Monday, October 3, 2016

POST ( MTFP) 1 - "LAST NIGHT A DJ SAVED MY LIFE!!!!"



LAST NIGHT A DJ SAVED MY LIFE

NOPE

NOT IF YOU WERE RELYING ON THESE TWO DJ's BELOW YOU WERN'T

TALK ABOUT BEING "INDEEP" COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.


DEPUTY NORTON
DEPUTY McLINTON
These two Deputies voted in favour of the MTFP as amended and the rejected Health Tax. This is what happens when you want to be an assistant minister and get involved with Collective Responsibility.

Enough said on these two.

Part 2 coming soon

THE VOTING POWER OF THE CONSTABLE PARTY.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Saturday, September 24, 2016

I GO ALL NOSTRADAMUS AND GIVE YOU THE (MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN ) DEBATE AND RESULT BEFORE IT EVEN BEGINS .






NOSTRADAMUS GIVES US THE MTFP







THE MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN ( MTFP)


I GO ALL NOSTRADAMUS


THE BIG DEBATE IN THE STATES OF JERSEY


HUFF  PUFF AND A WHOLE LOT OF GUFF


THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE DEBATE HAS EVEN BEGUN.



The Chief Minister will call in Collective Responsibility. 


All Ministers - Assistant Minister plus the Constables will come on board. Let us not forget the Deputies that always vote with the executive. They will have achieved 27 votes or more before the debate has even begun. That means they have control over the entire debate. Yes, we will have all the normal guff that goes with these debates. We will have some deputies expressing how they had wished for more information (even though 80% of the states members wouldn't have read the endless miles of gibberish put forward as the MTFP) just so they can then say "I will support it now. But, hope In the future, the COM will learn from this." Hence voting with no moral or social conscience.

The Constables, in protecting their little fiefdoms of power, will do as they always do. They never go against their Masters. Their Masters could turn nasty and cast them aside from the chamber if they dared vote with a moral, social and independent conscience.  Again, one or two will cast their votes in the opposite direction so as to give the appearance that they are independent. They are the Constable Party.


The MTFP will then sail through the states after 3 days of talking crap.   


Collective Responsibility assures this.


AMENDMENTS 

All the Amendments will be defeated unless the COM decide otherwise. They normally give way on one amendment or at an extreme push two. Listen and watch. I'm not sure how many amendments have been lodged and nor do I care as they are already defeated. 


Scrutiny will be pushed aside like an irritating  mosquito. 


That Ladies and Gentleman is the MTFP before the debate has begun.


Nostradamus has spoken 




Rico Sorda


Part time investigative Journalist.

PS


As for the live streaming?


As the old saying goes.

"YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD"


Have a nice Weekend.


Friday, July 1, 2016

ADVOCATE PHILIP SINEL - LETTER TO THE JERSEY EVENING POST.







ADVOCATE PHILIP SINEL

DATA COMMISSIONER  EMMA MARTINS



This is the letter Advocate  Philip Sinel sent to the JEP. They asked him to cut it down to 450 words before they would consider it for publication. He was not prepared to "water it down" so it is left to Bloggers to publish un-redacted and not watered down.

Advocate Sinel raises some very interesting questions where the JEP should look to be getting the answers to them and not asking him to water them down.

He wrote this letter after hearing/reading the final submissions to the Care Inquiry from the States of Jersey Police, the Law Officers Department and the Chief Minister's Department.

The SOJP, and more so, the Law Officers Department, took the opportunity to attack whistle blowers and those who investigated child abuse in Jersey. Advocate Sinel's letter was written BEFORE the LOD/SOJP/CMD wrote ANOTHER final submission repeating all the same attacks on those who stood up for the victims and survivors of child abuse.

Why is the mainstream media so reluctant to report on the vast amount of juvenile remains discovered at Haut de la Garenne? Why aren't they asking the same questions as Advocate Sinel rather than asking him to water down his questions and observations?

Dear Sir

Independent Care Inquiry

Recent newspaper coverage in relation to the work of the Independent Care Inquiry shows clearly that nothing positive will change in Jersey without external intervention. Indeed that coverage should give the average citizen cause for real concern in relation to the attitude of the Law Officer’s Department and the Police going forward. 

