BBC State Radio Reaches New Low.

Deputy Shona Pitman, tells us, she was assured by Managing Editor of BBC Jersey Jon Gripton that she would be afforded a right of reply in response to an interview given by disgraced former Housing Minister Deputy Sean Power on State Radio last week. Deputy Pitman turned up to the studio this morning but what transpired was truly beyond belief even for the standard of the discredited, and disgraced BBC.

It appeared that every time Deputy Pitman attempted to answer a question her microphone was cut off in a blatant display of double standards and media suppression the BBC is so notorious for.

Below is one of the lowest levels local State Radio has reached and a politician who won't be bullied into playing along with the agenda of the BBC. Below that is an in-depth interview with Deputy shona Pitman (un-edited with no microphone being cut off) discussing this morning's "event" some documented evidence and the vital role of Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) in offering politicians, members of the public and just about anybody who challenges the local judiciary/Establishment and their media a voice.

VFC credit TJW for the State Radio recording.

Banned U.S. Journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, Update.

U.S. author and Investigative Journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, who was banned from entering the UK and Jersey after it became apparent she was investigating the Child Abuse, and possible murder, at Jersey "care" home Haut de la Garenne STILL remains banned. Jersey Immigration has finally admitted, according to Ms Goodman, that the "writers Visa" she was advised to apply for (by Jersey Immigration) doesn't exist! 

Regular readers will be aware that after learning of Ms Goodman's ban and appalling treatment she was allegedly subjected to at the hands of the UK Border Agency and Jersey Immigration, local politician Deputy Trevor Pitman, launched an online petition to raise awareness of Ms Goodman's plight and hopefully bring pressure on the agencies to do the right thing and allow her to continue her work and issue her a visa that DOES exist.

Leah McGrath Goodman has updated her story to the signatories of her/Deputy Trevor Pitman's petition and we re-produce it here.

Jersey Update from Leah McGrath Goodman:

It has been just over a month and the island of Jersey is keenly aware of the progress of this petition...so please keep it coming. It is having immense impact. I am with all of you in spirit, although as yet I am still not allowed back in the UK...

Right now, several UK newspapers and media outlets are in touch amid the Jimmy Savile scandal, as revelations emerge daily of his abusing children at the very same Jersey orphanage I am investigating -- Haut de la Garenne.

This lends a great deal of credence the victims' (previously ignored) testimonies of appalling crimes committed at Haut de la Garenne against children across decades by the rich and privileged -- islanders as well as visitors such as Savile.

One reporter for a major London daily told me, "We have been asking ourselves for days why the press did nothing about this...Now that I hear your story about how you were kicked out of the country for investigating it, I know." Jersey's police has stated that it received complaints of Savile's acts against children but did not charge him due to "insufficient evidence." (It remains to be seen what evidence would be sufficient on an island that has no sex offenders registry.)

By not stopping Savile, the authorities effectively stepped aside and allowed him to continue preying on children until his death. The UK now likes to refer to these matters as "in the past" or "historic" or "it happened in a different era."

Really? In Jersey, people accused of horrific crimes against children are still enjoying high-ranking government posts in health and education -- in other words, close to defenseless children. We know their names and we know what they did according to their accusers. But they have never been charged.

Why? In Jersey, if the Attorney General does not agree to apprehend a person, the police cannot apprehend him. There is no appealing that decision. Neat, huh?

Regarding my plight, Jersey Immigration has stated I am quite welcome to return to the island, provided I get a non-existent "Writer's visa." Yes, this visa does not exist. This week, they finally admitted there is no form for such a visa. We are still awaiting a coherent answer as to what they now advise me to do.

While it is hard to believe any of these things could happen in a Western democracy -- let alone on an island that answers to the Queen -- what might be even harder to believe is that so many people have been trampled so many times in trying to effect lasting change, the vast majority of them have given up. After what I have seen, I don't blame them.

But the truth must come out. Help us keep the pressure on and pass this along to a few more people, if you have a chance. Those of you from Jersey, hang in there. For those of you from elsewhere, this is a beautiful island with truly amazing people. It does not deserve anything less than safety for its children -- and the truth.

Hope this finds you and your families well -- and happy autumn.

Leah.(END)

We ask our readers to support Ms Goodman's struggle with Jersey Immigration and please sign the petition HERE.

We (the good people of Jersey) are sick and tired of Jersey's reputation being dragged through the mud because of a few power crazed nut-cases who are hell bent on keeping the truth buried concerning the horrors that occurred at Haut de la Garenne and other State run institutions on the island .

Banning a Western Journalist from researching the facts will further damage the reputation of this beautiful island which has suffered enough because of a select few.

The victims/survivors of the horrendous Child Abuse deserve to have their story told and Jersey needs to show the world's stage that it is willing to face up to its failings.......Please sign the petition.

Leah McGrath Goodman Banned from UK and Jersey

U.S. Investigative Journalist and best selling author Leah McGrath Goodman has been banned from entering Britain and Jersey as revealed in The Guardian News Paper and more recently on BBC State Radio.

Miss Goodman claims she has been banned because she is researching the Jersey Child Abuse atrocities, Haut de la Garenne, and related issues but naturally the Jersey Authorities deny this.

Below are the interviews, broadcast on BBC State Radio yesterday, with Leah McGrath Goodman and Michael Robinson from Jersey's Custom and Immigration Service.

Who do you believe?????





