Stalemate.

Below is a letter to the JEP from Deputy Bob Hill which was published (so I’m told) in their hard-copy but not online. As there are a growing number of people who are getting their “news” from online “un accredited” media and no longer buy a copy of the JEP, I thought I would re-produce the letter here.

What Deputy Hill’s letter appears to spell out is that vast amounts of money have been spent by our Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, on reports (Wiltshire) that were only ever going to come to a stalemate. Who on earth authorised this money to be spent on a complete non entity? Why have the “accredited” media not bothered reporting on, or “researching” yes that is “researching” (some of our accredited media will have to look the word up) how and where this money was spent? How much more money has been spent that we haven't been told about?

When your child is deprived of a glass of milk at school because of the “economic climate” you might want to ask how Ian Le Marquand is allowed to spend in excess of ONE MILLION POUNDS (probably closer to two) on something that was only ever going to turn out as a stalemate. Even if Chief Police Officer Graham Power wasn’t retiring until July 2011 there is little or no chance of any disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Officer ever being completed.

Something tells me that Senator Ben Shenton and his Public Accounts Committee won’t be probing the Home Affairs Minister either.

Dear Sir,
"In the current debate about States budgets, Ministers have stated their determination to save public money and avoid waste. However, if recent figures released by the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the suspension of the Chief officer of Police are anything to go by they still have a lot to learn when it comes to personnel issues.

In a reply to a written question the Minister for Home Affairs has revealed that the costs of this suspension and disciplinary enquiry, which started back in 2008, have now exceeded the one million pounds mark. Figures released in response to my question give the total costs of the disciplinary investigations being conducted by Wiltshire Police on the Ministers behalf as totalling £834,922 up to the end of May, and the cost of cover for the absence of the Chief Officer as £234,854, making a total of £1,069,776. However, that is not the end of the matter. Costs of the Civil Servants and Law Officers who have been advising the Minister are not included, and as the Chief Officer does not officially retire until 20th July 2010 there will be further costs associated with his absence up to that date. Additionally, the figures given do not include the cost of the independent enquiry into the suspension currently being conducted by Brian Napier QC which is expected to report towards the end of July. It looks like a safe bet that the final figure will be significantly greater. It might be useful therefore to contemplate what Ministers hope to achieve in exchange for this substantial sum.

In responding to Oral questions in the States the Minister for Home Affairs admitted that the matter was now approaching the "end game" and that there was not enough time remaining for any disciplinary proceedings to take place. He agreed that the whole issue is now likely to result in "stalemate." I take it that by “stalemate” the Minister acknowledges that once the Chief Officer retires he will no longer be subject to the Disciplinary Code and all disciplinary proceedings will have to be abandoned. I understand that the Chief Officer has already been told to “take outstanding leave” before he retires so it looks as if the “stalemate” has already arrived.

It would be hard to imagine any private sector organisation, or for that matter any competent government, spending this sum of money on a disciplinary investigation into someone who had already passed his retirement date when the investigation started, and who had to retire in 2010 come what may. Against this background we are all entitled to speculate about the motives of those involved. Could it be that protecting the reputation of the former politicians who ordered the suspension is regarded as more important than the prudent use of public funds? Whatever lies behind this costly and now pointless action, it does little to the credibility of the Council of Ministers repeated calls for savings. It appears to be yet another case of “do as I say and not as I do” which does little to enhance the reputation of our islands politics.

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM,

Submitted by VFC.

Ground - Hog Blog.

Last Tuesday 22nd of June 2010 Home Affairs Minster Senator Ian Le Marquand said it was like Ground- Hog day because he was facing more questions surrounding the (illegal?) suspension of our most Senior Police Officer.

This is yet another “unfortunate” action by our Home Affairs Minister. The reason he keeps getting asked questions is because people are looking for the truth and he just won’t give it to them. Not least Graham Power himself, as well as his family deserve some kind of closure after his reputation and career has been wrecked by the likes of Ian Le Marquand and his ilk. To be-grudge answering a few questions once a fortnight after what has been done to Graham Power, and the whole Historic Abuse team prior to the Warcup Era is nothing short of arrogance and total dis-regard for the harm caused to those by this government, including the Abuse Survivors, or that should be ESPECIALLY the Abuse Survivors.

Ian Le Marquand appears to have adopted the name “The Bungling Minister” perhaps because of his regular gaffs. Such as “Ground-Hog Day” as well as putting a photo on all States Members seats of a Coconut lampshade as though it was some kind of scientific evidence! Not to mention the S(c)andal Sketch, and being ripped apart, in my opinion by Dr Timothy Brain during the Suspension Review Hearings I could go on.

One can’t help thinking that he really isn’t that incompetent and that much of a liability to the Powers that be and that maybe he is having flashbacks from the sixties when his glass of milk was spiked with a magic mushroom. Hopefully that is the case and he will soon return to his senses, because this flashback has been going on for quite some time and is costing very highly respected and dedicated professional Policemen nothing but hardship. Not only that - it is costing the tax payer millions on reports that should never have been commissioned in the first place.