Before dealing with those topics the first article concerned a not unsurprising complaint by the Inquiry to the effect that they were being undermined by the Data Protection Commissioner, who, notwithstanding, the longevity of the Inquiry had waited until it was over before putting forward complaints on behalf of “anonymous complainants”. 

The Data Protection Commissioner is, in an ideal world, there to protect the rights of individuals.  Is that what is being done here or is the Data Protection Commissioner lending herself to the whiles of the oligarchy?

I then read that the Inquiry is being criticised for failing to call Stuart Syvret.  Does anyone actually think that we, as an Island, believe for one moment that forcing former Senator Syvret to give evidence would have been in some way beneficial to the States of Jersey Police of the Law Officer’s Department? Would he have painted them in a better light than they will come out or otherwise?

Additionally we are told that the Police regret appointing Lenny Harper.  This as part of a submission made by a representative of the Law Officer’s Department to the  Inquiry. The first point that occurred to me when I read that was who are these people who regret the appointment Mr Harper? 

We have almost no high ranking Police officers left who worked with Mr Harper.  It may not have escaped many Islanders notice that we have had a succession of high ranking Policeman who have been forced out of office or criticised for investigating the wrong crimes. Or telling it like it is. 

Your article continues to attribute the following comment to Advocate Jeremy Garrod on behalf of the Police.  One assumes, of course, that he has met some Policemen or has he?

The criticism was put as follows “Mr Harper had been ill advised to tell the media that the potential remains of a child had been found at Haut de la Garenne care home”.  Following tests it was revealed that the fragments were not human remains. 

Whilst Mr Power was still our Chief Officer the forensic report for Haut de la Garenne was publically available.  It has since been removed from the States of Jersey Police website, why? I do not know.  Perhaps the Data Protection Commissioner could find out for all of us. 

I quote from that report as follows:

“The following are the main items of interest to the investigation from these areas.
Blood in bath. Cellar 1, 50 +Human teeth cellars 3 and 4, Human bone fragments cellars 3 and 4, Blood stained cloth cellar 3”.


“Approximately 20 years ago two large holes had been dug with the use of a mechanical digger at the request of staff at HDLG. The following day the staff caused the reinstatement of the ground without any explanation or obvious reason for the ground intrusion. These holes have since been excavated by the resident forensic archaeologists who discovered at the base of the hole hardcore and lime. Lime is a well known addition to deposition to aid the reduction of decomposition scent.  Its inclusion in this scenario may be suggestive of suspicious activity although no human remains were found.”

“The number of victims and cause of death remain unknown but the prevailing circumstances would tend to be suspicious at this time.”

“A significant amount of human remains have been recovered that is suggestive of foul play in relation to the cause of death and guilty knowledge during deposition. 
65 Human deciduous teeth
Numerous human bone fragments
It would appear at this stage that the remains were deposited into the area of cellars 3,4 &5 having been removed from a secondary deposition site in the west wing. They were then distributed evenly over the ground and covered with a layer of top soil so as to conceal the deposition from all but the most meticulous scrutiny.”
I like others am afraid unable to square the contents of that report with the position publicly adopted by our new Police Force and by the Law Officer’s Department. 

Yours faithfully

Advocate Philip Sinel

Saturday, May 21, 2016

THE ESTABLISHMENT BLAME IT ALL ON HAPER -POWER AND SYVRET. SICK TOSSERS


FORMER DCO LENNY HARPER - ALL HIS FAULT ACCORDING TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT  - HAD THE CHEEK TO INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE


FORMER SENATOR STUART SYVRET- ALL HIS FAULT ACCORDING TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT
DATA COMMISSIONER EMMA MARTINS -  RUNS A SHELTER FOR THE  ISLANDS ANONYMOUS.



THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY


CLOSING STATEMENTS FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT INTERESTED PARTIES (IP'S)


THE DISGRACED MICK GRADWELL - JERSEY LAW OFFICE AND THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE  BLAME FORMER CPO GRAHAM POWER - SIO LENNY HARPER & FORMER SENATOR STUART SYVRET FOR UNCOVERING DECADES LONG CHILD ABUSE. 