VFC would like to credit, and thank TJW for these recordings.

Blog TV.

Today (Sunday 15th April 2012) saw the launch of the "Team Voice" television/video channel. Team Member RICO SORDA presented the first LIVE (trial) broadcast in a 6 minute video (below).

This is the beginning of a new era in reaching out to a wider audience and our use of this media is still in its experimental stages. As we progress we intend on inviting guests to the "show" and hope it will become a regular broadcast.

Please visit our TV channel HERE


No Title- Broadcast your self LIVE

Discredited State Media V Bloggers (protocol 2)

In part two of our exclusive and in-depth interview with the Chairman of chairman's Scrutiny Panel (Parliamentary Select Committee) Deputy Tracey Vallois we discuss the ongoing Leveson Enquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the "accredited" media.

The Deputy concedes that she has "no idea" as to why Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) are so discriminated against by being excluded from filming Scrutiny Panel Hearings when the disgraced and discredited local State Media (not the Deputy's words) are given carte blanche when it comes to filming even though they breach the protocols and Bloggers NEVER have.

The Leveson Enquiry has taught us that the "accredited" media are not sufficiently regulated and regulatory bodies such as the PCC have proven to be a complete waste of time. Which puts pay to one of the excuses wheeled out by the Establishment when they say Bloggers are not regulated, when in practice they are probably more regulated than the accredited media.

Still Jersey's local State Media who regularly churn out little more than government propaganda, misquote and misrepresent, politicians to suit their own agenda are not held to account and in reality answerable to nobody.

In stark contrast the local Bloggers such as VFC have NEVER been accused of misquoting, misrepresenting, or unfavourably editing to suit our own agenda and have been complimented by just about all of those who we have interviewed, still the State discriminates against us.

Deputy Vallois appears just as disillusioned with the State Media and lack of investigative "journalism" as we are. She too claims to be a victim of Channel Televisions "journalism" and goes onto question why the JEP are patting themselves on the back as if they are some stalwart of journalism because they put in an access to information request!

It is high time Jersey's State Media was investigated for their culture, practices and ethics. Their very uncomfortable and close relationship with politicians and the like. Which, as discussed in this interview, was a recommendation put forward by the Scrutiny Sub Panel chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman that will no doubt gather dust just like the vast majority of Scrutiny recommendations that might hold the true power of this island to account.

VFC has never been accused of the unethical practices employed by the accredited media and deserve, at the very least, a level playing field. Indeed the local State Media should be looking to raise their standards to that of the majority of local Bloggers.

Again we thank Deputy Vallois for her support of Bloggers and for this full and frank interview.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE

Protocol.

On the 12th of January this year (2012) we "Citizen's Media" received the latest incarnation (below) of the protocol concerning filming (or not) of "PUBLIC" Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) Panel Hearings. After reading the protocol we discovered that it was much the same as the others that have been dreamt up in the past and really only there to prevent Bloggers from engaging the public in the political process.

It was signed by the Vice Chairman, Deputy Stephen Luce, who most will know is the new Deputy of St Martin after defeating former Deputy Bob Hill in the last election. Deputy Hill was/is an avid campaigner for open and transparent government and supporter of Citizens Media. These attributes appear completely lacking in his Successor, Deputy Luce, as this latest attempt to exclude the public, in favour of, State Media should demonstrate.

Our Ref 510/1(42)

12 January 2012

New Protocol for Filming at Scrutiny Hearings

Dear “Citizen’s media

The new Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee has considered in depth how it can best conduct its hearings in a professional and businesslike manner whilst maintaining the opportunity for visual media coverage. The Committee has held a meeting for all Scrutiny Members recently and decided that preferable way forward was for webstreaming, similar to that which operates in other jurisdictions. This means that all visual recording would be operated centrally and streamed. Any media outlets would be able to apply for permission to use footage taken centrally with no changes made to such format.

However, this is currently being looked into in detail and is not a short-term solution. Consideration has, therefore, been given as to the best way forward in the interim and it has been agreed that a standardised procedure is required for all involved in Scrutiny Hearings, be they Panel Members, witnesses, public or media.

It has been agreed that no visual footage will be permitted by the “Citizen’s media”. “Accredited” media wishing to take visual footage will be permitted to do so for the first five minutes of each public hearing only (it is anticipated that Scrutiny and PAC hearings will be held in public) and may not take any footage of the public but only those present at the table.

Everyone is very welcome to attend all or parts of Hearings to take notes. Also any media interviews with the Panel, Sub-Panel, PAC Chairmen or witnesses can be arranged to take place outside the States Building either before or after Hearings.

Yours sincerely

Deputy of St Martin

Vice-President, Chairmen’s Committee (END)

 

Regular readers will be aware that, in the past, these protocols have been hair-brained, ill thought-out, nonsensical and discriminatory against Bloggers.....and this latest incarnation is no different. So rather than (as we have in the past) question it, challenge it or point out, to the authors how 19th century, backward, nonsensical and draconian we believed it to be we chose simply to ignore it as it is only a very small part of the bigger picture that is the "secrecy" of this administration.

However an occasion arose where the protocol was breached by the "accredited" (State) media and one of the Scrutiny Panel Chairman, Deputy Kristina Moore. So in order to prove our point, that the protocol is a complete waste of time, and not worth the paper it is written on we complained to the head of the Chairman's Panel Deputy Tracy Vallois, asking who will be held to account/sanctioned for this blatant breach? Of course we knew nobody would, or even could, be sanctioned thus proving our point.

