Wednesday, 12 May 2010

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.

Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Subject Met "Interim" Report

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.

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
Date Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Subject Re: Met "Interim" Report.


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?

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.

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.


  1. Confused! I am indeed, but what I find more worrying is the fact that Senator Le Marquand seems to more confused than anybody else!

    Even answering questions in the States he appears confused, he has admitted to you that he was confused.

    Dear oh dear, will his response be even MORE confusing?? Can't wait for his reply.

    Off to lie down in a darkened room.

  2. excellent ivestigative journalism -indeed a quality superior to those media outlets who cannot be bothered to investigate the truth - or cannot and will not publish the true facts.

    power to your elbow, well done.

  3. The last commenter makes a good point, why are none of the "accredited" media asking these questions of the Home Affairs Minister? Why aren't the "accredited" media trying to get to the truth? I believe I know why and that is because they are scared of the truth, and have been "warned off".

    The truth is coming out and in the next posting I hope to show that there never was an official "Interim" MET Report. I was going to do it on this posting but thought it more productive for readers to see what Ian Le Marquand has to say (or not) about this "interim" report

  4. The infamous met report

    It all started in september 2008 when Power/Warcup commissioned the Metropolitan Police to do an overview of operation rectangle.

    Then between september 2008 and november 10th 2008 Warcup says he had concerns concerning "O.R" and then asked the met for an INTERIM REPORT which arrived via email on the 10th november 2008.

    What happens from there is a complete and utter mess Brian Napier QC must find the answers

    Did that Interim Report exist?

    Was it a favor for a mate?


  5. Rico.

    Which brings up a very crucial point. What in this so called Met "Interim" (if it exists) Report that arrived on the 10th Nov 08 was so damming that Andrew Lewis had to immediately suspend the chief of police? and by all accounts not follow procedure or best practice in doing so!

    If it was that serious, to suspend Graham Power the way that he did, why 18 MONTHS LATER has Graham Power not faced any disciplinary action?

    And the question must be asked, was it a MET Interim Report that David Warcup recieved on the 10th of November, or would it better be described as "a love letter"?

  6. Its all a great big sandal...

  7. VFC

    The original suspension is all that counts that is why Graham Power is suspended.

    We will find the truth keep searching for the answers

    ILM is getting very confused what a mess.


  8. Apparently the 'interim' met report does not exist. ILM has dug a hole so deep that he's gonna need a cuban heel on his sandal just to see daylight. Whoops!

  9. Well, we might get a bit closer to the truth now as the Independent Police Complaints Commission have refused the Met's request to "bin" my complaint about this review and ordered them to reverse their decision not to investigate it.

  10. Sorry - forgot to type my name on the 0920 entry about my complaint!! Lenny Harper