow States Members as we reported, with great thanks to Deputy Trevor Pitman, HERE, with a follow up
HERE

Despite all the promises made about keeping Members informed, he (ILM) has again failed to show respect to his colleagues. We have just checked the States website and there is no proposition lodged to appoint the next Chief Police Officer. Given the concerns about the Police Chiefs one would have hoped that ILM would have ensured that proper etiquette was followed and his fellow States Members wouldn’t have to learn about it through the “accredited” media…………..or on here!

The credibility, trust and independence of our “accredited” media are seriously in question. If any of it was in any doubt concerning Team Voice then this should now have been dispelled……………You heard it HERE first.

What a difference a Child Abuse Investigation makes.

2011-12-09T10:16:00.001Z

Below is a previous post from one of our sister sites revised and revisited and the question still remains, how could it be that Former Police Chief Officer Graham Power QPM and Former Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper forgot all their police training and experience once they started investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey's State run "care" homes?

Back in early 2007 Chief Police Officer Graham Power and Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper were “the good guys”. They were rooting out the alleged corruption in Jersey's “outdated” Police force and according to Jersey's only "News"paper, the Jersey Evening Post, “ It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.”
Below is that editorial published by the Jersey Evening Post early in 2007 where one would believe, after receiving glowing reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, Lenny Harper and Graham Power were doing this right. This appears to be endorsed by the Jersey Evening Post, hence their “positive” Editorial.

But along came a Child Abuse Investigation, and these two cops who had received glowing reports from HMI and others also the support of the Jersey Evening Post - before you know it - they’re the bad guys! Come on JEP you can’t have it both ways, at what point did they lose your support, when was it that they went bad?

Everything all seemed Hunky Dory until these guys started investigating institutional Child Abuse.

I should like at this point to throw out a challenge to the Jersey Evening Post.

In their Editorial of February 23rd 2010 (below) they have written “One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home.”

Could you please point us in the direction where Lenny Harper has ever said there was any “murder” at HDLG?

JEP Editorial from 2007.

Police Chief delivers change.
Six years ago the States of Jersey Police were the subject of a less than flattering report compiled in the wake of a visit by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Since then, problems clearly have been solved and new standards have been set, the latest HMI report

having described the force as “modern and fast-moving”.
Police Chief Graham Power and his officers can be proud of this achievement. In common with forces up and down Britain, the States Police are a complex and many-layered organisation. Accomplishing the turn-around of the past six years can therefore, have been no easy undertaking. Nor can it have been particularly pleasant. The process of major change is always likely to upset those set in their ways or content to roll along in accordance with comfortable but outdated routines.

This process of transformation was undoubtedly at its most challenging when the professional standards department, led by Mr. Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, embarked on a systematic programme to root out corruption. Mr. Harper’s determined efforts have been attacked - to the extent that they have been described as “out of control” by a prominent former politician - but the result of the latest HMI inspection would seem to justify the decision to probe as deeply as possible and to remove those officers who were less than a credit to their uniform.
It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.

There are, of course, areas of the force where improvements can still be made. Indeed, the inspectorate has listed 78 suggestions for further change. With the combination of improved morale, high levels of confidence in the top echelon and firm political support, Mr. Power and his colleagues are in an excellent position to deliver that change.
We in Jersey are fortunate to live in a community where serious crime is mercifully rare. While important questions remain over the failure of the States to establish a new police authority , the force itself is organised and led in a way more than capable of maintaining this happy state of affairs.

But along came a Child Abuse Investigation and the JEP are not so supportive. As the Editorial from the same "News"paper, some three years later, demonstrates.

Mr Power: Time to call a halt
February 23, 2010 – 3:00 pm

ALMOST exactly two years since the name of Haut de la Garenne hit the world’s headlines, Jersey is still dealing with the fall-out.

The ramifications of how the police and politicians handled that dramatic escalation of the Island’s historical child abuse inquiry will once again tax the wisdom of States Members this week when they debate Deputy Bob Hill’s call for a committee of inquiry into the suspension of States police chief Graham Power.
We may never know precisely what arguments he will make because the debate is to be held in private, but they will need to be powerful ones to justify the protraction of an already extensive examination.

There seems to be little, if any, doubt over the two key points. One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home. The other is that in suspending Mr Power because of that failure of oversight, the powers that be slipped up in one or more parts of the procedural minefield that now surrounds employer/employee relations in Jersey.
Unequivocally damning evidence in respect of the first of those points has already been presented by the States police’s own review of the conduct of the abuse inquiry, carried out by a suitably qualified senior officer from the UK. More expert comment on the whole affair is due soon from the Wiltshire Constabulary, who have been commissioned to take a further independent view.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has offered a review of the way Mr Power’s suspension was carried out. All this has already taken longer and cost more than is reasonable, with the delay providing a field day for conspiracy theorists in the process.In reaching a decision this week, the States will have to balance a number of tricky questions, including, crucially, what is fair to Mr Power but also what is fair to Jersey and to the taxpayer.
Mr Power has been suspended for more than a year. He is now near retirement and, one way or another, will undoubtedly leave Jersey well rewarded for his ultimately disappointing time in the Island. There is, nevertheless, understandable sadness that a dedicated, respected police officer who has given long and distinguished service should find himself in this position at the end of his career.

Depending on one’s point of view, that sympathy will either be diluted or reinforced by the knowledge that Mr Power and Mr Harper co-existed as two sides of a triangular relationship with a weak Home Affairs Minister in former Senator Wendy Kinnard.
From any perspective, though, there is strong evidence that Mr Power has largely brought his troubles on himself through his failure to control Mr Harper. For that reason Deputy Hill, himself a former Metropolitan Police officer of the old school, will have a hard task convincing the States that there would be any overwhelmingly important purpose served by dragging out this whole grim process even further.(END)

What a difference a Child Abuse investigation makes.

Briefing Note Number 5 Revisited.

2011-12-05T13:47:00.000Z

Below is one of a series of "Briefing Notes" issued by the Former States of Jersey Chief Police Officer Mr. Graham Power QPM to the local State Media (although the State Media didn't get this one) and VFC. Although the only place these briefing notes saw the light of day was on the Team Voice Blogs.

