Regular readers will be aware of the letter sent to Chief Minister Senator Terry Le Sueur from Deputy of St Martin, Bob Hill, which was the subject of the last Blog.
Deputy Hill wanted a reply to his letter by 5pm today Friday the 15th of January 2009.
Well the Chief Minister did reply to the Deputy two days ago, the reply to his letter is reproduced below. Furthermore Deputy Hill has wasted little time in responding to the Chief Minister in which Deputy Hill outlines the Chief Ministers refusal to address the major concerns in Deputy Hill’s original letter and failure to produce "explanations" for his actions or lack of them.
One can’t help thinking that if Chief Officer Power had something to hide he would have “considered his position” (in which he was given about an hour to do so) and just retired quietly without a blemish to his name.
Also one can’t help thinking that if the Chief Minister had nothing to hide then he wouldn’t have strongly contested the Chief Officer’s request for the information concerning the dates certain letters were created.
The exchange of letters below make for fascinating reading. Somebody around here has something to hide and after reading the exchange below it appears blatantly obvious who that somebody is.
You've got a week to respond Chief Minister, please don't leave it that long the Chief Officer and the people of Jersey deserve answers NOW.
Terry's response.............
Dear Deputy Hill
SUSPENSION OF CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE
I refer to your e-mail of 10th January, copied to all States members and local media.
May I commence by stating that the contract of employment entered into by the Chief of Police requires that any disciplinary proceedings are conducted under terms of total confidentiality which preclude the parties from making any public comment. I intend to abide by the terms of that disciplinary code.
However your letter goes on to complain about the allegedly dismissive action taken by the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I do not intend to enter into those discussions and believe that the Chairman is well able to defend her actions if and when called upon to do so.
I will therefore limit my reply to answering the request you make in your final paragraph, where you suggest that the issues raised by Mr. Power point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government.
You will not be surprised to learn that I totally refute that suggestion. However it does demonstrate to me that the need for a full and impartial enquiry to be carried out by an experienced external authority (such as Wiltshire Police), and why I would wish to base my judgement on the evidence produced and the conclusions reached by that investigation. I am aware of comments made that could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. Until such time, it is in my view unacceptable for one party to be making what could be seen as defamatory comments when there is a confidentiality agreement in place.
I too would like to have seen this matter resolved earlier, but as a former police officer you will be more aware than most members of the speed at which such investigations seem to proceed. Clearly a person’s character and livelihood are at stake here, and any investigation has to be totally thorough and transparent.
I am satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control”, and I hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer.
Yours sincerely
Senator Terry Le Sueur.
Chief Minister
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your letter dated 13th January. (above)
I note that you totally refute that the issues raised by Mr Power which point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government. Unfortunately you have not given any explanation as to how you came to that conclusion.
I claimed that you had not acted in an impartial manner by not providing Mr Power with the times and dates on which the suspension documents dated 12th November 2008 were actually created. Not only have you failed to explain why? but in addition you have provided no explanation as to why you maintained your stance for more than nine months until you had to disclose the information following Mr Power’s successfully contested application to the Complaints Board.
However following the release of the details it now appears that the "official version" is at variance with the substantiated evidence provided by Mr Power. This revelation to the ordinary people of the Island could cause them to believe that the reason you refused to act impartially and suppress the information was because you were protecting the authors of the letters. It must be apparent that the statement read to Members at the States Sitting on 2nd December 2008 was inaccurate and misled Members.
You state that you are satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control” and hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer. Given that the investigation has already taken 14 months at a cost nearing a million pounds, it does appear that the matter has already run out of control.
You state that you are aware that comments made could be the subject of challenge in terms of accuracy and that these will be fully addressed as part of Wiltshire investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mandate of the Wilts Police does not cover any aspect of the suspension itself nor whether it was ever justified. Therefore the confidentiality requirements of the code do not apply to the suspension itself. For clarification the investigation is into the management of the enquiry. The suspension is "out of play" and accordingly does not fall under the code.
The one positive part of your letter is that you do agree that the comments made (in Mr Power’s letter) could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. However as Wiltshire Police will not be investigating the suspension issue, the investigation must be undertaken by some other body.
You did not address Wiltshire Police’s apparent pointless exercise in continuing with their investigation which in all likelihood will never be resolved because Mr Power will have reached retirement. I would like to know why the investigation should continue.
In my letter I did urge you to show leadership and this could be demonstrated by fully addressing the issues raised above and by lodging a proposition to investigate/review the circumstances of Mr Power’s suspension. This would be in line with P182/2008 (Review of Procedure regarding suspension) lodged by Connétable Crowcroft. Or P131/2009 Exclusion of the Consultant Gynaecologist lodged by me in August last year.
I look forward to hearing your response within the next 7 days.
Regards
Deputy Bob Hill.,BEM,
Deputy of St Martin.
Deputy Hill wanted a reply to his letter by 5pm today Friday the 15th of January 2009.
Well the Chief Minister did reply to the Deputy two days ago, the reply to his letter is reproduced below. Furthermore Deputy Hill has wasted little time in responding to the Chief Minister in which Deputy Hill outlines the Chief Ministers refusal to address the major concerns in Deputy Hill’s original letter and failure to produce "explanations" for his actions or lack of them.
One can’t help thinking that if Chief Officer Power had something to hide he would have “considered his position” (in which he was given about an hour to do so) and just retired quietly without a blemish to his name.
Also one can’t help thinking that if the Chief Minister had nothing to hide then he wouldn’t have strongly contested the Chief Officer’s request for the information concerning the dates certain letters were created.
The exchange of letters below make for fascinating reading. Somebody around here has something to hide and after reading the exchange below it appears blatantly obvious who that somebody is.
You've got a week to respond Chief Minister, please don't leave it that long the Chief Officer and the people of Jersey deserve answers NOW.
Terry's response.............
Dear Deputy Hill
SUSPENSION OF CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE
I refer to your e-mail of 10th January, copied to all States members and local media.
May I commence by stating that the contract of employment entered into by the Chief of Police requires that any disciplinary proceedings are conducted under terms of total confidentiality which preclude the parties from making any public comment. I intend to abide by the terms of that disciplinary code.
However your letter goes on to complain about the allegedly dismissive action taken by the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I do not intend to enter into those discussions and believe that the Chairman is well able to defend her actions if and when called upon to do so.
I will therefore limit my reply to answering the request you make in your final paragraph, where you suggest that the issues raised by Mr. Power point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government.
You will not be surprised to learn that I totally refute that suggestion. However it does demonstrate to me that the need for a full and impartial enquiry to be carried out by an experienced external authority (such as Wiltshire Police), and why I would wish to base my judgement on the evidence produced and the conclusions reached by that investigation. I am aware of comments made that could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. Until such time, it is in my view unacceptable for one party to be making what could be seen as defamatory comments when there is a confidentiality agreement in place.
I too would like to have seen this matter resolved earlier, but as a former police officer you will be more aware than most members of the speed at which such investigations seem to proceed. Clearly a person’s character and livelihood are at stake here, and any investigation has to be totally thorough and transparent.
I am satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control”, and I hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer.
Yours sincerely
Senator Terry Le Sueur.
Chief Minister
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your letter dated 13th January. (above)
I note that you totally refute that the issues raised by Mr Power which point towards a conspiracy at the highest levels of government. Unfortunately you have not given any explanation as to how you came to that conclusion.
I claimed that you had not acted in an impartial manner by not providing Mr Power with the times and dates on which the suspension documents dated 12th November 2008 were actually created. Not only have you failed to explain why? but in addition you have provided no explanation as to why you maintained your stance for more than nine months until you had to disclose the information following Mr Power’s successfully contested application to the Complaints Board.
However following the release of the details it now appears that the "official version" is at variance with the substantiated evidence provided by Mr Power. This revelation to the ordinary people of the Island could cause them to believe that the reason you refused to act impartially and suppress the information was because you were protecting the authors of the letters. It must be apparent that the statement read to Members at the States Sitting on 2nd December 2008 was inaccurate and misled Members.
You state that you are satisfied that the matter is in no way in danger of “running out of control” and hope that the outcome of the investigation can be completed and published before too much longer. Given that the investigation has already taken 14 months at a cost nearing a million pounds, it does appear that the matter has already run out of control.
You state that you are aware that comments made could be the subject of challenge in terms of accuracy and that these will be fully addressed as part of Wiltshire investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mandate of the Wilts Police does not cover any aspect of the suspension itself nor whether it was ever justified. Therefore the confidentiality requirements of the code do not apply to the suspension itself. For clarification the investigation is into the management of the enquiry. The suspension is "out of play" and accordingly does not fall under the code.
The one positive part of your letter is that you do agree that the comments made (in Mr Power’s letter) could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed as part of the Wiltshire investigation. However as Wiltshire Police will not be investigating the suspension issue, the investigation must be undertaken by some other body.
You did not address Wiltshire Police’s apparent pointless exercise in continuing with their investigation which in all likelihood will never be resolved because Mr Power will have reached retirement. I would like to know why the investigation should continue.
In my letter I did urge you to show leadership and this could be demonstrated by fully addressing the issues raised above and by lodging a proposition to investigate/review the circumstances of Mr Power’s suspension. This would be in line with P182/2008 (Review of Procedure regarding suspension) lodged by Connétable Crowcroft. Or P131/2009 Exclusion of the Consultant Gynaecologist lodged by me in August last year.
I look forward to hearing your response within the next 7 days.
Regards
Deputy Bob Hill.,BEM,
Deputy of St Martin.