Which brings me nicely onto the real subject of this Blog. And whilst I’m at it would like to inform Senator Le Marquand, if he reads this Blog, that there are plenty more “Ground- Hog Blogs” to come and the truth will out!

Operation Haven.

Operation Haven is the code name for the Wiltshire Investigation into the Historic Child Abuse enquiry under the watch of CPO Graham Power QPM. Haven commenced on Monday 1st December 2008.The terms of reference, we are led to believe, and stand to be corrected, were to compare Chief Officer Graham Power’s performance with ACPO/NPIA guidelines.(Association of Chief Police officers and the National Police Improvement Agency).We are told that Graham Power immediately identified a problem with these terms of reference in that none of the guidelines referred to had ever been adopted by Jersey, and indeed, the local political culture was opposed to the adoption of UK policing guidelines wherever possible. The above guidelines are often referred to as "UK" guidelines, when in fact they are more accurately "English and Welsh" guidelines with some variations in Northern Ireland and no direct application at all in Scotland. Nevertheless the decision was taken by the Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and Wiltshire to carry on regardless!

The hard information we have in relation to the costs of Operation Rectangle (HDLG Investigation) was given in a written answer to Deputy Bob “The Guvn’r” Hill this week. The total cost of the wilts investigation and the suspension was given as £1,069,776 up to the end of May. There will of course be even more costs since that date and the cost of the investigation of the suspension by Brian Napier QC is not included in that. Curiously the Home Affairs minister declined to give the costs of legal advice and representation by the Law Officers. He said that the law Officers did not bill departments for their work. This is true but he is nevertheless dodging that cost which is likely to be substantial!

Those of us who have read the judicial review hearings will know that ILM applied to the Court for Graham Power to pay the bl--dy Minister’s costs!! The court refused, not on the basis that there were no cost, everyone agreed that there were, but on the basis that the case had resolved issues which were in the public interest (best see the judgement in full for this but it was about the application of human rights law in such cases and the strong comments of the court regarding the conduct of the original suspension invoked by former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. One might read this between the lines as the court saying that ministers had brought this upon themselves and should therefore pay their own bl--dy bills.)

In early 2009 ILM made a number of statements to the effect that he expected to have the Wilts report around March (March 2009 that is) and was able to narrowly defeat a proposition by Constable Simon Crowcroft to have a quick review before any more money was spent. In March 2009 the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, wrote to the relevant parties with a revised timetable. He said that the evidence gathering phase should be completed by 31st March 2009 and that the report writing phase would be completed in June 2009. None of these deadlines were met and in subsequent correspondence Mr Moore shifts the deadlines further towards the end of 2009.

At the end of October 2009 Wilts deliver an incomplete draft report. In February 2010 Wilts deliver a supplement to their draft report and state that the report is now complete. By this time the Chief officer has already told the Minister that he is willing to postpone his retirement no longer and come what may will retire in July 2010 when he will be over three years past his official retirement date.

Accounts of the size of the Wilts report vary. It has been said to be over 2 dozen large lever files or alternatively, large enough to fill two filing cabinets. From what we have been told nobody argues that it is a substantial document. And is only the beginning of the disciplinary process.!!! Under the Chief Officers Disciplinary code the wilts report is a "preliminary report." It then has to be read (several weeks work would be needed to do this properly) and legal advice taken. The Deputy Chief Executive to the States (John Richardson) then needs to report to ILM advising him what he should do about it! Unless he wishes to abandon the matter at that stage - then the next step is to call a meeting under the code and discuss whether a disciplinary hearing is needed. If it is - then a hearing has to be arranged with full disclosure of evidence, witnesses, and cross-examination. If the Chief Officer (Graham Power) is not content with the outcome then he can appeal to an independent tribunal chaired by ACAS where the process is repeated. If it is still proposed that he be dismissed then the matter must go for full debate before the States. So far, to the best of our knowledge, no meeting has occurred in relation to the Haven (HDLG) Wiltshire Investigation. It follows therefore that after over one and a half years the disciplinary process, started in November 2008, has barely started let alone finished!!! As the Chief Officer will no longer be subject to the Code when he retires it now looks as if the whole process is about to be abandoned, well there’s a surprise (dismissal be stealth).

However, running alongside all of this is "Haven 2" which relates to the matter which ILM has called "Operation Blast." ILM announced this investigation in the States on 16th June 2009 and said that he would ask Wiltshire Police to conduct enquiries on his behalf. However, for some reason he was slow to act on this commitment, (not trying to drag it out is he?) and the Wiltshire enquiry didn’t even get started until 1st September 2009!! The Chief Constable of Wiltshire said that he would complete the enquiry in "three to four months." In fact his report was delivered to the Minister in May 2010 That is EIGHT MONTHS or twice as long. It is understood that the report has been studied and that the Deputy Chief Executive has prepared a summary but that no further action has been taken under the code, nor is any likely to be given the imminent retirement of Graham Power.

