TRUSTWORTHY AND ETHICAL?
An Evidenced Examination of the Conduct of Bill Ogley,
Jersey’s Chief Civil Servant.
No matter where one looks across the top-tier of Jersey’s civil service, one comes across examples of incompetence, ignorance, ethical bankruptcy, dishonesty, and even examples of straight criminality.
So much material exists, it can be easy to lose sight of the details in specific cases.
I thought, then, that it would be useful to focus upon one, evidenced example, and make something of a case-study of it – given its topicality – and importance.
And what I find fascinating about this type of politically controversial case, is that it isn’t a Left-wing vs. Right-wing issue. The kind of evidenced conduct I’m going to explain below would be regarded as wholly unacceptable, and counter to the public good, amongst all respectable politicians – be they Labour, Conservative or Lib-Dem.
Where, we will have to wonder, does that leave the Jersey political oligarchy?
But, before I take readers through that evidence – let’s catch up on recent events.
My apologies for still not producing the next substantive posting in my ‘legal advice from the web’ series.
Every time I think I’ve managed to engage with the sheer incredibility of events – something else comes to light.
Sometimes things so extraordinary that I have to manoeuvre my perspective into another whole paradigm.
Eventually – after months of frankly absurd refusals to disclose on the part of the Jersey’s political prosecution system – I gained access to some of the core evidence upon which they rely in prosecuting me for allegedly breaking the data protection law.
There are limits to what I can report now – but trust me – the word “sensational” is not out-of-place in describing the evidence that will be examined in open court during the prosecution.
Frankly – my guilt or innocence is going to be an irrelevance.
So sensational – I’d be seriously tempted to deliberately “throw” the abuse-of-process hearing – if I thought for one instant there was any danger of me winning it.
In the previous posting, I predicted the professional demise of certain senior public sector employees. And amongst that number I have predicted the departure of the subject of this posting – the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey – Bill Ogley.
Incidentally, congratulations to my sources; they were on-the-money concerning the demise of Mike Pollard. I was going to say ‘professional’ demise – but one could hardly associate the word with him.
So – what, then, of the other predictions?
I’m given to understand that the Verita report into the corporate manslaughter of Elizabeth Rourke is – surprisingly – actually going to be a reasonably accurate and professional report – insofar as it can be, within the bounds of the terms of reference – and its genesis.
But believe me – if the report is going to be thorough, good and fearless – these things don’t happen by accident.
If it hadn’t been for the immense scrutiny brought to bear on the Verita exercise by, firstly me, and then Bob Hill, I doubt very much whether the goods would have been produced.
Which brings me to Richard Lane. As has been remarked in earlier comments, one might not be surprised that a man of his age would be retiring. But the real question is this – can the establishment keep him in place until April – if the Verita report says what it should say?
No vaguely credible or responsible public administration could. On the contrary – they’d be ushering him out the door ASAP – just as they’ve done with Pollard.
But knowing our oligarchy, they’re probably hoping that by setting Pollard adrift, they’ll have made all the sacrifices necessary. But this time, things are not going to be so easy for them.
My sources also inform me that Richard Joualt’s ambitions to become the permanent Chief Executive of Health & Social Services are now toast.
There are some things even being a mate of Phil Ozouf’s can’t save you from – and being part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in a manslaughter case is just such an eventuality.
The real question concerning Joualt is, ‘will the States be able to carry on employing him at all – if the Verita report accurately depicts events?’
Again – were we dealing with a competent and safe public administration, the answer would be “no”.
But – as regular readers of this blog will be all too painfully aware – this is Jersey of which we speak. For example – where else would the authorities have placed someone in Joualt’s circumstances, in temporary charge of H & SS – as opposed to immediately suspending the individual concerned?
If you want to understand why Joualt, along with Lane, Rose Naylor and Michala Clifford cannot remain employed by the States, just read my blog postings of the 27th, 30th & 31st (twice) of January 2009.
Just how bad do things have to have been – to have united me and the Jersey Evening Post?
Which brings me to our case-study of the conduct of Bill Ogley.
In this posting I’m going to confront readers with some very clear, irrefutable evidence to support the case against Ogley and his senior colleagues.