Here is the complaint made to the Chairman of the Chairman's Panel.

from: voiceforchildren

to: t.vallois

date: 11 February 2012 10:52

subject:  Sanctions/complaint.

Deputy.

I contact you in your capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny Chairman's panel.

On the 12th of January 2012 I received the new (draconian)  protocol of filming (or not) Scrutiny Hearings. It must be said, no matter how draconian these protocols have been/are, that "non accredited" (Bloggers) media have adhered to them throught. The same can't be said for the "accredited" (State) media and in particular Channel Television. Yesterday 10th February 2012, despite the new protocol stating that the "accredited" media can only film within the first five minutes of a hearing, Channel Television turned up to the Health, Social Security & Housing Panel Hearing, long after the first five minutes and filmed. Not only did they film but, (and again with total disregard to the protocol), filmed a member of the public, and broadcast it on their 6 o'clock news despite the protocol stating the "accredited" media "may not take any footage of the public but only those present at the table."

Channel television appear to continually disregard any rules/protocols. Back in July 2011 I published this Blog Posting, http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/07/skull-evidence-and-media.html of which I produce a section of it here.

"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.

Male Speaker:

"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." (end)

So the questions remain just what is the point of these protocols if in practice they mean nothing? They appear totally pointless and are regularly ignored by Channel Television.

Please regard this e-mail as an official complaint, but it is difficult to know who the complaint should be aimed at and indeed what, if anything, can be done about it? Who is at fault here, is it the Scrutiny Panel that allowed Channel Television to film (out of time) yesterday and for not assuring members of the public were kept out of shot? Is it Channel Television who is at fault for having total disregard for the protocols? Just as importantly what realistic sanctions are in place for such beaches of protocol? If a Blogger was to turn up at one of these Hearings and switch a video camera on, what would the sanction be? Now that CTV has breached the protocol who, if anybody, is going to sanctioned?

I dare say neither yourself, nor any of your committee know the answers to these questions as these draconian rules are made up at the drop of a hat and in reality don't mean anything and are a waste of time that only serve to prevent "independent" media (Bloggers) from filming meetings.

As mentioned earlier this is an official complaint please treat it as such and I would like to know what the consequences will be for these breaches of protocol and who will "suffer" the consequences?

VFC. (END)

A series of e-mail exchanges then took place which resulted in the Chairman, Deputy Vallois, agreeing to this interview (Part1 below) for which we are very grateful and appreciate her support for Citizens Media. It is important to point out that Deputy Vallois was not party to the decision (vote) to exclude Bloggers from filming the Scrutiny Hearings and after a request she was the only Chairperson to reply to the e-mails and "promptly" too. All other Chairmen were asked for an interview but the e-mail wasn't even acknowledged. That said, Deputy Macon, and Senator Ferguson, as mentioned in the video, did not agree with the exclusion of Bloggers, so still waiting to hear from Deputies Moore, Young and Luce...........

State Media and Scrutiny.

Today saw the publication of the long awaited Report from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel's Investigation into Issues surrounding the Review of Financial Management of Operation Rectangle (Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry).

Firstly this Sub Panel's Investigation came about because of questions asked by Bloggers. Well one question and that was "how can a Report be conducted into the expenditure of the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry (HCAE) without the Senior Investigating Officer of that Enquiry being interviewed?"  The Senior Investigating Officer being Lenny Harper, we've all seen and heard the Headlines "The Lavish Lifestyle of Lenny Harper", "Meals at top class London Restaurants paid for by the tax payer" "First class trips to Australia" etc, etc. Yet not one of Jersey's "Journalists" thought to ask, "what does Lenny Harper have to say about this?"

These headlines, and many others similar, came on the back of a Report commissioned to examine the expenditure of the HCAE. This Report has been totally misrepresented by Jersey's State Media and used as a stick to beat Lenny Harper and Former Jersey Chief of Police Graham Power with, two cops, with their team, who were investigating Child Abuse that carried on for decades in Jersey State run Institutions.

The Scrutiny Sub Panel chaired by Deputy Trevor Pitman with members Deputies Daniel Wimberley and Roy Le Herissier has opened up a huge can of worms that should become one of the most important documents for anybody researching this dark period in Jersey's History.

The Report made a number of recommendations and findings and can be viewed on Rico Sorda's Blog HERE

One of the key issues highlighted in the Sub Panel's Report is the role of Jersey's State Media, the mis-reporting, the non-reporting and creating a completely false impression to its audience.

Deputy Pitman, along with Senator Ian Le Marquand, were guests on BBC Radio Jersey this morning (recorded by TJW and we'll put a link to it when published later tonight) where they explained how they are in agreement when it comes to the poor media reporting. Once more yours truly phoned in to the show and was prevented from going on air but as regular readers will be aware that's nothing new.

Below is part 1 of a two part in-depth interview with Deputy Trevor Pitman, edited in order that we can focus predominantly on the subject of Jersey's State Media. We also discuss the man who took over the HCAE upon Mr. Harper's retirement and that's Mick Gradwell. He has been accused by at least one witness under oath at the Scrutiny Panel, including the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand telling States Members that after an internal enquiry all avenues of a leak to the National Media led to the door of Mr. Gradwell.......And Jersey's State Media didn't think it newsworthy?

