Sunday, 28 May 2017

One Rule for One?



Following the debacle, and scandal, of the failed Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) which could have cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of £'s. It has been reported that two out of the three independent reports into the failings of JIF will not be published. This is apparently because the remaining reports are of a disciplinary nature. (So what)?

The one report that has been published is reported to have exonerated Senator Philip Ozouf but leaves questions to be answered of Senators Alan Maclean and Lyndon Farnham. Questions the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst doesn't seem able to understand or ANSWER.

Back in 2010 the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, set a very dangerous precedent by (possibly illegally) publishing the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire report, as explained in the below e-mail sent to BBC Radio Jersey from VFC.

This is after his (ILM's) predecessor, and now St. Helier Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended the former Police Chief DURING a major Child Abuse Investigation amid contradictory statements of which he remains UNACCOUNTABLE.

The Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven 1) was the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM for a supposed disciplinary hearing..........That never happened!

Despite there never being an "outcome" (because he robbed the former Police Chief of a disciplinary hearing) Ian Le Marquand still went ahead and appeared to have breached the Wilts confidentiality clauses, by publishing a heavily redacted form of its report.

Former CO Wilts Constabulary Brian Moore.

Operation Haven (1) Confidentiality Clauses.

"Highly Confidential – Personal Information

An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police
Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

Obligation to confidentiality

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. 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 2000)."(END).

With all this in mind VFC sent the below e-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.



E-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

"I heard on your radio programme this morning that the remaining reports into the Jersey Innovation Fund will NOT be published because they are of a disciplinary nature.

I'd like to cast your/the BBC's mind back to 2010 when the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, (possibly illegally) published the prosecution side of a disciplinary report from the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Haven 1) against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

I reported here https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html that a precedent had been set and asked the question"Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????"

You/BBC might want to challenge the Chief Minister's decision to bury the JIF reports on the basis of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand back in 2010?"(END)

Of course the BBC could find itself in a bit of a sticky situation considering that it, alongside all other local mainstream media, published the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer. But despite being leaked the Chief Officer's interim defence case refused to publish a single WORD OF IT. Indeed, to this day, NONE of the local mainstream media have published a single word of it despite it now being a publicly available document (somewhere) on the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's WEBSITE. And despite ALL local Mainstream Media reporting on the prosecution case.

We await to see if the BBC (or any of the Mainstream Media) will challenge the Chief Minister on his decision to bury these Jersey Innovation Fund disciplinary reports in light of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand. Or will it be a case of "One Rule for One?"

A Precedent has been SET. (For some?)

42 comments:

  1. The Wiltshire Report is contained in the documentation accompanying Graham Power's session at the Inquiry (Day 107).

    Link page 289

    Power's statement is on page 183.


    Link Page 183

    I have reproduced Power's view of Brian Moore, who was in charge of the Wiltshire Inquiry in my post on Power's statement to the Inquiry.

    Link


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our establishment truly love covering up damning bits of evidence don't they. Apart from when revealling it may help them paint a certain picture of the troublsome. In your previous post we read (briefly) about the removed from public scrutiny Deputy Pitman witness statement. Here we see the other side of the coin. Two reports which are clearly damaging to the establishment and likely their re-appointed incompetent Ozouf so buried from public scrutiny they will stay. I would say roll on the election if only I thought there was going to be some truly strong candidates to replace those lost in recent years. Maybe we should just hope the French go back to their old habits and invade us?>

      Delete
  2. On the same subject of report's being kept out of the public domain, where is scrutiny's report on the SoJDC building offices as promised.

    This Government is becoming an embarrassing laughing stock when it talks about openness, freedom of information and let us not even mention words like integrity or honesty. Keep up the outstanding work VFC, in this corrupt island.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be fair. They probably can't afford to be 'open' now. Not after all the hoo-hah about them spending £51.000 of your and my tax.

      Being 'open' about these reports would probably need the useless Gorst and his dopes spending twice what it cost to commission them on training ministers how to avoid asnwering questions on them.

      Delete
    2. The above comment made me laugh. But then I thought I should probably be crying. The points made however much in jest are undeniably true. Who would want to live under four more years of this government?

      Delete
  3. Still think the interview idea for a post is a good one. I would love to hear that Deputy Mike Higgins is standing again next May. Last man standing really when we used to have so many good Progressives willing to try and hold people to account.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So when it suited them, the establishment published *parts* of the alleged disciplinary case against the Chief of Police who achieved investigation of decades of establishment child abuse.

    But these two reports into the waste (pilfering even?) of millions of taxpayers' money are to be kept secret!

