Thursday, 16 December 2010
Jersey historic abuse investigation ends
Jersey police have announced the end of a three-year long investigation into historic child abuse in the island's care homes.
From September 2007, police took 1,776 statements from 192 victims, identifying 151 alleged abusers.
Seven people were successfully prosecuted in Operation Rectangle, which cost £7.5m.
The investigation began after allegations of abuse at former children's home Haut de la Garenne.
More than half the alleged offences were committed at the home and more than half of the offences reported were sexual. The rest were assaults or claims of neglect and ill treatment.
Although there were no more prosecutions expected in the historic abuse inquiry, Jersey police said they would continue to thoroughly investigate all allegations of abuse.
Thirty of the alleged offenders had died before they could be prosecuted.
Those found guilty were:
Gordon Claude Wateridge was found guilty of assault on three girls while he was a house parent at Haute de la Garenne between 1969 and 1979.
Claude James Donnelly was jailed in June 2009 for 15 years for rape and indecent assault.
Michael Aubin was given two years probation for various sexual offences at Haut de la Garenne between 1977 and 1980
Ronald George Thorne was spent 12 months in prison for gross indecency between 1983 and 1984
Leonard Miles Vandenborn was ailed for 12 years for the rape and indecent assault of two young girls in the 1970s and 1980s.
Morag and Tony Jordan, former house parents at Haute de la Garenne, were found guilty of assaulting children in their care. The couple, of Angus, Scotland, will be sentenced in January.
David Warcup, Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, said: "Investigations of this nature are particularly difficult and protracted, especially for the victims, and officers have worked hard to ensure that the needs of victims have been met.
"Every allegation or complaint has been given full and proper consideration and all possible lines of enquiry have been pursued.
"At this point in time, there is no evidence from which it would be possible to mount any further prosecutions.
"Should evidence become available then the force will review this to determine what, if any, further action should be taken."
That’s what’s on our Local BBC’s Web Site. Not a Lot.
There could & there should be more questions asked. Investigative Journalism That’s what we want over here.
NOT WHAT WE’VE GOT.
The JEP just do as there told by our Government, Channel TV the same but when the our local BBC do it that is out of order.
Why can’t they find out why there was ONLY 8 People prosecuted out of a possible 121 alleged offenders. It may take a bit of hard work & some difficult question’s, but WHY do there just lie down & take the Government Line.!
Here’s one person that has got more Ball’s then anyone at our good old BBC. But he’s not a Journalist he’s someone that care’s.
On Radio Jersey 12.10pm. 14/12/10.
Now Lessen to this. ITV 22.35pm. 14/12/10.
This is from a Program I just happened to come across last night.
Here we have Fran Unsworth. BBC Head of newsgathering & David Manion. Editor in Chief, ITV News. Both Were on The War You Don’t See. By John Pilger.
They are discussing the war in Iraq, I know its some what off subject, but John Pilger is asking why did they not Investigate the Government’s Line at the time of why were we going to war more thoroughly, It could of saved Hundred’s of Thousand’s of Life’s!
So the BBC are able to question the Government & take them to Task but only if that is what they want to do!
We need to Question the BBC in what is there role, is it to just repeat the Government Line or is it to Question & Scrutinize the Government Line. We are lead to believe what the BBC tell us, not left with more Question’s then Answer’s.
Very good program well worth a watch. We need the likes of John Pilger over here.
You can see the program Here
I hope the new boss of BBC Jersey reads this & gets the message? But I wont hold my breather.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
“Following the naming of a senior Civil Servant from the Education, Sport and Culture Department in court by alleged victims within the current historic abuse proceedings, will the Minister give members and parents assurances that the matter has been fully investigated by his department?”
14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Will the Chief Minister inform Members of the dates when Mr. Napier visited Jersey in connection with his review and what the total cost of his review was?”
Monday, 6 December 2010
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
9. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Given that the explanations given as to why and when the Napier Terms of Reference were altered refer to decisions taken after R.39/2010 was presented to the States, will the Chief Minister inform Members when this was done and who was party to the decision and explain why he and the Deputy of St. Martin were not party to the discussions?”
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Friday, 19 November 2010
Second interview was with Mr J Hemming MP.
Third interview was with Paul Rolly a BBC political correspondent.
Forth Interview is with the Man himself Ex Senator Stuart Syvret, after his release.
You do get the feeling that the BBC Interviewer’s have so much contempt for Stuart & his fight for justice it makes you wonder if the radio station is owned by the States of Jersey, Not the public of Jersey.
Radio Jersey will do anything to discredit the likes of Stuart & anyone that does not toe the Government Line. No wonder the station is losing out to Radio 103fm & may it continue because in the end the BBC will have to have a really good look at the way it is run.
First thing to do is get rid of Hamish on the phone in, its more like a Listen to me show then a program for the people of this Island to say what they want. Within reason. Go do some of those really important Wine programs for the 60,000 winos over hear. Or go & talk to Dr Gellar she like wine.
Well I'm not even going to start to say anything about the JEP.
I would just like to say at the start of all this I was not in any doubt that Stuart was going to be on a very long & hard road & it sure has been for him. But in his time some 20 years in the States of Jersey he has been right so many times about what is going on behind the scene's over here, I would say he has got them bang to rights on this one as well. I would be surprised if there was one person that has lived on this rock of over thirty years & never had the thought "that was wrong how did that happen" & " something is corrupt about that".
You have to keep it up now & go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
I heard that you were very good in Court, so good that you made him look like the Carpenter. The day that they let you stand up in court & show them that you are not going to lie down & die was the start of the end. For them.
By the way how is it that one Judge didn't give you Bail, but the one in the Royal court does!
Good Luck Stuart.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
“Given that during Oral Question Time on 3rd February 2009 the Chief Minister said that he would endeavour to find out whether there were written guidelines or policies relating to the taking of notes at suspensions and the shredding of those notes before the typewritten minutes were agreed, will he inform Members whether such guidelines exist and, if they do not, will he state why no guidelines have been implemented?”
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Given that on 12th October 2010 the Chief Minister informed Members that disciplinary action would be dealt with through normal procedures, will he inform Members whether disciplinary action has been taken in relation to the Napier findings, and if so, what has been the outcome?"
4. Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“In his answer to an oral question on 19th October 2010 about the altering of the Napier Terms of Reference, the Chief Minister advised that they were altered when it was established that the previous Chief Officer of Police would fully participate in the investigation, will the Minister inform Members how this willingness was communicated and, if by letter, when this was received?”
10. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Will the Chief Minister confirm that Mr Napier was invited to come to Jersey to present his report to States Members and, if so, will he state when this was and why he has not yet come over?”
16. Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“In view of the fact that during oral question time on 30th June 2009, the Chief Minister agreed that States Members should apologise when they make allegations against individuals that are not substantiated, will the Chief Minister inform Members whether he has asked the Minister for Home Affairs to apologise for allegations made against the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, and, if not why not?”
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Well Who is the real Chief Minister! Has to be Bill Ogley he's un touch able.
This is the audio of Deputy T. Pitman's question to our Chief Minister in the States sitting on the 19/01/10.
Very interesting indeed. It's good to go over these questions, because you do forget what was said & the Chief Minister forget's what he has said!
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
“The Napier Report (paragraph 67) records that the Solicitor General advised the Director of
Human Resources – “I would urge that particular caution be exercised to check that there are
no provisos or caveats to any of the conclusions reached upon which reliance is to be placed”;
would the Chief Minister informs members why this advice was not followed and when he
considers it is acceptable to ignore repeated legal advice?”
10. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Will the Chief Minister assist Members when debating proposition P.166/2010 by agreeing
to release the confidential e-mail he sent to the Deputy of St. Martin at 21.03 on Monday 27th
September 2010 with the heading ‘Napier’, if not, why not.
16. The Deputy of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“What was the basis on which the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police
commissioned the report from the Metropolitan Police on 27th August 2008, was the advice
of ACPO followed in the commissioning of this report, and does the Minister consider that
use of that report, as detailed in the Napier report, was consistent with best practice and has it
damaged relations with the Metropolitan Police?”
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
“Can the Chief Minister explain why, during the time the suspension or disciplinary action against the Chief Officer of States of Jersey Police was being discussed and prepared behind the scenes, there was no formal attempt to resolve the issues between the Minister for Home Affairs, senior officers who had concerns, and the former Chief Officer of States of Jersey Police?”
9. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Will the Chief Minister inform Members why part (d) of the Terms of Reference relating to the former Police Chief’s sworn Affidavit and published in the comments to P.9/2010 and in the Jersey Evening Post on 26th March 2010, was removed from the Napier Report and advise who was responsible and, given the Affidavit’s relevance to the suspension, why Members were not party to the decision to amend the Terms?”
15. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“In light of the criticism in the Napier Report of the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, will the Minister be undertaking disciplinary action against this Officer in order to demonstrate consistency and does the Minister still have confidence in the said Officer’s integrity and suitability to continue in Office despite his imminent retirement?”
23. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Given that the Chief Minister stated that the initial suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, which was heavily criticised in the Napier report, was justified in light of the Wiltshire Report submitted a year later, can he confirm whether ‘the end justifies the means’ is now an accepted principle of his administration, and, if so, in which other areas this will be applied?”
Friday, 15 October 2010
1. Our Chief Minister, say's it with out thinking!
2. Deputy Rondel say's it as he see's it!
3. Deputy Winberly Just say's it!
Sorry about the interferance.
Does anyone have a Request, this could be a good laugh.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Friday, 8 October 2010
Both are having to correct Chris & say that there was a Conspiracy in getting rid of him. With meetings going on for months before the suspension happened.
Both BBC & the Channel Report news tonight said that this report says that there was NO Conspiracy?
This will not be the end of this sorry story.
Friday, 3 September 2010
This is it now the long run in to the 2011 Eletions, who will be more vocal then normal, who will bring in something like Free percription's !
Already we have old Ted Vibert on the Radio every day saying what people want to hear, did not no him before but seeing him perform at the last Hustings. If that is the new JDA way, I think he should stay at home with his wife.
Will Guy defaye try to make a come back, WHAT A WAST OF SPACE.
I can't be bovered to carry on with my run down, its to depressing.
If I was that way inclined I would stand. But I am of the thinking that you should be a perfessional person with a good clear speaking skill, not someone that gets tied up in knots when asked "what time is it". Like some. I all so think that there should be just one class of member, be it Deputy or Senator with a Island wide mandate. No Constables they can be a member as long as they get elected as a Deputy or Senator as well.
We should not be haveing someone as a Minister or assistant Minister who has not been though an Election process or got in to the States on the back of 200 votes. Also I think we can get rid of at least 4 Member's & finaly they should be Paid no less then £65,000.00 per year with pension, so we can get more professional people in there. At the minute people who we could do with are not going to work for less.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Sounds more convincing then our Minister. He puts his Priority on the Survivors
of Child Abuse, not like our Home Affair's Minister, Old Frank Walker & the Bailiff that are only thinking of Jersey's image!!
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Sounds more convincing then our Minister. He puts his Priority on the Survivors
of Child Abuse, not like our Home Affair's Minister, Old Frank Walker & the Bailiff that are only thinking of Jersey's image!!
Click on the Title above.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
I think its getting a bit to much for him. I hope he has got some really damaging stuff on our Chief of Police or he will be in a place were I think he will have to go.
Ow wot a sandal.
Click on the Title above. Is this a person that is in control.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
13. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“Would the Minister advise whether the two police officers, who were suspended for around 18 months and then subsequently cleared of all disciplinary charges at a hearing on 23rd February 2010, are now back to full operational duties and if not, why not?”
Just click on the Title. This just feals like a sunday radio show.
“Will the Minister advise whether the alleged author of the Metropolitan (Met) Police Interim Report is himself under investigation by the Met regarding alleged anomalies in the report’s construction and whether the author neglected to interview crucial witnesses who could have refuted allegations made by the Former Deputy Chief Officer against the former Senior Investigating Officer and the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police?”
You can listen to the above question by clicking on the Title.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Has a Surgeon that was surspended Feb 2009 been de skilled.
If you would like to hear this Click the Title above.
If you would like to hear other Question's please let me know.
I would also like to hear some feed back, is this needed or does the local Media keep you informed enought. I Know there are people around the would that follow Jersey's local Bloggers, so what do you think about whats written in them?
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Click on the Title above.
Been asked to put these up first will go through them all in time.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Thursday, 17 June 2010
The Questions to the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand.
Asked by Deputy Trevor Pitman, Deputy Bob Hill & Deputy Danial Wimberley. On the 08/06/10. I think you've printed all this but I think the people who are following your Blog around the world, may like to hear the Audio of how it went.
Sorry for the poor quality, that was out of my hands.
I'll strive to do better in the future.
Click on the Title above.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Thursday, 20 May 2010
I was quiet surprised & I think the majority of the people there was at how many there was that had taken time out on a Monday night to come & listen to Stuart.
It was near full with people standing at the back. I would of said over 200 was more like the number, not the biased 120 that the JEP said in the paper.
Stuart talked for about 20 minutes & Mark Forskitt for about 10 minutes. Which was done very well, said what he had been doing in England, in collecting information & evidence. Then they started with Questions, which is when the man got up & asked a question that Stuart had just spent the last 20 minutes telling.
There was about 90 minutes of questions which to be of matter of fact with not many long gaps. At the end Stuart & Mark got a standing ovation & people made there way home, a few people stopped to talk but not many. Did not see the egg thrown outside at people.
Over all it was a very good meeting with Stuart putting his point over very well & answering all the question’s that were asked. He had some literature printed off from his Blogg site that was very useful for all the people that don’t use a computer. I would say this needs to be done more, for the truth to get to the people who say “I will not read his Blog” but they may just read something on a sheet of paper.
As for the Media well what can you say apart from corupt waste of space. The BBC just didn’t go & Channel turned up recorded most of the meeting but have decided, that “there was nothing news worthy to but out on there news program”. Well doesn’t that just sum it all up, in that one sentence. All we get is spin & b*ll sh*t.
If it had been a flop with not many people there or with all the question against him, it would have been on all news bulletins & even the BBC would of paid channel for the footage so they could have had it on all there news bulletins. That’s how it works over here in Zimbarsey.
This is the start the next part in our fight for the truth is the by-election, in which some people are asking for that nice man Senator Perchard to stand against him? How does that work. Wouldn’t he have to resin to stand against Stuart! Hope he does because he will not get in, he wont get in next year when it’s he’s time for re-election. He is so up he’s ar*e & for telling people to go kill themselves there is no excuse for that language at all.
Could go on & on.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
I notice as well a spokesman for ACPO saying there are trying to speed up the Process of Suspensions. Well they need to put there foot down over here.
Now that Stuart is going to put the ACPO report’s into the Public domain, we may get some action, before our Chief of Police retires. If not our Government would of got away with Sacking him because he would not have anything to do with the Cival Service getting rid of an Elected member of our States who was at the time The Health Minister because he was starting to ask questions about the way we were looking after our children in secure units & passed abuses in care homes.
At the time of Senator Stuart Syvret’s Questions he did not know that the Police were already investigating Child Abuse at a former Care Home. So Stuart was doing his job & our Chief of Police saw him to be doing the right thing in bringing it up in the States.
But our Chief Minister at the time Senator Walker could not have the Chief of Police on the same side as hes arch enemy Senator Syvret, so he got the both of them Sacked.
Problem sorted untill now, with the power of the internet & Blogging all those lies are coming out into the open & will clean this Lovely Island up.
The TRUTH is coming.
Banned cops paid £53m wages
...for doing nothing
By JOHN KAY, Chief Reporter
COPS suspended on full pay during disciplinary proceedings have trousered £53million in five years for doing nothing, it emerged yesterday.
Figures from the UK's 52 forces show 222 officers were on "gardening leave" at the start of this year.
More than a quarter had been on full pay for more than a year.
One officer had been off more than FIVE years and another three off for more than four.
In total 180 constables (average salary £30,000), were suspended - along with 32 sergeants (£38,000), five inspectors (£48,000), two Chief Inspectors (£52,000) two Superintendents (£66,000) and one Chief Superintendent (£75,000).
A Freedom of Information request by The Sun found the forces with the most officers suspended were the Met with 32, Police Service of Northern Ireland (26), Kent (11), West Midlands (nine) and South Wales and Grampian, both with eight.
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is hugely expensive for cases to be allowed to drag on. It's unjust, costly, and not fair on the officers either. Taxpayers and those involved would benefit from a swifter, more efficient system."
