Wednesday, 13 October 2010

"Procedural Errors"

Secret meetings taking place as early as September 08 discussing the removal of the Chief Police Officer.


Contradictory statements by the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Letters being “redacted” (doctored?) to suit the agenda of getting rid of the Chief Police Officer. Hand written notes being destroyed. Pressure being put on politicians (by who?) to get rid of the Chief Police Officer, and many more anomalies.

Terry Le Sueur labels this/these as “procedural errors”. Brian Napier QC has seen no evidence of a conspiracy to oust the Chief Police Officer, but, according to Terry Le Sueur Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over and present his Report. Perhaps the above, and below, will go some way to explain why Mr. Napier QC doesn’t want to come over to present his Report and answer any questions?

Is there any wonder that Terry Le Sueur wants to put this to bed?.........Is there any wonder that former CPO Graham Power QPM has no intention of this being put to bed?????????


The Napier report.


Briefing note 2.

This briefing note has been issued by Graham Power QPM, retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors and others in addressing issues arising from the publication of the “Napier Report.”

“Procedural Errors.”


1. Following the publication of the Napier report the Chief Minister has said that the report had revealed a number of “procedural errors” in the handling of the suspension. This term was later repeated in the editorial of a newspaper. The Chief Minister used the phrase several times in the States on 12th October 2010 when answering questions. The tone and context in which the term was used have been seen as “playing down” the significance of the revelations in the report. It may therefore be of value to explore the nature of some of the matters which, in the judgement of the relevant Jersey authorities, can be described as “procedural errors.”

2. Before looking at specific issues it might be useful to make the point that the disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is not a normal personnel process. It is set out in a Code made under the Police Law and is subject to review by the Royal Court. It is a legal process rather than a HR procedure. It is therefore appropriate to assess whether the actions of individuals meet the standard which a statutory process would normally involve.


3. In this context it may be appropriate to begin with the signed statement made to Wiltshire Police by Andrew Lewis, who was the Minister of Home Affairs who initiated the suspension. At the head of the statement the witness is asked to sign a declaration which says “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false and do not believe to be true.”


4. In paragraph three of a statement dated 7th May 2009 Mr Lewis says “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP, I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” In case there is any doubt on this point, in paragraph eight Mr Lewis describes his earlier meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Homicide Working Group who were advising the investigation. He states that he was told by the group that the investigation “was a ‘shining example’ of how an investigation of this type should be run.” Napier confirms that the letter from David Warcup was received on 11th November 2008, but that planning for the suspension in the form of meetings and exchanges involving Andrew Lewis and others, was taking place in the previous September.

5. The Lewis statement sets out what is effectively the official version of events, namely that there were no concerns until 11th November 2008 when the letter was received from David Warcup. All previous suggestions that secret plans were in place months beforehand were dismissed as “conspiracy theories.” We now know from the information revealed in Napier that the “official version” of events was simply untrue. It is understood that nobody now claims that paragraph three of the written statement made to police by Andrew Lewis is an accurate reflection of the truth. Jerseys Chief Minister is quoted as regarding this as a “procedural error.”

6. There is also the question of the statement made in the States by Andrew Lewis on 2nd December 2008. This again, was a requirement of the Police Law and therefore had a legal status. The statement and the subsequent questions were in camera. I am aware that attempts are currently being made to obtain the release of a transcript of what occurred. For the time being we can only rely on the recollections of those present to provide an account of what was said. However, it is commonly recalled that Mr Lewis said something along the lines of “if you had seen the evidence I have seen then you would have acted in the same way.” We know from Napier that in fact he had seen very little evidence, and in conflict with the advice from the Law Officers, he had not viewed the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police. It is also commonly recalled that he gave the impression that he had formed his concerns on the basis of evidence received on 11th November 2008, when we now know that he had been engaged in discussions for a number of weeks but, in contravention of the requirements of the Disciplinary Code, he had not raised any issues with the Chief Officer. On this matter Napier says that he “does not know” why the Minister did not take an earlier opportunity to resolve issues (paragraph 55.) Until we have more information we cannot be sure whether, and to what extent, the States may have been misled, or indeed, whether other persons present on the day had information contrary to what was being said by the Minister and chose to say nothing. It appears that Jerseys Chief Minister regards such potential issues as “procedural errors.”


