Friday, 13 July 2012

Who Leaked to Rico !

Well some call him the Pipe Fitter. So its quite fitting that he gets Leaked Information !

Here is BBC Radio Jersey reporting that the PPC are looking into the Leak !

You can just picture it all 4 members looking down on this Leak !

Who's got the shovel we need to get deeper into this Hole !

They said Ex Deputy Lewis has told them that What he said in the States "which this is all about" is what he said to Mr Napier ! Are we getting Mislead as they Say Again !!!

TheJerseyWay would like to Credit & Thank BBC Radio Jersey for making these recording's posible. 


voiceforchildren said...


Typical of the BBC State Media trying to make news out of something that isn't news and burying the real news.

A document was leaked, documents are leaked every day, it's no big deal. The big deal is it is yet another document that was leaked to a Blogger and not the State Controlled Media and serious questions need to be asked as to why so many documents get leaked to Bloggers and not the State Media.

It's what the document reveals that in any functioning democracy, with an Independent Media, would be the real story here.

As reported HERE Andrew Lewis, the Home Affairs Minister of the time, said in the secret debate.

"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.”

Then in the Napier Report (paragraph 101) it states.

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

Then from OPERATION TUMA we have.

"The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

So there appears to be serious discrepancies in what the former Home Affairs Minister has been saying. We must remember that we are talking about the possibly unlawful suspension of our most Senior Police Officer and the BBC want people to concentrate on the leaking of a document that happens every day?

As you are aware I am banned from the BBC airwaves but did try and get on air to point out the alleged discrepancies in Mr. Lewis' statements but as you are also aware I was once more prevented from going on air.

Let us also remember that the BBC were given the Former Police Chief's Statement to Wiltshire (his defence case) back in September 2011 and despite reporting on the prosecution case against Mr. Power QPM they have not reported a single word of his defence case. This will go some way to show why Bloggers are trusted and leaked these documents and the State Controlled Media not.

In short; the leaked document is not real "news" it's what's in it that is and the fact it was leaked to a Blogger and not the State Media.................AGAIN.

Anonymous said...

What a long-winded and rambling episode with one "journalist" interviewing another "journalist" and neither of them able or willing to get to the point. Namely the transcript reveals that Lewis told the States he had seen the report and that Napeir confirmed that this was not true and that Ministers have been suppressing this information for years.

Angus Fairhurst said...

What a pair of toadying creeps these two are.

That interview should be played back to the next generation of students studying journalism as a classic example of how totally miss the point, mislead the public and miss an open goal.

I think Matthew Price is quite possibly the most conceited, smug and pompous idiot that the BBC has ever had the misfortune to employ.

Shocked and outraged from Grouville!

thejerseyway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
thejerseyway said...

Hi all.

We contribute too there wages is well. It makes this shit worse.

Anonymous said...

If this was Watergate, the idiot BBC reporter would be chastising Woodward and Bernstein for reporting it, instead of focusing on the scandal of the US White House. If this was Hacking-gate, the same silly reporter would be all over the scandal of who leaked the evidenced facts to the Guardian. Shameful! He is a disgrace to his profession, and Jersey's bloggers should be winning awards. At least they are being awarded well deserved acclaim as Jersey's only real investigative journalists in the Guardian and mentioned very respectfully by FAR MORE professional members of the "accredited media" than any of Jersey's State BBC hacks.

Anonymous said...

Could an intelligent 11 year old ask better interview questions? Of course!

Damocles said...

The problem is Price and Rayner, as journalists are utterly compromised by their obvious biases which are clearly shown in almost every phrase they utter (and every question that they don't ask).

Their default bias seems to be that Jersey organisations, government and the top civil service are pretty damn white and any whistle blowers who challenge that are probably wrong, misled, or disturbed.

Sometimes it's almost as if they acknowledge the value of the concept of whistle blowers and reformers such as Ghandi, Silkwood, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Woodward, Bernstein etc but somehow they regard the local versions as "not the right sort of people" so, instead of accurately reporting reformers' findings and evidence, they diss them because they don't do it "properly".

