Thursday, 27 November 2014

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 11th 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 15th 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 18th 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 21st 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 (24th) 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.



31 comments:

  1. Good on Deputy Lewis for showing restraint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jersey Paedophile Ring27 November 2014 at 19:14

      Well said Anonymous 09:12 and 11.36 etc. etc

      Like the commenter we support the ex. Home Affairs Minister in his decision to suspend without evidence the only Jersey Police Chief to ever show fortitude and determination to investigate and stamp out child abuse on the island.

      Could this helpful troll please use his multiple avatars help out by answering some of the shocking pro-Syvret comments inexplicably NOT being censored !!!!
      at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/11/26/1960s-sex-abuse-was-left-out-of-report/

      If Andrew Lewis chooses to lie in order to engineer the suspension of a Police Chief it really is not the business of anyone but himself.
      How else are us sexual minorities supposed to defend ourselves and our rights to sexual enjoyment of your children?

      Delete
    2. The Jersey Paedophile Ring28 November 2014 at 06:13

      REF "Could this helpful troll please use his multiple avatars help out by answering some of the shocking pro-Syvret comments inexplicably NOT being censored !!!!
      at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/11/26/1960s-sex-abuse-was-left-out-of-report/

      No comments for 24 hours, and then 4 new ones within 15 minutes. Good effort !

      ------------------------------

      Bill1987
      November 27, 2014 9:11 pm

      Chatterbox
      November 27, 2014 8:58 pm

      Chatterbox
      November 27, 2014 8:56 pm


      Bill1987
      November 27, 2014 9:08 pm

      ------------------------------

      But surely you have more avatars than just those two.
      You might even think about making yourself less obvious, because not all Jersey people are as dense as granite.

      Delete
  2. If the local media had done their job properly these sort of questions would have been asked years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Threatening, in writing, to harass somebody if they don't do what you want ?

    I would imagine you have a far greater chance of engagement with a PC, rather than the PPC, in the not too distant future !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Threatening to escalate something through a proper channel when you don't get a response is hardly harassment, its just the logical next step.

      Delete
  4. His (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief will remain surrounded by suspicion.

    That's nonsense. The Napier Report cleared it all up and just because you don't agree with it that's your problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Napier Report cleared it all up"
      Would that be the Napier Report which Andrew Lewis LIED to ?

      Not very clever are you.

      Delete
    2. This is on the Hansard of the in-camera (secret) States Sitting.

      Andrew Lewis;

      “If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

      And;

      "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

      This is from the Napier Report;

      “As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have
      access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

      Delete
    3. Funny how Graham Power never shows any concern.

      Delete
    4. Hi brainless troll @20:27. Is there anything you say which is not the absolute opposite of the truth?
      [you are not Lewis are you LOL]

      www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12706326
      Ex-Jersey police chief Graham Power in vendetta claim

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10597972
      Jersey police chief Graham Power 'exonerated'

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8512237.stm
      Politicians 'interfered' in Jersey child abuse inquiry



      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/interview-with-former-chief-police.html
      Interview with Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.


      And in Guernsey (just) outside of the bubble of Jersey's cosy complicit media:
      http://guernseypress.com/news/2008/11/17/jersey-politicians-are-behind-the-smears/

      I expect that VFC could also provide a shedload of links demonstrating that Graham Power DOES show concern

      It is laughable how obvious you are.
      keep it coming :-)

      http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/a-recap-on-my-families-premier-league.html

      Delete
  5. Please explain door stepping/ppc

    ReplyDelete
  6. The sheer arrogance of the man? Lewis. Already a proven liar.

    No worries VFC, his silence and refusal to engage speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PPC will laugh at this with Len Norman chairing the Group.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andrew Lewis has been told about you Neil McMurray in a lot of detail.
    He is also aware of your connections to nutters like Syvret so don't kid yourself that he will be engaging with you or Sorda anytime soon.
    In fact he is looking at other methods of dealing with you like others. But all good things come to those who wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jersey Paedophile Ring27 November 2014 at 22:03

      We agree with Anon at 21:16

      That awful Health Minister Syvret tried to expose our little games.
      Thank baby Jesus for the good chaps in government and civil service who silenced him and the gullible island folk who swallowed it.

      Stroke of Genius that secret super-injunction !
      Real laugh that taxpaying Jersey parents paid for it.

      Delete
  9. Revealing comment 21:16 above.

    Is Andrew Lewis really taking advice and guidance from Jersey's super-injunction protected death-threat trolls?

    This one or one of his other party members?:

    http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

    This is a rare occasion on which he might be speaking an element of truth because Jersey's government has already put massive resources into silencing child protection activists, and has set many dangerous legal precedents in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What cellars? There were no cellars!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 7. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –
    “Will the Minister advise Members whether the milk teeth recovered during Operation Rectangle were subject to analysis to determine their age and other factors after 12th November 2008, and detail:
    (a) when they were tested and by whom;
    (b) what tests were carried out and the conclusions reached from those tests;
    (c) whether there has been an unbroken chain of signed custody for the teeth from the moment they were recovered to the present day;

    ReplyDelete
  12. (d) whether the teeth remain in the custody of the States of Jersey Police or with another agency, and if the latter the name of the agency;
    and if not, why not?”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is Deputy Mike Higgins after a job in the Police or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grow up.
      No I don't think Mike Higgins after a job in the Police or something.

      I think he is trying to ascertain what happened to various items of evidence and,
      as importantly,
      is trying to reassure himself that Jersey's police are not back under the political control of paedophiles and their protectors, like in "the bad old days" when Wilfred Krichefski was chair of the Defence Committee (amongst other things).

      In fact just last week the JEP finally reported on Wilfred Krichefski's taste for raping
      and degrading small boys in Jersey's orphanages

      The JEP have been rather coy about this story, only reporting it SIX YEARS after it was reported off island, e.g.
      www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/jersey-police-uncover-abuse-cellar/story-e6frg6to-1111115697431?nk=8c4c040bdafd6154161df300731a5a37

      The JEP mentioned that Krichefski ran a clothing shop. For some reason the JEP did NOT mention his POLITICAL CONTROL OF THE POLICE !
      The JEP did not mention his position amongst Jersey's ruling clique
      The JEP did not mention Krichefski's role in the finance industry and connections to major international players
      The JEP did not mention Krichefski was the first managing director of Jersey's television station, Channel TV
      [Guess what? This being the same CTV which enthusiasticly trashed the investigation into decades of child abuse]


      Quite a busy chap was our Wilfred Krichefski
      This is what happens when too much power is concentrated into the wrong hands.

      There is every indication that Jersey still has many of the same problems, especially since the illegal coup against the island's legitimate police chief.

      Delete
  14. Has Lewis replied to these requests for information yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only reply received from Deputy Lewis is the one published. I submitted a complaint to PPC and am waiting for its response.

      Delete
    2. I thought they confirmed any complaint within 24 hours?

      Delete
  15. Have you had a response from PPC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and it will be published, as a Blog of its own, soon.

      Delete
    2. Can you tell us in advance whether he is being sanctioned then?

      Delete
    3. The complaint is still on-going so too early to say just yet.

      Delete

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