7. Other issues relating to the integrity of the process have been raised, either by Napier, or in earlier exchanges. For example the admitted destruction of the original record of the suspension meeting has been a matter which has been in the public domain for some time. The document trail indicates that this destruction happened after written notification had been given that the matter was to be the subject of an application to the Royal Court. In some jurisdictions the destruction of evidence prior to a Court hearing may be regarded as a criminal issue. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

8. Unusually, Napier gives details of the legal advice which was given prior to suspension. Paragraph 45 provides details of the advice, and paragraph 69 provides information relating to how that advice was acted upon. The implication of these paragraphs taken together is that action was taken contrary to legal advice. From subsequent public statements it appears that this interpretation is now widely accepted. It should be remembered that the actions of the then Minister, contrary to legal advice, resulted in public expenditure well in excess of a million pounds. In most jurisdictions this would be regarded as a grave matter with possible legal consequences for those involved. In Jersey it is a “procedural error.”

9. The Napier Report makes further revelations regarding the interim document prepared by an employee of the Metropolitan Police and its use in the suspension process. In paragraph 69 Napier makes it clear that the document did not meet the criteria set by the Law Officers for use to support a suspension. Paragraph 70 describes how parts of the document which suited the argument for suspension were selected for inclusion in a letter, and those parts which did not suit the argument, and which specifically ruled out its use on the basis of legal advice, were excluded. Taken together these actions amounted to a significant misrepresentation of the central piece of evidence used in the suspension process. A process which, for reasons given earlier, had the force of law. Furthermore, in paragraph 93, Napier describes how the letter was subsequently changed, by implication, to strengthen its effect. Nobody admits to having made such changes. These are matters which the Chief Minister regards as “procedural errors.”

10. In other sections of Napier he makes it clear that the Disciplinary Code was wrongly applied (paragraph 107.) That the decisions were unfair to the Chief Officer (paragraph 109,) and that alternatives to suspension could and should have been considered (paragraph 108.) Some of these latter actions might just, in fairness, be just capable of being described as “procedural errors.” However, readers of this document may be able to think of other expressions which may more accurately describe some of the actions set out above. In most cases “procedural errors” is not the first phrase which comes to mind.

12th October 2010.

60 comments:

  1. Am I right in my assumption that any meetings held by public officials especially those discussing the removal of a CPO, should be minuted and if they are not, they can only be construed as Secret meetings
    which in turn then provides the basis proof of a conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. concerned ex pat13 October 2010 at 11:12

    Interesting to know that in the eyes of TLS and the JEP making a false statement to a police investigation, acting contrary to the advice of the law officers, destroying evidence in the form of original notes after you have been told that the case is being referred to the Royal Court, editing an interim report to remove the bits that do not suit the argument, and apparently lying to the States are "procedural errors" where I live some of these things might be regarded as crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mmm. Glad I didn't commit any of the transgressions mentioned by 'concerned ex-pat.' The comic otherwise known as the JEP would have demanded me publicly executed. Sorry to Chris Bright - you can't make a formal complaint against the police now for me repeating what one of my colleagues called you and sent you into a frenzy!! Although, come to think of it, perhaps I was guilty of one of those - acting contrary to the advice of the AG and his law officers. Somehow I think most people will forgive that one though!! Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lenny.

    I remember when Wateridge and Donnelly lost their appeal in the Royal Court. Two Child Abusers, well one anyway, got sent to prison for a very long time as a consequence of you going against the advice of the Law Offices.

    Two Child Abusers, taken off the street, unable to ply their trade of preying on and abusing children. Sent to prison largely because of the work and investigation of you and your team.

    The Headline in the JEP? “Harper a Disgrace”. And they don’t like being called a comic?……..priceless!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Graham Power said

    6. "There is also the question of the statement made in the States by Andrew Lewis on 2nd December 2008. This again, was a requirement of the Police Law and therefore had a legal status. The statement and the subsequent questions were in camera. I am aware that attempts are currently being made to obtain the release of a transcript of what occurred. For the time being we can only rely on the recollections of those present to provide an account of what was said."

    Does anyone think that these transcripts (if ever recovered)will contain a single incriminating word of truth? NO!!!

