Saturday, June 30, 2012

DEPUTY HIGGINS & P48.2012 - NO "IN CAMERA" HERE - WE GIVE YOU THE EVIDENCE





"For anyone looking for a deep drill into Jersey’s ongoing political imbroglios, two outstanding citizen bloggers have been working slavishly for years to lift the curtain: Neil McMurray at Voice for Children and Rico Sorda. On an island where the established media serve as the de facto mouthpiece of those in power, these self-taught journalists, who work for free under grave pressure in thankless conditions, are the only independent press around.)"Leah Mcgrath Goodman






"It is largely due to two tenacious bloggers, Rico Sorda (ricosorda.blogspot.com) and Neil McMurray (Voiceforchildren.blogspot.com) that Power's suspension has remained so high on the political agenda. Both complain that the JEP has failed to investigate what they see as the injustice of Power's treatment." The Guardian






TRUTH - HONESTY AND INTEGRITY



"IT TAKES A THOUSAND LIES TO COVER A LIE"



JERSEY BLOGGERS CONTINUE TO BRING YOU THE EVIDENCE



THE STATES OF JERSEY WENT 'IN CAMERA' AND VOTED AGAINST TRUTH - HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.



DEPUTY HIGGIN'S P.48/2012 WANTED TO RELESE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER, ANDREW LEWIS, WHEN HE GAVE IT "IN CAMERA" DURING NOVEMBER 2008 AFTER SUSPENDING THE CHIEF OF POLICE, GRAHAM POWER QPM ON THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008.



DEPUTY HIGGINS WANTED TO "RIGHT A WRONG".




THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES OF JERSEY DID NOT.




I NOW BRING YOU THOSE NOVEMBER 2008 TRANSCRIPTS




THERE ARE LIES - LIES AND DAMN LIES



It again comes down to the Jersey Bloggers to bring you the evidence. What I will show you is alarming. It makes me so angry as to what has been going on unchecked in Jersey. I do this investigative work, take the risks that come with it, because I'm just so sick and tired of the horrendous actions of my Government. We, the jersey bloggers, have stepped into the void left by our Main Stream Media. There has been deceit, lies, stalling tactics, suspensions and other countless horrific actions by a Jersey Government hellbent on covering-up the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation "Operation Rectangle". Where is the Committee of Enquiry? Where is it?



This proposition was covered in the Friday edition of the Guardian. I would like to thank the Guardian for looking at the work being undertaken by citizen journalists in Jersey. Citizen Journalist who have no protection from a search warrant happy police force. I would like to thank Leah McGrath Goodman for acknowledging the hard work of the Jersey Bloggers. Here incredible story can be read here.





Let us now concentrate on the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis.


Andrew Lewis was the Assistant Minister who took over from the then Minister Wendy Kinnard when she suddenly resigned on the 20th October 2008.


Andrew Lewis made only one decision as Home Affairs Minister Minister and that was to suspend Graham Power on the 12th November 2008.


Andrew Lewis had two things to work with on suspending Graham Power they are:


And most importantly:



The Met Report was a Review. These Reviews are never used for suspensions or disciplinary matters. The Met were chosen because they were recommended by ACPO. It is good practise for major enquiries to be reviewed by an independent force. Graham Power explains this in the above link and is well worth a read. If you could be disciplined or suspended by calling in an independent police force to review your investigation then who would bother? Then we have the Jersey situation.




Here are the main points from the 2008 "in camera"


1. Questions on Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police:

The Bailiff: (Sir Philip Bailhache)



1.1 Deputy Roy Le Hérrisier of St Saviour:

I wonder if the Minister could confirm that, in considering this matter, this house will act as the body which makes the final decision as to the fate that will befall the Chief Officer. Could he please confirm our precise role in this process?

The Deputy of St John ( The Minister for Home Affairs): Andrew Lewis

I assume the Deputy is talking about the possible further disciplinary process. If indeed the decision was made to dismiss the Chief Of Police, then that matter would be referred to this assembly.



1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

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

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as 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 included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

Those statements were never sought nor made. Why then was the officer concerned suspended?