So the way it looks is Graham Power never was going to face any disciplinary action, Wiltshire’s Investigation into the Investigation has taken longer and will be more expensive than the original investigation. Millions of pounds spent, needlessly on Wiltshire, and all for nothing. Well that is, there never was going to be any disciplinary charges brought against Graham Power, but the Wiltshire Investigation enabled the process to be dragged out long enough for Graham Power to retire, so it did serve its purpose!

One may ask why was it necessary to suspend Graham Power a second time over Operation Blast? One may also ask what risk assessment was carried out before asking Wilts Police to conduct another review when it had been so tardy with its first investigation? One may ask what independent advice did ILM take before entering into another costly suspension and investigation based on yet another report from Acting Chief Officer Warcup. Who it can hardly be said is not heavily conflicted. This decision has cost the tax payer over £262,000. Whilst talking about money one should recall that the Acting Chief Officer’s lack of judgement incurred over £200,000 cost in pursuing a pointless internal discipline case after being advised by the Attorney General that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal trial.

Furthermore, one has to ask - Who the bl--dy hell are Wiltshire to sit in judgement of anybody else’s investigation when they themselves have missed so many deadlines, have cost the Jersey tax payer over a million quid just for there to be no disciplinary action brought?

Submitted by VFC.

A by-election Winner.

After a very disappointing by-election, for many reasons, not least having to watch the progressives destroy themselves thus hitting home the enormity of the task for achieving any kind of an opposition government, there was a little ray of light.

The ray of light came in the form of candidate Peter Remon Whorrall (below). In Peter I saw a genuine very courageous man who called a spade a spade, he told us how it is as he saw it and wore his heart on his sleeve, although so did others.

Peter injected, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, some much needed humour into what was a very painful experience for any progressive supporter having to witness such an ugly spectacle of in-fighting, bullying, smears, and all sorts of detrimental tactics employed by progressives against progressives. Fortunately Peter, to the best of my knowledge, did not involve himself in any of it, as others didn’t either.

Here we had a man who receives income support who struggles to make ends meet and as well as other election expenses had to pay for a taxi to most of the hustings meetings which I am sure would have been a huge financial burden for him……and what for?

He was never going to win the election, and well he knew it, but that never stopped him trying. He at least tried to make a difference and was willing to put the very little money he does have where his mouth is. Naturally he’ll not be everybody’s cup of tea but he won me over if not my vote.

Regular readers/viewers have asked me to publish the video of the speech/poem Peter read out at Stuart Syvret’s Public Meeting at the Town Hall held on Monday 17th of May 2010. You remember the one? It was the one that was filmed by Channel Television but couldn’t be broadcast, according to Eric Blakely, because of “OFCOM Rules” Stuart Syvret, supposedly being a declared candidate, although that never stopped them broadcasting Francis Le Gresley, a declared candidate, the very next night. Some might say, and I might be inclined to agree, that the local “accredited” media were the real winners of the by-election.

I am publishing this video out of affection for Peter not ridicule, he is an exceptional Jersey character who I have come to admire for his eccentricity, courage and values.

Keep it up Peter, you’re a winner in my book.



Submitted by VFC.

Time 4 Change Rally.

Political pressure group Time 4 Change are to hold a rally in the Royal Square tomorrow Saturday 19th June 2010 at midday.

Co founders of Time 4 Change Deputy Montford Tadier and Nick Le Cornu issued a Press Release yesterday (below) and spoke with VFC, also below.


PRESS RELEASE
 
TIME4CHANGE – Public Rally to “Stop the Cuts” and support the vote of no confidence in Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur – 19th June, Royal Square, 12.am Noon
 
Contact: …….Deputy Montfort Tadier
Telephone:….07797 844358
e-mail:…...… m.tadier@gov.je

For Immediate publication.

“STOP THE CUTS”
AND SUPPORT THE “VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN CHIEF MINISTER TERRY LE SUEUR”

RALLY & PROTEST
SATURDAY
19TH JUNE
ROYAL SQUARE – 12 NOON

Time4Change has organised a public rally to protest against the cuts to public services and proposed job losses announced by the Ozouf/ Le Sueur government and to support Deputy Geoff Southern’s Vote of No Confidence in Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur to be debated in the States Assembly on 22nd June.
 
While the Teachers threaten strike action and the Nurses may follow, the States is trying to cut wages, jobs and services. The only way to show the Ozouf/Le Sueur government that the people of Jersey do not want their £50 million of cuts is to fill the Royal Square this Saturday at noon.
 
Rising Taxes for the majority, while the wealthy 1(i)k’s residents get “sweetheart deals” of £5000 and £10,000 per annum. Non resident companies pay Zero rate, and working people now face a freeze on allowances, “20 means 20” and the prospect of rising GST.
 
Wage cuts. The States has imposed a pay freeze for this year and refuses to negotiate over a pay increase promised last year. Working people get no cost of living increase despite rising taxes, rising prices and general inflation.