    As I will be proving on my blog shortly, these clowns will doctor ANYTHING that suite their agenda, regardless of covering their own tracks. They live in a complete dream world of delusional fantasy, where their word is golden, and nothing else matters.

    "You just couldn't make this up!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Incidentally this latest briefing note, just like the eight briefing notes concerning the Wiltshire Report, sent by Graham Power QPM, has been sent to the local “accredited” media also. Not that you would know that, by their reporting (or not) of ANY of the briefing notes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is worth remembering a fact which ILM made quite clear in one of Graham Power's suspension review's and that is a Minister must GET legal advice but he does not have to ACT on it.

    However, I am sure that if you take an action that later has possible disciplinary or even criminal implications you are own your own, more so, if the legal advice has been ignored.

    What is strange about taking advice, is that Ogley and Lewis did not act on the SG's advice, which was BEST advice, but acted on BAD advice that AG does not remember giving and as the AG had not read the so called Interim Met Report how could he.

    Why would the CE and HAM, both ignore the SG's advice?

    It appears to me that events where somewhat different as the whole story just doesn't fit, if it was all as Napier has been told, why would TLS act with an element of animosity when dealing with difficult questions?

    Smells like a conspiracy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Paragraph 70 describes how parts of the document which suited the argument for suspension were selected for inclusion in a letter, and those parts which did not suit the argument, and which specifically ruled out its use on the basis of legal advice, were excluded. Taken together these actions amounted to a significant misrepresentation of the central piece of evidence used in the suspension process"

    This is exactly how the climate change denial industry works to fool the public - it's called cherry picking - emphasising statements taken out of context so that the reader doesn't see any stated uncertainty; not mentioning counter evidence, caveats etc. Simple rhetorical magic tricks that instil doubt and scepticism where none should be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lest we forget what this is all really about

    ReplyDelete
  10. nick palmer said

    '...the climate change denial industry...'

    your having a laugh eh

    the ONLY climate change industry
    is the one that receives billions
    in government and energy industry money to try to prove a need for cap and trade, world wide carbon markets and carbon taxation

    please define 'the climate change denial industry'

    ReplyDelete
  11. Time to suspend Warcup then. At least they won't have to go scratching around for a reason like they did with graham power. It's all there for them in the napier report.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent Posting VFC

    Now what did that Idiot say again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If by the idiot you mean TLS then he said there were "procedural errors" in suspending our most Senior Police Officer. He also said that the suspension was "justified."

    What I find "curious" is that all this is (as we are a crown dependency) being done in the name of the Queen.

    The very same person who gave Graham Power the Queens Police Medal!

    Just yet another thing that doesn't stack up with all this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In this context it may be appropriate to begin with the signed statement made to Wiltshire Police by Andrew Lewis, who was the Minister of Home Affairs who initiated the suspension. At the head of the statement the witness is asked to sign a declaration which says “This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false and do not believe to be true.”

    Does this mean if Andrew Lewis has been less than truthful in his statement to Wiltshire that he now can be personally prosecuted? Or with the position of Home Affairs Minister being a "corporate sole" could Ian Le Marquand get prosecuted for it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The last thing that the likes of Walker, Lewis, Ogley, Le Marquand, Le Sueur, Warcup, etc, want to do is stand up in court under oath.

    But the truth is Graham Power has no intention of this being put to bed.

    Especially now that there is physical evidence of these above people trying desparately to damage his impeccable reputation/character.

    If they have any sense at all they will hold their hands up.

    Before they realise The Royal Court is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ANON SAID
    "If they have any sense at all they will hold their hands up.Before they realise The Royal Court is inevitable."

    Thats just it, they don't have any sense. But who is to say that any trial would yield anything more?

    Some people forget that THEY are in charge of jury selection?

    It has happened before!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Royal Court where? In Jersey? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Justice in a Jersey court??????????

    Somebody's having a laugh!

    ReplyDelete
  19. WHAT TLS IS STLL CHIEF MINISTER BACK DOWN WE GO

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thought I would put this on the JEP blog under the "lawyers cartel" story.

    Excellent real coverage by VFC so thought It reasonable to put it here, I am sure they,the JEP will publish?
    ------------
    Yes Mr Napier QC is also a lawyer, did he over charge the islanders with a report not fit for purpose.

