Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Questions on Wiltshire

Deputy Daniel Wimberley was asking questions in the States to Senator Ian Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs) on 16 November 2010. I know some people criticise bloggers for raking over old ground, but my principal interest here was the final question, which relates to more public documentation needed for those of us attempting to write a history of the historic abuse enquiry.

Here are the Q&A plus my comments:

In the light of the Chief Minister's statement that he believes that the findings of the Wiltshire Report fully endorse the decision to suspend the previous Chief Officer of Police, can the Minister:

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (a) provide members with the press statements released by the States of Jersey Police relating to any one of the major elements disputed during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, in order, and the full recordings of audio and video interviews?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (a) I have previously indicated to the Deputy of St Mary that I am not going to do this. The press statements are in the public domain and the Deputy of St Mary should do his own research.

My comments: most of this is in the public domain, either on the police website, the States of Jersey website, the States Assembly website, YouTube etc, and I agree with Senator Le Marquand. If Daniel Wimberley is interested, I also have PDF snapshots of most of the newspaper articles relating to Haut de La Garenne, which also has selected quotations from those involved - including the BBC report where Lenny Harper says that the evidence is insufficient for a murder enquiry "at the end of the day there just might not be the evidence to mount a homicide inquiry" - long before Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said the same thing as if it was something quite new.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (b) provide members with the 93 page statement provided by the former Chief of Police to the Wiltshire inquiry?

Senator Ian Le Marquand (b) I would only do this if asked so to do by the previous Chief Officer and even then the statement would need to be redacted to remove reference to individuals who are not public facing.

My comments: Can the Friends of Graham Power get on to Graham and find out why he has not asked for the statement to be released to the public domain? It certainly seems to weaken his position if the onus was on him to request it to be released, as long as he could check to ensure the redaction only removed names, and was not the severe "slash and burn" of the first redaction of Wiltshire. Does he, in fact, know that he could have his statement released?

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (c) supply evidence for the assertion that ACPO had a "policy of only making
recommendations to which [the then Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer of Police] had signalled prior approval?"

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (c) I have previously indicated that I will not be releasing the statements of witnesses who were interviewed by the Wiltshire Police or other evidence.

My comments: This is a major weakness of Senator Le Marquand's position. I heard him some time ago making very much the same statement that ACPO were conflicted and tailored their recommendations to the requirements of Lenny Harper and Graham Power. This might be true, but just baldly stating it, and with any evidence not visible, does not prove that it is anything more than an attempt by some people to provide spin against the ACPO reports by making baseless accusations, knowing full well that their identity and evidence will not see the light of day.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.

My comments: I believe most of this - if relating to the fragment of "skull" - was dealt with in a comprehensive press release by Lenny Harper putting the record straight with emails shortly after a critical Daily Mail story.

Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (e) provide members with the final version of the Wiltshire Report, redacted as necessary but with as much as possible of the missing 270 pages, which the Minister promised to issue to me by "early September" in his email of 3rd August 2010

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (e) I have planned to do this but the task is extensive and has been delayed by work on the CSR process and by other work pressures upon the individuals who are completing the redaction process on my behalf. I have reminded them of this task and will continue to do so. The date of September 2010 was the date given to me but has proved to be unachievable.

My comments: It is good to see the delay acknowledged, but without any target set in the future for its completion, this means the date of release can just slip by endlessly. It would be good to have some target to aim at, even if it is over generous, such as 3 months.


rico sorda said...

Hi Tony

You are forgetting that Wiltshire is being used as the Holy Grail for ILM & TLS.

The major issues always thrown at Graham and Lenny are the Media Strategy & JAR/6,it's because of JAR/6 that the media strategy was called into question.

Deputy Wimberley was very clever in his questions to ILM, in a nutshell he has called his bluff.

Senator Ian Le Marquand: (a) I have previously indicated to the Deputy of St Mary that I am not going to do this.

Rico's comment: Simple its because he cant, if he could it would have been in the redacted version. The reason is I know, he knows and anybody with half a brain knows that this man shafted Graham Power with a kangaroo court. defend him if you can

TONY "long before Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said the same thing as if it was something quite new new" You answered it yourself tony.

What about Jar6/

Tony, its just junk coming from ILM same old bloody junk.

I was really going to lay it out here on the crazy answers from ILM. Look he has no answers he never had any answers he has been left standing like a naughty school boy ever since the suspension reviews.

Daniel has fully exposed him here he has no answers


voiceforchildren said...


I have been asking Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand for months to give me some kind of proof/evidence as to how a piece of child's skull can turn into Coconut, he has not done so.

As for Graham Power QPM giving Ian Le Marquand permission to publish (redacted) his 62,000 word defence to the Wiltshire allegations. Give us one good reason why Graham Power should trust Ian Le Marquand to redact the document "fairly".

TonyTheProf said...

Rico, as I understood (a) it related to police press releases, and public domain interviews - from Lenny , Walker/Syvret, Gradwell/Warcup - all of which exist in unredacted form, and could be got by Googling. I have a collection of these as PDFs plus newspaper reports, all of which are in the public domain.

The original Harper release (after the coconut slur) against the Daily Mail (briefed by a leaky Jim Perchard) was not available - bad link - for a time, but is now again online. All the ACPO reports are on blogs, as are the ILM / Dr Brain / G Power minutes - what Daniel seems to want to do with (a) is to have it all bundled up for him.

TonyTheProf said...

Regarding Graham Power - note I said " as long as he could check to ensure the redaction only removed names", in other words check and have final approval before the defense is published, so that if instead it has been hacked to pieces, permission can be refused.

If the permission was given on that qualified basis, that would put matters firmly into ILMs court and mean he would be less likely to adopt a scorched report policy.

I myself did this once with the JEP - I refused to give an interview (it was about vaccines) unless I could see and approve the final copy to make sure it accurately said what I had said and didn't twist, select or sensationalise it. In fact, the reporter - name began with D! - had recently stitched up a friend of mine in precisely this way, so I was prepared.

rico sorda said...


ILM conducted a Kangaroo court after dropping all disciplinary procedures. How come he cant hand over what the deputy is asking for and be done with it.

It would so damning he would never see the deputy again

ILM has committed some serious sin he knows it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain can see it.

Tony lets cut to the chase, its my favorite line today sorry.

Defend the actions of ILM over this affair. Lets see what you come up with then I can judge them against what I believe.

Lets see if a former magistrate played fair

Are you game? please


TonyTheProf said...

I'm wholly in agreement with you that ILM rushed Wiltshire out without a proper disciplinary hearing. In my opinion, this was entirely or mainly because at that stage - before the summer recess - it was expected there would be a vote on David Warcup being next Chief of Police, and ILM had put himself on the line that this was a vote of confidence on him as well; he had to have Wiltshire before the recess to have time for it to be read before the debate - a debate, in fact, which never happened because of David Warcup's resignation.

rico sorda said...

And there we have it. Who got shafted

Graham Power and The Abuse Survivors

Daniel asks for evidence from the Holy Grail ILM says NO or go find it yourself.

The man is a Disgrace


rico sorda said...

The thing that really puzzles me tony is how come a former magistrate struggles spotting injustice and worse still cant spot it when he's causing it .

Do you think im to harsh on ILM

How did it go so wrong so quickly for him? out of his depth? I do struggle with this part.

I had real hope for him, genuine real hope, after all the hustings I had hope that he would bring reason but no just another puppet.

I really don't know how much i have left in the tank.

If the COM brought a proposition with 7 signatures saying they were commencing ethnic cleansing it would go through


Anonymous said...

I am sure Deputy Daniel Wimberley is able to obtain copies of everything, and I guess he may of done so and has been unable to find anything that supports ILM's position, hence he would wanted ILM to show him the exact articles that form the basis of ILM's assumptions!!

TonyTheProf said...

If Daniel wanted ILM to explain his reasoning, he would be better asking that specifically rather than nibbling at the edges.

I don't agree with ILM's reasoning, but if I was to construct what it might be:

1) He regarded David Warcup as a whistleblower, and trustworthy, based on the Warcup/Gradwell press conference.

2) Once the suspension was in place, he could see no way in which Graham Power could be reinstated until the review process was complete. I'd agree with him on that, but he completely failed to put down a firm timetable, which I don't put as deliberate, but simply very bad management. The result was that the disciplinary process ran out of time.

3)He prioritised certain information, such as that from Wiltshire, over other sources, such as ACPO. Until we get a less redacted Wiltshire, we won't know why. But part of it was that one of the ACPO people was applying for Harper's job after he retired, which doesn't mean ACPO is wrong, but could flag up a question mark on it in ILM's mind.

4) Operation Blast undoubtably entered his assessment of the suspension process, added further delay (as clearly it had also to be resolved). The significant question here is not why ILM acted in the we he did, but why that information was not given to him until 30th April, 2009!!! "I was first informed of the general details in relation to Operation Blast by a letter from the Solicitor General dated 30th April, 2009". That's not ILM's doing - it was other peoples decision to release it then, and in so doing, they derailed the Wiltshire timetable, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Anonymous said...

[If Daniel wanted ILM to explain his reasoning, he would be better asking that specifically rather than nibbling at the edges.]

I feel he did, he was asking ILM to provide proof of what he had claimed, any proof, just one would do!! (I guess because Deputy Wimberley could not find any)

"relating to any one of the major elements disputed"

I think ILM would have been better advised to do just that, he could circulated in the same manner as he did with the 'coconut' episode.

I doubt he can provide such evidence, which explains why he replied as he did.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore: 'provide members with the press statements released by the States of Jersey Police'.

I guess one cannot assume that the Press Statements have been accurately reported, and surely this is a easy enough request to comply with, unless it is policy to shred all releases immediately after a report has been published.

Why was ILM's response so unhelpful!!