Thursday, January 28, 2016

FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS AND THE POISONED CHALICE PART 2 - RESIGN OR NOT RESIGN THAT IS THE QUESTION

FORMER CHIEF MINISTER FRANK WALKER AND FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS 


LET US CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE ACTIONS OF THEN HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER, DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS. 


HIS SUSPENSION OF FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE GRAHAM POWER QC ON TH 12TH NOVEMBER 2008


ANDREW LEWIS AND FRANK WALKER ARE TRYING TO MOVE THE GOALPOSTS 


THE REASON IS VERY SIMPLE


BACK IN NOVEMBER/DECEMBER OF 2008 THEY NEVER EVER THOUGHT THAT THE "IN CAMERA DEBATE" WOULD BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.


YOU CAN SEE WHY THEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATES OF JERSEY BILL OGLEY DESTROYED THE NOTES OF THE SUSPENSION MEETING


THE BIGGEST DECISION THEY EVER MADE AND CEO BILL OGLEY DESTROYED THE NOTES.


During the "in camera debate" Andrew Lewis continually referred to the "Met Interim Report" as his reason for suspending Graham Power.  This makes perfect sense. How could Andrew Lewis come to the States of Jersey on the 2nd of December 2008 and tell his fellow politicians that he was suspending the Chief of Police, Graham Power on a letter from his Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. There is absolutely no way he could have said that. The line of questing would have been totally different. He would have been asked if he had sat down with both the Chief or his Deputy or individually to sort matters out.To hear both sides. To prevent the nuclear option. The letter sent by David Warcup to Bill Ogley on the 10th November 2008 had left Warcup terribly exposed had Graham Power remained in office. 

Deputy Lewis has since come out and said that he was not in fact referring to the "Met Interim Report" but the Warcup Letter and that references to a preliminary report had been a mistake.


Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis have been caught out. 


They know it. We know it. Anybody with half a brain will know it. 


I ask readers to go back and look at when Andrew Lewis came to the States of Jersey to make a statement and take questions "in camera" regarding the Graham Power suspension. 

It was the 2nd December 2008


Andrew Lewis suspended Graham Power on the 12th November 2008


20 days to get ready for his statement and questions and he doesn't even know what he used to make the biggest decision of his political career. Are you having a laugh here. He categorically states that he used the "Met Interim Report" and  when that becomes a no go area  he now changes his story and states that it was the Warcup Letter. 

I would love to know if and when he has made a statement to the Jersey Care Enquiry. I will be checking to see when he has signed it off. Has he waited to see what the others have said before submitting his own. This has become a glaring problem for the care enquiry. 

You see in Jersey no one asks any questions. Certainly not back then and certainly not by the Jersey Media. They thought they were in the clear. But for once people did start asking questions. Decent politicians and bloggers started investigating. This caught them out. Graham Power decided to fight back. The wheels have been falling off this shambolic - politically motivated suspension - for years. Andrew Lewis now states that reference to a "preliminary report" was a mistake made while under the pressure of answering questions by states members. 

Ok, so did Andrew Lewis then make a statement rectifying that mistake to members? Why didn't Frank Walker, who was sitting in the chamber,not tell his Minister that he was making a mistake? Only when they get caught out do they say a mistake has been made. 

The Warcup Letter will be a future blog posting. 

What happened to due process and fairness to Graham Power? He has never received any with Andrew Lewis or Wiltshire.

Andrew Lewis states  "My actions in 2008 were based entirely upon evidence placed before me. I acted with integrity and impartiality, remaining with the remit of the disciplinary code and the rule of law" (Jersey evening post)

You didn't even inform the Chief of Police as to why he was being summoned to Cyril Le Marquand House. Let us cut straight to the chase here. This suspension was politically motivated and you were the patsy that they needed to carry it out. What other reason can there be. 


This is part of Graham Powers transcript from when he gave evidence to the Jersey Care Enquiry. In this part Graham Power explains how Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley offered Graham Power to consider his position. 

 What I find finny about this is that during the "in camera debate" Andrew Lewis say's exactly that and then realises what he said and quickly try's to rectify it. Absolutely hilarious. 


