Spin

I read this: https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news-ge/home-affairs-apologises-for-mistake-in-police-chief-statement/ piece in Bailiwick Express with interest.

It’s based on this media release:

I’d expect the States to handle claims of the former Chief Office lying under oath (when the Court transcript is pretty clear) with great care. Let’s examine what was said…

Below is a methodical, step-by-step breakdown of how the statement regarding the former Chief Officer’s alleged perjury might be “spun” by someone so inclined. My aim is to get into the mind of someone orchestrating potential spin—to see precisely how they might seek to shape public perception and neutralize controversy. Each step reflects a technique commonly used to deflect, downplay, or dismiss serious allegations. I am not, of course, even remotely suggesting that this is the intent of the author.

1. Set the Tone as a Minor Correction

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “We need to portray this as a harmless mix-up rather than a serious misrepresentation.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement frames the error as “incorrect references”—implying a simple clerical mix-up.
    
  • This approach softens the gravity of what might otherwise be seen as a deliberate falsehood or misrepresentation.
    

2. Use Impersonal, Passive Language

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “If we avoid naming individuals, no one person bears the brunt of responsibility.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement says “Officers prepared the previous media statement…” rather than identifying who instructed the statement or who specifically made the error.
    
  • This keeps accountability diffuse, protecting both politicians and senior officials from direct scrutiny.
    

3. Overemphasize Complexity

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “Label the situation as ‘very complex’ so people think it’s too intricate to grasp, and thus become less critical.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • Highlight phrases like “The complaint… was very complex…”
    
  • This discourages the public (and the media) from digging deeper, as complexity implies specialized knowledge and nuance that outsiders supposedly don’t have.
    

4. Shift Blame Carefully (but Subtly)

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “We’ll mention ‘officers’ in a passive sense so the public sees the fault with anonymous civil servants, not the political leadership.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement’s wording assigns the entire responsibility for miscommunication to these unnamed staff members.
    
  • Politicians or senior figures effectively sidestep criticism while appearing to ‘rectify’ the situation themselves.
    

5. Balance the Apology to Diffuse Impact

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “By apologizing equally to the complainants and the accused Chief Officer, we appear ‘neutral’ and avoid suggesting anyone was truly in the wrong.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement: “Apologise to the complainants and the former Chief Officer…”
    
  • This lumps both sides together, implying both have somehow been ‘inconvenienced’ equally — even though one side accuses the other of serious misconduct.
    

6. Stress ‘No Case to Answer’ as a Clear-Cut Exoneration

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “We must hammer home the phrase ‘no case to answer’ so the public hears a short, confident declaration of innocence.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The conclusion that West Midlands Police found “no case to answer” is repeated as if it closes the matter.
    
  • This glosses over the fact that it only means they could not prove intent to deceive — not that the Chief Officer didn’t deceive the court at all.
    

7. Strategically Omit the Actual Police Report

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “Don’t release the full West Midlands Police report. If it contained unequivocal proof of innocence, we would share it. Since it may raise questions, we’ll keep it hidden.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • By simply stating the outcome without providing details, the public can’t dissect the evidence or reasoning behind the conclusion.
    
  • This controlled narrative focuses on a single line (no case to answer) instead of the complexity of the actual findings.
    

8. Careful Wording Around ‘False Information’ vs. Perjury

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “Even though perjury is the real issue, we won’t say it. We’ll use gentler terms like ‘false information’ to reduce shock value.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The phrase “knowingly provided false information” appears, but the criminal term perjury is absent.
    
  • This rhetorical shift creates distance from the severity of lying under oath, treating it almost like a misunderstanding.
    

9. Imply Lack of Intent to Deceive

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “We can’t deny something false might have been said, but we’ll claim no intent to mislead. That keeps it short of the criminal bar.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement repeatedly references that the police concluded there was “no intent to deceive” or “no case to answer.”
    
  • This neatly sidesteps the scenario that the court (and the public) could have still been misled—just not in a way the police felt they could prove beyond reasonable doubt.
    

10. Create the Appearance of Finality

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “End on a note that everything is resolved, so the public is less likely to ask follow-up questions.”
  
• How It’s Done:
  
  • The statement concludes by reiterating that the investigation is over and the outcome is unchanged.
    
  • This sense of closure leaves little room for debate or continued challenge.
    

11. Exploit the Lack of Redress

• Spinner’s Thought Process: “There’s no real oversight in Guernsey — no Freedom of Information law, no ombudsman, and Data Subject Access Requests are weak. We can afford to ignore scrutiny because there’s no real consequence.”
• How It’s Done:
  • There’s no binding Freedom of Information Law — only a voluntary code, which we’re free to disregard. If someone appeals a refusal, the Appeals Panel can listen, but they have no power to enforce compliance ¹.
  • GDPR requests? Easy. Broad redaction powers mean we can black out almost everything, and delays of a year or more render most complaints irrelevant. Few people have the stamina to keep pushing.
  • No public services ombudsman² means there’s no independent body to hold us to account. We’re effectively self-policing — and we know it.

The Bigger Picture

By combining these techniques—downplaying serious allegations, using vague language, emphasizing complexity, withholding critical documents, and presenting the investigation’s outcome as absolute—the narrative manages to neutralize what could have been a major scandal. It reframes a potentially deliberate act of dishonesty as a mere administrative oversight, effectively stifling deeper public scrutiny.

As a side note, I have six self-assessments from or concerning Guernsey’s Civil Service—so-called “reviews” that amount to little more than marking their own homework. Each excuses appalling conduct without meaningful explanation, despite involving multiple failings that would normally warrant dismissal, sanction, or compensation. After more than 25 years observing—and being affected by—this system, I know it inside out. Every one of these reports is dishonest, and all are funded by the taxpayer.

Returning to the current matter, it’s notable that the West Midlands Police Report has not been released, and there is no explicit claim that the complained of individual did not mislead the court. The key question remains: Was the misleading information provided intentionally?

Will this report be released at all, and if so, will it be in a useful form, or will excessive redactions render it essentially worthless? Only time will tell.

1. https://stateofguernsey.com/freedom-of-information-law/ [↩]
2. https://stateofguernsey.com/category/governance/pso/ [↩]