Thursday, 26 January 2012



DATE:  JANUARY 25th 2012

CONTACT: 07797 824243

"Given that a letter summarizing damning criticism allegedly contained within the ‘interim Metropolitan Report’ led to the suspension of the former Chief of Police and severe criticism of the Senior Investigating Officer of the Historic Abuse Inquiry, will the Minister be apologizing and/or resigning now that the Independent Police Complaints Commission have confirmed that no such criticism of the two officers was contained in the ‘interim’ or final reports?

Deputy Trevor Pitman has lodged the above oral question to be put to the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand at the next States Sitting on Tuesday 1st February. This question follows on from e-mail correspondence relating to the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission sent by the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr. Lenny Harper to the Home Affairs Minister and also copied to local media.

The essence of the relevant findings by the IPCC is that it appears to destroy once and for all the stated justification for the original decision – taken on the back of a letter from the former Acting Deputy Chief of Police Mr. Warcup - to suspend the former Police Chief Mr. Power and which initiated the tirade of sweeping criticisms and inaccurate reporting of the handling of the Historic Abuse Inquiry by both men.

Sweeping inaccuracies and misrepresentations that have largely been laid bare by the recent Scrutiny Sub-Panel review of which I was the Chairman; and which have even been acknowledged by the Home Affairs Minister himself.  Of course, as the Scrutiny Sub-Panel also made clear there is no doubt that some elements of the investigation were not nearly as good as they should have been.

However, the content of Mr. Harper’s e-mail raises serious questions that go to the very core of the democratic process for which government is responsible. As such I have been shocked – if sadly not surprised - that I am yet to see or hear any reporting of this by any one of our four local mainstream media organisations. 

Since the issuing of our report - while the extensive findings contained within were largely ignored by all mainstream media - we have in contrast incredibly already witnessed the appalling attempt by some to reinvent an officer  confirmed by the Minister as having leaked misinformation to the UK media during a live child abuse investigation as some kind of ‘whistle-blower’.

I find myself asking: will our mainstream media now simply also sweep this emerging new evidence under the carpet too because it conflicts with the picture already painted? As you will all be aware, I am one of the few politicians who have taken the time to follow this sad and sorry saga in Jersey’s history from the beginning. Not only followed it but persevered in researching and asking questions in the hope of helping those rightly angered and determined members of the public bring the whole truth to light no matter how long it takes.

Persevered while so many of my colleagues (former and present) have simply kept their head down out of fear of being attacked, ridiculed or misrepresented for their commitment to natural justice. So I also ask our media in this statement: is there really any surprise that a lack of trust in so much of Jersey’s government as you all regularly report is likely surpassed only by the profound lack of trust in much of  the accredited media itself? The role of professional media should not be about suppressing, let alone spinning or distorting history I hope all would agree?

It should be about simply investigating and  reporting; fairly, squarely and without prejudice or favour to any party regardless of allegiance. If that demands asking difficult, even potentially damaging questions to those at the very heart of power than surely the courage to do so must be found. We have enough cowards within politics – we cannot afford more in the other key arena on which the ordinary public must rely so heavily for accuracy of information and integrity.

I appeal to the media: please do start asking the uncomfortable questions that clearly need to be asked about this. If simple ‘bloggers’ – just members of the public can find the resolve then surely there is no excuse for any of the rest of us if we ultimately want to be able to hold our heads high in years to come. The victims of abuse who continue to put such faith in the two former officers who initiated the police investigation surely deserve no less.

Answers or more spin?  It seems to me that there really is only one choice to pursue…

Deputy Trevor Pitman

As I advised readers yesterday to avoid having the question blocked as falling foul of Standing Orders it had to be re-worded as follows to first 'enquire' whether or not the Minister had actually seen the findings . The naughty word 'damning' relating to criticisms also had to go! Readers shouldn't worry about this too much. As new Members will quickly learn it is regularly the case that when a question relates to something a bit contentious you have to ask what you really wanted with your first supplementary follow-up to get it on the Order Paper. The question's new 'fluffier' wording now reads:

"Is the Minister aware of the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the complaint from Mr. Lenny Harper and, if so, would he advise whether it states that the interim Metropolitan Police Report, that was a factor in the suspension of the former Chief officer and allegedly criticized the former Senior Investigating officer, contained no such criticisms and, if so, will he apologize or resign?" 


  1. Jolly well done! Let's see them try to wriggle their feeble way out of this one!

  2. The decision to suspend Graham Power as a neutral act was wholly vindicated by the Wiltshire report. No matter how these people try and justify retrospectively what was a monumental cock-up, I for one will not be convinced

  3. The issue is should our Media by biased or not?

    The BBC has a mandate to "report" fairly - very rarely will they investigate unless it is for Panorama or Newsnight so they will report information given to them that they can verify and does not potentially expose them to legal claim. Is Jersey BBC doing this? Personally I say no and would like them to justify their (what appears to be) one sided reporting.