    No doubt the JEP will be asking who wrote the terms of reference ? Why were they changed at the last minute. Why was Lenny Harper not interviewed being a central player ?

    Why will Mr Napier QC not return to Jersey to answer questions about his report from interested politicians and commentators ?

    Enough asked, now where are the answers, and professional reporting ?

    Davey West.

    The final chess move to checkmate and drag out into the open the truth.

    Mr Graham Power et al, suing for wrong full suspention etc etc. He knows better than most,what
    the CM Le Suer and Bill Ogly's liabilities are.

    Game set and match as there is no where to hide in court.

    Davey West.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andrew Lewis also said:-

    Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis said this afternoon that the conclusion that there was no evidence of any murders having taken place had ‘raised questions as to the role of the Chief Police Officer’.

    JEP report 12/11/2008 3.00pm

    Which is strange, as I cannot believe this would be a feature in the so called Interim Met Report and is not mentioned anywhere in the Napier Report.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Graham Power and his family have been put through a terrible experience,the fact that he is not prepared to let this be "put to bed" is a measure of this man's honour and integrity .Who could blame him for walking away ?
    I have,like many others of the Jersey public have always supported Mr Power,his integrity,intelligence and honesty
    shine through .Compared with the mealy mouthed ineptitude of the present government there is no contest.Thank goodness for team voice or how else would we find out the truth."Accredited Media" what a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  23. A little Poll on our "accredited media".

    ReplyDelete
  24. A anonymous dupe of the climate change denial industry wrote:

    "the ONLY climate change industry
    is the one that receives billions
    in government and energy industry money to try to prove a need for cap and trade, world wide carbon markets and carbon taxation

    please define 'the climate change denial industry'"


    Feather brained garbage. You have been fooled by the propagandists. The science developed over 150 years until it got so firm that people outside of the science realised that we just might have an extremely serious problem brewing. Having realised that our excess emissions of CO2 were going to lead to trouble, then, and only then, was the research budget increased. With your gullible parroting of a standard denier position you don't seem to realise that you got the order completely wrong. You think "someone wanted a new world order or new taxation so they threw money at scientists to bribe them to come up with reasons to achieve them" whereas what really happened is as I showed above. In the 80's all the big money came from the oil and coal industries trying to fight the relatively poorly funded climate scientists. Maybe you are so ignorant that you think climate change worries were invented just a few years ago? - the denialist industry certainly does not go out of their way to let the public know this is very far from the truth. The basic problems were well known in the 1950s - see this Youtube video.

    If you are not aware that there is very well funded denialist industry, then you are not not knowledgeable enough to contribute anything useful - but your ignorance and certainty may be enough to fool other people. In that respect you, and all the others like you, are dangerous, not only to yourselves but also to all the rest of us.

    Denialist industry: organisations, lobbyists and individuals who largely or partially are sponsored by rich individuals and organisations to spread doubt and scepticism about climate science where none should be

    Try googling "Koch Brothers", "Competitive Enterprise institute", "Heartland Institute", "Science and Public Policy Institute", "Global Climate Coalition" and plenty other organisations dedicated to undermining the science using lies, misrepresentation, misdirection, false assertions and the repeated use of discredited fallacious arguments - they repeat these (often simple-minded tricks) because they have been proven to be effective at fooling the public.
    Many individuals make a career out of peddling denialist rubbish - S. Fred Singer, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Marc Morano, Steve Milloy, Anthony Watts, "Lord" Viscount Monckton, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Nigel Lawson. Not all do it for money, but sometimes in extreme defence of an ideology of laissez-faire libertarian governance and opposition to government regulation.

    Of course there are also hordes of enthusiastic amateurs who will regurgitate the fallacies they have swallowed whole because they don't know enough to know better or have never bothered to properly research the truth. You, anon, seem to be one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Denialist industry: organisations, lobbyists and individuals who largely or partially are sponsored by rich individuals and organisations to spread doubt and scepticism about climate science where none should be

    Try googling "Koch Brothers", "Competitive Enterprise institute", "Heartland Institute", "Science and Public Policy Institute", "Global Climate Coalition" and plenty other organisations dedicated to undermining the science using lies, misrepresentation, misdirection, false assertions and the repeated use of discredited fallacious arguments - they repeat these (often simple-minded tricks) because they have been proven to be effective at fooling the public.
    Many individuals make a career out of peddling denialist rubbish - S. Fred Singer, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Marc Morano, Steve Milloy, Anthony Watts, "Lord" Viscount Monckton, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Nigel Lawson. Not all do it for money, but sometimes in extreme defence of an ideology of laissez-faire libertarian governance and opposition to government regulation.