This evidence will conclusively demonstrate the following facts:
That Jersey’s senior civil servants subvert democracy;
That the process of democratic accountability, all the way back to voters, can be utterly sabotaged by civil servants if they don’t like what the democratically elected politicians are doing;
That, in Jersey, senior civil servants will ruthlessly place their self-interest over and above the general public good, and even their specific duties;
That senior civil servants will lie;
That senior civil servants will conspire to protect each other;
That senior civil servants will engage in brazenly criminal actions, if that’s what it takes to protect themselves;
That they will casually engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice – even in a matter of such fundamental importance as child protection;
And that they will brazenly lie and deceive in anyway necessary to conceal those behaviours.
That’s quite some charge-sheet.
So let’s examine the evidence in our case-study.
As I wrote earlier, it’s easy to digress if one tries to take-in the entire cratered, smoking landscape of Jersey’s bureaucracy. So I’m going to try and be disciplined in this posting, and concentrate narrowly on our evidenced example.
A single example which illustrates clearly and powerfully the fact the leadership of the island’s civil service is utterly out-of-control, immoral, dangerous and dishonest.
Firstly, to understand the evidence we need to set the scene, and go back a couple of years – then follow events through.
In early 2007, I was the Minister for Health & Social Services.
It’s important to understand that a Minster for Health & Social Services is not merely responsible for the political oversight of the department. For in addition, the post brings with it a variety of legal duties and statutory powers. Amongst which is the legal responsibility for child protection.
For our purposes, let’s consider the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
This piece of legislation exists to promote, in a variety of ways, the welfare and safety of children.
And not only does it confer certain legal powers on the Minister of the day, it goes further, and places certain pro-active legal obligations upon the post-holder.
For example, to safeguard and promote children’s welfare – and to investigate dangers to children.
Paragraph (1) of Article 42 of that Law says this: –
“42: Minister’s duty to investigate
(1) Where the Minister –
(a) is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or
(b) has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,
the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”
And, to take a further example, Paragraph 8 of Article 42 stipulates this: –
“8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”
That, then, is our first exhibit of evidence.
The Law – quite unambiguously – places a statutory obligation upon a Minister for Health & Social Services – who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer harm – to investigate the matter and take steps to safeguard the child’s welfare.
The Law also – again, unambiguously – places an unavoidable duty on any States department to assist the Minister in making such inquiries.
Certain facts and consequences flow from such Law.
For example – if a States department – or departments – fails to assist the Minister, then those departments are breaking the law.
And if a group of people colluded for the purpose of trying to conceal from the Minister, the fact that children were suffering harm, then those people would be engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is a criminal offence to harm children – therefore knowingly attempting to conceal such crimes against children is a criminal act.
And if any person, or group of people who hold a public office – for example, politicians, civil servants, police officers, prosecutors, judges and so on – breaks the law in such ways – or seeks to hinder and obstruct a Minister from fulfilling their statutory obligations – then those people are committing the common-law criminal offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.
Therefore, we have established the fact that a Minister for H & SS has legal powers and obligations to investigate child welfare issues if the Minister has reasonable cause to suspect risks to children.
And we have established that seeking to obstruct an H & SS Minster in carrying out those duties is a criminal act.
So, having laid out the theory – let’s look at events in practice.
In early 2007, I began to become aware of less than acceptable standards and practices in Jersey’s child protection apparatus. Whilst initially not appearing too serious, still I had cause for concern. So, carrying out my legal duties and obligations, I began to investigate these matters – as required to – in law.
And, gradually, the more I investigated, the greater and greater my concerns became. I networked through increasing numbers of whistle-blowers, survivors and witnesses, until – by around May 2007, I was forced to conclude we had a major, decades-old, systemic child protection failure on our hands.
Around that time, I did two things which terrified the relevant senior civil servants. I wrote a stark and angry e-mail to a multi-disciplinary team about a specific child protection case which I had asked to be investigated. The report I received revealed mind-bogglingly catastrophic inadequacies which had led to the suffering of a child going undetected for many months.