This is just one of the cans of worms opened by this Sub Panel's enquiry which will surely now demand that the HCAE under the leadership of Mr. Gradwell is revisited and his motives questioned? Gradwell trashed the Child Abuse Enquiry under the command of Lenny Harper and at the same time allegedly leaking confidential information (during a live Child Abuse Investigation) to a journalist with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles?

The same Mick Gradwell that the Home Affairs Minister, reluctantly conceded, had he (Gradwell) not been seconded and was a States Of Jersey Police Officer would likely be facing disciplinary charges. The same Mick Gradwell that said he would take part in any enquiry set up to look at the HCAE didn't give evidence to this enquiry.

Finally This Scrutiny Review, along with the "Lime Grove" Review is what Scrutiny should be about, tackling "real" issues that seriously challenge our government and credit must go to Deputies Pitman, Wimberley and Le Herissier, now all we need is a media that will do the same (challenge our government) so us members of the public don't have to live in this culture of fear by highlighting the stuff they should be.

Independent Police Force (Terrifying)

Former Senator and Health Minister Stuart Syvret was jailed yesterday (2nd November 2011) apparently for not complying with his Community Service order. This of course is the line taken by Jersey's State Media. However, as is so often the case, the State Media are being a little economical with the full facts.

From the very start Mr. Syvret claimed that the prosecution against him was "a criminal enterprise." After being sentenced to the 80 hours Community Service he claimed to have received evidence, in the form of Former Jersey Police Chief Graham Power's, submission to the Wiltshire Constabulary's DISCREDITED REPORT. Mr. Syvret also claimed that a witness, known to the prosecution, was kept from him which he claims hampered his case.

We are led to believe Mr. Syvret applied for a court hearing to submit all this new evidence but this was denied him by Mr. William Bailhache (Deputy Bailiff) who's brother Philip Bailhache (Former Bailiff) was running against him in the Jersey elections.

Mr. Syvret claims since he was refused this court hearing then he was forced not to comply with his Community Service Order so as he would get brought back to court where he could then submit this new evidence that he claimed to prove the prosecution against him was indeed criminal. However, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate's Court refused to hear any of this new evidence and jailed him for eight weeks.

But there does appear to be a common thread running through all of this and that is "Child Abuse."  Mr. Syvret was the first politician to speak out against Jersey's Child Protection Failures back in 2007 and as a result of this there is strong evidence to suggest that his removal from office (Health Minister) was engineered by, among others, the very Civil Servants, who he claimed were responsible for these failures.

At the same time as the Former Health Minster was publicly condemning Jersey's Child Protection Apparatus, unknown to him, there was a covert police investigation into Institutional Child Abuse ("Operation Rectangle") in progress headed up by the then Deputy Police Chief Officer Lenny Harper. This was possibly the biggest investigation ever undertaken by a Jersey Police Force where a number of the suspects were people, known as "The Establishment" people who wielded a lot of power and influence in Jersey.............That were never charged.

The rest is well recorded (by Bloggers) History, out of the 151 suspects only a mere 8 of them were ever charged, by what is strongly believed to be a politicised Judicial system where the public were only given a couple of SHOW TRIALS.

The then Chief of Police Graham Power QPM was, "Dubiously"  suspended from duty, Lenny Harper retired, and the State Media went about trashing their names and reputations. All the focus seemed to shift from the Child Abuse that was able to flourish for decades in Jersey's "care" homes onto how much Lenny Harper spent on a Prawn Cocktail in a Bombay Brasserie. The State Media have never set about asking how paedophiles could ply their trade in Jersey's State Run institutions for so long without detection. Indeed the State Media haven't set about asking many questions at all they just repeat, broadcast, publish or print the Press Releases they are given by the State regardless of how preposterous they are.

Below we have part two of Mr. Syvret's evidence given to the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel (parliamentary Select Committee) who are investigating issues surrounding the Review of financial management of "Operation Rectangle."

We must remember the "State Line" is that Lenny Harper and Graham Power became, overnight, terrible cops who must have completely forgotten all their police training as soon as they started to investigate Child Abuse in Jersey. Or is it, as Mr. Syvret claims in his evidence to Scrutiny, that Mr. Harper and Mr. Power were two straight cops who were going to investigate without fear or favour? Is the truth of all this that these two cops were truly independent and this "terrified" the Jersey Establishment? Is Stuart Syvret spending 8 weeks in prison because he blew the lid off of the Child Abuse atrocities in Jersey? Have the reputations of Lenny Harper and Graham Power QPM been trashed by the Jersey Establishment (and their media) because they blew the lid off of Jersey's "Dirty Secrets?" Has the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, fulfilled his wish and brought the police back under Political Control? Does anybody remember that amongst all this are people who suffered at the hands of paedophiles in State Run "Care" Homes FOR DECADES?

The views expressed by the witness are his own and not necessarily shared by VFC.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE




 

Smelling a Rat.

On Wednesday the 17 of August 2011 Deputy Trevor Pitman was interviewed live in the studio of the AWARD WINNING CTV. The subject of the interview was supposed to be about the Deputy's Scrutiny Sub Panel Review into the BDO/Alto audit Report of the expenditure during the "Historic" Child Abuse Enquiry.

However the reporting by CTV has not only infuriated survivors of the Child Abuse in Jersey, and others, but has "sickened" none other than the Chief Executive Officer of Home Affairs Mr. Steven Austin Vautier. He told the Scrutiny Panel that after watching the particular broadcast on Wednesday the 17th he was "sick to the pit of his stomach" he said that parts of what CTV reported was "Tosh" and "Dribble". This is a view shared by many people concerning, not only CTV's reporting of anything to do with the Historic Child Abuse but by the entire "accredited" media in Jersey.

The interview with Deputy Trevor Pitman below will give viewers an idea of what has been said "under oath" by witnesses at some of these hearings. Just as importantly it will give viewers an idea on what the "accredited" media HAVEN'T been reporting.

Here are a few headlines that, in any functioning Democracy with a free press, could have reported.


"Former SIO accused of leaking confidential information to journalist during live Child Abuse investigation". 


"Former Assistant Health Minister accused of leaking confidential police e-mails to journalist during live Child Abuse Investigation".


"Former Acting Chief Police Officer denies preventing BDO/Alto from interviewing Lenny Harper".


"More than half the money spent on Child Abuse Enquiry was spent during Warcup and Gradwell's watch". (who didn't have a major crime scene on their hands).

Interestingly Mr. Austin Vautier claimed that CTV offered him a "right of reply", he told CTV that he would use that right of reply when he next gave evidence to the Scrutiny Panel, and guess what? CTV, nor any of the "accredited" media turned up to that particular hearing.............Coincidence?

Is there any wonder that people smell a Rat?

Part two coming soon..............

The Three Goons.

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!










  

The Role of Jersey’s “accredited” Media.

For those who have been following this series of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Hearings. We are sorry to say, we are unable to bring you any video footage of the evidence given by BDO/Alto or Mike Kellett as they have both refused us permission to film.

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 1^st and 3^rd 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 29^th 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.


  

Lenny Harper Scrutiny Evidence 1

Yesterday, Monday 4th July 2011, Former Senior Investigating Officer of "Operation Rectangle" (Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation) Lenny Harper, for the very first time, gave evidence, concerning his expenditure,  to a Scrutiny Sub Panel Chaired by St Helier Deputy Trevor Pitman.

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.

Our State Controlled Media have been offering their version of yesterday's Hearing with their trademark soundbites in the hope that the general public will buy into the snippets they have been fed.

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)

Jersey's Anthem.

On the Matthew Price show this morning (BBC Radio Jersey) Matthew was encouraging listeners to get in contact with the show to offer their suggestions of what should be "The Jersey Anthem."

Accordingly I sent in an e-mail (below) with my suggestion, but for some reason, Matthew chose not to read it out or play the song that I had suggested.

I have sent Matthew a further e-mail accepting there could be a perfectly legitimate reason as to why the song or e-mail were not aired and asked him for the reason(s) so as they could be considered for publication on here as a right of reply..........he's not replied yet but hopefully will.

This is just a short posting that, in my opinion, shouldn't even be necessary. But I believe our Children deserve a voice and the subject of Child Abuse should be tackled head on.

If the BBC, or any mainstream media, aren't going to do it, then what chance have our children got?

from voiceforchildren voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren@googlemail.com to bbc radio jersey date Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:56 AM subject Anthem mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details 8:56 AM (2 hours ago)

Matthew.

I believe the Jersey Anthem should be the song recorded by Martina McBride "Concrete Angel."

It tells the story of a young girl who was Abused for years while others either turned a blind eye or covered it up. The young girl finished up in a grave at the age of, I believe, 10 years old.

If this was the Jersey Anthem it would/could remind those who have, or might, turn a blind eye or cover up Child Abuse that they too could be responsible for killing a child and could encourage them to do the right thing by our children.

VFC.

--
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/

Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/TheVoiceJersey

Deputy Trevor Pitman (Media)

Member of Jersey's Parliament (The States of Jersey) Deputy Trevor Pitman, a fellow BLOGGER speaks to Citizens Media about Jersey's mainstream media and Blogging.

The outspoken Deputy refuses to be intimidated by the Culture of Fear" that is felt by a growing number of the Jersey public and STATES MEMBERS.

In this interview he discusses the role played by our mainstream media, the lack of diversity, the lack of any "investigative" journalism, the need for Citizens Media and the power of the media in Jersey..............and much more!

Could, probably the worst Child Abuse cover up in History, have happened without the help of Jersey's mainstream media?

Serious Complaint (3)

Readers will note that the correspondence below has been sent to all States Members and just as importantly to the islands mainstream media. The correspondence could be viewed as further evidence of a cover-up, so will our States Members be asking any questions, and will our mainstream media even report it let alone "investigate" any of it?

                                                                                                                 

from	Bob Hill B.Hill@gov.je
to		"All States Members (including ex officio members)"
cc		Ben Queree , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , Channel 103 , Channel TV , JEP Editorial , JEP Newsdesk , BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV , "Spotlight (Spotlight)"
date		Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM
subject		Complaint relating to Removal of Part (d)
mailed-by		gov.je

Dear Colleagues,

Members will recall that last Tuesday 7th June during question time I asked an Oral Question of Senator Ozouf in relation to my complaint against a senior officer. On four occasions Senator Ozouf stated that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint. The question arose from the removal of part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference. My attached letter of complaint to Senator Le Sueur will set the scene, also attached is Senator Ozouf's letter in which he has summarised the Investigator's findings. The third letter is from Mr Power in which he states that he regarded the failure to be informed of the changed Terms of Reference as an act of deception.

As one can see from my allegations only a small number of people had to be interviewed. The key people being myself, Senator Le Sueur, Mr Power and most certainly Mr Napier and the Officer, Mr Richardson. One should  note that the cost of the investigation was a little over £6000. The report has apparently only been seen by Senator Ozouf whose letter claims to be a summary of the Investigator's response to each of the allegations

I spent around two hours with the investigator and provided the key documents including a copy of an email from Mr Napier in relation to his discussion with Mr Richardson about the Terms of Reference. Mr Napier states " I can confirm that I did not feel constrained in any way by its removal, although I do recollect a comment I made, to the effect that I did not want to participate in setting my own Terms of Reference. In other words, I remember expressing the view that the decision to change the terms was not one which I should personally make or participate in, though I had no objection to the amendment being made by those who were instructing me and I was entirely happy working with the amended terms"

When one reads Mr Napier's comments it is difficult to understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that part (d) was not removed particularly as it does not appear in the Final Napier Report. It is also difficult to understand how anyone can form any contrary view when two of the key witnesses, Mr Napier and Mr Power were never interviewed. (That fact was confirmed by Senator Ozouf during question time). I don't know whether Senator Le Sueur was interviewed but given that part (d) was removed or not proceeded with (by a mutual understanding!!!!) the document he was given to sign was not an accurate one and the subsequent presentation of R39/2010 was only partly accurate because the Terms of Reference had been amended. It is now claimed that the absence of part (d) was an administrative error, it will be for Members to come to their own conclusions however Senator Ozouf states that allegations 6 & 7 were proven. Therefore his statement to Members that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint is incorrect and should be rectified.

In Senator Ozouf's letter it is claimed that Mr Richardson did not "instruct" Mr Napier to remove part (d) but he concluded that a mutual understanding developed between Mr Richardson and Mr Napier not to proceed with part(d) as it was not relevant. Such a claim is nonsense. The fact is as a result of that " mutual understanding " part (d) was removed as stated by Mr Napier  this is substantiated by its absence, without any explanation in the Final Report. Whatever excuses are offered it cannot be disputed that Part (d) does not appear in the Terms of Reference in the Napier Final Report. It cannot be disputed that even if there was a "mutual understanding between Mr Napier and Mr Richardson not proceed with Part (d) It was not within the gift of Mr Richardson to take such action without consulting myself and Senator Le Sueur. If we had agreed then it was imperative that Mr Power and all other witnesses were notified that as a result of a "mutual understanding with Mr Richardson, Mr Napier was not proceeding with part (d). Also both myself and Senator Le Sueur should have been informed as per our agreement.

I met the Investigator and was of the view that he was experienced and quickly grasped the situation. I do not believe that he was so incompetent to form the views attributed to him particularly as he did not interview Mr Napier  but had thewritten account of the removal of part(d).

I believe that the removal of part (d) was to deflect Mr Napier away from digging too deep. however his findings must have disappointed certain people because he found that those involved with the former Police Chief Officer'ssuspension had acted untoward. If our Government is to have any credibility it must be transparent and its Ministers and all its Officers must act with propriety without fear or favour. The evidence to hand proves there was a conspiracy to remove Mr Power. Those responsible have been shown to have acted in an untoward manner probably believing that they were either above reproach or no one would bother to scrutinise and if anyone did, there would be Ministers and Civil Servants who would make life difficult for those who tried to expose the truth. They have been proven to be wrong.

Regards

Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Catel Cottage,

Rue du Catel,

Trinity, JE35HA,

22^nd February 2011.

Senator T Le Sueur,

Chief Minister,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Chief Minister,

 Complaint against Mr John Richardson

On 12^th November 2008 the former Chief Police Officer was suspended from duty. It was an unprecedented and controversial act which was to bring an abrupt end to a highly distinguished police career. The act not only led to well over a hundred questions being asked at States Sittings but also very expensive Court, Judicial Hearings and Reviews which has cost the tax payer in excess of a million pounds.

From answers to questions and the publication of Mr Powers Affidavit it is apparent that the Chief Executive played a leading role in the pre and post suspension process which received considerable publicity. The Affidavit contained a number of allegations regarding the conduct of senior civil servants and States Members which led to suspicion of cover ups and conspiracies. Therefore one would assume that the Deputy Chief Executive would have been cognisant of that fact.

Following increasing concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the Police Chief’s suspension, on 1^st February 2010 I lodged P9/2010 which called for a Committee of Inquiry to publicly review the suspension. Just prior to the debate on 24^th February, the Council of Ministers, (COM) presented Comments to my proposition. The Comments called for a rejection of my proposals in favour of a Commissioner to conduct a review which would be in private.

Whilst my proposition called for approval of a Committee of Inquiry there were no terms of reference because it was envisaged the Committee would have drafted their own in line with the proposals contained in my proposition.

The two main thrusts to the COM’s proposal were that it would be simpler and quicker, and there were definite Terms of Reference. What is particularly relevant was part (d) which was to “Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.”  The Comments also stated that the Chief Minister would inform Members of the person appointed to undertake the task.

You will recall that the States rejected my proposal in favour of the COM’s; you will also recall that you asked if I would to assist you in the selection of the Commissioner. I informed you and other Members that I did not want to have any part in your Review because the expert would be reporting back to you and your department. In simple words I did not trust you or those around you to conduct a review that would be open and transparent.

