Let’s see the letters.

After the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur’s answer to a question submitted by Deputy Bob Hill, and in the quest to separate fact from fiction, truth from conspiracy theories I have sent an e-mail (below) to the Chief Minister.

The e-mail is self explanatory and offers the Chief Minister the opportunity to have the public informed of all the facts and explain why his answer(s) to questions in the States don’t stack up with the relevant documentation.

from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren

to t.lesueur1@gov.je

date Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

subject Presumption of openness.

Dear Chief Minister.

I write to you concerning an answer you gave in the States on Tuesday 30th November 2010 to a question from the Deputy of St Martin Bob Hill B.E.M. where you answered thus.

“The former Chief of Police confirmed to the Deputy Chief Executive in a letter dated the 31st of March that he would fully participate in the investigation . that date being well before R39 was brought to the states”

As you might be aware the letter from the former Chief Police Officer to the Deputy Chief Executive dated the 31st March 2010 has now been published on a Blog which can be viewed here and it says no such thing. At first sight it appears that you might have been misled, or you yourself might have misled the House? It further suggests that you clearly had not read the letter before giving your answer in the States.

I have been made aware of further written correspondence between the Deputy Chief Executive and the former Chief Officer concerning his (Mr. Power’s) willingness and ability to participate in the review conducted by Brian Napier QC. In particular two letters that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer sent the former Chief  Police Officer, one dated the 16th April 2010 and the other dated 21st April 2010. I am led to believe that these are marked as “private and confidential” but will further go to prove that even by then it was not established whether or not Mr. Power was able to participate in the Napier Review, which is long after the Terms Of Reference had been changed by the deletion of part (d).

You will also be aware that I and others have been “Blogging” extensively on the subject of the former Chief Police Officer’s  unprecedented  suspension and the related issues. We have, to the best of our ability tried to stick with the “facts” and have only ever sought to find the “truth”. It is with this in mind that I ask you to grant Mr. Power the permission to release the two letters mentioned above in order that I can share them with my readers in the quest for truth and facts?

The unfortunate consequence of not having the relevant facts in the public domain is that people will start making up their own versions of events and conspiracy theories start to develop and the truth gets lost. I am, (and I believe the former Police Chief Mr. Power QPM is) very anxious that these conspiracy theories are not able to materialize and hope that you are of the same opinion and in the interest of openness and transparency will permit the release of the letters?

To demonstrate Mr. Power’s commitment to ensure the public are furnished with the facts, he did give a fellow Blogger permission to publish his letter to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer dated the 31st March 2010 and is happy to supply me with, and publish the other two letters if you are in agreement?

I hope you share the same commitment as Mr. Power QPM and will agree to this request. Should you not be so inclined I wish this communication to be considered as an application under the Code of Practice on Access to Information for the release of both letters and draw your attention to Paragraph 1.2.2.(a) of the Code which specifies that there shall be a presumption of openness.

If for any reason you are inclined not to agree with my request I would ask that you state which exemption under the code is being claimed in support of the refusal in order that I can consider whether there is a basis for a complaint or an appeal.  I would also like to ask for an early acknowledgement, and for a full response within 21 days as required under paragraph 2.1.1 (c) of the Code.

Although I am hopeful there will be no need for this and that you are as anxious as the rest of us to show that if you have been misled you are ready and willing to take the necessary action. And indeed that you are committed to ensuring that truth prevails over conspiracy theories.

I intend, (in the interests of open government) publishing this e-mail on my Blog and possibly your reply.

Kind Regards.

VFC. (End e-mail)

It may be that the information given to the Chief Minister was not ENTIRELY ACCURATE and that there may have been some PROCEDURAL ERRORS. But whatever the case, he’s not got a good track record when it comes to giving straight answers involving the suspension of our most Senior Police Officer………..Why not?

And just as importantly why haven't our "accredited" media asked him any "real" questions?

Submitted by VFC.