Sunday, 12 December 2010
A Conspiracy theory.
You see, in the absence of proof, evidence, documentation etc. as explained in the e-mail to the Chief Minister; people tend to make up their own version of events, which is not an ideal scenario, but one that the Chief Minister and his cohorts appear to favour……and I shall explain one of many reasons why I believe this to be.
Ten days ago I sent THIS e-mail, to the Chief Minister, referred to above. In that e-mail I explained that after he (TLS) had given an answer in the States, documentation had been published by Rico Sorda to suggest that the Chief Minister misled the house, either knowingly or otherwise.
But that’s only half the story and I wanted the other half, in the interest of fairness and balance and just as importantly to prevent any conspiracy theories appearing. I was informed that there were two letters in existence from the DCEO to the former Police Chief and I asked the Chief Minister if he would provide me with them so the full story could be told. Like I said, that was TEN DAYS AGO and the Chief Minister hasn’t even acknowledged the e-mail.
The two letters – re-produced below – add much more weight to the argument that contrary to what the Chief Minister had told the States, Graham Power QPM had not given his assurance in his letter dated the 31st of March 2010 that he was able to participate in the Napier Review. Indeed the first sign that Mr. Power QPM had given any kind of assurance that he was able to participate in the Napier Review was on the 22nd of April 2010 and even then it is questionable that all issues had been dealt with in order that Mr. Power QPM could FULLY participate.
22rd April 2010.
The Deputy Chief Executive,
States of Jersey,
Cyril Le Marquand House,
Dear Mr Richardson,
Your letter dated 16th April 2010 regarding the Napier review.
Thank you for your letter dated 16th April which was received by me on 21st April, and which addresses issues regarding the Napier review which were first raised by me in a letter to you dated 25th February 2010.
I am grateful for the detailed response which you have provided which seeks to address the issues of confidentiality and evidential admissibility which I raised in February. While not removing all of my concerns your letter can nevertheless be taken as providing a pragmatic basis for me to assist Mr Napier in his work. You will recall that I have repeatedly expressed my wish to engage fully with his enquiry once my queries were resolved, and I am ready to do so at the first opportunity.
In your letter you offer to address the matter which I raised concerning my need to have access to my files when speaking to Mr Napier, and you helpfully offer to assist with this on the apparent assumption that these are files held in Jersey. Perhaps I should have been clearer on this point. The files to which I refer are those which contain documents and correspondence which relate to the defence of my position since November 2008, and are now substantial in volume. They are currently held securely in the UK.
I suggest that the next step is for you to provide Mr Napier with my contact details at the first opportunity. I will then do all that I can to assist with his work.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Cc Dr T Brain. (END)
The letter dated the 16th of April 2010 from the DCEO which this letter is in response to, is one of the letters I have asked the Chief Minister for, and thus far, been ignored.
We then have this letter from the former Police Chief to the DCEO.
23rd April 2010.
Mr John Richardson,
Chief Ministers Department,
States of Jersey.
Dear Mr Richardson,
Your letter dated 21st April 2010 regarding the review by Mr Brian Napier QC.
I have today received the above letter which seeks to “chase up” a reply to your letter dated 16th April 2010, and to set deadlines regarding my participation in the review being conducted by Mr Brian Napier QC.
Although it bears the date 16th April 2010, your letter was not received until 21st April and I sent you a full reply the following day. In case it is not to hand I attach a photocopy of that reply.
It might now be appropriate to contrast my own prompt management of this correspondence with that of yourself acting on behalf of the Chief Minister. I first wrote to you in February 2010 telling you that I had heard from media sources that some form of review was to take place of my suspension and asked for details of what was happening. You took five weeks to reply to my letter, and in a letter dated 29th March 2010 you wrote and gave me information regarding the Napier review and its terms of reference. This was the first formal notification I had received in relation to this matter. I received your letter on 30th March 2010 and the following day wrote to you expressing my full commitment to participation in the review subject to the resolution of some simple issues regarding the relationship between the Napier review and the disciplinary process. It was a further three weeks before you responded and, as stated above, I replied the following day confirming my intention to participate to the full.
It is against this background that you complain of delay, and seek to set deadlines supported by threats of my exclusion from the review.
I hope that you will understand that I now feel entitled to take the position that I have consistently shown enthusiasm and commitment to support the work of Mr Napier, but that my participation has been persistently impeded by delays and denial of basic information emanating from your office. It is these delays which have created what is now being presented as a form of “crisis” in the work of the review, which is in some way attributable to my actions. This is a clear reversal of the truth.
I would now be grateful if you would progress the matter in accordance with my letter dated 22nd April 2010. I am hopeful that you will do this soon, particularly as I believe that I have evidence to offer from myself and from others, which goes beyond that which has already been made available.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I am content for Mr Napier to have copies of all of the correspondence which has passed between us, or indeed, for all of the correspondence to be published.
Cc Dr T Brain. (END)
The letter dated the 21st of April 2010 from the DCEO, which this is in response to, is the other letter I have asked the Chief Minister for and thus far been ignored.
So the fact that Graham Power QPM has agreed to the publication of these letters would suggest that he is eager for the facts to be known. The fact that the Chief Minister has not even acknowledged my e-mail would suggest that he is not so eager, which brings us on to the Conspiracy Theory..........................thanks to the Chief Minister.
Rico Sorda has just published documentation from Graham Power QPM which details the former Police Chief’s thoughts and beliefs as to why part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference “mysteriously” disappeared and other issues and is a MUST READ for those of us that don’t buy into Conspiracy Theories and like only to deal in the facts.
It should also be remembered that the Chief Minister, or his advisors, to date have given, I believe at least three different accounts as to why part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference went missing and none of them stack up.
A plausible Conspiracy Theory could be that the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur and/or others purposely and surreptitiously deleted part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference in order to prevent Mr. Napier QC from discovering the truth behind the possibly unlawful suspension of the Chief Police Officer so as to make things easier to cover up all the skulduggery indulged in by the Law Offices Department, certain Senior Civil Servants and politicians in order to protect Child Abusers (who could “bring down the government”) from facing prosecution.
Submitted by VFC.