Questions to do with Haut de La Garenne, child abuse and related issues, including the ongoing issues surrounding the suspension of the Chief Constable and the proposed appointment a new one, are set to dominate question time tomorrow in the States. Eight written and six oral questions have been submitted, in addition to an urgent oral question by Deputy Bob Hill. (It will be interesting to note the answers as well as the coverage given to these questions by the 'mainstream' media)
Below is a list of the oral questions that have been submitted (taken from the http://www.statesassembly.je/)
Question time starts shortly after roll call, at 9:30am, and can be listened to on 1026AM, or viewed in the public gallery which has an entrance on Halket Place opposite Morier House.
URGENT ORAL QUESTION
The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs -
“Will the Minister inform Members whether he broke a confidentiality clause by claiming on the BBC Talkback programme that the Wiltshire Police had identified what the Minister claimed to be a ‘scandal’ involving a senior ACPO officer, and if so, why; would he further state what the conflict of interest was and with whom the person involved agreed to intentionally omit certain matters in ACPO reports? Has the Minister made an official complaint to ACPO?”
(This was an urgent oral question tabled at the last meeting which was unable to be answered because of the absence of the Minister. It is tabled again as an additional question which will not form part of the 2 hour allocation for oral questions.)
Oral Questions
1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –
“Given the renewed interest generated by Senator S. Syvret's web log surrounding the decision not to extradite Mr. and Mrs. Maguire, would the Attorney General undertake to reconsider the legal advice given not to prosecute and, failing that, take all measures possible to make the exact grounds known on which prosecution was advised against?” *
6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St, Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“Following analysis of the sworn affidavit of the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police will the Minister advise the Assembly whether he has fully investigated every possible allegation of a conspiracy existing to remove the Chief Officer from office, further still, is the Minister wholly satisfied that no such conspiracy to remove the Chief Officer or to try to discredit him to justify his removal existed?"
10. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs
“At the police press conference on 12th November 2008 it was stated that under Haut de la Garenne there were no cellars but there were floor voids in which a grown up person could not stand up straight, will the Minister inform Members of the height of the deepest void/cellar investigated at the premises and state how many allegations were received of abuse in the areas under the floorboards?”
11. The Deputy of Grouville will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs-
“At the press conference on 12th November 2008 the Senior Investigating Officer stated he was not questioning that, historically, serious offences had been committed against children but that ‘there will however not be the number of court cases or prosecutions which were originally reported’; will the Minister state whose comments the SIO was referring to, when they were made, what numbers were originally reported and the reasons for the shortfall?”
14. The Deputy of St. Martin will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“In a written answer on 23rd March 2010 to a question on who was requested to provide the Metropolitan Police Interim Report, the Minister stated that it was a Detective Superintendent, “the name of whom has been supplied to the questioner”; as I have not been supplied with the name, will the Minister give the name and rank and state whether that person was the sole author of the Report?”
15. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“Will the Minister inform members of the exact date the Metropolitan Police commenced work on their report into the historic abuse investigation; how many officers were assigned to it and the rank of the officers involved?”
--------
* With regard to question 1, it is worth viewing Rico Sorda's Blog as he posts and comments on the reasons the attorney general gave for not pursuing the charges.
1 day ago
Steve Heys wrote (moderated):
ReplyDeleteThese questions are only of interest to readers of the vile blog. They are not of interest to the majority of the public because beleive it or not the majority of the public are not interested in Haut de la Garenne anymore.
1) How did you get that "reactions" bit added to your blog?
ReplyDelete2)In reply to SH: These are general issues of justice, and justice is not a matter of what the general public is interested in, but what is right.
It may turn out that Graham Power did act wrongly, but that must be demonstrated publically (justice must be seen to be done)and completely (not by selective evidence).
The States should not be like a newspaper, chasing the latest attention grabbing headline for the public, but take the longer view.
Well, it seems we have an answer regarding the ACPO reports. One of them was after Power's job. No wonder he said all was rosy when anyone with half a brain could see it was a circus. Honestly, you couldn't make it up!
ReplyDelete(It will be interesting to note the answers as well as the coverage given to these questions by the 'mainstream' media)
ReplyDeleteThe mainsteam media. I suppose you mean trained professionals rather than a handful of bloggers intent on creating conspiracy theories.
Re "the majority of the public are not interested in Haut de la Garenne anymore."
ReplyDeleteNobody knows what the majority of the public are interested in. They don't make their voices heard and don't vote.
The author of the above comment probably has personal contact with at most fifty people and probably only a few of those discuss their opinions about HdlG with him.
Arguments based on 'what the public think' are irrelevant when you are discussing matters of law, the operation of the state, and the functioning of a democracy.
In addition, our elected representatives are elected to speak on our behalf. If you don't think they are doing that, throw them out at the next election.
Tony:
ReplyDeleteI can't remember exactly how to add the 'reactions option, but it is fairly simple. I will check it out and email you.
To anonymous (Jon H):
I regret the underlying assumption of the comment that all bloggers, because they are usually 'amateur' will produce output of little consequence, whilst the established media must always been superior. We are fortunate to have some very adept and questioning journalists (the likes of Adam Fowler and Christine Herbert spring to mind), but I am not sure that it is the case that they are all of that ilk.
Moreover, there are several examples where blog sites have broken stories that the established media have not picked up on for whatever reason.
Competition in the media should surely be welcome. The more the merrier and it will lead to necessary increase in quality as both bloggers and 'mainstream' up their games
Steve Heys - a lot of people are not interested in Hitler anymore, but that does not mean that people should forget, or are not still brought to account for war crimes in WW2.
ReplyDeleteWould you have said this to abuse survivors who were sitting in the States Assembly today, some of whom were so upset at the evasive answers given by ILeM and the AG they felt the need to walk out. It matters to THEM.
Full marks to Monty, Bob Hill, Daniel Wimberley and Trevor Pitman for some good questions and to Monty for a little light relief comparing the mental effects of methadrone to the usual mental state of States Members!
"The mainsteam media. I suppose you mean trained professionals rather than a handful of bloggers intent on creating conspiracy theories"
ReplyDelete1) If anonymous (JH) had read any of my entries, I always rule out conspiracy theories as a first assumption when making reconstructions and hypothesis from the contradictions. Nevetheless the contradictions in accounts have to be resolved.
2)Just because one of the ACPO team was after Lenny's job doesn't mean that he did not make recommendations, or that he presented a biased report. That has to be proven, not assumed. I suspect that will function as an "ad hominem" argument.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete'One of them was after Power's job. No wonder he said all was rosy when anyone with half a brain could see it was a circus'
That's quite right anonymous - anyone with half a brain might have seen that. However, someone with a complete brain would have seen no circus. Presumably, with reference to your own rhetoric, you must admit that you only have half a brain.