We published this particular Briefing note back in August 2010. Naturally a lot has happened since then, not least the "Road Show" that our re-elected Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand DID, as predicted, go ahead. The Home Affairs Minister held a Press Conference (for State Media only) gave one-one interviews (to State Media only) and gave a presentation to Jersey's Parliament. All to parade the "prosecution case" against the Former Chief Police Officer AFTER the Home Affairs Minister had abandoned any disciplinary hearing. He did not, and still has not, published one single word of the Former Police Chief's 62,000 word defence case. The same 62,000 words that BBC Jersey have had for the best part of two months and, just like the Home Affairs Minister, BBC Jersey have not published a single word of it either.

Mr. Power's own words sums up the crux of all that has been able to go on unchecked and un-challegened (except by Bloggers) and they are.

"And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny."

This all coincides with an Early Days Motion (EDM) submitted by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming which reads.

"That this House notes the imprisonment of Stuart Syvret; believes that the public authorities of the island of Jersey do not operate in a manner compliant with the requirements of the European Commission of Human Rights (ECHR), there being overt and significant overlaps and contaminations between the legislature, executive and judiciary; further notes that Her Majesty's subjects in Jersey are not protected by effective checks and balances, and that there has been the political repression of former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power and former Senator Stuart Syvret; further notes that, notwithstanding the responsibility the Secretary of State for Justice has for good governance and Convention Rights in Jersey, the island's authorities are permitted to repress opposition activists, and that the Secretary of State for Justice and Jersey's Lieutenant Governor have failed to act; further notes that successive governments of the United Kingdom have committed this nation to securing real democratic freedoms and the rule of law in other jurisdictions, yet in the British enclave of Jersey on the United Kingdom's very doorstep, ordinary powerless people are oppressed by an entrenched oligarchy; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint an independent Commission similar to that which investigated corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to investigate the conduct of Jersey's public administration and to urgently bring the protections of the ECHR to Her Majesty's subjects in the island."

There is also an e petition that supports mr Hemming's EDM and we encourage our readers from the Channel Islands and Britain to sign it. Although it might well be that we don't have a corrupt Government, Administration and Judicial System, and if this is the case then there is nothing to fear an enquiry that will prove it. On the other hand if we do have this amount of corruption then it is time to rid Jersey of it. Either scenario gives good reason to sign this e-petition which can be done easily HERE

Briefing note 5.
The following note has been prepared by Graham Power and is intended to assist Editors in reporting issues arising from the announcement by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, that he is abandoning all disciplinary proceedings.

Topic:

So what happened to Justice?

It has been said that a Fascist is a Liberal who has just been mugged. I am inclined to wonder whether an autocrat is a Magistrate who has been appointed Minister for Home Affairs.

There are two principles of Justice which most people know and respect. One is that a person who is not proved guilty is presumed innocent. Another is that judgement should not be reached until both sides of the case have been heard. As the Island’s Magistrate, Ian le Marquand was generally respected for upholding both principles. So what happened to him once he was “anointed” as the Minister for Home Affairs?

If his own claims on live radio are to be believed then he is shortly about to engage in a public diatribe in which he will denounce the actions of the writer who is still, at the time of writing, Chief Officer of the States Police. I am of course the same person who has been subject to a suspension and disciplinary investigation lasting 21 months and costing Jersey taxpayers, of which I am one, an admitted sum of well over one million pounds, and a suspected real sum of considerably more. All proceedings are now abandoned and there will be no charges and no hearing. By anyone’s fair reckoning that is an acquittal. It can be nothing else. All proceedings are abandoned. I am convicted of nothing and therefore innocent of everything. Everyone understands that. Everyone that is apart from the Minister for Home Affairs (the person charged with promoting justice in the island no less.) He apparently thinks that his abandonment of the case (and a lot of our money as well) now entitles him to put on a road-show intended to demonstrate that I was guilty all along, it was just that he was not clever enough or fast enough to do anything about it (should he be admitting that??)

But it does not stop there. According to his own reported comments his presentation will entertain no nonsense about any defence case in respect of the allegations. We will hear the case for the prosecution, but anything of value to the defence will be edited out or banned. It is also claimed that the Minister will express his confidence that had the matter gone to a disciplinary hearing then I would have been found guilty on all counts. In that respect I have to confess that he is probably right. I say this because according to my latest information the Minister intended to appoint himself as both prosecutor and judge in the case. While such an arrangement (or something very similar) is not entirely unknown in the Jersey context, it might not accord with what the man or woman in the street considers fair, although it must be doubted whether the Minister would consider that important.

And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny.

Deputy Tadier Talks State Media (Part 1)

2011-11-29T15:19:00.000Z

In our PREVIOUS POSTING we demonstrated how Jersey's State Media Report (OR NOT) the "News."

We carry on this theme, in an interview, with Jersey Politician Deputy Montfort Tadier who on a number of occasions has fallen victim to "Jersey Journalism."

In this frank, in-depth and exclusive interview the Deputy tells us of the latest piece of (at best) lazy "journalism" from Jersey's only "News"Paper The Jersey Evening Post. Something he himself has Blogged HERE.

Deputy Tadier tells us, among much more, he believes that "Reporters are working within an institutional Bias." He goes on to say "Bloggers completely change the dynamic" and wants "a level playing field" between the State Media and Bloggers when it comes to filming/reporting States and Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) Meetings and Hearings.

Opinion Management

2011-11-24T11:14:00.000Z

Here is another stark example of how Jersey's State Media "opinion manage" rather than report "facts" in a Un-bias and objective way.

The Review carried out by BDO/Alto and Police consultant Mike Kellett, has been misrepresented by Jersey's Media, to such an extent that the report and the reporting of it bears little if any resemblance.

Below are some more findings of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's (Parliamentary Select Committee) Report that you WON'T be reading about, or hearing about, in any of Jersey's State Media particularly in Jersey's ONLY "News"paper, The Jersey Evening Post.

The Sub Panel's Report will be buried by the Council of Ministers (Law Offices) and by the State Media because it exposes how true power in Jersey lies in how opinion is managed by the State Media.

The Sub Panel's Report should be read in it's ENTIRETY.

