Pages

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Complaint to PPC (Part 1)





On the 12th November 2014 I published an OPEN LETTER to disgraced former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. Deputy Lewis, in 2008, (illegally?) suspended the Chief of Police during Jersey's biggest ever Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle). In that Open Letter I pointed out that Deputy Lewis had given different versions of events to what report(s) he had, or hadn't seen, and indeed the alleged content(s) of said report(s).

I wrote, in the Open Letter;


"In an in-camera STATES DEBATE (2008)  in explaining your decision to suspend the Chief Police Officer you told the Assembly;

“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 you told the States Assembly;

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

You were referring to the alleged MET Interim Report .So it is clear by these statements that you had read the MET interim Report. 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.”

Furthermore, according to the former Chief Police Officer Mr. Power your 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.)

In February 2010 you issued a STATEMENT in response to the former Chief Police Officer’s AFFIDAVIT where you wrote; 

“I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code.”

So it would appear that you have given two different accounts concerning your sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report.

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?

Both can’t be true and on the face of it you have either misled the States Chamber or potentially committed a criminal offence by misleading the Wiltshire Investigation and the Napier Review.

To address this part of your statement to the in-camera debate;

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”

You might be aware of a complaint made by the former Deputy Chief Police Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle, Mr. Lenny Harper to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (OPERATION TUMA)?

Mr. Harper complained that he, and others, were criticised in the MET Interim Report after your statement. Operation Tuma was unequivocal in this regard, and found against Mr. Harper, where it states;

"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)

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?”

Either yourself, or the Independent Police Complaints Commission, are being dishonest.

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

I’m sure you can appreciate the seriousness of these questions/contradictions as a Chief Police Officer with a 42-year career was suspended on what looks to be spurious, if not illegal grounds, and answers are needed in order to clear your own name in this debacle.

It has been reported that Mr. Power is in the process of giving a comprehensive statement to the lawyers of the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) and he will be called to give evidence at a public hearing. It is also believed that his suspension is being looked at by the COI and you clearly have questions to answer in this regard.


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?"(END)

Deputy Lewis ignored that particular e-mail (Open Letter) for as long as he could and finally responded HERE and offered NO answers to my perfectly legitimate, public interest, questions. The only official avenue left open to me was to complain to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) under the States Members Code Of Conduct.

Complaint to PPC.


Dear Chairman/Panel.

I have been forced to make a complaint against Deputy Andrew Lewis in his capacity as a States Member. I have sent a number of e-mails to the Deputy (attached) that you will see he ignored until I threatened him with a complaint to PPC and informed him I will be door-stepping him. You will also see that he refuses to communicate with me so I am unable to resolve any matters with him and have no choice other than to submit this complaint to PPC.

I believe It should be up to the Panel to decide how he has breached the Code of Conduct for States Members but I would suggest paragraph 5 (and possibly others) of the code has been breached in his ignoring of my e-mails, refusing to answer (public interest) questions and his refusal to engage with me any further.

“Maintaining the integrity of the States
5. 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.
Elected members should at all times treat other members of the States, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process.”

However this is only one aspect of my complaint and the second aspect goes right to the heart of the honesty, and integrity, of Deputy Lewis, as a States Member, and the States as a whole.

The attached e-mails should be self-explanatory where I argue that Deputy Lewis has been dishonest and misled the Island’s Parliament and the electorate concerning his sight (or not) of the Interim Metropolitan Police Report (Operation Haven 1) and indeed the alleged contents of the said Report.
I believe my complaint has been correctly framed and addressed within the spirit of the code and should be clear of what it is I am complaining about. However if the committee feels that my complaint has not been appropriately set out, or that more information is required then please let me know?

I am able, if needs be, to elaborate further on the details of my complaint and would invite an opportunity to meet with the committee in order to do so.


I look forward to your response.(END)

In part two I will publish PPC's response and set out to demonstrate that the very regime/culture that enabled paedophiles to prey on Jersey children for decades is the exact same regime/culture that exists today.