    The JEP, CTV and Channel 103 as commercial entities do not have to be unbiased,

    There is an argument that as the only regular newspaper the JEP should be unbiased but I doubt there is any Jersey Law or Regulation that says they have to. We know that the JEP has a falling circulation and therefore is more reliant on their advertising revenue especially the £300,000 annually from SOJ so they will obviously be biased towards their paymasters/advertisers.

    CTV does have a charter to adhere to but they have nailed their reputation (with an award) to the anti Power/Harper mast and I believe just do not have the guts to come out and say they were wrong. They swallowed the SOJ/Warcop/Gradwell spin and would look extremely foolish to admit their "investigation" was no more than report the script they had been given by the SOJ. Again they rely on advertisers who are majority Establishment supporters so have no wish to rock the boat.

    Thats how I see the present MSM position. Will it change? I believe there is no point in answering that question as it takes the power out of the bloggers hands.

    I believe the way forward is to have an alternative online Newspaper for Jersey. I'm sure there are people who read the blogs who have the IT/Webpage ability to create an identical website to that of the JEP where the news will be that reported by yourself and all other non MSM contributors. The comment section like here could be incorporated into the new umbrella website.

    I firmly believe the way forward now is that all the online bloggers should pool their skills to take on the MSM through one portal. I believe the combined strengths of bloggers like yourself Monty and Bob Hill doing a Politics section; Rico Stuart and VCF doing an Investigate section; Tony doing his brilliant daily articles; Tom with his Jersey History; The Jersey Way with his audio archives with others dealing with current events from uploads from the general public eg written and/or mobile phone capture (picture/video) reports on incidents.

    This is the way forward. I'm sure their are (unfortunately) many unemployed former students of Highlands IT courses who have the skills and contacts to make such a suggestion work. The current Political/Establishment situation is maintained because of the apathy of the younger (non)voters. Get them involved in this project. Make them the current affairs reporters (allow easy upload of article written/media; give them a voice in a form they see as relevant i.e. The Internet. I know my thinking is overtaking things but the new websites Google App has to be a must lol!

    Food for thought.

    Lets beat the MSM at their own game. Lets become Jersey's biggest online News outlet. Then and only then will the truth of how Jersey is run.

  4. Presumably you could present a petition to the States on behalf of either Mr Power or Mr Harper - or both - expressing their personal concerns and asking for restitution in some form or other?

    A debate would have to take place - has this been considered?

  5. Well said Sir. Thats been a long time coming. I despair at the state this Island has gotten itself into with a crony government and a cozy media. I hope that makes them sit up and think.

  6. Excellent Trevor, a very cogently constructed posting unclouded by the restraints of fear or impotence of will :)

  7. Trevor.

    After the evidence you received at your Scrutiny Sub Panel (BDO Review) you know better than most that the State Media have nailed their colours to the mast of the establishment and have bent over backwards to discredit the Child Abuse Enquiry under the leadership of Harper and Power. If you think for a second that they (State Media) are about to do a U-Turn then you have taken leave of your senses! Look how they (mis)represented the BDO Report, Tooth Fairy's, disappearing baths, gaps in floorboards and so it goes on.

    Your Sub Panel were given a copy of the Former Police Chief's (Graham Power) defence Statement to Wiltshire, so you will know what the BBC are keeping a secret. You yourself have said it could be redacted in two hours with a bottle of Typex, yet FOUR MONTHS later the BBC are still keeping it a secret despite reporting on the prosecution case against Mr. Power.

    The BBC and the entire local State Media have made their bed and are having to lie in it. They've had every opportunity to Report the facts but have reused to do so.

    Will Ian Le Marquand resign? Not a hope in hell. Would he be forced into resigning if we had an "inquisitive" Media? Hell yes. what he will do is dodge a couple of questions and put out a Press Release, the State Media will publish his Press Release, totally unchallenged and so things will carry on.

    How do you think it was possible for children in Jersey to be abused FOR DECADES? Are we supposed to believe that none of the victims ever tried going to the media out of sheer desperation?

    On a positive note thank you for doing what you can to give the Victims and Survivors a voice and doing what you can to clean up the image of this island that has been so destroyed by those intent on carrying on the cover up. There are 50 other members in the States let's see how much support you get on Tuesday.

  8. Reference the comment about the Wiltshire Report.

    Firstly, let me say this. Hopefully no fair minded individual would go along with the view that it is all hunky dory to suspende someone - anyone - without suitable 'evidence' and then seek to justify it after ward by looking for the 'evidence' that you really needed to take the decision in the first place?