169. BDO Alto further maintained that Mr. Harper was not the subject of their review and it was not the intention of the report to be directly critical of him or of any other individual. BDO Alto said that they had acknowledged the hard work of Police officers and third party contractors during the course of the Operation Rectangle enquiry and confirmed that ‘The report is not intended to be in any way critical of their individual efforts….’139

170. Mr. Kellett reiterated this point in his submission:

The Review was not an investigation of any individual but was designed to ascertain what had occurred and to make recommendations for the future. Indeed, that much is clear from my terms of reference. [ ] The manner in which some of our conclusions were expressed was diluted precisely because we had not been able to speak to Mr Harper. Nevertheless, as he himself pointed out in his oral evidence, he made the bulk of the financial decisions and he therefore cannot absolve himself of the extremely serious and costly errors that were made.

171. Mr. Kellett made a point of praising the dedication of Mr. Harper and his determination to bring suspected offenders to justice:

We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report (Emphasis added). However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. (Emphasis added) 132

173. The issues raised by Mr. Kellett’s declaration above (paragraph 170) that the review carried out by himself and BDO Alto was not intended as criticism of the police investigation is a serious point which we consider later in the section on the media coverage (section 6 of this report).

SECTION 6.

227. The publication of the BDO Alto and Wiltshire reports by the Minister for Home Affairs on 14^th July 2010 was an occasion for highly critical attention on Mr. Harper. The Jersey Evening Post published an extensive six page report with headlines focussed on:

· Celebrity lifestyle of Lenny Harper and his officers

· Meals in top-class restaurants and first class travel at expense of tax payers

· £42,000 – the overtime paid to a single officer in the first 15 months of the historical abuse enquiry

· No dog’s life for handler with luxury hotel lifestyle

· Hot on the trail of top London restaurants

· Lenny Harper and his team enjoyed £90-a-head meals and travelled first class at taxpayers’ expense, an accountants’ report revealed

· Off to Scotland Yard again

. First class on the Gatwick Express

228. The problem with the way the official review was reported is that it appears to take every opportunity to discredit, with the benefit of hindsight, those in charge of Operation Rectangle without any reference to the constraints and pressures under which the Police were operating during the early stages of the investigation. The emphasis on alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money risks implanting the impression in the public mind that the entire expenditure on Operation Rectangle was badly managed.

229. In contrast, the BDO Alto report notes:

In undertaking this Review and throughout the preparation of this Report we have been conscious of the fact that detailed scrutiny of any major inquiry will reveal errors, omissions and learning opportunities, particularly given the benefit of hindsight. It has not been our intention to be ultra-critical in our conclusions and we have attempted to be fair to all of those involved. 165

230. Mr. Kellett as previously mentioned (166 )made a point of qualifying the critical attention in the report with praise for the dedication and determination which police officers brought to the task of investigating child abuse:

We have no doubt that Mr Harper was totally dedicated to the task of investigating serious crimes that had possibly occurred at Haut de la Garenne and that he was entirely sincere in his belief that child abuse there and elsewhere in Jersey was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. Throughout the period that Operation Rectangle was live, he and his staff displayed great dedication and did their utmost to bring suspected offenders to justice and we pointed out as much in our report. However, we were not asked to examine motivation and dedication but rather to look at how the resources available to the investigation were managed. We did so and made nineteen recommendations. Inevitably, because of the central role Mr Harper performed, his management of the resources formed a central part of our examination but to the extent that any of those recommendations constitute criticism of his actions, no criticism of, let alone attack on, the existence of the investigation or of the motivation for it is intended or implied. (167)

231. No such qualification appears in the above press report. (Emphasis added)

232. Furthermore, the newspaper did not pick up on the fact that Mr. Harper had not been interviewed or given the opportunity to respond to the criticisms in the report. Nor, as far as we are aware, did the newspaper give Mr. Harper any opportunity to state his own perspective. (END)

These findings are a damming indictment of what passes for "Journalism" (Opinion Management) in Jersey and we invite readers to scroll back up and read the Headlines published by The Jersey Evening post remembering paragraph 169 of the Sub Panel's Report.

169. BDO Alto further maintained that Mr. Harper was not the subject of their review and it was not the intention of the report to be directly critical of him or of any other individual. BDO Alto said that they had acknowledged the hard work of Police officers and third party contractors during the course of the Operation Rectangle enquiry and confirmed that ‘The report is not intended to be in any way critical of their individual efforts….’139

State Media and Scrutiny (2)

2011-11-20T19:35:00.002Z

In part two of this in-depth interview with Scrutiny Sub Panel (Parliamentary Select Committee) Chairman, Deputy Trevor Pitman, we remain on the subject of Jersey’s State Media and the Report’s damming findings concerning the latter.

Experience has taught us that Jersey’s State Media will bury this Report because it appears to vindicate Former Senior Investigating Officer and Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper as well as Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. The Sub Panel’s Report turns the spotlight onto the media’s role and how the public appears to have been misled by them (State Media).

The AWARD WINNING Channel Television and Jersey’s only “News”paper, the Jersey Evening Post, probably come out the worst in this Report but the man who took over the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry “Mick Gradwell” comes a close second if he doesn’t beat them.

Mick Gradwell, it is reported, was leaking confidential information during a live Child Abuse investigation, to a “journalist” with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and still none of our State Media have asked “why?”

Below are some of the key findings of the Sub Panel’s Report concerning the media, of which we will be taking an even closer look at in the coming days.

The Scrutiny Sub Panel's Report can, and should be, read in it's entirety HERE.

Selected extracts from the Report.

247. In each of the above cases neither of the media organisations appeared to undertake any critical analysis of their own of the information they had received. This feeds into the perception by a number of observers that the media has allowed itself to focus on alleged failures in police procedures rather than their attempts to investigate instances of child abuse which had been allowed to continue without effective challenge for many years.

248. The Island has been heavily polarised in regard to the conduct of the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry. The majority of the members of the public form their views on the basis of media reporting of these issues and we believe it is of paramount importance that the media strive to deal with issues of this magnitude with the highest standards of objectivity. Broadcast media have a special responsibility to use the few words that they have carefully in order to avoid false impressions being left in the minds of the public.