Cuts in jobs and services. The government has demanded £50m in cuts, starting this year with 2% and 10% over 3 years. This will result in an erosion of living standards, health and will hit everyone, in particular the most vulnerable.

There are, however, many other reasons that one might not have confidence in Senator Le Sueur and his Council of Ministers.

There is also a widely recognised lack of leadership, transparency and accountability in the Council of Ministers; an unwillingness to listen to voices from all sides of the house, and above all the public; the unfair and, ultimately non-compliant 0-10 policy, And a whole host of other failings of which the public will be more than aware.

SPEAKERS – Time4Change – Deputy Montfort Tadier,Nick Le Cornu (recent Senatorial by-election candidate);

Jersey Council of Representatives (Trade Unions – Teachers, Dockers, Nurses, Prison Wardens); Unite – Dockers and Manual workers;

Former Senator Stuart Syvret

Deputy Geoff Southern, Jersey Democratic Alliance & other Deputies (To be confirmed)

Various local pressure groups (social/environmental)

WE DEMAND that there be:
 
·        No cuts in essential front-line services
·        No job losses
·        No privatization of Public Utilities – Post Office & Jersey Telecom
·        Scrap GST
·        Introduction of progressive taxation on personal income and corporate profits.
·        Defence of Trade Unions and their members against victimisation
·        Fight for Democracy – reform the States and Crown Officers

Whatever your grievance, large or small, join us on 19th and have your voice heard.

N.B.THE MEDIA ARE ASKED TO NOTE CAREFULLY THE TIME OF THE RALLY. IT WILL COMMENCE AT 12 Noon. On previous occasions they have not shown their usual diligence in accurately broadcasting place and time of public protests.



Submitted by VFC.

 

Make your mind up time.

Team Voice have now collated a 5 minute speech from all the candidates standing in the 2010 Senatorial by election. Not all took us up on our very kind offer, as regular readers/viewers will be aware. For those who ignored the wishes of the online community and decided not to engage with Citizens Media we have videoed one of their speeches from the hustings meetings.

Our last posting on here was of Francis “integrity” Le Gresley who we believe to be the establishment candidate. That is, we believe if you want more of the same from this government then this is your man.

This posting is of the anti establishment candidate former Senator, and Father of the House Stuart Syvret. If you are sick and tired of the way this government is being run, where it’s headed and want a change of direction then he is your man.

Below this video are links to all the other candidates 5 minutes “piece to camera” - or for those who wouldn’t engage - a five minute hustings speech.

For those who have not yet made their mind up on who to vote for, we hope the videoed 5 minutes of each candidate will be of some service to you………and you haven’t got long left to decide! Wednesday 16 of June is polling day and you will be able to cast your vote between 8am and 8pm.



Patrick Ryan

Gerard Baudains

Gino Risoli

Geoff Southern

Peter Remon Whorrall

Phillip Maguire

Nick Le Cornu

Submitted by VFC.

Integrity according to Francis Le Gresley.

Team Voice, as most will be aware, have very kindly offered ALL Senatorial Candidates the opportunity of FIVE FULL MINUTES on video to engage with and sell themselves to the online community, which we are publishing on one of our sister Blogs VFP.

Unfortunately not ALL candidates have taken us up on this very kind offer, however All of them WILL be appearing on one of our Blogsites. For those who have ignored our very kind offer, we will be publishing their 5 minute speech made at one of the hustings. The audio quality will be a little inferior to those who have given us a 5 minute “piece to camera” as we can’t “mic them up” at the hustings. It must be said our very kind offer was made through public demand from people who have asked us to do what the “accredited” media, aren’t/can’t and that is something a little more in-depth so the potential voters who can’t get to hustings etc will have a more “informed” choice of the candidates.

Which brings us to Senatorial Candidate Francis Le Gresley (who has ignored our very kind offer). His definition of “integrity” and my definition of it differ somewhat and here’s how.

At the St Martin hustings he told a story to the audience of how a young enthusiastic man joined the Honory Police Force in order to serve his community as best he could. As part of his training he was instructed to observe a local pub where he could catch and arrest drink drivers etc. One particular night he watched one of his superiors down a bottle of whiskey, get in his car, and drive home.

The following day this particular “inferior” Officer handed in his resignation because his “integrity” would not allow him to be a part of double standards, where his superiors are arresting, or charging, people for crimes they themselves are committing. The story ended with a very dramatic finish when Francis Le Gresley said “that young officer was me” to which the crowd seemed to enjoy. What a fine up-standing man who is willing to resign his post rather than be a part of any “double standards”.

To which I would completely disagree, rather than using the word “integrity” I would be inclined to use words like “cowardly” or perhaps, which is just as appropriate, “The Jersey Way”. Rather than put his arse on the line and uphold the Law without fear or favour and arresting the criminal, he “let him off” because of who he was. He allowed his superior - after consuming a bottle of whiskey - to drive home putting his own life and others in severe danger.