Needless to say that the day after  the Council Of Ministers published its new MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT PPC's (in)actions concerning the disgraced former Home Affairs Minister will show that it is not worth the paper it is written on.



43 comments:

  1. If PPC doesn't call for Andrew Lewis' dismissal then PPC should be disbanded. He has to be held accountable or they do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why are you surprised by this? There is no accountability within the States just as with the judicial system. It was all set up this way and for a very good reason. This being that blatant corruption, even by comparative bufoon clove puppets like Andrew Lewis cannot under any circumstances have repercussions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What says it all for me is that Deputy Lewis is a demonstrable liar from his 'I saw it' 'No I didn't see it' contrationary comments about the MET Interim 'report' yet has now been given control over the body monitoring States accounts! You really could not make it up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why don't you lay off of Lewis? All he really did was do what he thought was needed to progress his own political career. Isn't that what politics really boils down to in a place where we don't have a normal party political system? Just every man for himself surely?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Come off it. Lewis misled the States. He should have been sacked. He should have been prosecuted. he should be sacked now. And barred from satnding for election again. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I cannot believe this old news is still being dwelled upon.
    Don't you have a life to get on with?
    Lewis has got on with his and so has Power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With all due respect, this happened 7 years ago and if there was something fishy going on then I would have expected Graham Power's legal representatives to have sued the Jersey Government soon after the suspension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve published two completely different versions of events given by the disgraced former Home Affairs Minister concerning his (illegal?) suspension of the former Police Chief and you think nothing fishy is going on?

      Delete
    2. Well why doesn't Graham Power's legal representation act upon it?
      It sounds more fishy when serious claims are made on a blog without any further action afterwards and this is 7 years ago.
      Another thing, why aren't States Members saying he is a liar to back up your accusations?

      Delete
    3. Have you not read the Blog? My “accusations” are backed up with solid evidence. They don’t need to be backed up by any States Members to show Deputy Lewis as a liar.

      For more “fishiness” from Andrew Lewis you would do well to read THIS.

      Delete
    4. You will never conclude this story because there isn't one.
      The official record is not a disgraced Andrew Lewis and not an illegal suspension and that's that.
      This is your unofficial theory from selective information and Andrew Lewis will never have a right to reply because he has to abide by the constraints of employee confidentiality.

      Delete
    5. Andrew Lewis’ (illegal?) suspension of Mr. Power has been criticised by the corrupt, and politicised, Royal Court, the Napier Report, and Ian Le Marquand to name but a few. The only people who believe everything was above board appear to be Andrew Lewis, Frank Walker…………………………..And you!

      You didn’t read THIS did you?

      Delete
    6. You still don't get it!
      There has to be more to this story or your accusations would be acted upon!

      Delete
    7. There IS much more to this story………………Wait for part two.

      Delete
    8. Get some ACTION done with it!
      Too many stories like this appear on blogs and only stay on blogs.

      Delete
    9. Jon, do us a favour and stop insulting our intelligence.

      One day Lewis said he had read the interim met report. The next thing he is saying he hadn't read it.

      Can you for one moment stop being such a fool wasting everybodies time and acknowledge that one of those statements was wrong, and therefore he was lying?

      Delete
  8. "criticised by the corrupt, and politicised, Royal Court, the Napier Report, and Ian Le Marquand to name but a few"
    That's handy when you say so many are corrupt in this suspension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did I say, “So many are corrupt in this suspension?”

      Delete
    2. Royal Court, the Napier Report, and Ian Le Marquand to name but a few"

      Well there's 3 you've named.

      Delete
  9. One of Mr. Power's quotes deserves baring in mind;

    "And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny."

    From HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Face it.
    Graham Power hasn't lifted a finger since he left Jersey so his suspension has to be legit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not reading the links I’m providing you with are you? Notwithstanding the evidenced contradictions of Andrew Lewis published on this posting (and links provided). It is blatantly clear to any fair-minded person that the (illegal?) suspension of Mr. Power is anything but legit!