The Deputy of St John:

This is exactly what the process is about. That investigation is now under way and that is why the Chief of Police is being temporarily suspended.




1.3 Deputy F J Hill of St Martin:

Yes, could I just follow up on that answer surely that should have been carried out before the suspension. Why was it not carried out?



The Deputy of St John:

Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer.



1.5 Senator S.Syvrey

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of which Ministers took part in the earlier discussion on the Tuesday evening concerning the issue and will he also, in particular, inform the assembly whether he is aware of the fact, given the involvement of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of the Civil Service , that particular individual is one of the potential suspects in the perversion of the course of justice investigations being undertaken by the police force of which Mr Power was the head?




The Deputy of St John:

I am not aware of any such investigation but I can assure Members that the investigation will be undertaken by an independent body and in this case, the chief Constable of Wiltshire will be investigating this. He is a policing expert. He has been asked by the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey to investigate these allegations.




1.14 Senator F H Walker:

The Minister has referred to the advice he has taken, could he confirm whether or not Her Majesty's Inspector of Police has been consulted on the process and if so, to what effect?




The Deputy of St John:

Yes, I took it upon myself to consult with her Majesty's Inspectorate as I felt that they were a useful arbitrator in such matters and the question I posed was did they feel that the action that we have taken was proportionate and appropriate and I was told by Senior officer of that organisation that it was wholly appropriate in the circumstances to suspend an officer to instigate a proper and thorough investigation.




1.15 The Connetable M.K. Jackson of St Brelade:

I note that in the disciplinary code for the Chief Officer of Police there is an appeals procedure, paragraph 3. Would the minister confirm whether the Chief Officer has in fact invoked that appeal procedure and has the Minister in fact been in contact with A.C.A.S (Advisory. Concilliation, and Arbitration Service) in the UK as laid out in that paragraph?




The Deputy of St John:

The Chief Officer will have every right to do that. This process has just begun and he will have the right to appeal. The Constable of St Brelade is quite correct, but the process has just begun and he will have every right to defend himself and if he chooses to take advantage of such organisations including his own organisations, then I would obviously encourage anybody in that position to do that and seek advice and assistance. The Chief Officer will have every opportunity to do that.



The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

I take the Minister back to the disciplinary code, the first paragraph of which states and I quote:

" In the normal course of events, the home Affairs Minister will raise and attempt to resolve issues arising which concern the performance, conduct, capability, et cetera of the Chief Officer on a personal basis. The procedure described in the code will be used only where such efforts to resolve problems arising have failed "

Will the Minister tell us how he complied with that first paragraph of the code betore moving further on with the procedure?




The Deputy of St John:

When I took over as having Ministerial oversight of the investigation in question, I began to ask a number of questions and it would seem right and proper to appoint another force to investigate such matters which the Chief of Police agreed to. The result of that is some fairly damning evidence about the command, control and supervision of that investigation. So, Yes, the process was adopted and the outcome was a report that was presented to me that gave me absolutely no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer of Police in order to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and control of quite considerable sums of money and quite considerable resource. That is a matter that I know Members here are most concerned about in other areas I saw an absolute necessity in order to investigate these things thoroughly to suspend the Chief of Police so that we can have an uncontaminated investigation with him having the full right of appeal and process so he can defend himself.



The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

Sorry, it is quite clear from the Minister's comments that he has now jumped into part 2 of the disciplinary procedure and that he did not attempt, on a personal basis which means in discussion with the officer concerned, attempt to elucidate the problem.



The Deputy of St John:

I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered
. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate.



1.17 Senator S Syvret

The Minister has made great reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police. But, having taken action he has done, that review remains incomplete, it is not yet finalised. No final review document by the Metropolitan Police has been produced. Does he not recognise the fact …. the Chief Minister is no. I know because I have been in contact with Mr Sweeting of the Met and I know that he has still got a great number of people yet to interview, germaine witnesses. So does the Minister not accept that his actions have been pre-emptory and quite unacceptable, given that the Met Review itself is not complete.? The second question is this and I think the Minister needs to think very carefully about his answer to this: The Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, along with another one of his senior officers who is still employed by the force,he is - they both are - witnesses to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as they were present at meetings when this conspiracy was taking place, which they noted and duly recorded in evidence. Does he not accept that, given that the conspiracy did involve the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers that this action is totally unacceptable and will only do Jersey colossal damage.?




