Thursday, 24 March 2016

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry.Transcript of Deputy Andrew Lewis. (Part one)



Deputy Andrew Lewis.

On November 12th 2008 the then Home Affairs Minister, and current Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended Jersey's Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM. The suspension was during the biggest Child Abuse investigation (Operation Rectangle) the Island has ever seen or is likely to see and to say it caused controversy would be an understatement.

Deputy Lewis' (contradictory) version of events didn't, and still don't, stand up to scrutiny. There are a number of contradictions/anomalies surrounding Deputy Lewis' version of events and in this Blog Posting we will look at what he told an in-camera (secret) States debate, what he told the Napier Review and what he has now told the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry concerning his sight (or not) of the Metropolitan Police Interim Report.

Readers should be aware that the MET Report was a Peer Review of Operation Rectangle and should never have been used for disciplinary purposes but was abused by the Jersey Establishment which caused a breakdown in the relationship between the MET and Jersey. When the MET discovered their Peer Review was being abused like this it was none too happy as described by Andrew Lewis' successor at Home Affairs the then Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Former Home Affairs Minister
Ian Le Marquand.

This is what he told the former Chief Police Officer and his representative at one of three "suspension Review Hearings":

"One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of Jersey Police and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose."

This particular Suspension Review Hearing can be read HERE. There further to Hearings can be read Here and HERE.

So back to Deputy Andrew Lewis' sight (or not) of the MET Interim Report, what he told the secret States debate (that he never thought would see the light of day), and what he told others.

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision (suspend the Chief of Police) in the first place."

But the Napier Review said this:

"As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it."

Deputy Lewis stands accused of misleading the (secret) States Debate in that the reason he suspended the Chief of Police is because of what he had read in the MET Interim Report. Deputy Lewis argues that he didn't mislead the States because despite not once mentioning the David Warcup letter (but mentioning the Met Report on a number of occasions) during the debate he maintains that States Members believed he was referring to the Warcup letter (which he made no mention of) and not the MET Interim Report (which he made numerous mentions of).

Regular readers will be aware that Team Voice has tried getting answers from Deputy Lewis concerning his contradictions/anomalies which began with this OPEN LETTER but he has refused to answer any of our questions. This ended up with a complaint to Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC)  HERE who decided they would carry on "The Jersey Way" and refuse to deal with the complaint in a properly constituted hearing. PPC turned a blind eye (Turning a blind eye is how the Child Abuse was able to carry on for decades). 

Deputy Lewis was asked, basically the same questions we have been asking, by Counsel at the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, and, as mentioned earlier, his answers do not (in our opinion) stand up to scrutiny.

We offer readers a section of the transcript from the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry where Deputy Lewis was questioned on what he told the (secret) States Debate.  As mentioned earlier he is trying to convince the Panel, and public, that  States Members believe he is talking about the Warcup Letter and not the MET Police Interim Report when he (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police.

Transcript from Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:

What I'm asking you now is what you told the States. To tell them "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police" is misleading, isn't it?


I don't believe it is misleading because I'm referring back to subsequent debates where members were asked the same question and none of them, apart from those that wanted to believe this, believed it was misleading. 
I had already spoken in detail and mentioned a number of different descriptions of the information that I had received which quantify that it was clearly information I had received from Mr Warcup.


Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?


That's the issue, ma'am, and you're correct, I have not mentioned Mr Warcup, but then why have members later on said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard.


How do you think that they deduced that you were talking about Mr Warcup, bearing in mind you did not refer to him once?



Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate, so you would have to ask all of them. In fact, ma'am, I was very tempted to do exactly that and I pulled the names off of those who were in the subsequent debate and discussed this matter.

When you say to the States "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police", that can be interpreted only to mean you have seen the report from the Metropolitan Police, can't it?



For those that wish to surmise that, that's fine.



What else could it mean?






Ma'am, I'm tempted to --










Mr Lewis, what else could it mean?






You can make it mean whatever you wish, ma'am.




You tell me.





Well, you have read it.





What else could it mean?






I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to answer any more questions on this subject. I'm very clear, I made my statement in the House, I'm very clear as to the reasons why. There is nothing to be learned from this whatsoever other than an attempt to discredit at the time a minister who wasn't even there to defend himself at a later date when this continued to be a subject of great interest to certain politicians. Not only that, ma'am, the Metropolitan report was, as I said before, clearly an operational report. The report that I used was Mr Warcup's. I have made no suggestion anywhere else otherwise, other than on this occasion. I would challenge you, ma'am, become a politician one day, go into an assembly, take barrages of questions and ensure that everything you say is absolutely bang on the language of a lawyer. You will not be able to achieve it. If you do you will have a very stuttered speech.



Could you have a look please at paragraph 1.22 {WD009179/421}. This is Deputy Le Claire:

"The Minister has made reference to the Metropolitan Police report which, as an interim report, he has described as alarming. As an interim report he has said that has swayed and made his decision, something he has relied upon. The full report, which is due to be tabled and considered by the next minister, was put in a question by Senator Syvret whether or not it would become publicly available. The answer was that as it formed part of the Crown Prosecution's case it would not become a public document. How does that square with full disclosure in an appeals process where the defendant and the prosecution are entitled to see all the documents and evidence laid before the Court?" So Deputy Le Claire there is essentially summarising what you have just said. So if in the cut and thrust of debate you had accidently made an error he was rather highlighting it to you, wasn't he? He was saying "You have talked about this interim report which is alarming". Why not then take the opportunity to say  "I apologise to members, I shouldn't have given the impression that I had seen the Met report because I haven't"?

If I thought members felt that the difference between the Met report in its entirety or a letter from the DCO, which I felt had more weight, was going to have such a material impact on anything they may say or decide upon on that day then yes, I would have done, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were fully supportive of the decision that we made and would not have been swayed any way or the other had it been referred to as the full Met report, the interim report, a draft report, a letter from David Warcup. It would have had no material difference whatsoever on those members on that day, apart from those that have seized upon this since to try and discredit the actions of the government of the day.(END)

From that brief exchange readers should get the crux of the matter. Naturally the questioning and "answers" went further but for the sake of brevity we have decided to publish some transcripts in a series of Blog Postings and this is part one of that series.

We are of the opinion that Deputy Andrew Lewis, at the in-camera debate, Only mentioned the MET Report and didn't mention the Warcup letter because members would believe that the reason he suspended the Chief of Police (while his force was investigating decades of Child Abuse) was because of a report from an independent Police Force (which would have carried substantial weight) and not from a conflicted subordinate who stood to gain either financially or by the career ladder.

Readers will note that, during the States debate, and contained in this transcript, Deputy Lewis was given the opportunity to correct those who believed he was referring to the MET Interim Report and NOT the Warcup letter (that was never mentioned) and he chose not to. We conclude by that (in) action he purposely misled the parliament and should do the honourable thing by resigning/retiring from politics. Readers might take a different view.

