Monthly Archives: January 2009



Read the unabridged, full text of the two articles.

A lot of readers have asked if it was possible to post the full text from the two articles from today’s Jersey Evening Post.

Unusually for the paper – it has actually done an excellent job – and exposed a truly shocking catalogue of management failures – and subsequent cover-ups – concerning the death of Elizabeth Rourke.

I have managed to scan, convert to PDF and then eCopy to Word the articles – which I reproduce in full below.

I’d be interested to know from readers in other jurisdictions just what would be the fate of the senior management personal involved in this farrago – if it had occurred in your nation.

Here are the articles; they make disturbing reading.

You just couldn’t make it up.


From the Jersey Evening Post, 31st January, 2009


Hospital death: Internal reports raised concerns about performance of doctor put on trial.

TWO internal Hospital reports raising concerns about the performance of Dr Dolores Moyano Ontiveros were made prior to the routine operation which resulted in the death of a staff nurse.

The JEP has learned that the two ‘incident reports’ about Dr Moyano were made in the days leading up to the gynaecological procedure she carried out on Elizabeth Rourke.

But those in charge of the doctor either failed to act or the incident reports did not reach them in time to stop Dr Moyano from operating while they were investigated. One of them involved a caesarean delivery just days before Mrs Rourke’s death.

This week Dr Moyano was cleared of the manslaughter of Mrs Rourke, who died following complications encountered during her operation in October 2006.

Hospital management denied the existence of any written concerns at the press conference on Wednesday which followed the acquittal and yesterday Richard Jouault, deputy chief executive of Health, said that ‘he could not confirm the existence of the reports’.

However, after he was informed by the JEP that the documents were presented in court during the trial, but in the absence of the jury, he retracted his earlier statement and agreed that the incident reports did exist, saying that the police had checked all the incident reports concerning Dr Moyano and gynaecologist John Day during their investigations.

‘I can confirm police have all the incident reports relating to Dr Moyano.

‘I cannot confirm how many there are or what they are about, but they were obviously filled out earlier than Elizabeth Rourke’s operation.’

Mr Jouault initially refused to be drawn on whether the reporting system for incident reports at the Hospital was flawed.

But then he said: ‘If a report has been received and had been investigated and no action was taken, then that is a problem.

‘We are not shirking our responsibilities, but this has to be done properly with the General Medical Council and an external hospital investigation.’

The existence of the reports was not actually revealed in open court during evidence, but by Crown Advocate Howard Sharp in the absence of the jury when he was objecting to a number of character references of Dr Moyano being read by the defence.

Advocate Sharp told the court: ‘On the Monday before Mrs Rourke’s operation, an incident form was filled out and complained that Dr Moyano didn’t know what she was doing.

‘On the Friday before, an incident report completed about someone undergoing a Caesarean delivery said that “not sure that Dr Moyano always performed her duties with utmost care and diligence”‘.

Mrs Rourke died from ‘catastrophic internal bleeding’ after complications including a perforated womb and damaged main vein following an operation carried out by Dr Moyano, and despite hours of emergency surgery.

Mr Jouault said that the Hospital used a system called Datix that logged all the incident reports, which could be entered electronically or on a paper form. They could be filled in by staff ranging from cleaners to consultants and once put on the system, responsibility was passed to a risk manager, according to Mr Jouault.

He said it was then up to the risk manager to flag up any ‘odd’ incidents.

‘Depending on what the incident was and the risks involved with that, such as an unsafe incident, it could make it to the top of an organisation as to how it is managed,’ he said.

‘The risk manager makes that judgment.’

He said that the Health and Safety manager responsible for the reporting system at the time had since retired.

Asked again whether there were failings in the Hospital relating to Dr Moyano and the fact that her competence had come into question, yet she was left unattended during surgery just days later, he said: ‘We have not been able to see the relevance of these forms – the Crown Advocate has these reports.’

Jersey Evening Post, 31st January, 2009.


One of the consultants who was involved in the battle to save Elizabeth Rourke was asked to be involved in an internal review into how she died.

It was denied this week by Health director Mike Pollard and a senior colleague, James Le Feuvre, that Dr Richard Lane was involved in any sort of internal inquiry.

But during a subsequent telephone conversation with the JEP Dr Lane confirmed that he was involved in the early inquiries and did not see any conflict of interest in investigating the matter despite being involved in the attempt to save Mrs Rourke’s life. However, he denied being the ‘case manager’ on the inquiry and denied that any such title existed in Jersey when a ‘Serious Untoward Incident’ was being investigated.

He also went on to say that the internal investigation as a whole was almost immediately put on hold after the tragedy in October 2006 because criminal proceedings had begun.

However, an e-mail seen by the JEP shows that Dr Lane was still being referred to in March the following year as the ‘case manager’ for the inquiry. The e-mail, which was sent from the human resources department at the General Hospital, to both Dr Lane and another doctor, said: “… I’ve had to allocate roles as per the procedure. Dr Lane you’re the Case Manager (as MD this is appropriate). The guidelines state that you must consider all the issues around pay, exclusion from the premises, keeping in contact, cpd [continuous professional development] etc, which you’ve been doing.’

The e-mail stated that it was time to send a report to the NHS and asked Dr Lane, as case manager, to do this.

But this week Dr Lane denied being a case manager. He said: ‘I did not lead any internal investigation and we do not have case managers in Jersey on a Serious Untoward Incident’.

‘We did conduct an interim report, looking into our own internal procedures – but it didn’t continue, as we were asked to stop.’

He went on to explain that following a Serious Untoward Incident, a panel of officials meet almost immediately to assess what to do. He said that he was part of that initial meeting but did not lead any investigations.

However, this was contrary to what Mr Pollard had told the media this week, which was that Dr Lane was never ‘involved in any internal investigation’, and further contrary to the leaked email, which clearly calls Dr Lane the case manager almost six months after the death.

Asked whether he thought his role on the panel and in any investigation involved a conflict of interest, Dr Lane said: ‘how can it be a conflict?’

After being reminded that he was one of the consultants involved in trying to save Mrs. Rourke for a number of hours, he said: ‘I was the consultant anaesthetist on call that day. If I was called to an incident then I had to go. There was no conflict there, and especially as we didn’t proceed with any investigation.’

Dr Lane’s role in the theatre that day was considered significant enough for him to be interviewed or spoken to by a leading UK consultant who was sent to Jersey to conduct a post-mortem on Mrs Rourke just four days after she died.

These events have raised questions about how and why someone with such direct involvement in an incident was allowed to be involved in an investigation and then be allowed to forward findings to the National Clinical Assessment Service at the NHS, which looks after patient safety in the UK.

Yesterday Richard Jouault, the deputy chief executive of Health, said that after a Serious Untoward Incident at the Hospital, a panel was set up which included himself and Dr Lane. He said that in this instance, anaesthetist Graham Prince was assigned to lead that.

When asked if Dr Lane was involved in the investigation, Mr Jouault said: “Absolutely he wasn’t involved.”

Asked whether there would have been a conflict of interest if Dr Lane had been involved, he said: “I would have thought so if he had been, yes.”

Jersey Evening Post, 31st January, 2009



Buy Today’s Edition

And Read About a Senior Management Structure

Trying to Cover-Up Their Culpability

For the Death of Elizabeth Rourke.

Well – the gamble paid off.

The Jersey Evening Post has delivered the goods.

And a despicable and wretched picture of incompetence, governance failure, deceit, manipulation and brazen lies is revealed.

A person lost their life – needlessly.

It just doesn’t get any worse.

And in the implacable illumination of the facts – we can now see clearly that a number of senior management professionals – apparently completely uncontrite at having failed to protect the patient from danger – engaged – and still engage – in what was an unambiguous attempt to hide their culpability.

Just how more ethically bankrupt does it get – than having been largely responsible for the cascade of errors which culminated in a patient’s death – and then attempt to get a locum convicted for what was, in reality, your corporate manslaughter – and to then smear a respected Jersey Consultant as a ‘reserve’ scapegoat?

And then – as is plainly revealed in today’s Jersey Evening Post – even at this late stage – still attempt to avoid responsibility – and mislead the public who pay your wages – by telling unambiguous lies to the journalists of such breathtaking brazenness as to be scarcely credible?

It just doesn’t get any worse than this.

I expect – and I’m certain an awful lot of other people will expect – to learn on Monday morning of the immediate resignation of, at least, the following four individuals:

Mike Pollard.

Richard Lane.

Michala Clifford.

Richard Joualt.

There will be a good deal more to be written and said about this tragic subject – and what it says about Jersey’s public administration.

So I won’t go into great detail at present – let us hope the JEP can maintain this standard – at least as far as this story is concerned.

But just to spell out – a little more bluntly than the JEP – what it is we are confronted with.

H & SS employed a locum.

That employment structure and process was – and is – the responsibility of management.

Thus – all such issues as competency to practice – are the responsibility of management.

Management of a hospital is also responsible – in overall terms – for clinical governance issues; that is, the systems, processes and structures by which the clinical performance of the organisation and those who work within it are monitored and kept to a high standard.

At the very heart of all the above duties is the consideration of patient safety.

Therefore – the full and unambiguous expectation and duty upon the shoulders of the senior management team and its structures and procedures is – in the event of any notice or warnings being given to them – to take immediate steps to protect patients from those risks which have been reported.

I’ll just repeat that – “immediate steps”.

At least two unambiguous warnings were given to management – which expressed concerns about Dr. Moyano’s surgical competencies.

Not only did management fail to take immediate steps to remove the potential risk to patients – they failed to convey these warnings to other clinicians who may have found themselves working with Dr. Moyano.

For example – these official warnings were not conveyed to Dr. John Day.