What Francis displayed, in my opinion, was a complete lack of any integrity or courage. He kept his head down and didn’t “rock the boat” which is the good old “Jersey Way” and it would appear was willing to endanger people’s lives in doing so. What we need in the States is somebody who IS willing to “rock the boat” who IS willing to hold senior figures to account, not people who will resign and keep their head down. We want somebody who will put their head above the parapet without fear or favour.

The video below is from a hustings (can’t remember which) where Francis gives us his opening five minute speech. You will note he devotes the first one minute and 15 seconds attacking YET AGAIN and YET ANOTHER fellow candidate, who coincidentally(?) does put his head above the parapet and is not afraid of rocking the boat. What Francis doesn’t appear to have been told by his advisors is that negative campaigning is a real “no no” in elections, so you can have that one on me Francis.

Viewers will also notice three minutes and 50 secs in he tells us he is “not afraid to challenge authority” uhh, yes you are Francis. He then goes on to say “I will not shirk from making difficult decisions” uhh yes you will Francis. To top it off he says “I will challenge Senior Civil Servants if I un-earth unacceptable practices”……….Will you indeed??????

One thing, unfortunately, that has become apparent is that Francis Le Gresley is the establishment’s candidate in this by-election. If you are happy with the way this government is run and where it is going and your definition of “integrity” is the same as Francis’ then he is your man.

If your definition of “integrity” doesn’t mean keeping your head down, not rocking the boat, turning a blind eye for people in authority then he most certainly isn’t your man!



Submitted by VFC.

Foot and Mouth.

After the Privileges and Procedures Committee found in favour of the complainants against former Health Minister Senator Jimmy Perchard for breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct - and in the opinion of Team Voice - exhibited “Disability Hate” along with possible Data Protection issues (in any functioning Democracy) we were pleased the PPC recognised the former Health Minister’s “foot and mouth” disease when personally attacking the founder member of Team Voice on a live radio broadcast and imparting personal, supposedly Data Protected information about him.

We were, and are, very concerned at the way Jersey’s only “news”paper (JEP) reported on it yesterday. As most will know there have been death threats made against our founder member along with threats of violence and threats to harm his children because he/we are trying to hold officialdom to some kind of account. The JEP have just made all these threats easier to carry out and we are now in more fear for the safety of him and his children.

A cynic might think the story run by the JEP was an attempt of intimidation in order silence us and that they couldn’t care less if the children come to any harm……surely not? That all said, it is also humbling to know that we are seen as such a threat.

Back to former Health Minister Senator Jimmy Perchard. It would appear he has a bit of a habit when it comes to sticking his foot in his mouth. One must remember this is the man who as ex Health Minister reportedly encouraged another States Member to commit suicide! He is up for election next year and we believe he will struggle in getting re-elected.

We thought we would put together a very short piece of selected video clippings in order to demonstrate his “foot and (potty) mouth” disease and to give our national and international audience a taste of the calibre of some of our politicians.



Submitted by Team Voice.

Stuart Syvret part 3 of 3.

As regular readers/viewers of Team Voice will be aware, we were, on the 14th of may 2010, granted an in-depth interview with Stuart Syvret. This is the third and final instalment of the interview with part one being here and part two being here.

We believe the first two interviews were pretty tuff with the questioning of Stuart and this final part will bring a bit of balance to the interview. Here we try to concentrate on the personal cost to Stuart and is it all worth it?



Submitted by VFC.

Abracadabra.

You’ll like this - not a lot - but you’ll like it.

Question. How does a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (which is only found in mammals) turn into a piece of coconut?

Answer. Put a picture of a coconut lampshade on all States Members seats and hey presto! A coconut a la Ian Le Marquand.

This is the sort of nonsense that States Members, and the general public, are fed by the Home Affairs Minister and expected to believe. This is the same Minister that tried to tell us that 65 children’s teeth fell through a gap in the floorboards at Haut de la Garenne, in the exact same place. So let’s just think about how that must work. A child is walking towards this gap in the floorboards and somebody shouts “don’t get too close to that gap in the floorboard, one or more of your teeth will fall out with root still attached and land on top of all the other one’s down there”. Or the other “explanation” we’ve been given they were left there by the bl--dy tooth fairy!

It is high time that the Home Affairs Minister comes to the realisation that the general public are not convinced by tooth fairy stories and pictures of coconuts. We want facts, evidence and scientific data. Lenny Harper has given us these in abundance, Graham Power has given us these in abundance, the Association of Chief Police Officers have given us these in abundance. What have we had in return? A fairy Tale and a photograph! Why didn’t Ian Le Marquand put a photograph of the Child’s Skull or coconut, showing it’s weight, size shape, colour and texture before it left Jersey, and then another photograph of it’s appearance when it ended up at Kew Gardens?

Below is an interview with Deputy Bob “The Guvn’r” Hill who is none the wiser for asking questions of the Home Affairs Minister.



Submitted by VFC.

Stuart Syvret interview (part two of three)

As the title explains this video interview with Stuart Syvret is part two of a trilogy. This particular instalment focuses on the questions that were written by an alleged victim of Stuart’s Blog.

We believe we have been fairly objective in the two interviews with Stuart and have put some pretty tuff questions his way, which in fairness to him, he has answered “in depth”

Part three of the this trilogy, will concentrate on the “personal” side of his battle with the establishment, what has been his personal cost?

Part one of the interview can be seen Here



Submitted by VFC.

Public Meeting with Stuart Syvret.

Below is some video of the public meeting held by former Senator Stuart Syvret Monday night, 17th May 2010 with co-chair Dr Mark Forskitt.

After talking on the phone today with a senior editor at CTV we have been informed, they will not be broadcasting any of the meeting any time soon, because among other reasons, they found there was nothing that was “news worthy” contained in the meeting. So once more it has been left to Citizens Media to broadcast the stuff that our “accredited” media won’t.

We decided the clip to use would be that of a dissenter challenging Mr. Syvret and Mr. Syvret’s response. Respect has to go to the gentleman for speaking out against Mr.Syvret because the Town Hall was full with a huge majority being in favour of Mr.Syvret and his “message.” It must be said that Mr. Syvret spent a great deal of time at the beginning of the meeting explaining why he went to London and what he was doing over there which would have caused some of the “heckling” the questioner received.

The reason we chose this clip is because we believe it is the clip the “accredited” media would have used, had they broadcast any of the meeting. Well saying that, personally I believe they would have showed the question but not the answer, but maybe that’s me just being too sceptical!

Furthermore I would like to say that the Senior Editor at CTV agreed that there was DOUBLE the amount of 120 people at the meeting as reported in the JEP. Viewers will be able to make their own estimation of the amount of people present.

VFC would like to say we have no evidence to substantiate the claims made by Senator Syvret concerning the Crown Officers/Offices and 7 Bedford Row and they are entirely the opinion of Mr. Syvret……………and the huge majority of the crowd.

This isn’t a case of “you saw it here first” it is a case of you ONLY saw it here.
Perhaps I will publish what Stuart had to say at the meeting about the Mainstream Media next?



Submitted by VFC.

Stuart Syvret Interview.

Last Friday the 14th May 2010 Team Voice interviewed former Senator Stuart Syvret “in-depth.” Below is the video of part one of that interview.

Team Voice wanted to put the questions to the former Senator that we believed the public would want answers to and in particular, those of his detractors. So much did we want his detractors questions put to him, we actually contacted an alleged victim of his Blog and asked that person for the questions they wanted asked……and we asked them - which will be the next instalment of this in-depth interview.



Submitted by VFC.

Something exists……but what is it?

Below is the last e-mail I received from Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, where he has set out to clear up the confusion between the MET Report into Operation Rectangle and the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists).

There is very little doubt that something exists, that has never been the issue, but it’s what that “something” is that is the issue. You will see by the e-mail below that the only person to have set eyes on this “Interim” Report (if it exists) appears to be David Warcup who arguably has the most to gain by the departure of CPO Graham Power.

I will re-produce Senator Le Marquand’s e-mail - and below that I will make a couple of observations and set a question or two.

Before I do that credit has to be given to the Senator. Firstly he does engage, he does reply to e-mails and does tackle the questions put to him. If the rest of our elected “representatives” were as willing to engage with the public as he is, then there would be a smaller divide between them and us. I might not agree with the Senator but respect him for his willingness to engage.

From:Ian Le Marquand　
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Subject: RE: Met "Interim" Report.

To: voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

Dear voice for children, now that I understand that your questions related to the interim report alone and not to the final report, I shall amend my answers.

I have not read the interim report but I have electronically seen the e-mail to which it was attached as an attachment.　I am also aware that there is a quotation from the interim report in another document which was produced the same day or the next day (I cannot recall which).I do not know who, other than Mr. Warcup, has seen the report in its interim form as opposed to in its final form. I have already given an answer in relation to the final form.　I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.

As I mentioned to your representative in the Royal Square two days ago, I am genuinely puzzled as to why anybody would want to allege that the interim report never existed but only a final report. The reason why I am puzzled is that most of the criticism of Mr. Warcup　(unfair and inaccurate criticism in my view) is based upon his having requested that some form of report be produced at an early date.

In relation to the reason why i have declined to be interviewed, your representative will know that at the same time I declined to be interviewed by Channel TV. I do not want to be interviewed at this time in relation to any matters which may impinge upon the disciplinary matters concerning Mr. Power. There are good reasons for this at this time which I cannot go into. I am afraid that your readers and participants are going to have to be patient for 2 to 3 months longer until I arrive at the point at which　I can properly put mopre detailed information into the public domain.

I am happy that you re-produce my e-mails but would ask that you re-produce both e-mails in relation to your recent questions. Best wishes, Ian Le Marquand.

So the Senator has seen the e-mail the interim report (if it exists) was attached to but not the report? What the crucial question must be is were the words “MET Interim Report” written anywhere on that e-mail, when was the Report compiled, when and why was it asked for and were there any other “Interim” Reports submitted before early November??