THAT'S A BLOODY CRIME IN JERSEY



The Jersey Media have been headlining the attacks on Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper and Graham Power.

The States of Jersey Police, The Law Office's Department and the States of Jersey, made their final submissions to the Jersey Care Inquiry a couple of days ago. So did the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA)  but you won't have heard too much of the JCLA's submission because it wasn't used to attack those who lifted the lid off of Jersey's dirty secret. The final submissions were an opportunity for interested parties to make a closing argument after assessing all the evidence they had heard from witnesses to the Enquiry.

What these attacks tell us is that nothing has changed since this abuse was taking place for all those decades. Those who speak out against the abuse are STILL being marginalised and attacked, when the opportunity to discuss how things went so badly wrong for so long or how things can be made better/safer for the vulnerable, the opportunity is ignored, in favour of criticisms of those who exposed the failures/cover-ups. This is post-Savile/Hillsborough and Rotherham! 

Lenny Harper chose NOT to submit a closing statement and be judged on the evidence he had provided to the COI. His reasoning turned out to be correct in that it would take the focus away from the victims/survivors (again) and rehash unhelpful tittle tattle which benefits nobody, not least the victims/survivors.

The Inquiry, and public, must now question the motives of those who did submit a final statement in order to attack those who attempted to bring perpetrators to justice and support survivors.

The Inquiry, after this latest episode, is going to have to ask itself one very important question; "are we leaving Jersey a better, more mature, and safer place than what we found it?"

I would argue "NO." After all that has gone on, and evidence heard (from victims/survivors) it still feels like we are back in 2008/9/10/11........

Those who attempted to do the right thing are portrayed as the enemy by the Establishment and jumped all over by the State Media.

What lessons really have been learned from this dark period in Jersey's history? How much safer are our children now? Who will stick their heads above the parapet and be a voice for victims? How does this encourage whistle-blowers to come forward?


Why is it the Establishment STILL attacking, talking about Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret? Why aren't they attacking the perpetrators of vile abuse against children? Why aren't the talking about those who covered up for the abusers?

Why demonise those who attempted to be a voice for victims instead of demonising those who abused them and those who covered it up?

Lenny Harper's, Stuart Syvret's Graham Power's names all being dragged through the mud again. How many perpetrators names do you know who are being dragged through the mud? How many of those who covered up that abuse do you know who's names are being dragged through the mud?

Why is the establishment and it's media still all talking about Syvret, Power and Harper? Why aren't they talking about the victims and the horrendous ordeals they were (and continue to be) put through and how this will not be allowed to happen again?

We are back in 2008 with the diversionary tactic of attacking those who tried bring justice to abuse victims and NOT talking about the abuse or the victims or those who covered it up.


 LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WAHT POLICE ADVOCATE JEREMY GARROD SAID:

"THE States police ‘regret’ appointing Lenny Harper as the senior investigating officer of the historical abuse inquiry in 2007"

I bet they bloody well regret Graham Power making Lenny Harper the SIO of Operation Rectangle. 

What a complete ass of a statement. 

The Idiot should have said: 

"The States of Jersey Police regret appointing Lenny Harper as SIO of Operation Rectangle because it exposed the decades long physical and mental abuse of vulnerable children in Jersey. We had spent decades making sure that it was never exposed or uncovered or investigated. My God, not to mention, the many man hours spent hiding and removing files that might have exposed Club Buggery that have enjoyed such a successful and uninterrupted run in Jersey. Our Good friend at the Jersey Law Office, Oliver Glasgow QC, was absolutely correct when he told the Care Enquiry that "Lenny Harpers actions were a 'disservice' to the victims of Child Abuse."  Those poor souls must have been heart broken when that brash, uncaring bastard from Northern Island and his team of do gooders started to listen. We, the States of Jersey Police, apologise profusely to all victims of  abuse for this crass dereliction of duty.."

Next thing you know the SOJP will be telling us that removing a trouser belt outside leads to hypothermia. 