Full credit must go to counsel to the Inquiry Cathryn McGahey QC for her well researched line of questioning and showing such restraint in not ripping the Deputy to pieces during his evidence giving.

Part two of this series will be a direct continuation of this transcript.
The full transcript of this day's (day 138) hearing can be viewed HERE.

111 comments:

  1. "What else could it mean?" /

    "I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to answer any more questions on this subject." /


    Well, if he doesn't know, then I guess it's a mystery...

    Andrew, in case you ever figure out what you meant, let me know.

    Bear in mind, in journalism, you tell your side, or the people around you tell it for you.



    LMG

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps even at this early stage of your riveting series on the Lewis pantomime, it should be recalled that:

    (i) the "Interim MET Report" was only an intermediate draft of a peer report that was being prepared as part of a quality assurance of the Jersey Police operation.

    (ii) Even in its completed form it was not intended to be seen by Ministers as it was a no holds barred peer report. Therefore it should never have been selectively quoted outside the police force itself. To do so would undermine the whole peer review process UK wide. And this is precisely what Warcup did.

    (iii) the "Report" at that stage was in the nature of a check list which still needed an input from Lenny Harper. So it had no validity as a set of conclusions of any sort.

    (iv) the MET later withdrew the whole thing and were extremely angry at how it had been used in a disciplinary context.

    (iv) when subsequently challenged by Lenny Harper, the MET stated that the "Report" had not contained any criticism of either Harper or his chief, Power.

    When Lewis is trying to give the impression that a significant section of the States knew he was referring to Warcup's letter, he is retrospectively imputing knowledge to States members by drawing on the fact that at a subsequent States debate the majority of States members voted against releasing the transcript of the earlier debate which had been in camera. I was sorry Ms McGahey did not pursue this, but then she had her hands already full with his wriggling.

    His performance effectively told Ms McGahey to eff off. I don't see how the Inquiry can ignore this.

    And we should not forget that Lewis was testifying under oath.

    I have read the rest of his stuff, and without wishing to anticipate your next episode, I can say his whole performance is a blood boiler, full of contradictions, evasions, casting aspersions on everyone in sight, snide innuendo etc.

    He will surely make the text books on how not to do this sort of thing.

    Of course we should not forget his starting point which left him in an almost impossible position. He allowed himself to become a patsy and now he is, unsuccessfully, trying to lie his way out of it.

    Jesus wept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What first really confirmed my worst fears on the so called Met Interim Report and the validity of its alleged value/justification in Lewis' suspension of Graham Power was listening to a States question time. This was where Deputies T Pitman and Higgins I think were trying to get a straight (should that be honest?) answer out of Ian Le Marquand. You just got that horrible gut feeling that the Deputies were being lied to and worse, the Minister really didn't care because he knew those who had initiated this wrong and maintained it were untouchable. Wish I could remember the date but I can't.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Polo for this perceptive and complete statement of the issues here. Looking forward to blog post 2 on this

      Delete
  3. What emerges clearly is that Lewis and the Establishment were determined to suspend the Police Chief come what may and that little considerations such as evidence or truth were not going to get in the way. They had set the time and the date but when the evidence was not forthcoming, and when the Law Officers advised against it, they just pressed ahead regardless believing that they could bluster and lie their way through it. And let us not forget that the Law Officers, the Chief Minister and others sat through it all knowing that Lewis was lying and they said and did nothing. There are a number of overlapping conspiracies here and one of them is a conspiracy of silence and it involves the person who was HM Attorney General for Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was Tim Le Cocq who was the SG at the time of Lewis's crime. He is now the deputy Bailiff. I think it was William Bailhache who was the AG who now is the Bailiff. Lewis is being hung out to dry by these guys and he deserves to be if he hasn't got the cohones to stand up to them. Lying by omission is what it's called mr Bailiff and deputy Bailiff.

      Delete
    2. Re:

      "There are a number of overlapping conspiracies here and one of them is a conspiracy of silence and it involves the person who was HM Attorney General for Jersey."

      Indeed as published HERE.

      Delete
    3. And do not forget the Bailiff in the in camera debate leaning forward (metaphorically, if not physically) and telling Andrew Lewis to stop saying what he was saying (a hint which Andrew Lewis ignored, bless him)

      This is absolutely central to the "multiple conspiracies" theory. Why did the bailiff do this?

      Delete
    4. From the in-camera (not so secret) debate.

      Andrew Lewis:

      "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."

      The Bailiff:

      "Minister, do not go down this road please."

      From HERE.

      Delete
    5. This could be why the Bailiff suggested to Andrew Lewis "no to go down this road please":

      Para. 4.36 "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."

      Operation TUMA.

      Delete
    6. Thanks VFC

      The Bailiff [guiding the lying Lewis] : "Minister, do not go down this road please."

      That is either a random and nonsensical intervention OR The Bailiff has a knowledge and is a part of the conspiracy!

      Delete
    7. For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that the Bailiff in December 2008 was Philip Bailhache

      Delete
    8. The very same former Bailiff, and now Senator Philip Bailhache, who at the St.John's Hustings in 2011 said"

      "Without truthfulness we can't have trust.." "If people who are not truthful they suffer the consequences." If a Minister lies to another Minister, so far as I'm concerned, that would almost certainly be the end of a Ministerial career."

      So Philip Bailhache to bring a vote of no confidence against Andrew Lewis it is then!

      Delete
    9. Have seen that clip a few times. It should be looped on a big screen in the Square.

      Delete
    10. But we must look at how carefully he chose his words:

      "If a Mister lies to another Minister." So if a Minister lies to anybody else it's OK? He didn't say "if any politician lies in the States Chamber."

      Further he said;

      "That would ALMOST certainly be the end of a Ministerial career." Not definitely but "almost certainly", he perhaps believes it is OK to lie sometimes? What about the end of a "Ministerial" career? he didn't say it should be the end of a "political" career.

      Very careful with his words indeed.

      Delete
    11. What a fool I was, ever getting involved in politics.

      The Government You Deserve.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    12. VFC @18:42 "he [Bailhache] perhaps believes it is OK to lie sometimes?"

      Yes, Bailhache did appear to be involved in a good deal of lying and misleading of his colleagues INCLUDING THE CHIEF MINISTER when protecting Bob Key and the Jersey Church from abuse and mis-handling allegations.

      Perhaps it is OK to lie to anyone when it is on behalf of your god or your church?

      Or perhaps it is a case of one law for me but not for others.

      Delete
  4. Whoops! Don't tell one of tetchy anti-Lefty commentators but the UK trend of horrible Socialist growth under Jeremy Corbyn toward grown up politics and fairness over name calling and greed ID continuing.

    Not only is the until recently huge Tory lead collapsing down to just 1 - 2 points, new poll actually shows Corbyn ahead of the alleged Tory pig molestor in his personal standings!

    Relevant to Jersey? Yes and not least because we might actually get a regime in 4 years time where justice and corruption isn't viewed as all part of 'doing business'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I make some observations in response to the comment at 19:39?