You will note that the Senator tells us “I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.” and he goes on to say “I am genuinely puzzled as to why anybody would want to allege that the interim report never existed but only a final report. The reason why I am puzzled is that most of the criticism of Mr. Warcup　(unfair and inaccurate criticism in my view) is based upon his having requested that some form of report be produced at an early date.”

To that I would reply there is a school of thought that says David Warcup requested something and that is something that would assist the efforts of getting rid of CPO Graham Power. Some of us believe, rather than an “interim report”, it might be better described as “a favour from a mate”?

Also where the Senator says this “I have never had any reason to doubt the existence of the interim report and so have never had cause to ask the Met Police specifically about this.” Well like I have said there are those of us that do doubt the existence of an “official MET Interim Report.” Among those doubters are Deputy Bob Hill- who under the Freedom Of Information Act- asked Scotland Yard for confirmation of its existence. SCOTLAND YARD WOULD NEITHER CONFIRM, NOR DENY, ITS EXISTENCE.

That might not give Senator Le Marquand any reason to doubt that it exists, because perhaps on the e-mail that he has seen he did read the words “MET Interim Report” and he could confirm this for us?

Confused?....You will be! (part two)

In part one of these Blog postings relating to the MET Police “Report” and the “Interim” Report into Operation Rectangle we concentrated more so on the MET “Report”.
In this posting we are going to look at the “Interim” Report, or rather, the confusion surrounding it, (if it exists).

Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand appears just as confused as the rest of us when it comes to separating the two (The MET Report and the MET “Interim” Report, if it exists).

You will see by the e-mail exchange below between VFC and Senator Le Marquand, that the Senator has been offered the opportunity of a “guest posting” or an interview to explain to readers/viewers of this Blog all about the “Interim” Report (if it exists) but he has subsequently declined the offer………..can’t think why? You will also see that there are some un-answered questions (so what’s new?) regarding both reports, (if one exists).

Senator Le Marquand did tell me yesterday, outside the States Building, that in our e-mail exchange, he had confused the MET “Report” with the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists) and will explain where he confused the two by e-mail. As I am sure he is busy with States Sittings at the minute, he’s not had the time to do this yet but I will publish the e-mail if/when it arrives.

To i.lemarquand@gov.je
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Subject Met "Interim" Report

Senator.
I intend on publishing a Blog in the hope of unravelling the mysteries surrounding the Metropolitan Police "Interim" Report used (or not as it turned out) by David Warcup to "back up" his concerns regarding CPO Graham Power and Operation Rectangle.

Would you be so kind as to let me know.

Have you seen this "interim" Report, if not why not?

Who, to the best of your knowledge, has seen it besides David Warcup?

Do the MET Police themselves　acknowledge　its existence? If not, why not?

Kind Regards.
VFC.

From i.lemarquand@gov.je
To voiceforchildren
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Subject RE: Met "Interim" Report

Dear voice for children, I have answered a lot of oral and written　questions in the States about this and you may wish to refer to these. There is absolutely no doubt about the existence of this report. I have seen the following personally:-　　
a) the e-mail to which it was enclosed as an attachment;　　
b) the document itself (but not its contents); and　　
c) the bill for the work done on it (the dates of the work done correspond with what I would expect and the bill can only refer to this.　
I have not looked at the contents of the report for two reasons as follows:-　　
a) firstly, because I decided to not look at the report for disciplinary purposes in relation to Mr. Power; once I decided this, it would not have been right to read the report as it might have influenced me in my decisions concerning the suspension etc. of Mr. Power; and　　　
b) secondly, because most of the report deals with individual investigations and　gives advice in relation to these; I do not get involved in operational matters or individual investigations and frankly, would prefer not to read such highly confidential material unless I absolutely have to.

The report has been seen by Mr. Warcup, Mr. Taylor, a number of other police officers who were involved with individual cases and a number of lawyers who were involved as prosecutors in relation to individual cases.

Of course the Met acknowledge the existence of the report. I understand from Deputy Bob Hill who has tried to make contact with individual officers that the Met are not prepared to provide the names of individual officers because of past experiences of abusive messages in relation to such matters. However, I have provided Deputy Hill with the name of the most senior Met officer who was involved.

You have not asked this question but I will answer it any way. The reason why the Met police objected to my using the report for disciplinary purposes concerning Mr. Power is that the interim and final reports were not produced for disciplinary purposes but for the purpose of reviewing the state of the overall investigation and of individual cases.　Notwithstanding that, there was no reason why Mr. Warcup should not rely upon the contents of the report as confirming his own concerns.

Finally, I have been aware for some time of the rumour that the interim report never existed. This rumour is false.　Furthermore, I think that you should note that Mr. Power has never denied the existence of the interim report. In fact, I believe that at some stage he asserted that the report had been produced at his request although I cannot recall where and when he stated this. I hope that this information, which I have already provided in terms of answers to written and oral questions in the States will help your readers and blogers to understand the situation. Ian Le Marquand

From voiceforchildren
To i.lemarquand@gov.je
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Subject Re: Met "Interim" Report.