If they have the slightest interest in cleaning up the de facto corruption, incompetence and stupidity supporting broadcasting they are responsible for, they would do well to read the history of those luminary reformers I listed - they will see reflected, in all the nasty sleazy efforts that were made to suppress the truth tellers back then, their own smug well paid Orwellian Jersey way.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

You have established a permanent record of BBC Jersey reporters taking very disturbing evidence of governmental corruption and focusing instead on the minute details of the leak itself, instead of investigating the exponentially much more profound information contained in the leak. It does not even address the main issue in the leak, except to minimize it's significance and to dismiss the motives of those who were trying to expose the corruption.

This oddly performed self-interview by local BBC reporters who are seemingly disinterested in what will eventually prove to be an embarrassing corruption scandal, provides a classic case study for anyone seeking evidence of Jersey media's role in deliberately obscuring an unwanted truth.

Anonymous said...

Very true, Damocles, your observation that other whistleblowers and reformers would be embraced by that same State Media holding Rico Sorda and the person who leaked to him to a different standard. Can't BBC see the writing on the wall? At least 3 books being written will be sure to expose their hypocrisy as evidenced in this recorded interview.

Anonymous said...

This record of BBC reporters serving their State Masters will come back to bite BBC Jersey in the backside, and perhaps the entire international BBC organization. Mark these words.

Anonymous said...

Another Mattew Price classic moment this moring at about 8.30am for around 5 minutes.

He was attempting to interview a chap who had the temerity to suggest that vulture funds were morally wrong.

At every opportunity he jumped down the guys throat to defend the 'legal' practices of the courts and became a defacto representative for the who offshore financial servcies sector.

I was truly depressing to listen to his bias and bigorty played out on BBC airwaves at the license payers expense.

He really is a very silly little man that in an insult to what we have loosley come to term as journalism in Jersey.

I will be making an official complaint to London.

And where is Roger Barra? Anybody else noticed he's gone awol?

thejerseyway said...

Hi Anon.

Yes did hear that disgraceful interview, the man is in the wrong job! I shall be putting yesterday's interview up with the man who said we had under priced the court costs & again you can here the contempt in his voice!

Anonymous said...

Just have uni students from Jersey take copies of these BBC "journalistic interviews" and provide them to their journalism classes for analysis. BBC bias laid bare.

Anonymous said...

Hansard 31.1.2012
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am not sure that the words that Deputy Pitman just read out are inconsistent with what I said. I would not expect any such report to contain detailed or any criticism of individual people. It was an overall assessment of the situation. There undoubtedly was a problem in relation to the original suspension in that the reference in the letter of Mr. Warcup to the interim report was considered by Mr. Lewis even though he did not see the report itself. I found myself subsequently some months later in exactly the same position and decided not to consider the part of the letter which contained that for that very reason.

''was considered even though he did not see the report itself'' Are you sure Mr. Le Marquand.

and again
Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have been asked to express an opinion on somebody else’s matters. I do not think that is within the normal rules of answering questions. It is very difficult for me to express an opinion because I do not know precisely all the materials that were before Mr. Lewis in relation to that but I do accept there was a difficulty in relation to the usage of the Metropolitan Report in circumstances in which the Minister did not see it. I also accept that a letter was written by Mr. Ogley in relation to this matter to Mr. Lewis in which Mr. Ogley put his own gloss, as it were, on some of the information which was produced and that may also, of course, have influenced Mr. Lewis but I cannot say.

''in which the minister did not see it''?

Extremely worrying in these statements, truths or lies given by ministers are directly related to the suspension by Jersey gov of Mr. Power during the child abuse investigation.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Lewis, the Home Affairs Minister of the time, said in the secret debate.

"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”

This is a clear case of using a thin end of the wedge (TEOTW) argument - used to justify a lot in Jersey. It's a low grade type of paranoid thinking.

The inference he claims to make is that if he sees something he interprets as bad in the interim report, then when the final report comes in - the "fat end" - things must be much worse. How very stupid or deceitful he is.

Interim reports consists of all the various viewpoints and unsubstantiated stuff that can be gathered; only when the final reports come in, with (hopefully) all the evidence gathered, weighed and judged, can reasonable conclusions be made about the subject of the report. An item that might have looked damning in the interim report, when all the evidence is in, may actually turn out to be completely innocuous in the final report.

Lewis is either thick, a paranoid thinker or simply trying to fool people with propaganda type speech