Do you laugh or do you cry? It's a tough call. You really couldn't make it up. Chuck in the Establishment poodle, Data Commissioner Emma Martins and you have the cherry on the cake.  One good thing out of this latest Establishment fiasco is that it just nails it home even further to the Care Enquiry just what a bunch of dangerous halfwits we and they  are dealing with. 


Kids being physically and mentally abused and it's all down to Syvret Harper and Power. 

What an Island. 

Still, not like the books are being cooked down at the Finance Centre. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist




Friday, April 8, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 6 - THE JEP GETS IT BANG ON.







DON'T WORRY ANDREW IT WILL ALL BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT NEXT WEEK -  OK  FRANK  




The “Andrew Lewis Effect.”

Readers will be familiar with the phrase “The Streisand Effect” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect or as it is known locally “The Emma Martins Effect.” In the case of Streisand she attempted to suppress photographs of her house being published, which caused them to be published on a far greater scale than they would have been had she not tried to have them kept secret.

In the case of Emma Martins, she brought, what was supposed to be, a secret court case using four proxies against former Health Minister Stuart Syvret. The names of the proxies were supposed to be kept a secret, along with the court case itself but within no time the names and court case almost went viral.

Now we might have a new phrase to add to the Streisand/Emma Martins Effect and that is “The Andrew Lewis Effect.” In my last posting I published the editorial from the Jersey Evening Post (re-posted below) where the paper, rightly, called Andrew Lewis out and exposed his lies when he suspended the chief of police back in 2008, what he told the States Assembly and what he told the child abuse inquiry.

It looks like Andrew Lewis, or a supporter, (if he has any) has complained to the JEP about its PREVIOUS EDITORIAL which has caused the paper to publish a correction/clarification which I publish below.

You have to ask, what the hell was Andrew Lewis (or his supporter) thinking? He had his trousers pulled down in the editorial and now – because of the complaint – he’s had his underpants pulled down as well!

Here is the original editorial from the JEP


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL



 DO the ends justify the means? And if they do, should those who adopt questionable tactics to achieve their objective be honest and transparent about what they are doing?

Those questions – and a good many more – are left hanging today after Deputy Andrew Lewis, the former Home Affairs Minister, finished giving his evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday. He did so following the release recently of the transcript of the 2008 States debate about the suspension of former police chief Graham Power, which was held behind closed doors.

Deputy Lewis has long been accused of misleading the States during that debate. He has always denied the allegation and denied it again, and again, yesterday.
The case against him is that, during the debate, he said unambiguously that Graham Power should be suspended because of the findings of an interim report by the Metropolitan police, which was reviewing the States police’s handling of the historical child abuse inquiry.

He now says that he had never seen the report, but was acting on information supplied to him by former police chief David Warcup in a letter. At no point during the in camera debate did he mention the letter from Mr Warcup.
‘I have read an alarming report by the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place,’ he told Members. He added later: ‘I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about the investigation.’

Mr Lewis said yesterday that everyone in the States Chamber during the secret debate knew perfectly well that he was referring to the letter and not the interim report. He says he made a mistake under the pressure of being questioned by States Members. During the 2008 debate, he was also asked whether it would be better to wait for the full report before suspending Mr Power. A few weeks ago, William Bailhache, the Attorney General in 2008, revealed that he had advised it would be better for the whole report to be available before any decision was made regarding Mr Power’s suspension. That advice was ignored.

So what of the questions posed at the top of this column?
Deputy Lewis has been left looking ridiculous at best and, to many, dishonest. Due process was not properly followed, advice from lawyers was ignored and warnings from elected representatives resisted. Whether or not the ends – the removal of Mr Power – were justified is a question for another day, and one for the inquiry to ponder.

But revelations about the means will do the reputation of this Island, the credibility of its politicians (and their ability to tell the truth under robust scrutiny) and the institutions of government no good. If Deputy Lewis is the fall guy for what went on behind the scenes in 2008 at the very top of government, he can have little to complain about.