Senator.

Thank you for your prompt reply. In answer to the question "Have you seen the MET Interim Report?, a simple "no" would have sufficed. I can't help but feel you were getting a little confused with the MET Report and the "Interim" MET Report when you had this to say.

"Of course the Met acknowledge the existence of the report." Can you just confirm that you are referring to the "Interim" Report there? and further when you had this to say. "Finally, I have been aware for some time of the rumour that the interim report never existed. This rumour is false. Furthermore, I think that you should note that Mr. Power has never denied the existence of the interim report. In fact, I believe that at some stage he asserted that the report had been produced at his request"

It certainly does look like you have mixed up the two reports in that last statement. Of course I always stand to be corrected, but I don't think it is correct to say that CPO Power has ever asserted that the "Interim" report had been produced at his request. Again could you clarify if you are referring to the "Interim" Report?

Senator.
One of the criticisms levelled at us Bloggers is that we are bias and don't report "the other side" of the story. Unfortunately the main reason the other side of the story doesn't get told is because nobody will tell us it!

In order to get the full story to my readers/viewers I would like to offer you the opportunity to tell us everything we can, and need to know about the MET "interim" Report. You could either do this by way of a "Guest Posting" by that I mean write/type a piece for a Blog, which I will publish for you. Or perhaps you would consider giving me an interview? Either way, I am as keen as you are to have my readers/viewers as fully informed as possible, and I'm sure you would agree one of the two options above would be a way of doing this?
Kind Regards.
VFC.

I would like to assure readers (and Senator Le Marquand) that the mysteries surrounding the MET “Interim” Report (if it exists) will be un-ravelled on here in the coming weeks.

Confused?….You will be! (part one).

As regular readers/viewers of the Team Voice Blogsites will be aware, we like to deal in relevant “facts” and documented “evidence” and question the acts and omissions employed by our ruling elite and do what we can to make some sense of it all to our audience.

In a series of a couple of postings we will be addressing the mystery of the “interim” MET Report and the “MET Report”, their significance in the suspension of our Chief Police Officer Graham Power, their purpose and indeed their very existence (or not) as the case may be.
First of all the “official” Met Report which we understand was submitted to The Wiltshire Constabulary in July 2009.

Its Significance in the suspension of CPO Graham Power? Well in theory it should have no significance whatsoever, that was not the purpose of the report. So what was the purpose of the report? It is standard practice for an outside force to be asked to review a major enquiry such as, in this case “Operation Rectangle” (HDLG Enquiry) It can be seen that this was discussed with ACPO and is mentioned in their reports. The advice was that a review would be done by the Met and timed to set an agenda for the new management team, Gradwell and Warcup. CPO Graham Power not only agreed to this, but welcomed it as a recommendation from ACPO.

Reviewing teams are encouraged to be "critical friends" and to present challenges for the investigating force. While the final report is an important document it is usual for verbal updates to be given regularly and for the investigating force to make changes on the move. This happened with Operation Rectangle and effectively all of the observations, (we are led to believe) of the Met team were acted upon before the events of November 2008 CPO, Power’s suspension along with Gradwell and Warcup’s infamous Press Conference.

The Met have resisted any use of their report in relation to suspension or discipline of CPO Graham Power and during the suspension review meetings Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand was obliged to rule their report "out of play." The attitude of the Met on this issue, and for that matter the Service as a whole is obvious and understandable. Reviews of this kind are important. A critical and challenging attitude is also important. If they are to be used to suspend the Chief officer then which Chief Officer would ever again commission such a review??...and which reviewing team would make hard challenges of the kind currently encouraged??..........and in consequence the public interest suffers, and Police Forces would not be able to advance their skills in conducting major enquiries in fear of losing their jobs!

The Met review is not to be confused with the investigation led by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. That IS a disciplinary enquiry. When “The Powers that be” (in our opinion) realised that they could not rely on the Met report to get rid of Graham Power they could have paused, assessed the situation, and looked for a way out. But they didn't (never underestimate the stupidity of our oligarchy) They tasked the Wiltshire Constabulary to start all over again. Now more than one and a half years on, the disciplinary process is still in its preliminary stages! At what cost to the tax payer? Probably around the million quid mark. The relevant part of Operation Rectangle was Feb 2008 and the months immediately thereafter. So the "investigation into the investigation" has taken three times as long as the investigation itself and still isn’t finished!

Chief Police Officer Graham Power was suspended in November 2008 by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis with the only Ministerial decision he made during his very short time as Minister and still the Chief Officer has not faced any disciplinary action, why not?

So in conclusion.

The “official” Met Report does exist, the Metropolitan Police lay claim to it, they have insisted it is not used in relation to disciplinary proceedings against CPO Graham Power.

The “interim” MET Report, we would be as bold as we dare to be, and say there is a very strong possibility it doesn’t even exist! And we will explain why we believe that in the next posting. Unless of course anybody in the meantime could provide us with "evidence" that it does exist?