Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Andrew Lewis Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts (part 2)

Part two of "the transcripts Blogs" is a continuation of former Home Affairs Minister, and current Deputy, Andrew Lewis' evidence to the Inquiry.

Deputy Lewis is still (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the Child Abuse Panel, and the public, that he didn't mislead the parliament when he said "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police" and similar statements.

It appears to be Deputy Lewis' position, by saying he had read a damming report from the MET Police, that Members of the parliament would know he was talking about a letter (that he had never mentioned) from David Warcup as his reason for (possibly illegally) suspending Jersey's Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

This stuff is beyond parody.

Transcript from Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry: 

I would like to turn now please to the States debate on 10 December 2008. Could you look please first at paragraph 186 of your statement {WS000709/59}, which is on the screen at the moment. You set out there your explanation for what is said in the transcript and we will come to it:

"If I had intended to mislead the States Assembly that I had seen the actual Metropolitan Police report, surely that is what I would have said throughout the debate. The quote that Graham Power picks out ..."

That is in his witness statement to this Inquiry:

" ... is from page 10 of the transcript and is clearly an accidental error I made when under a barrage of inappropriate questioning from States members. At all other times in the debate, I refer to a 'preliminary report', being the letter from David Warcup to Bill Ogley briefly summarising the findings of the Metropolitan Police review. There is no lack of precision in that." Have you had an opportunity recently to read through the whole of the transcript of 10 December 2008?

Yes, I have read through it with great interest, because it has been the source of much quite ridiculous speculation, in my view anyway.

And are you content now that you just made an accidental error on one page and absolutely everywhere else you were referring to David Warcup's letter?


Yes. I mean I can perhaps go further than that because I believe my political colleagues (inaudible) confused either and the Hansard minutes of the debate that occurred on 26 June 2012 during which --

Sorry, can I stop you there because your answer was inaudible. You say "I believe my political colleagues", is it were or were not confused?

Were not confused.

Thank you.

I'm talking about members of the States Assembly.

I would like please to go first to the debate of 10 December 2008. Could we have a look at the transcript please at AL20, page 412 {WD009179/412}.So that's the cover page of the in camera proceedings of 2 December. Could we go on please to paragraph 1.3 {WD009179/413}. You are the Deputy of St John, aren't you? 

I was then.

You were then, yes. And in answer to paragraph 1.3 you say:

"Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation. So as far as I am concerned that is the preliminary investigation. I acted on the information that was contained in that and in order to pursue
a disciplinary investigation it was necessary to suspend the police officer."
Anybody reading that would assume surely that the preliminary report was that of the Metropolitan Police?

No, I don't believe so. In fact I'll give you a quote from later on --

We're going to go right through it, so we can come to it.

Well, I've got evidence here that members stated publicly in Hansard that was not their understanding, not their belief and they were not misled and they totally accepted that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter.

Let's have a look at this. Coming to this as a complete neutral and leaving aside entirely what was said in later years by people who supported your decision, just look at that:
" ... an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with
a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation."
As an ordinary reader wouldn't you assume that that was a preliminary report from the Metropolitan Police?

But ma'am, you're not an ordinary reader. I was talking to the States Assembly and on the floor of an assembly, a parliament, you don't express yourself in precise terms like perhaps a lawyer would, that's why you have parliamentary privilege.

What, so that you're exempt from the consequences of misleading the States?

No, if you carry on through those minutes and other minutes it is very clear what I was talking about and I say even when it came to the vote later on when Mr Higgins was trying to get transcripts released, the vast majority of the House also agreed and some of them weren't even there that day, so I don't see how you can possibly suggest that I was attempting to mislead the House.

If you were trying to tell the House that what you had seen was a report from the DCO in which he had quoted from the Metropolitan Police report, why not say that?

I could have said that, yes.

My question was why not?

Because I was under a barrage of questions and I didn't have a script in front of me saying "You must say David Warcup wrote the letter". I was referring from information received from Mr Warcup concerning
the Metropolitan review and that is quite clear, made that perfectly clear to others, Napier, for example, and other members, past and present, are fully of that belief having stated that publicly in Hansard minutes in subsequent debates on this issue.

Could we have a look please at paragraph 1.16 {WD009179/418}. It is your answer:

"When I took over as having ministerial oversight of the investigation in question, I began to ask a number of questions and it would seem right and proper to appoint another force to investigate such matters which the Chief of Police agreed to. The result of that is some fairly damning evidence about the command, control and supervision of that investigation."

Stopping there, it is quite clear, isn't it, that you're saying there that there has been some damning evidence that has come from the other force that's  investigated? 


