Saturday, 29 July 2017

Privileges and Procedures Committee PRESS RELEASE.


Deputy Andrew Lewis


"The Privileges and Procedures Committee will be meeting on Tuesday 1st August 2017 to hear from Deputy Andrew Lewis of St Helier in relation to its investigation into whether he breached the States Members Code of Conduct.

The meeting, which will be held in public, will take place at 2.30 pm at St Paul’s Centre. During the meeting, the Committee will hear from Deputy Lewis in order to determine whether he breached the Code.

The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Connétable Len Norman said “What matters to the Committee is whether, during the course of his time as a States Member, throughout his dealings with the IJCI and his responses to the Assembly, Deputy Lewis’ actions complied with the Code. In other words, we will be determining whether his actions maintained and strengthened the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members.”

Standing Order 157 Investigation of breach of code of conduct

(1) Where the PPC has information, whether or not received from a complainant, that suggests that an elected member may have acted in breach of the code of conduct it shall, without undue delay, inform the member and investigate the act.

(2) The PPC may appoint a panel of 3 persons to investigate the act and report upon it to the PPC.

(3) One of the persons appointed must be a member of the States, although he or she need not be a member of the PPC.

(4) The other persons appointed may or may not be members of the PPC or of the States.

(5) The PPC shall appoint a member of the panel who is also a member of the States to be chairman of the panel.

(6) If the elected member whose act is to be investigated is a member of the PPC, he or she shall take no part in the investigation or the appointment of any person to undertake the investigation.

(7) If a member of the PPC is the complainant, or is otherwise connected with or was involved in the act to be investigated, he or she shall take no part in the investigation or the appointment of any panel to undertake the investigation.

(8) The fact that the PPC has appointed a panel to investigate the act shall not prevent the PPC conducting any part of the investigation itself.

(9) The elected member whose act is being investigated shall have the right to address the persons conducting the investigation, whether they are the PPC or a panel, and, when doing so, to be accompanied by a person of his or her choice.

158 Outcome of investigation

(1) When an investigation is complete and the panel (if any) appointed to conduct it has reported to the PPC –

(a) the elected member whose act has been investigated shall have the right to address the PPC and, when doing so, may be accompanied by a person of his or her choice; and

(b) the PPC shall review the matter and form an opinion as to whether or not he or she has breached of the code of conduct.

(2) The PPC –

(a) shall inform the elected member of its opinion and of the reasons for it; and

(b) may report the opinion and reasons, and any action taken by the PPC, to the States.
(3) A report may be presented to the States in writing or made orally by the chairman of the PPC in a statement. (END)

Interested in readers thoughts?

96 comments:

  1. Well, the obvious difficulty for the PPC is that they already decided not to take any action regarding Lewis lying to the states assembly. It's not as though any new information is available in this regard - it was obvious he lied, but they chose to take the Jersey Way.

    There is a get-out, though. They can find that he lied under oath to the COI, and give him a gentle slap on the wrist. That way they can still maintain they were right in the first instance, but show they aren't complete patsies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the confusing bit.

      In the Press Release/Standing Orders we have this:

      "Standing Order 157 Investigation of breach of code of conduct

      (1) Where the PPC has information, whether or not received from a complainant, that suggests that an elected member may have acted in breach of the code of conduct it shall, without undue delay, inform the member and investigate the act.

      But when I made my COMPLAINT PPC told me this (from link):

      "PPC is not able to investigate any complaint relating to matters spoken in the States Chamber six years ago. As you are aware, anything said by States Members in the Chamber is covered by parliamentary privilege. If other members had considered that Deputy Lewis had mislead the Assembly, then it was their right to bring forward a vote of censure or no confidence in him at that time.
      Your complaint which was considered by PPC related to two issues. The first, that Deputy Lewis lied in the Assembly 6 years ago, is not something which the Committee is able to investigate as it is covered by parliamentary privilege."

      It's difficult to see how PPC can do anything if it was telling me the truth.

      Delete
    2. "It's difficult to see how PPC can do anything if it was telling me the truth."

      Len Norman's valour failed him in February 2015 so he has no choice but to continue being a toothless cover up merchant now.

      When those charged with protecting islanders and their children are pathetic and cowardly we are all 'screvved'

      Speaking of which -a £23m CoI into child abuse has no idea why the Chief of Police was illegally suspended......

      Delete
    3. VFC, the if you have quoted the response you got from PPC verbatim, then you were actively misled.

      Let's deconstruct the answer:

      1. The event in question took place 6 years ago
      2. What Lewis said is covered by parliamentary privilege
      3. PPC cannot investigate matters covered by parliamentary privilege

      1. By flagging the fact that the incident took place 6 years ago, PPC is clearly implying that it is too old an issue for them to consider. I cannot see anything in Standing Orders which imposes a time limit on issues which may be investigated by PPC. It therefore seems a deliberate red-herring intended to mislead you into thinking it's too late.

      2. What Lewis said is, indeed, covered by statutory parliamentary privilege. This isn't a red-herring, it's a red whale shark. Parliamentary privilege gives immunity to members against criminal or civil proceedings. PPC is not a court of law, and its deliberations are not civil or criminal proceedings. PPC is charged with investigating alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for States Members, and nowhere does it state - implicitly or explicitly - that it cannot investigate alleged breaches of the Code that relate to what members say in the states. Indeed, the Code implicitly makes it clear that the PPC CAN investigate such breaches; which brings me on to the third point...

      3. PPC were correct that they could not investigate your complaint. They could not do so pursuant to Article 156(2)(c) of Standing Orders: "The PPC shall not accept any complaint from a person who is not a member of the States, regarding words spoken by or actions of an elected member during a meeting."

      In other words, the ONLY legitimate reason they could not accept your complaint was because you are not a States member. The Article clearly provides that another States member CAN make a complaint about what another member has said in a meeting, and parliamentary privilege has NOTHING to do with this.

      Delete
    4. But it still remains that there is nothing PPC can (will) do about Lewis's apparent lies because a States Member STILL hasn't made a complaint about it/him.

      Delete
    5. VFC, this is yet another whopping great lie:

      Article 157 Investigation of breach of code of conduct

      "(1) Where the PPC has information, WHETHER OR NOT RECEIVED FROM A COMPLAINANT, that suggests that an elected member may have acted in breach of the code of conduct it shall, without undue delay, inform the member and investigate the act."

      In other words, PPC has totally failed to meet its statutory obligation to investigate, and then lied to you about it.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 18:34

      The meeting referred to is presumably a meeting of the States. Did he not lie to the Inquiry? I know that is privileged but against what. Does it rule out PPC/States sanctions? And who else did he lie to along the way?

      Also he wrongly suspended Graham Power. So what about that for starters?

      The only problem I see is political will. Not there.

      Delete
    7. Ah, I see 18:51 spotted this too:

      "(1) Where the PPC has information, whether or not received from a complainant, that suggests that an elected member may have acted in breach of the code of conduct it shall, without undue delay, inform the member and investigate the act."

      This implies that it is not necessary to receive a complaint and that PPC can act merely on information (which VFC provided or referenced?)

      Does it say elsewhere that a complaint must be received?


      The information is the same. Lewis lied about the (unlawful) suspension of the Chief of Police in the middle of a massive investigation into state sponsored child abuse.

      The CoI has merely laid that same information out for the hard of thinking.

      Delete
    8. Polo - indeed, a meeting of the States.

      Parliamentary privilege in Jersey is established under Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005:
      "34 Immunity from legal proceedings
      No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the States –
      (a) for any words spoken before or written in a report to the States or a committee or panel established under standing orders; or
      (b) by reason of any other matter or thing brought by the member before or within the States or any such committee or panel by petition, proposition or otherwise."

      The effect of this law is that Andrew Lewis could lie his pants off during a meeting of the States, and perjure himself stupid at the COI, safe in the knowledge that he cannot be prosecuted or sued.

      PPC can investigate a member for ANY breach of the members' Code of Conduct. There is no principle of privilege covering the proceedings of the PPC, and a member lying under oath at the COI is absolutely within their remit.

      Try this one for size, from the Standing Orders code of practice:

      "5 Maintaining the integrity of the States

      Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute."

      I would say that lying to the States, and again while under oath at a COI, about why you suspended the Chief of Police is pretty much game set and match.

      Delete
  2. If Andrew Lewis is covered to lie by Parliamentary privelege who or why would any member disbelieve him within the States Chamber at that time? Unless all members assume every speak lies within the chamber. Perfect get out clause.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Realistically, Andrew Lewis, 6 years ago, BELIEVED "The Jersey Way" was going to last forever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PPC obviously decided not to listen to VFC but clearly feel they have no choice other than to act following the concerns of the Care Inquiry. Article 157 of the Code for States Members states, "(1) Where the PPC has information, WHETHER OR NOT RECEIVED FROM A COMPLAINANT, that suggests that an elected member may have acted in breach of the code of conduct it shall, without undue delay, inform the member and investigate the act."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and It rather explains how generations of children in the care of the States were beaten and buggered with impunity.

      The CoI is just window dressing which has been careful not to delve too deep.

      Delete
  5. This is going to be most interesting. Most interesting in so many ways.

    I am going to supply some evidence and testimony to the Jersey Evening Post, before Monday.

    Evidence from the perspective of someone who was, at the relevant time, a member of the States of Jersey - in November 2008 - as I then was, and who was especially - especially - working on behalf of powerless, vulnerable constituents - dozens of child-abuse victims.

    Not only was I a member of the assembly then - I also repeatedly asked questions of then Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis about these matters.

    The fact that he was lying to me - lying to the Jersey legislature - and most significantly and above all, was lying to the community of Jersey - was obvious, and known to me then. A decade ago.

    Let me explain the gravity of the situation this way; the current decisions and actions of the Privileges & Procedures Committee are irrelevant. Simply irrelevant. And I would most strongly advise people not to be diverted by PPC and that body's present purported reflection upon the Lewis situation.

    Why?

    "Why can't PPC be regarded as an objective and effective body, to adjudicate upon the acts & omissions of Andrew Lewis in respect of the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief?"

    For exactly the very same reasons what we were supposed to accept as a "prosecution" function, back in 2008 was not, in fact, capable of being viewed as an objective decision-making body in any credible way.

    Namely - the body in question had - and has - already - via earlier decisions - committed itself to a path of unlawful concealment of misfeasance.

    So it is no longer capable of discharging the function of "discretionary-decision-making" - in any sense that could be regarded as objective.

    Forget PPC. It's a contaminated, conflicted, diversionary side-show.

    Instead - let us test whether this community is now, after a decade of disgusting opposition to decency - doing the one and only thing which could ever combat the cancer of "The-Jersey-Way".

    Let's see if we've begun to develop something resembling the conscientiousness of civil society.

    That, really - in so many ways - is so much more important than anything - any questions - any expectations - we might abdicate to what are - plainly - failed institutions.

    The buck stops with us.

    It is as simple as that.

    Let us see whether we meet the challenge.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Master of the £20m well chosen word30 July 2017 at 08:53


      "Conscientiousness"
      We know what it means but I thought it was worth a wiki

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

      "Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. They have a more functional anterior cingulate cortex than the average person. It is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being neat and systematic; also including such elements as carefulness, thoroughness, and deliberation Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of the Five Factor Model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. They are also likely to be conformists. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behaviour. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behaviour."


      Food for thought and indeed a one word challenge for Jersey society (as individuals and en masse)

      "conformists" has to be conforming to basic morals and the proper rule of law (not Bailhache law or the Jersey Way)

      "antisocial and criminal behaviour" -while outright criminal behaviour by an empowered few is the cause of the problem we should not restrict ourselves to an absolute legal definition of "criminal". The concept of communal guilt must never be a vehicle for letting the outright criminals off the hook IMO we should also contemplate personal gullibility and moral laziness and the widespread social crime of dismissing and minimising abused children (and adults) and the marginalisation (or actual suspension) of their representatives/champions

      Delete
  6. @22:50 "PPC obviously decided not to listen to VFC ....."

    On what basis? Did they decide that they had not received information or cause for investigating further?

    The other question is was it "PPC who decided" or did Len Norman take it upon himself to do a Juliette Gallichan :

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/power-of-ppc.html

    "The interesting thing about this letter from PPC to Chief Officer Graham Power is - it doesn’t appear to be from PPC!"
    [January 2010]

    and VFC's preceding post:
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/facts-evidence-untruths-and-is-somebody.html

    "Facts, Evidence, Untruths, and is somebody telling LIES? "

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree that PPC has been discredited by its past failings ... but what should happen now? They can't possibly sweep this one under the carpet because it has become so high profile ... I think that the public needs to know that even the states itself ... arguably the biggest cover up merchants in town ... have no option other than to find against Lewis and impose the toughest sanctions at their disposal. However, if they do this, the PPC will open themselves up, and rightly so, to the charge that they should have acted many years ago and that they have in fact covered up the Lewis lies all along. Once the finding against Lewis has been made I can see no alternative for any member of PPC who has a conscience other than to resign from a body that has failed in its public duty and to make a clear and explicit public statement to that effect. The public need to know that not only did Lewis lie repeatedly but that the states itself through PPC were complicit in these lies.
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, Phil

      Now is the time for soul searching and contrition.

      Do they have the integrity for soul searching and contrition?

      I doubt it, but the alternative is to go yet deeper into La La Land

      At every juncture they have chosen the latter

      Jersey's La La Land has proved to be a nightmare for generations of children

      As they PPC have no guts and no teeth their only option is to gum on it for as long as possible and then spit it out in a plant pot while no one is looking.

      Delete
    2. Well said Phil. Time for PPC and Lewis to go. Juilette Gallichan should also be highlighted, for writing that letter on behalf of all PPC when it was just her opinion. (I have forgotten what the letter was) And time both Bailhaches were kicked out and stripped of their honours titles. What tosh the Royal system is. A vehicle to hide all the British corruption and then title those who've been corrupt, plus a few good eggs to disguise it. Stinks.

      Delete
    3. Gallichan was and remains a truly useless lump of establishment deference always there to slag critics her plant a great big smacker on the Bailiff's - any Bailiff's lardy arse.

      This woman has done nothing for the people of Jersey in 12 years in the States. In that I suppose she is emblematic of Constables generally.

      A complete waste of space always voting to maintain the Jersey way.

      Delete
    4. Up to now PPC have been proved to be nothing but a fig leaf organisation .........to cover up the Bailhache and Walker dangly bits which have been hanging out for years

      The emperors have no clothes.

      Sheesh ............Who knew?

      Delete
    5. 11:17 is correct.
      The ultimate source of the Subjugation of Jersey and it's children is the power of the monarch manifested through unfit appointees of the Bailiff, LG etc

      Delete
  8. Poor Little Patsy30 July 2017 at 12:02

    I was going back over some Hansard the other day looking for a comment made in the States and by chance found my eyes drawn to a wholly unrelated comment made by the revolting Lewis. The debate in questions related to Deputy Higgins attempt to bring Connetables in to line with all other Members on bankruptcy and related matters.

    For those of your readers who don't know about this all I really need to explain is that prior to Higgins' proposition Senators and Deputies being already bankrupt or upon being made bankrupt cannot stand for election or retain a seat. Connetables could!

    Now I don't happen to believe that bankruptcy should prevent a person of any political class standing or retaining a seat unless possibly they have deliberately run a private company in to the ground or the like. Certainly once anyone has been discharged of a bankruptcy he or she should be allowed to stand for election in line with UK law and just about everywhere else.

    But the point of my post is this. In the debate Lewis in similar vein to the odious Ozouf has the gall to stand up and waffle about how the States need to have high standards and the exclusion on such people should be even longer than at present, this being a wholly farcical nine years.

    I read it and couldn't help but find myself thinking how the man must live in some kind of alternative universe if he really thinks a person becoming bankrupt at some time in their lives demands stiffer penalties than misleading the States resulting in the ending of a police chief's career has he did. Where do we find such people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says a lot about the man doesn't it.

      Delete
    2. Says a lot about the mindset of most politicians. People who have come through a bit of turbulence in their lies barred. Dishonest liars (according to the COI findings) welcome.

      Delete
    3. LIVES! Sorry.

      Delete
  9. I may not have followed this fully but does Andrew Lewis have an obligation to tell the truth to PPC or can the privelege still prevail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No he can lie to PPC as he will do in the safe knowledge that parliamentary privileged extends to states committees such as PPC
      Phil

      Delete
    2. So - there is little or nothing to be gained by this hearing? Seemingly a pointless exercise because as sure as night follows day this 'man' (if we can call him that) will lie again in desperation to keep his seat in the States.

      What an utter nonsense and a travesty.

      Delete
    3. Lets not write it off so soon.
      Who knows maybe he will get his comeuppance.

      Delete
    4. We might as well all turn up and throw pork pies at Mr Lewis!

      Delete
    5. Parliamentary privilege does not prevent PPC investigating a states member.

      If a member lies to PPC, they cannot be prosecuted or sued for doing so, but PPC can investigate the matter.

      As far as I can tell, PPC has no actual power to sanction a member. the most they can do, it seems, is issue an adverse report on the member's behaviour. It certainly has no power to suspend a member.

      Delete
  10. Accredited Troll30 July 2017 at 12:52

    PPC should wire Andrew Lewis up to a polygraph test.
    Mind you it will probably go nuts as soon as he starts to open his mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10 minutes in it will run out of ink and burst into flames.

      Delete
  11. It's not actually Lewis's departure or not that irks me.
    It's those who set him up being overlooked in the Lewis fallout that grates.
    We need the ring masters held to account, as well as the minion.
    Suppose PPC puts up a proposition for Lewis to be removed, the proposition is passed and he's out. Hooray, one very small victory, but do you really suppose the SoJ gov. is no longer in disrepute?
    Not possible. All the players in the Walker / Le Sueur and Ghost eras whether they've left the SoJ or not should be held to account. Likewise those who were in the States but now aren't, should have their statements recorded at the PPC and other meetings, for the record. Removing the Jersey Way will never happen until a full purge of this corrupt period is undertaken and a very large number of people held to account. HDLG should be turned into a second prison before being demolished to take in the corrupt gangsters that should be exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is only one way that the ring masters can be held to account, and that's when Lewis is finally stuck in a corner. With his track record there is no doubt that he will....
    Sing like a canary!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone said earlier "poor little patsy"

      "Sing like a canary" well he has missed every opportunity so far and PPC may be his last chance to share out the blame.

      He has to be honest, convincing and specific in nailing the 'unproven' liars because he is a *proven* liar. He has become a victim and the rest of the establishment will point out that he is an *unreliable witness* without event the mitigation of a shitty childhood (which counts for nowt against the states anyways).

      Ultimately it is the CoI who let the ring masters off the hook.
      I suspect that it has all gone to plan and apart from a rather non specific criticism of "The Jersey Way" they effectively did a lot of hand wringing but "found no evidence" to nail the establishment itself or anyone other than the ready made patsy Lewis.

      Delete
    2. No, there report was damning.

      Delete
  13. Nothing will happen to Lewis. Jog on. Nothing to see here. You know I'm right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly I think you will be right. As to just how wrong this will be just ask yourselves one question.

      What would the outcome be if Stuart Syvret or Trevor Pitman had lied to the States?

      Delete
    2. Kicked out of the States for sure. Double standards. But its the Jersey Way isn't it.

      Delete
  14. Lewis is a liar. It's official. The COI have said so. Our government cannot be seen to condone the Lewis lies but what they do about it remains to be seen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Will what is said at the ppc meeting tomorrow be recorded i.e. In the same way that states debates are recorded by Hansard and if so does anyone know how a copy could be obtained? Can someone please advise. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe there is a Scrutiny podcast but not sure if it extends to PPC. There should be a transcript published of the hearing which would be on the States website not long after. Will look to publish the link if/when it becomes available.

      Delete
  16. Looks like the Jersey Care Inquiry Twitter Account has been deleted.
    Suppose the Website will go soon as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous @ 22:36

    Thanks for that notice.

    They gave no undertakings re Twitter or Facebook, only the website.

    I tweeted a lot of stuff at them in the past but suspect they didn't even read it. And they were not posting much on Twitter anyway.

    I doubt they would have the nerve to scrap the website given their undertakings but there was a lot of talk of transferring it to the Jersey Archive to maintain and it was not clear whether all that is now there would be on open access or not.

    Perhaps this has been clarified recently. I haven't been following it closely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am on the case. The Panel have not replied . . .

      However I have learnt that it is not longer possible to communicate with the Inquiry direct as their office is closed, and the only thing the Panel is now doing is sorting out the legacy issue, i.e. the preservation of their work and of the way they carried out their work. Quite how they can do this task with no staff I do not understand.

      The only way to reach them, so I am informed, is via the States Greffe.

      Delete
  18. Will PPC ask Andrew Lewis, in the interests of full transparency, to declare whether he is a freemason or not?

    Furthermore, will PPC members who are also possibly members of the freemasons declare any potential conflict of interest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - in acknowledgement of the questions raised at 1st August 01:03 - those are very - very - important points; fundamental, in fact.

      Freemasonry is a foul and disgusting cancer upon the face of the public good.

      Those who engage in it - who serve it - who are loyal to it - (and I'm looking at the women too; yes - you know who I mean) - are a collection of weak - cowardly - intellectually vacuous - spineless - pro-child-abuse-concealing - unethical gangsters.

      Simple as that.

      No hiding-place.

      And it is appropriate - in some ways - that the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is the trigger point which caused the exposure of, and end of, the virtually unchallenged monopoly of corruption which has so poisoned public administration in Britain.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    2. In a word NO.

      Maintaining secrecy on this kind of thing is part of the conspiracy. Its about time this became a legal obligation to declare in certain circumstances IMHO. In the states, before a court, any public inquiry, in job applications for public service roles, and probably many more circumstances that you all can think of that are equally as valid. The problem is though its not just the masons there are many secret societies out there, but the masons is by far the most prevalent. Failure to disclose should be punishable by a custodial sentence of not less than 12 months IMHO.

      Delete
    3. Time and time again I have stated that all standing for the States should declare whether or not they are Freemasons, a society who attempt to hide bad deeds, by maintaining they are all good and righteous when in fact they are not. They are dangerous.

      I agree totally with the above two comments.

      Delete
  19. Is any Team Voice journalist going to the PPC meeting and can report back? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two questions that weren't asked at the ppc meeting:
    1 How could states members possibly have understood that when Lewis referred to the 'met interim report' he was actually referring to the Warcup letter when the very same states members did not know that the Warcup letter even existed?
    2 Does Lewis stand by his claim that Christopher Harris and Wendy Kinnard lied to the COI and that Mr Harris falsified evidence?
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is interesting that Andrew Lewis had Sir Philip Bailhache as his McKenzie friend at PPC today while he denied Graham Power any such support at his suspension meeting in November 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What was the verdict on today's performance, is he going to be punished?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I thought the questioning of Lewis was weak ... I think he will be reprimanded for the negative way that he answered some of the COI questions but something tells me ... I hope I will be proved wrong ... that ppc will duck the question of whether he lied or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair to PPC, it did say that the question of "did he lie or not" to the COI is not up for debate. PPC has accepted the findings of the COI in that he DID lie. Will get some thoughts together and hopefully publish a Blog tomorrow concerning the Hearing today.

      Delete
  24. Bangcock Phil being involved says it all he is being protected so he doesn't spill the beans

    ReplyDelete
  25. "PPC has accepted the findings of the COI in that he DID lie.'
    But did that actually say that because I did not hear it .. although Len Norman is not always easy to hear ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will have to wait for the transcript/podcast to be published but Len Norman did say (or words very similar) "PPC accepts the findings of the Care Inquiry." The Care Inquiry found that Andrew Lewis lied. You could be forgiven for believing that "did he lie or didn't he lie" WAS up for debate because of the 35 minute leeway Philip Bailhache was given describing what a lie is or isn't. Hopefully more about this in a Blog tomorrow.

      Delete
  26. If as stated PPC were only able to decide if he had abided by the 'code' and that 'maintain or improve' public confidence was the criteria, then accepting that he lied by accepting the CoI is a slam dunk!
    But will censure trigger his resignation , it damn well should do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why wait for a resignation he should be expelled from the States

      Delete
  27. CTV and BBC CI News left me with the impression that Dep. Andrew Lewis was successfully defended by Philip Bailhache. Anybody else think the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about CTV but I thought the BBC report was more balanced and better presented

      Delete
  28. Wasn't Lewis being defended by Bailhache a complete Jersey Way conflict of interest?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This farce goes to the heart of Jersey’s Government and the elected, not just Andrew Lewis.

    Dig away the hubris and rotten camouflage of Andrew Lewis and his lies and side show there is an even bigger fact staring the so called good Government of the Crown Dependency of Jersey in plain sight.

    That is in 2005 the States of Jersey passed into law, a proposition that refused to hold any elected politician to account if he or she blatantly misleads or lies to the Government, the law officers or the islanders they represent. Why would decent elected people do that.

    It therefore follows that Jersey politicians are not accountable. How can you run a democratic system on that basis ?

    Since being passed in 2005 no politician has tried to repeal this distasteful, disgusting law. Parliamentary privilege yes, to protect the speaker who may be voicing an opposite and individual view to the mainstream is of course recognised as normal.

    Blatantly lying and being protected by law in doing so, is abuse of parliamentary office and worthy of a third world collection of shysters’ crooks and the corrupt.

    Ah ! It is starting to make sense now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is the latest notice on the Inquiry website:

    ___________________________

    31.7.17 - Final Update

    All documents and other materials pertaining to the Inquiry - including this website - have been handed over to the States of Jersey. The Panel is overseeing the archiving of confidential material to ensure that approriate arrangements for protecting confidentiality are made.

    The IJCI Email, Magnum, Twitter and Facebook accounts are now closed.

    All queries in respect to the Inquiry should be addressed to the Greffier of the States:

    E-mail: statesgreffe@gov.je

    Tel: +44 (0) 1534 441 020

    ____________________________

    So it looks as though the States are now in charge of the site. Hopefully it will remain on open access and things will not disappear or be subject to further sneaky redaction.

    I hope both the domain and the content has been transferred to the States and the whole thing won't vanish when the domain and former hosting subscriptions run out. Oops.

    Some States member should ask for a commentary to be published on precisely what is going on and how it is intended to maintain the site and handle access by the public.

    We don't want it going the way of Trevor's missing boxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't believe this. All given to the States. This is like handing back the gun to the person you know murdered someone.

      Can I also say in regard to mention of Trevor (Pitman) above it must surely be odds on now that Trevor's whole witness statement now disappears.

      He was absolutely scathing about the Bailhaches and Birt and their part in the Jersey Way. Why would they leave it up> Someone needs to ask Gorst for public reassurances.

      Delete
    2. Oh My God, I do not believe this. I have received NO REPLY to my 25 questions sent to the Chair and Panel about how the work of the COI must be ptreserved, on 21st June 2016.

      This is crazy. We the public can have no confidence in what the States will do with this information unless the process of handling all this information is run by or at the very least closely overseen by, those who have an interest in keeping things OPEN and not HIDDEN.

      I am very very worried.

      Our States members who think this natters - step up now please, and DEMAND syuch oversight.

      I am quite happy to be involved. But we have to move fast on this.


      Delete
  31. Philip Bailhache should not have been allowed to do what he did today.
    He also slagged off Francis Oldham without giving her the right to reply.
    What does that say about it all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It says Philip Baihache is quite capable of having a juxtaposition of two ' grave political mistakes'.

      Delete
    2. Why shouldnt he have been allowed? Do we want an Island based on kangaroo justice without the rule of law. Be careful what you wish for! AL had a right to the defence case being put given it is obvious he is a fall guy on this issue.

      Delete
  32. No one is beyond critique. Not even Frances Oldham. Wait for the backlash on Inquiry costs now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Talking to politicians present at the time they say they would not have given Andrew Lewis such an easy time if they had known he had NOT seen the Met report and was relying solely on a letter which contained the selective extracts of the Met Report chosen by the then Deputy Police Chief, David Warcup.I believe both Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were well aware of this. If Andrew did not clarify what he was referring to during his speech and while answering questions from Members, why didn't Frank Walker intervene to clarify matters for the benefit of all concerned?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Why didnt FW intervene" because he is part of the problem & bet he is still involved along with PB even now in the background helping Lewis

    ReplyDelete
  35. PB'S understanding of the truth is questionable based upon the airplane document reading incident, and other examples of "lapses in memory", so actually hes the prefect person to support and defend Lewis. There is a history here of trying to obfuscate, and PB trying to explain what is and isn't a lie proves this as well, when all that matters as far as did "his actions maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members” is the recognized common meaning of the word lie, that any member of the public would reasonably give it. He also has a track record (airplane document incident) of accusing others of lies. So perfect bed partners if you ask me, they are both as bad as each other and both sad pathetic desperate little men. FW IMHO is cast from exactly the same mold. The pattern is absolutely clear I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Funny how Philip Bailhache is ALWAYS on the wrong side of any issue involving child abuse or political / judicial corruption. It's getting to be a pretty long list now.
    Was his knighthood given for decades of servicing the island?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Its the same crowd coming out to support Andrew Lewis.
    Terry Le Main in the JEP yesterday and Facebook today calling his treatment unlawful.
    Sean Power joining in so only needs Jim Perchard and Ben Shenton to finish the set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is the same crowd coming out to defend Lewis and both Philip Bailhache and Terry Le Main (as the then President of Housing) have also been criticised in the COI Report. The Jersey Way is so embedded in our culture I am not optimistic of any real improvement in child protection for the future.

      Delete
  38. ... and for that matter, why did the bailiff not intervene because he was the person that had advised the chief minister that the met report should not be used... I'm not sure which of the brothers was bailiff at the time but either way both family members were in the chambe whilst Lewis was lying and could have and should have intervened. The fact that they didn't makes them party to the Lewis lies ... no wonder PB felt compelled to defend the liar ... he or his brother or both along with Frank Walker were complicit in these lies by their silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The presiding Bailiff when Andrew Lewis made his statement was Michael Birt not a Bailhache brother. Lets keep it factual.

      Delete
    2. The Law Officer in attendance on the day was in fact Tim Le Cocq as the Hansard record shows - then the Solicitor General. As Lewis said, the SG also could have corrected the record when he had the chance to do so given that the SG was advising Home Affairs on the Graham Power issue and probably had more command of the detail than did Andrew Lewis.

      Delete
    3. RE; "The presiding Bailiff when Andrew Lewis made his statement was Michael Birt not a Bailhache brother. Lets keep it factual."

      The Bailiff Chairing the in-camera debate (December 2012) where Andrew Lewis told his alleged lies (he had seen the MET interim report) was Philip Bailhache.

      Delete
    4. Voice, this is getting confusing. Arnt we interested in 2 December 2008?

      Delete
    5. Bailhache's wikipedia page states that he was Bailiff until 2009.

      According to Hansard, it was definitely him (the Bailiff) who was sitting on 2nd December 2008, which is the correct date.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bailhache#Deputy_Bailiff_and_Bailiff_1994-2011

      The official transcript is here and all the remarks are attributed to The Bailiff (Philip Bailhache) and not the then Deputy Bailiff (Michael Birt)

      http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/assemblyhansard/2008/2008.12.02%20states%20-%20edited%20transcript%20'in%20camera'%20(chief%20police%20officer%20statement)%20without%20password.pdf

      It was Bailhache (as the supposedly independent chair) who advised Lewis "Minister, do not go down this road, please." It's there in section 1.17.

      Ask Stuart Syvret who was presiding - he was there.

      Another shocking example of The Jersey Way....Bailhache as the supposedly impartial chair of the in camera debate pops up 9 years later defending Lewis for having lied during it.

      Delete
    6. That quote from Sir PB, I can almost hear him saying it: "Minister, do not go down this road, please" is a quote which the COI did not probe so far as I know.

      Was it that to pursue that quote, and wherever it led them, would have cost an extra £2 million which they did not have?

      Was it "above their pay grade"?

      Were they simply not interested in the evidence of a conspiracy?

      Did they think it was "outside our Terms of Reference"?

      They should have reported publicly on their report to the States and / or to the public of Jersey in a forum which allowed questions such as these to be asked.

      But they did not.

      So it is over to us . . . Trouble is we do not have £23 million and a host of lawyers to write up the evidence for us.

      Delete
  39. Philip Bailhache obviously couldn't see a lie if it hit him smack in the face ... why else would he have to look up the meaning of the word 'lie' in the Oxford English Dictionary!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are people allowing the Andrew Lewis issue to draw the sting away from the many child abusers referred to in the Inquiry's final report? This is beginning to feel like a political hatchet job rather than a proper child abuse inquiry.

      Delete
    2. It's one step at a time. The Lewis affair is nearing a resolution. Lies and cover ups enabled decades of abuse to continue unchecked and so must be challenged robustly. Other questions regarding firstly, the failings of the states of jersey and secondly, those that committed or enabled the abuse to occur will follow. This is not going away.

      Delete
  40. From the Bailwick Express -

    "One of Jersey's most senior politicians has described the Care Inquiry's allegations of lying by Deputy Andrew Lewis as "shockingly unfair," and designed to get a "cheap headline" which was "utterly careless of the effect...on Deputy Lewis and his family."

    The comments came from the External Relations Minister Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, who was speaking in defence of Deputy Lewis at a public meeting yesterday of the States' committee charged with overseeing the conduct of Members"

    Sums it all up completely, none of them give a monkeys about the suspension of Graham Power and whether it was dealt with properly.

    ReplyDelete
  41. By the time the Final Report appears on the States Website all the Andrew Lewis stuff will be 'blacked out'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Inquiry has developed our ability to read around th black stuff ;)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Andrew Lewis is a Freemason at the Prince of a Wales Lodge, but how is that relevant? There are lots of Freemasons in the States, and Civil Service who do a fine job for the island

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. They don't do a fine job for the island. Freemasons are the worst - of the worst.

      Weak, inadequate - social-climbing - scum; the kind of scum which "Big-Ups" their "soldier" Andrew Lewis to do foul and disgusting things - and then corruptly shield him fro the consequences of his actions.

      Just like fellow Mason Phil Rondel shielded Lewis throughout the last election.

      Freemasonry is a gangster exercise - antithetical to the public good.

      No States member who is a Freemason - can swear the States oaths of office - because they're already sworn to that "higher" calling - of their Lodges.

      Freemasons - on-the-spectrum nut-jobs - into "The Craft" - for what it offers them - they're families too - in exchange for doing stuff like - oh, you know = letting off child-abuser concealers - as the CoI - and various of its members have - so clearly - done.

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.