    Of course there are also hordes of enthusiastic amateurs who will regurgitate the fallacies they have swallowed whole because they don't know enough to know better or have never bothered to properly research the truth. You, anon, seem to be one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Incidentally this latest briefing note, just like the eight briefing notes concerning the Wiltshire Report, sent by Graham Power QPM, has been sent to the local “accredited” media also. Not that you would know that, by their reporting (or not) of ANY of the briefing notes.



    But yet after Steven Baker had done his summing up at the Magistrates court and left Bridget to come to her deliberation, he eagerly handed out copies of his final words to the waiting press. Who said journalism wasn't alive and kicking in Jersey.
    GOD HELP US!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. So why cant the media ask some Investigative questions.

    Do Governments work with Conspiracy headed paper.

    ReplyDelete
  28. denialist industry

    is that you nick? looks like your prose to me

    the wiki link had me in fits, one of the 5000+ pages william m connolley 'edited'

    connolley was a founder of real climate (pro agw) and there's lots of controversy surrounding his contributions to wikipedia,
    google him

    in fairness to nick he did post a reference on his blog to CRU website, showing B.P. and shell
    amongst others had been funding CRU since 1974

    more and more people are questioning the C.A.G.W. myth

    because

    you dont need to be a scientist to smell B.S.

    sorry to distract from your important work vfc

    ReplyDelete
  29. [the conclusion that there was no evidence of any murders having taken place]

    As far as I am aware, neither Graham Power or Lenny Harper said there were any murders, finding the remains of bodys, does not automatically mean there has been a murder.

    Although at the time I believe some members of the public had alleged their may have been. I would guess the police would need to investigate.

    The fact there were no murders should not be a 'red flag' that leads to a 'plot' to rid the SOJP of a Chief of Police. But Andrew Lewis thought otherwise!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. anonymous wrote
    "the wiki link had me in fits, one of the 5000+ pages william m connolley 'edited'"

    Connelly IS an official editor of Wikipedia - why wouldn't he have edited pages? That's as dumb or deceitful as criticising someone who goes around forcefully stopping people in the street at night without mentioning that they are the police, arresting fighting drunks. Sheesh.

    Connelley, as a working climate scientist who knows what he is talking about, was used as an example of good practice when Nature compared Wiki's science articles with Encyclopedia Brittanica and found that Wiki was almost as reliable - that is to say very. In a double blind testing of loads of articles, there were
    123 errors for Britannica, 162 for Wikipedia. Pretty much in the same ballpark for reliability and amazing considering any drongo denialist can (and often does) alter the Wiki climate change articles. It takes a lot of work to monitor and correct the inserted lies and propaganda.


    "more and more people are questioning the C.A.G.W. myth"

    True - or trueish. More people are certainly being brainwashed and fooled by the tidal waves of propaganda unleashed over the last couple of years. Just because the number of fooled people is increasing, that only means that there are a lot of people vulnerable to B.S. who don't know enough to come to a rational conclusion.

    In C.A.G.W, you also use a classic denialist deceit, as featured in the ridiculous Oregon petition. I trust that your use of C.A.G.W refers to "catastrophic" AGW? Firstly, you lie - it is not a myth. It is a scientific probability - the probability is not high according to the consensus, lowest common denominator, view but it exists based upon what we know.

    Obviously there will be "unknown unknowns" that might make CAGW more or less likely - clearly they can be against us just as well as being in our favour. Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Incidentally, Connelley is at the sharp end of the "unknown unknowns" because he works on sea ice which is one of the areas where what is actually happening is actually far worse and quicker than the last IPCC consensus report stated.

    Secondly, the IPCC consensus "most likely" predictions are NOT of catastrophic change but they are bad enough anyway that it is imperative to make rapid and serious attempts to avoid them.