A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "We are continuing to work on speeding up the investigation process when it comes to staff suspended on full pay."
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Well here is the "alternative" Proposition from our Chief Minister to Deputy Bob Hill's Proposition. What is he so Scared of ?
Took a bit of digging but I think Citizen Media has published it first again into the public domain. I think that is becoming the normal process over here in Do La La Land. Sorry Jersey C.I. International.
If it was so clear cut as our good chief Minister is trying to make out Why can't we have Deputy Bob Hill's Proposition ? If every one that is involved in the suspension of our Chief of Police did there job to the letter of the law, why can't we have Bob Hill's Proposition ?
THEY JUST DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT ?
Sorry but it will in the end. Just like the story's that are coming BACK about Wife Beating ?
JUST READ & REAP.
Comments from the Council of Ministers
The Proposition calls for a Committee of Inquiry to be established to review the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended. Following the suspension of the Chief Officer, Wiltshire Police were commissioned to review the background to the way in which the investigation into the Historic Childcare Abuse Enquiry was managed by the States of Jersey Police and in particular, identify evidence of misconduct by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.
The Wiltshire Investigation is being undertaken in accordance with the Disciplinary Code of Conduct for the Chief Officer of Police which requires confidentiality to be maintained by all parties throughout the investigation. As a consequence, it is not possible to discuss in open debate the background or context to this investigation, much of which might be required in a meeting the Inquiry’s overall objectives as set out in Part (a) of the Proposition.
Part (a) of the Proposition for a Committee of Inquiry can be split into four particular elements:-
The manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from his duties on 12 November 2008.
The procedures and the documentation used in the suspension process.
The grounds relied on by the previous Home Affairs Minister in taking his decision.
The role of the Minister and of other parties who were involved in the suspension process.
The issues covered in i, ii and iv above could be investigated by a Committee of Inquiry.
Consequently a Committee of Enquiry, as proposed, could not commence activities until the Disciplinary Procedure had been completed.
The Chief Minister has reviewed all correspondence over the past few weeks and recognises that some Members are concerned at the way in which the management of the suspension process was handled by his Department at that time. As a result, the Chief Minister has given an undertaking to commission a review and report on specific areas as outlined in the attached Terms of Reference. This Review will be undertaken by an independent external expert qualified in Employment Law and the Chief Minister has undertaken to make the findings of the Report public.
With the recent publication of the sworn Affidavit by the suspended Chief Officer of Police, it is essential that the Review of the Suspension Process be undertaken in the shortest possible time frame, to enable all relevant facts from all parties to be fully investigated to establish the true position. However, the Proposition as drafted would appear to prevent this course of action being taken as a Committee of Inquiry will not be able to gain access to all relevant information. The Chief Minister is of the view that if the Committee of Inquiry were to be approved, the terms of reference would have to be amended in such a manner that allows it to perform its function before the disciplinary process has been completed.
The alternative, which is proposed by the Chief Minister, is that an independent expert should be engaged in the shortest possible time frame to undertake this review and report. The Chief Minister has requested Deputy Hill to assist him in the appointments process and has also asked JACS to assist in the selection and appointment process for the Reviewer to ensure transparency. Subject to the successful appointment, the Chief Minister will bring a Report to the States advising Members of the individual selected with their background and curriculum vitae.
The Chief Minister is of the opinion that conducting a review as outlined in his Terms of Reference will be a much quicker and simpler process to that required in the formation of a Committee of Inquiry, but still provides the level of assurance Members are looking for.
Members will note however, that the Terms of Reference proposed by the Chief Minister contain a specific clause that asks the Reviewer to establish whether there are grounds for a full Committee of Inquiry. Should this be confirmed, the Chief Minister commits to bringing back to the Assembly a Proposition for a Committee of Inquiry and for the appointment of a panel of members through a formal advertising and selection process in line with best practice.
This appointments process is seen to be open and transparent for all parties and in contrast to the appointments process outlined in this Proposition whereby members are pre-selected by the proposing Member.