The great irony is that, ultimately, the people who fought so hard to protect Jersey’s reputation in 2008 may end up seriously undermining it. The electorate will decide who they believe. And those privileged to sit in positions of power to serve Jersey must understand the obvious dangers of trying to run this Island in secret and away from public scrutiny


Deputy Andrew Lewis, and It really could only of been Deputy Andrew Lewis, must of put a complaint in about the above editorial. Instead of complaining - I would have thanked the JEP for not totally shafting me with the truth. Not this PR guru. 


Andrew Lewis must now wait. His disastrous testimony, and the conclusions drawn from it, are now in the hands of the Jersey Care Enquiry. 

Andrew Lewis suspended a Police Chief in the middle of one of the biggest Child Abuse Investigations ever. As Minister, it was only he who had the power to do this. His actions were going always going to be scrutinised. Obviously, nobody bothered to tell him this. If you read his evidence nobody actually bothered to tell him anything. He was kept out of the loop until the last minute. The Patsy. 

He knows what he did. And so do all of us. 

The JEP has been spot on with this. It's getting a lot better. If I'm going to slag the JEP then I'm also going to praise it. I only want the truth. Nothing more nothing less.

Below we have the response from the Jersey Evening Post.


Deputy Andrew Lewis and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry

ON 18 February, the JEP published an editorial leader column under the headline “Lewis and the Truth”. The column was published the day after Deputy Andrew Lewis gave evidence to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry.

The Deputy told the inquiry that he had suspended former police chief Graham Power on 12 November 2008 after receiving a letter from Bill Ogley, the then chief executive of the States. Attached to the letter was what Mr. Ogley described as a “report” written by David Warcup, the then deputy police chief.

This “report”, in effect a letter written by Mr. Warcup, included the officer’s own views on the management of Operation Rectangle, the State force’s investigation into historical child abuse, as well as quotes and comments which Mr. Warcup said were the preliminary findings of the Metropolitan Police’s review into the management of the investigation.

Deputy Lewis told the Inquiry that he had never been allowed to see the actual Met report as it contained victims’ sensitive personal data.

During an in-camera States debate on 2 December 2008 about the suspension of Mr Power, Deputy Lewis said: “Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation.” Towards the end of the debate, he added: “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which lead me to this decision (to suspend Mr Power) in the first place.”

At no point during the debate did Deputy Lewis tell Members that the so-called “preliminary report” was written by Mr Warcup and not the Metropolitan police. When asked by the Inquiry to explain why he had said that he head “read an alarming report from the Metropolitan police” when he had not, he said that he had made a mistake under the pressure of questioning. He added that he was, in fact referring to the document produced by Mr Warcup and that he had made that “perfectly clear” during the in-camera debate. Deputy Lewis added that he did not believe his words were misleading and argued that no right-minded Member would have thought he was actually saying that he had read a report written by the Metropolitan police.

The leader column highlighted the discrepancy. It also asked a number of questions about the actions of those involved in Mr Power’s suspension in 2008. It did not state that Deputy Lewis lied to the States. The inquiry will give its view on the evidence put before it in due course.

The leader column stated that advice from the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, (that the full Met Report should be available before making any decision about suspending Mr Power was made) was ignored.

The JEP is happy to clarify that the advice was given in writing in a letter sent to Bill Ogley and Frank Walker. Deputy Lewis says that the advice was not communicated to him before he suspended Mr Power even though he alone, as Home Affairs Minister, had the authority to suspend the police chief.

The leader stated that “warnings” from elected representatives about the need to follow correct procedures in the suspension of Mr Power “were resisted”. The JEP is also happy to clarify that these concerns were raised during the in-camera debate on 3 December 2008, nearly a month after Mr Power was suspended by Deputy Lewis. The comment referred to Mr Power’s ongoing suspension, which lasted until he retired in July 2010.

The transcripts of Deputy Lewis’s evidence can be read in full at http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts They are numbered 136 and 138.  

These post below from VFC are essential reading. They beautifully expose the liar Lewis. 




Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 5 - THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL






FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER - DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS 


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL - REPRODUCED BELOW 


WE START TO LOOKAT THE GARBAGE GIVEN AS EVIDENCE BY ANDREW LEWIS

BUT FIRST


THE JERSEY EVENING POST EDITORIAL



 DO the ends justify the means? And if they do, should those who adopt questionable tactics to achieve their objective be honest and transparent about what they are doing?