249. We note that parliamentary scrutiny in the UK is also attempting to grapple with difficult issues regarding media reporting. Here in Jersey there are particular issues with regard to the provision of objective reporting due to the limited number of local media organisations. We believe that it is essential that the Chairmen’s Committee give serious consideration to establishing a Scrutiny Panel which could undertake a review which will look specifically at the kind of issues we have identified in this report.

Key Findings

· The emphasis on alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money in instances of media reporting risks implanting the impression in the public mind that the entire expenditure on Operation Rectangle was badly managed.

· In our hearing with him on 25^th August 2011, the Minister was sympathetic to our concerns about the way negative messages about Mr. Power and Mr Harper had been spun in the media and he offered to make a joint statement to this effect with the Sub-Panel. We believe that this would be a positive step.

Our primary concern about the premature leaking of details of the review of financial management relates to issues of fairness in the way these leaks are reported in the media without an adequate opportunity for an alternative perspective to be considered.
It is essential that a future Scrutiny Panel give serious consideration to undertaking a review which will look specifically at the kind of issues we have identified in this report.

Recommendation

· The Chairman’s Committee should establish broadly-based Scrutiny Panel to undertake a review to examine issues relating to the media coverage which we have raised in our report.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

We will once again leave the final word to the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, who reminds us (unlike the State Media) that this is/should be about Child Abuse and how it was able to continue for decades in Jersey's State run Institutions............ And in all that time (DECADES) not one of the victims, out of sheer desperation, took their plight to ANY of the State Media?

"The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed." Graham Power QPM.

"State Sponsored Paedophilia?"

2011-11-14T12:51:00.001Z

Not for the first time, retired Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, has described the allegations of Child Abuse committed in Jersey's State run institutions as "State Sponsored Paedophilia."

How else can it be described? Children were abused for decades in these institutions and nobody ever reported it?

Following our previous POSTING we have had contact with the former Chief Police Officer and offer this "exclusive" statement on his reaction and thoughts concerning the recent publication of the Report by Jersey's Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel. (Parliamentary Select Committee).

Statement released by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police following the publication of a report by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel entitled “Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operation Rectangle.”

The recently published report by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel into Issues surrounding the review of the financial management of Operation Rectangle (the Jersey Historic Child Abuse Enquiry) is a thorough and well researched piece of work. It should be essential reading for anyone interested in the operation of Jersey’s Government and the wider issues arising from the investigation of allegations concerning the systematic abuse of vulnerable children who were in the care of States of Jersey Establishments in recent decades. While the report should be read in its entirety there are some findings which, from my perspective, are particularly noteworthy. The first is that the Scrutiny Panel have rightly pointed out that the original review of the financial management of the abuse investigation was commissioned, given terms of reference, funded, overseen and heavily influenced by people who had a clear personal interest in the outcome. This now appears to be beyond dispute. In my view the same could be said of other allegedly “independent” reports relating to the abuse enquiry which have been commissioned and publicised by Jersey’s Home Affairs Department over recent years.

Secondly, the Panel rightly raises the issue of how it came to be that a legitimate and proper public debate about the sexual and physical abuse of small children was diverted into an argument about the cost of meals in a London restaurant, and why so many Jersey establishment figures appeared to support this change of agenda. It is not without irony that this diversionary tactic appeared to be enthusiastically driven by a Home Affairs Department who had themselves authorised expenditure of over £38,000 on “meals and entertainment” (1) by Wiltshire officers engaged in the subsequently abandoned disciplinary enquiry into the management of the abuse investigation. We should not hold our breath while awaiting an “independent” enquiry into that particular use of public funds.

Finally, the Scrutiny Panel are to be commended for using their powers to take the timely action of obtaining a full copy of my 62,000 word statement to the Wiltshire Investigation. The statement is a detailed and unrestrained account of the early part of the abuse enquiry from the perspective of the Chief Officer of the Force. If nothing else, it is a piece of the Island’s history and its continued suppression by the Jersey Government, in spite of repeated promises that it would be released, is one of many examples of the biased and selective use of information which have characterised Ministers conduct in this matter.

The allegations handled by the Force under my command during 2007 and 2008 involved what was effectively State Sponsored Paedophilia and its concealment over decades by individuals in positions of authority. Not all of the allegations were supported by the evidence, but many plainly were, and the accounts of the victims remain as a harrowing record of what can occur when those in public office fail to seek out and to confront the truth. If I have not said it enough then I say it again, the most important people in this whole story are the victims of abuse. It is their plight and their memories which need to be the subject of candid and public debate at the highest level. The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

Graham Power

Retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

13^th November 2011.

(1) Details of the costs of the Wiltshire Investigation up to May 2010 were given in a written answer in the States on 22^nd June 2010. Ref 1240/5(5459).

If it's about money then let's look at how the Wiltshire Constabulary were paid so much for a bungled investigation. But as Mr Power quite rightly points out this should never have turned into how much a meal cost in a London restaurant, it's about decades of Child Abuse that seemingly flourished in Jersey "care" homes. How was it able to be kept so quiet for so long? Just what is the extent of it? Has the surface only just been scratched? Why was the Child Abuse Enquiry shut down by DAVID WARCUP? With all these questions un-answered how is anybody supposed to trust the Jersey authorities?

It's about (or should be) the victims and survivors of Child Abuse. Who's going to speak up and represent them? "The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed."

UnHappy Anniversary (3)

2011-11-12T15:22:00.000Z

Today November the 12th 2011 marks the third Anniversary of the very "dubious" suspension of Jersey's Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Regular readers/viewers will be aware that we have, and continue, to expose some of the facts and evidence surrounding this injustice that the State Media rather you didn't know.

Graham Power QPM was the head of the Jersey Police Force when his second in command Former DCO Lenny Harper and a team of dedicated professional Police Officers started to investigate, what has been described as "State Sponsored Paedophilia." Decades of Child Abuse, and possible murder, in Jersey institutions such as the Sea Cadets, and Children's "care" homes." The rest, as they say is History.

To mark this Anniversary we thought we would share with our readers/viewers a few of the postings/interviews we have published since Mr. Power's "first Anniversary."

Unhappy Anniversary ONE

Unhappy Anniversary TWO

In-depth Q&A with MR. POWER

Video Interview with Mr. Power PART ONE

Video Interview with Mr. Power PART TWO

Video Interview with Mr. Power PART THREE

For the more serious reader these links, although there are many more, will give an insight as to what Jersey's State Media haven't been reporting and how things are done in Jersey.

