Jersey's Culture of Secrecy Continues.

An "independent" Electoral Commission can be HIJACKED by politicians, with a vested interest, in a matter of months, yet a Committee of Enquiry into decades of Child Abuse could take years.

What, since his election as Chief Minister, has Senator Ian Gorst brought to the table in order to show the outside world that Jersey is not a secretive jurisdiction and is ready to tackle, and put right (as best he can) the wrongs committed by pedophiles and Child Abusers, on this island? Where is this on his, or the Council Of Minsters, priority list? Certainly not as high as the hijacking.

In the interview below with Deputy Montfort Tadier we discuss the continued secrecy, where it appears that Senator Gorst brings it to a new level surpassing his predecessor Terry Le Sueur. The Stake holders, as in the Jersey Care Leavers Association, current and former politicians, and others who have been campaigning for a robust, and fit for purpose, Committee of Enquiry were told they would be kept "in the loop" and consulted at the different stages....They haven't been! The very same secrecy that enabled the Child Abuse to flourish, on this island, for decades.

Chief Minster Gorst, and the Council of Ministers, have had hold of the suggested Terms of Reference for the Committee Of Enquiry, as suggested by Verita, since November 2011 and have not shared them with the rest of the parliament. Instead (in what could be described as a sneaky and underhanded move) Senator Gorst engaged Andrew Williamson to come up with another set of Terms of (P)Reference, which he has had hold of since August this year, we are told, and hasn't shared them with the rest of the States either. Instead the Chief Minister planned to give States Members the Williamson TOR's ONLY which were to be shared with Members the very same day (yesterday) as Andrew Williamson was going to give his presentation on them............With no Verita TOR's in sight! Why weren't Verita given the opportunity to present their TOR's to the States as Williamson was? Why if there was a problem with Verita's TOR's wasn't it sorted out with them? Why bring Williamson in at all? (the $million question)

This is/was all wholly unacceptable and Deputy Tadier warned the Chief Minister that unless he started showing "some clear leadership and common decency" that he could face, as the first item of business in the next States Sitting, "a vote of censure or worse."

There are no doubt a number of people who do not want this Committee of Enquiry into decades of Child Abuse to go ahead and in all honesty we don't believe Senator Gorst is one of them, he just needs to grow a pair of aggy's, start showing some LEADERSHIP, or face the consequences of a possible vote of confidence, that we are told, is already being drafted.

It's time to start doing the right thing, Chief Minister, for the Child Abuse Victims and Survivors including Jersey as a whole.

Jersey's Culture of Secrecy HAS to stop, question is, have you got the leadership qualities and common decency to stop it?

Stuart Syvret, The Rule of Law, and The BBC.

In part two of our in-depth and exclusive interview with Former Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret we discuss, very briefly, some contents contained in the 62,000 word document submitted by the Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, to the Wiltshire Constabulary as published by Mr. Syvret.

Mr. Power's submission to the Wiltshire Constabulary was published by Mr. Syvret after it became apparent that the BBC, who have been in possession of it for eleven months and five days, had no intention of publishing it. This, as regular readers will be aware, is despite the BBC, and all other island State Media publishing the prosecution case or parts of, against the former Police Chief. Mr. Power's submission to Wiltshire is viewed as his defence case, yet the BBC still won't publish it.

We discuss the implications of this apparent decision by the BBC and point out the documents that HAVE been leaked to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) and NOT the BBC, CTV, or the JEP.

When was the last time, you the reader, can remember a leaked document that was given to, and reported by, the State Media? In the interview below, we name but a few, that have been leaked to Bloggers,  there are many more that could have been mentioned with yet still more to come. (we are told)

It is becoming more and more apparent that Jersey's mainstream media are not trusted and we believe with good reason. Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) have blown apart (to smithereens) the official version of events surrounding the Child Abuse atrocities and related matters. We have done this purely by asking questions. When have the BBC, or any of our State Media, seriously challenged or scrutinised ANYTHING churned out by the states Communications Unit? Could Decades of Child Abuse have been possible without the complicity of the mainstream media? What part, if any, have they (State Media) played over the decades in keeping the lid on controversial issues for our government? Why were the documents leaked to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) and not leaked to Jersey's "accredited" media?

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE.

Stuart Syvret (The Rule of Law)

Former Senator Stuart Syvret has flown to London (yesterday Sat 18th Aug 20012) in order to prepare tabling an action against the UK Justice Secretary (Ken Clarke) for failing, according to Mr. Syvret, to ensure the Rule Of Law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

There appears to be a growing number of people who strongly believe the Rule of Law has broken down over here and that we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this belief.

The former Senator, in this interview, gives us just a couple of examples of this anecdotal evidence and spells out, in his view, what translates as "The Rule Of Law" and how he, and others, believe it has broken down in Jersey.

There has also, since the time of this interview, been growing speculation that Mr Syvret is the subject of a Super-Injunction, or something similar. Unfortunately he is being extremely tight lipped about this and despite some pretty hard badgering he will neither confirm nor deny it. We have been aware of something going on since last Thursday 16th August when he asked for Citizen's Media to be at the Royal Square at 6:30pm. We were only granted this interview on the proviso we didn't ask him, either on or off camera, just what THIS is/was all about.

Knowing there are a number of Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) that are investigating this we are sure it is only a matter of time before the truth is revealed. In the meantime we are asking the questions (The State Media won't) has the Rule Of Law broken down in Jersey? Do we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System? Should the UK step in? Is (as Mr. Syvret believes) Jersey more akin to Putin's Russia than a 21st century "Democracy?" Will Mr. Syvret's action against the Justice Secretary be successful? What are the implications if it is? What are the implications if it isn't? Will Jersey's State Media Report on the tabling of Mr. Syvret's action against the UK Justice Secretary? Why, after Reporting on the prosecution case against the Former Police Chief, won't the State Media Report on the defence case?

We explore that final question in part two (coming soon) of this interview.

Former Police Chief Exclusive.

In November 2008 Jersey's most senior Police Officer was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation Jersey has ever witnessed. Regular readers will be aware that the "official line" surrounding this suspension as portrayed by the Jersey government along with its State Media just doesn't stack up and has been torn apart by this Blogsite and others including RICO SORDA'S

The latest turn of events has seen the publication of a 62,000 word document submitted by the former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, to the Wiltshire Constabulary who were tasked with producing evidence against him to take to a disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing that never could have, or ever did take place but still cost the Jersey Taxpayer in excess of ONE MILLION POUNDS

Mr. Powers 62,000 word, 94 page, submission to Wiltshire was leaked to former Jersey politician and Health Minister Stuart Syvret who most will know spoke out, or blew the whistle, while still in post, on the institutional, decades long, Child Abuse in Jersey State run institutions and "care" homes. Mr. Syvret too was removed from his post as Health Minister. 

The document itself is, as previously described, "DYNAMITE" and for those with an interest in the full picture of this whole sordid and ghastly affair the document can, and should be, read HERE.

It should also be mentioned that Mr. Syvret gave a copy of this document to BBC Jersey State Radio, over TEN MONTHS AGO back in September 2011 and despite reporting on the case AGAINST Mr. Power they have kept his defence case buried ever since. (More about that in an up-coming Blog).

As a result of Mr. Power's document being published we contacted him in order to verify its authenticity and asked him if he could explain to us its significance, how it came about and related matters. This is in stark contrast to BBC Jersey State Radio, and the rest of the island's State Media who have not sought to ask him a single question, either on its authenticity nor its contents, which in a functioning "Democracy" with an independent media would seem quite staggering, but in Jersey, alas it is quite the norm where Bloggers are the only real independent media there is.

Below is Mr. Power's response to our request and we thank him for his willingness to respond to any, and all, questions put to him in order that history can record a true reflection of the Jersey Child Abuse Atrocities and related issues which you'll not find anywhere in the State Media.

I have been approached by the “Voiceforchildren” website and asked if I want to comment on the apparent publication on another website of my 62,000 word written statement to Wiltshire Police which I prepared in response to the disciplinary investigation into my management of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, when I was Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire was appointed to conduct the disciplinary investigation in December 2008.

I have viewed the website on which the statement is said to be published. I have not read the full publication or compared it word-for-word with my copy of the original. I have however checked some randomly selected extracts from the website and found them to be an accurate reproduction of the original document. It appears from the available evidence that the publication on the website is a true copy of the original document, albeit with some redactions for the protection of third parties. I did not provide a copy of my statement to the website or the person who operates that website.

I prepared the statement in 2009 because I was required to do by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who activated the relevant part of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of the Force, which requires that such a statement be provided. I should perhaps record at this stage that the provision of a statement was not the first option which was considered. I was at first approached by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, and asked if I would agree to be interviewed. It was proposed that the interview would be conducted in a Jersey hotel or similar location and would last for about a week. I know of no precedent for an interview of that duration in a disciplinary enquiry. In a criminal investigation the law would normally prohibit an interview of that length other than in exceptional cases with the agreement of a Court. Terrorism investigations are an example of the type of enquiry where authority might be given for an interview lasting for a week.

