Wednesday, 5 October 2011

Lenny Harper Guest Posting(Uncovering the truth/lies)

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 18th 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 22nd 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 29th 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............


44 comments:

  1. Absolutely diabolical, disgraceful and farcical.

    ...and the MSM will report none of this, of that I am certain.

    Keep going Lenny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Wiltshire police were clearly lying and the IPCC can't come to any other conclusion unless they are as corrupt as the Jersey lot. I can't recall if Lenny Harper does now have a copy of his own statement I think I read that he has. If I'm right did he get it as a result of this scrutiny panel being set up - does it also mean that Lenny can show it to whoever he likes because of Wiltshire's stance on it? Lenny has been done over big time but we won't be reading about that in the JEP.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Jill keep going Lenny and team voice it'll all be worth it in the end. How can the media ignore this and expect any kind of respect!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You voice boys are blowing this cover up out of the water. You are jerseys investigative journalists. Well done mr harper for nor running away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In fairness this posting cannot really be described as "investigative journalism". We have, however, done more than any of Jersey's Mainstream media have done and asked Mr. Harper to put a few things together for us.

    Mr. Harper has cut "n paste a few things, and in turn we've cut "n" pasted that. That's how very easy it all is to get the facts and evidence out there so there's no excuse, whatsoever, for our mainstream media not to be doing it. Saying that, they are doing it, but they are very selective as to what they cut "n" paste. Basically if it's not given to them on a Press Statement from the States Communications Unit, then it's out of bounds.

    Jersey's mainstream media have been covering up for our government (Law Offices) under the pretence that they don't have the budget or resources to investigate anything, well now we've just proved that to be a (tooth) Fairy story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, but you are the ones doing it. Investigating is the name of the game. We can drop the journalist bit if that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, it’s a deal!

    What we are also doing is giving the former Chief Officer, Graham Power QPM, and Former DCO Harper some kind of a right of reply that has been denied them by our “accredited” media and Ian Le Marquand.

    Ian Le Marquand has refused to publish Mr. Harper’s statement to Wiltshire. He denied Graham Power a fair hearing and the “accredited” media have been willing participants all the way through and questioned NOTHING.

    BBC Jersey has had Graham Power’s statement to Wiltshire for about a couple of weeks now and has reported NOTHING from it. The first anybody will see of either Graham Power’s, or Lenny Harper’s, statement will be via the Blogs, indeed that’s probably the ONLY place they’ll get seen!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. VFC

    You say:

    "BBC Jersey has had Graham Power’s statement to Wiltshire for about a couple of weeks now and has reported NOTHING from it. The first anybody will see of either Graham Power’s, or Lenny Harper’s, statement will be via the Blogs, indeed that’s probably the ONLY place they’ll get seen!!!"

    I can confirm that the BBC has Mr Power's statement, as you describe.

    I can confirm that - because it was me who furnished them with a copy.

    I expect to get raided and arrested again - at any moment - for having done so.

    Sadly - I suspect you are also correct in suggesting that the BBC will not report on the statement, its contents - or its ramifications. At best - they might say something about it - after Jersey' general election on the 19th October.

    Unless the BBC prove us wrong - we will have to conclude the BBC is a corrupted organisation.

    Word verification: 'terse'.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would any Tom Dick or Harry firm of accountants have been given a preview of Mr. Harpers Statement?

    It was given as evidence to Witshire police with specific proviso promised and being attached to statement.

    I cannot believe the actions of Wiltshire police and the implications that wil come from this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tom Gruchy is having some problems posting or receiving comments. The trouble seems to have arisen since the power cuts or after Senator Ozouf cut links to his Facebook and Blog sites.
    If anybody knows how to correct this problem please advise.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, we can be sure the MSM won't print any of this. In the same way we can be sure that the MSM will refuse to report the legitimate questions raised at the St Helier 3/4 hustings about the case of Mr Roger Holland, who was accepted into the Honorary Police despite a conviction for indecent assault on a minor.

    The fact that the person who overrode the concerns of the Parish authorities was the then Attorney-General, one Mr P M Bailhache, is entirely unconnected...

    ReplyDelete
  12. reAnd Senator Le Marquand believes he can become Chief Minister lol these people have no shame and thats what makes them so dangerous to the good honest people of Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stuart.

    You said; "Unless the BBC prove us wrong - we will have to conclude the BBC is a corrupted organisation."

    It's been blatantly obvious for a number of years now that the BBC are corrupted. Just look at all the stuff us Bloggers have published, verifiable facts and evidence that have exposed this Child Abuse cover-up that the entire MSM have been playing along with.

    Like I said before, if the BBC were trusted, Graham Power's statement to Wiltshire would have been leaked to them but it wasn't it was leaked to you. Graham Power and Dr. Timothy Brain have said that Mr.Power's submission would have torn apart the discredited and disgraced Wiltshire Review and no doubt it does and the BBC aren't going to go against the party line. They've had every opportunity to do this in the past but it has been left to Bloggers.

    The BBC (IMO) has had Mr. Power's statement for long enough. I believe it is time you published, at least some sections of it, in order to get the other side of the story out and embarrass and expose the BBC for what they are.

    Look at what's in this guest posting from Lenny Harper it demonstrates just what a mess the official version of events is in and the BBC see nothing that is newsworthy or of public interest?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Come on Stuart you can publish a redacted version of it on your blog the BBC have shown they’re not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 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

    But it's OK to show it to a bloke called Mike Kellett even though he, nor anybody else knows what, or who's, Terms of Reference he's working to.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "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."

    Ian Le Marquand for Chief Minister????????

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jill.

    I think it will work if you start be clicking on to the title of the page and leave a comment from there rather than being on the main page and clicking on the comment icon.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wiltshire got paid a fortune to ignore evidence that favoured Graham Power and Lenny Harper to come up with something ANYTHING to discredit them. Now they show a document that's so confidential it's excluded from FOI. Lenny Harper was refused a copy but they show it to every other Tom Dick and Kellett.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Glad to see we are able to comment once more I've submitted a comment a number of times but it's never appeared. In short I just want to let Mr Harper know he has the utmost respect from me and the majority of islanders. Thank you for everything you have and are still doing to get the truth out Mr Harper and team Voice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What a pity the "accredited" media have no appetite for the truth. As predicted not a word about this in the MSM who are still under the illusion they are respected as a "news" source on this island.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pleased the comment section is working again as I've left comments too that haven't made it to publication. Lenny Harper is a good honest cop and this has been proven by everything that's been published whether it's affidavits or the interviews on here we know the truth the MSM can try to cover it up as much as they want.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Stunning read, bloody stunning!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Will you keep us informed of Lenny's complaint to PPC?

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and if they are truly "independent" then Wiltshire will be getting buried, and yes we hope to keep readers up-dated with progress and lack of!

    ReplyDelete
  25. On 7 October 2011 14:53, Anonymous said, "Wiltshire got paid a fortune to ignore evidence that favoured Graham Power and Lenny Harper to come up with something ANYTHING to discredit them. Now they show a document that's so confidential it's excluded from FOI. Lenny Harper was refused a copy but they show it to every other Tom Dick and Kellett."

    That comment sums it up perfectly, as far as the available facts are concerned.

    Excellent post and excellent comments, here. Well done, again.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  26. On more thing: I always hope to see commenters complete the transition to calling Jersey's mainstream media the "States Media." This term has had a significant impact on Egyptian and Tunisian efforts, and was widely repeated on blogs and sympathetic outside media during the Arab Spring.

    "Accredited Media" is a term the Jersey MSM and/or their States masters gave themselves and that term could mislead outsiders to presume it has a more widely accepted positive connotation. "Discredited Media" is better, but more cumbersome.

    Here in the US, we learned the hard way that our own enemies of truth and transparency were successfully creating and defining powerful buzzwords - the list of examples would be nearly endless. We who have a desire to present the truth must learn to do the same. The use of powerful terms and their coordinated repetition can become as powerful a weapon in defense of the truth. It is simply stealing the some of the most effective weaponry from the dark side. ;)

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  27. Elle.

    Agreed, "The State's Media" it is from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neil

    Brian talks about David Warcup and HDLG from 5mins 30secs on THIS VIDEO

    ReplyDelete
  29. "voiceforchildren said...

    Elle.

    Agreed, "The State's Media" it is from now on."


    I think the correct term you're looking for is actually "State media", a media controlled by the State.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Technically, it should be "State Media," not "States Media." I had used the plural since Jersey calls its governing body the "States."

    From Wikipedia, I found the following overview of "State Media." Could this describe a familiar newspaper, Jersey BBC outlet or local TV station?

    "The term state media is often used in contrast to private or independent media, which has no direct control from any political party."

    "Its content is usually more prescriptive, telling the audience what to think, particularly as it is under no pressure to attract high ratings or generate advertising revenue. In more controlled regions, the state may censor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavourable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party."

    "In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the former Soviet Union or North Korea."

    "Within countries that have high levels of government interference in the media, it may use the state press for propaganda purposes:
    to promote the regime in a favourable light,
    vilify opposition to the government by launching smear campaigns or giving skewed coverage to opposition views, or act as a mouthpiece to advocate a regime's ideology."

    "Additionally, the state-controlled media may only report on legislation after it has already become law to stifle any debate. The media legitimizes its presence by emphasising "national unity" against domestic or foreign "aggressors"."

    So, I will agree to simply say "State Media," and I would further recommend that you bloggers accurately rename yourselves the "Independent Media," as per the accepted definition, above. These terms carry more weight.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you want to refer to the media in Jersey being under the thumb of the Jerrsey States then it would be States' media I think.
    Jersey is not a state - it is not a self governing soverign territory. The USA is a union of 50or so individuak states.
    The UK is a state so you could refer to the state media there but this could mean the official publicity dept of the government or allude to government control over the press in all its forms.

    If you want to imply that "the States" of Jersey has influence over the local media then say so - but whatever expression you use it will be confusing to people outside the island or those who do not understand local arrangements.
    Perhaps "Jersey government" might be a better expression to use?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I believe Elle's submission from Wikipedia of "state media" sums up perfectly what we have in Jersey so "state media" it is.

    The ONLY "Independent media" we have on this island comes in the form of Blogs/Bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not forgetting that Jersey's "State Media" gave us the headlines "The Lavish Lifestyle Of Lenny Harper." But then we had THIS

    ReplyDelete
  34. Let us also not forget the (according to State Media) COCONUT

    ReplyDelete
  35. "State(s) Media" implies belonging to the assembly, and that the few progressives we have in there will have some democratic say in the matter.

    That's misleading.

    Oligarchy Media, or Establishment Media, or House Journal of the Landed Elite would be more apt, but doesn't carry the same weight somehow :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tony Benn sees the truth -

    "...the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."

    ReplyDelete
  37. How about, `Jersey Establishment Press = JEP? After all, they both work very closely with each other!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lenny

    You were silly, why didn't you book the radisson hotel and invite interested parties to stay overnight? It would have cost much more thatn you spent but then you wouldn't have had all these problems.

    Lesson learnt!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Any news from the magistrates court yet? Can someone please twitter or something, news is slooooow!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Adjourned for two weeks and hope to publish an interview with Stuart Syvret shortly.

    ReplyDelete

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