Had the senior management team had in place an effective and competently run clinical governance structure and system of safeguards – none of the above errors would have occurred.

Elizabeth Rourke would still be alive.

Upon the tragic death of the patient – the gross incompetences and failings of the management systems would have been immediately apparent to that self-same group of senior managers.

Therefore – to deflect culpability and responsibility from themselves – they immediately set about the task of manufacturing a fake blame-trail.

The first, obvious, example of this process being the utterly extraordinary decision to place in charge of the ‘internal enquiry’ a man who had been a key actor in the incident himself. To have done this was such an extraordinary and unprecedented act as to have only one rational, explanation – namely, to ensure the enquiries of both the organisation and the police were directed down a certain path.

The above-actions have resulted in Dr. Moyano having had to stand trial for manslaughter.

And the vicious and ethically bankrupt smear-campaign engineered by management against Mr. Day.

As I said – there will be a good deal more said and written about this subject – and more detail to emerge.

For today – read the JEP – and fully absorb the gravity of what is described – and the shameless lies which were used in a futile attempt to mislead the journalists.



[God – that hurt]


Some facts which will leave you speechless.

Well – I’ve supped with the Devil – and worked with The Rag – in spite of every lesson I’ve learned and many warnings from my readers.

Tomorrow we will all be able to judge whether I was a damn fool to do so?

Or whether – just maybe – even The Rag can – occasionally – do the right and proper thing?

Readers, who have followed my previous posting and the many comments left, will have a basic understanding of the tragic events of which we speak.

And – by now – a very clear impression that all was not as we have been led to believe.

I must pay tribute to the many brave whistle-blowers who have contributed to my efforts in battling these various scandals. I understand the risks they run of harming their careers in a place like Jersey.

Nevertheless – there are many good and brave people out there who have, over the years, furnished me with important information – and many who still continue to do so.

In the case of Elizabeth Rourke – it is entirely possible that the truth would have remained hidden had it not been for people of conscience.

But now, thankfully – crucial evidence is collated – and will be published – one way or another.

As explained in comments I left under my previous post – I took a judgment-call to work with the JEP in this case.

There are many people – especially older, more vulnerable people – who just don’t use cyberspace. So had I just posited the evidence on this blog, as I would usually do – I would have run the risk that that the facts would never reach an important cohort of the population.

So now – I am given to understand – The Rag will be running important and powerful articles in tomorrow’s edition; articles which expose much of the truth behind the tragedy.

Of course – the JEP could let us all down again. We couldn’t be surprised, really.

But I know they are now in possession of a good deal of evidence – evidence for which the word dynamite is barely adequate.

Let us assume the JEP runs the story as it should – as any decent newspaper would.

If so – you will read a number of articles which will simply leave you speechless.

I’ve been familiar with this material for the last year – and to this day I can only shake my head in horror at the incompetence, self-interest and complete absence of ethics which is displayed.

An impression which has only been reinforced given a number of straightforward lies told to JEP journalists by senior figures from H & SS in recent days.

Of the whole wretched train-wreck – there is only one thing you could say:

You just couldn’t make it up.

Will the JEP do justice to what is a profoundly important public interest story?

Let us hope so.

For the good of the people of this community.





In October 2006, a patient died needlessly, following a routine operation in Jersey’s General Hospital.

Elizabeth Rourke was a nurse who was widely liked and respected amongst her colleagues.

She lost her life needlessly – and her family have suffered the tragedy of losing her.

I hope readers will join me in hoping that her family find justice, and in expressing our condolences.

Readers in Jersey will be familiar with the fact that a locum Consultant was charged with manslaughter following the death of Elizabeth Rourke.

The acquittal of the locum has been announced this evening.

I am – at last – at liberty to share a little of what I know about this matter.

I was the Minister for Health & Social Services at the time of the tragic incident.

However – unsurprisingly, perhaps – I learnt a great deal more about the matter following my departure from the department.

What I was told by senior management when Minister – was vastly different to that which I later discovered from a number of different sources.

I’m too tired to write a great deal now – but the public interest requires that certain key facts are known.

The acquittal was the correct verdict.

But having said that – there is no question other than that the accidental death of Elizabeth Rourke was a clear case of unlawful killing – a manslaughter.

So why was acquittal the just verdict?

Because the charge of manslaughter was the correct charge – but the locum was the wrong accused.

Elizabeth Rourke died as a result of a corporate manslaughter committed by Jersey Health & Social Services.

I have known this to be the case for over 12 months – and have tried – as the former Minister – to confess to that corporate manslaughter – on no less than five occasions – to different agencies.

None were sufficiently interested.

These were:

The Police;

The defence lawyers.

The police again.

The Bailiff and Attorney General

And then senior staff in the offices of the Bailiff and Attorney General.

Briefly – the facts are these:

The tragic death of the patient was simply the culmination of a cascade of system failures – of gross management errors.

Neither the patient nor the locum should have been placed in the circumstances which surrounded the incident.

Hospital management knew this to be the case at the outset.

Therefore to divert blame from themselves, they set about lining up the locum as their “Plan A” – as the guilty party.

They were also very careful to have a “Plan B” – in the event of acquittal.

That Plan B has been the smearing and vilifying of a senior Jersey consultant.

Now that the locum has been acquitted – we can expect to see all management and establishment effort focused on blaming the Plan B scapegoat.

I could write at length about this dreadful episode – but not tonight.

I will leave you with this thought:

How many complex organisations that experience a serious untoward incident of this nature – such as a hospital – then put in charge of their ‘internal enquiry’ a person who was a key actor in the incident themselves?

And I’m not speaking of the senior consultant who has been vilified – but a different person.

That is what the senior management of Jersey General Hospital did.

No similar organisation the length of the country would have done that.

So far as I can ascertain – it is without precedent in the public health field.

Given the utterly extraordinary nature of the decision to allow a person who was a key figure in the incident itself to lead the ‘internal enquiry’ – we are left with an obvious question?

What possible motivation can have been at work in such an extraordinary management decision?

No doubt, a great deal will be written and said concerning this tragedy.

Now – let our thoughts be with Elizabeth Rourke and her family.




The “Polite Critique” I Wrote

Of the Draft Health & Social Care Strategy

In March, 2007.

For reasons which I’ve never been able to entirely fathom, some people consider me to be chronically un-diplomatic, tactless and simply incapable of treating people gently.

But, of course such a stereotypical view of me simply isn’t fair or accurate.

When the need arises, I can subtly deliver all the periphrasis required to gently and obliquely convey the news to someone that – actually – they’re obviously a idiot and talking utter garbage.

Now, I know my average reader will know that I posses these skills – but there are still some out there who may require convincing of this fact.

So, in this posting I thought I should provide the evidence for my tremendous abilities in tact and discretion.

And do so in very topical fashion – by addressing the challenges faced in delivering health & social care in Jersey.

For various reasons, Jersey’s Health & Social Services department is in the news; lack of beds, too many redundant beds, not enough money, too much money, inability to recruit and retain nursing staff, failures of clinical governance – and, of course – all of the gross failings of the social services and child protection aspects of the department’s responsibilities.

And health & social care issues are clearly of some interest to commenters on this blog.

Coinciding with this state of affairs, the present H & SS Minister, Jimmy Perchard, was afforded a typically vast propaganda spread in Saturday’s edition of The Rag. In the interview he makes a number of assertions – which, let’s face it, are of so little substance as to be scarcely worth considering.

However, he made this assertion:

“There is no new money in the pot. I will be bringing forward funding proposals. No one has had the courage to do it in the past.”

Now, Jimmy, you see, just isn’t terribly bright – and can be extremely forgetful. He has plainly “forgotten” that when Ben Shenton and he took over at H & SS – I furnished them with a 10 page critique I had written of the early draft of the long-overdue new strategy for health & social care – known as “New Directions”.

And in that critique, I addressed the issues of funding – head-on – several times over.

And it fell to me to do this – because the “expert” senior managers in Health & Social Services – those who wrote the draft New Directions document – had utterly failed to.

And I was terribly diplomatic in doing so. As, indeed, I was throughout the whole document.

Which, frankly – required a near superhuman effort on my part.

You see, having waited impatiently several years – for a group of very highly paid, supposed experts in health & social care – at a combined cost that probably ran into several millions of pounds – to produce this new, strategic document – I eventually received a draft.

And was rendered speechless at just what a defective, inadequate, unfinished, incompetent, ignorant and wretched steaming pile of horse-dung the document was.

Just a few of the multitude of defects:

Not costed – even in general terms.

Little meaningful reference to cost-containment.

No meaningful identification or discussion of future funding streams or sources.

No detailed description of just how the oft-stated aim of “integrating health care” was actually to be achieved.

No detailed commitment to rigorous external inspection or investigation.

No discussion of how health-care spend be transparently and externally monitored, to ensure efficiency and value for money.

Not withstanding several years of discussions – absolutely zero detail on how the proposed social insurance scheme for continuing care for the elderly would be structured.

No meaningful solutions proffered to the stated problem of junior doctors and the European Working Time Directive.

No chapter on staff – an utterly astonishing omission – given that health & social care – more so than any other field of public sector activity – depends upon its staff.

Even more astonishingly – the complete omission of any chapter on mental health care.

It gets worse –

The draft had no chapter on Social Services.

And even more staggeringly – no chapter on the children’s services and child protection.

The draft document was so startlingly, appallingly bad as to be beyond parody.

And you – Dear Tax Payer – fork out many, many hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to employ these un-sackable clowns.

Having waited all this time – whilst very expensive senior civil servants “developed” the strategy – only to receive a document riddled with more defects than a States of Jersey fiscal plan – I felt my diplomatic skills being stretched to breaking point.