Council
you have provided the Inquiry with a great deal of detail as to what happened. So lastly I would just like to ask you to look at one final document. Could we have please {WD007216}. This is a note of the meeting at which you were suspended and the note has been signed by the Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Executive and they sign it as being accurate to the best of their recollection and what I would like to do is go briefly through it and ask you whether it is to your recollection accurate.
It starts with Mr Lewis informing you that he had attended a briefing, and you discuss that in your witness statement, the previous day. Mr Lewis informed you that he had received a letter from Bill Ogley which enclosed a copy of the report that Bill Ogley had received from DCO Warcup:

A. Yes.

Council
"[Mr Lewis]' conclusion was that he had significant concerns about the command and control structures in place as regards the inquiry and [Mr Power]'s role within that. [Mr Lewis] would therefore invoke the Disciplinary Code relating to the Chief Police Officer. He then invited [Mr Ogley] to explain the process.
"[Mr Ogley] informed [Mr Power] that if he wanted up to an hour to consider matters he could take that time and if so he could have drafts of the letters it was intended to give him to activate the process."
Stopping there, do those two paragraphs reflect in summary what you were told?

Graham Power:
I think that some of the first paragraph is true, he certainly went through some sort of script as described in the first paragraph. The second one isn't and it has the crucial omission, doesn't it, "wanted up to an hour to consider matters"; oh, no he didn't say that. He said "We will give you an hour to consider your position." I'm saying that on oath. Anyone who thinks I'm not telling the truth about that do your worst. He said "We will give you one hour to consider your position." That isn't true.

Council:
You have explained in your statement that you took that to mean consider whether you want to resign?

Graham Power
We all knew what he meant. There was not the slightest doubt what he meant.

Council
Tell us what he did mean?

Graham Power
He meant that if I wanted to go quietly and resign I could do so, that's what he meant, because here he was sitting with a lot of legal looking papers and I was going to be in for a lot of stress and a lot of trouble, but if I wanted to go quietly into the next room and sign a piece of paper, I could. That was absolutely -- there is not a shred of doubt that that was what he meant. And my part, and on his as well, because he wouldn't have changed it in there unless he realised that that phrase was a problem.

Council
In paragraph 3 it says that you refused the offer of time.

Graham Power
Yes.


  
The 2nd December 2008 "in Camera Debate".

 And I quote: 


The Connetable of St Helier: (Simon Crowcroft)

Sorry, it is quite clear from the Minister's comments that he has now jumped into part 2 of the disciplinary procedure and that he did not attempt, on a personal basis which means in discussion with the officer concerned, attempt to elucidate the problem.



The Deputy of St John:

I would dispute that. The Chief Officer of Police was requested to come to a meeting with myself and we attempted to discuss the matter with him and he refused to discuss it. He wished to leave very soon after we had the discussion. I gave him an opportunity to retire and to….. to retire to another room rather….. I would add he was never given the option to retire, he was never given the option to resign either, that is complete fabrication on his part. I do not know where that came from. But he was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that is what he was offered

. He chose not to take that opportunity so the suspension was immediate.


Andrew Lewis states that Graham Power was given the opportunity to consider the suspension and that was what he was offered. I don't really understand  what Andrew Lewis means by that. What else apart from retiring or resigning was on the table? Andrew Lewis didn't even inform Graham Power why he was being summoned to Cyril Le Marquand House. 

During Graham Powers evidence to the Jersey Care Enquiry Council also asked Graham Power what happened when he decided to defend himself. Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley were not prepared for this turn of events. 

They then turned to the Media Statement that Andrew Lewis was going to give that afternoon to avoid speculation.

Here Graham Power explains to the care enquiry what happened next:
They were both stressed. They hadn't expected things to turn the way they did and they hadn't expected me to stand up to them and Lewis was showing it most and Ogley said "Well, we'll have to think about what we're going to say in a media statement", and at this point Lewis jumped in and said "Oh, we don't have to think about it, Bill, because we met and discussed this yesterday and we agreed what we're going to say this afternoon". People are going to say that's not true but he did, he really really said it. And Ogley's trying to get him -- and he starts to run off, he can't stop his tongue, and Ogley is trying to get him to shut up: "Yes all right Andrew, all right Andrew", but it's not working, so there's
a lot of talk off-script that went on around that. 



Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

21 comments:

Póló said...

We know that Andrew Lewis was a patsy, and a very incompetent one at that.

We are very fortunate that he was also a blabbermouth and left a magnificent trail of self incrimination in his wake.

Ogley was trying to shut him up at the meeting with Graham Power. The Bailiff was trying to shut him up in the States.

Thank the Lord they were singularly unsuccessful in their puny efforts.

Anonymous said...

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain

Seems like Andrew Lewis is having to do a whole lot of remembering.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if Bill Ogley will have the guts to come to Jersey next week? When he without doubt will be sings for his paymasters!?

Anonymous said...

"You see in Jersey no one asks any questions. Certainly not back then and certainly not by the Jersey Media. They thought they were in the clear. But for once people did start asking questions. Decent politicians and bloggers started investigating."

Amen to that my brother.

Anonymous said...

I ask readers to go back and look at when Andrew Lewis came to the States of Jersey to make a statement and take questions "in camera" regarding the Graham Power suspension.
It was the 2nd December 2008.....Andrew Lewis suspended Graham Power on the 12th November 2008

Thank you for pointing this out because I believed Lewis went straight to the states after suspending Mr Power.

Anonymous said...

This part jumps out.

Graham Power:
I think that some of the first paragraph is true, he certainly went through some sort of script as described in the first paragraph. The second one isn't and it has the crucial omission, doesn't it, "wanted up to an hour to consider matters"; oh, no he didn't say that. He said "We will give you an hour to consider your position." I'm saying that on oath. Anyone who thinks I'm not telling the truth about that do your worst. He said "We will give you one hour to consider your position." That isn't true

Anonymous said...

Bill Ogley, said publicly he was not the second man contained in emails regading operation Blast, and tried to effect an injunction on the JEP.

He publicly lied which is abuse in public office. Just because he is retired is not a crime still a crime ? Does he deserve his six figure pension or the £546,337 pay-off. Come on Mike Bowron and the Jersey police start an investigation.

They won't of course because the employment board behind closed doors ( Frank Walker the chief minister at the time ) changed his contract to organise the half million pound payment. This to needs investigating as few members of the board actually new about the golden handshake and on the employment board are politicians which included Frank Walker.

The real story about Ogley.

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/bill-ogley/

JEP.The Media Spin

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2012/03/20/revealed-why-bill-ogley-resigned/

A man who held a meeting with the Police chief to suspend the head of the force, but decided that as top man in the civil service and having dozens of secretaries at the end of the phone wanted to scrawl down his own hand written minutes.

Mr G. Power refused to sign them when they were eventually typed up.

If you wanted to play a game of who is in our gang, and who is not, just for fun - the gang would have to contain among others:

The Chief Minster Frank Walker. Deputy Paul Le Clair is on record as saying he heard discussions in a corridor that were about the suspension of Graham Power between Frank Walker and others days before the event. Bill Ogley of the untouchables, working with front man and a wannabe Mr important Andew Lewis. The Attorney General William Bailhache, after the meeting with PC G.Power of the emils from Deputy Labey about Grouville Land Corruption naming Terry Le Main as a suspect. Terry Le Main put in place to apparently " Mentor " the new home affairs minister Andrew Lewis. Philip Ozouf signed off the golden hand shake cheque with authority as treasurer. This then took heat for Mr Ogley, who new a lot about a lot behind closed doors in the dark corridors of power.

Not in the with the in Crowd. Stuart Syvret, " told the States " I have no faith in Jersey's health and social services department to protect vulnerable children" ( or words to that effect). Deputy Carolyn Labey in asking the Police Chief to open a criminal investigation into Terry Le Main and other top civil servants regarding corrupt development in Grouville. Police Chief Power who agreed there were grounds for an investigation and told the AG who had emails in his possestion for some weird reason.,

As ACPO report 1,2,3 and 4 confirm CP G. Power worked hard to make the child abuse Operation Rectangle, as robust and efficient as possible.