The Deputy of St John:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.




The Bailiff:

Minister, do not go down this road please.





The Deputy of St John

the actions that I took are justified and we will wait the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was.




Senator S Syvret:

Will the report be published when it is completed



The Deputy of St John

No, it will not because the report of the Metropolitan Police contains Crown evidence that will be used in the prosecutions that are currently underway and potential prosecutions that may come from this investigation.



1.21 Senator S Syvret:

Will the Minister state whether legal advice he has been given at any stage of this particular episode has come from the Attorney General (William Bailhache. rs) and Solicitor General ( T.Le Cocq. rs)?


The Deputy of St John:

I have taken advice from the Law Officers and that does include the Solicitor General.




Senator S Syvret:

Does it Include the Attorney General?




Deputy St John:

No


Deputy Troy

Are there any other reasons for the suspension



The Deputy of St John

No, there are not. I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about an investigation into an operation which is code-named Rectangle and that is what the report was about and that is where my concerns were. No other concerns have I currently got, other than those, of a serious nature.




Let me explain to my readers the problem we have here.


Andrew Lewis says at 1.3:

"Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."

No investigation was being carried out by the Metropolitan Police. Not ever. It was review as explained on the link at the top of the post. But why was Andrew Lewis so confused? Surely, such an experienced Police Officer as David Warcup, would have informed the main players and especially the Home Affairs Minister exactly what the Met Review was about? This simply doesn't make sense. Why wasn't he told?



Then this part is even more incredable


Andrew Lewis at 1.17 says:

. "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."


Stuart Syvret was 100% right on this. Why didn't Andrew Lewis know that the Met Interim Report wasn't complete. If he had seen the Met Interim Report he would have noticed on page 1 that they said it wasn't complete. They hadn't interviewed Lenny Harper or Andy Baker from ACPO . If Andrew Lewis didn't see the Met Review again the question must be asked is why didn't David Warcup or any of the main players inform him of this. The Review was heavily quailfied. From the above quote we can be under no doubt that Andrew Lewis is saying that he has seen the Met Interim Report but doesn't know its heavily qualified. Just what is going on here? I can see why they didn't want this transcript coming out. The Minister is making it up on the spot. Does he have any idea what has gone on? What keeps crossing my mind is that if Andrew Lewis didn't see the Met Report then the only thing he had was a letter from David Warcup. Surely he didn't suspend a Police Chief on a letter from his Deputy? it just can't be so.


Then we have this bit:


Andrew Lewis in reply to Constable Crowcroft

"I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered
. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate."

Now, I just don't know this for sure, and will have to check with Graham Power ,but did Andrew Lewis nearly let the cat out of the bag there.? This is where the farce of the shredded notes comes into place. When Graham Power said no to their little game and filed for Judicial Review the Chief Executive Bill OGLEY shredded the notes. Graham Power asked for an investiagtion into the note shredding as this was required for his Judicial Review hearing. The Solicitor General said no. The Solicitor General then represented the Home Affairs Minister at Graham's Judicial Review. Im not making this up. This 100% truth. A man with many hats is the Solicitor General.


We can take it from the answers given by the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis that he has seen the Met Interim Report. When we read his quotes like these.

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."



" Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I'm concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."


The above one is simply liquid Gold. let me explain;


1.2 Deputy G.P Southern of St Helier

My question concerns the process that was undertaken during the suspension, leading to the suspension of the Chief Officer. In a statement circulated by the Chief Officer, he states:

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

It then goes on to say:

"Two days after my suspension as 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 included the obtaining of statements from available witness and from the Chief Officer."

So they use the review by the Met as the preliminary Investigation. They use a Review asked for by Graham Power as a preliminary investigation in getting him suspended. How are these clowns getting away with this. What the hell was David Warcup doing when all this was going on? If he was a man of any integrity he would have come out screaming from the rooftops. Maybe he was to busy breaking into Graham Powers safe at Police HQ? or Going behind Graham Powers back with outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp? or Maybe he was to busy writing another letter? Operation Blast was the name of that one. I never thought it was as bad as this. But like I said at the beginning it takes "A thousand lies to cover a lie"


Can it get worse? Well yes it does.


On the 25th March 2010 Brian Napier QC was commissioned by the Chief Minister of the States of Jersey to produce a report into the suspension of the the then Chief Officer of Police, Graham Power. What interests me about the Brian Napier Report is what he says about the Met Interim Report and related issues.


Taken from the Napier Report;


100. That letter makes express reference to him (Mr Warcup) receiving an “interim report” from the Metropolitan Police on 10 November. It does not, however, refer to the qualifications which were an important part of that report. I am surprised that, in circumstances where Mr Warcup did not disclose the primary document to either Mr Ogley or Mr Lewis, he did not see fit to mention the qualifications that were, on any view, of some importance. By not doing so, he gave the document an importance and status which, in my view, it did not merit. When Mr Ogley then wrote to Deputy Lewis on 11 November, Mr Ogley referred to the report which Mr Warcup (at his request) had provided, and said “I am assured [the report] draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation.” That assurance could only have come from Mr Warcup himself.



101. As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so. I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place. I have to say I am not convinced that operational confidentiality was a sufficient reason for not looking at what the Interim Report had to say about the management of the enquiry. Criticisms of Mr Power’s leadership and management skills are matters which have no obvious connection with pending criminal prosecutions. It would have been possible for Mr Warcup to have redacted it, so as to exclude any material that it was not appropriate for anyone outside the Police to see, but retaining the parts which expressed criticism of the handling of the historic abuse enquiry. Yet, so far as I am aware, no such approach was made to Mr Warcup. And neither did Mr Warcup himself suggest such a course of action.

105. In circumstances where the report was used as a mainstay in establishing the grounds for the immediate suspension of Mr Power, no one in authority had access to anything more than a partial summary of its contents, provided by Mr Warcup. I do not regard that as a satisfactory basis on which to take a decision of such importance.

Andrew Lewis also told Wiltshire under Oath that he didn't see the Met Interim Report.


He also told Wiltshire under Oath that he didn't have any reason to doubt the Investigation until he received a letter from the Chief Executive via David Warcup.


But what is this all about;


Andrew Lewis at 1.17 says:

. "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

What is he referring to here. We have the Warcup Letter and we have the Met Interim Report. What is Andrew Lewis on about here. This is all wrong on every possible level the conclusion is simple and doesn't cost a penny.


The Child Abuse Investigation wasn't good for Jersey's Finance Image. Huge action was needed. They needed to remove the Chief of Police and show the world it was all one big mistake. They then could drop a load of Abuse Cases during this backdrop. You only have to look at the continued shocking treatment of the Abuse Victims.


Where is that Committee of Enquiry?



Shocking Truly Shocking


Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

TRUTH-HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.. IN THE GUTTER











OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT


A DIRTY WORD IN JERSEY?


ANOTHER CRAZY DAY IN THE CIRCUS THAT IS THE  "STATES OF JERSEY"


DEPUTY MIKE HIGGINS AND P.48/2012


Deputy Higgins was asking the States to make public the  transcripts  of the statement and answers given by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis to the house in November 2008. Deputy Higgins believed that the hard evidence showed that the then Minister had misled the house regarding the original suspension of then Police Chief, Graham Power QPM.

Todays debate would also have to be held "in camera". This is because he would be quoting the evidence given by Andrew Lewis. 

As Deputy Higgins states in P48/2012:

" Because of the nature of an in camera debate I cannot set out in the report the reasons why I believe Members were misled - but I will be requesting the States to debate this proposition in camera so that these reasons can be revealed to members."


Now that is quite straight forward you would think… WRONG


Step forward the States of Jersey 


I have to tell my readers that 19 States Members even voted against this.  Yes, 19 States Members voted against it even going in camera. The vote was 19 - 24. If Deputy Higgins had lost this vote, which he very nearly did, then his proposition would have failed before it had a chance of being heard. That meant 19 States Members were voting on not to hear the evidence it is as simple as that.  The members who voted against this part are: Did some

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre


 Did some of these members even understand what Deputy Higgins was asking? It had to go in camera or he would not have been able to reveal the evidence. The reason I say this as Deputy Maçon - Deputy Labey and Deputy Roy Le Hérissier all supported Deputy Higgins in the debate. 

Why would States Members even vote against this? Could it have something to do with Senator Bailhache getting and setting the tone? 


Never underestimate the long arm of the former Chief Minister Frank Walker. The reason I say this is simple. They have been caught out with the illegal and not fit for purpose first suspension of Graham  Power on the 12th November 2008. They simply can not have it out in public that the then Minister Andrew Lewis misled the house. The suspension goes right to the very heart of the Jersey Child Abuse Cover - Up.  I have shown on this blog how corrupt and illegal it all is. 

These actions against the former Chief of Police - who's only crime was investigating decades long child abuse - show us all the real toxic underbelly of Jersey.  Why is it that anything that concerns the Child Abuse Investigation gets defeated heavily. These people who govern us are dangerous. 


They operate with "Groupthink" 


They Vote against the Truth - They Vote against Integrity and they Vote against Honesty.


During the debate, did the States Members who voted against Deputy Higgins Vote against the Evidence? or did they defend the man? This is a very important point. This was about the evidence. I know from my research where the evidence leads. There is a claim that because it was in camera it should stay in camera total tosh say I. There is a debate to be had about the whole issue of going in camera. It is simply ridiculous the way this is used in Jersey. If we are honest we can say it fits in perfectly with the whole secret environment of Jersey on really contentious  issues.


Let us now look at how they Voted during the debate and the ones who voted against Truth - Honesty and Integrity. You will see the pattern that emerges. Bit strange that Senator Ozouf voted against Truth, Honesty and Integrity when you think about all the going on with Lime Grove. What about Constable Murphy? Isn't it Constable Murphy that has signed the censure motion agains Senator Ozouf? Bit fickle this lot. 


But lets not mess about here. This is about Child Abuse. This is about the Cover-Up of Child Abuse. This is for the same reason that the Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse keeps getting put back and put back. In my opinion, the Children of Jersey are no safer now than they were in the past. Who would dare step out and speak up in this climate? Not a chance. Who would you go to? The local Media? Not a chance.  The bloggers have exposed this. 


I look for people who show no fear. I look for politicians who show no fear. 

I received this as a comment but should be published here:

The following advert was placed in the JEP yesterday:

States of Jersey

Committee of Inquiry
Andrew Williamson Review

The Chief Minister has commissioned child protection expert Andrew Williamson to review the draft Terms of Reference for the Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse.
As part of the review, Mr Williamson will be conducting interviews to ensure he fully understands all perspectives on this issue.

If you have not already discussed these issues with Mr Williamson and would like to put forward your experiences, please contact Vanessa Page on 440546 by 6 July to arrange to speak to him. End


You see. They are stalling and stalling. This is beyond ridiculous. What about the survivors of Abuse? They are worth nothing in the eyes of these cowards that govern us. Im trying to keep hold of my temper so it doesn't spoil this posting. But if there are people out there who still think there wasn't a cover-up I suggest you stand for the states and join the 30 Members below. They would welcome you with open arms.

Rico Sorda

Team Voice 

Part Time Investigative Journalist






These are the ones who didn't even want to go in camera. Again I say  can you believe it?





Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre




Vote date:
26/06/2012
Reference:
P.48/2012
Proposition:
ChartImg.axd.png






Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Vote date:
26/06/2012
Reference:
P.48/2012
Proposition:
ChartImg.axd_1.png


Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Senator
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Connétable
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Contre

Deputy
Abstained

Deputy
Abstained