When interviewed by the JEP after the debate I said the suspension pointed to a conspiracy and it needed to be fully investigated. I also was reported to have said “I am just disappointed, there will be a cosy in-house inquiry with leading players saying what they want. They will be under no obligation to speak to the expert.”

The JEP in its edition on 25^th February chose to report on its front page with the headline “They want it swept under the carpet”

Following the JEP report Senator Shenton lodged a formal complaint to PPC which you supported; Senator Shenton alleged that my comments breached Standing Orders.

Although the allegation was lodged on 25^th February, on 1^st March you emailed me inviting me to re-consider my decision regarding the selection process. You did not say why you wanted me to re-consider but I presume it was to give some credibility to the review.

For convenience the exchange of emails is attached as appendix 1. You will note that I stated that I would be willing to assist but I still had reservations as your expert would be reporting back to you and your department and those reservations remain. However I would be willing to assist provided that I could have the same oversight as you in the selection process, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that were received prior to the publication of the Final Report. Again in simple words I thought that if I had oversight of the review I could ensure that it was open and transparent.

Later that day you replied by email agreeing to my request, John Richardson was copied in to the email. That assurance was quite explicit and I had every reason to believe that I would be party to all issues relating to the review. I was also putting my trust in both you and Mr. Richardson that the review would conducted in an open and transparent way.

During March with you, me and John Richardson we eventually selected Brian Napier, QC. On 25^th March 2010 ⁱⁿ your office we met Mr. Napier and we agreed the Terms of Reference which were the same as in the COM Comments P9/2010 which included part (d). Mr. Napier said he could get his review underway by early April. The appointment was made known to the media and a report appeared in the JEP the next day which included a photograph of Mr. Napier and the Terms of Reference which included part (d).  As per your commitment to States Members I assumed that arrangements would be quickly put in place for the appointment to be circulated to them. There was no reason why there should have been any delay in submitting details however they were not presented until 14^th April via R39/2010.

At no time from the 25^th of March was I ever party to any decisions or have sight of any of the reports that emanated from the Review until you gave me a copy of the Final Report on 17^th September. This was in complete breach of our agreement.

I understand that on 25^th February Mr. Power wrote to Mr. Richardson saying he had heard there would be some form of review of his suspension and wanted further information.

On 29^th March Mr. Richardson replied asking whether Mr. Power would assist in the Review and attached the Terms of Reference which included the original part (d). On 31^st March Mr. Power replied stating that he was willing to assist but before doing so he required certain assurances. Despite answers given by you to questions on this matter, the letter most certainly did not categorically state that Mr. Power was going to assist in the Review. Mr. Power did not give consent until his letter of 23^rd April.

On 8^th and 9^th April Mr. Napier visited the Island and held discussions with Mr. Richardson. As a result of answers given by you in the States it is apparent that both men discussed the Terms of Reference on 9^th April although Mr. Napier apparently cannot remember the exact day. From the events that followed it really does not matter which of the two days they discussed the Terms but it is evident that part (d) was removed from the Terms and part(d) was replaced by part (e). From questions asked it is claimed that the decision to remove part (d) was because Mr. Power had agreed to take part in the review. That is incorrect because consent was not given until 23^rd April.

It is also now evident that Mr. Napier was instructed to remove part (d) by Mr. Richardson. As he said in a later email, it was not for him to participate in the setting of his own terms of reference, as it did not seem appropriate. At no time was I informed of the removal. Neither were States Members nor Mr. Power who was the belief that part (d) was still included when he was later interviewed by Mr. Napier.   It should be noted that when Mr. Richardson wrote to Mr. Power on 16^th and 21^st April he mentions the Terms of Reference but does state that part (d) had been removed. The meeting between Mr. Power and Mr. Napier took place in Edinburgh on 13^th May 2010.   It is now apparent that as a consequence of Mr. Richardson’s actions both parties were unknowingly in possession of different terms of reference for that meeting.   Leaving aside whatever motives may have been behind Mr. Richardson’s actions, no competent senior public servant should have allowed this situation to arise in a high profile enquiry funded and authorized by the States.

No matter whatever arrangement Mr. Richardson and Mr. Napier came to, it was not within the gift or remit for Mr. Richardson to remove any part of the Terms of Reference without reference to either of us or indeed States Members. Given the justified concerns about cover ups and conspiracies, Mr. Richardson displayed appalling naivety, lack of judgment or the removal was intended to deceive. By removing part (d) Mr. Richardson had shifted the agenda in such a way as to ensure that Mr. Napier would not be required to delve too deeply into the actions of his superior officer or indeed other senior personnel.

Following his meeting with Mr. Napier and the removal of part (d) Mr. Richardson made arrangements for Karen Pallot via an email dated 9^th April at 1515 hours to submit details of Mr. Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the COM. It should be noted that although part (d) had been removed that fact was not made known in the correspondence to the COM. Why was part (d) still shown in the Terms of Reference when it had been removed? I submit it was not an error.

Later that day at 1524 hours the Greffier emailed Mr. Richardson informing him that it was unnecessary for the COM to be consulted as the matter was a Ministerial Decision. I am not aware whether the COM formerly considered the email and contents but it is apparent that they were asked to consider a document that was not factual.

It is apparent that you unwittingly signed the Ministerial decision on 13^th April without checking to see that what you were signing was correct. However what you signed was not factual because part (d) had been removed so either you were told and have misled the States or you signed the documents without being told that part (d) had been removed.

It will be for you to decide, but as far as I am concerned your approval led to R39/2010 being presented to the States which was not factual. However it is now known that when the documents were submitted to the Greffier for printing the second page of the Terms of Reference which contained part (d) was not included. That is why it does not appear in R39/2010. The absence is attributed to an administrative error. Again it seems to be a convenient coincidence which was plausible and accepted by a number of people who were of the belief that Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d)

Although part (d) was omitted from R39/2010 I was of the belief that it was still part of the Terms of Reference, but following a sequence of events last July I had reason to doubt whether Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d). You will recall that we then had a number of email exchanges in which I sought assurances that Mr. Napier had reviewed part (d). This was very important because Mr. Napier had not completed his report and it would not have been too late to interview witnesses identified in Mr. Power’s Affidavit. However I never received a satisfactory reply and had to wait until I received the Final Report because I was denied the right to see any parts of Mr. Napier’s documentations.

On 17^th September you gave me an embargoed copy of the Final Napier Report. It became evident that part (d) had been removed, yet there is no explanation in the Report and since then I have received a number evasive answers to my many questions seeking an explanation.

As you know along with other States Members I have been trying to establish why part (d) was removed because in my opinion it should never been removed. I note that Mr. Napier is of the belief (although qualified) that had the terms of reference remained unchanged it would have made no difference to the contents of his report. I do not subscribe to that view because neither he nor Mr Richardson ever informed Mr Power that part (d) had been withdrawn.

Mr Power was of the belief that Mr Napier was going to interview the people named in his Affidavit because had they been interviewed it would have become apparent that steps were being taken to suspend him without his Minister’s knowledge.

Mr Richardson had no right to interfere with the Terms of Reference. He was aware of my role and there can be no excuses for interfering with the Terms without reference to me or the Chief Minister. I believe his actions are akin to perverting the course of justice.

Also having instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) Mr Richardson actions there after were untoward. He failed to inform you, and Mr Power. He also submitted documents to the COM and yourself which included the reference to part (d) being part of the Terms of Reference when it is a fact that they had been removed.

I therefore make to following complaint against Mr Richardson.

1. He instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) without discussing the matter with you or me.
2. He failed to inform you or me of the decision
3. He failed to inform Mr Power of the decision.
4. On 9^th April 2010 he submitted documentation to the Council of Ministers which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when part (d) had been removed.
5. On 13^th April he submitted documentation to you which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when he knew that part (d) had been removed.
6. On 13^th April whilst responsible for the submission of the Mr Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the Greffier for publication, the second page containing part (d) and part (e) was not included in the submission
7. Following the presentation of R39/2010 on 14^th he failed to correct the document so that the full Terms of Reference were accurately reported.

I am aware that it may be claimed that the removal of part (d) of the terms of reference may not have had significant consequences for the Napier enquiry. I would regard such a view as speculation intended to distract attention from the actual basis of my complaint. Nobody can say for sure what the consequences were. However, for my own part, had part (d) been within Mr Napier’s remit then I think it unlikely that myself and others would have accepted his report in the form it was finally presented.   I would have drawn attention to the failure to deal with some of the events set out in the affidavit and may have asked for more work to be done.  Whatever views any of us may have of the eventual consequences, the point remains that the intention of the Napier enquiry was to address and resolve a long-running controversy. The actions of the Deputy Chief Executive have undermined confidence in the outcome of the enquiry and created a situation in which the controversy continues.   This is not an acceptable performance from such a senior public servant.

As both you and the Chief Executive are clearly conflicted neither of you will be able to deal my with my complaint, therefore it will have it be forwarded to someone not conflicted, however I ask that the matter be dealt with in an expeditious manner and that a suitably independent person or organisation be appointed to conduct an investigation and prepare a report.

Yours sincerely,

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.

Deputy of St Martin.

Appendix 1.

From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 18:23 To: Bob Hill Cc: John Richardson (CMD) Subject: RE: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Thanks for this.    I am happy that you and I should have the same oversight in the selection, although technically the person to make the decision has to be the Chief Minister.     However I would not want to appoint anybody with whom you were not comfortable.      Fortunately we have a wide choice and I hope we can agree a name quite quickly, since I would like this work to commence a.s.a.p.       I gather you could be available at lunchtime tomorrow, and would be happy if you could meet me (and John Richardson) at my office at 1.00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. 

I also confirm that I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States.   

I look forward to hearing your comments tomorrow lunchtime.

Terrry.

---

From: Bob Hill Sent: 01 March 2010 12:01 To: Terry Le Sueur Subject: FW: Power enquiry

Good Morning Terry,

Thank you for your email. You will recall that I had expressed my concern as to the transparency and effectivness of your proposal  because your Expert would be reporting back to you and your Department. Those concerns remain, however I am willing to assist in the selection process once it is known who has responded to your advertisement and that I can have the same oversight as you in the selection, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that are received prior to the publication of the Final Report.

Regards

Bob.

-----Original Message----- From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 08:46 To: Bob Hill Subject: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Both before and during last week's debate you indicated that you did not wish to participate in the selection process of the independent Commissioner.       I am writing again to see if, following the outcome of that debate, you might have reconsidered your position.      I aim to be making that selection this week so that the work can start promptly.

Please let me know your view.

Terry. (END)


The cover-up continues...................to be exposed!............BY BLOGGERS!