    This type of 'ends justify the means' attitude is the approach of dictatorships not respectable democracies. Which are we in Jersey?

    Secondly, the view stated above and oft-repeated by the apologists for the behaviour of those behind the flawed initial decision to suspend, that the 'independent' Wiltshire Report 'findings' justify the unjustifiable miss a very crucial point.

    This report was never tested - and deliberately so in my view - where it should have been in a proper disciplinary hearing where the 'accused' could have the opportunity to fairly defend himself/themselves by puting counter points. Given the quite inexcusable failure to follow this disciplinary process through you would have to concede that such an attempt at justification based on Wiltshire is untenable.

    As someone with no allegiances to anyone involved (just the bald truth!) a disciplinary process should have been pursued so that everything claimed and counter claimed could have been tested fairly and squarely. 'Kangaroo Court justice' just doesn't and mustn't be allowed to cut it within a democracy. Ever!

  9. Just so readers are kept informed I would point out that my original draft question above has had to be slightly re-worded because otherwise the powers that be were going to block it under Standing Orders.

    I point this out purely so that no one gets the impression that any skullduggery is going on from my point. Having quickly run in to post this having come from the Migration presentation and having to dash straight out to another meeting, I will correct the text above later tonight once my constituent work is finished for the day.

    Keep the Faith.


  10. You are a star Mr Pitman and I salute you. Guts by the bucket full. If only we had more like you and your good lady. Yet what really sticks in my throat is the feeling that no matter what people like you and the blogers uncover nothing will change without UK intervention. Our establishment crooks have an agenda and there is not enough of you to make them change it. I hope that I am wrong.

  11. Pack your bags ILM. Eat your heart out Troll. Your world is slowly crumbling as the truth, sorry Trevor, the BALD TRUTH leaks out.

  12. "Given that a letter summarizing damning criticism allegedly contained within the ‘interim Metropolitan Report’ led to the suspension of the former Chief of Police and severe criticism of the Senior Investigating Officer of the Historic Abuse Inquiry, will the Minister be apologizing and/or resigning now that the Independent Police Complaints Commission have confirmed that no such criticism of the two officers was contained in the ‘interim’ or final reports?

    Deputy Pitman, ILM wil say that he didn't suspend Graham Power but Andrew Lewis did. ILM states that the Judicial Review justifies his continued suspension of Mr Power and were critical of the Lewis suspension.

    This all comes down to legal advice.

    Andrew Lewis obtained legal advice for the suspension

    ILM was obtaining legal advice during the suspension reviews

    The were all receiving legal advice

    If any member now states they received legal advice in an answer but must say from who. AG, SG, and so on..

    They hide behind this because it is so vague and doesn't finger any one person.

    ILM doesn't have a leg to stand on as long as you can second guess his answer and keep the pressure on. He is out on his own now.

    I will be posting more tonight

  13. Trevor - I fear that if ILM makes an apology it will be reluctantly, as was Terry Le Sueur's half hearted apology to the abuse survivors.

    If he was half the man you are, he would resign forthwith, but of course we all know he won't.

    Along with others he is not fit to hold office, but very sadly this is what we have. As Stuart in his wisdom so rightly says - the Government we deserve, but a lot of us do not want.

    Tuesday will be very interesting. Keep at it Trevor.

  14. Still all quiet on the MSM front. Can they get away with this yet again?

  15. "Firstly, let me say this. Hopefully no fair minded individual would go along with the view that it is all hunky dory to suspende someone - anyone - without suitable 'evidence' and then seek to justify it after ward by looking for the 'evidence' that you really needed to take the decision in the first place

    I cannot quite get my head around the stupidity of this blog. Say a senior police officer comes to you with serious concerns that an investigation has gone and is continuing to go off the rails. What would you do? Let said officer continue to work on the case possibly making things even worse while you investigated him. That would not only be reckless, but even unfair on the person being investigated. Suspension as a neutral act was the only feasible option. Thank Christ you are not in charge of anything as important as home affairs. It would be a castrophe.

    Also, while we are on the subject, Wiltshire's "findings" as you so put it never got tested because Power saw the writing on the wall and retired early. Anyone who has read that report will realise Power would have been crucified. Or are the Wiltshire police corrupt liars too? This whole circus perpetuated by you and other States seat warmers plus the endless states questions that it spawns are wasting so much time and money I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  16. "I would point out that my original draft question above has had to be slightly re-worded because otherwise the powers that be were going to block it under Standing Orders."

    What had to be changed and for what reason. I've never been comftable with an unelected person deciding what question can be asked by an elected member.

    Without criticism No administration and no country can succeed And no republic can survive

  17. Maybe the most telling of this will be what the new education and HA scrutiny panel do with this new evidence. If they don't have all this investigated would you be prepared to chair another sub panel Trevor?

  18. Rico - ILM cannot hide behind advice:-

    I have copied two of ILM's responses from (Graham Power's):-

    FRIDAY, 13th FEBRUARY 2009

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    At the end of the day, although I have received legal advice, I am going to make my own decision, as you would expect.

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    That is right. I, in the meanwhile, will have to get advice from my own advisors on what we should be seeking in terms of assurances on confidentiality and things like that. We are talking openly but do you understand, because I am a Minister I have to have advice? I do not always take the advice, but I have to receive it.

    note- the above do not follow in succession within the flow of the meeting.

  19. Anonymous@11.34am

    I'm sorry but try as I am I can't get over the stupidity of your comments. Then again - maybe you are so grouchy because you have something to hide or don't want the truth to come out if it conflicts with your prejudices?

    Whatever the truth it is quite clear from your rant that you do go along with the doctrine of act first think later. No wonder the world is in a mess with people like you about. No doubt you also subscribe to the nonsense that giving tax breaks to multi-millionaire tax dodgers makes all other people automatically better off?

    I also can't help but ask why you feel the need to hide your identity if you are so sure of your facts? Then again given the fact that you also appear to want a 'democracy' where no questions can be asked I can probably hazzard a guess. Come on - be brave. Own your views.

    But talking facts I don't think you will find the term 'corrupt liars' used by me anywhere on this blog. Though it may well be apt in cdrtain circumstances upon reflection. Give me a name and I'll tell you.

    Have you even read the Scrutiny report? of course not. As it is fact based you won't want to. Whichever way you look at it the whole suspension and its handling has been a shambles. So if we believe in consistency then there surely should be a few more people who have been suspended for a very long time. A few less being given 'golden handshakes' with my and other taxpayers' money less too!

    As for Power 'seeing the writing on the wall and retiring early'. I think you'll find without too much difficulty that he actually put back his retirement. It is also equally a cold, hard fact that Ian Le Marquand wouldn't have got around to a disciplinary even if Power was still hear today.

    As for us 'seat warmers' well, what can I say. Funny how we keep getting elected even with the usual dirty trickes campaign tactics of those who are so terriffied of Jersey actually becoming an accountable democracy? And your final point... You 'don't know whether to laugh or cry about the money wasted' I guess you must really have it in for Senators Le Marquand, Ozouf, Le Sueur and co because they have cost us millions!

    Or doesn't that matter?

  20. Hey, sorry for the typos in the above. Maybe contact with hypocritical idiots makes my fingers type faster than they are meant to go. I am just a 'seat warmer' after all...

  21. The Messenger of Doom26 January 2012 at 22:09:00 GMT


    You are mistaken. The comments attacking you are not anonymous. They are almost certainly from soneone called either David, Mike, Bill, Andrew, Ian, Frank or 'Sir Humphfrey'.

  22. Isn't Ian Le Marquand also up for questions without notice next Tuesday? Wonder what the odds are of Lyndan Farnham having to fill in for him?

  23. I thought the comment attacking you were from Peter or Percy.

  24. Today I have been mostly dripping milk on my chest.

  25. Just sent a complaint to the BBC

    There is a monumental political crisis in Jersey over the Haut de la Garenne child abuse cover up, yet the BBC appear to be trying to ignore it. The BBC forces me to pay for a television licence every year, wether I watch BBC programmes or otherwise, and I think it is pretty reasonable to expect that the BBC fulfils its legal obligation to broadcast impartial, accurate, and fair and balanced reporting, something which it is failing to achieve as long as it ignores such a massive news story.

  26. "nothing will change without UK intervention"

    And the UK Government are trying to wriggle out of that duty, by claiming that it is a Jersey problem, but they can't, for the simple reason that there were children sent from the West Midlands to Haut de la Garenne, and also UK police officers and agencies have been involved in the dispicable and very expensive cover up. So the UK is already involved.

  27. BBC Royal Charter

    BBC Agreement with Secretary of State

    "6. Sustaining citizenship and civil society
    (1) In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for sustaining citizenship and civil
    society, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC gives
    information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and
    impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas.
    (2) In doing so, the Trust must have regard amongst other things to—
    (a) the need to promote understanding of the UK political system (including Parliament
    and the devolved structures), including through dedicated coverage of Parliamentary
    matters, and the need for the purpose remit to require that the BBC transmits an
    impartial account day by day of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament;
    (b) the need to promote media literacy; and
    (c) the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm."

  28. ILM will bluster, come up with excuses, the majority of lackeys will support him, the MSM will gloss over it, The People will remain unaware, life goes on.