      To quote Mr. Power.

      “I am of course the same person who has been subject to a suspension and disciplinary investigation lasting 21 months and costing Jersey taxpayers, of which I am one, an admitted sum of well over one million pounds, and a suspected real sum of considerably more. All proceedings are now abandoned and there will be no charges and no hearing. By anyone’s fair reckoning that is an acquittal. It can be nothing else. All proceedings are abandoned. I am convicted of nothing and therefore innocent of everything. Everyone understands that. Everyone that is apart from the Minister for Home Affairs”


      Start reading the LINKS.

      Delete
  11. This is pointless until we get someone in power who believes in honesty and accountability. If you don't believe me then just consider two revelations in today's JEP report on the latest paedophile outrage.

    First we discover that Bartlett had paedo history like jumping out of bushes in front of kids whilst apparently fiddling with himself. Not just one instance either. Yet what did Jersey do? Left it in the capable Jersey Way hands of an honorary police parish hall inquiry each time! Fcuk me!

    Then if one read to the conclusion of the JEP article we discover that in best Jersey Way fashion once again who was helping judge this paedophile but an apparently retired Jurat with a proven history himself of ignoring evidence of child abuse when circumstance demanded it i.e. within the Jervis-Dykes case.

    Spot on chaps, that good ole Old Victorian chum of Mister Jervis-Dykes himself Jurat John Le Breton! Talk about taking the piss? Just hope the Care Inquiry team are taking note. For regardless of the posturing and this sentence nothing, absolutely nothing has changed in Jersey at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the now HM La Moye inmate Bartlett should have had a nice quiet word with Jurat Le Breton? A sort of 'Ah come on John! You refused to look at or consider evidence against your mate Andy Jervis Dykes when he was plying young boys with drink so he could abuse them so why can't you look the other way for me?' Or perhaps Bartlett didn't go to the right school?

      Delete
    2. What about the sicko Piers Baker. "Perks of the Job".
      Gets moved away from Victoria College for a cushy number down the Harbours.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous12 February 2015 at 11:35
    You still don't get it!
    There has to be more to this story or your accusations would be acted upon!

    That's naive! Do you really believe that every and any accusations are acted upon amidst a corrupt bunch of chancers looking out for each other?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just face facts. Jersey be it government or judiciary is totally in the hands of spivs. In the bigger scheme of things Lewis is just a small time player doing what the big boys told him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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
  15. What does this say about sentencing here in Jersey? In the Jervis-Dykes case mentioned above by a reader a teacher who groomed boys and totally manipulated his position as a teacher so he could abuse them once drunk got, if memory recalls, 4 years. Was out in just over 2 I think? A Vic College teacher of course. This bloke was certainly as depraved as Bartlett. Then we have the wholly off the scale sentence given in the James Donnelly case. He gets 15 years for a wholly wrong long-term sexual relationship with an under age girl where the only constructive thing you can say is at least there was no violent rape like this case today. Bartlett's story gets huge coverage for the apparent life sentence yet we all know that the 'minimum' ten years mentioned will be what he gets. The point being you may ask? Donnelly will serve in real terms the longest sentence for sure. Jervis-Dykes whose abuse was surely every bit as grim and wicked as Bartlett got the lightest sentence of all. Don't get me wrong every one of them should get a lengthy sentence but the fact is these sentences depend entirely on who the pervert is and/or who there victim is. If you get my meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When is Part II going up?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reference cyber bullying which the likes of Sam Mezec has been experiencing in the grand tradition of those who speak out and happen to be leftists. Seems that on Twitter the troll has a new avatar, 'Matthew Holmes'. All the same words all the same obsessions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think Sam Mezec was on Twitter.
      I recall a BBC news flash that he had closed his account last year?