Part (b) of the Proposition is unacceptable and should be rejected. For complex investigations such as this where professional reputations of senior ranking officials are at stake, the recruitment and selection process for individuals to form a Committee of Inquiry must be managed in an open and transparent manner. If Members are minded to approve a Committee of Inquiry, it must be subject to the input of an independent body responsible for the recruitment process, the outcome of which will be presented to the Assembly for final approval.
Financial and Manpower Implications
The costs shown in the Proposition for the Committee of Inquiry appear to cover administrative costs only and, given the timescale for previous Committees of Inquiry these costs appear to be on the low side.
The main cost that is not identified for a Committee of Inquiry will be that of meeting the costs of legal representation for individuals called to give evidence. Providing an accurate cost for this legal representation is not possible but assuming that the key witnesses will be past and current politicians and employees, most, if not all of whom will be seeking legal support, costs could be in the order of £20,000, in addition to those costs identified in the Deputy’s Proposition. If individuals called to give evidence no longer live locally, travel and accommodation will also have to be factored in.
Based on previous independent reviews of this nature, the Chief Minister believes that the cost for the review as proposed in the Terms of Reference would be in the order of £5-10.000
Members are urged to reject this Proposition on the basis that it will become a lengthy process and as presented, does not provide the required level of transparency in terms of the selection of a panel to form the Committee of inquiry.
Members should instead support the proposal from the Chief Minister to commission an independent review, with the safeguards as outlined in this report and if the findings are of such magnitude, the Chief Minister commits to bring a Report and Proposition to this Assembly calling for a full Committee of Inquiry.
A review of the management process that led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.
The Chief Minister wishes to appoint a Commissioner to undertake a review of the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from his duties on 12 November 2008. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the Chief Officer of Police was suspended, and the concerns raised by States Members particularly following the publication of the Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police, the Chief Minister is proposing to commission an independent review to assure himself and States Members that the management of the process was conducted correctly.
2. Terms of Reference
The purpose of the Review is to:-
Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Home Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008.
Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information and presented it to the Home Affairs Minister that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.
Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-
The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police
Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.
Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police
The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008.
A Report should be prepared for the Chief Minister. The Commissioner must be aware that the entire disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is conducted under his Terms and Conditions of Employment which include a Code of Conduct for Disciplinary Process. This Code requires confidentiality to be maintained by all parties throughout the disciplinary process. As such, the report should therefore be in two parts:-
Part I should consist of matters appropriate for immediate publication to States Members and the Public;
Part II relating to those matters specific to the Chief Officer of Police which under his Code of Conduct have to remain confidential until the disciplinary process has been completed.
Friday, 19 February 2010
I have had the opportunity this week to listen to the Radio Phone in and I have been most surprised by the amount of people that have made it be known on the radio that the proposition that Deputy Bob Hill has brought, is the right way to go. To get to the end of this sorry Saga.
I think you can say "it does what it says on the tin". That is get to the TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
He has named a committee which is what he is to do under Standing Order's & the States Members when they debate the proposition can put there own people up for the committee.
But there are people that are doing all they can to delay this getting thought, by saying the committee needs to be advertise for these positions & our good Chief Minister wants to have the inquiry in house not in public.
If our good Chief Minister gets his way it won't happen before our Chief of Police retires & then what is the point. Our inner Government have got away with it. They would of in not so many words of sacked the Islands Chief of Police because he was doing to mush of a good job.
But this has cost the Island over £1 Million pounds & our police force are having to make cut backs, which basically means our force is down in numbers by around 14 police officers, may not seem a lot to the outside world but we are only 9 miles by 5 miles with a population that no one knows. You can ask anyone "when did you see a copper on the beat in town" & they will have to think & then they will come out with "don't no".
There are so many question's to be answered. !!
I just hope this proposition gets the vote & we may just be on the road to change for the good of the Island. If our Chief Minister gets his way & this loses we are in the sh*t & our States members would of lost the respect of & I know I don't speak for the all the Island but I think I could say over half of the Island. No wonder Senator Stuart Syvret left the Island If this is what our Honorable Members can get away with.
In our Chief of Police's Affidavit he names the Chief Executive in political activity in the removal of the then Minister of Health Senator Syvret, for doing his job in asking difficult questions. He didn't want anything to do with it, so he left that meeting. In doing so & in not joining in on the plot sealed his Removal from office.!!!!
WE NEED THE TRUTH.