    Best smoking gun for ages, but if they manage to get past this hurdle they're untouchable.

    Guess which way I'd bet? But well done for your efforts, you're an absolute star for trying!

  29. I have just compared the question you were going to ask and the re-vamped one on the States website.

    For a comparatively short question, it has changed rather a lot.

    Were you given any reasons as to why the original (quite justifiable) question was not acceptable?

  30. Jersey's Standing Orders seem a bit over-the-top to me. Your original question appears spot on. It isn't insulting or defaming. It refers to statements clearly visible on the internet in a number of places that can be checked easily. It is information that has apparently been sent to the "acrredited" media, so if it was baloney then the person sending it would make themselves looking pretty daft if they knew it was untrue. The impression that you are left with is that someone didn't really want you asking this question at all Trevor? Am I right? Readers should also check out Trevor's second question. Now this one does look interesting given rumours of serious disquiet in last week's "in camra" debate! Might even miss washing my hair next Tuesday and go down to the public gallery myself.

  31. A States sitting no one should miss!

    Tuesday 31st January 2012

    (a) – Written Questions

    7. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier regarding the payment of the BDO Alto invoice relating to the financial management of the Operation Rectangle Review

    8. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier regarding the total cost of external inquiries and reviews of alleged police disciplinary issues since November 2008.

    (b) – Oral Questions
    (120 minutes)

    2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
    “Is the Minister aware of the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the complaint of Mr Lenny Harper and, if so, would he advise whether it states that the interim Metropolitan Police Report, that was a factor in the suspension of the former Chief Officer and allegedly criticised the former Senior Investigating Officer, contained no such criticism of these officers and, if so, would he apologise or resign?”

    4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
    “Can the Minister inform members whether the report written on 8th October 2008 by an outside Media Consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States and the former Chief Minister and not by the States of Jersey Police?”

    6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
    “Will the Minister publish the letter from the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to the then Chief Executive of the States in November 2008, which precipitated the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and, if not, why not?”

    14. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
    “Will the Chief Minister publish full details of the contract, if any, with Matt Tapp Associates and fully explain the company‟s role in the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and various news releases relating to Haut de la Garenne and, if not, why not?”

    15. Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development –
    “What level of background checks, if any, are undertaken before a candidate is proposed for appointment as a Commissioner of the Jersey Financial Services Commission?”

    17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social Services –
    “Given the multitude of reports on the subject of the Children‟s Service, what are the Minister‟s key objectives with regard to reforming the service?”

    (c) – Questions to Ministers without notice (30 minutes) –
    1st question period – Minister for Home Affairs
    2nd question period – Chief Minister

  32. I would lay money that if Mr le Marquand (dosen,t do a sickie on the day I have a feeling he might) he will do his usual and not give you the true answers and flap his way around all the questions I actualy think he is completely out of his depth cannot be relied on or trusted any longer and should fall on his sword and resign.

  33. I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

  34. Today I have mostly been chewing my crayons and licking my felt tips.

  35. Trevor.

    You got your point across well today on State BBC where they just couldn't help themselves coming out with the old "shouldn't we move on" sketch. They displayed their total disregard to the victims and survivors of the most heinous crimes ever to be committed.

    When Le Marquand got hold of his prosecution case against Graham Power (Wiltshire Report) you couldn't shut him up, he was all over the State Media, Press Conference, 1-2-1 interviews (with State Media only) and now he's not available for comment? Speaks volumes.

    Thank you, and a select few others for trying to get to the truth of what has been allowed to go on, for decades, in this island. It's about time others in that chamber, especially parents and grandparents, started to search their consciences and begin to show some support for those who had their innocence and childhoods robbed from them in the most unimaginable circumstances. It's time to say "enough is enough" let's deal with the past in an open and transparent way, then AND ONLY THEN can anybody consider "moving forward."

    You will always be able to hold your head high Trevor, how many of your colleagues past and present, will be able to do the same?

  36. Hi Deputy.

    Just put up the Audio of Deputy T Pitman giving the BBC a Interview.
    You can Listen to it HERE

  37. Your radio interview was very good. Well done for your integrity

  38. These comments from JTM are getting more and more bizarre. I'm only letting them through as I thought maybe being heard was some kind of therapy and safety net for him/her/it to let off steam.

    The comments about 'natural acts' in relation to suspensions just don't stack up as anyone involved with staff welfare will confirm. If you are suspended then you are under suspicion or allegation of doing something wrong.

    When you also get politicians going public with throwing as much mud as possible regardless of any evidence being yet available the public can be left with no other impression than that you have done wrong.

    Innocent until proven guilty clearly means nothing to some who have been, and some who remain in power.