In spite of the exceptional nature of the request I nevertheless entered into correspondence to establish whether it would be possible for me to give my agreement to what was proposed. I noted that Mr Moore and his team were benefiting from legal advice funded by the Jersey Government. I therefore asked for a similar facility which would enable me to be advised in respect of the request for an interview, and to be represented during any interview which was agreed. This request was considered by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who decided that he would not allow funding for me to have any legal advice or representation, stating that any legal costs would have to be met from my own personal resources.

Given that the subject matter of the interview was entirely concerned with things I had done in the course of my duties as Chief Officer of the Force, and that the investigating Officers and the Minister were benefiting from full legal advice, I did not think that the Ministers decision was fair or consistent with the principles of Natural Justice. I therefore declined to attend for interview but said that I would comply with the Code and provide a written statement. I was then given a list of points to cover and a deadline for the submission of the final document.

It might be worth recording at this point that apart from the lack of fairness, I did not think that the Ministers decision to require me to provide a written statement was wise. In my opinion few people in his situation would have done the same. The consequence of his decision was that I would produce a full and candid written account of the investigation from my perspective. This would include previously undisclosed information regarding the role and actions of Jersey Ministers and other key figures. Once the statement had been created it would exist thereafter, copies would be made, and interest would be expressed in its content. Given the nature of things in Jersey it would inevitably find its way into the public domain by one means or another. If another person had been the Minister they might have preferred not to have compelled the document to be created in the first place. They may have seen it as a future source of conflict and embarrassment. They could have found another way of dealing with the situation. Senator Le Marquand apparently thought otherwise. That might be one of the reasons why the controversy is still live over three years afterwards. In the circumstances another Minister may have sought a way to “close down” the matter of my suspension and move on to address the core issues of the decades of child abuse, and the reasons for the abuse being covered-up by people whose duty it was to act. That has not happened.

If the publication of my statement and any issues which arise from that publication are troublesome to the Minister, then it is trouble that he has made for himself. He took the decision to require me to write it. All that has followed could have been foreseen.

Once it was clear that I would be providing a written statement and that there was a deadline to be met I set about the task. At this time both the Wiltshire Police team and the Minister were benefitting, not just from the comprehensive legal advice which I have described earlier, but also from fully staffed administrative support and modern office facilities. I on the other hand did my own typing on a laptop computer with family members acting as proof-readers. Looking back on those events I am confident that a situation was deliberately contrived in order to create feelings of isolation and hopelessness on my part. This would have been done in the hope that I would break under the pressure and quietly slip away. That did not happen.

It is now a matter of record that in spite of a long investigation and suspension costing well over a million pounds, no disciplinary charges were brought and no hearing was ever called. I retired in July 2010 three years after my “normal retirement age” as set out in my conditions of service.

I was surprised when, shortly before I retired, the Minister made it clear that he intended to publish a redacted version of the Wilshire report. This document was effectively the “prosecution case” which would have been used at the hearing which the Minister never called. I thought that this was unfair and said so in clear terms. It had been made clear from the onset that all documents in the case were to be kept strictly confidential. The Minister was breaching that rule. He also sought to present the Wiltshire report as some form of “independent review” which it plainly was not. The idea of a thorough management review of the investigation, and the lessons to be learned, to which I was happy to contribute, had been considered and turned down by the Minister early in 2009. The document which he eventually published was designed to be presented at a disciplinary hearing which never happened. Had the hearing taken place the contents of the report would have been subjected to significant challenge and opposing evidence would have been brought.

When I learned of the Ministers intentions I said that firstly, the Wiltshire report should not have been published, but if it was to be published, there should be at least a parallel publication of my own written statement. This was communicated by a variety of means including a letter to the Chief Minister dated 3rd April 2010. Under some political pressure Senator Le Marquand promised that he would do this, but his promise was never kept and it has now been overtaken by events.

All that said, I believe that the statement which has now entered the public domain is a valuable contribution to the understanding of a significant period in the Island’s history. I believe that it is revealing, not only with regard to the abuse enquiry, but also the cultures, attitudes, and style of governance which existed at the time.

If it serves any purpose in assisting the victims, or preventing similar events in the future, then the time spent compiling it will have been worthwhile.



Graham Power.

North Yorkshire.

August 2012.(END)

Is there any wonder why this story continues to attract NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL media interest? 

He Blew It.

After all the negative National and International Press Jersey has received over the last few years from being labelled as "kiddie fiddlers"  "Paedo's" "paedo protectors" "Tax Haven" "Island of Secrets" "Banana Republic" to name but a few. In a recent GUARDIAN ARTICLE the former Chief Minister of Jersey, Frank Walker, was given the opportunity to show the world that Jersey is none of these things and is willing to engage with anybody who believes otherwise. The Guardian Newspaper asked the Former Chief Minister a set of questions (below) that could help shed some light on the (possibly illegal) suspension of Jersey's most Senior Police Officer during the middle of an investigation into allegations of "STATE SPONSORED PAEDOPHILIA" and related matters.


Did the Former Chief Minister grasp this opportunity with both hands?Unfortunately not. After receiving the questions, he replied to the Guardian stating,  "I am surprised that you are seeking to raise questions which have been asked and answered many times in the years since Mr Power's suspension. I'm afraid I am not prepared to yet again go over such old ground. I will merely say that I was then, and remain today, absolutely confident that Mr Power's suspension was necessary and appropriate. His conspiracy theories are entirely baseless."


The questions put to Frank Walker were not published in the Guardian and we offer them here "un-redacted."


1. In Graham Power's sworn affidavit submitted as part of his request for judicial review, he said that on the day it was decided Wendy Kinnard should relinquish political oversight for the historic abuse inquiry (par 16): “The Chief Minister said that he was 'under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief'. He did not say where the pressure was coming from but he said this in a way which gave the impression that he was not hostile to that pressure.” were you under pressure to suspend both Power and Harper? And if so, from whom?


2. In paragraph 15 of the affidavit, Power accuses you of a “verbal
attack on the historic abuse inquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicly for the island.” 
any comment on this?

3. Also in paragraphs 15/16, Power accuses you of “shouting down”
Wendy Kinnard and behaving in a bullying manner and in a way which he
found offensive.
any comment on this?

4. In paragraph 33, Power says: “Taking all of the evidence into account I consider that I am entitled to believe that the decision to suspend me was in fact taken by the Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister, probably in collusion with other on the evening of Tuesday 11th November 2008.”
any comment? what role did you play in Power's suspension?

5. Many people believe that you were the real decision-maker and that
Lewis merely "fronted" the exercise to suspend Power.
Do you have any evidence to refute this?
Why were you in the nextdoor room when Power was suspended?
What meetings and discussions occurred between yourself and Andrew
Lewis in respect of Power's suspension? Were these minuted and can we
see the written record?
Why did you attend the press briefing alongside Andrew Lewis on the day on which Lewis suspended Power, given that only Lewis as home affairs minister had the power to carry out the suspension?

6. Did you believe the suspension was warranted at the time, and what
evidence did you have to lead you to that conclusion? Why did you think he was being suspended/deserved to be suspended and potentially disciplined?

7. As you no doubt know, a former States member, Paul le Claire, told
the States on 18 November 2010 that he was party to a conversation in
the States building between yourself and Andrew Lewis. Le Claire said:
“Not long after Deputy Andrew Lewis took over as the Minister for Home
Affairs I walked through the Chamber to the top of the stairs and in
his company was the former Chief Minister, Mr. Frank Walker. They were
discussing the former Deputy Chief of Police, Mr. Lenny Harper. The
Chief Minister at the time said: “Why did you not get rid of him?” I
found that a little strange at the time for that to be expressed but I
entered into the conversation by standing with them and partook in the
conversation. The response - which I think is the important thing, the
key thing - from the Minister was: “We were going to get rid of him but he only had a week to go so we thought it best just to let him go.”
Why did you ask Lewis why he hadn't “got rid” of Harper?

8. In the same speech, Le Claire talked of his reticence of speaking
out: “Why would I want to subject myself to the States and the powerful people that man it and politicise it?” In an interview with the Voice for Children blog
(http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.in/2010/11/culture-of-fear.html) he talked of a “culture of fear” which deterred ordinary people from challenging Jersey's political elite.
As a key player in Jersey's political elite during the period in question, how do you respond to Le Claire's allegation here?

9. In the Napier report, Brian Napier QC said “Whatever view may now be taken of the substantive criticisms that have been made of Mr Power's conduct of the historic abuse inquiry, there was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the rung of the historic abuse inquiry, the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate." do you agree, in hindsight, that the suspension was hasty and relied on in adequate evidence? Do you accept responsibility for failings of a procedural nature in the handling of the suspension of Mr Power. Identified by Napier?

10. Napier said that criticisms of Power which led to his suspension
“found a receptive audience” with you. How do you respond to this?

11. Prior to his suspension, what hard evidence did you have to
suggest that there were concerns about Graham Power's handling of the
historic abuse inquiry which could warrant his suspension?