And, in July of 2007, I was asked a question in the island’s parliament about the children’s’ homes. Knowing what I knew by that stage, I concluded my answer by saying words to the effect, ‘if I’m being asked do I have any faith in the island’s child protection apparatus, frankly I have to say no, and I’m going to commission an independent, external investigation.’
In a stark example of all that is dysfunctional and stagnant in Jersey’s public administration, the relevant civil servants knew they had a shared culpability for these systemic child protection failures – and they knew they had a shared interest in burying the problems – brushing it all under the carpet.
Therefore the senior civil servants and certain politicians – in an attempt to keep it all concealed – set about engineering my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister.
An action in which Ogley was instrumental.
Now – as we’ve already established – to obstruct the Minister in his statutory duties – and to collude in an attempt to conceal criminal acts against children – amounts to a breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.
And this is what a cohort of Jersey’s senior civil servants, and certain politicians did.
Engaged in unambiguously criminal conduct.
If Jersey were an environment in which the rule of law and administration of justice actually functioned properly – and we didn’t have a situation in which oligarchy characters like the directly and personally conflicted William Bailhache can decide – according to his political whim – who will be charged and who won’t – those who engaged in this criminal activity would have been prosecuted.
But, of course – and notwithstanding a variety of formal, criminal complaints from me to the States of Jersey Police Force – none of these people have been charged.
Indeed – since an unlawful political coup was mounted against the Chief Constable Graham Power by people like Ogley and David Warcup – I haven’t had so much as a single up-date on the “progress” of my criminal complaints.
Thus far, we’ve established that it is a criminal offence to obstruct the Minister, and to collude in doing so in order to conceal child abuse is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
And I have alleged that the senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Jouault, Marnie Baudains and others acted in just that way, and committed criminal offences.
So, what evidence do I have to ‘stand-up’ my charge against them?
I won’t digress into the detail of the events of the summer of 2007; instead I’ll just state a couple of key facts.
None of us at that time – politicians or senior civil servants – were aware of the covert police investigation. At that stage, it still appeared to the oligarchy that I was the only person trying to address the child protection failures, so if they discredited and sacked me, they could carry on with the culture of concealment.
So desperate were they to shut me up that the Council of Ministers committed a further criminal offence, in ignoring the requirement of the States of Jersey Law to provide an effective opportunity for a Minister to state his case to the rest of the Council before a dismissal debate is tabled. Instead, they fast-tracked the process with an unscheduled meeting – of which I had only five days notice – and even compounded that by giving me less than 24 hours notice of the actual “case” against me.
This criminal act was fully endorsed and supported by Michael Birt, in his capacity as Deputy Bailiff. In making this decision – he failed to declare his conflicts of interest – in that he was the Attorney General who let the child torturing Maguires escape prosecution – and who failed to prosecute those other criminals responsible for concealing at least 15 years worth of child abuse at Victoria College.
He too, had every reason to want to see the child abuse scandals buried.
To resume our narrative – in November 2007 – after I had been removed from the post of H & SS Minister – I become aware of the covert police investigation, and that investigation goes public a couple of weeks later.
It had been very clear to me – and to survivors – that the Police had been a large part of the problem in years and decades gone by. But suddenly – we were faced with a police force that was actually doing its job properly. Having our faith established in the States of Jersey Police Force, under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper, I, and many others began to make our various formal statements of criminal complaint.
In that context, let us turn to our next exhibit of evidence.
I reproduce here an e-mail I wrote to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper, on the 20th November, 2007.
This was the e-mail with which I notified the Police that I wished to make a formal criminal complaint against Pollard, Ogley and all the other involved senior civil servants and politicians.
“From: Stuart Syvret [mailto:St.Syvret@gov.je]
Sent: 20 November 2007 19:35
To: Power, Graham; Fossey, Alison; Harper, Lenny
Subject: FW: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]
Graham, Alison & Lenny
I am forwarding this e-mail to you. You may well have it already, but I thought I should send it directly to you.
I wrote this e-mail and sent it to all States members. Attached to it is a PDF of a letter from Mike Pollard, which he sent to all H & SS staff, dated 14th September.
I was on the brink of sending the detailed and very critical response to the Pollard letter, which I promised in the e-mail below. However, I have now held back from doing so because of your work.
To think at one time I trusted Mr Pollard and thought he was a conscientious civil servant. It didn’t take him long to “go native” that’s for sure.
I would like you to take this e-mail as early notice of a formal complaint I intend to make to you concerning the actions of Mr Pollard, and, indeed, of other civil servants who calculatedly sought to obstruct and impede my lawful work as H & SS Minister in respect of the Children’s Law. By seeking to cover-up clear service deficiencies and to engineer the dismissal of the only politician who was being critical of them is nothing less than an assault on the effectiveness of child protection.
I am happy to write a lengthy account of all my concerns and come to the station to give a formal statement. I understand the gravity of these issues and everything I have to say I will be more than happy to state under oath in court when the time comes.
I don’t know how much Pollard is involved with you? But do note – he, like so many other civil servants – shares the culpability for the failings and deficiencies of the system. Therefore very many – perhaps virtually all – of the senior staff and civil-servants who you would normally expect to be on the side of child welfare, now have a shared, common interest in covering things up and minimising the problems and the bad news.
The letter from Pollard is a good example of this. It is nakedly dishonest, misleading and dissembling. It is – prima facie – a component in the cover-ups. When you see the language he uses, when he says just how perfect and super-perfect is every single aspect of child protection in Jersey – well, it just makes me want to vomit.
I received a formal response to that e-mail.
A response to which we will return.
But before doing so, let me move forward in the chronology.
Being aware of a multitude of gross child protection failures – indeed, many examples of pro-active cover-ups, I continued to fight for the cause. One of the avenues of inquiry I pursued was trying to discover exactly what had, in fact, taken place behind the scenes during that 2007 summer of concealments.
It was my firm knowledge that in the days leading up to the 25th and 26th July 2007 –and on those two days in particular – senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Marnie Baudains, Tom McKeon, Mario Lundy – and others – conspired and colluded to engineer my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister – for the express purpose of concealing their sustained, gross malfeasances in respect of child “protection”.
I have been helped in the task of investigating this issue by many people – but in this context I want to focus on the support given by the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.
In an effort to obtain minutes – and other relevant information – Connetable Crowcroft sought answers to a number of questions he asked of the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur – and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley.
After much persistence, Simon eventually obtained a formal note written by Ogley, which purported to answer Simon’s questions.
I reproduce here the covering e-mail thread.
“From: Simon Crowcroft
Sent: 19 February 2009 09:37
To: Terry Le Sueur (T.LeSueur2@gov.je)
Subject: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
I refer to the above meeting and would appreciate your answers to the following qns pls:
1. Were any members of the CMB invited to stay behind after the closure of the meeting by Mr Ogley and if so which members?
2. What was the subject matter of this discussion?
3. Was any record kept by any member present of this section of the meeting?
4a. Did a meeting of the Children’s Panel take place on the same day?
4b. Was an agenda provided for this meeting and were minutes taken? (if you are unable to answer this qn pls refer me to the appropriate person to ask.)
Thanks in anticipation
Sent: 24 February 2009 18:35
To: aascrowcroft; Terry Le Sueur
Cc: Stuart Syvret
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
I’ve had no acknowledgement of this email so far. Pls cd you confirm it’s being looked into? Thanks.
From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 24 February 2009 23:20
Cc: Bill Ogley
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
The questions are impossible for me to answer, as I did not attend the meeting in question. I will relay your enquiries to the Chief Executive for any comments he may have.
From: Bill Ogley
Sent: 26 February 2009 08:48
To: Terry Le Sueur; aascrowcroft
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
I will produce a note and send it to both of you.
From: Bill Ogley [mailto:B.Ogley@gov.je]
Sent: 26 February 2009 17:11
To: Terry Le Sueur; Simon Crowcroft
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
As promised here is a note of my recollection of the events referred to. it is accompanied by the confirmed notes of the CMB meetings in June, July and August 2008.
I hope this answers all of your questions.
Sent: 28 February 2009 16:12
To: Stuart Syvret
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07
TLS has given me permission to release this info to you
Which brings us to our next exhibit of evidence – the note written by Bill Ogley, as referred to in his e-mail above, of the 26th February 2009.
This is a formal note, written by a civil servant, in answer to questions put to him by a democratically accountable politician, the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.
It is important to bear in mind that a politician is, effectively, the representative, the voice, or the delegate of the many thousands of people who voted for her or him. So when a politician is lied to by officials, obstructed and deceived – it is, in effect, the tax-paying public who are being lied to, manipulated and conned.
I reproduce here the relevant passage from Ogley’s note – the section where he actually addresses the substantive issue.
“CORPORATE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MEETING ON 25 JULY 2007
NOTE BY BILL OGLEY – CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND HEAD OF THE PAID SERVICE
“…..I made no notes of what was a very informal conversation, and I do not know if any other Chief Officers would have done so. Given the nature of the conversation I doubt they would have but, with one exception, I have not asked them. The exception is that on two separate occasions Senator Syvret has said in the States that he had seen, been shown, or told of notes of a meeting of Chief Officers prepared by a Senior Police Officer.
On each occasion when I was made aware of these statements I asked the Chief Police Officer if he had made such notes, if so, what meeting was referred to and whether he had shared them with the Senator. I was told that he had not and I was not surprised by his response.
Did a meeting of the Children’s Panel take place on the same day? I do not know what the Children’s Panel is. At that time there was the Corporate Parent, the meeting of the three responsible Ministers, the JCPC, or there may be a different grouping that is being referred to. I am not a member of any such panels or similar groupings. In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.
Chief Executive to Council of Minister and Head of Paid Service
26 February 2009”
So – there we have it.
My claims, suspicions and conclusions are wrong – because Bill Ogley says so.
In respect of the fundamental points – according to Ogley –
1: The Chief Officer of the Police, Graham Power, made no notes of a meeting at which he was alarmed by the nature of the discussion amongst civil servants concerning the engineering of my dismissal as Minister.
2: Graham Power was asked by Ogley if he had written such notes and shared them with me – and Mr. Power told Ogley he had written no such notes.
3: Ogley is wholly unaware of any meeting of the Jersey Child Protection Committee having taken place on the 25th July, 2007.
In essence, those are the three, core claims made by Ogley in response to Connetable Crowcroft’s questions.
Let’s just remind ourselves of the stage the narrative of our case-study has reached.
A Health & Social Services Minister is legally obliged to protect children.
All States of Jersey departments are obliged to support a Minister in such work.
To fail to give such support is a criminal offence.
To seek to conceal from the Minister acts of abuse against children is a conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice.
Additionally, for public officials to act in such ways amounts to the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office.
I allege that people like Ogley, Baudains, Pollard, Lundy etc have committed such criminal acts in obstructing me.
I have made formal complaints to the Police to that effect.
Others, such as the Connetable of St. Helier, have tried to help to uncover the truth by asking important questions.
Bill Ogley has responded to him – and asserted that there ‘is no basis for my allegations’; ‘that no child protection meeting occurred on the 25th July 2007’; ‘that the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, was not concerned by a meeting he had been party to’; and that ‘he had made no notes of such a meeting’.
Now, let us remember my e-mail – quoted above – of the 20th November, 2007, to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper.
I said that we’d return to the formal response I received to that e-mail.
The response was dynamite.
Below, I quote the relevant passage – in which a Chief Officer of a Police Force formally notifies a politician, that he, and a Detective Inspector Colleague, both felt compelled to make formal notes of meetings at which they were present, when the engineering of the dismissal of the politician was discussed.
It is to the immense credit of both Officers that they recognised what was taking place for the disgraceful anti-democratic, and savage and harmful obstruction of child protection that it was, and recorded formal notes of what they’d witnessed.
Response to 20th November 2007 e-mail of Stuart Syvret:
“From: Graham Power
Sent: 21 November 2007 09:47
To: Stuart Syvret; Fossey, Alison; Lennie Harper
Subject: RE: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]
“…….I now have something else to communicate.
After some discussion with the other parties copied into this e-mail we have agreed that it is in the interests of fairness in respect of your possible complaint, and in the wider public interest that we should disclose that both myself and Detective Inspector Fossey have evidence which may be relevant to the matters you complain of. The evidence is in the form of notes made following separate meetings which we both attended on the afternoon of Wednesday 25th July 2007 at which matters relating to your position were discussed. These notes have been preserved and can be made available to any competent enquiry or investigation.
In case the gravity and magnitude of that eludes readers, here we have a witness – of no less authority and stature than the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – making a formal, written disclosure to a politician that the Chief Officer and a senior colleague have both witnessed – and recorded in formal notes – meetings at which the ‘removal’ of the politician was discussed by civil servants and others.
In what kind of societies do incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats engineer the dismissal of democratically elected and accountable politicians?
In order to stop those politicians carrying out their legal responsibilities?
In order to stop those politicians from exposing child-protection failures and child-abuse cover-ups?
Certainly not functioning, lawful, democracies.
There is a stark and implacable truth bearing down upon Jersey, here.
We are a failed jurisdiction – in which democracy, the rule of law, the public good, the administration of justice – and common decency – have been buried beneath a landslide of conniving, foul, immoral, self-interest, decadence and hubris.
And we are locked-down into this position of lawless servitude and vulnerability by an accretion of anonymous spivs in London – the beneficiaries of the limitless – and toxic – illegal briberies and naïve entrapments gifted to them from Jersey’s treasuries by the island’s carcinogenic oligarchy.
But – the email from Mr. Power is not the only exhibit of evidence in our particular case-study.
Let us remember, Ogley, in his notes to Simon Crowcroft, wrote that he was unaware of any kind of child protection meeting having taken place on the 25th July, 2007. He said this:
“In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.”
Well, such a meeting – of the then ‘Jersey Child “Protection” Committee’ – did take place; a body which should, at that time, have more appropriately been known as ‘the Jersey Child Abusers and Civil Servants Protection Committee’.
That ‘emergency meeting’ – which did take place on the 25th July, 2007 – was a key component in the engineering of my dismissal. A letter was “approved”, demanding my sacking, for trying to meet my lawful duty – as per the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 – but, as the Jersey mafia preferred to put it – “undermining staff morale” for criticising the child-protection failures I’d investigated and uncovered,
Though the letter was signed by the then Chair of the JCPC – Iris Le Feuvre – it was, in fact, written by the Directorate Manger of Social Services – Marnie Baudains.
Baudains being THE Jersey civil servant with prime, direct responsibility for child protection – and thus direct responsibility for the gross failures I was exposing at the time.
It was that JCPC meeting of the 25th July 2007, at which Detective Inspector Alison Fossey was present – as stated in Mr. Power’s e-mail to me. Like Graham, after witnessing, and understanding what was taking place, she left the meeting, like any decent, thinking, ethical professional, not wishing to be a party to it, and filed her notes when back at the station.
But – according to Bill Ogley, “the meeting did not take place” – or, to allow him his sophistry, if it did – he “did not know” of it. So he claimed.
Well, that’s a dilemma, isn’t it?
Chief of the Police, Graham Power says that he and Detective Inspector Fossey were sufficiently concerned at what they witnessed at these meetings to record formal notes.
But Ogley says he is unaware of the child “protection” meeting – and, in any event, he asked Mr. Power if he had taken notes – and Mr. Power said ‘no’.
So – Ogley – or Power; – one of these two men is lying.
Let us ask ourselves a simple question:
Who do we believe?
Graham Power – a man of impeccable integrity, of spotless professional record, a recipient of the Queen’s Medal for Policing – and who has incurred the corrupt wrath of the Jersey establishment for doing his job too effectively – and was suspended by an oligarchy politician – and suspended by Bill Ogley?
Bill Ogley – an evidenced liar, a man who will engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice to conceal child abuse and corporate manslaughter; who will engage in the criminal, Political suspension of Mr. Power – then shred the notes of the suspension meeting before they can be verified – and who will then persist in lying about these matters – to the extent of writing brazen falsehoods to the Connetable of St. Helier on the 26th February 2009? – And all the dramatic connotations which flow from that act, and what it means for safe, for real, democracy?
It is not a difficult decision – is it?
You’d have to possess the IQ of an artichoke to believe Ogley instead of Mr. Power.
Indeed – one doesn’t need to “believe” who is telling the truth – as though it were an act of faith.
Instead, let us consider our last exhibit of evidence for this posting – the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers – which took place on the morning of the 26th July, 2007.
I reproduce a couple of excerpts from those minutes:
“COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
26th July 2007
3.2 (a)(i),(xiii) and (xiv)
Child protection services: concerns expressed by Senator S. Syvret.
B1. The Council considered a report, dated 24th July 2007 and produced by the Chief Executive, concerning child protection arrangements in Jersey.”
The report in question was a product of the conspiracy by Ogley, other civil servants, and certain Ministers, to obstruct me in my lawful duties – that is, their conspiracies to prevent the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) LAW 2002.
Remarkably surprising that Ogley should have so little recall of the events of that period, given he is the head of the civil service, and thus the chief executive to the States Employment Board, who produced the report, upon the demand of the senior civil servants in question.
But – it gets worse.
Remember, Ogley is, according to himself – allegedly – unaware of any child protection meeting having taken place of the 25th July, 2007.
Which is rather surprising – given the CoM minutes go on to refer to the Le Feuvre signed/Marnie Baudains authored letter – arising from the JCPC meeting of the 25th.
A letter that was physically distributed at the CoM meeting of the 26th July – by Bill Ogley himself!
The minutes go on to say this: –
“The Chief Minister advised the Council that he had received a faxed letter from the Child Protection Committee (CPC), dated 25th July 2007, in which that Committee had contended that the recent actions of Senator Syvret had ‘very seriously damaged the good name of services and individuals’ concerned in the delivery of child protection in the Island. The CPC had also stated that it had lost political confidence in the Minister for Health and Social Services. Copies of the letter were circulated to Ministers for consideration.”
Remember – this is a letter which was handed out by Ogley himself on the morning of the 26th – arising from a child ‘protection’ meeting which had occurred on the 25th.
Yet – according to Ogley – in his note to Connetable Crowcroft – he is unaware of any such meeting having taken place on the 25th.
So what conclusion do we draw?
We can see from Ogley’s own note to Simon Crowcroft – in contrast with the facts as described in the minutes of the Council of Ministers’ meeting – that the man is a brazen liar.
Moreover – Ogley’s account in his note to Simon Crowcroft of events in respect of the meetings at which the engineering of my dismissal was discussed, is flatly contradicted by the Police Chief Graham Power.
To summarise the evidence: –
In our case-study, we have established the legal position, and have cited the relevant law.
We have described the legal duties of the Minister.
We have described the concomitant legal obligations upon all states departments.
We have considered the corrupt events of 2007 – and the efforts of some of us to expose those actions.
We have seen the written assertions of Bill Ogley.
And – by way of contrast – we have seen the facts, as described in Graham Power’s shocking e-mail to me – and as described in the CoM minutes of the 26th July, 2007.
So where does this evidence leave us in our considerations of Jersey’s public administration?
We have a senior civil service who have conducted an all-out assault on democracy by politically engineering the dismissal of an elected Minister, because the Minister in question was exposing their child protection failures.
In acting in that way, the senior civil servants involved have committed clear-cut criminal offences, such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.
So brazen were the actions of the civil servants involved that not one – but two, senior police officers felt compelled to write formal notes recording what they’d witnessed and heard.
Our oligarchy politicians were enthusiastic participants in all the criminal conspiracies.
And in Bill Ogley – we have a liar and a criminal – who conceals child abuse and who helps to conceal corporate manslaughter – in charge of Jersey’s civil service.
A man who will blithely lie to your politicians who ask for the facts.
A man who engages in the criminal suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – and then destroys the evidential notes – before they can be verified.
Would any competent, credible, reasonable body-politic keep this man in employment?
What, then, will the Jersey oligarchy politicians do?
The answer to that question, is another question:
Which force is greater – their stupidity – or their sense of self-preservation?