"So, yes, the process was adopted and the outcome was a report that was presented to me that gave me absolutely no choice other than to suspend the Chief Officer of Police in order to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct in terms of management, supervision and control of quite considerable sums of money and quite considerable resource."
So again there's a reference to an outside force, there's a reference to evidence and there's a reference to a report and all three appear to be linked. 

And all three were in David Warcup's letter to me.

Again why not say, "I haven't seen the report, but the salient points, as I understand it, have been summarised to me by David Warcup"?

I see no reason to have done so. People have made much of this since because they seem to think it's so material in the defence of Graham Power. I'm afraid Graham Power's actions are indefensible. He has only ever criticised the process that we adopted to suspend him, he has never defended the reasons why we suspended him.

I'm asking you about your actions.

This is yet another attempt to try and rubbish the process of suspension. There is nothing to be learned from this whatsoever. I reported to the States what
I had done, why I had done it. I omitted to use the words "letter from David Warcup", that is all.

If we look at paragraph 1.17 please {WD009179/418}, this is Senator Syvret speaking:

"The Minister has made reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police."

So clearly there Senator Syvret believes that you're talking about the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police, doesn't he?

I think that's what Mr Syvret wants to believe. That's what he continues to believe.

That's what he says.

Mr Syvret said lots of things, ma'am, none of which I believe are terribly credible.

Mr Syvret is responding to the information that you have just given to the States, isn't he?

On this occasion he is.

Yes, so his understanding there is:

"The Minister has made reference with great store on the preliminary or interim review by the Metropolitan Police."

Correct. Which was contained in a letter from David Warcup.

Why didn't you at that point take the opportunity, having heard the Senator's comment, to say "I don't want there to be any misunderstanding, I have not seen that report"?

If I thought eight years later people would still be forensically going through my words on the floor of the Assembly, I quite probably would. At the time I saw no significance in it at all. I had plenty of information from Mr Warcup, who had seen the Met report, he had reported that to me, he had given me indications as to what was in that report and that's what I was talking about: the letter from Mr Warcup, nothing else.

Could we look over the page please at your reply {WD009179/419}:

"The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a chief officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. 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 that the actions that I took were justified and we will await the outcome of the investigation as to whether it was."

So the "main report" was going to be the Metropolitan Police's full report, wasn't it?

Your words. Yes, I assume so, yes. 

Well, you said it.


"Lord knows what the main report will reveal", you're referring there to the Metropolitan Police's main report, weren't you?

That's right.

You weren't expecting another report from David Warcup?


So "If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal", any listener is going to assume that the preliminary report and the main report are to come from the same source, wouldn't they?

 This was one point in the debate that I could have taken the opportunity to clarify it. I didn't. I have no particular regret about that. The members at the time I think were perfectly clear what I was talking about and many months later even a member of the Assembly that wasn't there that day said that it was very clear that I was referring to -- when mentioning the words "preliminary report" in this element here, that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter, "so he was not intent, I do not believe, on deceiving the Assembly at all", that is a quote from Senator Le Gresley, a much respected Senator, who wasn't even there that day, so I don't see how anybody could possibly suggest or read into this that I was trying to mislead anybody. 

Well, as you said, the Senator wasn't there.

I can give you quotes, ma'am, from people that were there: the Constable of St Mary, the Deputy of St Ouen said exactly the same thing and they were there.

Senator Syvret we can see, and you have agreed, was under the impression that you were talking about a report from the Metropolitan Police, yes?

If that's what he wanted to presume, ma'am, that's a matter for Mr Syvret.

No, that's what you agreed. You looked at the transcript, you said he was responding to the information you had given and he was under the impression that you were talking about a Metropolitan Police report.

I was, ma'am, because there was information about the Metropolitan Police report in the letter from David Warcup, which was more than a letter, ma'am, it was many pages long. You have seen it.

Well, it wasn't a preliminary report, was it?

It was from Mr Warcup, yes.

Well, were you expecting him to --

He wasn't giving me a full report because it, as you know, wasn't complete at that stage.

When were you expecting him to give you his full report then?

I presume he would be giving that when it was completed, which was when the new minister took over.

So you thought that Mr Warcup's report to you, his letter to you, was a preliminary report?


I think moments ago you said you didn't think it was.

No, his preliminary report.

Could we have a look please at paragraph 1.18 {WD009179/419}. This is Senator Syvret's question:

"Will the report be published when it is completed?" And your answer is:
"No it will not, because the report of the Metropolitan Police contains Crown evidence that will be used in the prosecutions that are currently underway and potential prosecutions that may come from this investigation."

Which report of the Metropolitan Police were you talking about there?

Well, the police report that I was aware had been done.

So that's the interim one?

I think --

Or the preliminary one, which ever you prefer.

I think a lot -- the preliminary report was a report from David Warcup. The interim report my understanding was a report from the Metropolitan Police that wasn't complete at that stage, hence the word "interim", and as it states there, I could never have seen this report because of one of the reasons that's mentioned in that paragraph.

So why not tell Senator Syvret "I have not seen that report either, I have seen only a letter from the DCO"?

I would have hoped that Mr Syvret and others would have known enough about these types of things that if I say it contains Crown evidence then I wouldn't see the report because I'm not a crown prosecutor.

So they are supposed to guess from that that you haven't --

I don't think they need to guess. These are intelligent people. They know that you don't look at this type of information if you're a politician. You don't mix policing with prosecutions. Sorry, you don't mix politics with prosecutions.

So you think it was clear from what you were telling the States that you had not seen the Metropolitan Police interim report?

Not only do I believe it's true, most of the members believe that and that is in Hansard. I have given you that in my evidence. You have had it released to you because of the consistent efforts of Deputy Higgins who, for reasons unbeknown to me, has attempted to expose me as some kind of person that I'm certainly not. I have a large degree of integrity here. I am doing the best I can in a difficult situation to inform the Assembly of the happenings that are occurring, why we're taking this action and it's in the best interests of the public of Jersey, the abuse inquiry itself, that it maintains its integrity and continues unhindered, and also the public purse. That is my intention on that day with that statement. Why others choose to continue with their attempts to discredit me on this note can only be because they wish to support Graham Power. 

Could we look please at paragraph 1.22 {WD009179/420}. This is at the bottom of the page, the question from the Constable of St Helier:
"The Minister said that part of his action has been motivated by concern for Mr Power. Does he, therefore, think it is satisfactory that Mr Power's daughter learned of his suspension on the public radio and does this not indicate that the process that has been followed was an accelerated one? My second question, and it is in an effort to be helpful and it is a question I have already asked the Minister and the Chief Minister, is will he not go away with the Code and with his legal advisors, and with an HR
(human resources) professional ... and check that he has fully complied with the Code? If he has not, not only is he putting Mr Power and his family through unnecessary grief, but he will put the Island through an extraordinary amount of embarrassment and reputational damage. I really do think it would be more courageous to admit that we've got the process wrong. It often happens in HR; goodness knows I have done it myself. The process has to be correct or we will be in trouble and I would urge the Minister to go away and at least agree to look again at the decision-making process."

And your answer -- you deal with the media issue and then halfway down: 
"Secondly, as far as the process is concerned,
I have taken advice. I have taken advice from other HR professionals within the States of Jersey's HR Department. I am perfectly satisfied that the Code has been followed appropriately. I have taken advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, they feel that such action is wholly appropriate in the circumstances. I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place."

Now, you were stating clearly there, weren't you, that you had seen the Met's report? 

I have read a report from David Warcup and that is what I should have put in there and I have told you this -- I don't know how many times I need to say it again: I'm on the floor of the Assembly, I'm under a barrage of questions from members and yes, in a perfect world I could have said at that point that I'm referring to a letter from David Warcup. Far too much has been made of this, ma'am. There is very good reason for the suspension. It is contained in the letter of David Warcup. It has been completely corroborated with 19 points damning about Mr Power's performance in the Wiltshire report subsequently.(END)

By reading this transcript the reader gets the impression that Deputy Lewis had no understanding of the forum he was in. This is a Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry who is searching for the truth by using documented evidence. To make recommendations to prevent such atrocities occurring in the future. To expose weaknesses and failings in the system. It appears that Deputy Lewis thinks he is addressing the parliament, can say what he likes, despite the evidence against him, and move on. He looks to have no idea of the damage he has done (is doing) to his own, and Jersey's reputation, by continuing this absurd storyline against the mountain of evidence discrediting it. He is demonstrating that nothing has changed on this island and believes if people (he) denies something (under oath) then that is an end to it. The very traits that allowed the Child Abuse to thrive for decades.

PPC is demonstrating the same Trait(s).

As mentioned in Part one of this series; Deputy Lewis should now  seriously be considering his exit from politics and lay low before the Committee of Inquiry publishes its report. It is inconceivable to believe that the Inquiry (or anybody else) believed a word he said and this has to make part of the Inquiry's final report.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

The original transcript of this day (138) can be viewed HERE.


  1. This man should be before a court. Or possibly be certified? I am not sure which because I haven't seen the report that I said I did. Sorry.

  2. "Well, I've got evidence here that members stated publicly in Hansard that was not their understanding, not their belief and they were not misled and they totally accepted that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter."

    Can somebody point out where any significant number of States members specifically pointed out that their understanding on the day was that Deputy Lewis was referring to Warcup's letter throughout in the "in camera" debate and not to the "Interim Report" from the Met?

    And a majority subsequently voting on a subsequent occasion (again "in camera") against releasing the transcript of the original 2008 debate is not what I have in mind. There were many reasons, including precedent, which entered into consideration there.

    1. I said:
      voting on a subsequent occasion (again "in camera")

      I should have said:
      "voting on a subsequent occasion (after an "in camera" debate)" as the vote itself at the end of the 2012 in camera debate was in public.

  3. Andrew Lewis' barefaced effrontery makes my blood boil. He describes legitimate questioning by other politicians as "a barrage of inappropriate questioning from States members". He disgusts me.

    1. Well said. Disgusting is the word.

  4. David's misleading letter30 March 2016 at 20:12

    Can you imagine the carnage of this numpty under States questioning if Mr Pitbull was still in the Assembly? Now that would be a States Sitting I WOULD pay to see!

    1. I still say this lowlife will get re-elected. Living in the district I hear he is teaming up with another Establishment party poodle Christian May. Please don't vote for either if you want positive change

  5. Contradiction bingo anyone?

  6. Unbelievable!!!!

    Thank god he isn't in the states and chair of P.A.C.. Oh sh*t……...

  7. Andrew Lewis tries to rely on the subsequent in camera debate on 26 June 2012, when he says "Well, I've got evidence here that members stated publicly in Hansard that was not their understanding, not their belief and they were not misled and they totally accepted that I was referring to Mr Warcup's letter."

    When I read the 26 July 2012 in camera debate, which itself has only been released because of Deputy Higgins' evidence to the care inquiry, I was struck by a couple of points:

    1) Many of the members voting in 2012 were "newbies". Some even describe themselves as such.

    2) It is very clear that because of the nature of the debate (an in camera debate, about a previous in camera debate) that several of the very few members who do speak simply say that being presented with all this information - with no notice, because it's in camera - makes it very hard for them to take everything in, in the short time available, from a standing start. They were effectively given a very complex document in 2012 and expected to immediately assimilate all of the twists, turns, and complexities, then decide whether to release the transcript or not. I suspect many felt confused. A few certainly said they were.

    3) Deputy James Reed of St Ouen is the first to speak after Deputy Higgins makes the proposition, and immediately injects the Warcup letter into proceedings

    4) Later in the debate, Deputy Montfort Tadier makes this statement "The last point I want to make which may be slightly uncomfortable is the conflict of interest. I would almost be willing to bet that those Members who vote against this will include the Members who have received some kind of assistance with their election campaigns from the former Deputy of St. John. We know there is no great secret that Andrew Lewis, after he left the Chamber, was going around offering assistance to States Members. We also know that in our Code of Conduct we are required to be as open and transparent with the public and accountable as possible. So I would just invite perhaps those Members who have been approached and received assistance, financial or otherwise, from Andrew Lewis who I believe works in P.R. in his current job to say that because it may be material to the debate."

    5) Deputy James Reed of St Ouen immediately replies with "This is a point of order. All States Members have had to declare what support they have had throughout the election period and it is public knowledge."

    That all struck me as interesting when I read the 26 June 2012 transcript. Maybe other readers find it equally interesting? You can read it

    1. @00:02

      Thank you for expanding that point on the 2012 debate. As I implied earlier, it is outrageous for Lewis to claim the voting outcome as an endorsement of his view that those who voted against releasing the transcript of the 2008 in camera debate were in fact saying that members in the earlier debate knew that his references to a "report" were to the Warcup letter. The reasons for voting against were varied and this is perfectly clear from the debate.

      One of the few amusing moments in the 2012 debate sees Philip Bailhache claiming to be a newbie and by implication joining those newbies who were quite reasonably unhappy voting for release on the basis of complex documentation that they hadn't the time to digest.

      While what the new Senator says is technically correct, on an ultra-strict interpretation of the facts, he conveniently omits to mention that he himself chaired the 2008 debate and had unsuccessfully tried to shut Lewis up in the course of it.

      There would surely be material in all of this for a Christmas panto were the matter not so serious and the conduct of some of the participants so plain downright immoral.

    2. Indeed Polo, this is what Philip Bailhache had to say:

      "Some Members have said that the transcripts clarify matters and therefore they should be put into the public domain. I must say that as a new Member I do not share that view at all. If you are a new Member you need a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon in order to understand what is going on. I suspect that if you are an ordinary member of the public you will need even more than that. If it is important to dredge up this old and hoary controversy then it seems to me that a case for that should be made openly and frankly. I am sure that this was not the intention of Deputy Higgins but I am afraid that the release of these transcripts of the in camera debate would lead only to muckraking to the advantage of no one. I am going to vote against the proposition."

      No mention that he chaired the original 2008 debate as the then Bailiff. Whilst technically a newly elected member in 2012, it is sophistry of the highest order to suggest that he needs "a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon" when HE CHAIRED THE ORIGINAL DEBATE AND MADE CONTRIBUTIONS TO IT.

      Genuinely new members (as opposed to those who had been Deputy of Grouville in the 1970s, and then ex-officio President of the States for many years - see when reading the 2008 transcript for the first time, would simply have read 'The Bailiff' against Philip Bailhache's 2008 interventions. For example, when Philip Bailhache told Andrew Lewis "Minister, do not go down this road, please."

      It's pretty outrageous that he tries to cast himself as a confused new member.

    3. I have written a blog covering this subject (June 2012 debate) and hope to publish after the weekend.

  8. Let us not overlook another bare-faced lie buried in the bigger lies.

    Under the terms of the formal disciplinary code covering Mr Power's suspension, the employer was required to prepare an investigatory report after any concerns had been raised. In other words, the correct sequence of events should have been that concerns were raised about Mr Power's performance, and the employer then commissioned an internal report specifically investigating these concerns. Only then, and on the basis of this internal report, should any suspension have taken place.

    Instead, Lewis suspended Graham Power and pretended that the interim Met Report (i.e. Dave's letter) was the report described in the disciplinary code.

    Lewis has described himself as having considerable experience in employment matters, in which case he knows damn well that it was utterly dishonest to claim that the interim Met Report (aka Warcup's letter) - which Lewis has categorically stated was the sole basis of his concerns about Graham Power's performance - could be considered as the report required under the disciplinary process.

    Just another instance in a litany of this man's lies and dishonesty. A disgrace to this island.

    1. Is there yet another lie behind all those other lies?

      After a complaint by Deputy Police Chief Harper, it turned out that Operation Tuma did not make ANY damning criticisms of him

      So was it also a lie that the "Metropolitan Police interim report" contained any damning criticisms of Police Chief Power?

    2. Good points. As we all now know, the sole intent of the Met Report, which I believe was actually commissioned by Power as SOP, was to provide constructive criticism. It wasn't produced to give everyone a pat on the head and say 'well done', it was produced to say 'this is what we think you got wrong and could have been done better'. In other words, a document that could be used to highlight potential weaknesses and improve performance.

      We also all know that it was an interim report - initial findings subject to amendment upon clarification and input from senior officers. It's no wonder the Met were incandescent when they found out that their work had been abused in the most egregious way to remove the chief of police.

      There is absolutely no doubt that the entire event was an unlawful conspiracy to oust Graham Power, and it's absolutely obvious that the Met Report was the wholly fabricated smoking gun upon which the choreographed performance hinged. Lewis's studied avoidance of making any reference to fact that he was relying on a letter Warcup was a key part of the conspiracy.

    3. It might be timely to remind new readers that The Met had said that under no circumstances would they allow their review report to be used for disciplinary purposes. So Andrew Lewis was using a letter about a report which the authors had said he could not use.

      Further; The Met have since said that their review does not criticise operation rectangle or and person involved in operation rectangle.

      Quote from Operation Tuma.

      "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."

      More can be read HERE.

  9. Lets not forget and remind new readers that I have published the Met Interim Report on my blog. It took about 15secs to redact.

    I published the Warcup Letter, The Met Interim Report and most importantly of all the 2008 In Camera debate.

    Remember also that we are members of the public who decided to blog, investigate, take the risks and become the new wave of investigative journalists that the island doesn't have.

    Publishing the in camera debate has given me the most satisfaction. Exposing these cretins has been a pleasure because lets not forget what this is all about.

    1. Rico

      You beat me to it. I was about to remind people that publication of the in camera debate in particular really lit the fuse for what we have today.

      Publication of the other reports enabled people to make up their own minds on what was going on.

      You should also mention that your having all this material to publish is an indication of the trust in which your blog is held by a wide range of people in positions of responsibility who are presumably not happy with the way things were going.

      It would clearly have been useless for them to have leaked stuff to the mainstream media in Jersey, where BBC already had been leaked Graham Power's defence and chose to ignore it completely.

    2. Glad to see Rico reiterating the fact that it is, and has been thoughout all of this, the bloggers like him who have been the investigative journalists taking the risks, the flak and abuse that the MSM should have. The bloggers and the tiny number of politicians who supported them deserve all the credit in the world. Let us knock this ridiculous attempt to rehabilitate the JEP and it's craven leadership on the head now. Part of the problem. Never part of the solution.

    3. The fact that these cretins didn't expect anyone to come looking was what made it so easy. They didn't try to hide anything that well. Look at Lewis. Comical and tragic all rolled into one.

    4. As someone suggested at the beginning of the thread you have to wonder if Lewis is all there?

    5. I sat through the two days of the most cringeworthy evidence of AL, and it remains as fresh in my mind today as it did then. Clearly he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights courtesy the very able Counsel Catherine McGahey. It is so easy to spot someone who has been caught out as they go straight on the defensive as is evidenced by his answers. Even those who were attending as interested members of the public were called 'amazingly strange people' by AL.

      Embarassing, and not good for the public image of Jersey or himself. Indeed during his outpouring at the end when people walked out, I felt for his wife who attended and was visibly upset.

      I would also wonder if the above comment is a credible suggestion.

  10. Andrew Lewis's LinkedIn profile makes interesting reading. Here is the summary:

    Andrew established the Image Group in Jersey in 1991 which today is the largest integrated marketing communications and on-line agency in the Channel Islands with offices in Jersey Guernsey, Gibraltar and associate office in the Isle Of Man.

    Andrew also has a good insight into Jerseys political system having been elected a member of the islands parliament (States of Jersey) between 2005 and 2008. holding the post of both Assistant Minister and later Minister of the Home Affairs Dept. During his political career he was also a member of the States Legislation advisory Panel, Chairman of the Firearms users liaison Group, and Trustee of the Greenwood Trust. Andrew has recently made returned to politics winning a seat in Jersey general election in October 2014

    A past chairman of the local branch of the Institute of Directors and currently an active member of the IoD in the Channel Islands. Also current chairman of the St John Youth and Community Trust.

    Specialties: Political lobbying, marketing consultancy to the Construction and Tourism industries and the offshore Finance sector."

    This is a man who has been involved in marketing and communications for more than 2 decades, yet repeatedly excused his misrepresentation of the Warcup Letter - once he finally admitted that it was an error - as being due to the pressure of questioning.

    Another measure of the man's self-proclaimed integrity is that, as a sitting States Member, he is still hawking himself as a political lobbyist.

    1. Surely you missed that line that says 'Basically Andrew is full of ***' Or did I dream that bit of integrity?

  11. Not sure I would agree McGahey is or was very capable. I sat through AL and several others including TP. In the latter McGahey was absolutely appalling. Asking myself why in comparison to the much more effective questioning of AL I could only conclude that in the case of TPs non-quedtioning McGahey was just doing what she was told. Next to nothing. To me this shows everything revolves around not exposing the organ grinders - the Crown Officers and Law Office. Exposing one of the monkeys is fine.

    1. "Next to nothing. To me this shows everything revolves around not exposing the organ grinders - the Crown Officers and Law Office. Exposing one of the monkeys is fine."

      That's right.

      That's exactly what we're witnessing. Which drives us to question the competency of the whole exercise in the most basic of ways. When the Jersey establishment sat down with the solicitors and plotted out how they were - as the de facto clients - going to instruct the solicitors, and how they in turn were going to instruct the QCs and the Chair & Panel, they were still living back in the 20th century and labouring under the delusion the public are idiots and that citizen media didn't exist.

      Stuart Syvret

    2. I have to agree with Stuart and Anonymous @21.13.

      What was so damning and dangerous in former Deputy Pitman's evidence was all the stuff he spelt out about our beloved Bailiff's judiciary.

      I don't need to list it all again because people have referred to it again and again. But it is obvious that this was why his statement disappeared several times with zero explanation. And why the questions were only about the frigging education department.

      The panel had obviously been told by the LOD there are certain areas you just don't go. Money well spent. Not.

  12. Lewis still sitting in the States. Still allowed to chair a committee, PAC, where absolute integrity should be a prerequisite for standing. All shows what a total Potemkin village we live in. Shame it cost us £26 million for the fact to be confirmed.

  13. It is two years to the next election. Not a long time at all. But what can we realistically hope to change? IMHO not a lot. The quality candidates to oust a States filled with at least 45 buffoons just aren't there in sufficient number. So will any of you bloggers be willing to have a go?

  14. Bit quiet today? Did anyone note Gorst sucking up about keeping the 'unconflicted' Bailiff? Easy to see why it all runs on and on. As above no one must touch the Crown Officers.

    1. Could I ask where and when this fascinating declaration by the City of London Corporation's Ian Gorst was said? And could we have a reference please? In fact, could the relevant article be quoted?

      As a general point, and I think this is important for VFC and those who comment here to note if they wish to be effective in reaching out to and informing what I think is a large global audience of those with a specialist interest in the many legal and constitutional issues which continue to burgeon out of the Jersey situation? You must start to be more focused on including facts in the comments here, as opposed to justified, but ultimately empty rhetorical observations.

      It's certainly noticeable that there's no sensible and fact-based debate below-the-line to be found on any of Jersey's Establishment media. The Jersey non-establishment blogs represent a new source of facts, evidence and comparatively high-quality public debate, one which the historians of the future will turn to as a primary source, to compare and contrast with the "official" media of the island.

      Being one of your global readers, as a 'critical friend' I need to say there's been a down-turn in the substance and quality of comments here, under the last posting especially. I hope that isn't going to be the case here or under future postings.

      It's a good thing that a diversity of opinions get published here. But, dare I say it, the comments under your last posting began to move towards similar territory as the type of comments which appear below-the-line on Jersey's establishment media; essentially empty exchanges between about 2 or 3 multi-avatar individuals, of about as much interest to curious, thinking society in general as the sight of a couple of bald drunkards fighting over a comb in a park.

      Whilst I don't place the comment at 18:35 in that category, it does represent a kind of empty "toy-town" observation, which can, surely, only be addressed by its author to other inhabitants of toy-town, such as readers of the Jersey Evening Post?

      Serious and curious readers of this blog don't follow your establishment's media. To those people, a comment such as that at 18:35 which draws our attention to a singularly important matter, your conflicted sock-puppet of a Chief-Minister endorsing what is obviously to anyone who understands law, a fundamental unlawful structure of a "Bailiwick", but does so without reference to where the story can be found, let alone a link by which we might read it, just doesn't help us I'm afraid.

      Can I urge VFC and those who comment here to please, please remember that the real world doesn't follow the toy-town media of Jersey. So when we read a comment such as "Did anyone note Gorst sucking up about keeping the 'unconflicted' Bailiff?" the obvious answer to that question from serious and interested observers is "no".

      I get the worrying impression that comments on this site have started to get sucked into the "thinking" that they're addressing the same audience, and can therefore be of a similar content and style, to the type of empty and pointless belligerence to be found in below-the-line exchanges on your island's msm.

      I have a genuine (and specialist) public interest in following the extraordinary lawless events in Jersey of the last decade, events which seemingly become more lawless by the week. And I sometimes take time to contribute to the debate here (as I've done now) but I'll be damned if I'm going spend time trawling through the rubbish of your establishment's "state-media" to try and divine what commenters here are referring to.

      An Interested Reader, London.

    2. "unconflicted Bailiff"

      April Fool?

    3. @01:30
      The "unconflicted Bailiff"......April Fool?
      was prior to the publication of your comment and was not directed at you.

      The information you seek 01:30 is a little thin at present. You will find a write up at:

      and a very brief JEPaedo report at:

  15. A photo of that worthy politician Andrew Lewis on the front page of the JEP ( dead tree version) today, supporting a living wage for the hard working citizens of Jersey.
    Do not be fooled this is a continuing part of a 'restore and reinvent ' the Andrew Lewis path to greatness . It is being planned to culminate in a Chief Minister bid in 2018 .
    Sorry Rico but please do not be taken in seemingly impossible vision... Look at the evidence !
    A world with Donald Trump as President , George Osborne as Prime Minister

  16. Agree heartily with 01:30 above. I try to do what they say where relevant, because, as they say, it's not only a question non Jersey MSM readers but also future readers including historians who may wish to follow up links.

  17. What an unnecessarily rude and decidely ignorant attack on a poster @01.30. It is obvious the person making an observation about Gorst's comments as certainly reported by the JEP was making a genuine, if brief comment. To see him or her then insulted by someone who evidently thinks becoming an intellectual is the result of buying a Thesaurus is sad and counterproductive in the extreme. Please keep things polite VFC.

    1. 01.30 was SPECIFICALLY NOT an "attack" on another poster viz: ".... I DON'T place the comment at 18:35 in that category ..."

      In the round you have a point 10:45 -but why is your comment little more than a personal attack rather than a positive contribution?
      Viz: "someone who evidently thinks becoming an intellectual is the result of buying a Thesaurus is sad and ...."
      [isn't "Thesaurus" one of the stock criticisms aimed at Mr.Syvret btw?]
      followed by an apparent appeal to VFC to censor (JEPaedo style?)

      01.30 had a touch of "ASD spectrum" about it in that only a portion of VFC readers will be approaching the "Jersey problem" from his academic/legal/constitutional ...important as they are, and ultimately one of the strands of the eventual escape from the mire.

      This is a blog for straight talking. I agree that 01.30 could have phrased his request more politely and positively but the subject matter of the voiceforchildren blog is "rude" in the extreme.

      The voiceforchildren blog is concerned with the physical, psychological and sexual abuse of children. This is RUDE. Bring it up at your next "polite" dinner party and watch the twitching hands and the eyes focus on the soup when you attempt to talk about the rape, buggery, or even the inappropriate seduction of minors.

      That is the oh-so-rude subject matter of this blog and an overriding requirement for "politeness" is one of the things which has protected the child abusers and shysters of this island for so many decades. ....."OH isn't that Mr.Syvret just too rude!"

      Hissy fit over so we can concentrate on the subject matter of this blog posting ......Andrew Lewis lying as part of an orchestrated cover up of the rape, buggery and battery of minors on an industrial scale.

  18. Andrew Clueless3 April 2016 at 07:37

    So it seems that the de facto 'clients' have instructed that their CoI to let the Crown Officers and LOD off scot-free.

    But what if it is judged that wheeling out the usual hand wringing and "lessons-have-been-learnt" platitudes just won't cut it on this occasion?
    They decide they must have a head on a plate to placate the Jersey public. Whose head will that be???

    Andrew Lewis was set up in 2008 and he looks to be being set up again.
    ......The Chief of Police who showed determination in investigating those decades of the wholesale rape, buggery and battery of Jersey's least protected children was uber fast-track suspended by an inexperienced "rogue minister" acting in isolation and against documented legal advice.

    Or perhaps Andrew can see another outcome?

    The monkey has obligingly chained himself to the mast and the organ grinders are cruising off in their £26m lifeboat.

    It would be funny if it was not yet another layer to this sick tragedy of child abuse.

    1. What I do not get about this blog is that it still acts like the COI is a Court and the likes of Andrew Lewis are on trial.
      This is a Public Inquiry so there is no trial, no summing up, no verdicts against individuals and no sentencing. It's important that people know this.

    2. @08:13

      Yes, a poor substitute for justice ......don't you think?

      Haven't even used the statutory powers that they do have.
      A £26m waste of space.

    3. From the main posting:

      "By reading this transcript the reader gets the impression that Deputy Lewis had no understanding of the forum he was in. This is a Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry who is searching for the truth by using documented evidence. To make recommendations to prevent such atrocities occurring in the future. To expose weaknesses and failings in the system."

      Pretty clear that the purpose of this COI is not being portrayed as a trial by this Blog.

  19. Is it true that there's talk about a possible TV film on the handling of Haut de la Garenne?

    1. On the casting couch3 April 2016 at 10:25

      Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) would be great as Andrew Lewis, although looking like Ian Le Marquand could confuse things. Maybe the Vicki Pollard bloke from Little Britain - "Yes but no but..." Kenneth Williams would have been my first choice to portray Stuart Syvret, but as he is no longer with us I think it has to be the chap from the Harry Potter films, Daniel Ratcliff is it? Frank Walker surely has to be played by Ian Botham? Ross Kemp could be Trevor Pitman, Deputy Dawg could be Paul Routier and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost could be Neil and Rico. The Columbo guy would have been great for Lenny Harper but maybe Arnold The Terminator could learn the accent? William Bailhache is a tricky one - maybe John Cleese/Basil Fawlty if only for the height and being barking? Philip Bailhache could be played by anyone - well you don't have to remember your lines for the part do you? Job done. Can I please have £200.000 to start shooting Mike King? I meant shooting the film - not Mike King. Although...

  20. Sorry to flag up the Andrew Lewis reinvention yet again but .

    1. Andrew Lewis has been campaigning for a higher minimum wage for sometimes.

    2. Funny how no one knew about it until he needs some major rehabilitation just to have a hope of being re-elected?

    3. As they say you can't polish a t***!

  21. Transcripts on the Inquiry site now appear to be up to date though the written submissions from those appearing are not with them.

    I don't know if any of these were posted earlier or elsewhere.