Anonymous said...

Extract from the Napier Report -

102. The process of suspension that took place on the 12 November was
unremarkable, save in its brevity. It was over in about half an hour. The
meeting was conducted by the Minister, Deputy Lewis, with the Chief
Executive, Mr Ogley in attendance, taking handwritten notes. Mr Power had
part of the letter headed “Disciplinary Code” read to him and was shown the
letter. He was then offered, but declined, an opportunity of one hour to
“consider his position”.

All the leading actors were given a draft copy of the report for comment. Were it the case that Mr Power had not been given an hour to consider his position, don't you think Lewis and the rest of the cabal would have asked for the wording to be changed?

Incidentally, are all QCs as credulous as Brian "I have no reason to doubt this obvious pack of lies" Napier? Was he paid for every kilo of bullshit he was prepared to swallow rather than the usual hourly rate?

Anonymous said...

Andrew Lewis is set to be the patsy, the fall.guy who will be the sole Establishment casualty sacrificed to protect the Big Boys. Which leaves the question - has all of the effort been worth it? I can't quite decide.

Anonymous said...

The picture above is not of Lewis, there are no strings coming from his wrists could someone draw these in please?
You have my greatest respect Rico in everything you do.

Anonymous said...

The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.”

So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else?

It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes?


As you can see, in the final paragraph of the excerpt, (immediately preceding this paragraph,) I pose three questions about yourself. Put simply, Mr Warcup did not send the Met report to the HA Minister. He summarised it in a letter. Were you indeed duped, or did you know the whole story about the so called critical Met interim report was a charade and a pack of lies?


I would appreciate answers to the questions above.


Lenny Harper. (END)



Cont..
Readers will note that Jersey's State Media are copied into this e-mail. Mr. Harper has not received as much as an acknowledgement of it from the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, let alone had his questions answered. Questions are - will the State Media even report on this huge turn of events? Will they seek to get the answers from Ian Le Marquand that not only the victims/Survivors of Jersey's Child Abuse deserve but so do Mr. Harper, Mr. Power QPM, all the good officers that worked on the Child Abuse Enquiry under Mr. Power and Harper but the tax paying public who have paid for the smear campaign, witch-hunts and vendetta's against these people?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You wrote:

"During the "in camera debate" Andrew Lewis continually referred to the "Met Interim Report" as his reason for suspending Graham Power. This makes perfect sense. How could Andrew Lewis come to the States of Jersey on the 2nd of December 2008 and tell his fellow politicians that he was suspending the Chief of Police, Graham Power on a letter from his Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup. There is absolutely no way he could have said that."

Your observations are backed up in the Napier Report:

"It is a matter of record that the contents of the Interim Report from the Metropolitan Police were pivotal to the taking of the decision to suspend by Mr Lewis. The letter informing Mr Power that he was being suspended with immediate effect, handed to him in the meeting he had with Mr Lewis and Mr Ogley on 12 November 2008, makes reference to the Interim Report and contains excerpts from its contents. Mr Ogley, in interview, said that it would have been much harder for him to recommend (as he did) suspension in the absence of the Interim Report."

rico sorda said...

Bingo. Over to Lewis and the Care Enquiry.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The comment from January 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM.

The link for the quoted text, and Open Letter from Lenny Harper, to disgraced former Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, can be found HERE.

Anonymous said...

Following his appearance at the abuse inquiry, Frank Walker is now quoted as saying:

"Former Chief Minister Frank Walker and former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis both said that the decision to suspend Graham Power was ‘justified’ and that evidence relating to an interim report from the Metropolitan police was not crucial in the process."

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/01/25/police-chiefs-suspension-justified-say-ex-ministers/

Another important question to ask is why, from a legal and procedural point of view, is Frank Walker even being asked his opinion on whether the suspension was justified or not.

He should have had no involvement in the decision. The power to suspend rests entirely with the Home Affairs Minister. The fact that Frank Walker had any involvement at all raises more questions than answers.