Those questions – and a good many more – are left hanging today after Deputy Andrew Lewis, the former Home Affairs Minister, finished giving his evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday. He did so following the release recently of the transcript of the 2008 States debate about the suspension of former police chief Graham Power, which was held behind closed doors.

Deputy Lewis has long been accused of misleading the States during that debate. He has always denied the allegation and denied it again, and again, yesterday.
The case against him is that, during the debate, he said unambiguously that Graham Power should be suspended because of the findings of an interim report by the Metropolitan police, which was reviewing the States police’s handling of the historical child abuse inquiry.

He now says that he had never seen the report, but was acting on information supplied to him by former police chief David Warcup in a letter. At no point during the in camera debate did he mention the letter from Mr Warcup.
‘I have read an alarming report by the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place,’ he told Members. He added later: ‘I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about the investigation.’

Mr Lewis said yesterday that everyone in the States Chamber during the secret debate knew perfectly well that he was referring to the letter and not the interim report. He says he made a mistake under the pressure of being questioned by States Members. During the 2008 debate, he was also asked whether it would be better to wait for the full report before suspending Mr Power. A few weeks ago, William Bailhache, the Attorney General in 2008, revealed that he had advised it would be better for the whole report to be available before any decision was made regarding Mr Power’s suspension. That advice was ignored.

So what of the questions posed at the top of this column?
Deputy Lewis has been left looking ridiculous at best and, to many, dishonest. Due process was not properly followed, advice from lawyers was ignored and warnings from elected representatives resisted. Whether or not the ends – the removal of Mr Power – were justified is a question for another day, and one for the inquiry to ponder.

But revelations about the means will do the reputation of this Island, the credibility of its politicians (and their ability to tell the truth under robust scrutiny) and the institutions of government no good. If Deputy Lewis is the fall guy for what went on behind the scenes in 2008 at the very top of government, he can have little to complain about.

The great irony is that, ultimately, the people who fought so hard to protect Jersey’s reputation in 2008 may end up seriously undermining it. The electorate will decide who they believe. And those privileged to sit in positions of power to serve Jersey must understand the obvious dangers of trying to run this Island in secret and away from public scrutiny



We know that Andrew Lewis misled the house in 2008. On that issue there is no doubt. This is a strongly worded editorial. It really does call into question the integrity of Andrew Lewis. Why did Andrew Lewis come to the Jersey Care Enquiry and lie? He came in, swore the oath, then delivered lies, more lies and damn lies. Why? Why didn't he take this opportunity to set the record straight? Instead he was prepared to make himself look like an idiot.  He told the Care Enquiry that the States of Jersey politicians in December 2008 knew that he was referring to a Warcup Letter and not the Met Interim Report - with the one small issue being that none of them knew that the Warcup Letter even existed in December 2008.


Just recently we have had the Dame Janet Smith Jimmy Savile inquiry. What was interesting was the reaction to the evidence given by Tony Blackburn. His evidence fell well short of what was expected. This could be said of Andrew Lewis. His evidence was quite simply shocking. One could also say that he made a mockery of the Jersey Care Inquiry. We must wait for their final report but one can't help that for Mr Lewis it's not going to be good.  


The JEP editorial spells it out quite clearly. I have no doubt that they will also be awaiting for the final report.. 


Andrew Lewis swore an oath. It obviously meant absolutely nothing to him. 



BBC NEWS


DJ Tony Blackburn has "parted company" with the BBC after failing to fully co-operate with the Jimmy Savile inquiry, director general Tony Hall has said.

Lord Hall said Dame Janet Smith's inquiry had rejected the evidence from the Radio 2 DJ.

The veteran DJ, who has threatened to sue the BBC, said the report included an accusation he was among celebrities who "seduced" a 15-year-old girl.

Mr Blackburn, 73, denies the allegation and says he was cleared of wrongdoing.

In a statement, he accused the BBC of making him a "scapegoat" for its own "cover-up" of abuse.

Dame Janet's report found the BBC had repeatedly failed to stop "monstrous" abuse by DJ Jimmy Savile and broadcaster Stuart Hall because of a "culture of fear".

