Sunday, 3 October 2010

Napier Report Imminent (2)


As part of our “Napier Report Imminent series” Team Voice bring you the second instalment, to help readers/viewers recall just some of the goings on surrounding the very suspicious suspension of our most Senior Police Officer - Graham Power QPM.


The Interview (below) with the Connétable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft took place on the 12th November 2009 which was “officially” one year after the Chief Police Officer’s suspension. Although we all know that the suspension letter(s) were being created at 8.44 am, Saturday, the 8th of November 2008.



Submitted by Team Voice.

28 comments:

  1. The Crow puts it on the line at 2.12 seconds. Will Napier prove him right and if that proves the case, oh dear

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly two minutes into the video the Connétable says “it is my view it was a politically motivated act”. If Napier comes to the same conclusion then wouldn’t that have an impact on Stuart Syvret’s abuse of process trial?

    One has to ask, why the hurry to get Mr. Syvret into the Royal Court at 7 O’clock in the morning? Why the delay with Napier? Is there something in the Napier Report that “they” don’t want to be part of Stuart’s evidence? These are serious questions that Stuart Syvret should be asking himself and, looking for an adjournment of his case until Napier has been published.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We just need this report and we need it now

    ReplyDelete
  4. What if Napier vindicates everybody involved in the original suspension?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What if Napier vindicates everybody involved in the original suspension?"

    Considering just about everybody, including the current Home Affairs Minister and the Royal Court have criticized the original suspension. Brian Napier has sent out "scott Letters" the chances that everybody is going to be vindicated are pretty slim.

    But saying that, this is Jersey, so it certainly can't be ruled out!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Realistically the only one left in a job after the involvement of the ones from the original suspension.

    Is Bill Ogley.

    The rest could be vindicated.

    Therefore Bill could and should....

    Be slaughtered!?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Many of the original players, be they politicians or public employees are no longer in those positions,and as such the best approach has to be to learn from the issues that have arisen and how decisions were made at that time.
    We can use those lessons to move forward and improve , where it is felt necessary, and create a situation where mistakes and oversights such as these perceived ones, can be effectively avoided.'

    PS . My bill is in the post BP

    ReplyDelete
  8. Have they ever answered the question as to why they lied about when the suspension letter was created?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Have they ever answered the question as to why they lied about when the suspension letter was created?"

    I can't actually remember the "official" reason/excuse for this. I do however remember Terry Le Sueur doing everything in his power to prevent Graham Power QPM from finding out when they were created.

    Oddly enough I believe the letters in question were quoting from a document on the 8th of November, but they didn't have pocession of that document until the 10 or was it the 12th of November? Either way it's a hell of a trick.

    Rather like a piece of child's skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen and turning into a piece of Coconut and the Home Affairs Minister refusing to tell you how that happened!

    ReplyDelete
  10. VFC - If my memory is correct, Terry Le Sueur had very little, if nothing to say on the day of the Complaints Board hearing brought about by Graham Power. Questions put to him were answered by his 'side-kick', a law officer, and even she appeared to make a hash of it.

    That day was almost surreal.

    I'm not even sure if there ever was an 'official' explanation, because the Complaints Board members in their wisdom ruled in favour of Graham Power who was then able to obtain the information that had been denied him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well done excellent interview :-)

    I have posted it on my blog so more people can see it, hope it helps.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What about Grahame Power's 94 page response to the Wiltshire Investigation, that still hasn't seen the light of day!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thursday 6th November 2008 at (??.??) - Deputy Labey has a meeting with the Bailiff

    Saturday 8th November 2008 at 08.44 - a letter is written to be given to the Chief of Police informing him a disciplinary process had been commenced.

    Saturday 8th November 2008 at 08.48 - a letter is written to notify that The Chief of Police was suspended from duty

    Monday 10th November 2008 - the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry

    Tuesday 11th November 2008 – Mr Ogley receives the letter from David Warcup and on that same day, he writes to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, enclosing a copy of Mr Warcup’s letter. At 14.00hrs Deputy Andrew Lewis writes to Mr Ogley initiating disciplinary action. Later the same the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Executive along with other Ministers and Civil Servants attended a presentation and briefing, given by Mr Warcup and the then Senior Investigating Officer, Mr Mick Gradwell. The briefing is said to have given details of the content of a press briefing which was to take place the following morning.

    [At a latter date, in his statement to Wiltshire Police Mr Lewis states “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” ]

    Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley.

    ---------------------
    Now what was Deputy labey's concerns, ah yes letting Graham Power know about her evidence of corruption in planning!!!

    What was Graham doing, investigation it.

    Q. What did the Bailiff want done??
    A. Sweep, sweep, under the carpet.

    You couldn't make it up, unless of course you do.......

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, it's all very suspicious to say the least. With the Child Abuse being investigated and the land re-zoning business, one could believe it was very convenient to (ilegally?) suspend Mr. Power QPM.

    Wonder what Brian Napier QC makes of it all????????

    ReplyDelete
  15. Saturday 8th November 2008 at 08.48 - a letter is written to notify that The Chief of Police was suspended from duty

    Monday 10th November 2008 - the Deputy Chief Officer, Mr David Warcup, wrote to the Chief Executive, Mr Bill Ogley, expressing concerns regarding aspects of the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry

    I thought it impossible to go back to the future. Jersey could make a fortune they have the means and know how.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yet the person who had sole legal authority to take any disciplinary action stated he wrote the letter on the 11th although for some unexplained reason someone who had no such reason to be involved wrote the letter on the 8th.

    You just couldn't make this up, unless........

    Anyone know someone with experience in making things up? someone who perhaps like's to brag about how smart they thought they were to make things up? Now I must go and check my recently downloaded video's, if I remember correctly there was such a person......

    ReplyDelete
  17. Indeed, is it any wonder certain people would like Jersey to become independent? Could it be that certain people could end up in the dock while we are still a crown depency?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi guys! Excellent interview with Connetable Crowcroft. VFC says "Indeed, is it any wonder certain people would like Jersey to become independent?"

    Perhaps they will rush it through like other laws that get fast tracked to cover their sorry backsides! Methinks they are running out of time.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unsubstantiated rumour and gossip has it that David Warcup received a "Scott Letter" If this turns out to be factual then serious questions will need to be asked, of our Home Affairs Minister, as to why Mr. Warcup was not suspended......Interesting times ahead!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. What worries me though VFC is will we ever get to find out who actually DID receive Scott letters?

    Your thoughts on this would be welcome.

    Word verification - lyings!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Forget the "Scott" letters will we ever get the Napier Report

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Unsubstantiated rumour and gossip has it that David Warcup received a "Scott Letter" If this turns out to be factual then..]

    this would more likely be the reason why he decided to leave the SOJP at the end of the year, not because of a few blogs!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jill.

    Will we ever find out who got Scott Letters?

    I believe we will find out. I'm not convinced we will learn this from "the powers that be" but these things have a habit of being leaked and put on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Napier won't be published while the Syvret trial is on................simples.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We must not forget that Ian Le Marquand had this to say at one of his suspension reviews.

    "One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose."

    It was David Warcup that attempted to use parts of the MET Report to "nail" his boss.

    So we know our "powers that be" have p1ssed the Met off and the chances are they've p1ssed Wiltshire off as well!

    This is one hell of a mess and almost impossible to imagine how Napier could conclude anything else. I bet in all his years Napier has never witnessed such a shambles and this will be a talking point for him and his colleagues for years to come!

    ReplyDelete
  26. What did you just say on the radio concerning Napier?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Am just about to explain all on a new Blog posting.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Phil Bellyache vid is back on my blog

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.