It's all starting to unravel. Bring on Lewis.

Póló said...

It will be interesting to see if any of the oligarchy up next week start running for cover, however slightly, in the light of all the information that has become obviously public through the Inquiry over the last while (not that the blogs didn't already have it in the public domain already).

In most other jurisdictions this would be the case, but we can't lose sight of the fact that these people also control the judicial function in Jersey and so the scope for pursuing them through the legal system is limited or non-existent.

Anonymous said...

Bill Ogley is up next week. One hopes that, safe in retirement, he's prepared to do the honourable thing and tell the inquiry the whole truth about Graham Power's suspension, warts and all. Turns Queen's Evidence, so to speak. We'll have to see.

Secondly, I have long suspected that many of the bad guys in this scandal are members of what is euphemistically called "the old boys network" - a certain fraternal gentlemens' society, frequented by a disproportionately large number of middle aged men in Jersey, particularly those involved in the civil service, the honorary police, politics, and business. My mate is a member and he's told me that during initiation, you have to share a secret. That secret can then be used against you for the rest of your life, ensuring compliance whenever things get difficult.

Make your own minds up. Consider the bizarre things that have happened. Ask yourselves why this is no ordinary cover up. It's a network of mutual dirt on one another. If one falls, they all fall. That's the architecture of this cover up. You will look at people in power and ask "why the hell did they make that decision?" and the underlying truthful explanation will be that they are compromised, they are effectively being blackmailed, by being part of the network. Others have dirt on them, but they have corresponding dirt on others. It's a ponzi scheme of dirt, where the victims are truth and justice.

I don't for one moment expect that the inquiry panel understands this. Some of the hired help probably do though.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"I don't for one moment expect that the inquiry panel understands this. Some of the hired help probably do though."

The panel understands that perfectly. They are almost certainly all freemasons themselves, as will be the lead Eversheds lawyers.

"But" - I hear you say - "that can't be so, two of the panel are female."

These two quotes are from the Second Report of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on Freemasonry in Public Life: -

“Thus, for the professional judiciary, the proportion who are masons lies roughly between 5 and 10%, depending on how many masons there were amongst those who did not respond in one way or another to the Lord Chancellor's request. The position in respect of the lay magistracy is less clear. The possible proportion of masons ranges from 5% to roughly 20%. However, the number who had not replied or refused to disclose their status —at nearly 14%—was much higher than among the professional judiciary; whether all these might be regarded as possible masons is greatly affected by how many of them were women.”

An end-note from the Report goes on to say this: -

“There are lodges of women freemasons (and mixed lodges) but far fewer than for men. These do not fall within the principles for recognition by the United Grand Lodge of England, which require lodges and Grand Lodges to be composed exclusively of men. The Magistrates' Association, in evidence to our predecessor Committee's inquiry, indicated that it had been suggested that there might be as many as 14,000 women masons, though the United Grand Lodge of England thought this might be an overestimate. By comparison, UGLE estimated that there were just under 350,000 freemasons within lodges recognised by them within England and Wales (or around 2% of the male population over 21) (see evidence to previous Committee Report, Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary HC, Session 1996-97, 192-II, QQ 506, 779, 748). The Lord Chancellor's Department have indicated that it is not at present possible to provide a male/female breakdown for all the figures in the table, but they are in the process of entering the figures on to a new computer system which should make this possible; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is also seeking a male/female breakdown of the figures supplied.”

There’s a simple question to be asked, “why did the panel fail to include - in its self-invented protocols – a declaration of interests and associations on the part of the panel members and its lawyers?”

A crucial thing which should have been done - given the immense level of freemasonry in Jersey - and the role of freemasonry in the concealment of so many crimes in the island - including child-abuse.

Pretty self-explanatory really.

Stuart Syvret

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The curious incident of William Bailhache DOING NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

Ever wondered why Lewis is persona non grata in St John? Could be something to do with his attempt to get the Rec redeveloped some years back. Misled the parish assembly just like he lied about the Police Chief. Tony's Musings has a piece on the subject though not the whole story!

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Rico, Stuart should talk or walk.