      Firstly, if there's one thing which much be stated and stated again in the context of the behaviour of authorities in the British child-abuse cover-up scandal, it is that it is not a party-political issue. All parties, Conservative, Libs, and Labour, have a dark and toxic history of abuse cover-up, all of which has to be faced up to. That applies in Jersey also.

      The suffering of children has been enabled and tolerated and concealed under all political flags. That much is known to survivors up and down the nation. It ill-behoves anyone to try and take hold of the suffering and vulnerability of children and try and use it for partisan political purposes.

      I know the history of the Jersey child-abuse cover-up because of my personal suffering. And I know the UK Labour Party is every bit as culpable in the shielding and protection of our corrupt establishment as the Tories.

      Delete
    2. Much truth in this. But times, leaders and outlooks can and do change however long a history. We must maintain and in fact cultivate hope wherever it may spring. Otherwise we may as well all give up and accept that the forces of the dark must, and always will, win. I do not believe that.

      Delete
    3. Jersey campaigners need to be aware of the long and deep history of paedophile cover-ups, and the fact as the earlier commenter said it’s not confined to this or that political party. All the parties have “skin in the game”.

      The following is quoted from Spotlight On Abuse, at this link,

      https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/keith-harding-leon-brittan-cyril-smith-and-jeremy-thorpe/

      ““I am perplexed by the complete wall of silence in the media following the publication of this story.
      This is a major breakthrough but has gone unnoticed it seems. This is the first time I have read in the media of “evidence” of a link between Leon Brittan and PIE. I have seen the anonymous letter sent regarding Harding and his connections. I am also aware of the sources who had first hand acquaintance with Harding and the visitors to his shop in Islington and they are totally credible.
      The allegations that these visitors included Brittan, Smith and Thorpe, plus the high profile members of PIE who had gone public at the time, are very credible
      The reason for a return to a conspiracy of silence by the media does not bode well for survivors of abuse by very powerful networks”


      Clockmaker Keith Harding played vital role in Britain’s biggest child sex ring
      by James Fielding


      Sunday Express, 10th May 2015


      The pervert met regularly with MPs Leon Brittan and Cyril Smith at his world-renowned workshop.


      The former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe would also drop by along with key members of the vile Paedophile Information Exchange Steven Adrian Smith and Tom O’Carroll. A PIE list seized in 1984 records Harding, who died from cancer last year aged 82, as member 329 and his address as Hornsey Road, Holloway, north London. He is understood to have kept hidden a list of more than 1,000 PIE members with prominent names including top politicians from the Thatcher era.


      One of his staff, who worked for him between 1980 and 1987, said: “Leon Brittan and Cyril Smith were both regular visitors to the shop. Usually they would come in via the side door, other times they would ring the bell at the front entrance and come in.“They’d straight away ask for Keith who would be coming down the stairs. “Then they would then either go up to his office for a private meeting or they’d go out for several hours.” The former worker added: “The shop had many high profile customers, including the Royals, because we were one of the few antique dealers in the world that specialised in restoring clocks, music boxes and automatons.

      “It’s only now, with what I know about Brittan and Smith, and of course Keith, that has made me wonder what they were doing. Jeremy Thorpe too was an occasional visitor.”

      Harding was given the Freedom of the City of London and made a member of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. He moved to Gloucester in 1987 after PIE disbanded, setting up Keith Harding’s World of Mechanical Music, a museum in Northleach, near Cheltenham. He was exposed as a member of PIE last November when footage emerged of him appearing alongside Jimmy Savile on a Christmas special of Jim’ll Fix It.”


      The person who wrote earlier extolling the ‘virtues’ of Jeremy Corbyn needs to be reminded that he was critcised from within Labour for having been told of the Isslington child-abuse back in the day, but having done nothing.


      It’s also known that in addition to those mentioned in the quote above, such as Cyril Smith, Leon Brittain, and Jeremy Thorpe, who visited the famous / infamous clock-maker (& Freemason) Keith Harding in his Islington workshop, was Jeremy Corbyn.


      In fact quite a few people in Labour still have serious unanswered questions to Corbyn from the leadership election.


      Yes, this is not a party political issue. Abuse cover-ups end up just “happening” whenever we find power and influence. The colour of the power and influence makes no difference.

      Delete
    4. Nobody said such failures were down to just one party and to suggest so is to mislead. I believe what he or she was suggesting is there is always hope for positive change and we should not lose sight of such hopes. The economic point is obviously wholly different. The Corbyn stance on fairness and long term sustainability in comparison to that of the Conservatives is like that of a sage to a spoilt, greedy brat. In the instances of Cameron and Osbourn two spoilt, greedy brats.

      Delete
    5. A slightly different angle but one arising from the long comment above. Not having been born in Jersey but having lived and worked here for more than forty years I am always intrigued the following question has not been put.
      Even coming here as I child and being an outsider it quickly became apparent that there were stories about Haut de la Garenne.The possibility of being sent there if you were not well behaved was even in my teenage years a bit of a threat.

      This has often made me wonder over the years since 2008 why is that (and this is where my point fits into the initial comment above) not a single politician over the years before had asked for an inquiry or at least raised public questions? We now know victims had even made complaints. But at the time this all finally broke we had a number of politicians who had been in the States for a good fifteen, maybe even twenty years. So I ask again. Why not a single question from such indivuals? They must have heard stories themselves. Or were there some questions I am not aware of?

      Delete
    6. Good point. Never thought of it from this perspective myself. By 2008 Senator Le Main must have been in the States 30 years. Were there any others? Walker and Syvret being the main political players amidst the post 2008 fall out had been in 18 years at the time by my reckoning. There must surely be others who sat there for similar periods of time?

      Delete
    7. It's the people who are in there now who have shown that nothing has changed since the "bad old day." PPC, and many others are aware of Deputy Andrew Lewis' apparent dihonesty and misleading of the parliament.

      As mentioned in the main posting PPC is talking the BLIND EYE APPROACH. while the rest of the States Chamber, cowardly keep there heads down.

      You think children are safer today than they were back then?..............Think again. Indeed wait for the transcripts of Jo Olsson to be published if you need any further convincing.

      Delete
    8. Not saying it isn't. But ignoring the point raised is copping out. Two of the above mentioned have lots to say post 2007/8. Why did they say or ask nothing before? Did they honestly never hear any disturbing stories or rumours? Really? All past (pre-2007/8) States Members should have been grilled about such matters and all Health and Education Presidents doubly so.

      Delete
    9. @00:36
      www.express.co.uk/news/uk/576187/Keith-Harding-MPs-Leon-Brittan-Cyril-Smith-Jeremy-Thorpe

      Delete
  5. I am pleased you have opened up a chance for debate on the debacle that was the evidence of Andrew Lewis. As one of the 'very strange people' that he called most of the people in attendance in the public seats, I still cannot comprehend the arrogance and gall of the man who came across as one of the most incredible and uncredible witnesses of this whole Inquiry process. Indeed, if the Panel did not see quite clearly that there was a plan afoot to oust Graham Power, it became obvious when they declined to ask Lewis any questions at the end of the session. Maybe they were as speechless as we all were.