  39. Just to point out that a comment has been inadvertantly removed when seeking to move it to the correct chronological place in the postings list. The poster is free to post again if he or she wishes.

  40. No way is Mr Le Marquand going to give an interview he,s totaly lost the plot and must be feeling guilty
    as hell because of all the lies,me thinks he,s on the run, planning his exit as he knows its down hill from now on for him, how is he going to face fellow members and his public? what a disaster this man has turned out to be,watch him jump ship. Trevor what a great interview you gave today on the radio, we need more like you in the states always gunning for the truth,I do believe the guy interviewing you cut you off on purpose, but we must thank them for letting you say as much as you did,hopefully they have finally realised that they too have been misslead and things will change and they will become more questioning of the establishment.and report their findings and in turn regain the respect the public had for them in the past, I hope so, I have spoken to several members who know that what has been going on in many cases is unlawfull and not truefull but have said in different ways whats the use of fighting the establishment and making life hard for themselves, some even telling me that I should be gratefull that I live in Jersey(Im actually of old Jersey stock, so what a cheek)and what a waste of space they are, I voted for Mr Le Marquand and am going to attend the next states sitting to watch him try to worm his way out during question time,if as someone has said he dose,nt pull a sickie, it should be good entertainment if only it were not such a serious subject,regards to you and your Wife,keep up the good work, God Bless.

  41. Big Trev!

    Your interview was the best I have ever heard! At least if telling the truth with no frills rather than lies and spin is what you want from a politician. It is what I want and every other person I know.

    Sorry Sir Humph but not everyone was fooled by your rubbish. Stand again when you have learnt that allowing convicted paedoes to join the Hon. Police isn't acceotable ever!

    No doubt you will get a post from thr troll saying it was cr*p but there you go. He is beyond help or hope. Keep punching.

  42. JTM isn't just in need of therapy, he also seriously needs to revise his record collection, as he posted on my blog that he prefers listening to Gary Glitter than to John McLauchlin, Steve Howe, Al Stewart and Roy Buchannan!

  43. Listened to your interview on TJW and you were so right in everything you said including Ian Le Marquand not turning up. Let's see what you and your readers think I would bet he doesn't turn up to the states on tuesday probably pulling a sickie. What do you think Trevor - it wouldn't be the first time he's done it.

  44. Thanks to TJW for getting the interview up. Very well worth listening to. I'm sure ILM has listened to it several times already.

  45. I couldn't publish an abusive (no doubt deliberately so) post ranting on about it being sick that I was asking this question before Senator Le Marquand had answered it.

    If the poster would only stop to think he/she might well come to appreciate that the Minister has had significant opportunities to answer. Indeed, He should have started giving clear, transparant answers a long time ago. He was asked to come on the BBC today but would not reply!

    As for 'getting excited' about Question Time... Have you ever listened to it? Nobody could get excited about what many of us call 'Questions without answers' time. And as for apparently 'hating' someone because you publish a blog on a very serious issue - this isn't even worth dignfying with an answer.

    Why not channel your anger at those individuals who appear to wish to cover up abuse and sweep it under the carpet instead? That kind of anger would be understandable.

  46. Superb interview Trevor, telling it like it is without fear or favour. I do not think ILM would dare pull another 'sickie', but obviously the spin machine had not quite concluded its attempts to get him out of this one, hence his unavailability for the BBC interview.

    However, spin as much as they may, we all know that spinning tops eventually lose their momentum and topple over.

    I would urge anybody who is interested or able to attend Tuesday's meeting just to listen to what rubbish will be spouted out on this one.

    ILM has lost any slither of credibility he may have had remaining. He may well have been the fall guy for Walker, Lewis and Ogley but he has shown no courage or moral fibre at all. A 'man of God' to boot!

  47. Neutral act of suspension should be equivalent to being charged by the Police i.e. they have confidence of a conviction in such that they have sufficient evidence at that stage.
    It now would seem that SoJ never had the evidence; they had conjecture from Warcop but no solid proof hence the Wiltshire Fishing Trip (I mean Report).

    Warcop had notes from a civilian working for the Met that he included in an email to Andrew Lewis. He says he never said it was a "Met Report" and never amended it to make it look like one. So somebody used these notes, added the Met Logo/Letterhead to make it into an "Official" Report (I'm surprised the Met aren't looking into this Fraudulent use of their Logo/Letterhead) that gave weight to the email from Warcop to allow the Neutral Act of suspension.

    We are aware of the shredding and the large golden goodbye; am I just a bit suspicious?

  48. To Mr. Angry

    Calm down little fella. Try and put some facts in your post instead of mindless abuse and I'll be happy to publish it. You might think about using your real name too - or does that demand a little too much courage?