    Perhaps they need to spend another £50,000 on training on how to be [UN]open and [MIS]informative:
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/public-to-discover-how-much-openness.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Politics here in Jersey is now plain embarrassing. And yet hardly any of the people who will continue to suffer the most because of Gorst, Bailhache and Co and their look after the rich mentality and incpmetence will bother to vote. If only Reform Jersey could persuade someone with a bit of a repuation for standing up to these idiots to lead them there might be some hope. As things stand it will be vote for the Gorst vegetables or just don't bother and accept our fate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jessica Simor QC works for Matrix Chambers. Have they done work before in Jersey before?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another interesting report to come soon.
    http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/investigation-jersey-police-complaints-nearing-conclusion/?t=i#.WS6FMWgrLIU

    ReplyDelete
  8. How ironic that Sam Mezec is being allowed to be attacked (by the msm) for his admittedly ill-considered quip about monkeys and Gibralta's politicians by the notorious Jersey troll who has abused all those who stood up for the HDLG victims. Mezec should have seen this coming without a doubt before making the silly comment. But the msm indulging a troll that they, certainly the JEP, are well aware of for his faked letters and on line avatars says so much about how Jersey works. I mean to say it is not like Mezec called gay people poufs like the paper's tax dodger columist did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get weary of hearing the word 'troll' every time Sam Mezec is commented about online. He has hardly done himself any favours with his comments on these Blogs and this time Social Media about Monkeys and Politicians. We said the other day that Politicians themselves have to roll with the punches.

      Delete
    2. That is an odd turn of phrase @12:42 which I find a little amusing:
      "We said the other day that Politicians themselves have to roll with the punches."

      What do you mean "We"???
      Perhaps you can explain your plurality.
      Are you plural in real life or just online?

      That statement that "We" left was, I think, on the last blog posting:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/05/public-to-discover-how-much-openness.html?showComment=1495906995557#c5669786240267518048

      That comment is well worthless a read. It whinged it seems about politicians using their status to "abuse members of the Public".

      Who did you have in mind?
      [minds, not mind]

      Are you resorting to safety in [imaginary] numbers?

      Delete
    3. Totally agree. I made the very same point but my comment seems to have got lost somewhere. People who keep saying 'we' instead of I have to be a bit suspect.

      Delete
  9. Whatever one thinks about Deputy Mezec and he certainly has his faults he is evidently not racist. Unlike some millionaire immigrants allowed to dodge Jersey's 20% tax rate by their chums in the COM. Only have to look at this yob camapigning to close the doors to homeless child refugees while being too dim to see the irony of his own position.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Talking of politicians losing the publics trust, after making a series of serious gaffs that would have seen the resignation of any western civilisation public office politician resign, not Ian Gorst. He now has a vote of " no " confidence being planned by Constable Chris Taylor who sits on corporate scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is no way a vote of no confidence will take place, we hear Sen Gorst has requested a meeting with Constable Taylor just like Steve luce and the planning minister vote of no confidence he will talk Taylor out of the idea and in return offer him some other position. anyone fancy a bet?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Chief Minister Ian Gorst and PM Theresa May are actually the same person. You never see them together do you? In fact you never see Theresa May anywhere if it means facing up to a public debate with the brilliant old Jeremy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jersey's next police chief could be from over seas? Is Inspector Clueseau still alive? Still be an upgrade on Bowron even if he isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Has Constable Taylor of St. John lodged his vote of no confidence in the useless Gorst yet? If he does he will have done more for the people than his predecessor Phil Rondel ever did.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This has got to be a first. A Constable going against the Establishment. This could be the start of long awaited things to come. But only if it materialises.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For those who want rid of gorst I'd be careful what you wish for... bailache is licking his lips quietly in the wings ... he may even be orchestrating things ... et tu bailache!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slimey may well be pulling the strings but luckily for us even Groucho and Harpo know that having one brother as Bailiff and the other as Chief Minister would be a step too far for the otherwise uncaring UK powers that be. Make the neo-feudal state that we are just to overt.

      Delete
  17. So if gorst goes then what... be careful what you wish for!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The person that used to bring a no confidence vote if won it would be "expectedto take over. With this gentlemans track record do jot havea problem with that myself.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ian Gorst is such a laclustre emabarrassment you almost begin to think that he IS Theresa May in disguise. Why do these horrible, uncaring, incompetent people think they should thrust themselves upon us by going in to politics?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Someone elsewhere has commented that , following PR advice that he has sought for a reason, he might have been advised to 'find a route out now' . Repositioning Philip Ozouf is perhaps not suicide but a deliberate trigger so as to avoid the dangers coming and pass the 'chalice' to someone else such as Sir Philip.
    As Trumpton says 'Just saying'.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bodger Ozouf (Mrs)3 June 2017 at 17:12

    The reason there appears to be one rule for one, a different rule for another, as the leader to this post states is that Ian Le Marquand abused his position as Home Affairs Minister and got away with it simply because the Establishment wanted to bury police chif Power for daring to try and expose the decades of Establishment protection of, and cover up of the HDLG abuse. They don't want any of their half-wit ministers exposed as these new reports do. let us just hope old Senator Bean doesn't try and make a comeback in 2018!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bailache told us that the COI could well cost 50 million... someone in the states should remind him of his hopelessly wrong forecast ... he is such a manipulative,
    teflon coated toff!

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is worth remembering that Sir Pip has come out very badly in the evidence to the care inquiry
    just for starters ;
    Vic College
    Roger Holland
    not reporting a case of CSA
    Liberation speech
    opposing the Inquiry
    and then there was reading details of the Deans fiasco on a plane and "lying sorry forgetting " about it.


    If one reads his testimony to the inquiry, it is a wonder that he can cope with life never mind being a politician he has the most terrible memory just can't remember or is unsure, vague etc.
    when watching him on the States Assembly recording he looks half asleep most of the time.
    His track record has been so poor for so long that the public need to be reminded, without the JEP to promote and protect him
    his halo might have slipped. Remember all the coverage he got in his election campaign.
    Did I not hear recently that his department alone has spent a massive amount on PR services?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I believe that a major cost with regard to the inquiry and to the tax payer was the cost of paying lawyers to protect the states departments, same with the survivors compensation, more to the lawyers that to the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Baillache transcript January 26th 2016 on Inquiry website

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has it been redacted to hell like the damning statement (Bailhaches mentioned extensively) given to the Inquiry by the excellent former politician Trevor Pitman?

      I doubt it.

      Delete
  26. The more that comes to light the more I am totally convinced that if (Ex)Senator Stuart Syvret had become this Islands First Chief Minister (as the people of this Island clearly voted for). Instead we got Walker curtesy of all his crony mates and all the lame ducks that have followed. Syvret along with Power and Harper would have cleaned out the chicken coop and without doubt would have saved us all the millions for the CoI. But perhaps even more important, given justice to all those children who were abused and also put many of the perpitrators behind bars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@15:10 says:
      "Syvret along with Power and Harper would have cleaned out the chicken coop and without doubt would have saved us all the millions for the CoI".

      Why do you think the CoI's results/conclusions keep getting delayed?
      Because they can not face having to EXONERATE Syvret and Power.
      Roll on July 3rd....
      Unless it gets delayed again?!

      Delete
  27. The council of ministers probably has a copy of the report already. If the COI can redact so much crucial and incredibly damning stuff from witness statements and not even force important witnesses to appear what real hope can there be?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I suspect that the redactions came about due to pressure from the data protection office ,have you read the report from them May 2016, the COI did challenge the report, tore it apart really, but it was clear that the states data protection office was challenging every bit of the way. There was an excellent interview by Tom Gruchy, of Alan Collins and the JCLA. it was posted on one of the blogs where they expressed the view that the inquiry had been under scrutiny the whole time. Sometimes the testimony of certain witnesses was stopped mid session and the panel withdrew, I suspect due to challenges from the states lawyers. I have though all along that there were many attempts to derail and undermine the inquiry by the states lawyers and data protection.
    Now that's my conspiracy theory. You obviously think that the COI are in the States pocket, that must be why Gorst and the Ministers are so scared of the report coming out that they are spending so much money on P.R. training. I have heard they have hired a team of lawyers to go through it with a fine tooth comb when it comes out ,why would they do that if they know what is in it already.
    Also the COI were on a tight budget, they had been told no more money and no more time, they did not have the time or money to call everyone. Remember they had to move out of their offices before they had finished and use St Paul' Centre

    Just join the dots

    ReplyDelete
  29. I wonder if any of the people who really fought for this to happen, i.e. to bring about justice for the victims, will be around for the media to interview. I really couldn't stomach the PR bought avalanche of bullshit from the likes of Gorst, Bailhache and Routier.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Routier big catholic fraud seen to be holier than thou but is undermining a process out to protect children "suffer little children" JC in bible somewhere, yes suffer they did mate!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Officially confirmed by IJCI the report will be released at 3 p.m at St Paul's Centre. Open to the public, but no questions.

    It will be an 'interesting' day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jill. I am just about to publish a new posting on this very subject.

      Delete

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