    Counsel Catherine McGahey did a sterling job in persisting for answers that were clearly not willingly forthcoming.

    If Lewis was/is being hung out to dry, more fool him for allowing it to happen and not man up and be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is anybody else having trouble getting on the Care Inquiry WEBSITE?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes VFJ. It would seem that as from early this morning the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry website has been removed. By mistake or purposely? Who knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I couldn't get on it from last night.

      Delete
  8. I can't access the care inquiry website either. VFC, please could I ask you to email the staff that you have been in contact with, to let them know? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already done and awaiting reply.

      "Dear Inquiry.

      I, and others, have been trying to access your website since last night and are unable to get on it.

      Can you tell me what the problem is and when it will be fixed?

      Thanks.

      VFC."

      Delete
    2. What odds can I have the Law Officers are trying to have something else removed from a witnesses statement?

      Delete
    3. Just on a small point of protocol, now that the website is up and running again after the long weekend, did you get a personal reply to your email?

      As I mentioned elsewhere, the Inquiry has apologised on Twitter but not on the site itself.

      Delete
    4. Got a short reply saying:

      "We have not received any e-mails from you but we have received other e-mails.

      I also understand that there were some issues with the website over the weekend but it is now back up and running."

      You will note from my e-mail/comment above that I asked: "Can you tell me what the problem is and when it will be fixed?"

      They didn't tell me what the problem was so I sent another e-mail repeating the question. I've not, as yet, had a reply.

      Delete
    5. Worth persisting if only to test the system.

      They really are a lazy lot.

      Delete
  9. The evidence on the COI website is pretty damming, Lewis's evidence needs to be seen in context with that of Graham Power and Wendy Kinnard.Who do you believe?
    Power, professional, articulate ,exact,very straightforward.
    Kinnard, knowledgable, direct, to the point pulls no punches.
    Lewis confused evasive,defensive,lies in the face of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do not under estimate the self blinding ego of Andrew Lewis as mentioned previously he would give David Icke a run for his money. But ,whereas David Icke only thinks he is the Messiah , Andrew Lewis has a clear target of Chief Minister next time around.
    That is why VFC your postings are so important to prevent the re- writing of history.Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Andrew Lewis has a clear target of Chief Minister next time around."

      That would be an extraordinary, or delusional, ambition even for Deputy Andrew Lewis' standards.

      If he had one iota of common sense about him he would now be putting in train his exit (from politics) plan. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how he could survive the fall out of the Inquiry's final report when it is published at the end of the year.

      Delete
    2. David Icke will forever suffer for the turqoise shell suit and God's 'transistor radio'. Which is actually sad because over the years since he has often talked a lot of sense. You might say he is a bit like a mainland version of Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
  11. Re Inquiry Website

    I can't get it either. It's just timing out.

    Suspicious and paranoid as I am I think that purposely making it inaccessible would be a step too far. More likely more of the same incompetence and unconcern that the Inquiry has demonstrated from the beginning. I guess it will reappear shortly.

    As it happens I had downloaded selected files for two reasons (i) it suits me to read the stuff on my own computer rather than online, and (ii) recent actions of the Inquiry have been stoking up my paranoia.

    So, if it doesn't reappear in reasonable time, I am quite prepared to load up a whack of stuff onto my website. It would not be comprehensive but would cover a few of the main players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Polo.

      Perhaps the Warcup, Gradwell and Lewis stuff would/should be worth keeping. I have a few others dowloaded myself.

      Delete
    2. If it doesn't reappear by the end of the day I'll check out what I have and post a list here.

      Unfortunately I was not sufficiently paranoid to download everything, but if they go back up I might consider it.

      Not sure I downloaded Warcup & Gradwell.

      Delete
    3. This is what I have downloaded. Site still not back up and I'm having a go at them on Twitter but doubt if they bother to monitor that.

      Given it's the Easter weekend their webmaster, if they have one, is probably on leave anyway.

      Transcripts

      Day 102 – Cornelissen
      Day 105 – Robert Le Brocq, Ian Le Marquand,
      Day 106 – Ian Le Marquand, Graham Power
      Day 107 – Graham Power
      Day 108 – Ian Le Marquand, Daniel Scaife
      Day 109 – Trevor Pitman, Andre Bonjour
      Day 111 – Mick Gradwell
      Day 121 – Lenny Harper
      Day 122 – Lenny Harper
      Day 135 – Wendy Kinnard
      Day 136 – Andrew Lewis
      Day 138 – Andrew Lewis, Graham Jennings, Josephine Ollson.

      Documentation

      Day 102 – Cornelissen
      Day ??? - Bob Hill (only his own written statement)
      Day 107 – Graham Power
      Day 108 – Ian Le Marquand, Daniel Scaife
      Day 109 – Trevor Pitman, Andre Bonjour
      Day 111 – Mick Gradwell
      Day 121 – Lenny Harper (41 out of 48 exhibits listed)
      Day 122 – Lenny Harper (second statement & exhibit 49)
      Day 135 – Wendy Kinnard
      Day 136 – Andrew Lewis (full docs but issued with Day 136 rather than 138)

      Delete
    4. Well done. Between us . . .

      But this is utterly extraordinary. This is a PUBLIC Inquiry. The website is not being maintained over the Holiday period. therefore it should be up and available,

      Foer the record, my data shows that I could not get on at the following times:

      Good Friday (25th March) 2016 at 10.20, 10.30, 10.50
      And Easter Saturday 00.11, 01.09

      Delete
  12. Is Andrew Lewis the Jersey Tony Blackburn?

    Blackburn's evidence was rejected during the BBC/Savile enquiry because of the inconstancies. The Lewis evidence is a joke so one could expect the same outcome. That could end his days as a politician.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Has anyone reminded Deputy Andrew Lewis that the Warcup letter wasn't public knowledge in December 2008. His testimony had to be seen to be believed or not in the case of Deputy Lewis. Council were losing patience with the man. After years of exposing his lies on the blogs it came as no surprise to us. I even said on my blog before his testimony that he would have to pretend he was referring to the Warcup letter because like Frank Walker they had nothing else to fall back on.

    They never ever thought that back in 2008 some blogging investigative journalists would start looking at this debacle. They never ever thought the in-camera debate would be looked at. Back in 2008 it was don't worry it will soon be forgotten.

    No chance

    Rico

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to answer any more questions on this subject. I'm very clear, I made my statement in the House, I'm very clear as to the reasons why. There is nothing to be learned from this whatsoever other than an attempt to discredit at the time a minister who wasn't even there to defend himself at a later date when this continued to be a subject of great interest to certain politicians. Not only that, ma'am, the Metropolitan report was, as I said before, clearly an operational report. The report that I used was Mr Warcup's. I have made no suggestion anywhere else otherwise, other than on this occasion. I would challenge you, ma'am, become a politician one day, go into an assembly, take barrages of questions and ensure that everything you say is absolutely bang on the language of a lawyer. You will not be able to achieve it. "

    Oh Dear

    Dear Deputy Lewis.