Lord Hall told a news conference in the wake of the report's publication: "My interpretation is that Tony Blackburn fell short of the standards of evidence that such an inquiry demanded."

He said it was "one of the most important inquiries in the BBC's history and that has put an even greater responsibility on everyone who took part in that inquiry to co-operate fully and to be open".

"So many survivors and witnesses have honestly and openly co-operated fully - and at great personal cost to themselves.

"As Dame Janet has said, she's rejected his evidence and she's explained very clearly why. I have to take that extremely seriously."


Wednesday, February 17, 2016

ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE 4 - LIES - MORE LIES AND DAMN LIES AT THE CARE ENQUIRY



"COME ON ANDREW - THINK OF THE FAMILY- THE VICTIMS OF ABUSE - THE TRUTH - SOME SAVING GRACE  AT THE 11TH HOUR - DON'T DO IT TO YOURSELF. PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED THEMSELVES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY BUT FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY…"


HE SACRIFICED HIMSELF AND HIS  INTEGRITY FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY. 






FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER - DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS


FINISHES HIS EVIDENCE TO THE JERSEY CARE ENQUIRY


YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO BELIEVE IT


IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE (LITERALLY) AND AS EQUALY SHOCKING.



It was an incredible two hours. The audience gathered for what was to be the most jaw dropping conclusion to a fantastic witness (Mr Lewis) who tied himself in so many knots that even the great Harry Houdini would have walked away with "not a chance" ringing in his ears. 

Council to the enquiry Cathryn McGahey deserves the medal of honour in her attempts to get Mr Lewis to agree to the obvious. Not even taking the oath was going to stop Mr Lewis sticking to his line that everyone else was wrong and he was right. This is just a quick posting. Most of this is taken from my notes and not entirely verbatim. 

I explained in my last posting that Deputy Lewis was going to have to stick to the line that he was going to have to turn the Met Interim Report into the Warcup Letter to get out of being accused of misleading the States of Jersey during the In Camera debate of December 2nd 2008. Even though this was quite a ridiculous assumption for me to make it was his only option. Well you are not going to believe it he did exactly that. Everyone in the room - in my opinion including council to the enquiry were left speechless at the utter contempt that Deputy Lewis showed not only to himself but towards the Jersey Care Enquiry. 

Andrew Lewis told the enquiry that what he was referring to was not in fact the Met Interim Report but that it was the Warcup letter.

He then tried to say that the States Members present during this in camera debate knew that he was in fact referring to the Warcup Letter when mentioning the preliminary report and the Met Interim Report. Even when council tried to give him every chance to think about this impossibility he stuck to his story.

Why is this such an incredible lie from Andrew Lewis?

Simple

In December 2008 no one knew that the Warcup Letter existed. 

After 20 days to prepare for this 20 minute statement and questions he forgot that to tell the States that he had in fact suspended Graham Power on a letter from David Warcup. Bonkers. Complete and utter bonkers. 

LET US REMIND OURSELVES AT SOME OF THE QUOTES FROM THE IN CAMERA DEBATE




The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.




1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?



The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.



1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. 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. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.

1.22 The Connetable of St Helier:

The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the code and with his legal advisers, and with an HR (Human Resources) professional -preferably one that has not resigned from the States, but one who is going to be here to serve the Island - and check that he has fully compiled with the code? If he ahas not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary embarrassment and repetitional damage? I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we have got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision making process.

The Deputy of St John:

I will deal with the first matter and that is a matter of the media. As we are in camera I am happy to state this. On leaving the with myself and the Chief Executive to the States, the Chief Officer went immediately to the BBC; he was there within 5 mins of leaving that office. That is why it became World News - not of my making; not of the Communications Unit's making. Secondly, as far as the process is concerned , I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey HR department. I am perfectly satisfied that the code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstance. I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more(Approbation- Foot Stamping)

Deputy P.N Troy of St Brelade

Can the Minister confirm that the suspension is only in relation to the management of the Haut De La Garenne Inquiry and that there are no other reasons for the suspension? The Minister said that they were very serious allegations, but can he just confirm there were no other reasons? Can I ask why it is that Mr Harper, who probably did untold damage to the reputation to the island, was not suspended prior to his retirement? Why was he not put through the disciplinary process?