But – manfully, I restrained myself – and didn’t act on first instinct – which was to go and see Pollard and Co. – slap the draft document on the desk – and say what the (expletive deleted) is this pile of (expletive deleted) supposed to be?

Instead – I sat at my desk and wrote a detailed 10 page critique of the draft “New Directions” document – a critique which I reproduce below.

So before Jimmy and others try and re-invent history – read my critique – which was written on the 6th March 2007 and note the fact that very few – if any – other States members would have produced such a document – instead preferring to accept any old rubbish that our overpaid and under worked senior civil service churn out.

And pay particular attention to just how terribly diplomatic and restrained it is.

Were I writing such a document today, it would – how shall I phrase this – have a somewhat different flavour and tone.

Most politicians are lay-people in their political roles – they’re not experts – which is why tax-payers like you spend millions of pound employing a vast army of supposed “professionals” to undertake the specialist work required. I’m a carpenter – who left school at the age of 15 with no qualifications.

So when someone in my position can – and has to – deconstruct a startlingly garbage draft document – which has taken a couple of years for supposed experts to produce – the time has come for the tax-paying public to start taking a far harder look at the senior civil servants you pay so much for – and ask the question: “Are many of these people remotely capable of actually doing the job we employ them for?”

In many – not all – but many cases – the answer to that question could only ever be a resounding “no”.

Pollard and Ogley being two prime examples.

Read my critique of the early draft of “New Directions” below. If nothing else it will give you a flavour of the many challenging issues confronting health & social care.

Oh – I nearly forgot, silly me – I should also point out that back in early 2007 I gave copies of both this critique written by me – and a copy of the draft New Directions strategy – to The Rag.

Need I pose the question?

No, I didn’t think so.

The Rag completely ignored them – even though the future of health & social care is of obviously fundamental importance to the community.





Senator Stuart Syvret

6th March 2007

The draft New Directions document is a good piece of work. Many people have contributed to it, and the issues flagged within the report are correctly identified as central to future health and social care strategies.

I have read the report thoroughly and whilst doing so I have attempted to view it from two perspectives. Firstly, as a member of the public who may have little detailed knowledge of the issues. And secondly, as though I were a politician who has no prior involvement in health care. Looking at the report as a ‘back-bencher’ helps to predict the obvious questions and issues that will be raised politically.

As the report will be subject to immense scrutiny – both informal and formal – I have tried to ask questions that we will certainly be asked following publication.


The elephant in the room which no one speaks of is money. It is true that the report does address funding issues in three broad areas. Firstly, the nightmare scenario of not addressing the demands of ill health in an ageing population is spoken of. Secondly, that a scheme should be introduced for the funding of long-term care. And thirdly, the need to modernise the co-paymenting system for GPs.

Much of the core of the report deals with the ways in which health and social care delivery needs to be rationalised, both for quality and cost effectiveness. And rightly so.

However, even with the most effective service and a very high degree of success in the strategic objective of a healthy population, no one could seriously argue that the cost of health & social care provision is going to do anything except go up.

The cost of delivering all that is provided by H & SS is already – by a large margin – the single most serious and onerous cost to the States and tax payers.

I therefore find it startling that there is not a chapter that deals with the cost of health care, how it is to be funded in the future, whether it is realistic to continue to rely on central taxation for all of the year-on-year revenue, whether we need to embrace a European style social insurance model of funding – at least partly – for secondary care. Given the funding pressures on the States because of zero-10 etc, health will come under more and more pressure when competing for tax revenue with other departments, and how is the taxation burden placed on the whole economy by health care best addressed?

My point is this: Even if we succeed in designing and delivering the best possible health service, it will still fall apart unless securely funded.

The States is presently wrestling with taxation issues and spending. Yet people will get the impression that this report is somewhat semi-detached from that debate. Surely we need to be more joined-up? Where does health funding fit in the great maelstrom of fiscal issues and policies? As the largest single cost for the States?

Where do we confront the public with the hard choices on funding?


Health & Social Services is under great pressure and scrutiny from other States members, civil servants and the tax paying public in respect of our costs. Such pressure will only ever increase. We may be satisfied that we are delivering a service that is value for money, but others are not. We must find new ways of transparently demonstrating that we are an efficient organisation. I know we are efficient – but many people will require that fact to be proven to them time and again.

How can we do this? Should we pro-actively seek the regular involvement of the Controller and Auditor General?

As the tax burden falls more and more upon the less well off, we have to strike a bargain with the public. As our need for funding grows we must be in a position to prove just what the public are buying for that additional cost.

I get the impression that the NHS is constantly mired in controversy about where money is spent, how it is spent, whether it is being used wisely – and whether the expenditure produces value for money. I want health care systems in Jersey to transcend such arguments through evidence of appropriateness of spend and evidence of effectiveness and efficiency.

We must move away from the “you shouldn’t have any more money because you don’t need it or you are wasting it” arguments. The community needs more honest debates about the hard choices and ideological positions which drive these issues. Some will argue for ideological reasons we shouldn’t tax and spend on health; others will argue the opposite, again for ideological reasons. Such debates are good. It is honestly addressing the issues head-on, rather than pretending that health spend is wasteful, therefore investment is not needed.


1: There should be a clear and brief statement at the outset as to what New Directions is seeking to achieve. Whilst the generality of the issues are explored in chapter 1, a more focused statement of the issues and the objectives needs to be put at the beginning. What are we seeking to achieve, in a nutshell?

2: I believe the report needs an executive summary. I know that some people argue against such sections as it may disincentivise people from reading the full document, but I feel the focus of a short summation could be useful. Perhaps put at the back as an appendix.

3: There should be, as an appendix, a full list of all those involved in working up New Directions. One of the inevitable questions we will face is ‘who was involved and are they conflicted?’ To put it plainly, will we face accusations that the report has been modelled by people who have a vested interest in seeing certain strategies adopted. How do we combat this perception at the outset? I realise that this is a ‘green paper’ and the public involvement starts now, but it is very noticeable that professional stakeholders of one stripe or another have been the key players. There appears to be minimal – if any – lay person involvement so far.

4: It seems strange that there is no significant mention of Social Services. The report deals with health and social care strategies, yet Social Services is only passingly referred to in the context of home-based patient care. Social Services has a far wider remit than this, and as recent headlines in the JEP demonstrate, we are dealing with very problematic social decay issues. Dysfunctional families and the children’s homes full to overflowing. Indeed, it might not be an exaggeration to describe the situation as a crisis. All these years after Kathy Bull – and we are further away than ever from being able to close the institutional emergency child care buildings. Growing alcoholism, growing drug abuse and more and more family units in crisis – yet our strategy simply doesn’t mention any of this. Which is doubly strange when one takes into account the elevated long-term health care costs incurred by people from dysfunctional backgrounds.

We must have a chapter on Social Services.

5: This, of course, leads on to child welfare and protection issues. As the Ministry which has responsibility for child welfare, it again seems a little anomalous that there isn’t a section devoted to children. Not only should we be putting children at the centre of the strategy for their own sake – but dysfunctional childhoods lead to unhealthy lives. Our strategy is a long-term project. Its keystone is changing lifestyle to produce healthy older people thus improving peoples’ lives and consequently the affordability of health & social care. If we fail in this, we fail in the strategy. To truly succeed in this area, we have to succeed in starting children on the right path. Whilst there is some reference in the report to PSE and ‘healthy schools’, I do not feel this is sufficient. I have already asked that we work towards an overarching strategy for children and childhood for ultimate approval by the States. Whilst that is a medium-term project, we should at least be describing what the problems are and what we propose to address in the children’s strategy. Indeed, the development and publication of that strategy should be one of the prime objectives in the New Directions report.

We must have a chapter on children and childhood.

6: I think we need a greater exposition on the correlation between low income or outright poverty and poor health and poor access to health care. The evidence is extremely robust on this question. Poorer people have poorer health and poorer access to health care. I feel we need to explore this whole field of ‘barriers to health’ and place it within the broader context of Jersey’s socio-economic environment and other States policies, such as housing, education and taxation.

7: If you asked the average politician or most members of the public what is the most eagerly awaited feature of this report, it is the continuing care social insurance proposal. The report does indeed address this subject, but I feel in nothing like enough detail. Basically the report says ‘we should introduce such a scheme’. Well, yes – but we’ve been saying that for at least five years now. Is it not time for a little more flesh on the bones? What do we propose to do? How will it work? What are the flaws in the Guernsey system? How do we plan to improve upon it? Will it be a new scheme or an extension of the existing social security system? I realise this is a strategic document, so one wouldn’t expect great detail, but nevertheless, I feel we need more information on the general direction we see this going in.

8: This leads on to questions about the social security system as presently structured. At present anyone who is wealthy can reduce or even largely eliminate their contribution requirement. They do this through several loopholes such as “employing” themselves and paying themselves the bare minimum thus attracting a high rate of supplementation from the tax payer. Supplementation presently costs the States over £50 million a year in supplementary payments from central taxation. This is simply not sustainable. We need to state the issues and suggest a direction of travel for the exploration of reforms. It simply isn’t credible or responsible to advocate an additional layer of social security on top of a range of existing problems.

9: Assuming we introduce a social insurance for long-term care, do we leave it at that? Given the immense financial pressures the States is under, do we need to broaden it out to provide a stream of funding to secondary care? Do we need to look to a European model of social insurance for health funding? If not, can the States guarantee meeting an ever growing demand on central taxation revenues?

10: In respect of 7, 8 & 9 above, I feel we need to provide a brief description of different funding options for public consideration. Different types and degrees of social insurance could be mooted; as could additional funding from central taxation; as could ring-fenced taxes. Given that this document is a “Green Paper” we have to explore these issues and give the public we are consulting a menu of options for them to comment on. I have a BMA report from a few years ago which describes the different funding approaches. We should also consider fairness and equity issues. We know that – in the strange parallel universe that is Jersey fiscal policy – struggling people get taxed whilst multi-millionaires turn up and claim means-tested benefits. Any new funding approaches for health must be fair and avoid such perversities.

We must have a chapter on money and the options for where it comes from.

11: Whilst on the subject of money, I feel there needs to be a little more clarity and specificity about our likely capital investment needs and plans. Whilst this is mentioned to some extent, I think we need more focus and detail, for example, the redevelopment of the Newgate Street end of the hospital. Where will our capital funding come from? Do we need to stake a claim now on a substantial part of the proceeds from the forthcoming big self-off of States assets? Are we going to re-claim some capital allocation to build a new nursing home?

12: The whole question of ring-fencing moneys or hypothecation of funds for health and social care needs to be addressed, whether capital income or revenue income. Treasuries generally don’t like hypothecation, but we need to at least explore the issues and options. This form of funding would be a social contract; health & social care would get security and its clients would get guaranteed standards – and other States departments wouldn’t be forever missing out on funding because of the growing needs of health.

13: Integration and amelioration of other States policies has to be considered. Whilst the role of the States as a “13th parish” is referred to, I feel there is too little focus on the policies of other departments. Given we have the focused forum of the Council of Ministers to supposedly deliver joined-up government, shouldn’t we be influencing, for example, T & TS in respect of transport strategies, for example more bicycle lanes and greater regulation of vehicle emissions such as PM 10 particles? What about Housing? Should we not have something to say in respect of well-designed and constructed homes which are warm & dry? Shouldn’t we be seeking to ensure Housing has regard for the social cohesion and even mental health issues which can arise because of deficient housing estates? What of ESC? Isn’t it plain that current approaches to both health education and physical activity and fitness are simply not working sufficiently? I know this is touched upon in New Directions, but not enough. As already touched upon, what of the tax and spend issues? Where is all the money going to come from? Shouldn’t the Treasury be involved?

We must have a chapter on integrating health and social care considerations into all relevant areas of public administration.

14: Charging for A & E attendances. This observation applies to some other aspects of the report. It is noticeable that we mention that we should stop A & E being used as a GP service – but that’s it. We don’t spell out precisely what we mean. We are leaving it to people to read between the lines. I would prefer we were up-front about these things. If we plan to start charging for A & E non-emergency appearances – then we should say so. Explain why and describe what safeguards will be in place.

15: General Practitioners. New Directions does deal with GPs and their development as leaders of primary care. However, I thought it was striking that a few of the key questions were not addressed. For example, are GPs to carry on being remunerated by soc-sec, or us as the case may be, on the basis of ‘fee-per-item-of-service’? If so, how de we propose to address all of the perverse incentives this causes? Or is it the case that we want to give GPs an annual contract payment for the overall service they provide? If so, how will this work and do GPs accept such a change?

16: New Directions does explore the issues around co-payments. We do, for example, recognise that co-payments are a disincentive to poorer people from seeing their GP. However, we get very vague again on what we propose should be done about this. There is reference to Income Support, but will this alone really address the problem? Such is the onerous nature of claiming Income Support that it is becoming clear many are simply not bothering.

17: Family Nursing and Home Care. This is another ‘elephant in the room’. Whilst FNHC receives passing reference in a few places, for example in respect of more focused home support for patients, we fail to state baldly what the issue are with FNHC and how we propose to modernise the situation. Again, it is hinted at if you wish to read between the lines, but not really faced up to. Whatever home care structure we advocate, there has to be certain changes. For example, if we are going down the social insurance path for continuing care, I want us to scrap the requirement that people have to pay FNHC “membership” fees, and I want us to scrap the charges people currently face for consumables such as dressings and incontinence pads.

18: I know the report specifically makes a point of excluding mental health from the present considerations, but I don’t think that is acceptable. We are trying to move towards a cultural shift in how we perceive mental health problems. We need to combat the stigma and normalise mental health as a “health” problem. By excluding it in the way we do in the report I feel we are actually going in the wrong direction. One gets the impression that mental health, like social services and the children’s service, has been pushed to one side by the stampede of General Hospital focused clinicians and GPs.

19: Although we wouldn’t expect much detail at this stage, I feel there needs to be a section on dental care and whether we include a funding element within any social insurance arrangement. Dental care costs are astronomical in Jersey so the poor tend to have very poor dental health.

20: I was surprised at how little nursing and nurses featured. Nurses are crucial to pretty much all we do. We face a variety of challenges in recruiting and retention. There is a world-wide shortage of nurses. How do we propose to strategically plan to deal with this problem?

21: I felt we needed a little more detail on the whole question of staff generally. How we recruit, how we retain. How we remunerate. How we train them. How we support them in maintaining high standards and so on. H & SS runs on its staff.

22: Whilst the report does address the issues around the EWTDs (European Working Time Directives) and what this means for junior doctors in the Jersey General hospital, I felt there was not enough clarity and detail as to what, precisely, we do about it. Whilst we speak of the “hospital at night”, and “hot zones” and so on, is it argued that these exercises alone will solve the problem? Do we foresee a time when GPs work in the General Hospital, carrying out some of the duties that are presently carried out by junior doctors? If so, how might this work?

23: There really needs to be a binding commitment and detailed explanation in the report as to just how we are going to secure and submit to external inspection. I am familiar with the saga of the Health Care Commission, but many people won’t be. We at least need to be clear about what it is we plan to do.

24: Similar observations apply to the whole issue of an independent complaints procedure. I have always been committed to this – and have been promising it for about 6 years. But we seem no closer to having a clear and readily accessible procedure in place. We really need to be stronger and clearer here.

25: I think we need to say something about patient involvement, for example, some kind of patient forum. A number of different models exist which we could look at, for example, the old Community Health Councils in the UK.

26: Should we commit to a “Patients’ Charter”? Should we commit to a “Clients’ Charter” as many of our ‘customers’ are not patients?

27: This leads on to the observation that the ‘feel’ of the report is very much that it has been largely generated by the hospital and GPs. This explains a lot about its focus and why some key areas appear largely unaddressed. There is a risk that this exercise will be seen by some simply as the clinicians carving things up as they want, with little regard to other aspects of our responsibilities or clients’ concerns. I’m not saying it is so, just that that will be the impression some people will get.

28: Reference is made in the report to the “10 high impact proposals”. This will need explaining for a lay audience. Most will have no idea what this means and there is also a danger that we will be accused of “importing failed NHS type policies”, unless we explain the relevance and usefulness of such measures to Jersey people.

29: I recognise fully that this is a strategic document and, as such, it does not attempt to address costings and so on. But I can guarantee now that we are going to spend an awful lot of time answering the same question in the States and publicly over and over again: “how much?” Whilst we wouldn’t expect the proposals in a strategic document to be fully costed, many people will expect at least some idea. I simply don’t think we are going to get away with “look, just agree to all this and we’ll work out the costs later.” If not possible to cost each element in detail, we ought to at least be including some kind of funding formula proposal; perhaps spend per patient, spend per capita, percentage of GDP etc etc. We will – absolutely without question – be barraged with these questions as soon as we publish. We need to have at least attempted to address them.

30: Targets and measurable and quantifiable outcomes. I can guarantee that we will be expected to demonstrate what our objectives are, how we plan to reach those targets, how will success look, how will it be reliably verified? Again, I recognise this is a strategic report in which one would not necessarily expect great detail, but nevertheless, we will be expected to at least indicate how we plan to develop and put in place a robust performance assessment procedure.

31: Energy strategy: Health & Social Services must be one of the largest consumers of energy in the Channel Islands. Add to this all of the other health & social care consumers of energy and it becomes clear that the services the community expects are massively energy dependant. We live in volatile times as far as energy supply and cost is concerned. Whilst it is possible to find extremes of view on both side of the debate, much respectable opinion has it that the world will hit peak oil production sometime this decade. Once that occurs, we begin moving towards the end of cheap oil. If we are serious in our ambition to deliver a strategy that sets health & social care on the right path for next couple of decades, we have to have regard for energy. If for no other reason than the cost of energy is going to rise astronomically and we just won’t have the money to pay for it at present levels of consumption. We should be going to extremes to maximise our energy efficiency, reducing our demand, perhaps looking at small turbines on some of our buildings and perhaps exploring the challenge of going ‘carbon neutral’. We could also say with some certainty that whatever global climate change has to offer, it certainly isn’t going to be good for peoples’ health.


I realise I have asked for further work to be done, some of which might be challenging. However, it is worth going that extra mile to get it right. If we don’t, we will only be sent back to the drawing board anyway, so we may as well do the work now.

In terms of the overall feel of the report, I think we should have a bullet-pointed summation at the end of each chapter.

I also think we must have a clear set of actions which will flow from the strategy, such as specific policy proposals, laid out in priority order so it is clear what our timetable is, and it is clear to the States and the public just what is going to happen when the strategy is enacted.

When the time comes, I will write a forward for the report.

I welcome any comments.

Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services.

6th March 2007







More Revelations From Jersey’s Leading News Source!

Yes! – It’s “You Couldn’t Make It up Time! – Again.

Hell – where does one begin?

OK – let’s begin gently, shall we? Let us start by correcting yet another example of garbage journalism from The Rag – before we get into the realms of the utterly extraordinary.

I asked the Home Affairs Minister a parliamentary question to the effect; just how many UK police forces were now involved in enquiring – into the enquiry? And how much was it costing?

I know my readers will understand perfectly what I meant – but for JEP hacks – let me spell it out.

The question I asked – and the answers I were given – did NOT – relate to the costs of UK police force involvement in enquiring into the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

Yet that was the entirely – and I suspect wilfully – misleading impression given by the brief article on page 3 of tonight’s Rag – which headlined the piece with the phrase:


No – the questions I asked – and the answers given – were focused SOLELY upon the number and cost of UK police forces – who have now been employed by the Jersey oligarchy – to “investigate” the child abuse enquiry itself – and, specifically, to stitch-up Graham Power, Jersey’s Chief Constable, and the recently retired Lenny Harper.

So – let’s be clear about this – the Jersey establishment are spending £310,000 of your hard-earned tax money – for the single objective of trying to rubbish the historic child abuse investigation – and smearing the only two leaders Jersey’s police force have ever had who have taken the child abuse issues seriously.

I imagine the sum of money spent in Jersey, and with UK forces to actually investigate the Child Abuse Disaster itself – to be far greater than £310,000.

But what price justice for abused children and adult survivors?

But – notwithstanding that – in these hard financial times – the Jersey oligarchy is blowing £310,000 of your taxes to employ the: –

Metropolitan Police – £62,446.

Wiltshire Constabulary – £222,000.

Sussex Constabulary – £5,914.

South Yorkshire Constabulary – £19,709.

All in a desperate attempt to sabotage and rubbish the child abuse investigation.

Remember that – next time you hear our clowns banging on about value for money.

Or how we can’t give some financial support to sacked Woolworths’ staff.

Now we have limbered up with that routine thrashing of The Rag – let’s get into the heavy stuff.

Let’s cast our minds back to the 12th November 2008.

Readers who are familiar with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster will recollect that on that day the international press-pack was summoned – to receive a press-conference given by David Warcup, Deputy Chief Constable, and Mick Gradwell, the SIO who had been recruited to run the enquiry following Lenny Harper’s retirement.

It was also – by remarkable coincidence – the same day that Graham Power was summoned to Bill Ogley’s office to meet with then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis. It was at this meeting that Ogley & Lewis told Mr. Power he was being suspended – “though they would give him one hour to consider his position”.

And – even more amazingly coincidentally – these extraordinary and momentous events took place two days before the Howard League for Penal Reform published its independent report into child custody and youth justice issues in Jersey.

A report which – just so happened – to damn the solitary confinement regimes used against children in Jersey – and in so doing exposed all that the Jersey oligarchy had been asserting for the previous 18 months as a pack of lies – and vindicating Simon Bellwood and me.

Lots and lots of most fascinating coincidences – don’t you think?

Of course, the Jersey spin-doctors achieved their short-term objective of largely burying and marginalising the Howard League report – through the above-described process of generating hugely more controversial stories as diversions.

No doubt – they went home contented at the end of the week.

But of course – there is a big pay-back for such a monumentally misconceived, corrupt and dishonest spin-campaign.

And foreclosure is beginning.

Consider David Warcup & Mick Gradwell?

These two cops – recently arrived in Jersey – and plainly ‘impressed’ by our oligarchy – engaged in their infamous press-conference – issued their notoriously misleading 5-page press release – which they pitched as a “report” – and spent weeks trying to smear Lenny Harper to any journalist who would listen.

But let’s focus down onto the mere fact that Warcup & Gradwell even contemplated taking part in such a Political press-conference.

These two men gave a lengthy media presentation during which they had one, sole, objective – one overriding aim which was so powerfully driven across by them that it was reported around the world.

And – to back up their words and PowerPoint slides – they issued a press-release freighted with half-truths, omissions – and outright lies.

These two very senior cops – by this time of day Warcup was Acting Chief Constable – set about – with the very highest possible public profile – doing all they could to rubbish, smear and trash the work of their predecessors.

Now – I’m no expert in these things – but nevertheless – I have tried very hard to find a precedent for their actions.

Another example from modern British policing – when cops have retired – or been removed – two-thirds way through an investigation into something so serious as sustained and concealed child abuse – whilst survivors and suspects are still being interviewed and charged – and the new cops who have been recruited to replace them – have – a matter of weeks after coming to the job – pro-actively, publicly destroyed the credibility of all the police work which proceeded them?

I have not been able to locate anything approaching such a precedent.

Nor have several journalists I asked.

David Warcup and Mick Gradwell – making history.

Ram-raiding the boundaries of precedent – by publicly destroying the credibility of such a crucial investigation.

And let me spell-out just why the conduct of Warcup & Gradwell is so extraordinary and unprofessional.

As I’ve explained previously – what else could defence lawyers possibly need – in the extraordinarily remote likelihood of the necessary charges being brought by Bill Bailhache – other than to point at the statements of Warcup & Gradwell and say – “the case against my client is rubbish – and should be dismissed – because no less authorities than these two very senior police officers have stated the methodology and competency of the enquiry was hopeless.”

No less than four, separate lawyers spoke to me in the wake of that press-conference and said, “You realise what they’ve done? They’ve just – at a stroke – destroyed the chances of all but the most extreme and overwhelmingly evidenced of charges.”

So whilst Warcup & Gradwell were destroying the prosecutions – the Jersey oligarchy politicians and civil servants were attempting to destroy Graham Power.

The peremptory suspension of Graham Power led to the Home Affairs Minister giving a Statement in the assembly a few days later. And as the Chief Constable is hired or fired by the assembly as a whole – by law – any debate concerning a Chief Constable has to be held secretly – ‘in camera’ – to use the archaic phrase.

This discussion took place in November 2008. But it so happen, the assembly has had another – in camera – debate on the subject of Mr. Power today; I will return to this point.

So at the time of the November 2008 closed session, during which the Minister gave his explanations and was questioned – Graham Power – very wisely – had taken the precaution of issuing to all States members a confidential written response to the actions against him.

And as this confidential document was leaked by establishment States members to the Jersey media – it’s already in the public domain – albeit selectively and minimally quoted.

So – its original confidentiality having become redundant – you can read it in full on this blog – at the bottom of his post.

Read it – I urge you.

If you’ve never read Kafka – this material will give you a flavour of just what ordinary people can be subjected to – should they become “inconvenient” to those in power.

To my Jersey readers in particular – I say, this is what our oligarchy has made our island.

A place of fear and cronyism.

I for one want to start fighting back.

But before we get on to reading Chief Constable Power’s statement – and the utterly extraordinary and tragic description of events it contains – consider this.

On that fateful 12th November day – Mr. Power – having only been notified the evening before – itself a breach of procedure – attended a meeting in Bill Ogley’s office, along with the Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis.

It was at this meeting that Mr. Power was confronted – in direct contravention of all due process, law and his rights – with an ultimatum – “be suspended immediately – or – we’d be prepared to accept your immediate retirement – and we’ll give you an hour to think about it.”

Chief Constable Power – being a man of integrity – (obviously his big “mistake” in Jersey) – told Ogley and Lewis immediately that he didn’t need an hour to think about it – the answer was “no” – he would most certainly not be “retiring” – and he would fight all these actions against him.

Now consider just what an extraordinary meeting this was – effectively a Coup d’Etat – mounted by angry and fearful Jersey politicians – against the leader of the Police in Jersey – a man who is the recipient of the Queens Policing Medal.

A ‘heavy’ meeting – by anyone’s reckoning.

Moreover – one with obviously gravely serious political – and legal – ramifications.

Now get this.

During the meeting, Ogley took a copious amount of handwritten minutes and notes.

A heavily redacted version of these “minutes” was eventually typed-up and distributed.

Mr. Power – quite rightly – asked for copies of the full, contemporaneous, hand written notes. These are – after all – key evidence of events.

Actually – “were” key evidence.

Ogley has destroyed them.

I’ll just repeat that – Ogley has destroyed them.

Ogley’s destruction of the contemporaneous notes – his destruction of evidence – is a prima faci criminal offence.

And – although I’ll no doubt be subjected to yet another round of oppressions for revealing this – but it’s in the public interest, so here goes – to his credit, the present Home Affairs Minister – a lawyer and former Magistrate – during today’s in camera debate said he was “horrified” upon learning of Ogley’s destruction of evidence.

The proposition we were debating today – brought by Simon Crowcroft – simply asked the States to do nothing more radical than ask that a professional review be undertaken of the suspension and disciplinary procedures used against Mr. Power – to check whether they were correctly and lawfully administered; one month’s brief review to ensure due process had been followed.

Yet even this simple, mild and eminently sensible move was too much for the Jersey oligarchy politicians to agree – it was thrown out.

Even though all members today had in front of them Mr. Power’s statement from November ’08.

Looking around the chamber – at many of the half-wits, airheads and pre-programmed lobby-fodder who were jiggling about in their seats – looking like startled ferrets – at the shock of being presented with facts – as opposed to the lying telephone lobbying and blandishments which had lead up to the debate – I could only think, ‘God helps us’. And I’m an atheist.

The average Jersey resident will be sceptical and untrusting of most of our politicians and public administration at the best of times – but just read the letter below – for a full flavour of what decent people have to battle against – whilst those who destroy evidence – such as Ogley – remain in post – taking £200,000 P/A of your taxes – plus a load more for the pension.

And – your average States member is perfectly content to carry on employing – not even subjecting to any disciplinary investigation – people like Bill Ogley – who destroys evidence – and to treat unlawfully and keep suspended our Chief of Police – a man who has received the Queens Policing Medal.

Yes – believe it or not – it is all actually worse than you dared imagine.






I have recently been asked by a number of States Members for details of my current position. This paper has been prepared in response to those requests.

I have taken advice before preparing this document and I have been told that as a constituent, I have a common law right to communicate with my elected representatives on matters which affect my interests.

It has also been pointed out to me that under the Police Force (Jersey) Law, I am ultimately accountable to the States as a whole. In that respect, States members are the equivalent of my “Police Authority.” I am advised that this relationship provides me with further rights of communication and representation.

Thirdly, under the procedure and rules of the Royal Court for judicial review, I must show that I have taken reasonable steps to exhaust all other remedies prior to seeking judicial review. I have earlier today hand delivered a letter to the Minister, inviting him within the next 48 hours to withdraw the notice of suspension and to follow the procedure referred to below. The preparation of this brief for States Members is a further step in discharging my obligation to seek a resolution prior to the matter coming before the courts.

Although I have received no formal notification I am told that some form of statement relating to my case will be made in the States on Tuesday 2nd December 2008. I have not been told directly of the nature of that statement or what if any options will be made available to members. I have not been offered an opportunity to comment or to make any representations. In this context, and acting on the limited information available, this document has been prepared as a confidential briefing document for States Members in connection with States business which I understand will be held “in camera.” It is not provided for any other purpose and in all other respects it remains confidential.

I am the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I have been a police officer for over 42 years, and have been decorated by the Queen for distinguished service. Independent assessments by H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary have described the force under my command as an efficient and progressive organisation with strong leadership.

Local surveys of confidence and satisfaction with policing in the island have consistently shown high levels of public support with some satisfaction levels exceeding 90%. This level of operational success has been accompanied by a policing philosophy which emphasises the role of the force in upholding the law “without fear or favor” on behalf of all of the people, and a robust resistance to political intervention in operational matters.

While the necessity of this approach, particularly in a small community, has been well understood by most, it has on occasion created some tensions with those political leaders who are accustomed to exercising more direct control over public services. In the current historic abuse enquiry, the police have been investigating events taking place in institutions owned and run by the States of Jersey and its agencies. In this situation tensions are inevitable and conflicts of interest commonplace.

I am now suspended from duty. So far as I am aware this action is unprecedented. The legal, political and constitutional implications are significant.

The event made world news. My daughter learned of my suspension when she was listening to her car radio in Australia.

My account of the sequence of events is as follows.

1. On the evening of Tuesday 11th November 2008 I was on holiday. I had returned from the U.K. earlier that day and was intending to spend a few days locally before resuming work the following week.

2. During the course of that evening I was unexpectedly telephoned at home by the Home Affairs Minister. The Minister told me that he wished to see me in the office of the Chief Executive at 11a.m. the following day. He told me that the proposed meeting was in consequence of a presentation and meeting which had taken place a short time previously which he and fellow Ministers had attended. He said that the meeting had seen details of reports and documents relating to the historic abuse enquiry.

3. I had not been told of the briefing and had not seen any of the documents to which he referred.

4. I attended as requested and was asked to wait in the area outside of the Chief Executive’s Office. During this time I saw the Chief Minister apparently leave the Chief Executive’s Office and return to his own office. I saw the head of States Human Resources take some papers into the Chief Executive’s office and leave shortly afterwards.

5. I was then asked to enter the Chief Executive’s office. I saw that the Minister and the Chief Executive were present and they were in possession of documents. Later in the meeting it emerged that the documents were as follows:

5.1 A signed letter dated 12th November 2008 headed “Disciplinary Code”;

5.2 A signed letter dated 12th November 2008 headed “Suspension from Duty”; and

5.3 A copy of the disciplinary code relating to my post.

6. I had been given no notice that this was to be either a disciplinary meeting or a suspension meeting. I had been offered no time to prepare, no opportunity to make any report, and was not offered any representation.

7. I was handed the letter headed “Disciplinary Code” and the Minister spoke briefly regarding its contents. He then told me that he was minded to invoke the disciplinary code but that I would be allowed up to one hour to “consider my position.” Neither myself, nor I believe anyone else in the room, had the slightest doubt that this was an invitation to resign. I stated firmly that I had absolutely no intention of doing so and that I denied any wrongdoing and that I would contest any allegations made against me. I also protested strongly at the unfairness’ of the procedure and in particular the lack of any opportunity to make informed responses to matters being alleged against me.

8. My comments were noted but I was offered no satisfactory response. There had been no mention whatsoever of the possibility of suspension up to that point. Towards the end of the meeting, the Minister said that he had decided to suspend me and I was then handed the suspension letter and invited to leave. On my recollection the meeting was over very quickly, although I did not think to note the exact times.
(It is fair to point out that the Minister has subsequently written to me and stated that the meeting started at “approximately 11.10 a.m.” and finished “before 11.45.” How long “before” 11.45 is not given but nevertheless according to the Minister’s own account the entire disciplinary and suspension meeting lasted less than 35 minutes in total.)

9. I have since had an opportunity to study the documents I was given in more detail and here is my account of what should have happened. I attach a copy of the Code.

9.1 Paragraph 2.1 of the Code requires that in the event of the Minister having disciplinary concerns he will write to the Chief Executive.

9.2 Two days after my suspension I was provided with what was said to be a copy of that letter. It is dated 12th November 2008 and in it the Chief Executive is instructed to “conduct a preliminary investigation under paragraph 2 of the code.” Part 2 sets out the actions which the Chief Executive is required to take. These include the obtaining of “statements from available witnesses and from the Chief Officer.” Later sections of the code set out what the options are if a preliminary investigation indicates a serious breach of performance or discipline. These options include suspension.

9.3 I have raised these and other concerns with the Minister and have received a partial response. Two main challenges are made in respect of my account of events.

(a) The first is that it is claimed that the offer of one hour to “consider my position” was not, after all, time for me to consider resignation but was in fact an opportunity to consider the matters put to me and to offer a response. Apart from the fact that this claim is untrue, it is also transparently absurd. Given the complexity of the allegations and the fact that they are contained in documents to which I have not been given any access, the suggestion that a period of up to one hour could form part of any fair process is an insult to anyone who is asked to believe it and a serious reflection on the integrity of anyone making it. I was left in no doubt that come what may the Minister was determined that the process would be completed with speed and that I would leave the room having been removed from my position one way or the other. This was in spite of the fact that at the time I was on holiday, had several days at my disposal to resolve any concerns, and had no immediate plans to re-assume command of the force.

(b) The Minister has also claimed that a suspension can precede a preliminary investigation. I defy any intelligent person to view the disciplinary code and come to the same conclusion.

9.4 After I had been handed the suspension letter I asked what form of announcement would be made. The Minister told me that a media briefing to announce my suspension had already been fixed for that afternoon and, in an apparently unguarded aside, said that he had discussed with fellow ministers what would be said and the lines to take. I am told that the briefing was subsequently given by the Home Affairs Minister accompanied by the Chief Minister.

I have also examined the suspension letter in more detail. This letter was handed to me at the conclusion of a single meeting which, according to my recollection, lasted only a few minutes. Among other things the letter states “at our meeting earlier today I informed you that I was considering whether you should be suspended from
duty. I now write to inform you that I have decided in accordance with to
suspend you from duty.” There was no meeting “earlier today” and I was never given notice that suspension was under consideration.

9.5 I have now written three times to the Minister and asked him to explain what this part of the suspension letter means. I have at the time of writing received no response. In the absence of any explanation it is reasonable to come to a commonsense interpretation of the facts, namely that the statement in the letter is part of an attempt to create a false record of events intended to support a claim that some form of due process had been followed.

9.6 Taking all of the available facts I believe that a reasonable person would be entitled to conclude the following:

(a) The decision to suspend me from duty was in fact taken by the Home Affairs Minister, in collusion with others, on the evening of Tuesday 11th November 2008. Civil Servants were then tasked with producing documents and a form of procedure to give this decision an appearance of legitimacy. Unfortunately (or fortunately in my case) this task was completed with exceptional incompetence and the flaws are evident.

(b) In our society, burglars, rapists and murderers are treated in accordance with prescribed rules of procedure and their rights to fair play and justice are respected. It is evident that the same consideration has not been given to the Chief Officer of Police. Since these events I have been approached by many islanders who have expressed their concern at what happened and have understandably asked “if they can do this to the Chief of Police and get away with it what might they do to others?”

Fortunately, everyone can be assured that I have no intention of adopting a supine stance. I have already received legal advice that the Minister has exceeded his powers and I have given preliminary notice of my intention to challenge the decision by way of judicial review. This will be the beginning of what could be a long high profile series of actions with all the regrettable publicity which such events entail.

10. I will now set out how these matters could have been approached in a calm, measured and discreet manner.

10.1 On the little information I have it appears that the alleged concerns of the Minister arise largely from the preliminary findings of a review, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, of the earlier stages of the historic abuse investigation. This review was of course carried out at my invitation. I understand that the review has highlighted some issues regarding the processes and management structures which were in place during the earlier stages of the enquiry and draws attention to the fact that these were not consistent with what is customary in London. I also believe, and I think that this is important, that none of the critical comments relate to anything in place in the force at the current time and that the review offers support for the structures which, during the course of the investigation, I have either put in place personally or directed others to put in place on my behalf.

10.2 It is quite normal for such a review to present challenges. If a Minister has any concerns in respect of matters raised then it would be reasonable and proper to ask the Chief Officer for a report. Had I been asked to do this I would have seen it as my duty to do readily as requested and would have provided a full and accurate account to the best of my ability. It is probable that in doing so I would have drawn attention to the complex and challenging nature of the enquiry in a small force with a small leadership team and in particular the fact that the force establishment provides for no role equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable (Crime) as is common in U.K. forces. (The Post of Assistant Chief Constable “Crime” or “Crime Services” is one which is occupied by a person trained and qualified in the exercise of strategic oversight of major crime enquiries. There is no equivalent post in Jersey.) I would also have drawn attention to how, in the absence of any locally qualified person, extensive use was made of external experts, appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The appointed experts assisted in the earlier stages, made a series of written recommendations, and offered positive comment on the speed with which their recommendations had been put into effect.

10.3 I would also have reminded Ministers, including the Chief Minister, how they were given direct access to these specialists without either me or any member of the force being present, and how Ministers appeared to be satisfied with what they were told. Ministers might also have been reminded of my determined efforts, commencing in 2007, to persuade them that there were emerging skill gaps in the force which needed to be filled by at least one external appointment and how they and others raised a number of challenges which had the effect of delaying the implementation of those recommendations.

10.4 Had I been given an opportunity to submit a report in response to any concerns, the Minister might have been satisfied with what the report said and the matter could have been swiftly concluded. If he was not satisfied he could, if he felt justified, have sought independent advice. If any serious concerns were not resolved he could then have made reference to the discipline code and activated some of the early stages which provide for a number of possible outcomes. In the event none of this happened.

10.5 The Minister opted for immediate suspension, without asking for a report, without a preliminary investigation, without a hearing, and without offering me any representation. What could have been a calm and discreet internal process has been turned into continuing world news with all of the associated adverse consequences.

10.6 The task of preparing a report in response to the issues raised would of course require my access to documents, police buildings, and computer networks. The terms of my suspension now prohibit me from access to all of these things. It is therefore my position that not only have I been subject to an unjustified and unlawful suspension but that I have at the same time been placed under restrictions which effectively prevent me from preparing any defense to whatever is alleged.

11. It is perhaps worthy of note that to date the police are the only agency whose policy framework for this enquiry has been compared with the usual practice in London. It is known for example that in London the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Education and Social Services Departments have guidelines governing strategic management issues in investigations affecting children. Nobody has yet asked whether the comparable services in Jersey are compliant with the relevant London guidelines or who is to be held responsible if they are not.

12. Over the past two weeks it has sometimes been pointed out to me that my personal position is one that some would envy. I am a police officer who is well past the normal retirement age who is being paid a substantial salary in exchange for no work. That is not how I see it. When I was first sworn by the Royal Court as a Jersey Police Officer, I promised to uphold the “laws and usages” of this island. That commitment still stands.

It places upon me not only a right but a duty to challenge what I consider to be a blatant abuse of political power and a breach of the legitimate rules and guidelines which govern us all. The integrity of the criminal justice system depends on the ability of the police, the prosecution and the courts being able to operate free of political interference and intimidation.

Any action by a government to seek to remove the head of any of these agencies is a severe step which should only be taken with significant thought and fully in accordance with the required procedures. This should also be accompanied by a full recognition of the potential wider consequences for the island’s reputation and for public confidence in the independence of the criminal justice process.

13. In this context my position is that my suspension was neither proportionate nor necessary, and in any event, was carried out without fairness or proper procedure. It was an action which was seemingly designed to publicly humiliate and demoralise me to in the hope that I would lose the will to continue to remain in office.

For the avoidance of doubt I have no difficulty whatsoever in being held to account for the proper discharge of my duties as the Chief Officer of the Islands police. I do however have a legitimate expectation that any challenges will be addressed in a calm and professional way through the due process of law and agreed procedure. I object strongly to the arbitrary manner in which issues affecting my position have been addressed over recent weeks.

The Association which represents the interests of Chief Constables in the U.K. has reviewed my case. They have determined that my suspension cannot be justified and they have written asking that I be re-instated with immediate effect. At the time of writing I am told that they have received no satisfactory reply and that further action on their part is now probable.

14. The issue in which I am now engaged involves a range of complex legal and constitutional issues for which there is no known local precedent. Ministers tell me that they are acting throughout with the full advice and support of the Law Officers’ Department. I have asked, in the interests of fair play, that I be provided with independent legal advice in order that I can understand these issues better. The Minister has refused this request. I am therefore being placed in a situation which requires me to confront the full wealth and power of the Council of Ministers and Law Officers’ Department while working from home supported by family and volunteers.

I am undeterred by this situation and I am now taking preliminary steps to seek a review of my suspension by the courts. During this process I will act as a litigant in person and will prepare and present my own case.

Thank you for reading this brief and I hope that you have found it of value in gaining a fuller picture of current events as they affect the leadership of the force and the independence and integrity of policing in the island.

Graham Power, QPM



American – African American – Hawaiian – Kenyan – Citizen of the World –

Human Being.

How could I let today pass without a posting?

I couldn’t.

I won’t write at length now – because I remember my New Year’s resolution about keeping my effusions a little shorter.

But today – we witnessed a man – from what many may have described as improbably unlikely circumstances – for all kinds of reasons – become the 44th President of the United States of America.

The lessons of my life have not – how shall I say – inclined me to be an optimist.

But today – I did sense that we were witnessing something which contained and emitted immense potential.

As regular readers will know – I always warn against the cult of the personality.

Just as I make no secret of my atheism.

My customary warning to people concerning politicians is – always regard them as guilty – until proven innocent.

But – even I – political pessimist – can’t help but admit some gleamings of optimism given the great potential we see for unity, peace and respect for differences in Barrack Obama taking the Office of President.

I speak plainly – he couldn’t have come to Office at a more demanding time. So many things – going so badly wrong – across the world.

President Obama is a man – not some kind of superhuman. I’ve no doubt he will give of his absolute best – but we must not burden him with wholly unrealistic demands and expectations.

The need for great leadership is there – and he possesses as great a quantity of the right qualities in a leader as we could possibly wish for.

But unless people will set aside the toxic hatreds, mindless self-interests and willing ignorance which have come to characterise Western society in recent decades – no matter what attributes President Obama possesses – we will not succeed in making a better world.

The Western world now has a leader who chimes with not only his fellow Americans – but with the poor, oppressed and dispossessed across the world.

An empathy which can only be good for America – as well as the rest of us.

He is a mere human being – but one who carries with him huge potential.

He will do his very best.

But the decision – and the burden – as to whether we – humanity – succeed or fail – lies with all of us – not just Barrack Obama.

So – to remind ourselves of the values that matter – who could we better refer to than Dr. Martin Luther King?

A great man – who didn’t reach the summit with us – but who cut the trail – and made the ultimate sacrifice for challenging hatred.

If I am wrong in my atheism – And Dr. King looks down upon the events of today – he will surely be feeling pride in the name of love.

Here are some of his words.




“Cowardice asks the question, “is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And vanity asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question – “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular – but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.”

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

“At the centre of non-violence stands the principle of love.”

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamour of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

All above quotes from Martin Luther King.




Compare & Contrast

The Treatment of Two Different Stories.

Hello my ever growing band of readers – even those who hate me.

Before we get onto the substance of tonight’s posting – a few words on this blog.

I think I’ve done pretty well on my New Year Resolutions so far; these were:

(a) try to be briefer;

(b) no more Mr. Nice Guy.

By my assessment, I think I’ve reduced the volume of what I churn out – so full marks there.

I’ve also begun to set aside my renowned tact and diplomatic inclinations and attempted to be a little more forthright.

OK – I know I still have work to do in this regard – so only 5 out of 10 for achievement in belligerence.

But look, it’s a start, OK?

So – as a reward for my efforts – I’d like to ask you a favour.

I began writing this blog – and engaging in various edifying direct discussions with you all – on the 22nd January, 2008 – so the first anniversary of our pixelated assignations rapidly approaches.

Just seven days until the first birthday of the one and only “Quite Vile Blog”!

When I first began this exercise – I figured that after, perhaps, 18 months or so, I might have garnered a readership of around 150.

But, to everyone’s astonishment, my fractious outpourings have proven to be sufficiently interesting – good – brave – vicious – honest – lying – vile – insane (delete as applicable) to attract – at time of writing – 99,662 unique site users.

Of course – I know that different conclusions can be drawn from such statistics – so at least I’m honest about the ‘reliability’ of my reader stats – unlike The Rag – who plainly become more desperate and fanciful by the day.

But, nevertheless, 99,662 unique IP addresses having accessed this site is still pretty good for the rambling, late night efforts of one man.

So – here’s the favour: it would be great to hit 100,000 unique site users by our first anniversary, on the 22nd Jan.

In an effort to reach that target I’d like you to spread word about this site – and encourage friends, family and colleagues to read it.

Our target is to gain another 338 readers by the 22nd.

If nothing else, it will encourage a little more fear and anger amongst the Jersey oligarchy.

Which has to be a good thing.

Right – on to the real substance of tonight’s posting.

This is an Anatomy of a Spin article, in which we are comparing the treatment by the Jersey media of two different stories.

The two issues are these:

The States of Jersey Police Force sending officers to Australia.


The prospect of massed unemployment in these dramatically difficult economic times.

Jersey is a tiny island – about 45 square miles – so we face a range of inescapable physical constraints. We are also economically vulnerable – notwithstanding the apparent ‘wealth’ flowing around the island – which most ordinary residents don’t really share in.

The cost of living in Jersey is at least equal to – and probably greater – than that of central London.

The average cost of a basic, three-bedroom family home is now over £500,000.

That’s half a million quid – for a bog standard semi-detached home.

The island has no statutory redundancy provision – so workers who lose their jobs get nothing.

And Jersey has no unemployment benefit.

So life has been hard for ordinary people in Jersey – and it’s about to get an awful lot harder as the world’s economy crashes and jobs go down the tubes.

So – in an effort to protect the work-force of Jersey – I’m taking a proposition to the assembly which will ask that we examine the possible introduction of work permits – with the sole objective of protecting employment opportunities for those already resident in the island.

Not just “Jersey” people – but everyone who is already living and working here; we are fortunate to have a broad range of nationalities and ethnicities within our community.

But, if many hundreds – or even thousands – of island residents become unemployed – any decent government has to make some effort to protect what few job opportunities remain.

Huge numbers of Jersey residents are seriously worried about their jobs, homes, careers. The subject is of immense significance and public interest.

So I thought I’d conduct a little experiment – and e-mail a brief, simple press-release to all of what passes for the media in Jersey – and see just how many of these clowns could set aside their personal hatred of me – and instead report what is – by any objective reckoning – a subject of real importance to the community.

I’m a little disappointed – as I expected to achieve a 100% shut-out, but, to my surprise, Rankine Television called me and asked for an interview – which I gave them, in the interests of experimental integrity.

Naturally, I didn’t watch the programme – but members of the public have been calling me to express agreement with the proposal – so I guess CTV showed about 30 seconds of the interview.

But the rest of the Jersey media didn’t disappoint. Not a single phone-call, e-mail or text-message from any of the others – combined.

Anyone would think I’ve done something to upset them.

So – at a time when workers have been thrown out of their jobs in large numbers – and many thousands of islanders worry about their employment prospects – and how they’ll feed their family and pay the mortgage – by and large, the Jersey media deems the protection of employment opportunities for people to be of slight consideration, compared with the imperative of shutting-out anti-oligarchy news and opinion.

But what of our comparison story?

Though from a few months back – the fact that two police officers had been sent first-class to Australia to investigate certain aspects of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – was deemed by the Jersey oligarchy media to be of absolutely immense importance.

Because it showed – you see – ‘just what a pointless waste of money the historic child abuse investigation was’ – allegedly.

And – unlike the prospect of hundreds – or thousands – of Jersey residents being unemployed – in an environment which has no unemployment benefit – the spin against the child abuse investigation suited Jersey’s oligarchy – totally.

Just as having to look after the interests of working people does not suit Jersey’s oligarchy – totally.

So – let us set aside the spin and lies – the attempts to make overblown political capital out of a minor issue – and take a look at the facts of the police journey to Australia – facts you won’t find in the Jersey media.

And note this from the outset – the facts I’m about to explain have been known to the establishment politicians for months – so the spinning and leaking by the Jersey establishment in connection with this issue has been utterly disgraceful.

Though we can’t really be surprised at such conduct anymore.

But – here is why the journey was undertaken – what it achieved – and what it may yet bring about – that being justice.

1: The trip was to see two victims and to take statements from them. One of those statements is of a victim in one of the cases before the court at present.

2: The two victims lived at opposite ends of Australia – which meant another long flight within Australia.

3: It is perfectly within States of Jersey policy NOT to travel standard class in trips as long as this.

4: However – being conscious of financial considerations – and in an attempt to save money, the officers took no days off during the fortnight, and started work soon after arriving. As soon as they finished taking the first statement, they left by air to take the second.

Each statement was lengthy and deeply emotional for the victim – and hence the officers.

And I can certainly vouch for that truth – having had many such discussions with survivors. It isn’t an experience one can easily describe.

In some cases the catharsis is overwhelming.

5: Once the officers had returned, the SIO received very emotional messages from the victims saying what a benefit talking to the officers had been.

6: The SIO, Mr. Harper, submitted a report on this trip to the Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis and Chief Minister, Frank Walker when the Jersey media criticism began. Mr. Harper had a meeting with the Home Affairs Accounting Officer and the Head of Finance. They both agreed the trip was within the regulations.

So did the Home Affairs Minister.

Mr. Harper never received the courtesy of an acknowledgment from the Chief Minister – but we can only presume Big Frank was satisfied with it – given his lack of response.

7: It came as no great surprise to anyone involved in fighting for justice when this “story” was resurrected after the SIO’s retirement – but with all mention of his report – and the acceptance of it by the Accounting Officer, Minister, and Head Of Finance – curiously omitted.

8: It would, indeed, be interesting to compare this trip with other States trips – such as CPA functions to which States members are sent – at taxpayers’ expense – to see if any Jersey politicians, or senior civil servants worked two weeks solidly – without a day off – and went to such lengths to save money.

The two officers were exhausted on their return.

And during the last two years – I have learnt exactly just how exhausting such encounters are.

So – there you have it.

Two police officers – working solidly for two weeks – gaining significant and valuable evidence – and – providing for the survivors an opportunity to open up to people in authority – people who were taking them seriously – for what may have been the very first time in their lives.

In the eyes of the Jersey establishment media – an outrageous and profligate waste of time that deserves heavy critical reporting.

And – by way of contrast – trying to keep hundreds of resident workers of the bread-line and in employment is a piffling irrelevancy – meriting very little, or no, reportage.

Jersey establishment “values”.

Don’t you just love them?

But – to end on a lighter note – remember – our target of 100,000 unique site users by 22nd January.

Spread the word – infuriate the oligarchy.





Read the Latest Instalment!

From Jersey’s Leading News Source!

I trust readers found yesterday’s posting both enjoyable and edifying.

It is so refreshing – to us here in Jersey – to get a sight of the truth.

So – for your further moral improvement, I attach the latest correspondence from Lenny Harper to Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache.

You will recollect from Lenny’s last letter that he found it somewhat curious that something as innocuous as a retirement card – signed by former colleagues – should suddenly become of such crushingly desperate importance to the historic child abuse disaster?

I confess, it’s a curiosity I share.

I mean, whilst a variety of foul child abusers remain at large in Jersey, the UK, France and elsewhere – when they should be in Jersey – charged – and awaiting prosecution – it does seem somewhat strange that Jersey’s Attorney General and his merry band in the Law Officers’ department should be far more excited about Lenny’s retirement card.

Nevertheless – Mr. Harper – notwithstanding the utterly foul way he has been treated by the Jersey oligarchy – remains wiling to co-operate – even with puerile and barking-mad demands.

So, he has supplied Bill Bailhache with a full list of the messages on his retirement card – and I reproduce his e-mail to Bill Bailhache below.

Read and enjoy it – whilst you absorb the full, awesome importance of this information.

And whilst so doing – note the genuine regard for Mr. Harper shown to him by his colleagues – and compare and contrast such messages with the Jersey establishment spin that Lenny was some kind of universally hated figure.

You will note that Mr. Harper has – very wisely – removed the names of the authors of the comments.

He wouldn’t want to furnish the Jersey oligarchy with yet another group of people to be targeted for hatred and smear campaigns.

And remember – you read it here first!

And The Rag hasn’t even reported the first story yet!


From: Lenny Harper
Sent: Monday, 12 January, 2009 10:35:26 PM
Subject: Follow Up to Letter

Dear Attorney General:

As luck would have it, just after I sent you the letter tonight, I found the retirement card you mentioned. Sure enough, someone who has signed as “Kietch” has written the following:

“Best wishes for the future and don’t forget to pass us the contents of your safe for Disclosure before you go.!!!” It seems however to be in a slightly different context from the impression in your letter.

As you seem to think the comments in my retirement card are important, and in case you wish to disclose the rest, here they are. However, I have left the names out just in case some of those paragons of virtue who are now in charge there deem some of them somehow seditious.

“Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you.”

“Enjoy your retirement – it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket.”

“Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it.”

“And don’t forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils – well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it’s been a pleasure working with you, all the best.”

“Mr Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement.”

“Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future.”

“Best wishes from the Dorset contingent.”

“You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement.”

“Mr H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won’t seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement.”

“Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement.”

” I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss – enjoy the rest.” xx

“Mr Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future.”

“All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am.”

“All the best. Happy retirement.”

“Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed.”

Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip – ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I’ve had a ball. Enjoy the trip – you have not seen the last of me.”

“Good luck, best wishes.”

“Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx”

“If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best.”

“Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-“

Mr Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family.”

“Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best.”

“Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?”

“To a fellow scouser – enjoy your retirement.”

“Mr H – thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best.”

“Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement.”

“All the best.”

“Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest.”

“It’s been great working with you. Have a great retirement.”

“Have a wonderful retirement.”

“Good luck.”

All the very best – enjoy your time.”

“Have a wonderful retirement.”

“Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit.”

“Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards.”

“Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you.” x

There were many other cards, letters and e mails from serving officers, former officers, members of the public, and of course victims. However, as you seem particularly interested in the enquiry team I hope the above is useful to you.

Leonard Harper.


The Administration of “Justice” in Jersey.

Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache

In Action to Destroy the Child Abuse Prosecutions.

Another Exclusive – Brought to you

By Jersey’s Leading News Source!

I haven’t used this particular cliché for quite a long time – so here goes –

You couldn’t make it up.

I reproduce below a letter of today’s date, written by Lenny Harper to Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache.

The letter is written in response to an absurd letter from Bill Bailhache – which reached Mr. Harper at 5.05pm today.

Lenny’s letter is self-explanatory – and shows the truth behind the assorted omissions, half-truths, spin and lies peddled by the Jersey oligarchy.

I know sometimes people think I exaggerate about just how corrupt, stupid – and, frankly, deranged, the Jersey establishment is.

If only it were exaggeration.

From the letter below, you can read plainly just how the Jersey establishment are trying desperately to sabotage as many child abuse prosecutions as they can – and in so doing – stitch-up other people as scapegoats for the “failure” of prosecutions – people like Lenny.

But 90% of people, can see perfectly well that the Jersey establishment are making great efforts to manufacture entirely spurious, fake and ethically bankrupt means of attempting to blame Mr. Harper.

Don’t ever think I’m too harsh and unkind – look, I’ll give some sound advice to Jersey’s Law Officer’s Department – for free!

I strongly recommend that they all consult a competent lawyer.

They will then be advised that attempting to pervert the course of justice is a deeply serious criminal offence.

And that manufacturing faked, “reasons” for the abandonment of prosecutions – is – a perversion of the course of justice.

Consider Lenny’s letter – and compare & contrast it with the garbage spouted by the Jersey oligarchy.

And remember – you read it here first!

Who the hell needs The Rag?



Letter from Lenny Harper

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper