Thursday, 19 February 2015

Complaint To PPC (2)




After publishing my OPEN LETTER to disgraced former Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis, and eventually receiving some kind of a REPLY where he attempted to distance himself from his actions of (illegally?) suspending the then Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, DURING the biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) the Island has ever seen (in the only significant Ministerial Decision Deputy Lewis made during his very short tenure as Home Affairs Minister). Due to his refusal to answer straight forward questions concerning his integrity, honesty, and contradictory statements he made regarding his (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief, I was forced into making a COMPLAINT to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC)

A number of e-mail exchanges took place and PPC refused to hear my case (with me in attendance) in a constituted hearing where I would have had the protection of privilege and could elaborate further on my evidence against Deputy Lewis and conflicted parties of PPC. The Committee found against me believing it to be fair and just that Deputy Lewis is protected by privilege although I am denied the same protection and unable to give full evidence as a result. (The Jersey Way)

Below is the latest e-mail I received from the PPC Officer after being granted a meeting with the officer and PPC Chairman Constable Len Norman. Below that is my response.

Latest e-mail from PPC Officer/Chairman. 


"Apologies for my delay in responding but I did not receive your e-mail and was only advised of it by Connetable Norman after the States meeting today.

I am sorry that you do not feel our meeting last week was productive. I am afraid that there is nothing else which the PPC can do at this juncture, other than to request that you consider sending us details of the complaint to which you eluded at our meeting.

To reiterate –

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. The second issue that Deputy Lewis had behaved poorly in not responding to your efforts to communicate with him, was considered by the Committee and it was felt that, although he had taken his time, he had responded and explained the reasons for the delay. The Committee therefore did not feel that he had breached the Members code of conduct.  
PPC  has to work within the remit outlined in the Standing Orders of the States. It has no power to extend beyond this remit and certainly no power to challenge matters covered by parliamentary privilege. 

It is of course always open to any States member to bring forward a proposition in relation to Deputy Lewis’ conduct, past or present. I appreciate your frustration with the process currently available, but please do not assume that PPC seeks to ‘protect wrongdoers’. The Committee as previously constituted took steps to address the issue of members’ standards and codes of conduct and hopefully when the Commissioner for Standards is established (as approved by the States in late 2013) then the revised procedure for dealing with complaints against States Members will be robust."(END)

My Response

Apologies for my delay in replying.

 You said in your email; I am afraid that there is nothing else which the PPC can do at this juncture, other than to request that you consider sending us details of the complaint to which you eluded at our meeting.

Firstly I disagree that there is nothing PPC can do as I believe we agreed that it (PPC) could bring a vote of confidence/censure against Deputy Lewis but for reasons only known to PPC and yourself a blind eye approach has been adopted.

Secondly as I have explained (exhaustively) I cannot elaborate further on my complaint without the protection of privilege but PPC is denying me this protection by refusing me a properly constituted meeting. Andrew Lewis has the protection of privilege so I am at a huge disadvantage by being denied equality of arms.


Thirdly Attorney General Tim Le Cocq who is hopelessly conflicted is advising you and he knows more than anybody why I need the protection of privilege because (redacted for legal purposes). As if that didn’t make him conflicted enough he was the very person who was advising Andrew Lewis before, during and after Deputy Lewis’ (illegal?) suspension of the then Chief Police Officer. He is now advising PPC on how to deal with a complaint made against his own advice!

The advice given to PPC (presumably by the conflicted AG) is, to quote your e-mail; “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.”  

The AG knows full well, and if PPC had done even the slightest of research would be aware that NO action could have been taken against Deputy Lewis at the time because a matter of weeks after he suspended Mr. Power he retired from politics and his apparent lies didn’t come to light until the Napier Report, Wiltshire Report, and the disclosure of the in-camera debate was made public, by which time Deputy Lewis was long retired.

With all this in mind I would like to suggest that PPC takes legal advice from an advocate who is not conflicted which would have greater credibility than an opinion from one of the parties who was involved (Tim Le Cocq) in the original suspension and who would have known that Deputy Lewis was apparently telling lies to the States but did nothing to enlighten members to the deception.

You also state in your e-mail; “It is of course always open to any States member to bring forward a proposition in relation to Deputy Lewis’ conduct, past or present. I appreciate your frustration with the process currently available, but please do not assume that PPC seeks to ‘protect wrongdoers’.  

Firstly it is also open to PPC to bring forward a proposition in relation to Deputy Lewis’ conduct but, as mentioned earlier, it has taken the blind eye approach. (The Jersey Way) Furthermore there are seven members of PPC, including my own Parish Constable, and not one of them has contacted me, as a States Member, in order to bring any such proposition. What chance have I, as a member of the public got, in convincing any States Member to bring a vote of confidence/censure against Deputy Lewis when the body tasked with upholding Members Code Of Conduct, including its individual members, as well as my own Parish Constable flatly refuse to represent me in this matter and are all turning a blind eye? I am refused the protection of privilege afforded to the alleged “wrongdoer” and I shouldn’t assume the wrongdoer is being protected?

I maintain, due to the conflict of Senator Ozouf and that of the AG, the decision made by PPC to deny me a hearing to make my case is based on flawed and conflicted advice, particularly that of the AG who, in my opinion, has an interest in brushing this under the carpet. (The Jersey Way)

With that in mind I request that PPC reverses its (flawed) decision and either bring a vote of confidence/censure against Deputy Lewis or grant me the same protection he is afforded by allowing me to make my case to the Committee and grant me a properly constituted hearing?

To conclude; I would like to bring attention to PPC’s “minimalist” approach in its duties and suggest that the lack of pro-active commitment on its part is typical of the "hear no evil-see no evil" (The Jersey Way) attitude that got Jersey into the mess it is in over Child Abuse in the first place. Among all the legalistic waffle, and so-called protocols there is a plain issue. There is evidence that Deputy Lewis was part of a conspiracy to terminate the Child Abuse enquiry (Operation Rectangle) by (illegally?) suspending the Police Chief and that in order to achieve this he was apparently willing to lie to the public and to the States. If PPC is not willing to confront this issue but prefer to hide behind advice from one of the alleged conspirators then let the record show that is its position.

The Jersey Care Inquiry is copied in so that it can draw its own conclusions as to how much the culture in Jersey has changed since the Paedophilia was so rife on this Island and indeed how safe children really are today. How accountable authority really is and how whistleblowers are treated.

All members of PPC are also copied in (excluding the conflicted Senator Ozouf) so that they can (as private members) explain why they are not willing to take ANY action concerning Deputy Lewis’ apparent lies.(END)

What PPC's stance demonstrates is that nothing in Jersey has changed. We have an ongoing Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry where we hear abuse Victims/Survivors DID complain about their horrific ordeals but their complaints fell on deaf ears. Those in a position of authority were protected and unaccountable. They were seen as trouble makers if they dare question the State, they were brushed off and denied a hearing/voice. In 2015 the very same culture exists where whistleblowers are not afforded the same protection as those in power and look to have serious questions to answer.









50 comments:

  1. Who are the PPC members please?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post to have for the record. Damning.

    Cowardly shambles.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A comment has been submitted quoting an infamous internet bully and failed election candidate. It is this person's usual dribble that has no place on here so sorry I'll not publish the comment it will only encourage the quality of debate to decline and offend Abuse Victims/Survivors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough.
      She was rat bagging on Facebook a week ago that you never publish her comments anyway.

      Delete
  4. Members, 4 constables & OZouf not a chance with that bunch!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A wonderfully freudian item in the quote : You said in your email; “I am afraid that there is nothing else which the PPC can do at this juncture, other than to request that you consider sending us details of the complaint to which you eluded at our meeting.

    To elude is to evade or escape from. To allude is to suggest or call to attention indirectly. Perhaps they used the correct verb subconsciously and unintentionally?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read something recently re complaints against Andium Homes, the body investigating led by Andrew Lewis.
    On the board of Andium his old boss from the Graham Power era none other than Frank Walker, the Jersey way strikes again!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. All your points are valid. PPC wriggling out of responsibility is a typical British institutional maneuver. By using their adjustable rules the authority controls the agenda and the parameters. It doesn't matter if it's a complaint to the bbc, the royal family, a local authority, the privy council, the Jersey crown officers, PPC, or any other British institution, the outcome will always be in their favour. Honesty, the rule of law and justice are simply irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For a Committee meant to be entrusted as the arbiter of States member's behaviour this PPC are shown to be a bit of a bad joke when it comes down to it. perhaps the truth is they can only do something when the member at the heart of any complaint is one of the awkward squad who actually stand up for justice? just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A Lewis but not related20 February 2015 at 18:03

    is this very important issue something that can be brought up at this question time event I keep hearing about set for St. Clement parish Hall? Or will PPC Chairman Constable Len Norman going to be vetoing anything he doesn't want talked about?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This current States must be the worst ever and that is really saying something!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it so very depressing that we have more than half-a-dozen politicians sitting on PPC all meant to look after our interests regarding States Members behaviour and yet not a one will bring a motion forward regarding Deputy Lewis' obvious lies. It frankly makes me furious. Think I'll go and sit outside a while amongst my newly planted flowers while the sun shines until I cool down. Disgraceful is the only publishable term for this PPC. Keep up the good work in telling us the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Politicians like Lewis who treat we the public with disrespect by such behaviour need to be weeded out and quickly.What's the point of a Code of Conduct if people can just flaunt it and the PPC committee don't do a thing? Weed them out I say and do it fast.

    ReplyDelete
  13. VFC.
    Realistically Andrew Lewis believed that he has done his time and had his punishment for blatantly lying. With over four years out of his beloved States Chamber, he truly believed (excuse the pun), that he would be able to arrive back in Jersey politics with all forgiven and forgotten....
    He had not accounted for your blog still being so popular, nor had he accounted for a COI being held during his new term of office!?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If all of these PPC members were new and green you might understand this but they are not are they?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for re-pitching the old 2013 speech on Jersey justice made by former Deputy Pitman. I listened to it again and then even read the text version you put up there were just so many truths still so relevant today. You should re-post more of your archive staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speeches like the one you refer to just upset people by highlighting details which do our island no good at all. Such things should be kept behind closed doors.Most of this was all a long time ago.

      Delete
    2. Have a word with yourself. What the speech (we're talking about the sister Voiceforprotest blog if anyone is confused) does do perfectly is show what an absolute desert we have in the States now when it comes to intelligent and bravely spoken opposition, let alone any attempt to hold ministers to account.

      Delete
    3. The excellent speech can be listened to, or read, HERE.

      Delete
    4. The sort of speech only Trevor or Stuart could make.

      Delete
    5. Why do you always champion and drool over politicians who rock the boat? Airing these sort of things only makes our island look bad. We need to let bygones be bygones. You are a joke.

      Delete
  16. Given that nobody in the States is ever allowed to say another member is a liar right as you are you are probably on a hiding to nothing with this complaint. Maybe a better way forward is to lobby PPC to change this ludicrous rule?

    ReplyDelete
  17. One thing is for sure and that's if Trevor Pitman was still in the States Andrew Lewis would be facing a vote of no confidence by now. If Trevor was on PPC he would not tolerate the current white wash. Finally I would like to see the return of his Bald Truth blog and in particular the BTR videos. Trevor's presence in the States and online is greatly missed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was very disappointed to see Lewis gain a seat in St. Helier. I just can't understand how such a man could secure enough votes with his record. I was possibly even more disappointed though when I was told recently that Deputy Hilton had been telling people to vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with the comment saying Andrew Lewis would never get away with it if Trevor Pitman was in the states or on PPC. I agree also that he is missed online and would love to see a return of The Bald Truth blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andrew Lewis knows what you are writing about him online and so does his wife and children.
    Only a matter of time before new laws come into action and you end up in court for harassing people and IT WILL HAPPEN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it appears that [acting] home affairs minister Lewis lied in order to derail the investigation into unprosecuted paedophilia and child abuse.

      Do we really want laws to prevent people from saying or reporting important truths?????

      That is not "harassment"
      but you can click on my name for a brief reminder of what real harassment is.

      From the audio recording:
      "[Nurse M] is going to KILL YOUR FAMILY"

      Delete
  21. Jon commented ironically at 18:56 "Only a matter of time before new laws come into action"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is certainly only a matter of time before the little boy pulls his finger out of the evidence hole and the proverbial dam burts open> Sweeping our Jon and all of his pathetic fake IDs straight out to La Moye. Would have thought a few of his victims might have already given evidence to the abuse inquiry about his harassment of people?

      Delete
    2. Typo? 'Burts'? Was that 'bursts' or were you having a pun with our dear Lord Birt?

      Delete
    3. Its true that Andrew Lewis does have this blog and its owners in his sights with others and who can blame him?
      You write insults about him, you slander him and you think you can start fights with people without retribution.
      You will have two options in the near future, either take offensive slurs offline about people or face court.
      No doubts you will follow the stubbornness of Syvret and do the latter, and everybody hopes you do.

      Delete
    4. @ 16:40
      It's NOT "slander" if it's true

      Doh !

      Delete
    5. If it's true, why preface everything with (illegal ?) or (illegally ?) ? You either believe what you are accusing Lewis of doing is true and should have the courage of your convictions, or you're not, in which case you are harassing somebody whose actions you are not sure about.

      And why won't you approach Sam Mezec ? I thought he served on PPC. Surely he would be willing to help you if what you say is provable ?