  49. A reminder to any interested readers that the first meeting of the PPC Sub-Committee of which I am a member should be meeting next week to begin looking at some of the important electoral matters that Senator Bailhache didn't want distracting him from his desperate drive to destroy democracy.

    This is now being Chaired by Deputy Judy Martin as Deputy Montford Tadier has opted out for some reason.Of course, if Deputy Roy Le Herissier's amendment is successful in stopping the sabotage of the Independent Electoral Commission things may change. But well worth attending as it should be a public meeting and there are a lot of important issues to look at.

    Keep the Faith


  50. Sounds interesting. Do think it is crazy splitting things up from what Daniel Wimberley brought to the States successfully.

    Really shows up the real motive for Bailhache wanting to get hold of the Commission and pervert it to his own ends i.e. propping up a creaking Old Order.

    Will this sub-committee be able to look at existing laws and propose more democratic practices? We should have a central voting register for one.

    Compulsory voting with fines for two. Thirdly we need to get rid of the sick joke 'law' that saw Geoff Southern and Shona Pitman taken to court for helping disabled people appy to be registered for a postal vote, and perversely allowed other non JDA candiates in the same district to do the same without facing any action.

    And how about being able to cast your vote at any polling station too? I hope it can also push to split the role of Bailiff that should have happened years ago. This is surely a must.

  51. Thanks for giving the blogs the credit they deserve in your interview. Putting the mainstream or should I say establishment media to shame. You are also dead right about the cowards in local politics. Honestly you aside there is only about another six or seven who are worth paying. Keep it up and good luck.

  52. Mr Le Marquand,try and redeem yourself,you must have had the wool pulled over your eyes, surely, you are not a villian like the rest of them,they have used you as the fall guy,you don,t have to accept this, put your learned hat back on and investigate what has been going on and then expose this lot,expose the liares, have no fear,your faith will support you its not because you,ve fallen by the wayside that you must let them keep you to do their dirty work, does your faith not ask that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated? oh! and once you have done this RETIRE

  53. Today I have mainly been looking at the underneath of my table...

  54. This weeks States sitting has only a handful of propositions up for debate. Less than I can ever remember.

    Is this a sign that too many of the new members are still lacking in confidence to put forward ideas from their manifestos?

    Or could this alternatively be that the desire from the powers that be to close down debate to little more than a rubber stamp for ministerial policy is already working?

  55. Clearly the JTM posts are not from the man child himself but are dry and witty insults designed to give both new readers and those older ones sadly familiar with Jersey's most infamous internet troll an insight into the sad life he leads. So keep letting them through. They make me laugh every time!

  56. Trevor.

    Will ILM be in the States tomorrow to answer questions or will he be in the TOILET?

  57. Hi

    I do not know who the JTM posts are from, whether from a he, she or an it in person or a friend. Is JTM a 'real' person? Is it just a metaphor for a computer trouble -maker? Hardly a pressing issue with everything else that is going on. But the ability to laugh is important with all the Establishment shullduggery that continues to go on.

  58. Today I have mainly been chatting to all of my friends.

    In the shaving mirror...

  59. What is the time allocation allowed for answering questions?

  60. Hi

    Not sure exactly what information you are seeking about questions. How long does a Minister get to respond to each question? Or how long does the presiding Speaker allow Members who want to ask supplementary questions in total?

    The truth is this all depends greatly on who is in the Chair. Tomorrow we have 15 questions I believe. Including the 30 seconds or so that it will take the original question to be asked then this would give around eight minutes each - given that we have two full hours for Questions without Notice.

    You can't have failed to notice, however, thatsome questions get 'hurried along' if they are on issues that the 'Establishment Party' find uncomfortable. The other annoying thing is that different Speakers give different amounts of scope for Ministers to waffle and answer anything but the question they were asked.

    Sorry I can't be more helpful. Looking through my Standing Orders I actually couldn't find anything prescriptive setting out how much time each question should be allowed.

    This is an important issue though as there is a drive being led by Senator Bailhache and supported by others who only want to be part-time politicians to 'dumb down' Sittings and chip away at democracy even further by eroding the ability to seek to hold Ministers to account whther this be through questions or 'private Member' propositions.

    It must be resisted.

  61. Trevor,

    Thanks, you covered my question perfectly. How long does the Minister get to respond to each question. I am expecting the chair person to step in and rescue Mr Le Marquand. The other option is we get a ramble of ''You need to be fully aware of the situation we were dealing with at the time'' type statement to take up the majority of allotted time slot.

  62. Zoompad.

    Thank you for the message. There is no need for me to publish it


  63. Tonight I have mainly been enjoying small, salty winkles. Washed down with Bailey's Cream. Yummy....

  64. Tomorrow I will mainly be making multiple fake posts attacking Progressive politicians to Channel on line and This is Jersey.