    One thing that the denialist clowns don't seem to realise (or deliberately lie about) is that the IPCC position is a medium "committee" one that everyone could sign up to including the political elements that cause it to be watered down. The actual science that the IPCC committee see is far more extreme and scary. Did you see David Attenborough on the "Death of the Oceans" last week (click link for the episode on Iplayer - 26 days left to watch).

    If somebody nominated as one of the greatest living Englishmen reckons we might have screwed the oceans up already and is convinced of the dangers of global warming then I don't see why the deluded opinions of a know-nothing nothing blow-hard like you is worth a candle. The only reason I respond is because I am worried that your plausible B.S. assertions might fool more gullible people.

    ReplyDelete
  31. VFC

    I have been following this very carefully. I believe it now comes down to Graham Power and how far he wants to run with it.

    The Chief Minister has set his stall out and thats that. Legal Action is probably the only option left.

    Just a thought

    ReplyDelete
  32. So let me get this right, Ogley is advised by HR who is advised by the SG to ensure there are no caveats in the Interim Met Report. Ogley, Lewis and ILM all fail to (no need to see it) ask Warcup if there are and Warcup fail fails to mention it. Incompetent or WHAT.

    Smells like a conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. anonymous wrote
    "the wiki link had me in fits, one of the 5000+ pages william m connolley 'edited'"

    Connelly IS an official editor of Wikipedia - why wouldn't he have edited pages? That's as dumb or deceitful as criticising someone who goes around forcefully stopping people in the street at night without mentioning that they are the police, arresting fighting drunks. Sheesh.

    Connelley, as a working climate scientist who knows what he is talking about, was used as an example of good practice when Nature compared Wiki's science articles with Encyclopedia Brittanica and found that Wiki was almost as reliable - that is to say very. In a double blind testing of loads of articles, there were
    123 errors for Britannica, 162 for Wikipedia. Pretty much in the same ballpark for reliability and amazing considering any drongo denialist can (and often does) alter the Wiki climate change articles. It takes a lot of work to monitor and correct the inserted lies and propaganda.


    "more and more people are questioning the C.A.G.W. myth"

    True - or trueish. More people are certainly being brainwashed and fooled by the tidal waves of propaganda unleashed over the last couple of years. Just because the number of fooled people is increasing, that only means that there are a lot of people vulnerable to B.S. who don't know enough to come to a rational conclusion.

    In C.A.G.W, you also use a classic denialist deceit, as featured in the ridiculous Oregon petition. I trust that your use of C.A.G.W refers to "catastrophic" AGW? Firstly, you lie - it is not a myth. It is a scientific probability - the probability is not high according to the consensus, lowest common denominator, view but it exists based upon what we know.

    see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  34. anonymous wrote
    "the wiki link had me in fits, one of the 5000+ pages william m connolley 'edited'"

    Connelly IS an official editor of Wikipedia - why wouldn't he have edited pages? That's as dumb or deceitful as criticising someone who goes around forcefully stopping people in the street at night without mentioning that they are the police, arresting fighting drunks. Sheesh.

    Connelley, as a working climate scientist who knows what he is talking about, was used as an example of good practice when Nature compared Wiki's science articles with Encyclopedia Brittanica and found that Wiki was almost as reliable - that is to say very. In a double blind testing of loads of articles, there were
    123 errors for Britannica, 162 for Wikipedia. Pretty much in the same ballpark for reliability and amazing considering any drongo denialist can (and often does) alter the Wiki climate change articles. It takes a lot of work to monitor and correct the inserted lies and propaganda.


    "more and more people are questioning the C.A.G.W. myth"

    True - or trueish. More people are certainly being brainwashed and fooled by the tidal waves of propaganda unleashed over the last couple of years. Just because the number of fooled people is increasing, that only means that there are a lot of people vulnerable to B.S. who don't know enough to come to a rational conclusion.

    See part 2

    ReplyDelete
  35. Part 2
    In C.A.G.W, you also use a classic denialist deceit, as featured in the ridiculous Oregon petition. I trust that your use of C.A.G.W refers to "catastrophic" AGW? Firstly, you lie - it is not a myth. It is a scientific probability - the probability is not high according to the consensus, lowest common denominator, view but it exists based upon what we know.

    Obviously there will be "unknown unknowns" that might make CAGW more or less likely - clearly they can be against us just as well as being in our favour. Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Incidentally, Connelley is at the sharp end of the "unknown unknowns" because he works on sea ice which is one of the areas where what is actually happening is actually far worse and quicker than the last IPCC consensus report stated.

    Secondly, the IPCC consensus "most likely" predictions are NOT of catastrophic change but they are bad enough anyway that it is imperative to make rapid and serious attempts to avoid them.

    One thing that the denialist clowns don't seem to realise (or deliberately lie about) is that the IPCC position is a medium "committee" one that everyone could sign up to including the political elements that cause it to be watered down. The actual science that the IPCC committee see is far more extreme and scary. Did you see David Attenborough on the "Death of the Oceans" last week? (click link for the episode on Iplayer - 26 days left to watch) .

    see part 3

    ReplyDelete
  36. Part 3

    If somebody nominated as one of the greatest living Englishmen reckons we might have screwed the oceans up already and is convinced of the dangers of global warming then I can't see that the deluded opinions of know-nothing nothing blow-hards like denialists are worth a candle. The only reason I respond to such as you is because I am worried that your plausible B.S. assertions might fool more gullible people.

    BTW, for anybody reading, anons' short sentences and blanket assertions are an example of what is called the "Gish Gallop" a technique designed to mislead that denialists use all the time. It involves making a lot of B.S points, straw men and baseless assertions knowing that countering even one sentence can take hundreds of words to do adequately. Senator Sarah Ferguson uses this technique all the time. I don't know if she truly believes what she says or if she just thinks that her political objectives are more important than anything else, including the basic physics and stability of the world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Nick and co.

    With the greatest respect, could we, on here at least, drop the climate/global warming sketch?

    To my shame, it is something that I am not researched in and find difficult to understand.

    This Blogsite pedominantly is focussed on the Child Abuse cover-ups, child protection failures and subsequent related topics, like ilegally suspending Chief Police Officers and indeed the role played by our "accredited" media in all of this.

    I am in no way saying that climate change/global warming is not vitally important and something that we should all be aware of. I'm just saying that this isn't the best place to discuss it.

    I have enough with contending with child abuse deniers let alone any other denier!

    Nick I admire you, your work and research and the deniers but wrong place mate.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well Ok. Fair enough but you must also not publish denialist provocation as you did at 13 October 2010 18:21. which sparked off the whole thing. Notwithstanding the important work that you do, the systematic lying and stupidity about a major danger to all mankind is at least equal in importance. Denialists are either ignorant or dishonest. Whatever their motivation,they are dangerous.

    My initial post was pointing out the similarities between the "thinking" behind the partial publication of the truth and partial censorship that was highlighted by Napier in paragraph 70 and the international efforts to spread seductive lies, misleading partial truths etc that the professional deceivers - who make a living by exploiting those vulnerable to being in denial about climate change science - use because the solutions to fix the global problem conflict with their extreme politics.

    Unfortunately, the practitioners of spin and propaganda are far more prevalent nowadays than they ever were before and real truth, as opposed to politically convenient superficially convincing "truthiness", is a casualty.

    Whether it's climate change or suspended police chiefs or the true state of the economy, the spin merchants are coming up with tidal waves of misleading B.S., mostly using similar methods.

    I really don't know if purveyors of smoke and mirrors believe what they say, in which case they are misguided at best, stupid, deluded and/or incapable of rational judgement at worst or they do not believe what they say, in which case I suppose they are pretty close to being evil.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Another excellent look at the Napier Report from Tony the Proff

    ReplyDelete
  40. One can dream. Wouldn't it be great if Mr. Napier left his report lying around the Original one, and someone just happened to leak it to Wiki Leaks. I get the feeling Mr. Napier has been used I wonder if he likes that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "I get the feeling Mr. Napier has been used I wonder if he likes that."

    Fifty grand in his back pocket and no questions asked, you bet he "likes that"!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. We only have Chief Ministers word Mr. Brian Napier was not up for questions dont we.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have it on very good authority that Brian Napier QC indeed has no intention on coming over here to present his Report.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh well dont bother publishing my last comment then

    ReplyDelete
  45. With all that is going on at the moment the last person they should be making out to be a criminal is Stuart Syvret.

