Reading David Warcup's resignation statement, I think it is a shame that the personal abuse which has been directed at him, will propbably overshadow the very serious criticism of his part in the suspension of Mr Power..
In the Suspension review meetings, Dr Brain certainly criticised Mr Warcup's actions, and it was clear than many States members were not happy to rush the appointment of someone who had been in part responsible for the suspension of Mr Power; they simply thought it was not proper for an appointment to be made while one of the parties involved in any disciplinary action was a candidate for the post when he had been involved in the removal of the previous incumbent. That seem to me to be a perfectly proper reason for delay. Dr Brain's accusations (I prefer the term arguments) for the role played by Mr Warcup in the suspension of Graham Power were neither malicious nor completely unfounded, based as they were upon a letter written by Mr Warcup:
I dealt with Dr Brain's comments on Mr Warcup's letter here, which make plain that he certainly was one of players (whether justifiably or not) in the events leading to the suspension of Graham Power:
I don't think it was unreasonable to wait until disciplinary proceedings, which were at the time still possible, had taken place before appointing him to the post of Police Chief.
Just consider by analogy what might have happened if (hypothetically) the Bailiff had been suspended because, in part, of a letter produced by the Deputy Bailiff. Even if the Bailiff said he would be retiring in six months, would it be proper to approve the appointment of Deputy to Bailiff until all the matters raised from the letter, and any inquiry and disciplinary proceedings had been completed? I don't think anyone would think that was somehow "politically motivated"; I think it would just be seen as common sense.
So when he says:
He believes there's been a politically-motivated interference in his appointment, despite a report by Wiltshire Police vindicating his stance on the conduct of the Historic Abuse Inquiry.
I think it is perfectly proper to disagree - while disciplinary proceedings were still an option, and Mr Power's side had not been heard, it might have been Mr Power who had been vindicated. Remember Senator Le Marquand's own position was that Wiltshire would only be part of the review process:
"Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters."
So the resulting delays, as difficult as they have been for Mr Power, must in the interests of justice, also be difficult for Mr Warcup. He may well have acted with the best of intentions, but he cannot be considered to have been totally vindicated any more than Mr Power has been judged guilty.
The failure and the continual delays in the disciplinary process were to blame for that, and it is high time that a time limit of no more than a year is introduced for any disciplinary proceedings. The lack of any deadline has led to a lax approach, and dismissal by stealth.
What has not been so good, however, are the habitual sneers of Mr Syvret and others in infantile name calling - "Weirdcop" being their preferred term of abuse. That's just petty, but it is like a dripping tap, and that, coupled with and on top of quite legitimate reasons, probably was the last straw for Mr Warcup. This certainly counts as what he terms "provocation and persistent attempts to undermine my authority as the Acting Chief Officer of Police". That has muddied the debate, and it is probably too much to hope that it will cease, but it it should not be allowed to divert attention from the very real and legitimate reasons for States members seeking a delay.
JON COMMENTS - As I have explained elsewhere, I will not tolerate comments on individual blog posts where the nature of those comments, usually crass and insulting, wou...
1 day ago