    You suspended Graham Power on the 12th November 2008. You gave your statement to the States of Jersey on the 2nd December 2008. You must have known what you suspended Graham Power with. Lol. How much time did you need for a 20 minute Q/A. Banged to rights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’


    I think Humpty Dumpty Lewis has met his master in Ms. McGahey.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So the web-site of the putative "public-inquiry" has "gone down", most conveniently just at the beginning of a very long weekend.

    How many people think that's an "accident"?

    Don't be surprised that when - if - it ever gets put back up, significant parts of the material it contained will have been altered - or are missing entirely.

    In fact - don't be surprised if not only the web site remains "failed" but if the actually purported "public body" of the Jersey "public inquiry" itself has collapsed, along with its web-site (resignation maybe) - and some kind non-report "report" is hastily cobbled together with a load of excuses.

    We know the Jersey oligarchy has poured £26 million of Jersey public money into the exercise. But society in Britain - the British establishment and its "customary" way of "managing" crises - is into terra incognita with child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups - in the 21st century - in the age of the world wide web.

    Just as Rico rightly observes above, "they never thought back in 2008" this would still be going on.

    But it is.

    And getting deeper and deeper - its contagion reaching further and further, higher and higher, infecting more and more professionals - yet is strangely more and more transparent, if un-remarked, sitting in plain sight.

    I've always said - as essential as such an investigation was - the concept of a Jersey child-abuse public inquiry could never be anything but a lose-lose situation for the oligarchy. And so it has proven to be. Strangely enough, those wedded to some degree or other of white-wash - as opposed to tackling the unavoidable collapse in the very rule of law in the British tax-haven of Jersey - would have been better advised to listen to Functional Phil Bailhache when he tried to get the inquiry stopped. He too - like me - had the deep understanding it had to be nothing - or everything; that a trad, half-way-house, "lessons-have-been-learned" - blah, blah - "truth-and-reconciliation" blah, blah - was never going to be capable of fixing this. Fortunately Bailhache failed.

    There had to be a REAL public-inquiry in Jersey – or no public-inquiry.

    The unavoidable corollary of a REAL public-inquiry is a significant number of very senior figures past and present in the Jersey establishment being exposed, for one kind of criminality or another, and paying the consequences.

    Back in the day, there was no type of corruption - none at all - which couldn't be smoothed over and hidden through the "appropriate" networks and proxies - and - especially - money. There used to be no kind of disgusting public scandal which couldn't be made to disappear by the British Establishment - even if only "temporarily", for the requisite two or three decades, by embezzling a few tens of millions from the public and giving it to lawyers to do-their-magical-stuff with the reality-optional chicanery known as "legal administration".

    Let no-one be surprised that lawyers associated with the Jersey "public-inquiry" are scrabbling in panic behind the scenes. What they and their clients have on their hands is a £26 million crash-and-burn at the bottom of a smoking crater. It never even came into the outer edges of the radar-horizon of the-land-of-lawfulness. The powers-that-be would have been better-off with the poor publicity of doing no public-inquiry, instead of so remarkably incompetently attempting a fake, make-believe "public-inquiry".

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As damage limitation exercises go, it is a disaster.
      All they have achieved is to contaminate the present with the past

      and make it plain that the shysters are still in the saddle and calling the shots.

      Delete
  17. Andrew Lewis has committed perjury.
    His barefaced lies are contemptible.
    His defence is that 30 politicians believed him and supported him in subsequent debates ... and he has a point.
    So here's the thing ... How is it that 30 of our political representatives can support a barefaced liar?

    ReplyDelete
  18. What if the COI team have taken down the web site and have decided to resigned?
    Remember they had three choices:
    1/Go along with The Establishment/The Jersey Way.
    2/Go against The Establishment/The Jersey Way.
    3/Resign.
    But what happens to the 26 million quid if they have resigned?



    ReplyDelete
  19. Here is a real out there suggestion. What if the website just crashed and will be back up after the Easter holidays. The guy who looks after it no longer works for the enquiry. Rico

    ReplyDelete
  20. Something else to look at regarding the Jersey Tony Blackburn (Andrew Lewis. He kept on saying he was getting advise from highly paid professionals but as far as i can remember didn't show one piece of evidence to back this up. Not one single email regarding suspending a Chief of Police.

    Lewis is a cockroach. He is weak. He is a liar. He is no better than the ones who commit crimes against vulnerable children. An awful individual. Rico

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah Rico.
      Roaches scatter when the light finally gets switched on......
      this one stands on it's hind legs and chirps.

      "You can make it mean whatever you wish, ma'am."

      He has been promised that there will be no consequences, by the dark men pulling his strings?

      This is so revolting! Why aren't we?

      Delete
    2. It has been suggested above that Andrew Lewis would need to be a seriously deluded to expect re-election let alone attempt becoming Chief Minister .In a normal world that would be totally obvious , but we are not in a normal world , we are in 'Lewisworld', where the truth is as Polo points out 'anything you want it to be'.
      I would also quote Shakespeare as Decius Brutus Juilis Caesar ,
      Decius Brutus.
      ' Never fear that: if he be so resolved,
      I can o'ersway him; for he loves to hear
      That unicorns may be betray'd with trees,
      And bears with glasses, elephants with holes,
      Lions with toils and men with flatterers;
      But when I tell him he hates flatterers,
      He says he does, being then most flattered.
      Let me work;
      For I can give his humour the true bent,
      And I will bring him to the Capitol.'

      So who is the group that represents Decius Brutus with the Capitol as target , the dark men ?

      I don't know for certain but can begin to guess.

      So where is the evidence that he might have these delusions?
      We have the arrogant confidence of a protected lackey, 'It can be anything you want it to mean'.
      We have 'They knew what I meant ' (despite no such meaning being possible).
      Then , and more importantly in my view , is the current political positioning. As Chair of the 'Accounts Scrutiny Panel' he has taken every chance to 'get his name out there', confidently setting himself against the profligacy and in-sensitiveness of the current Chief Minister as CoM head.
      He has even positioned himself as the 'sensible alternative' to Reform Jersey in his promotion of 'the living wage for all Jersey employees'.
      This is classic (and cynical) Goldilocks Territory, not too hot and not too cold .He is trying to do a Tony Blair and capture great swathes of middle ground.

      ' Every Bloody Emperor has his hand up history's skirt '.

      We need to watch him and his dark friends very closely!.

      Delete
    3. I should have checked the Emperor quote first ;

      Yes and every bloody emperor's got his hands up history's skirt
      As he poses for posterity over the fresh-dug dirt.
      Yes and every bloody emperor with his sickly rictus grin
      Talks his way out of nearly anything but the lie within
      Because every bloody emperor thinks his right to rule divine
      So he'll go spinning and spinning and spinning into his own decline.

      As 'Fluff' Freeman said of Peter Hammill ' Some people just have a way with words'.

      Delete
  21. There are many reasons why a website might be ‘off the air’ – besides deliberate closure/suspension by the owner which seems to be the general assumption here so far.

    Data available here http://whois.domaintools.com/jerseycareinquiry.org suggests the website IS in fact up and running (Response code – 200). The same IP address 134.170.214.17., located in United States - Washington - Redmond - Microsoft Corp, hosts over 460 other websites. The first three in the list (936aircadets.org, adlegal.se , afzalschoolofmotoring.com) are all working, so it’s not a broken server.

    The domain registration is paid up to February next year, so it’s not that they’ve forgotten to pay the bill (but they have other bills to pay, too, so …).

    The same source indicates that the site was registered by Alyson Leslie, and it gives her address and phone number (which I won’t publish here). There’s also a phone number +44.8716412121 for the “Technical Contact” (Hostmaster – 1&1 Internet Ltd.), based in Slough. Even on a long Easter weekend there might be someone available on that number to answer an enquiry. You’ll forgive me, I’m sure, if I don’t make that call myself – it’d cost me a fortune ‘cos I’m in South America.

    RL

    ReplyDelete
  22. Surely, no matter what dark forces, might be backing him, Lewis becoming Chief Minister at any stage, after that Inquiry performance, would do for Jersey's international reputation for good and evermore?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Absolutely no chance of Lewis becoming Chief Minister. The JEP have his card marked for one and if the Enquiry do their job that's the end of that. I know some crazy stuff goes down in Jersey but Lewis as CM is a no no. He can think it though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dream on Rico. Yes, we can hope. But leopards don't change their spots very often.

      The JEP has protected the Establishment for generations. It won't stop now whatever a bit of token wrist-slapping.

      By the time of the election Sibcy and the gang will be campaigning for 'Mister Integrity' like nothing had happened.

      Delete
  24. There's some talk earlier about the possibility of the COI resigning, and the question is asked what about the £26 million. In fact resigning could be one of the only ways they get to keep the money. Provided they've been smart enough to keep all the 'difficulties' and obstructions' put in their way by the Jersey establishment / LOD carefully filed. Remember, these people are lawyers, a big, big law firm that plays globally. If they chose to, they'd stomp all over the Jersey outfit and whoever they employed.

    It doesn't take a lot of imagination by anyone who's followed this to come up with half a dozen reasons for the COI / Chair of the Panel / Eversheds to resign with the clear blame and fault being laid at the door of the Jersey establishment.

    To look at just one of those reasons, there's the perjury and obvious and undisguised contempt for the COI and its proceedings on the record and plain to the whole world by Andrew Lewis. OK, a public inquiry is always going to get a few witnesses amongst all the people is sees, who are, to put it politely, less than accurate, or who maybe taking a bit of a liberty with how they present things when compared to what really happened and the rest of the facts. Most public inquiries can deal with those kind of witnesses within the envelop of the credible, maybe saying a few words in their report like 'witness X was poor', or 'witness Y didn't seem particularly reliable', or maybe something stronger like 'the testimony of witnesses Z was not compatible with the evidence, and witness Z showed didn't appear to take the proceedings seriously.'

    But in this case the COI is in a really really extreme and rare position for a public inquiry in that its screamingly obvious to the whole world and closer, those with a direct involvement in the topic that Lewis is simply lying to them. He's treating them with full on in-their-face contempt and mockery. Every one watching can see He's committing perjury and just thumbing his nose at them.

    Now, such behaviour is a real problem for them. think about it. think of the different people who for whatever reasons are critical of the COI, who haven't engaged with it, who have already poured scorn on it, or who, on different sides, are just waiting to dismiss it's work and findings and say things like, 'well, obviously this is a load of crap and can't be taken seriously. Just look at how they sat back and let witnesses commit full on, obvious perjury. And as that's obviously the case with x, y, z witnesses, then how can we take seriously what ANY of the significant witnesses said? This COI wasn't a serious body.'

    So what does the COI and Eversheds do to get off that hook? And at the same time give themselves a bullet proof £26 million excuse for resigning, with the 'blame' on Jersey? Simples. Think about it.

    All they do is make a formal motion to your Attorney General that Andrew Lewis be prosecuted for perjury. They say, and rightly so, 'an immediate charging and prosecution is vital to protect the standing and authority of the COI.'

    But obviously never in a million years is your AG going to do that. So there you go. Sorted! The COI issues a statement, 'Most sadly and regrettably the authorities in Jersey failed to protect the credibility, standing and authority of the public inquiry process. Therefore, tragically, we were left with no choice other than to resign'. (And they could really stick the boot in about the standard of governance in Jersey too, basically saying something along the lines of, 'although we were in effect prevented by the Jersey authorities from completing our task, we learnt enough to say the place utterly failed its vulnerable children, and its government behaved disgracefully.')

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's certainly true the COI has to make some form of current public gesture about the conduct of witness Andrew Lewis. Issuing a statement saying they have asked that a prosecution of Lewis for perjury to be considered would seem to fit the bill. Whether the inevitable 'decision' by the AG to not prosecute Lewis would necessarily lead to automatic resignation of the inquiry panel is not so clear. They could say they had defended their standing and authority simply in the act of referring the behaviour of that witness to the prosecuting authority.

      But the observation to the effect that open, contemptuous and obvious perjury does most badly undermine the standing and long-term authority of the COI and its ultimate reports, is certainly correct. Some kind of response, even if only a critical press-statement, is required.

      These considerations will have already occurred to the legal team. But I'm pushed to speculate they perhaps had thought no one else would notice them, and decided to keep their heads down and fingers crossed, but your posting VFC, and the realisation there's going to be a main focus by survivors and campaigners on the fictitious testimony of Andrew Lewis may have panicked them and led them to have to re-think their strategy? Or panicked the LOD? It maybe in that we have a possible explanation for the web site disappearing hours after you published this posting? I'm speculating, granted. But the coincidence is noticeable. Yes, shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted is futile, but we have seen just this behaviour previously. (Trevor Pitman's evidence.)

      I think those who speculate the web site, or the Lewis testimony, is gone forever, are wrong. That really would destroy the credibility of the process. But I do think the behaviour of Lewis and the realisation that the world was going to focus on the printed black and white of it microscopically, has proven to be a shock, to some, and the LOD are mounting some kind of further pressure on the COI behind the scenes, as they did with the Pitman evidence. Concious of the criticism they received for voluntarily taking down the Pitman evidence, perhaps a 'web site failure' has less damaging PR connotations for the COI?

      These are interesting times.

      Delete
    2. They'll do it again because 1) They can and 2) It works.

      The whole point of taking down the Pitman evidence as mentioned above, taking it down, apparently ignoring complaints, finally putting it back up - briefly, taking it down again, putting up only the farce of the public evidence and on and on and on was to achieve on behalf of the Bailhaches, Birt and their LOD exactly what they did.

      Ensuring everyone but the fee of us who know the score lose interest.

      Delete
    3. Meant to say FEW of us. Obviously.

      Delete
  25. If we are resting our hopes of Lewis getting his comeuppance on the Filthy Rag we really are either desperate or deluded. This is the newspaper of the man known as Sausage Time. They are part of the problem. They will never be part of the solution as pointed out above. The best hope of achieving the desired result would be a proposition for s vote of censure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is the newspaper of the man known as Sausage Time"

      I had not heard that sobriquet before. Tell us more!

      Delete
    2. I believe that refers to multiple rape allegations.

      (uninvestigated/plug pulled by the Jersey Way)

      Delete
  26. Both Crown officers cars parked outside States building today Easter Saturday !! Either bailiff & deputy both shopping in town or working overtime on some redacting maybe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is nearly as exciting as the old EU Monetary Committee when journalists used to stake out the members and if they were all travelling unexpectedly the same weekend then there was likely a currency revaluation in the offing.

      Perhap the JEP could keep an eye on ERII's movements over the weekend?

      Delete
    2. Don't be silly Polo. That would require the Filthy Rag to do some journalism. And that's not likely to start now as they haven't asked the COI lots of obvious questions about its many strange decisions and conduct since it started. All the JEP has done is churnalism.

      Delete
  27. I don't want to mention a particular witness because that subject's been done to death. But what about the other witnesses who have been called, or invited if that's a better word, to give evidence but have refused? Or as might be the case haven't even been contacted by the COI? Once you start thinking of them, there's quite along list. Do we even know if the COI has or is going to list those who declined? The comment about the non journalism of the JEP made me think of that because it's an obvious question for media to have asked the COI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. I can think of a number of people who weren't called to give evidence, but were mentioned multiple times by other witnesses. For example, Iris Le Feuvre and Mike Pollard.

      Where is the JEP story about that?

      Delete
    2. I hear Le Feuvre is now ga-ga so I suppose you.might understand her not being called, no matter how despicable she was. Really the heinous woman's 'flicked with a wet towel' and 'feeling sorry' for the Bailhaches comments will.haunt me for ever.

      Delete
    3. This lovely, caring and responsible politician (she was Constable of the Establishment Reich of St. Lawrence in case any don't recall) was also the former President of Education who proposed one disgraced paedo-protecting Victoria College Vice-Principle Le Breton to become a Jurat in Sir Philip Bailhache's Royal Court! Obviously a lovely woman. Won't hear a word against her. Anyone who was on the Vic College Board of Governors through the Jervis-Dykes scandal must be a good egg. Mustn't they??????

      Delete
    4. The guardians of the Jersey Way continue to thrive, such as the sprightly Iris Le Feuvre, elected to the States Assembly for almost 20 years, who as president of the education committee oversaw Haut de la Garenne, Les Chenes and Blanche Pierre during some of their most troubled times. Now retired, the 80-year-old, whose husband Eric was for years a hobby bobby, lives in St Lawrence parish. "Granny's coming," she shouts as an over-excitable Tibetan spaniel barks at the gate, and ushers us into her front room. Le Feuvre, who collected an MBE from Buckingham Palace in 2002, says of Haut de la Garenne: "It's been a terrible business. But mostly I feel for William and Sir Philip Bailhache. They've been through so much."

      But what of the victims? She smiles: "Oh, such a fuss has been made. My father always used a belt on me. It did me the world of good."

      From GUARDIAN.

      Delete
    5. Maybe it addled her brain?

      What sane person would propose a 'pathetic man' and one 'without any integrity' as the police described who had not only refused to look at evidence of abuse before writing in support of Jervis-Dykes.

      But according to an abused pupil the officer said told had 'bullied' him into silence.

      A Jurat who still gets to proudly use that title and even after his retirement gets to sit in the other Bailhache's Royal Court when 'duty' calls to this very day.

      Oh yes sir! Our kids are much, much safer today.

      Delete
    6. Bet anonymous a pint that when or if the COI publishes its report no mention of this or how the Bailiffs who let Le Breton sit in judgement of others in their courts will be made, never mind any call for UK investigation of the scandal. Actually anonymous, make that two pints.

      Delete
  28. I would expect the COI had to decide which witnesses to call and which they left out, they were under clear instructions from the states not to go over budget and over time. They have however been given some extra money recently, they must have put forward a good case to get it, so we will have to see who appears. Some witnesses are now old and confused and would not make credible witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't buy that comment, I have to say it smells bad, smells like the words of an official paid spin doctor to me.

      Let's face the facts we all know. There's at least a dozen witnesses there's been no sight or sound of since the COI began. That is witnesses who are really obvious and will occur to anyone who has an interest in the whole thing. And when you get past the dozen or so who spring to mind straight away, there are more. I can think of about 25 in 10 minutes.

      Of those I can think of there's only 1 who could possible have the excuse of being too old or infirm and that's obviously Iris Le Feuvre. None of the others I'm thinking of could have that excuse made for them. And personally I don't excuse the COI from calling Le Feuvre. Calling all witnesses should be the basic starting point, and if a witness has a real excuse like really being too old and infirm, that the COI excused them for that reason needs to be part of their official records. Just like Janner couldn't be prosecuted because of dementia. But the process still called him, and the court had to make the decision he couldn't be a witness.

      But that's the least criticism of the COI. If it's making decisions as to which witnesses it will call and which it won't call, then the COI's whole grounds and reasons for making those judgements needs to be in the public domain. It's just crazy that anyone on the side of survivors in this could try and argue it's ok for a process like a public inquiry to just be making up it's policies and judgements about who gets held to account and who doesn't, in secret. That's why I think that comment is from a paid spin doctor. It's such rubbish. Of all thing things we're fighting against it's strange and mysterious and secret decisions making, with no transparency and so no accountability. There's no way at all a secret kind of 'just trust us' performance from a child abuse public inquiry can be accepted or defended. No one on our side would try and make that argument in the comment.

      Oh yes, now I read the comment again to see if i've answered it, I notice it tries to claim the importance of following the 'clear instructions from the States'. ok, if the 'clear instructions from the States' are the thing, what happened to the order to the COI to engage with stake-holders before it started hearings,and maybe ask for the terms of reference to be refined? Was that 'clear instruction' only fit for the garbage bin?

      Yes, and as for the budget being the reason why lots of main witnesses have been left out, that's a joke! Come on! These lawyers have been given £26 million. No one but a spin doctor could claim £26 million, which is more than the UK inquiry budget, is not enough money to call witnesses like Pollard, Le Main, Le Sueur, James Le Feuvre, Michael De La Haye, Routier, Jones, McCormic, Rondel, Martin, Chapman, and the rest.

      £26 million, but 'not enough budget' to question obvious witnesses? You, whoever you are, are trying to take the micky. We're not fools any more.

      Delete
    2. Well said @23:03

      The CoI seems to have been made as inefficient and as expensive as possible in an attempt to exhaust the taxpayer.

      This is theft. Now the muggers are jeering at their mugs

      Delete
    3. And another - Mr Danny Wherry, who was allowed to take early redundancy and went off around the world for an extended trip while the COI was taking place.

      Delete
    4. Danny Wherry gave evidence you numpty.

      Delete
    5. It's certainly correct that Danny Wherry gave evidence. However, a more casual observer, far from being a 'numpty'(do I detect a hallmark of a certain troll in that phrase?)can be forgiven for making such a mistake given the designed-to-obscure conduct of the COI in taking to itself the infamous 'Mr-Three-Identities'methodology.

      However, that isn't really the point. The very significant question is, no matter who has given evidence (I'm not making particular reference to Mr. Wherry in this, the point is general) how can the testimony given by any witnesses to Jersey's public inquiry be taken at face value and regarded as robust, when the public inquiry tolerates straightforward perjury, as in the case of former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis?

      Delete
    6. It's not possible to commit perjury at a Public Inquiry, who keeps on writing this nonsense?

      Delete
    7. I think the common perception is lying under oath. The suggestion is that it is more complicated eg has to be in court.

      Perhaps one of the commenters with a legal background could give us a quick run down.

      If the definition is tighter than I thought then what is the point of people taking the oath at the inquiry? Hellfire in the hereafter?

      Delete
    8. But Mr.K was exonerated by none other than William Bailhache our current Bailiff and chief judge.

      Mr.K even offers this exoneration as the 'evidence' to counter the other evidence and medical witness testimony

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      Unbelievable !

      Delete
    9. You say: "They have however been given some extra money recently."

      Is that the quite large extra money voted by the States, ior have they been given a further sub?

      Please clarify

      Delete
  29. Mike Pollard is still around. He can be seen, looking like a mad professor, furiously riding a push bike on the outskirts of town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder if he is still playing guitar after all those lessons? Hope so. We taxpayers paid for them.

      Delete
  30. Hi VFC,
    I hope all is well with you and yours

    Your blog has been unusually quiet for a couple of days (still on 81 comments)

    Maybe a well earned Easter break even?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The web site of the Jersey child abuse public inquiry appears to be back on line.

    It would be interesting to hear from those who have followed it closely to see if any examples of testimony or evidence have been removed or altered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the smart money would have to be on the evidence of former Deputy Trevor Pitman having gone AWOL again. His statement did seem to upset the Law Office Mafia more than any other.

      Probably also worth checking if any new second statements re-writing history have been slipped in on the quiet?

      Delete
    2. Second statements being quietly slipped in? Surely not? But then again -

      Delete
  32. Did Tim Le Cocq give evidence to the COI, and if so, was he asked why he didn't intercede when Andrew Lewis was deliberately misleading the House with his lies about the Met Report? He clearly must have known what was going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's a very good point about former Solicitor General, former Attorney General, and presently Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq.

      And there are other very obvious, publicly documented issues, of equal importance to that point.

      Tim Le Cocq's position is untenable. He must resign. Or be striped of office by the crown without further delay. Why? No-one is ever forgetting he represented the office of Home Affairs Minister - in court - opposing the judicial review application made by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief.

      He did that - all the while knowing what the true nature of the unlawful suspension had been.

      Further, that court case was, wholly improperly and unlawfully, presided over by the profoundly conflicted Julian Clyde-Smith, of the Ogier Group. The law-firm from whence Le Cocq worked before being chosen by the establishment to be their next Crown Office placeman. To understand the gravity of the conflict of Clyde-Smith and the Ogier Group, the former Police Chief Graham Power makes specific reference to it in his statement to the COI.

      For the same reasons as those which are fatal to Clyde-Smith and Ogiers in this scandal, Tim Le Cocq being a former Ogier partner, friend and colleague of Clyde-Smith, should have declared professionally that conflict of interests at the first hint of the conspiracy to suspend the Police Chief, and should have played no role in it at all.

      But instead of that, he knowingly mislead a court, failed to meet the well established compulsory legal obligation on public authorities in legal proceedings of the 'duty of candour', and by behaving in this way not only abused the basic rights of Mr Power to a fair proceeding, but also abused the human rights of all those in Jersey who were entitled to the protections of objective and impartial policing which was being delivered by the Police under Mr Power's leadership.

      Yet Tim Le Cocq is now deputy head of you judiciary, the second most senior judge in Jersey (the most senior being the equally fatally conflicted William Bailhache) and deputy speaker of your legislature.

      The most interesting question is how London plans to deal with this. As they must. Interested people from around the world are watching the crisis in Jersey and have a specialist enough interest in these issues to see how serious things are for the Crown, MoJ, HO, Privy Council and cabinet office. The thing which sits in plain sight has a descriptor, even if the two words don't appear in events and reports in Jersey. It can't now ever be put back in its box. And this being the 21st century, things which the British establishment used to brazen out with sheer 'front' can't now be faded away like that. The old 'confidence tricks' don't work any more.

      The emperors are naked. And every interested person around the world sees that fact.

      Delete
    2. What 'two words' describe the 'thing' we see in Jersey? I'm not sure I get the drift?

      Delete
    3. I believe the two words 19:05 has in mind are 'judicial corruption'. No-doubt we'll be corrected if otherwise, but that seems to be the universal, linking, common factor in the obvious expiration of lawful governance on your island.

      Delete
    4. When just a foursome of examples picked at random, secret trials with no defense witnesses allowed, evidenced paedophile protectors appointed as Jurats, judges presiding over friends' cases and selected politically motivated prosecutions can demonstrate it I think denying judicial corruption in Jersey is only for the sad, the mad and the bad. We generally call them Crown Officers. Or trolls.

      Delete
  33. Time this blog went back to its old format of breaking things up with some hard hitting interviews from some of our more controversial political figures. I used to love them. Can't see why you stopped. Apart from there being no hard hitting, controversial political figures left to interview? Ah the good old days! What about door-stepping Andrew Lewis instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not do a regular "looking back" feature of some of the past interviews on judicial corruption and the Jersey Way generally?

      Alright it might be a bit depressing in one way. But on the other side of the coin there are always new readers/viewers who will never have seen the stuff.

      New readers who it is important to inform about what has gone on here. And what is still going on today. Worth considering surely?

      Delete
  34. Inquiry site back up.

    Apology on Twitter (ephemeral) but not on the site itself (permanent?)

    Website

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All present and correct Polo?

      Delete
    2. @15:00

      If you mean has anything been interfered with I don't know. Haven't time or resources to check fully. Just looking at dates it seems to be OK.

      Expect it was incompetence compounded by unconcern.

      Delete
  35. Can I just point out that if published this should be the thread's 100th comment! That's more votes than some election candidates got!

    ReplyDelete
  36. When is Part 2 going up?

    ReplyDelete