      Delete
  18. Historically there was a disbelief that normal looking individuals would cruelly abuse children.
    Furthermore, total incredulity would be the reaction to suggestions that some of these people were in positions of authority and that the the authorities would protect them and their crimes and use the law and police to attack and intimidate the victims and their champions.

    Amid the unravelling child abuse networks now slowly being revealed across the UK as well as in Jersey, readers may be perplexed by the moral bankruptcy and apparent stupidity of persistent strands of comments on these blogs:

    Anonymous11 February 2015 at 20:56
    "Why don't you lay off of Lewis? All he really did was do what he thought was needed to progress his own political career. Isn't that what politics really boils down to in a place where we don't have a normal party political system? Just every man for himself surely?"

    &
    Anonymous12 February 2015 at 10:44
    "....this happened 7 years ago and if there was something fishy going on then I would have expected Graham Power's legal representatives to have sued the Jersey Government soon after the suspension."

    ........ "You still don't get it! There has to be more to this story or your accusations would be acted upon!"
    etc. etc. etc.

    * cringe, yawn, cringe *

    This is the sort of commentor long welcomed and protected on establishment opinion management sites by the moderators & censors at the JEP etc.
    But new readers of the REAL ISLAND NEWS SITES such as this may be unfamiliar with the true nature or mindset of the source of these smokescreen and diversionary comments.
    A good place to start is

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

    Please excuse the coarse style of blogger-Evans, and be prepared to sort the 'wheat from the chaff'
    For his faults, Ian certainly published some nuggets of pure gold, and this was one! -Including a frame and play button for the DEATH THREAT audio.

    Better informed readers will know that several £100k of our money has been spent by the authorities to ensure that this individual and his Nazi/Paedo ilk continue to be able to intimidate others attempting to go about their business or exercise their supposed right to free speech.

    Beyond belief? .... Yes, but totally resonant of the opening paragraph of this comment.
    -And a timely reminder of the official and unofficial pressures brought to bear on good people like Niel who make a massive personal investment to protect the future of this island and it's children.

    VFC's blog and several others run by "Team Voice" and several former and current elected representatives are the local equivalent of the UK's game changing independent media site "Exarno News":

    www.exaronews.com/content/child-sex-abuse-fernbridge-and-fairbank-exaro-story-thread

    It is only down to the tenacity of these independent news sights that the Jersey or the UK CoI's are actually taking place. In both places the authorities twist and squirm to make it just another layer of unfit-for-purpose cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Personal hate attacks against anybody for having views of their own is an abuse of freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People who write hate under a plethora of fake avatars should not be confused with normal people expressing conflicting personal views. They are sad and rather pitiful trolls. They are not powerful as one prime nutjob regularly talks about himself as being. They need certifying.

      Delete
    2. Nobody on the JEP website is a troll and they ALL have pseudonym log-ins.
      To put it simply, you come across as somebody who is unable to cope with views that differ from your own and that's an attack on freedom of speech.

      Delete
  20. VFC, it's worth your national and international readers noting that the Ministerial Code of Conduct you link to in this posting is simply not compatible with actual democracy.

    In fact, someone mentioned to me that EVEN the Jersey Evening Post had said so? How bad does it have to be?

    It speaks volumes of just how moribund - dead-in-the-water, really - real, functioning democracy is in Jersey that the island's legislature can countenance such self-emasculation and the usurpation of the power of voters.

    This current States assembly is simply the worst in living memory.

    Not only does this legislature not hold the executive to account - it actually doesn't want the power to do so.

    This is not a functioning parliament or a functioning democracy. It is a Potemkin village.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is anyone else having a problem getting the inquiry website to fully load?

    ReplyDelete
  22. When is part 2 being published?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All going well it should be published tomorrow.

      Delete
  23. Happy Birthday VFC. And thank you for all your insightful blog posts over the years. I always come to this and Rico's site for real journalism. Thank you for the exceptional work you do.

    ReplyDelete