    Its getting more than a stink.
    Its starting to be a rotten to the core stink!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. looks like you were so right mr evans what happend to the backbone in the states will no one stand up to tls and the rest should be called chamber of jellyfish, god help us all

    ReplyDelete
  47. " voiceforchildren said...

    I have it on very good authority that Brian Napier QC indeed has no intention on coming over here to present his Report."

    But was he actually asked?

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment from "ex pat" deserves repeating, in fact it deserves its own Blog, because he, or she, has summed it all up just nicely.

    "Interesting to know that in the eyes of TLS and the JEP making a false statement to a police investigation, acting contrary to the advice of the law officers, destroying evidence in the form of original notes after you have been told that the case is being referred to the Royal Court, editing an interim report to remove the bits that do not suit the argument, and apparently lying to the States are "procedural errors" where I live some of these things might be regarded as crimes."

    ReplyDelete
  49. No point in complaining to the police is there UMmm.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "No point in complaining to the police is there."

    Isn't that one of the saddest and scariest things to come out of all this? The very people we should be turning to for help and protection are, in my opinion, the perpetrators.

    We have nobody to turn to, we are completely helpless, and in a hopeless position.

    That frightens the living daylights out of me.

    Love and respect to the Abuse Survivors.

    ReplyDelete
  51. TLS answers in the assembly this week regarding Graham Power were absolutely disgraceful.

    GP was guilty never in any circumstances to be proved innocent.

    The former chief minister has a lot to answer for.

    I take solace in the fact that there are children in this island that are a lot safer post HDLG than before it.

    The high profile media tack adopted by LH may appear on the face of it as OTT - however I beleive that he took that stand in the full knowedge that if he had not done so the whole issue would have been buried by the Crown Officers and others in the hoi polloi.........

    Just look at the statistics and cases that are coming before the courts and ask yourself is this upturn in prosecutions coincidence.........

    What really conserns me is that the island will once again fall prey to an elite group who wish to ehnace Jerseys reputation internationally and bury bad news..............

    ReplyDelete
  52. How many procedural errors would Mr. Napier need to find before coming up with a conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "We have nobody to turn to, we are completely helpless, and in a hopeless position."

    Yes we do! We have the Lord!

    We are going to see justice, and we don't need to be scared of the wicked bullying gangsters!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Everyone who reads the blogs and are not happy with the actions of tls bloody well email and let him know.

    t.lesueur1@gov.je

    Very simple

    Now get on it

    ReplyDelete
  55. VFC. Let us not confuse the vast majority of SOJ Police officers with the ones making the decisions in respect of the Abuse Enquiry and the suspension of Graham Power. I know as well as anyone, the calibre and dedication of the vast majority of officers in the SIJ Police, including the senior ranks. The overwhelming majority of them were professional, dedicated and honest, and as good as any I found in the UK. This applies to some of them recently retired in the rank of Superintendent and down. Indeed, I know of one, who was heavily involved in tackling bullying on my watch who resigned as he could not stand the current regime and their own bullying. Please do not confuse those who are going about their daily duties honestly on your behalf with the small number of senior officers who have connived with the ruling establishment to disgrace the uniform and one of whose number has resigned quoting persecution when the real reason is that he was caught out lying, sorry, being economical with the truth. He will be no loss to Jersey, just as his own force saw him as no loss to him when he was not offered a contract extension. The SOJ Police may, like all other forces, have a small number of bad apples, but the overwhelming majority of them are honest, dedicated, and proud to serve their community. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  56. Middle Jersey has Woken Up15 October 2010 at 07:10

    So what's this about an Abuse Scandal and Graham Power being suspended?

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2010/10/speeches-you-dont-get-to-hear.html

    No. 3 worth a listen. A Deputy with a bit of backbone.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Lenny Harper said :"the overwhelming majority of them (SOJ Police Officers) are honest, dedicated, and proud to serve their community."

    I so agree! Apart from the first officer I contacted who didn't pass on my call to anybody (a bad apple or an overworked officer?)I have experienced nothing but respect, compassion and professionalism from all the SOJ Police officers I have been interviewed by and who have contacted me from 2008 until the present day.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete