tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post9051469305602984433..comments2024-03-20T11:09:50.796+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: Serious Complaint (2)voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-67401911427369531122012-08-21T12:05:42.688+01:002012-08-21T12:05:42.688+01:00This was (as far as we remember) where it was LEF...This was (as far as we remember) where it was <a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/06/serious-complaint-3.html" rel="nofollow">LEFT</a>voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-66378912783713181712012-08-21T11:40:20.806+01:002012-08-21T11:40:20.806+01:00Do you know if Mr. Hill ever followed up with ques...Do you know if Mr. Hill ever followed up with questions on the release of the White report?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-56485424921022357422011-06-05T20:50:09.856+01:002011-06-05T20:50:09.856+01:00GOLDENHANDSHAKES
RS<a href="http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2011/06/goldenhandshakes.html" rel="nofollow">GOLDENHANDSHAKES</a><br /><br />RSrico sordahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370637157786202673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-92218621984868543802011-06-05T19:46:41.793+01:002011-06-05T19:46:41.793+01:00FREEMAN of the LAND<a href="http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-deal-with-police-common-law.html" rel="nofollow">FREEMAN of the LAND</a>Big Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-24088419087301486952011-06-04T21:58:32.888+01:002011-06-04T21:58:32.888+01:00Anonymous said...
"JR must have wanted BO&#...Anonymous said... <br /><br />"JR must have wanted BO's job real badly. To do what he did." <br /><br />Ha ha ha, that was the Oligarchy training, getting him read for what is to come!Big Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-62910181384532961442011-06-04T21:14:28.599+01:002011-06-04T21:14:28.599+01:00Ah! JR getting Bill Ogley’s job. Possibly next wee...Ah! JR getting Bill Ogley’s job. Possibly next week some time there will be a Blog posting on this very subject.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-15264902573776064242011-06-04T21:07:52.056+01:002011-06-04T21:07:52.056+01:00JR must have wanted BO's job real badly.
To d...JR must have wanted BO's job real badly.<br /><br />To do what he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-40637206262824937072011-06-04T19:31:25.529+01:002011-06-04T19:31:25.529+01:00Mind you, thinking about it, you can take your pic...Mind you, thinking about it, you can take your pick as to what happened to part (d) of the Napier Report.<br /><br />So far we've been told "Brian Napier removed it" (or words to that effect). "It was a clerical error". "It was a mutual agreement between Napier and Richardson". And last but not least "it wasn't removed".<br /><br />That's the selection, (there might be more) that we've had from our ruling elite.<br /><br />You might form an opinion that part (d) was purposely and surreptitiously removed so key witnesses wouldn't be interviewed by Napier. Therefore hindering his ability to gain evidence that there was a conspiracy at the highest level of government, law Offices and Civil Service to get rid of our Chief of Police before he exposed some very big players in Child Abuse, and the cover-up of it and corruption in land re-zoning.<br /><br />One must look at all the available evidence before deciding which scenario is the most likely.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-92219645188362103852011-06-04T19:16:52.589+01:002011-06-04T19:16:52.589+01:00"so since when does a deputy chief executive ..."so since when does a deputy chief executive have the power to undermine the will of the States?"<br /><br />You forget this isn't the real world, it's the Jersey world where Tooth Fairies exist and evidence just disappears as well as changes shape, colour texture etc.<br /><br />Where Civil Servants can, reportedly orchestrate the removal of politicians and police chief's.<br /><br />Getting a Term of Reference to do a disappearing act without bothering the "democratically" elected "representatives" is small fry in the Jersey world.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-38168524657998653852011-06-04T16:14:46.767+01:002011-06-04T16:14:46.767+01:00Finding: I find this allegation proven but I accep...Finding: I find this allegation proven but I accept that the cause was an administrative error and not a deliberate act by JR.<br /><br />-----<br />Finding: I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation. Given that part (d) had been drafted by JR in the first place, <br /><br />-------<br /><br />Q1: When did the "mutual understanding develop" between JR and BN, before or after the administrative error?<br /><br />Q2: The fact that JR drafted the original part (d) terms, should not bear any significance, what does matter is that the States voted for the terms and did not vote to change those terms, so since when does a deputy chief executive have the power to undermine the will of the States?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-128398516326404012011-06-04T14:50:17.606+01:002011-06-04T14:50:17.606+01:00LONDON CALLING<a href="http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/06/child-abuse-rally-london.html" rel="nofollow">LONDON CALLING</a>voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-67880032787789267122011-06-04T02:57:23.977+01:002011-06-04T02:57:23.977+01:00LEGALESE - MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT DECONSTRUCTION<a href="http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/06/legalese-government-deception-example.html" rel="nofollow">LEGALESE - MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT DECONSTRUCTION</a>Big Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-11534725995657015962011-06-03T19:10:33.289+01:002011-06-03T19:10:33.289+01:00NEW AFFIDAVIT-THE END IS FAST APPROACHING<a href="http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/06/graham-power-qpm-second-affidavit-by.html" rel="nofollow">NEW AFFIDAVIT-THE END IS FAST APPROACHING</a>Big Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-12522075738993962152011-06-02T19:56:52.128+01:002011-06-02T19:56:52.128+01:00This interview on its own should be enough to have...This interview on its own should be enough to have Ian Le Marquand <a href="http://youtu.be/zHO6zHyjtos" rel="nofollow">LOCKED UP</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-69634180108746104842011-06-01T20:48:13.265+01:002011-06-01T20:48:13.265+01:00Nice try Deputy Wimberley.
"WRITTEN QUESTION...Nice try Deputy Wimberley.<br /><br />"WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER<br />BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY<br />ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th MAY 2011<br /><br />Question<br /><br />When the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive<br />on 31st March 2010 saying that he would cooperate with the Napier inquiry into his suspension,<br />were there any qualifications or provisos made by him in that letter as to his willingness to<br />cooperate with the inquiry?<br /><br />Answer<br /><br />The former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on<br />31st March 2010 saying that he would wish to assist Mr Napier subject to clarification on aspects<br />of the confidentiality and evidence obtained by Mr Napier. The Deputy Chief Executive clarified<br />these issues in writing on 16th April 2010 along with other practical matters regarding records,<br />professional advice and accompaniment. Subsequently, the former Chief Officer did indeed cooperate with Mr Napier in the inquiry.<br /><br />What this means,<br /><br />"The former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive on 31st March 2010 saying that he would wish to assist Mr Napier subject to clarification on aspects of the confidentiality and evidence obtained by Mr Napier."<br /><br />"The letter from Graham Power QPM was heavily qualified and full of provisos but i've already said in the States that Graham Power QPM had given his "categoric assurance" in that letter that he would/could participate in the Napier Review and I would look like a liar if I said anything different now."<br /><br />This bit,<br /><br />"Subsequently, the former Chief Officer did indeed cooperate with Mr Napier in the inquiry."<br /><br />should have had this attached to it. <br /><br />"But Mr. Power QPM had no idea that the TOR's had been doctored and mistakenly believed he was giving his evidence under the original TOR's, but he wasn't as nobody had told him the TOR's had been doctored."voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-9463248182733312292011-06-01T19:50:45.718+01:002011-06-01T19:50:45.718+01:00From Graham Power's letter to Philip Ozouf.
&...From Graham Power's letter to Philip Ozouf.<br /><br />"Correspondence on these matters progressed over the following weeks in an attempt to address my concerns. On 22nd April 2010 I wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive and informed him I felt that a point had been reached where it was possible for me to agree to meet with Mr Napier, and I asked for the necessary arrangements to be made. This agreement was of course based on my understanding that the terms of reference for the enquiry were those which had been sent to me on 29th March 2010. I had not been notified of any change in the terms of reference, nor had I any reason to believe I was agreeing to participate in any enquiry other than that described in the letter from the Deputy Chief Executive dated 29th March. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever my agreement to participate in the Napier enquiry was on the understanding that the terms of reference were those provided to me in the correspondence dated 29th March 2010 and on no other basis."<br /><br />So one would assume from this that Mr. Power QPM only had sight of the TOR's on 29th March 2010 and was never told of any changes.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-26912974831005200462011-06-01T19:11:31.754+01:002011-06-01T19:11:31.754+01:00G Power met with Napier 13th May 2010.
But when w...G Power met with Napier 13th May 2010.<br /><br />But when was the latest date, before this meeting that G Power had sighted the TOR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-73269278536250587322011-06-01T19:10:24.828+01:002011-06-01T19:10:24.828+01:00You guys are being a bit dim. Richardson and Napie...You guys are being a bit dim. Richardson and Napier magicked d) away. So it never existed, it just appeared to exist.<br /><br />For his next trick Ozouf will pull d) out of Richardson's ass, and turn it into a golden shower - I mean hand shake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-34959875696427733152011-06-01T14:09:02.668+01:002011-06-01T14:09:02.668+01:00So we have this from Phillip Ozouf.
“There were s...So we have this from Phillip Ozouf.<br /><br />“There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant,<br /><br />Then we have this from Graham Power QPM.<br /><br />“I made contact with Mr Napier and we met on 13th May 2010. I had prepared for the meeting on the basis of the terms of reference which had been sent to me by the Deputy Chief Executive. I produced documents and made verbal submissions on the understanding that Mr Napier and I were working to the same agenda, and that the notified terms or reference formed the basis of that agenda. Had I participated in the meeting knowing that the terms of reference had been changed then I would have prepared differently and made different submissions to Mr Napier.”<br /><br />And we have this from the "discredited" media.......................................voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-77878131929126961882011-06-01T12:16:51.114+01:002011-06-01T12:16:51.114+01:00re.31st may 16:41
quote.
Just let me say this:
...re.31st may 16:41<br />quote.<br /><br /><i>Just let me say this: <br /><br />From here on in - it's no more Mr Nice Guy.</i><br />Stuart. <br /><br />Huh! <br />Are we going to spot the difference? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-6947872804724124922011-06-01T11:26:57.969+01:002011-06-01T11:26:57.969+01:00Furthermore if Phillip Ozouf says this.
"The...Furthermore if Phillip Ozouf says this.<br /><br />"There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant." <br /><br />Then how-come we have this from Graham Power QPM?<br /><br />“For the avoidance of any doubt I regard the failure to inform me of the changed terms of reference, and hence the agenda for my meeting with Mr Napier, as an act of deception which undermined my ability to make the most of my interview with him, and to make all of the submissions which I would have made had I been in full possession of the facts.”<br /><br />We must also remember that neither Graham Power QPM nor Brian Napier QC were interviewed as part of this "independent" Report.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-32563327597312620682011-06-01T11:18:50.081+01:002011-06-01T11:18:50.081+01:00Now here’s another one of those anomalies.
In Phi...Now here’s another one of those anomalies.<br /><br />In Phillip Ozouf’s interpretation of this “independent” Report we have this. <br /><br />“This allegation was considered in two parts:<br /><br />Part 1 : John Richardson instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d)<br /><br />Finding: I find that JR did not "instruct" BN to remove part (d) but I concluded<br />that a mutual understanding developed between JR and BN that part (d) was unlikely to have ongoing relevance given GP's full participation in BN's investigation. Given that part (d) had been drafted by JR in the first place, I accept that this mutual understanding was based on whether the underlying purpose anticipated for part (d) continued to exist (that if GP refused to participate, the investigator would at least have his affidavit to refer to). I find this mutual understanding to be reasonable.” (End)<br /><br />The first question is “how does Phillip Ozouf conclude the was “A mutual understanding” between Brian Napier and Jon Richardson if Brian Napier was never interviewed as part of this “Independent” Report?????<br /><br />Secondly if part (d) was removed from the TOR’S due to a result of this supposed “mutual agreement” between Richardson and Napier, then how is it on Tuesday the 5th of April 2011 in response to an oral question from Deputy Bob Hill Phillip Ozouf says this?<br /><br />“There is no confusion. The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s.”<br /><br />So what is it Phillip, did Napier change his own TOR’s or was it the “mutual agreement?” In the real world it can’t be both.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88888230320027387322011-06-01T11:12:38.972+01:002011-06-01T11:12:38.972+01:00"voiceforchildren said...
If this lot w..."voiceforchildren said...<br /><br /> If this lot wasn't so insanely corrupt it would be laughable but I must be honest and say it scares the hell out of me."<br /><br />One thing we must not forget is that all of this is a direct consequence of Ministerial government.<br /><br />The sooner this island is rid of that failed experiment, the better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-11012103752104011882011-06-01T09:36:08.917+01:002011-06-01T09:36:08.917+01:00Never attribute to malice that which is adequately...Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor" rel="nofollow">a.k.a "Hanlon's Razor"</a>)<br /> - except in Jersey! :)Jersey Needs Justicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-47866730923144230972011-06-01T06:25:55.330+01:002011-06-01T06:25:55.330+01:00Looks like White wants to join the ranks of the li...Looks like White wants to join the ranks of the likes of Chapman, Moore, Napier and the bloke from BDO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com