Sunday, 31 July 2011
They appear to be inferring that he has had improper dealings with the News of The World but in reality they are probably just trying to further smear the name of Mr. Harper.........but why would they want to do that?
Firstly let's just have a quick look at some of the antics of these three individuals and how well placed they are to question ANYBODY'S integrity or morality.
Deputy Sean Power stole a fellow States Member's personal e-mail correspondence scanned it, passed it on to at least one other third party where it subsequently was published on the internet. It's difficult to determine what is the most despicable, the fact that he took the e-mail in the first place, the fact that he showed it to others which caused it to be published on the internet. But possibly the most despicable part of this horrible episode is that the particular e-mail had the names of the fellow States Members Children contained in it, even when it was published on the internet. What does this say about Deputy Power's feelings to protecting children? What does it say about his integrity and his morals?
Senator Ben Shenton records a personal telephone call between himself and a fellow Senator. Sits on it, and when the time is right, produces it to a Scrutiny Panel to try and nail his fellow Senator giving his fellow Senator no indication that he had recorded the phone-call, nor warning him he will be using it against him at this panel hearing. Integrity, morality?
So for the benefit of Ben Shenton, Sean Power and Jimmy Perchard here it is from the horses mouth.
Incidentally if any of you three have the courage to be interviewed and answer straight questions, like Former DCO Harper and former CPO Graham Power QPM have then let's do it?
Or are you going to prove Mr. Harper right and show us that you truly are cowardly, underhanded and dishonest?
Part one of the this exclusive and in-depth interview with Mr. Harper can be viewed HERE. Part three coming soon.............
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Former Jersey Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey’s “Historical” Child Abuse Lenny Harper answers the questions being asked by the ever-growing online Blogging community.
Over the last day or so people have been leaving questions for the former Chief Officer on the internet, and “Team Voice” asked him to make a note of the questions and address them in an in-depth and exclusive interview with us. We are pleased to say he agreed.
The latest cynical attempt to discredit Mr. Harper and his Investigation of decades long Child Abuse in Jersey comes (surprise, surprise) in the form of the Jersey Evening Post (Jersey’s ONLY “news”paper) and three Politicians. The three Politicians come as no surprise either. Indeed I was phoned a few days ago and told that three Politicians were in the JEP asking for an investigation into Mr. Harper’s, and others, relationship with the News Of The World News paper. I was asked “guess who the three are?” I said “Perchard, Power and Shenton?” Naturally I was right, lucky guess, or have these three got form in asking questions about the Abuse Investigation and not about the ABUSE?
Of course we know Perchard and Shenton have got form when it comes to neglecting Child Abuse Victims and as Mr. Harper tells us, all three of them have got form when it comes to undermining The Child Abuse Investigation.
Mr. Harper has labelled Senators Perchard, Shenton and Deputy Power as "The Three Goons". In this first episode he explains why and also goes on to tell us a little more about these individuals and their alleged shenanigans and suggests they are not best placed to be questioning ANYBODY'S leaking of e-mails............and more.
This interview makes part one of a series of three where we go on to discuss Jersey's media involvement, its agenda, its relationship with the Police and Politicians. We put the question straight to the former Detective Chief Officer "have you accepted monies from or leaked anything to the NOTW? We also ask him how he feels about the possible investigation suggested by (to use Mr. Harper's words) "The Three Goons."
Once again, Team Voice is thankful to Mr. Harper for agreeing to answer the questions put to him and allowing us (citizens media) to bring our viewers a service that our "accredited" media don't. We bring you in-depth interviews with the people making the "news" straight from the horses mouth which is in stark contrast to the JEP, and others, who don't even contact them!
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Below is the Press Release from the Home Affairs and Education Scrutiny Panel, or "the straw that broke the Camel's back" could be another name for it. The Scrutiny Panel have tendered their resignation
The question is "what took them so long?" The penny has finally dropped. They were there only to legitimise this dictatorship. Scrutiny is a job for the naughty boys and girls who won't tow the party line.
Professor Adrian Lee told us "show me an ineffective Scrutiny and I'll show you a dictatorship."
After this latest resignation of the four Scrutiny Panel members, I believe that leaves 5 people on Scrutiny. That is nothing short of a dictatorship.
How long can this "out of control" illegitimate government survive?
Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Resignation from Scrutiny Statement
The remaining members of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel have decided to announce their intention to resign from the Scrutiny Panel once the ongoing review of the issues surrounding the financial management of Operation Rectangle has been completed.
The members fully support the action taken by Deputy Tadier in announcing his immediate resignation in the States following the debate on P.84/2011 on the Composition of the Prison Board of Visitors. We wish to make it quite clear that we feel strongly about the Minister’s conduct in this debate, which was the culmination of two years of unreasonable delay and stonewalling. It appears to us that the never-ending saga of the wait for legal advice has shrouded the failure on the part of the Minister to examine the case for change brought forward in our review. This has been symptomatic of an attitude towards Scrutiny which borders on disrespect, which is not confined to this Minister. Hence we are calling for a long hard look at the role of Scrutiny in general and the value that should be placed on its work.
We believe that the proposal laid before the States in P.84/2011 was straightforward and quite clear; consequently we are surprised at claims by some members after the debate that our recommendation regarding the Jurats was confusing. Our proposal sought to open up the Board to lay people whilst retaining the possibility for a limited number of Jurats to remain on the Board. This mirrors the model of the Independent Monitoring Boards in the United Kingdom and reflects modern best practice. Given the representations made on behalf of the Jurats the Panel attempted to combine the best of the current and proposed Board.
The Minister in his response to our original review (presented to the States in August 2009) agreed with our recommendation that the role of the Prison Board of Visitors should be reviewed yet has delayed taking any action on this on the basis of the need to seek legal opinion on the single issue of the retention of the Jurats on the Board.
The Panel Chairman made several requests to the Minister seeking progress on this matter, through Oral and Written Questions1 in the States and through both formal and informal approaches over this period from the Panel.
Given the inordinate delays that were occurring in receiving the Minister's response to the Sub Panel's recommendations, it was suggested to him several times that if the compromise solution was unworkable, then the Sub Panel would consider dropping it and instead present the Assembly with a choice between an entirely Independent Lay Panel and the current Board. The report of the proposition also invited the Minister to bring amendments, if he thought that the proposition was not viable.
1 Oral question 22nd June 2010; Written Question 5859 30th November 2010; Chairman’s letter to Minister dated 1st December 2010.
In the absence of any clear answer the main Panel decided to move an amendment which would bring matters to a head. The Panel never saw the advice obtained by the Minister but, his comments presented to the States on 11th July 2011 (two days before the debate) implied support for the proposition, based on legal advice.
It then appears that the Minister obtained further legal advice which led to the quite extraordinary situation of the Minister, during the course of the debate, calling on the Solicitor General to lay this advice before the Assembly. The Minister then drew the conclusion that this advice allowed him to propose the retention of the Prison Board of Visitors.
Ironically, follow up questioning of the Solicitor General suggested that the approaches of both the Sub Panel and the Minister could be supported by the legal advice. It seems to us that the Minister was opposed to our proposition either way, and simply used the legal advice to back his position, even when the legal advice proved to be more balanced.
It became clear in the debate that the Jurats were not supportive of the recommendation brought forward by the Sub Panel for a mixed Board of Visitors. The Minister appears to have allowed himself to give the Jurats a veto on this issue and to ignore the evidence presented in our report that the current system is not an appropriate or proper means of monitoring the state of the prison.
We believe that the implications of the Minister’s stance warrant our stated intention to resign once the current Scrutiny on the Operation Rectangle financial report is concluded.
This unfortunate episode has come on the heels of the Minister’s attempt to derail this latest Scrutiny review by removing two members from the Sub Panel on the grounds that they had already expressed trenchant views on matters relating to the subject under review. In our view, the Minister has misinterpreted the repeated search by these members for answers to questions on a significant issue as a pre-determined bias. It is vital that members are free to persist with probing lines of questioning when they believe that the responses they have received have been unsatisfactory.
We believe that Scrutiny members are fully capable of leaving aside preconceptions and looking at evidence in an objective fashion when they commit to a Scrutiny Review. Members approach issues in Scrutiny with a range of views gathered from various sources, whether from the media, personal contacts or their own research. It would be impossible to find members without previous knowledge and views on issues under review. The process of gathering evidence through public enquiries and submissions is transparent. In addition, Panel membership imposes its own checks and balances and conclusions can be tested and challenged. This is, of course, the approach followed within Select Committees at Westminster. We believe this fact speaks for itself.
Our examination of the evidence to date for this latest Scrutiny has already revealed significant questions about the way the review of financial management was carried out and we are determined to pursue the matter to the end. This is an example of the way we believe Scrutiny should operate - responding to concerns from members of the public, asking awkward and challenging questions, seeking to penetrate beneath the status quo and laying out the evidence before coming to considered conclusions.
The Panel is very disappointed that this position has arisen whereby we feel that we must tender our resignation as a Panel. There have been good examples of Scrutiny done in co-operation with the Minister. However, these recent episodes demonstrate that Ministers have yet to face up to the fact that Scrutiny has, at times, to be uncomfortable and challenging.
We call on members of the States to reflect seriously on the role Scrutiny is playing at present and how it can be better supported. (end)
Sunday, 17 July 2011
So in the absence of balance we bring you an edited version of the evidence given by member of the public and fellow Blogger Rico Sorda. In this video we look at the role played by Jersey’s mainstream media (MSM) in the expenses “scandal” of Operation Rectangle.
Steven Austin Vautier, who also refused us permission to film his evidence, BDO/Alto and Mike Kellett have all said that the BDO/Alto Report was NOT an investigation of “Lenny Harper.” It was an audit of the expenditure concerning “Operation Rectangle.” ALL Mr. Harper’s expenditure was signed off, he is NOT solely responsible. By Law, the Accounting Officer Steven Austin Vautier is at least part responsible if not entirely.
So how did an audit review turn into a full-scale attack and slag-fest against Lenny Harper? Well, that was Jersey’s Media, in particular the AWARD WINNING and ENTIRELY ACCURATE CTV along with the JEP.
Both “news” outlets have trashed Lenny Harper’s name and it is believed by many that they have totally misrepresented the BDO/Alto audit review entirely.
But let’s just take a look at the “award winning” CTV. Regular viewers will be aware that CTV hosted Mick Gradwell with his unprecedented attack on a fellow Officer and the Child Abuse Investigation in a series of “interviews.”
Now with all the people giving evidence to this Scrutiny Panel there are conflicting views and not much that people agree on. One area there does seem to be some unity is that nobody, to the best of our knowledge, has condoned the actions of Mick Gradwell and CTV. David Warcup has distanced himself from this. Ian Le Marquand has been critical and distanced himself from this and so have others.
More questions have come to light, as you’ll see in Rico Sorda’s evidence, concerning the CTV Mick Gradwell double act. Steven Austin Vautier, didn’t say as much, but left a number of us with the impression that he was less than happy with the way the JEP Reported on the BDO/Alto Report also.
Whether BDO/Alto intended it, or not, their review has been used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation, or at least it’s Senior Investigating Officer.
Rico Sorda is a member of the public and should never have to be giving evidence to this Scrutiny Panel. If our media were reporting fairly and objectively then there would probably never have been a need for this Scrutiny Panel to be set up in the first place. Which incidentally brings up another area where there is unity. Just about all who have given evidence have agreed that if Lenny Harper had of been interviewed by BDO/Alto then there would probably be no need for this Scrutiny Panel.
There are those of us with the belief that not only should CTV hand their award back but they should be called to give evidence to this Scrutiny Panel. Listen carefully to the dates and questions Mr. Sorda raises in his evidence. On the 1st and 3rd of September 2009 the CTV Reporter is quoting stuff that later appeared in the BDO/Alto Report.
The BDO/Alto Report wasn’t released until May 2010 and BDO/Alto didn’t send the engagement letter to Home Affairs until September the 29th 2009.
Credit must go to Rico Sorda for putting his neck on the line. It takes courage and integrity to speak up over here in Jersey. He/we do this knowing that if/when things go t*ts up and we unwittingly fall foul of Data Protection, Libel or Defamation Laws we cannot get a fair trial in Jersey's Politicised judicial system.
Furthermore should this Committee of Enquiry ever get off the ground then parts of its Terms Of Reference must be the role played by Jersey's "accredited" media during and after the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry.
Furthermore should this Committee of Enquiry ever get off the ground then parts of its Terms Of Reference must be the role played by Jersey's "accredited" media during and after the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
For those who have been following this series of former DCO Harper giving evidence to the Scrutiny Sub Panel, the video below is what happened at the end of Mr. Harper giving evidence to the Scrutiny Home Affairs and Education Sub Panel.
Mr. Harper agreed to stay on the line to answer questions from "journalists" and Bloggers and we were all allowed one question each. This is because the head of the Scrutiny Chairman's panel, Senator Sarah Ferguson, was present at the meeting (don't know why) and had complained about the cost of keeping Mr. Harper on the line which probably worked out at about £2.50.
As for the role of the island's media, one has to question their motives. At this hearing were members of the public, among those members of the public, were victims/survivors of Child Abuse. A request was made at the beginning of this hearing and assurances given that members of the public would not be filmed by the media and reproduced below, is the "official" transcript of that.
"Could I just say before you start I do not think members of the public want to be filmed by the media.
Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Are you going to focus on us? Please, thank you."
The "thank you" from the panel Chairman was a consequence of receiving visual assurances from the media that they agreed with this request. The request was made, not least, because one of the members of public present, who is also an Abuse Survivor, is the target of threatening and intimidatory phone calls, and has even had a stranger come to their door to, among other things, threaten him/her not to reveal the name of their Abuser. This Survivor has subsequently received more threats since this hearing.
This begs the question, did our local media turn up to this meeting to intimidate members of the public and Abuse Victims/Survivors? The media very rarely turn up to Scrutiny Panel Hearings and when they do they very rarely stay for the duration.
This particular Hearing attracted just about ALL of the local media, the JEP, BBC and CTV that we are aware of. Yet not one of them wanted to ask a single question of the man giving evidence Mr. Harper. Not one of them had contacted him to ask for an exclusive or any kind of scoop. Could this be because they already know, or have been told, what they are going to write, publish or broadcast regardless of what Mr. Harper has to say?
This scenario has some merit because a couple of days later the good old JEP, who can't seem to mention Mr. Harper's name without mentioning the "Coconut" mentioned Mr. Harper's name and the Coconut. But if you, the viewer, listen to Mr. Harper's evidence (which the JEP clearly didn't) then you will hear him say that there is no scientific data to show it is coconut. There is however scientific "evidence" to show that this item contained 1.6% collagen which is only found in mammals. Not one of the "accredited" media had a single question to ask about the "fresh and fleshed" bones that had been burnt before burial. After one and a half hours of Mr. Harper giving evidence the "professional, paid, accredited "journalists" could not think of a single question to ask him?
While Mr. Harper was discussing the find of the skull fragment, the "fresh and fleshed" bones when burnt and other finds at HDLG Team Voice noticed that not one of the local "journalists" were taking any notes of what Mr. Harper was telling us.
Team Voice asked Mr. Harper if he believed it would make a blind bit of difference as to what he had to say because the "accredited" media were going to report their own version regardless. Mr. Harper was right in assuming the "accredited" media would give out their version, contrary to the "facts" and "evidence."
So just what is the role of Jersey's mainstream media? How comfortable and cosy is their relationship with the ruling elite? Are they looking to get to the truth? Do they want the public to be informed of the "facts?" Do they intentionally intimidate Abuse Victims/Survivors and members of the public? Are they no more than a propaganda machine for the ruling elite?
Sunday, 10 July 2011
We must remember this is an ongoing Review. BDO/Alto and others are yet to give their evidence. We hope to bring you that evidence as we have Mr. Harper's. We have put in a request to film ALL of the Hearings and are quite sure BDO/Alto will want to be as open and transparent as Mr. Harper and will grant us permission to film as Mr. Harper has.
Part one of this series can be viewed HERE
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
The hearing, which lasted a little over an hour and a half, was extremely informative, and in parts, very revealing. There was standing room only and probably the highest attendance ever at a Scrutiny Panel Hearing............. bar none.
In typical fashion Mr. Harper had no objection to ANYBODY filming his testimony, so that's exactly what we did, and offer our viewers, not our version of events, but Mr. Harpers very own words which he gave under oath.
We must point out that there are counter arguments to Mr. Harper's testimony and this is an on-going Review. Team Voice have requested to film all the Hearings so if everybody giving evidence are as "open" as Mr. Harper, and allow us to film, then we shall bring you the counter arguments also.
Mr. Harper in his own words. (part 1 of approx. 3 or 4)
Monday, 4 July 2011
Jersey's State Media have already been churning out their version of today's events, and once more, have fallen woefully short of "the full story."
Citizens Media will be posting video tomorrow of this Hearing where you, the viewer, will be able to hear straight from the the horses mouth, so to speak, as Mr. Harper gives his evidence under oath.
His evidence includes "leaks" from Senior Police Officers. "Leaks" from Senior Politicians, doctored e-mails to Child Abuse Denying Journalists. The complete contradictions of Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand and much, much, more that you are unlikely to see or hear from the State Media.
Part one of this series of video postings should be up by lunchtime tomorrow.