12. It is now known that the “Interim Met Report” was never intended
to be used to justify any disciplinary proceedings but instead was a
review – and a half-finished one at the time of Power's suspension. It was a standard critical appraisal, fairly common between police forces, and was never intended for any "disciplinary" use. Would you accept that it was a mistake for so much emphasis to be placed on the report when justifying Power's suspension?

13. Given that no charges of misconduct were ever proven against
Graham Power – before or after his retirement – would you accept he was wrongly suspended?

14. Graham Power sees himself as a victim of a corrupted island in which the powerful elite “scratch each others' backs” and turn against anyone who asks difficult questions of those in power – in particular a police officer investigating very serious allegations made against “a number of people who, currently or recently, held positions of seniority or influence in public services.” How do you respond to this allegation?

15. The suspension set in motion a chain of event which has cost the
Jersey Taxpayer millions of pounds and almost four years later is
still causing contention, political debate and media interest. In
light of this, do you now regret Power's suspension? And do you take
responsibility for the cost and reputational damage to the Island
which has resulted from the actions of your government in November
2008?(END)


In the good old "Jersey way" Mr. Walker refuses to answer the questions, put to him by the Guardian, and labels "evidenced" allegations as conspiracy theories.


If Jersey wants to stop receiving bad National and International Press then it had better start "opening up" or as some might put it "coming clean." 


The opportunity was afforded Mr. Walker to help clean up Jersey's image, show everything is/was above board and there is nothing to hide..............He blew it.

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.

You Don't Deserve Your Day In Court Minister.

Now that the Vote Of Censure against Treasury Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf will not be debated in the States (Parliament) he feels a little hard done by. The Senator feels that nobody should be treated in the way he has, in that a damming Report can be released into the public domain, against him, and he is denied the right to defend himself because the Vote Of Censure has been withdrawn. Senator Ozouf clearly has a very short memory and is not able to grasp that this is how business in Jersey is conducted.

Senator Ozouf should actually be thankful that no potential criminal acts (as far as we are aware) have been employed in order to smear his reputation and that he is not bound by "A Freedom Of Information EXEMPT" Clause so can offer his defence without fear of retribution criminal or otherwise.

Regular readers will be aware that the same privileges were not afforded to the Former Chief Of Police Graham Power QPM. Mr. Power was (illegally?) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation the Island has ever seen, for reasons that still aren't clear to this day, and not only was he denied his "Day In Court" he had the prosecution case against him (possibly illegally) published by Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and the State Media, while he (GP) was bound by the confidentiality clauses set by the Wiltshire Constabulary, the same FOI Exempt clauses that Senator Le Marquand was bound by, but apparently chose to ignore.

Below is a letter of complaint to the then Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, from the Former Police Chief, concerning the discredited and disgraced, Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand and the way he conducts his business.


Graham Power

                                                                                                          North Yorkshire,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Saturday 3rd April 2010.


The Chief Minister,


Cyril Le Marquand House,


Jersey.

Dear Chief Minister,

Request for independent investigation into the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand.

The purpose of this letter is to set out the basis of my request for an independent investigation into the conduct of Senator Ian Le Marquand, the Minister for Home Affairs. I also have some additional representations to make concerning the current disciplinary enquiry.

You will recall that I was suspended from duty as Chief Officer of the States Police in November 2008. The suspension occurred towards the end of what, from all independent accounts, was a successful and distinguished period of service to the Island. From the very beginning of the suspension, and at all times subsequently, I have maintained that the suspension was unjustified, and that any allegations against me were false. That position has not changed.

As part of the suspension process I was served with documents and a copy of the Disciplinary Code which clearly stated that “All parties involved in the operation of this Code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed.” I have at all times sought to observe this requirement.

In addition, I have at every stage attempted to move things forward, and to assist in bringing the matter to an early conclusion. I have co-operated fully with Mr Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, who is the Investigating Officer acting on behalf of the Chief Executive. In July 2009 I provided Mr Moore with a statement consisting of over 62,00 words, and in March 2010 I provided a further statement of over 13,000 words.

Nobody should be surprised to learn that since November 2008 I have been approached by a number of journalists, some representing major UK media interests, who have sought to persuade me to provide them with exclusive material relating to the abuse enquiry, the Jersey government, and the circumstances of my suspension. I have consistently dealt with these approaches by declining to make comment, on the basis that to do so would constitute a breach of the Disciplinary Code.

Against this background you are aware that I have made a number of representations, culminating in my letter to the Deputy Chief Executive dated 1st March 2010, in which I set out the history of my suspension, and offered the view that the Minister had by then prolonged matters to a point at which a return to work was impossible, and I had therefore effectively been dismissed. I have not received a reply to that letter. This is entirely consistent with the behaviour which the Minister, and those acting on his behalf, have shown throughout this matter. Letters seeking information are often simply ignored, and the normal courtesies of professional correspondence and fair play are treated with a disdain bordering on contempt. I hope you will appreciate how difficult it has been for me to sustain a meaningful engagement in the face of this behaviour.

You will also know that Mr Moore has formally recorded his own view on the confidentiality of his report, and has provided all parties with a written notice in which he states that the contents of his report are exempt from any Freedom of Information disclosure, and “the disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.”

With these issues in mind I have observed, with growing incredulity, the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs over recent days. On Sunday 21st March 2010 the Minister was heard live on the BBC Radio Jersey “Talkback” programme. At the time of writing steps are in hand to obtain a transcript of the Ministers comments. Nevertheless, from my notes of the broadcast, it is clear that the Minister engaged in what appeared to be a number of persistent and deliberate contraventions of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code. In addition, he also indicated a degree of pre-judgement of the evidence which was inconsistent with his role as a “judge” in my disciplinary case, and which demonstrated complete disregard for my Human Right to a fair and independent hearing under Article 6 of the Convention. My notes indicate the Minister said on live radio that he had a copy of the report with him in the studio, and there is a suggestion that some part of it may have been seen by, or at the least discussed with, another States member who was present. He also took the position that there was mismanagement of the Historic Abuse enquiry, and I was in some way responsible. I regard these claims to be totally false and without justification. I also noted that he spoke of a senior member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) who is a potential defence witness on my behalf, and described the conduct of that person as "scandalous". The conduct of the Minister on “Talkback” was in its own right a serious breach of the Disciplinary Code, and one which undermined any claim he may make to be capable of properly discharging his disciplinary responsibilities. However, more was to follow.

I have subsequently seen a media report which indicates that Senator Le Marquand has told a Scrutiny hearing that he will release parts of the Moore report to States Members. This would appear to constitute a further expression of intent to contravene the confidentiality requirement of the code, and to undermine my right to a fair hearing. You are of course aware that my ultimate disciplinary authority is the States as a whole. This being the case it is difficult to see the Ministers stated intention as anything other than an attempt to prevent me from receiving a fair hearing before the States, should that eventuality arise.

You will now be aware, that notwithstanding the apparent breaches of the rules of integrity, fair play, and respect for Human Rights, which had been committed by the Minister during March 2010, a further breach occurred on 1st April 2010 which, in the view of most observers, surpassed all which had gone before. An article appeared as a lead story in a Jersey newspaper which left no doubt that significant parts of the Moore report had been leaked, and that the leak had come either directly from the Minister, or others acting on his behalf. The article purported to give details of the Moore report, and was accompanied by a photograph of what appeared to be the cover of the report bearing the Wiltshire Police crest. The Minister is quoted extensively in relation to the Moore report, and appears to be uninhibited in his willingness to discuss publicly a report, the confidentiality of which he is obliged to uphold. The leaks are targeted and selective. They make mention of alleged critical comment of my own role, but omit reference to evidence of political interference in the abuse investigation, or of the difficulties created by the failure of the Jersey authorities to establish proper arrangements for the accountability of policing. In addition, the Minister, in his comments, makes the false allegation that I was in some way responsible for delays in relation to interviews and the provision of statements. He omits to mention that these delays arose entirely from his own refusal to provide for me to have the protection of fair legal representation. The leaks from the report and the Ministers comments appear to be a premeditated and calculated attempt to destroy any prospect of a fair and independent hearing of any disciplinary allegations which may be brought against me. They constitute a gross and premeditated abuse of Ministerial power. In engaging with the media in this manner the Minister appears to have forfeited any right to play a further role in respect of my case. Accordingly, after having taken appropriate advice, I have determined to act as follows:

1. I request an immediate and independent investigation into the conduct of the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand in relation to his breaches of the confidentiality requirements of the Disciplinary Code, and of whatever understanding he may have entered into with the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, Mr Brian Moore, regarding the confidentiality of Mr Moore's report. Given that the Moore report contains personal data, a criminal investigation may be appropriate. It would be logical for an investigation to include any Civil Servants who have supported the Minister in his conduct. I am of course willing to assist with any such investigation and to give evidence if required.

2. I formally give notice that in view of his persistent breaches of both the Code and my Human Rights, I have lost confidence in the Minister for Home Affairs. I consider that my relationship with the Minister has broken down, and that this breakdown has been deliberately engineered by the Minister, and is irrevocable. In consequence, I invite you to consider how matters affecting me should now be progressed. Clearly, in the circumstances it would be difficult for me to have any further dealings with the Minister, and I can imagine no circumstances in which I would agree that he should be entrusted with any information relating to me which is personal or confidential. I leave it to you to make whatever arrangements, or indeed take whatever action you see fit, in light of this decision.

3. I consider that it is now beyond reasonable dispute that any possibility of a fair and unprejudiced hearing of any matters which may be alleged against me has been totally destroyed. I understand from media reports that the Minister may also have admitted that his repeated delays in taking the matter forward have now reached a point at which a disciplinary process can no longer be completed. This being the case I would regard it as a serious abuse of process, and oppressive behaviour, to continue with the pretext that there is some prospect of disciplinary proceedings and I therefore request that all proceedings under the disciplinary code be formally ended.

Since the publication of the article in the newspaper I have learned from a public internet site that Senator Le Marquand has stated that he hopes to publish further parts of the Moore report. I would regard this as unacceptable. The report in question was prepared as a “preliminary report” for the purposes of the Disciplinary Code. It contains significant inaccuracies and makes statements which are not true. Should any disciplinary proceedings have followed the report it was my intention to subject its contents to significant challenge, and it's author to detailed cross-examination. I regard the threat to publish the report at this or any other time as an expression of malicious intent, and should publication occur, all of my options are reserved. However, without prejudice to any of the above, your intention is drawn to the existence of my own report on the management of the enquiry which is set out in the form of an extensive statement, a copy of which is in the Ministers possession. Should the Minister decide, in spite of all of the above, to proceed with further publication of the Moore report, then it would appear to be entirely reasonable that my own report be published at the same time.

Finally, please note that I have written separately to Mr Moore expressing my concerns at the leak of his report and asking that no further confidential information relating to my interests be provided to the Minister, or anyone acting on his behalf.


I look forward to an early reply.






Yours sincerely










Graham Power.

Cc Dr T Brain.

Mr. Power received a reply from the then Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur some THIRTEEN DAYS LATER on 16th-04-10 in which he acknowledged the complaint and said that he was taking legal advice on the content and that he would respond within 2 weeks. Nothing further was heard and around 6 weeks later Mr. Power retired.

So the Treasury Minister, if all are equal in the eyes of the Jersey Establishment, does not deserve his Day In Court. 

Furthermore one has to ask does Senator Ozouf still feel so hard done by?

Former Police Chief speaks on controversial "Interim" Report. Re-Post.

In conjunction with Rico Sorda's latest POSTING and following the National, and International, Press coverage, concerning the vital work of this, and Rico Sorda's Blog, in exposing the facts behind the (possibly illegal) suspension of Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM we thought this would be an ideal opportunity to remind our regular readers and inform our new readers of some of those "facts."

Since the original posting of the Blog (below) more vital information has come to light, in where it appears (in the Rico Sorda link above) that the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, who originally suspended the (then) Chief Police Officer  Mr. Graham Power QPM, misled the island's Parliament. It all revolves around what the Former Home Affairs Minister DID or DIDN'T see and that is the "Interim MET Report" (or "The Britton Memo")

The Former Home Affairs Minister told the island's Parliament (in a secret session that was never meant to see the light of day) regarding his suspension of the Former Police Chief.

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”


That statement, From Andrew Lewis, one can only surmise, is telling the secret parliament session that this "preliminary Report" by the MET Police into the Child Abuse Investigation is a damming indictment on the investigation under Mr. Power's control and he had no other choice other than to suspend Mr. Power.  

But running alongside that statement we have, in the subsequent Napier Review in paragraph 101;

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

We now also know, thanks to the tenacity and determination of the Senior Investigating Officer of the original Child Abuse Investigation, (Operation Rectangle) Mr. Lenny Harper to ensure the truth behind the lies are told that, and quoted from OPERATION TUMA "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."


Mr. Power later in the Blog Posting tells us just what the MET Review was supposed to be used for and how that use has been abused by the Jersey Authorities, and quite clearly by the then Home Affairs Minister. At the time of writing the Blog below, Mr. Power was unaware of the statement made by Mr. Lewis to the secret parliament session.


This whole mess that has been created by the "Jersey Elite" in the lies deceit and cover-up involving Child Abuse that was able to flourish in State Run "Care" Institutions FOR DECADES is now starting to attract worldwide attention as it (the cover-up) continues to spiral further, and further, out of control.


Readers are strongly advised to go to the links provided in this post, and in particular THIS ONE where American, Author, Historian and Award Winning Investigative Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman writes of her treatment by the Jersey Authorities and UK Border Agency after it became apparent, to them, that she was Investigating the Child Abuse Atrocities in Jersey.

Miss McGrath Goodman tells us in her short BIO that she has written for The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, ABC News, USA Today, National Public Radio, Bloomberg and Forbes about trading, wine, fine art, banking, Big Oil, rare books, Islamic finance, alternative asset classes and all manner of esoterica.


Her Best Selling Book "The Asylum" will convince any doubters of her resolve and ability that the "Jersey Elite" who have allegedly prevented her from returning to our shores to complete her research on Haut de la Garenne, the Child Abuse and possible murder, that they have got a fight on their hands from a person who doesn't bow to intimidation and threats, it's all in a days work to her. Furthermore she is able to draw on resources far bigger, and beyond the reach, of Jersey's Feudal Elite.


Following the Guardian newspaper's recent expose of the disgraceful treatment dished out to our Former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM, it looks like Jersey's State Radio were shamed into mentioning something about it. What they, nor any of the island's State Media mentioned, was the disgraceful and possibly very dangerous treatment of a Western Journalist in Leah McGrath Goodman. Why would fellow Jersey "Journalists" want to keep this quiet? It's implications could be far reaching and send shockwaves through the western journalistic world. An american journalist being refused entry into the UK and Jersey seemingly because she is investigating Institutional Child Abuse in Jersey and our State Media don't even think it's worth a mention? We know it is getting mentioned elsewhere and as stated earlier it could have huge repercussions including for those involved.

Original Posting from Feb 2012.
Former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, at the request of VFC, has set out his knowledge of the so-called Met "Interim" Report and related matters  It once more lays bare the facts from the perspective of Jersey's former most Senior Police Officer which tells us a different story as to the one we are told by our rulers and the State Media. A PREVIOUS POSTING sparked a lot of interest in this document and many questions were asked and in this posting the Former Chief Officer has set out to answer them.

One of the most "popular" questions was "does an official Met Interim Report exist?" We at Team Voice have been of the view, since November 08 that it DOESN'T and Mr. Power appears to be of the same view where he tells us "It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort."

In his trademark clinical manner the Former Police Chief chronologically explains certain events that surround his very dubious (possibly illegal) suspension and the Met "Interim" Report as some call it or other descriptions could be "Officer's Report", "memorandum" or "favour to David Warcup."

From Former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

1. I have been asked to provide a short summary of the Metropolitan Police Review of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry, known as “Operation Rectangle.”   As I am now long retired I do not have access to current police files and records relating to this issue.   I have however searched my own files and consulted with others who were involved, and on this basis I have constructed the following narrative which may be of value to interested parties.
2. In early 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) appointed an independent team of experts to advise and assist Lenny Harper in his role as the Senior Investigating Officer for “Operation Rectangle.”   The team was headed by a former Commander (a rank equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable) in the Metropolitan Police who was then a Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA.)   He is an internationally recognised expert in the investigation of Serious Crime.
3. As the relationship with the ACPO team developed there was discussion regarding the need for a Review of Operation Rectangle by another Police Force.    Such Reviews are recognised good practice in the investigation of serious offences.   The purpose of a review is to provide a “critical friend” examination of the enquiry and to make recommendations to improve its effectiveness.   The ACPO team advised that the Review should be conducted by the Metropolitan Police and that it should be timed to form an agenda for the new management team who were to take over from Mr Harper.   This recommendation was accepted.
4. In the Summer and Autumn of 2008 the Metropolitan Police team and the new management team for “Operation Rectangle” were on the ground and taking up their responsibilities.   The Met Review team were headed by a Bryan Sweeting who is a Detective Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police.   He is assisted by a Mr Peter Britton who was described as a former Detective Chief Inspector who was then working for the Met as a Civilian Advisor on Major Enquiries.   It may be of note that neither of the Met representatives had ever overseen a major crime enquiry at Chief Officer level, and that neither had significant experience outside of London.   In terms of seniority and experience they were several levels below the ACPO team which had been advising Lenny Harper since early 2008.   That said, the Met team communicated their views as they progressed with their work and all of their comments were acted upon by the Force.
5. In October 2008 the new police management team consisting of David Warcup as Deputy Chief Officer, and Mick Gradwell as Senior Investigating Officer was firmly in place.   Lenny Harper had retired some months previously and all significant recommendations made verbally by the Metropolitan Police team had been implemented.   Their full written report was awaited but it was expected that it would not contain anything which had not already been discussed and acted upon, (which subsequently proved to be the case.)
6. On 10^th November 2008 the Chief Officer was off the Island attending to an urgent family welfare issue in the UK.   The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers (Bill Ogley.)   He said that he had that day received an “Interim Report” from the Met which documented their “Initial Findings.”   He did not attach a copy of the Met report which he said was “restricted” due to the sensitivity of the information it contained.   (Subsequent readers of the alleged “Interim Report” who have offered comment  have not  been able to identify any content in the report which justifies it being withheld by Mr Warcup, or which could not have been addressed by simple redaction.   Those expressing this view include Brian Napier QC who was commissioned to review the matter and whose report is in the public domain.   Mr Warcup resigned shortly before the publication of the Napier report.)
7. On 11^th November 2008 the letter from David Warcup was considered by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis.   Mr Lewis was about to leave office.   He had not stood for re-election in the 2008 Jersey elections which were reaching a conclusion around that time.   It was the last, and perhaps only, significant issue he had to deal with during his short political career.   In a subsequent statement to Wiltshire Police, prior to which he signed a legal declaration making the statement admissible as evidence in Court, Lewis claimed that he had no concerns regarding the Historic Abuse Enquiry until he received the letter from Warcup on 11^th November 2008.   The report by Brian Napier QC makes it clear that this part of his statement is untrue.   Napier established that for some months Lewis had been meeting secretly with others, including the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, in an effort to devise a means by which the Chief Officer of the Force could be suspended.   To what extent Lewis was his “own man” in these discussions and to what extent the decisions he subsequently took were genuinely “his” are matters on which it is legitimate to speculate.   That evening Lewis contacted the Chief Officer on his mobile phone in the belief that he was still out of the Island but due to return soon.   He discovered that travel arrangements had changed and that the Chief Officer was at home.   He asked the Chief Officer to attend a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive the following morning.
8. On 12^th November 2008 the Chief Officer attended the arranged meeting with Lewis and Ogley.   The Chief Minister Frank Walker was in the adjacent room.   After a short encounter lasting about 30 minutes the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from duty.   Events determined that he never returned to duty.   The brief meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley therefore became the final event in a police career spanning over 40 years throughout the British Isles.   The Chief Officer was not shown the letter from Warcup or the alleged interim report from the Met.   He was not told in advance of the purpose of the meeting or given chance to prepare.   He was not offered representation or an opportunity to consult with his staff association.   Ogley made notes of what was said at the meeting but destroyed these after he was given notice that the matter may be referred to the Royal Court.
9. The Jersey Government quickly publicised its actions.   The Chief Officers elderly mother learned of his suspension by means of a news item on her local TV station in Yorkshire.   The Chief Officers daughter learned the news on her car radio in Sydney.   With hindsight the Chief Officer now sees these actions as those of a corrupt and malicious administration resolved to trample over every rule of fairness and justice in an effort to break the spirit and resolve of an individual who is an obstacle to their plans and intentions.   It did not work.   What they in fact achieved was to initiate a long running and divisive controversy which is alive more than three years afterwards, and which in terms of reputational damage and cost exceeds anything which they may have been seeking to avoid.   Their malice is matched only by their stupidity and incompetence.   In the absence of the Chief Officer, David Warcup was appointed “Acting Chief Officer” with the pay and entitlements of the Chief Officer.   He then moved into the Chief Officers Office.
10. In January February and March of 2009 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand was legally responsible for the continuing suspension and was said to be familiarising himself with the case.   A number of prominent local figures and States Members urged him to bring the matter to an end by seeking a swift pragmatic solution which acknowledges that the suspension was an unjustified act and to seek an outcome through consultation.   He rejected all of these approaches.   He conducted two suspension review meetings with the Chief Officer and his professional representative.   The meetings were recorded and the transcripts are in the public domain.   During these meetings the Minister disclosed that the Met would not allow him to see the review report, they will not allow its use for disciplinary purposes, and that its use for suspension purposes has caused a rift between the Met and Jersey.   He nevertheless decided to keep the suspension in place.
11. In July 2009 Wiltshire Police, who have been appointed by the Minister to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Chief Officer, begin to make arrangements for the Chief Officer to respond to their enquiry.   They deliver statements and other documents to his home address.   The documents fill three large boxes and are carried to the house by two people.   The Chief Officer is given a list of questions to which he is asked to respond.   The questions refer to statements and documents which are in the three boxes.   A deadline is set.   The deadline for reading and digesting the material in all of the boxes and for making a response is, on the face of it, totally impossible and may have been intended to be such.   But is it not.   Plans have been made.   Family members and friends have been assembled to act as administrators, proof readers and editors.   The Chief Officer submits a written response within the deadline.   The response is over 62,000 words (the size of a small novel.)   At various times the Minister has promised to publish this response.   He has never done so.
12. Among the documents in the three boxes are two reports relating to the review by the Metropolitan Police.   One is their full report which bears the crest of the Force on its cover and is clearly a document of which the Metropolitan Police have corporate ownership.   The other is a different type of document.   It is an 18 page document headed “Officers Report” and is a memorandum from Mr Peter Britton who, as described earlier, was a civilian member of the Met Review team.   The report is not bound.   It does not have the force crest on its cover, and it makes no claim to be a report by the “Metropolitan Police.”   The document sets out the emerging thoughts of Mr Britton.   It is heavily qualified.   It is clear from the report that Mr Harper has not been interviewed.   Paragraph 1.1 of the report states “any observations in this report may be subject to amendment.”   It has subsequently become clear that this is the document which some have claimed is the “Interim Report” from the “Metropolitan Police.”   It is patently nothing of the sort.   In the controversy which has followed, the views of Mr Britton have been notably absent.   We do not know what was said to him in order to persuade him to produce his memorandum.   In the light of subsequent events it seems certain that whatever he was told it was not the truth.   It is simply inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police would allow a relatively junior member of staff to associate the Force with a Review document to be used as a pretext for the suspension of the head of a police force.   There is no precedent for such an action, and if one was to be established it would destroy the basis of mutual trust which is vital to the proper review of major enquiries.
13. To complete the story, in 2010, almost two years after my suspension, I retired as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police more than three years after my official retirement date.   No disciplinary charges were ever brought, and the Wiltshire Enquiry, costing variable amounts according to different accounts, but almost certainly well over £1m when suspension costs and other matters are included, was abandoned.
14. It has since been learned from other sources that Mr Harper has complained that he was treated unfairly by the Met in that they allegedly criticised him (and myself) and the Abuse Investigation without proper consultation or a right to respond.   It is understood that the Met may have at some stage denied that there was an “interim report” and then modified that view to say that an interim report was prepared by staff engaged in the review.   The Met have however given specific written assurances that no review report by them makes criticism of either myself or Mr Harper or of Operation Rectangle.   Mr Harper has published these assurances on the internet.
15. I hope that this information is of assistance to those with an interest in these events.   In particular I hope that they will be of value to the most important people in the whole affair, namely the survivors of the long running and systematic abuse of vulnerable children which was conducted in establishments run by the Jersey Government and which went unchallenged for decades.

Interview with Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

For the benefit of our new, and growing, readership and as a reminder to our long-term followers, we thought it would be beneficial to re-submit an interview we conducted with Jersey's Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, back in February 2011 and was posted HERE


The interview is possibly the most in-depth and informative interview the Former Chief Officer has ever given and makes for extremely uncomfortable reading. Regular readers will be aware that Mr. Power was (we believe "illegally") suspended in November 2008 for reasons that still aren't clear to this day.


We recently had the opportunity to discover some truth (or lies) concerning his controversial suspension with a proposition lodged by Deputy MIKE HIGGINS but as predicted the majority of our government voted to keep it all A SECRET


For those who are unaware, while nobody knew (including himself) why Mr. Power was suspended the Wiltshire Constabulary were brought in to investigate the former Police Chief, or "get something to stick" as it has been described. Mr. Power's Police Force were investigating decades of institutional Child Abuse in Jersey's State run Institutions at the time of his (illegal?) Suspension. A summary of which can be viewed HERE although for those with a sensitive disposition discretion is strongly advised.


There has recently been talk of Jersey becoming independent from the UK. This has come from one politician, Senator Philip Bailhache, who is our Former Bailiff and certainly does not speak for the majority of Jersey people as far as we are aware. Independence from the UK is one of the scariest scenario's there are. It was the former Police Chief himself who said; "And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny."


A growing number of  Jersey folk are living in hope that the UK still might step in and restore good governance and the Rule Of Law over here. What they did to the Former Police Chief, and others, certainly is not funny it is truly frightening and independence from to UK could only ensure this sought of behaviour/conduct will carry on un-checked, and if at all possible, will get even worse.


What you are (hopefully) about to read is alarming and an account of Jersey government in action which is nothing short of shambolic and possibly criminal. It is an insight, in the words of Graham Power QPM, on how the - much hailed - Wiltshire Investigation was carried out. The former Police Chief also gives us an in-depth look into how our government “co-ordinate” a disciplinary hearing against our most senior Police Officer. The very sticky situation our government found themselves in when they discovered that if they wanted to discipline the Chief Police Officer, then 800 years of tradition “The Jersey Way” would be lost.

This is an in-depth interview with Mr. Power who sees the value in history recording the truth, because as things stand it looks like there is a much distorted record of history being created, much of it being rubbed out, or erased, particularly by our State Media. Bloggers are the only truly independent media Jersey has. 


The much hailed Wiltshire Report was “a failure” not only a failure but a ONE MILLION POUND (Taxpayer Funded) Failure. Mr. Power says in part of this interview “Nobody with their name on the failed Wiltshire enquiry should have the nerve to criticise anyone else’s conduct of any enquiry ever.”

Start

Q. Can you tell us when you first heard of the plan to involve Wiltshire Police in relation to any disciplinary investigations into your handling and management of “Operation Rectangle” (HDLG Child Abuse Investigation)?

A. On the 2nd December 2008. The Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley, wrote to me and told me that he had appointed Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire, to carry out a disciplinary investigation on his behalf. Terms of reference were enclosed with the letter. The disciplinary investigation was given the name “Operation Haven.” It was later renamed “Haven 1” when the matter which the Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, called “Operation Blast” was named “Haven 2.” But more of that later.

Q. Could you outline the sequence of events that followed - your perspective on the quality of the Wiltshire Investigation(s) and the conduct of those involved, including the Jersey authorities?

A. 11th December 2008. Brian Moore wrote to me to introduce himself (that by the way was the only introduction we ever had. He never met me once. Not even to say hello) . In his letter he said that the enquiry would take "a number of months."

In the weeks/months which follow there are some routine exchanges of correspondence and various documents are provided by both sides.

5th March 2009. Moore wrote to my representative (Dr Timothy Brain, Chairman of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association) seeking to clarify some procedural points regarding the enquiry. He gave a new timetable. He said that he proposed to complete "the major phase of evidence gathering" by31st March 2009 and that he proposed to interview me around late April/early May 2009. He expected to complete the report writing phase by June 2009. It appears that similar assurances were being given to the Minister for Home Affairs. On the basis of these assurances various dates for completion were given in the States. For example in early 2009 members were led to expect completion by March of that year. Later dates were given at later times. 

11th May 2009. Moore wrote to me and proposed that I be interviewed at a suitably neutral venue, possibly a Jersey hotel, in the week commencing 15th June 2009. He said that the interview should last for “at least a week." As the law currently stands suspects in murder cases and similar crimes may, with the authority of a Court, be interviewed for around three days. I know of no precedent for a disciplinary interview lasting for “at least a week.”

19th May 2009 and thereafter. My Professional Association attempted to move matters forward in correspondence with the Minister for Home Affairs. It is pointed out that the Minister and Wiltshire Police are benefiting from legal advice at public expense. It is suggested that an interview lasting for a week or more is potentially oppressive but that I will nevertheless consider taking part provided that I am given equality of arms by means of funded legal representation. Meanwhile we obtain an estimate for the services of an Advocate during the proposed interview. The round figure given is £30k. It is also pointed out that the Disciplinary Code places me under no obligation to attend an interview. It refers to me providing a written statement. That is all that I am obliged to do. Anything more than that would be a concession on my part, but one that I am nevertheless willing to make, provided that the arrangements are fair to both sides.

Q. So you are denied “equality of arms” and all legal advice obtained by Wiltshire and the States of Jersey is funded by the Jersey Tax payer?

A. In a word “yes” 

29th May 2009. A civil servant wrote on behalf of the Minister telling me that I will not be provided with legal representation during the proposed interview. My Association took legal advice from a Jersey Advocate. The legal advice told me that the proposals to conduct and interview lasting for at least a week were oppressive and that I should not attend without legal representation. I am advised that I am under no obligation to attend and that I am within my rights to state that I will provide a written statement instead of attending for interview. I decide to accept the advice. 

The decision of the Minister not to provide legal representation has disrupted the proposed timetable. The parties are still corresponding on the matter beyond 15th June 2009 when the proposed interviews should have started. In all honesty I had not really expected Ministers to agree to me being represented on the grounds of fairness. They had shown no fairness up to that point and I did not expect them to change their approach. I did however think that they might have allowed representation in order that the interview could take place as planned and that matters could move forward. It was however becoming apparent that moving matters forward was not part of their agenda.

23rd June 2009. I concluded that discussions about the proposed interview and legal representation have come to a "dead end" and I formally notified Brian Moore that, acting on legal advice, I will provide a written statement. Wiltshire then provided me with a list of issues which I am asked to cover.

I commence work on my statement as soon as I have the necessary documents from Wilts. My statement is detailed and over 62,000 words. It is completed and submitted on 30th July 2009. My statement is a comprehensive inside account of the whole affair and makes reference to a large amount of information which has so far not entered the public domain. So far as I am aware it has been seen by only a handful of people and has never been published.

Running alongside this is the matter which the Minister for Home Affairs has referred to as "Operation Blast, which was said to concern alleged files kept in relation to some States Members. The Minister announced in the States on 16th June 2009 that he was commencing a disciplinary enquiry relating to the issue, but appears not to have discussed the matter with Wiltshire. On 19th June 2009 Brian Moore wrote to me and told me that he has received no request to investigate "Blast." It is not until two months later on the 14th August 2009 that Moore wrote to tell me that he has been appointed to investigate "Blast" and that he expects to commence the investigation on 30th September 2009.Whatever was the intention of the Ministers announcement on 16th June 2009, its practical effect, and the delay in commencing an investigation, threw away all hope of an early end to the Wiltshire enquiry. It was by then certain that the matter would drag into 2010 when I was due to retire anyway.

14th August 2009. Moore notified me of a changed timescale for his "Haven 1" report (relating to the abuse enquiry). (“Blast" has been named "Haven 2") He said that the report will be completed by30th September 2009.

18th September 2009. Moore further revised the date to 19th October 2009.

20th October 2009. Moore wrote to say that he has delivered part of his report to the Deputy Chief Executive (John Richardson) He said that he has not completed work on financial oversight of the abuse enquiry and that a report on that will follow. I am aware that the Disciplinary Code requires the Chief Executive to send me a copy of the report. I decide to wait and see what happens next.

Q. I’m a little lost here, how many different completion dates has Brian Moore given you up to now?

A. We began with a commitment from Moore to have the enquiry completed in the early part of 2009. It is clear that the Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, was told something similar, because he informed the States and some States Members that he hoped to have matters concluded by aroundMarch 2009. Thereafter deadlines slipped with regularity. I have given some of the key examples of letters which formally notified me of yet another proposed completion date, but in between these there were various informal assurances given to other parties none of which came to anything. In any event, by mid 2009 it was becoming clear that the investigation was running out of control and that any credibility in terms of timescale and costs was gradually being lost. In some ways it was entertaining to watch the chaos unfold. At another level it was less entertaining. Amongst all of the confusion I was attempting to do two contradictory things at the same time. On the one hand I was working with my defence team to prepare to defend against any disciplinary action that was brought. On the other hand I was attempting to prepare for my pending retirement and for life after policing. Had it not been for my suspension and the disciplinary investigation it is probable that I would have retired earlier than I eventually did. I could not work out why the Minister for Home Affairs was spending public money on a disciplinary process which, at the very most, would only entitle him to tell me to retire, when I was going to retire anyway. I did not understand it then and I am not sure that I understand it now.

Q. let’s say the Home Affairs Minister, rather than suspending you, suggested (as you were already 2 years past your retirement date) that you took retirement, is that something you would have considered?

A. You are right to point out that I was at the time two years past my official retirement date and was working on an extended contract in order to provide continuity until a new Senior Management team was in place. Before I was suspended in November 2008 I was already thinking of retirement. My intention was to meet with the new Minister for Home Affairs in early 2009 and to discuss my future. Had the suspension not intervened it is probable that my retirement would have been announced some time in early 2009. However, once the suspension was imposed, I decided to stay on and fight the allegations, which I did until time ran out and it became clear that the whole thing was destined to die of old age. It is one of the many ironies of the situation that the suspension, which presumably somebody thought would hasten my departure, actually kept me in post for well over a year after I would have otherwise retired. And remember, even if the whole disciplinary process had ground on for a further two years and my case had finally been through the entire procedure ending with a hearing in the States, the only sanction available to the Minister and to the States appeared to be to instruct me to retire. Something that I had been willing to do years earlier. That is how illogical the whole thing was. But to finally answer your question, no offer of retirement was ever put to me so I did not have to consider that way of concluding the situation. Had an offer been made I would have taken professional and legal advice and would have acted in accordance with that advice. I do not know what the advice would have been so I cannot give a certain answer to that question.

Q. Do you feel that ultimate responsibility for financial oversight should have been laid at your door, if not yours, then who’s?

A. I have dealt with this at some length in my statement to Wiltshire. The short story is that when I took office in 2000 I had a number of financial staff working in the Force reporting to me, and I had control of the Force budget. Gradually, all of the qualified financial staff were removed by Ministers, and responsibility for the budget moved to the Chief Officer for Home Affairs who was made the “Accounting Officer” under the Finance Law. This left me with limited information about financial issues and no qualified staff to give advice. Whenever there was a query I had to ask Home Affairs staff to deal with it. During the abuse enquiry I made sure that Home Affairs financial personnel had access to all financial information and I met regularly with them and checked for any concerns they might have had. The minutes of those meetings show that they had none. That was the best I could do. I am a policeman, not an accountant. I asked the Accountants to keep an eye on things and they told me that everything was fine. It is hard to see what else I could have done. If there is any argument about this then it might be resolved by taking a look at the Finance Law. The Law says thatthe person responsible is the nominated Accounting Officer. I was not the Accounting Officer for the Force, although if Ministers had heeded my advice on the matter then I would have been. But that is another story. The fact is that Ministers insisted that another Chief Officer be given responsibility for the Police budget. It is they who should be accountable for the consequences of that decision.

21st December 2009. I received a letter and the incomplete Wilts report delivered to my home. The letter revealed that at the time when the report and recommendations were written, Wendy Kinnard, who was Minister for Home Affairs during the relevant part of the enquiry, had not been interviewedand so her evidence was not included. However, the letter stated that she had since been interviewed and that the conclusions in the report are unchanged, although the report has yet to be amended to cover Wendy Kinnard’s evidence and the sections dealing with financial management are not yet available. This is an unprofessional and shambolic way of providing a key report. It seems to me that the documents delivered to me on 21st December 2009 had two purposes. The first was to try and disrupt the family Xmas. The second was to allow the Minister and Wilts to claim that they had delivered a report “in 2009." I was unimpressed by either and stated that I would react to a full and complete report when I got one. I was also aware that no action was possible on the basis of the Wilts report. The Disciplinary Code only allows the Minister to act on the basis of a report from the Chief Executive (or in this case the deputy Chief Executive who was acting in that role for the purposes of this enquiry.) This report from the Chief Executive is referred to in the Code as the "Preliminary Report" which then has to be discussed at a meeting between the parties. I therefore wait for a Preliminary Report to be provided.

Q. So that’s a year gone by relatively un-productive how did things develop in 2010?

A. 13th January 2010. Wilts wrote and asked if I was willing to be interviewed regarding "Haven 2" (“Blast.”) I replied stating that I would take the same position as before. If I am provided with legal advice in the same way that they have been provided with legal advice then I will be interviewed. If I am not afforded equality of arms and set on a level playing field then I will fall back on my right to make a written statement. My Professional Association corresponded with the Minister for Home Affairs and Wiltshire in relation to the proposed interview and whether representation will be provided. These exchanges carried on throughout January and into the second half of February when it became clear that I would not be provided with representation. I therefore took advice and as a result of the advice I received I state that I will not attend for interview but will provide a full written statement once I am given the information necessary for me to do so. On 22nd February 2010 I receive a letter from Wiltshire with the necessary enclosures and I begin writing my statement. Once again the refusal of the Minister to provide fair and equal representation has introduced further delay into the process.

20th January 2010. In the midst of the above exchanges I give formal notice of what everyone knows already. Namely that come what may I will retire in 2010 and that I intend to be retired before the end of July. Now everyone who understands the procedure knows that there is no prospect of the disciplinary process being finished. I know it, my Association knows it, Wiltshire know it, and you can bet that the Minister knows it. It may have been the right moment for the Minister to call it a day and halt any further expenditure. Instead he decided to press ahead regardless, irrespective of the fact that no final outcome was possible.

11th February 2010. The Deputy Chief Executive wrote to me with a copy of the Financial Management section of the Wilts report. He said that he is now in a position to prepare his "Preliminary Report."

Surreally..............and running alongside this increasingly irrelevant bureaucratic saga, I am in separate correspondence with the Human Resources section of the Chief Ministers Department. We are dealing with things such as my removal expenses, pension, calculation of my outstanding leave and the setting of my "last working day." This is calculated as 15th June 2010. This will become significant later. In all of this correspondence I see no evidence that the Chief Ministers Department and the Home Affairs Department are aware of what the other are doing or the apparent conflict between their respective positions.  
However, at this point it may be fair and appropriate to record that much of the correspondence I received (and I have several files of correspondence) I found to be fair, professional and courteous. This was particularly the case in my dealings with some of the staff of the Chief Ministers Department. Some correspondence sent on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs was confrontational and aggressive, but I would not wish this to detract from the general professionalism of most of those who work in the Jersey public sector.

February 2010...After a debate in the States the Napier review of my suspension commences. Brian Napier QC will subsequently publish a report which confirms that my original suspension was unfair, not justified by the evidence, and apparently contrary to legal advice. However, his report is not published until after I have retired and does not influence events in 2010, as the disciplinary investigation limps towards its inconclusive end. 

10th March 2010. My statement in relation to “Haven 2” (Operation Blast) is completed and submitted. It contains over 13,000 words. The statement was collected by Wilts from the family home which my wife had established in North Yorkshire. I answered the door and handed over the statement in person. I have already notified the relevant States Departments of my new contact details. I have said that I will travel to Jersey if asked to return to work as Chief Officer or to take part in any legitimate activity connected with the disciplinary process. Otherwise I will be engaged working in consultation with my UK based defence team. I was not asked to return to duty and accordingly I continued to work in the UK and monitor developments. In spite of the fact that I am working my notice, my retirement is approaching and I am by then based in the UK, Ministers do not appear to grasp the reality of the situation. They continue to press ahead with a procedure whichthey know cannot be completed.

Given that my Haven 2 statement contains references to sensitive intelligence material I suggest that it be treated as "Secret." How Moore deals with this alongside the need to report to Jersey Ministers and Civil Servants is a problem for him. I draw his attention to the fact that the statement contains sensitive intelligence from UK agencies who have given no permission for it to be shared with the Jersey Authorities. I do not know how he handled that issue. I was never told.

26th March 2010. The Chief Ministers Department wrote to me offering me a pay rise. I decided to accept and informed them accordingly.

Q. A pay rise? You are being investigated for just about anything that they could make stick and they give you more money……..after they’ve suspended you?

A. The terms of my contract entitled me to a salary review on a periodic basis and the terms of my suspension, confirmed in the Royal Court, entitled me to the full benefit of all of my contractual entitlements when suspended. So I got a pay rise. I did not mind as I thought that I had earned it. Remember that the suspension was not my idea. I wanted to be back working all hours 7 days a week and was ready to return to work at 24 hours notice. It was the Ministers idea that I should be paid for doing nothing. If it was a stupid arrangement then it was his stupid arrangement. Not mine.

19th April 2010. I received a letter from John Richardson with the long awaited "preliminary report" for “Haven 1” (the abuse investigation) and an invitation to a disciplinary meeting with the Minister. BUT...all of the paperwork related only to "Haven 1." There was no mention of "Haven 2" (Operation “Blast”). I replied on 23rd April 2010. I pointed out that things have now been strung out to a point where it is impossible for me to return to work and that I have therefore been effectively dismissed without a hearing. I also ask what is happening about "Haven 2" ... has it been abandoned or what??.....If I am to attend a meeting I am entitled to a fair chance to prepare and to take advice. I am also entitled to be represented, and my representative (Dr Timothy Brain, of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association) also needs to prepare and clear his diary. So what is happening about "Haven 2" and where is the preliminary report that we are both entitled to regarding the "Haven 2" enquiry??

18th May 2010, almost a month later. I received a reply from John Richardson. He denies that I have been constructively dismissed and asks about dates when my representative will be available for me to meet with the Minister.....But he ignores Haven 2 completely. 

26th May 2010. Two things happen. I receive a copy of the Wilts report relating to "Blast." Or “Haven 2” as it is now known. Assuming that the Minister received it at around the same time as me this appears to indicate that he has been attempting to arrange a disciplinary meeting prior to receipt of the investigation report. This would be a material breach of the Disciplinary Code. I write back to John Richardson again, asking him to clarify just what is on the agenda of the meeting he is proposing. Is "Blast" up for discussion or not? If it is I stand by my right not to attend a meeting until I have the preliminary report of the Chief Executive to the Minister. That is what the Code says and I stand by it. We are also entitled to some basics such as an agenda for the meeting, an indication of its duration, who will speak and in what order and so on. I might not have a lawyer but I understand my rights and I intend to have them respected.

1st June 2010. I have heard nothing from John Richardson but I write to him drawing his attention to the fact that my "last working day" is approaching and asking him to set in motion the relevant administrative procedures for the necessary paperwork to be signed off. I receive the required administrative documents but nothing relevant to the disciplinary enquiry.

15th June 2010. My "last working day" as determined by the Chief Ministers Department comes and goes. Nothing of any consequence happens.

23rd June 2010. A courier delivered a letter from John Richardson and his "Preliminary Report" in relation to "Haven 2" to the family home in England. The letter says that the Minister wants to move to the next stage of the process which is to meet with me and discuss the enclosed report. I am on holiday. The correspondence was signed for by another person at the house. My Professional Association learned of the delivery and wrote to the Minister pointing out that my last working day as set by the Chief Ministers Department was the week before and that I have retired. It is too late now to talk of disciplinary meetings. The police disciplinary code does not apply to civilians. Time has run out and there can be no disciplinary action. It is over.