The Deputy of St John:

No there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation that was code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those of a serious nature.

NEVER EVER MENTIONED DAVID WARUP BECAUSE HE COULDN'T 

ANDREW LEWIS MISLED THE HOUSE - FACT.

But that's not all. 

It got worse. 

In June of 2009 Andrew Lewis gave a statement to Wiltshire Constabulary regarding the Disciplinary Investigation into Graham Powers handling of Operation Rectangle. 

In 2009 when everything was fresh in his mind and not having to worry about everything that was to follow Andrew Lewis said this in his statement to the Jersey Care Enquiry: 

( This is from my notes but was on screen long enough to get it down as accurately as I could)


154. "I have been referred to my witness statement given to the Wiltshire Inquiry. Paragraph three of the statement reads "up until I received the letter from David Warcup, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well." It is now clear that as a result of the independent review of the investigation by the Metropolitan Police, the investigation was flawed. I should point out that I did not draft my statement to Wiltshire Police and it is not written in my own words. The statement was taken by police officers from Wiltshire Police and I was provided with a limited opportunity to make corrections. This line slipped through the net during my relatively review of the statement and should have been qualified."


"The statement was taken by police officers from Wiltshire Police and I was provided with a limited opportunity to make corrections. This line slipped through the net during my relatively review of the statement and should have been qualified." 

He was asked repeatedly today by counsel how long did he have to review his (4 page) statement to Wiltshire before signing it off? He consistently said; "I don't recall" or "I can't remember." He was asked for a ball park figure i.e an hour, a day, a week, a month? He just replied "I can't remember."

4 Pages. His Wiltshire statement was only 4 pages long. This is paragraph 154 of his Jersey Care Enquiry Statement. 

There are roughly 4 paragraphs per page in a statement. That means that this was from page 39. He has remembered an awful lot over the years yet couldn't remember what he used to suspend Graham Power after  20 days. 

Im sure Deputy Lewis could have properly read a 4 page statement but hey lets not get "I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well." get in the way of the establishment line. 

Let us also not forget that Council to the enquiry said words to the effect:

"that they (COI) have taken witness statements from a vast array of people. From Police Officers, victims, care workers, professionals etc. It has NEVER received a statement from anybody quite like his where he has consistently personally attacked those who took a different view to his."

Every time he was asked to back up what he had said in his statement he just couldn't. It was embarrassing. He spent 10 paragraphs impeaching the integrity of Graham Power and Wendy Kinnard. When asked to back up his assertions he couldn't. It was embarrassing. 

Deputy Lewis couldn't praise David Warcup and Mick Gradwell enough. He gave all the credit to prosecutions to them. Until he was reminded by council that all the work was done by Lenny Harper and his team. Andrew Lewis has serious memory issues. 

His whole evidence was embarrassing. 

Sold his sole to the Jersey Way. 

Once we have the transcripts we will take a closer look. 

I will finish with this. 

At the end of his evidence Deputy Lewis asked to make a statement. As I started to listen to him waffle about how he had been the victim over these past years - how he cared about the abuse investigation etc etc I stood up and walked out. The man made me feel sick.

I left with not elation or joy - no triumphant celebration that after years of hard work we had been proved right. I felt sadness and some dejection.

Deputy Lewis treated the Care Enquiry with the same disdain that he treated Graham Power when suspending him and in doing so Operation Rectangle and all it stood for.
 In doing so he allowed the cancer to live and breathe. That is unforgivable and no cause for celebration.


"COME ON ANDREW - THINK OF THE FAMILY- THE VICTIMS OF ABUSE - THE TRUTH - SOME SAVING GRACE  AT THE 11TH HOUR - DON'T DO IT TO YOURSELF. PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED THEMSELVES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY BUT FOR FRANK WALKER - BILL OGLEY…"

HE SACRIFICED HIMSELF AND HIS  INTEGRITY FOR FRANK WALKER AND BILL OGLEY. 



Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist