Open Letter to Andrew Lewis (Part 2)

In continuance of my previous posting OPEN LETTER TO FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS  I’m able to bring readers an update.

I sent Deputy Lewis the open letter on the 11^th November where I pointed out the contradictory statements he had made concerning his sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report and its alleged contents.

In that open letter I asked the Deputy to help clear up his contradictions and politely asked him four questions;

"Question 1. Could you please tell me which account is correct? The account you gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review or the account you gave to the in-camera States debate? Did you, or did you not see the MET Interim Report?

Question 2. Could you please tell me (if you did see the MET Interim Report) do you stand by your words “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal?”

Question 3. Could you please tell me who is being dishonest here, is it you or the IPCC?

Question 4. Have you been asked, or have you offered to, submit evidence to the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC, if not, why not?"

After four days of not receiving and acknowledgement of my e-mail I sent him a polite reminder on the 15^th November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

Just a polite reminder that I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement of my e-mail and the answers to my questions.”

Another three days passed and I still had no response so I politely e-mailed him again. On the 18^th November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

It has now been a week since my original e-mail and this is my third attempt at getting the answers to my questions.

Would you kindly acknowledge my e-mail(s) and supply me with those answers before I am forced to make a complaint to PPC concerning your conduct?”

It then happened that I bumped into Deputy Lewis three days later, which is explained in the e-mail I sent him the same day (9 days and three e-mails since my original e-mail to him. On the 21^st November I wrote;

“Deputy Lewis.

After our chance encounter at the Royal Court (Wednesday 19th) where you told me "I have no intention of acknowledging your e-mails" and where I replied "does that mean I have to make a complaint to PPC" you replied "please do."

As much as I have resisted going down the PPC complaints route you have left me no option by refusing to acknowledge/answer my e-mails and the perfectly legitimate questions contained in them.

I have demonstrated that I have done all that I can in order to give you the opportunity to answer my (public interest) questions and you have refused to engage.

With that in mind, and for the purpose of my Blog, you have left me no other choice other than to doorstep you. I very much regret that you have taken the stance that you have and hope that you will reconsider it by answering my four questions?

If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5pm today I will conclude that you are maintaining your stance and I will (regrettably) set about contacting PPC in order to register my complaint against your code of conduct. Regrettably again I will then have to doorstep you.”

Finally this prompted a response Where Deputy Lewis replied;

“Further to your recent emails and our brief encounter last Wednesday. I am happy to give you the courtesy of an acknowledgement to your email. However I have no interest in engaging with you on this subject, it no longer forms part of my remit I would therefore suggest that should you remain so firmly interested in this matter that you make contact with the newly appointed Home Affairs Minister.

This is the last and only communication I intend to have with you so please take no offence if you decide to try and communicated with me any further as you will not receive a reply.”

To which I replied;

“Thank you for your reply.

It could be that I haven’t made my position clear enough and apologise if this is the case.

In basic terms my concern is that you are not displaying the transparency and integrity required by the Code of Conduct for States Members and I do not plan to engage you in long correspondence.   

It is just that statements you have made appear to be incompatible with each other, which trouble many of my Blog readers worldwide, and domestic as well as the Jersey voting public. I am not seeking a general engagement with you but offering you a fair opportunity to answer a specific point. Rather than have a long drawn out correspondence I invite you to end the matter, not by refusing to engage but by providing an explanation to your contradictory statements?  

Deputy you are a paid public servant and your blank refusal to address a specific issue, which has caused a number of people to doubt your integrity, is not acceptable in a democracy and contrary to the Code of Conduct for States Members.

I hope we can clear this up without going down the PPC and door-stepping route and look forward to your reply/answers to my four questions.

If I have not received the answers to my questions by 5:00pm Monday (24^th) I will assume you don’t intend answering them and will pursue my complaint to PPC/door-stepping.”

So that is where we are at, that I believe I have done all in my power to get answers to perfectly legitimate, and public interest questions, from Deputy Lewis and he refuses to engage.

Should members of the public, in a so-called “democracy” have to go to such lengths in order to get a straight answer to a straight question from our elected representative(s)? Deputy Lewis’ honesty and integrity will remain in doubt for as long as he refuses to explain his contradictory statements. His (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief will remain surrounded by suspicion until these, and other questions are answered.

Readers are reminded that Deputy Lewis suspended the former Chief Police Officer DURING the biggest Child Abuse Investigation this Island has ever seen with the only significant Ministerial decision he made during his very short tenure as Home Affairs Minister.

There are continuing suspicions that his actions in relation to Mr. Power’s (illegal?) suspension were part of a series of acts calculated to close down the Child Abuse Inquiry. Again these suspicions will remain prevalent until Deputy Lewis explains his actions.

There is hope that the ongoing Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry will take an interest in his actions and what impact they had on the (people who really matter here) Victims/Survivors of decades long Child Abuse. 

Readers will be kept updated on the complaint to PPC/door-stepping.