State Media and Scrutiny.

2011-11-10T20:32:00.001Z

Today saw the publication of the long awaited Report from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's Investigation into Issues surrounding the Review of Financial Management of Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry).

Firstly this Sub Panel's Investigation came about because of questions asked by Bloggers. Well one question and that was "how can a Report be conducted into the expenditure of the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry (HCAE) without the Senior Investigating Officer of that Enquiry being interviewed?" The Senior Investigating Officer being Lenny Harper, we've all seen and heard the Headlines "The Lavish Lifestyle of Lenny Harper", "Meals at top class London Restaurants paid for by the tax payer" "First class trips to Australia" etc, etc. Yet not one of Jersey's "Journalists" thought to ask, "what does Lenny Harper have to say about this?"

These headlines, and many others similar, came on the back of a Report commissioned to examine the expenditure of the HCAE. This Report has been totally misrepresented by Jersey's State Media and used as a stick to beat Lenny Harper and Former Jersey Chief of Police Graham Power with, two cops, with their team, who were investigating Child Abuse that carried on for decades in Jersey State run Institutions.

The Scrutiny Sub Panel chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman with members Deputies Daniel Wimberley and Roy Le Herissier has opened up a huge can of worms that should become one of the most important documents for anybody researching this dark period in Jersey's History.

The Report made a number of recommendations and findings and can be viewed on Rico Sorda's Blog HERE

One of the key issues highlighted in the Sub Panel's Report is the role of Jersey's State Media, the mis-reporting, the non-reporting and creating a completely false impression to its audience.

Deputy Pitman, along with Senator Ian Le Marquand, were guests on BBC Radio Jersey this morning (recorded by TJW and we'll put a link to it when published later tonight) where they explained how they are in agreement when it comes to the poor media reporting. Once more yours truly phoned in to the show and was prevented from going on air but as regular readers will be aware that's nothing new.

Below is part 1 of a two part in-depth interview with Deputy Trevor Pitman, edited in order that we can focus predominantly on the subject of Jersey's State Media. We also discuss the man who took over the HCAE upon Mr. Harper's retirement and that's Mick Gradwell. He has been accused by at least one witness under oath at the Scrutiny Panel, including the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand telling States Members that after an internal enquiry all avenues of a leak to the National Media led to the door of Mr. Gradwell.......And Jersey's State Media didn't think it newsworthy?

This is just one of the cans of worms opened by this Sub Panel's enquiry which will surely now demand that the HCAE under the leadership of Mr. Gradwell is revisited and his motives questioned? Gradwell trashed the Child Abuse Enquiry under the command of Lenny Harper and at the same time allegedly leaking confidential information (during a live Child Abuse Investigation) to a journalist with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles?

The same Mick Gradwell that the Home Affairs Minister, reluctantly conceded, had he (Gradwell) not been seconded and was a States Of Jersey Police Officer would likely be facing disciplinary charges. The same Mick Gradwell that said he would take part in any enquiry set up to look at the HCAE didn't give evidence to this enquiry.

Finally This Scrutiny Review, along with the "Lime Grove" Review is what Scrutiny should be about, tackling "real" issues that seriously challenge our government and credit must go to Deputies Pitman, Wimberley and Le Herissier, now all we need is a media that will do the same (challenge our government) so us members of the public don't have to live in this culture of fear by highlighting the stuff they should be.

Independent Police Force (Terrifying)

2011-11-03T11:00:00.000Z

Former Senator and Health Minister Stuart Syvret was jailed yesterday (2nd November 2011) apparently for not complying with his Community Service order. This of course is the line taken by Jersey's State Media. However, as is so often the case, the State Media are being a little economical with the full facts.

From the very start Mr. Syvret claimed that the prosecution against him was "a criminal enterprise." After being sentenced to the 80 hours Community Service he claimed to have received evidence, in the form of Former Jersey Police Chief Graham Power's, submission to the Wiltshire Constabulary's DISCREDITED REPORT. Mr. Syvret also claimed that a witness, known to the prosecution, was kept from him which he claims hampered his case.

We are led to believe Mr. Syvret applied for a court hearing to submit all this new evidence but this was denied him by Mr. William Bailhache (Deputy Bailiff) who's brother Philip Bailhache (Former Bailiff) was running against him in the Jersey elections.

Mr. Syvret claims since he was refused this court hearing then he was forced not to comply with his Community Service Order so as he would get brought back to court where he could then submit this new evidence that he claimed to prove the prosecution against him was indeed criminal. However, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate's Court refused to hear any of this new evidence and jailed him for eight weeks.

But there does appear to be a common thread running through all of this and that is "Child Abuse." Mr. Syvret was the first politician to speak out against Jersey's Child Protection Failures back in 2007 and as a result of this there is strong evidence to suggest that his removal from office (Health Minister) was engineered by, among others, the very Civil Servants, who he claimed were responsible for these failures.

At the same time as the Former Health Minster was publicly condemning Jersey's Child Protection Apparatus, unknown to him, there was a covert police investigation into Institutional Child Abuse ("Operation Rectangle") in progress headed up by the then Deputy Police Chief Officer Lenny Harper. This was possibly the biggest investigation ever undertaken by a Jersey Police Force where a number of the suspects were people, known as "The Establishment" people who wielded a lot of power and influence in Jersey.............That were never charged.

The rest is well recorded (by Bloggers) History, out of the 151 suspects only a mere 8 of them were ever charged, by what is strongly believed to be a politicised Judicial system where the public were only given a couple of SHOW TRIALS.

The then Chief of Police Graham Power QPM was, "Dubiously" suspended from duty, Lenny Harper retired, and the State Media went about trashing their names and reputations. All the focus seemed to shift from the Child Abuse that was able to flourish for decades in Jersey's "care" homes onto how much Lenny Harper spent on a Prawn Cocktail in a Bombay Brasserie. The State Media have never set about asking how paedophiles could ply their trade in Jersey's State Run institutions for so long without detection. Indeed the State Media haven't set about asking many questions at all they just repeat, broadcast, publish or print the Press Releases they are given by the State regardless of how preposterous they are.

Below we have part two of Mr. Syvret's evidence given to the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel (parliamentary Select Committee) who are investigating issues surrounding the Review of financial management of "Operation Rectangle."

We must remember the "State Line" is that Lenny Harper and Graham Power became, overnight, terrible cops who must have completely forgotten all their police training as soon as they started to investigate Child Abuse in Jersey. Or is it, as Mr. Syvret claims in his evidence to Scrutiny, that Mr. Harper and Mr. Power were two straight cops who were going to investigate without fear or favour? Is the truth of all this that these two cops were truly independent and this "terrified" the Jersey Establishment? Is Stuart Syvret spending 8 weeks in prison because he blew the lid off of the Child Abuse atrocities in Jersey? Have the reputations of Lenny Harper and Graham Power QPM been trashed by the Jersey Establishment (and their media) because they blew the lid off of Jersey's "Dirty Secrets?" Has the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, fulfilled his wish and brought the police back under Political Control? Does anybody remember that amongst all this are people who suffered at the hands of paedophiles in State Run "Care" Homes FOR DECADES?

The views expressed by the witness are his own and not necessarily shared by VFC.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

State Media, Awards and Blogs.

2011-10-29T10:00:00.000+01:00

Yesterday (Friday 28th October 2011) saw the final Hearing of the Eduction and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel investigating issues surrounding the Review of financial management of "operation Rectangle." (Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation).

The final witness giving evidence was Former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret who brought up, what has become, a recurring theme during this Review and that is The (State) Media.

Just how is that a Senior Investigating Police Officer (Mick Gradwell) can be accused by the Home Affairs Minister, and witness(es) to the Scrutiny Review of leaking confidential police information, during a LIVE Child Abuse investigation, to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles and NONE of Jersey's State Media think this is newsworthy or in the public interest? It's just not conceivable.

How can CTV win AN AWARD for little more than a cut and paste job of somebody else's work and without interviewing Lenny Harper? We must also remember that the Chief Executive Officer for Home Affairs has described how he felt "sick to the pit of his stomach" after watching a CTV Report on this Scrutiny Review and further described the Report as "Gibberish."

As a result of the evidence given to this Scrutiny Review by a number of witnesses Jersey's State Media MUST come under the spotlight and be scrutinised for their role in the Reporting (or not) of Jersey's Child Abuse atrocities. The role of the State Media MUST also be included in the forming of the Terms Of Reference for the up-coming Committee of Enquiry.

The opinions shared in this interview are those of the witness and not necessarily shared by VFC.

State Media, Democracy and Sir Phillip

2011-10-16T18:37:00.000+01:00

The interview below with Dr. Mark Forskitt, a Candidate in Jersey's current Senatorial Election, is pretty much self explanatory.

All Candidates agreed before the Hustings began that All media were permitted to film them (the Hustings). After a Greek television station put in a request to film this Monday's St Helier Hustings, Sir Philip Bailhache, Former Bailiff and current Candidate in the election OBJECTED and the TV Company "Mega TV" were informed of this objection and thus a one man veto appears to have been carried.

Here we ask Dr. Forskitt how this can happen, how will it look to the outside world if "accredited" media are prevented from filming a supposed open and Democratic Election Hustings, what is Sir Philip so worried about? And more.

We have e-mailed Sir Phillip asking, in the interest of fairness and balance, for an interview, or a statement regarding his objection to the TV Company filming the Hustings and we have not had a reply.

Stuart Syvret, BBC and Community Service

2011-10-12T18:45:00.000+01:00

Today saw Senatorial Candidate, Former Senator Stuart Syvret, back in court for allegedly

failing to comply with his Community Service Order imposed on him by the Royal Court of

Jersey for contempt of court.

For those who only get their “news” from Jersey’s State Media it wouldn’t be un-reasonable

to believe that Mr. Syvret is being Non Compliant, however Mr. Syvret, in this exclusive

interview, claims that this is not the case.

Discussed in this interview is why, he believes, he had to take the drastic measure of not

Attending the Community Service. Also discussed is the fact that BBC Jersey have been in

Possession of what Mr. Syvret claims to be “damming evidence” against Jersey’s public

Administration, and the original court case against him which would/could prove Mr.

Syvret’s defence. Furthermore BBC Jersey has had this “evidence" FOR WEEKS.

They’ve not reported a single word of it. Neither have they, to the best of our knowledge

Reported a single word of Mr. Syvret’s 7 page Press Release. (We hope to publish it soon)

We must stress that we have not approached any of those accused by Mr. Syvret in this

Interview and have no doubt they will strongly contest what he has to say. That said we

would be more than happy to interview them should they wish.

In stark contrast to Jersey’s State Media we “Citizens Media” bring you that little more

than a sound bite and strive to have our readers/viewers informed of ALL the facts as we get

them.

Lenny Harper Guest Posting(Uncovering the truth/lies)

2011-10-05T17:11:00.000+01:00

Below is a "guest Posting" from Former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry Mr. Lenny Harper.

What you are (hopefully) about to read is nothing short of "staggering" and gives an insightful look into, not only the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire Report, but how the Freedom Of Information Law is not worth the paper it is written on, well when it comes to the Wiltshire Constabulary anyway.

All this new "evidence" has come to light as a result of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Review chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman. The very same Review that has seen witnesses being "economical" with the truth (under oath). The very same review that Mick Gradwell has refused to give evidence to. The very same review that has been told of leaks to the media during an ongoing Child Abuse Enquiry by said Mick Gradwell (under oath). Leaks to the media by politicians and others during the "live" Child Abuse Enquiry (under oath) and guess what? Graham Power nor Lenny Harper nor any "Anti Establishment" Politician have been accused of leaking anything.

Is it any wonder that the Establishment will do anything they can to discredit this Review?

Over To Mr. Harper.

Voice For Children has asked me to compile a guest posting in order to draw together all that has happened in the four or five months in respect of BDO/Alto and the Wiltshire Police. I am very happy to do so.

I first became aware of BDO around the beginning of May this year (2011). I did an interview with VFC about various aspects of the criticism of myself and I mentioned that I had never at any stage been questioned about my expenses. Over the next few days both VFC and Rico Sorda expressed incredulity that I had never been asked by anyone about my expenses. One of them asked me if BDO/Alto had not raised the issue. “Who are BDO?” I asked.