      Delete
    6. Andrew Lewis told the (in-camera) States;

      “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.”

      Further during the in-camera debate in answer to a question from former Deputy Paul Le Claire he told the States Assembly;

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

      But 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. 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.”

      According to the former Chief Police Officer Mr. Power his (Andrew Lewis’) testimony to the discredited Wiltshire Constabulary’s Investigation stated;

      “Until I received the letter from David WARCUP, (on 11th November 2008 – the day before the suspension) I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” (Paragraph 3.)

      Deputy Lewis has given differing accounts of what he has or hasn’t seen. He said;

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

      But the MET Police (Operation Tuma) said;

      "In the Heads of Complaint made by Mr Harper he states that the review criticised a number of areas of the investigation. The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle." (para 4.36)

      If Andrew Lewis has not told lies what has he told???

      Delete
    7. "If Andrew Lewis has not told lies what has he told???"

      ....and let's not forget that they are not little white lies just to cover his alleged "neutral act" of suspending the innocent chief of police. They are dirty black lies which help past (present and future) paedophiles and abusers and corrupt individuals escape punishment, or even carry out their despicable crimes.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/mario-lundy-named-by-jersey-child-abuse.html

      The Chief Executive (Bill Ogley) said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”

      Delete
  22. Andrew Lewis says he is being stalked online.
    I wonder who that can be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are referring to his comments in the States this morning, Deputy Lewis DIDN’T say he was being stalked online you must try and be factually accurate. If indeed he does believe he is being stalked online, then I too wonder who that could be.

      Delete
  23. @10:44 "Andrew Lewis says he is being stalked online ....I wonder who that can be?"

    Hmmmm.... IF true ???? .......perhaps Jonny (the protected death threat troll) has realised that he has been doing the devil's work and has finally switched sides?

    NOOOOOO! Please NO !
    We don't want you.

    Please realise that evil men find your warped little opinions and activities useful.
    Beyond that they (and you) are barely relevant ......be they under your own name/Anonymous or your multiple avatars.

    Please get the treatment you need before you blight further generations of your family.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Question
    Is the Minister aware of the current location of the item known as "Jar/6" which was unearthed by the States of Jersey police during investigations at Haut de la Garenne in 2008 and, if so, is she able to provide a dated chronology of where it has been since its discovery, including at which laboratories?
    Answer
    The item ‘JAR 6’ was found at Haut de la Garenne on Saturday 23rd February 2008.
    Since this time it has been retained in secure storage at the States of Jersey Police Headquarters.
    It has only been moved on two occasions.
    The item was taken to the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Research Laboratory in Oxford on 6th March 2008 for testing, was securely held at the laboratory until its return to the States of Jersey Police on 4th April 2008.
    The item was later taken to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew for analysis on 11th February 2009.
    It was returned to the States of Jersey Police on 31st March 2009.

    VFC.
    Would Lenny Harper agree that JAR 6 was only moved on two occasions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately neither Lenny Harper nor anybody can prove how many times JAR/6 was moved. According to Mr. Harper there is no audit trail of the item after it left Jersey.

      Delete
  25. When it was returned to the States of Jersey Police just over a year after being found it was unrecognisable....

    It had changed shape size and colour!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is correct as this shows.

      Why Deputy Wimberley was concerned about the audit trail of JAR/6 is explained in an extract from an e-mail from SOJP Anthroplogist Julie Roberts here "On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight."

      From HERE and elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. From the same link.

      "we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails) but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

      Delete
  26. Did anybody film last night's Question Time?
    Hearing mixed reports.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The States is governed by Parliamentary Privilege so that is definitely something that cannot be challenged and where is Graham Power is all of this, and why doesn't he complain to PPC if he believes he's had a raw deal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The States is governed by Parliamentary Privilege so that is definitely something that cannot be challenged”

      Parliamentary Privilege does not mean that you can tell lies in the States. Are you content that it is possible that our elected representatives can lie in the States and not be held to account? What if it was you they were lying about? Why do you ignore the discrepancies in Andrew Lewis’ testimonies? You’re not Andrew Lewis are you?

      “Where is Graham Power is (sic) all of this, and why doesn't he complain to PPC if he believes he's had a raw deal?”

      Graham Power DID (or at least thought he did) complain to PPC but the Chairman of PPC, Constable Juliette Gallichan, didn’t share the complaint with the Committee, she kept it to herself. The complaint can be read HERE.

      He then got a reply from Juliette Gallichan (not PPC because they didn’t know about the complaint) and the reply can be read HERE.

      Delete

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