Q. So just how did they manage to get themselves into this mess??

A. This is almost worth a book in its own right. Firstly,in November 2008 the new Minister for Home Affairs, Ian Le Marquand, inherited a messed-up suspension and should have put his energy into getting out of the mess rather than digging himself in deeper. The old saying about "holes and digging" applies well here. When wise folk find themselves in a hole they stop digging. Fools send for a bigger spade. Secondly, he was far too "hands off." He might have thought that he was still a Magistrate where he just sat and waited for the evidence to be brought to him. He did not attempt to manage the situation. He also committed most of the sins of which he liked to accuse others. There was nothing like a "gold group"...no apparent attempt was made to coordinate the disparate activities of the law officers, States HR, the Chief Ministers Department, the Force, Home Affairs, the Treasurers Department and Wilts. They all pressed ahead with their own agenda often working in contradiction with each other. Nobody got a grip of the big picture. No effective deadlines were set and nobody to this day appears to have accepted responsibility for financial management of the Wiltshire enquiry. At times they appeared to be like a herd of cats chasing each other tails. And nobody seemed to grasp the implications of the passage of time or did proper calculations of the work that remained to be done and the time available to do it in. Had they done so they would have realised that the game was over by the second half of 2009. As it was they pressed ahead and spent well over a million pounds on an enquiry which had no prospect of coming to a final conclusion.

Q. As a fellow professional, how do you Rate Brian Moore and his investigation(s)

A. Moore was an "absentee investigator" if there ever was one. He never met with me and he even planned to have the disciplinary interviews conducted by subordinates. He did not get the basics right at the beginning. He accepted terms of reference which invited him to assess my conduct against the rules which apply in England and Wales (which were incorrectly described as the "UK.")At an early stage I pointed out that these rules did not even apply to Scotland, let alone Jersey, and that I had a clear political mandate to disregard any UK guidelines which were not consistent with local practice. I also drew attention to the fact that the political mandate not to apply UK guidelines in Jersey had been re-enforced by the advice of the Attorney General of the time (now the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache) who would be called as a defence witness should the matter ever come to a hearing. But Moore carried on regardless without ever resolving that contradiction. In the end he could only do his report and ask an English Lawyer what disciplinary offences would apply to an English Chief operating under English rules. He then said that it was up to the Jersey authorities to decide whether to apply the same reasoning locally. This was an awkward problem for the Jersey Authorities. If they decided that English Guidelines did not apply in Jersey then the whole case collapsed. However, if they decided that English guidelines did apply then those guidelines would then become the “bible” for policing the Island and 800 years of policing tradition would go out of the window. This dilemma presented quite a problem. In the end Ministers dealt with this in the time honored way. They put off making a decision until it was too late anyway. That is after all “the Jersey Way”. What a waste. An enquiry built on sand. No matter how much work is done, if the foundations are not sound then the whole thing falls over. Having accepted wide ranging terms of reference Moore compounded his error by authorizing "fishing expeditions" which involved trawling through every email I had sent and every document I had created. Interviews were conducted with people I worked with 20 years ago, asking them to remember something, anything, that could stick. By any standard this was foolish, wasteful, but also contemptible. A more professional approach would have involved a tight “ring fenced” enquiry focusing on specific relevant issues and bound by clear timescales and budgets. This was never done, and in consequence the investigation took on a life of its own, perpetuating one line of enquiry after another until the original purpose became lost in the mass of data. He also failed to get a grip of the timescales and the spending behavior of his own staff whose apparent determination to leave no expense unclaimed provided a welcome boost to the local hotel and hospitality industry, but did nothing for law enforcement. Perhaps he could not believe his luck that so much Jersey money was being siphoned off into his Force accounts. In all probability he will have made good use of it for the benefit of the citizens of Wiltshire. The benefit to the citizens of Jersey is less apparent. I expect that he will have his excuses but the result speaks for itself. Over £1m and nearly two years spent on an enquiry with no result. And he was the Investigating Officer. Not “overseeing” the enquiry, not the person with executive responsibility, he was the named person in charge. Nobody with their name on the failed Wiltshire enquiry should have the nerve to criticise anyone else’s conduct of any enquiry ever. They have forfeited their right to criticise anyone else. They have allowed themselves to be drawn into a political vendetta, they have wasted over a million pounds, and they have produced a flawed report when they knew it was too late to do anything with it.

Q. Every penny that was spent on “Operation Rectangle” has been scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, ironically by the Wiltshire Constabulary. Do you think there would be value in investigating how Wiltshire managed to rack up an estimated bill of in excess of a million pounds?

A. It could be argued that there are many aspects of the Wiltshire investigation which would merit an enquiry in their own right. However, I am conscious of the fact that the Wiltshire enquiry was in itself an “investigation into an investigation.” I am not sure that I want to suggest that the Jersey taxpayer foots the bill for an “investigation into an investigation into an investigation.” That might be an investigation too far. I have however suggested in a letter to Brian Moore that his investigation could be used as a case study in the training given to senior officers on the conduct of relating to disciplinary investigations. I believe that the Wiltshire enquiry provides good examples of the pitfalls that can befall a disciplinary enquiry when insufficient attention is given to terms of reference, timescales and costs. So far he has not responded to this suggestion.

Q. During all this, suspension, Wiltshire Investigation and so on, you have remained relatively in the background when it comes to the media spotlight, was this a conscious decision on your part?

A.I have decided not to be personally pro-active in this matter, but at the same time, to be ready to respond to any legitimate enquiries. That remains the case. I have answered your questions because you have taken the trouble to ask them. If they had been asked by another part of the media I would have done the same. But nobody else asked.

Q. There are a number of theories as to why the local “accredited” media have not been asking questions. They range from “it’s not newsworthy” to “they are complicit in covering up the truth with our government.” Have you a theory as to why none of the other local media have asked, searching, and in-depth questions on this subject and reported them?

A. The lack of any serious investigative journalism in the Island was drawn to my attention by an experienced media professional ten years ago, when I was appointed, and others have spoken of it since. That said, I know a number of Jersey media people and many are committed and professional, although they rarely seem to have the time or resources to investigate a story in detail. I prefer not to speculate regarding motives. I just observe, as others have done, that it is rare for the actions of government to be challenged in any depth.

Q. You have told us that you have written, in total 75,000 words in your defence to the Wiltshire allegations. Do you believe those words will ever be published by our Home Affairs Minister and why, in your opinion do you believe they have not been published so far?

A. Whatever anyone may think of the abuse investigation and the events which followed, most observers would agree that the account given by the Chief Officer of the time is an important part of the historical record. So far I have kept these documents confidential and have shared them only with a few trusted individuals for safekeeping. In the way of the world it is inevitable that they will enter the public domain at some time. Both of my statements give a detailed and accurate account of events which is in sharp contrast to the “false history” which Ministers and their allies have attempted to construct. There is a strong argument that it is now in the public interest that all sides of the story should be made available for historians and other interested parties. The Jersey Authorities could of course take the initiative and release these documents now, although by doing so they would expose some of the myths which Ministers have sought to perpetuate about the abuse enquiry. This may of course be the reason why they have not been released so far. I have decided to leave the matter to them for the time being, but I continue to keep the issue under review.

Q. Are you saying that if the Jersey authorities don’t publish your defence statements then you will?

A. I have no plans to publish them at this time but I intend to ensure that at the very least they are available for legitimate historical research. I am sure that they will enter the public domain at some time in the future but I cannot say when.

Q. What do you believe were the intentions of Wilts and their Report?

A. Whatever the intentions of Wiltshire Police, the practical effect of their activity has been to support the actions of those in Jersey who have used public funds to undermine the confidence of abuse victims and witnesses, and to persecute those who strived to bring abusers to justice. They should be ashamed of their involvement in this sordid affair and some of the sordid individuals behind it. After nearly two years and well over a million pounds of investigation I retired without facing a single disciplinary charge. All allegations against me were abandoned. I stand exonerated and remain proud of the part I played in breaking down the culture of abuse which existed almost unchallenged in the Island for decades. I remain grateful as ever for the past and continuing messages of encouragement and support I receive from Islanders, all of whom have my thanks and best wishes.

Q. Do you believe, that culture of abuse that existed could exist again in Jersey?

A. In speaking of a culture of abuse I have in mind not only the major Historic Abuse Enquiry but a number of other enquiries and allegations of abuse which have surfaced in recent years. It is impossible for a rational person to look back at the history of this subject and not conclude that for decades there was a culture in which some people in positions of authority used their position to abuse vulnerable young people, and believed that they could get away with it, either because of who they were or who they knew. I believe that a lot of good work has been done to break down that culture. With continuing determination it can be further broken down and should not return, but vigilance is needed. Denial will not help. The first step in curing a problem of this nature is to admit that it existed. When that is freely and openly admitted by those in authority, an important line will have been crossed. That will not bring justice to the many people who suffered over the years, but it might bring some assurance that the future may be better than the past. (End)

For the sake of history Mr. Power’s side of the story needs to be documented. We hope this interview goes some way in doing that, while we eagerly await his 75,000 word rebuttal of the Wiltshire allegations. The Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand has had those words for quite some time…….About time they were published Senator, don’t you think?


Since this posting was first published BBC Jersey has been furnished with a copy of Mr. Power's defence statement to Wiltshire. They were given this approximately ten months ago. Neither the BBC nor the Home Affairs Minister have published it............