Within a day or two I had read the BDO report. Enough has been said about the contents and I have provided evidence to contradict the findings at length in a document on one of the blogs. Suffice to say as I read the factual inaccuracies and untruths in the report I became angrier by the minute. I was also astonished to read quotes in the report from the confidential witness statement that I had made to Wiltshire Police who interviewed me as part of their now discredited disciplinary investigation into Graham Power. I was particularly surprised at this, as when I asked if I would be given a copy of my statement Wiltshire told me in no uncertain terms that I would not be. They told me the statement was confidential, that no one would get a copy, and that it would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I then agreed to make the statement only on the basis that it would be given to no one and that it be used for no other purpose than the discipline investigation for which I gave it. I am also aware that at least one of the New Scotland Yard staff who gave a witness statement to Wiltshire (and who was asked questions about my expenses but gave evidence contradicting what BDO/Alto said, but whose statement is not mentioned) also made his statement under the same conditions.

To emphasise the confidentiality of the statements and the other documents in the investigation, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire made the following comment;

1. 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

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 to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

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

In the light of this I felt that it would not have been Wiltshire Police that released my statement but more likely the Jersey Home Affairs Minister. Three days earlier I had e-mailed Mr Le Marquand and asked him to release my Wiltshire Statement. He had refused. I have now e-mailed him several times asking who had told BDO not to interview me and also if he knew who had handed my witness statement to them. After first denying that he knew anything about the BDO Terms of Reference he changed his mind and admitted that he would have known. He denied knowledge of the leaking of my statement. He undertook to get back to me with a satisfactory explanation of events. I am still waiting.

At the same time I sent several e-mails to Mr Corbin of BDO asking for an explanation as to why they had not bothered to contact me, the person who had made most of the decisions they examined and whom they had been critical of. He refused to engage with me in any way.

On 18^th May, I contacted Wiltshire Police and outlined my concerns to them. Below is the transcript of what I sent them.

“I was recently interviewed by your staff and made a statement in relation to a Disciplinary investigation carried out by your force under your personal supervision, into Mr Graham Power QPM, the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Your officers refused me a copy of my statement at the time and told me that it was being made for one purpose and one purpose only, it would be used for nothing else, and that no one else would be given a copy. I have recently learned that a copy of my statement was given to a company called BDO, a jersey firm of accountants, who were compiling a report separate from your own enquiry. My belief is that they were given this statement by someone in the Jersey government. However, this has been denied by the Home Affairs Minister there who states that it must have been yourselves who handed the statement over. I have a long experience of untruths told by the Jersey government but of course have to seek clarification from you. I would be grateful if you would tell me if indeed you, or a member of your force, handed my statement to this company in direct contravention of the assurances I was given. Furthermore, I would be grateful if you would now supply me with a copy of the statement which I made to your officers. Thank You.
Expected outcome: As in body of e mail.
Identity of Officer / member of staff: Chief Constable Brian Moore”

Wiltshire told me they would investigate and get back to me.

On 22^nd June 2011 I received a letter from an Andrew Knight, the solicitor acting for Wiltshire Police. He said the following;

“I have had the opportunity of speaking with the investigating officers. To the best of their knowledge and belief they have not passed a copy of your statement to BDO Alto Limited. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm whether BDO are in possession of your statement to which they refer within their May 2010 report or an explanation as to how they came by possession. I assume that such knowledge will be in their own possession and may I suggest that you direct your enquiries to them. I appreciate that you have attempted to elicit a response from them beforehand”

No uncertainty there then. It seemed that the matter would rest there. Then Mr Kellet and BDO gave evidence to the Scrutiny Panel and told the panel under oath that Wiltshire had indeed handed them my statement. They had been allowed to read it, take notes, but not to take it away. Many people might think that this contradicted Wiltshire’s assertion that they had not “passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO.” Many people, but it seems not Wiltshire nor their solicitor. After hearing the Kellet/BDO evidence I e-mailed the solicitor for Wiltshire again. Here is what I said.

“From: Lenny Harper
To: "aknight*****" ; NesbittCarly
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011, 9:44
Subject: BDO Alto

Good morning Mr Knight and Inspector Nesbitt;

I am not sure which of you I should send this to first, so I have forwarded it on to both. Perhaps the correct recipient will let me know.

On 22 June 2011, Mr Knight sent me a letter and an e mail informing me that after an investigation, Wiltshire police had concluded they "had not passed a copy of (my) statement to BDO."

On 15 July 2011 Mr M. Kellett, a consultant who was employed by BDO Alto, gave evidence to the Jersey Parliamentary Scrutiny Panel, together with Mr M Corbin, of BDO Alto, that he had met with officers of Wiltshire Police and that they had indeed passed him a draft copy of my statement. According to Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin they were 'passed' the statement to read through and take notes from, but were told they could not take the statement away. They did make notes and sections of it were used in the report which was leaked to a journalist supporter of convicted paedophiles almost immediately, and then used to attack me in the media.

I accepted Mr Knight's reassurances without question. However, the evidence of Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin does need to be addressed. As I see it there are now three scenarios arising;

Firstly, Mr Kellett and Mr Corbin are lying.

Secondly, someone at Wiltshire Police is lying.

Thirdly, someone at Wiltshire Police has deliberately been pedantic in the choice of the word "passed" when stating that they had not "to the best of their belief and knowledge passed (my) statement to BDO." Of course, if one wanted to be equally pedantic it could be said this was untrue as they had "passed" it to be read and for notes to be taken even if it was taken back.

If this third option was the case I would see this as a serious breach of my privacy and of the conditions under which I made this witness statement - particularly in the light of the statement by Mr Moore in which he himself stated that the Wiltshire report, of which my statement was part, was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I was told in no uncertain terms that this statement would be given to no one, least of all not even to me. BDO Alto was a firm of accountants and Mr Kellett was working with them. They should not have been allowed near my statement. It has been accepted by Mr Corbin and Mr Kellet that the media used the statement to mount a false public attack on me by misuse of the information. Being accused of wrongdoing in such a fashion caused me serious embarrassment.

In the circumstances I would appreciate clarification as to whether Mr Kellet and Mr Corbin are actually telling the truth and a re-affirmation of the circumstances surrounding this whole affair.

Leonard Harper”

On the 29^th September, Mr Knight replied to the above. In his letter he now admits that Wiltshire did pass a copy of my statement to Mr Kellett and BDO but denies that his first letter was misleading. I presume this is because they were not allowed to take the statement away, just the notes they had made of its contents. This rather stretches the imagination somewhat. More than that, it is laughable. He then goes on to claim a ‘Public Interest’ reason for passing over the statement (but not allowing it to be taken away). As Wiltshire asked me not one question about my expenses, and BDO spent a lot of their report criticising me for this, it is difficult to see what the public interest was. Read for yourself and judge;

“From: Mr Andrew Knight

Veale Wasbrough Vizards Solicitors 29 September 2011

Dear Mr Harper,

BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

I apologise for the delay in providing you with a substantive response to your email dated 22 July 2011. As you are aware, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel of the States of Jersey are conducting a review into the financial probity of the Haute de la Garenne police investigation and will be delivering their findings at the end of this month.

One of the Terms of reference for the Scrutiny Panel was to review the liaison between BDO Alto Limited and Wiltshire Police. It followed disclosure of references within the BDO report to extracts from the statement you provided to Wiltshire Police. I am aware that, as part of their investigation the Scrutiny Panel heard oral evidence and received written representations from a number of individuals including yourself, Mr Kellet, and a representative from BDO.

Until the Scrutiny Panel completed the hearing of evidence, it has not been possible for me to identify how BDO may have come into possession of your statement. Whilst it is not my intention to predict the outcome of the review, it is evident that Wiltshire Police did not supply a copy of your statement to BDO as previously confirmed within my letter to you dated 22 June 2011.

I do not believe my letter of 22 June was misleading in its facts. Evidence submitted by Mr Kellet and BDO to the Scrutiny Panel affirm that Wiltshire Police did not disclose a copy of your statement to BDO.

You will be aware of the content of Mr Kellet’s written submission to the Scrutiny Panel. Having spoken with officers from the Operation Haven investigation team I understand that Mr Kellet was shown a copy of your statement but not given a copy of it.

Following the decision by States of Jersey Police that it would conduct its own internal review of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation, it became apparent that there was the potential for overlap between their investigation and that being conducted by Mr Moore on behalf of the States of Jersey. Both investigations were seeking to review the financial probity of certain aspects of the Operation Rectangle investigation which involved examination of the same documentation and interviewing of particular witnesses.

In conjunction with the States of Jersey Police, the decision was taken that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations if the Operation Haven investigation team worked with Mr Kellet. It enabled them to access documents that were potentially relevant, probative and of value to their investigation.

The sharing of information with Mr Kellet assisted Mr Moore in conducting an investigation that was thorough and proper in its examination of the evidence and enabled Mr Moore to deliver a report that was fair to Mr Power when considering any failures in his supervisory responsibilities of Operation Rectangle. An additional benefit of this decision was the saving of cost and time by not duplicating effort between the investigations.

It is evident from Mr Kellet’s evidence that Wiltshire Police were not privy to the decision to include references from your statement within the BDO report.

In summary, a lawful purpose existed for the sharing of the data contained within your statement with Mr Kellet and it was fair to do so. I do not believe there has been a breach of your privacy. Reference to the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act within Mr Moore’s report was to prevent access to personal data by third parties after delivery of it to States of Jersey. The context in which your data was shared with Mr Kellet was that it occurred during the evidential gathering state and in the belief that it would be of mutual benefit to both investigations. It did not contravene the assurances give to you and there has not been a breach of legislation.

I hope the above is of assistance and that I may close my file.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Knight.”

I sent the following reply.

“Dear Mr Knight;

Thank you for your letter and for your assistance in this matter. I do not believe that your original letter was misleading as far as you are concerned. I believe the information you were given was misleading. I do not see the difference between handing a copy of a statement over to keep and handing a copy over to take notes from and to then hand back. I see this as a breach of my privacy given the conditions under which I made the statement and supplied the information, particularly when I was refused a copy of my statement. I should also point out that the BDO/Kellet Review was a review of the Financial spending. At no time did Wiltshire officers ask me about my spending. I see no reason then why they should have handed over a copy of my statement either temporarily or permanently.

Also, I think you have the wrong impression of the Scrutiny Panel. It is not a review of the probity of the spending on the investigation. It is a review into the probity of the BDO Alto review itself.

In the light of this I shall now make a formal complaint to the IPCC against Mr Moore and the officer(s) who handed over my statement for confidential and conditionally provided information to be leaked.

Once again, thank you for your assistance.

Lenny Harper”

To claim that it is not misleading to state that the statement was not passed over, and then when that lie is nailed under oath by the very persons who received that statement, to admit that it was, shows a bare faced effrontery which is almost stunning. Except of course, that this is the Jersey government and its cohorts and we have been here so many times before.

Other aspects of Mr Knights letter are almost as bizarre as him admitting that Wiltshire did pass over my statement and then in another paragraph, denying that they did. He has of course got the reason for the Scrutiny Panel very wrong. How many times have the Panel emphasised that their job was NOT to re-examine the spending on the investigation? Furthermore, as this excerpt from Mr Warcup’s evidence to the Scrutiny Panel shows, he did NOT, as Mr Knight claims, agree to the sharing of information between Kellet/BDO and Wiltshire.

“My understanding was that the States of Jersey Police and those working for the States of Jersey Police would not see any of the evidence in relation to the Wiltshire inquiry…..It would raise an issue should there any misconduct procedure I would have thought it would have been a matter which would be subject to challenge within the misconduct process to say why did that happen and was it appropriate and what was the purpose”

Where Mr Knight gets this idea from, one can only speculate. It is certainly par for the course in respect of the professionalism shown by Wiltshire throughout this whole affair.

I have now lodged a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of Wiltshire and the other officers concerned with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The result remains to be seen.

Lenny Harper (END)

As Mr. Harper has said " The result remains to be seen." Well not only the results of his complaint to the IPCC against Wiltshire but it remains to be seen if Channel Television, The Jersey Evening Post or BBC Jersey report any of this turn of events now that they are in the public domain............