    I will also be eating flies...

  65. Le Marquand was a laughing stock this morning truely embarrassing. Answers - what answers? I would think the only person likely to believe what this man says now would be loopy Jon. What an absolute farce and we're paying this idiot!

  66. So the Chief Officer's department paid Tapp and didn't even have a contract or any terms of reference! Incredible but oddly not even a shock anymore.

  67. No contract? No terms of reference? And they had the cheek to complain about Lenny Harper's accounts?

  68. More disgusted every day31 January 2012 at 17:21:00 GMT

    Bailhache seeking to stop the Historic Abuse Committee of Enquiry?! I am lost for words. Sickening. Deplorable. Predictable. Thank you for bringing this obscenity out in to the public arena Deputy Pitman. I just hope Ian Gorst will be true to his word on supporting it going ahead as he said in his answer to you.

  69. "What an absolute farce and we're paying this idiot!"

    I'm not!

    What about that disolving letter now Trevor?

  70. Trevor.

    You, and the other brave men and women, have at least another two and a half years to ask these hard hitting questions in the States Chamber.

    And thats long enough to get results.

    Please dont give up hope

  71. Tonight I have mainly been staggering and shouting....

  72. Le Marquand sounded like he was falling apart as the questions continued. On Mike Higgins' question about the letter he was close to talking complete gibberish. Keep it going all of you. The truth is getting closer toward the sunlight no matter how long the process seems.

  73. It would have been good to have Stuart back in there with you guys. Specially if he could have sat next to the old bumbling bayleaf.

  74. Trevor.

    Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM responds to readers questions concerning the infamous Met "Interim" REPORT

  75. Trevor - your performance yesterday was quite excellent. I was truly dismayed when I heard Gorst's response to your question and when I managed to speak with him after he denied that Bailhache was playing any part in scuppering the Inquiry!! No way Jose...he is conflicted and trying to get this so watered down it won't be worth having any Inquiry.

    During the whole of yesterday's sitting Bailhache was sitting totally disinterested in the proceedings reading a document.

    Just who is our REAL CM?

  76. Today I have mainly been fixing the Lovely Linda's puncture.

    Tonight I think I will be cutting my toenails...

  77. Skimming through tonights JEP and I came across the awful story of the couple who are being made prisoners in their home by the threatening actions of a neighbour. Pleased to see that you appear to be trying to help the couple Trevor. But what is it about people who are called Jon??? Maybe it is a missing gene thing?

  78. Lets not forget what Andrew Lewis told the JEP:-

    STATES Police Chief Graham Power has been suspended following the latest finding in the Haut de la Garenne historical child abuse inquiry.

    Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis said this afternoon that the conclusion that there was no evidence of any murders having taken place had ‘raised questions as to the role of the Chief Police Officer’.
    He said that he had invoked the disciplinary code in respect of the Chief Officer and that he would be suspended while an investigation was carried out.
    • Full report in Thursday’s Jersey Evening Post. • Picture: Mr Power
    Article posted on 12th November, 2008 - 3.00pm

  79. and this:

    After the press conference, Senator Walker was asked by the JEP if there was a possibility that Mr Power would be made the scapegoat for any shortcomings in the way the investigation had been carried out.
    He said: ‘Absolutely not. The disciplinary process will be followed to the rules and with total rigour. I can’t predict, nor should I predict, what the outcome will be, but Mr Power will be treated with total impartiality and fairness.’
    Article posted on 13th November, 2008 - 2.56pm

  80. and also lets not forget what ILM said about reviewing the original suspension of GP which was carried out by Andrew Lewis:

    FRIDAY, 13th FEBRUARY 2009
    Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs)
    Mr. G. Power (Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police):
    Dr. T. Brain (Chief Constable, Gloucestershire):
    Mr. M. Pinel (Head Of Employee Relations, States of Jersey):

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:
    There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear,

    I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do.

    Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position?

    So there it is, ILM said "I would be reviewing my own decision", yet on Tuesday, he said the suspension had nothing to do with him, but surely as the "corporation sole" he should have ensured he did answer such questions, how else can anyone get to the truth!!

  81. I agree with everything that you have stated. So what is the answer to getting fully democracy in Jersey?
    The only way is to get the public to understand just what is going on in their name. All States members who are not in the establishment party must get together on common ground and vote as one. Can they not see that if they were to do this,then they might well be the next to be ministers who then can govern the Island correctly for the best for the public. I know it was tried with the Alliance Party but members must remember that all their own ideas will not always win the day only the majority will get true democracy. A large campaign together with like thinking people going to the public as one voice is the only chance the Island has of getting rid of the old establishment members club.