Friday, April 8, 2016



The “Andrew Lewis Effect.”

Readers will be familiar with the phrase “The Streisand Effect” or as it is known locally “The Emma Martins Effect.” In the case of Streisand she attempted to suppress photographs of her house being published, which caused them to be published on a far greater scale than they would have been had she not tried to have them kept secret.

In the case of Emma Martins, she brought, what was supposed to be, a secret court case using four proxies against former Health Minister Stuart Syvret. The names of the proxies were supposed to be kept a secret, along with the court case itself but within no time the names and court case almost went viral.

Now we might have a new phrase to add to the Streisand/Emma Martins Effect and that is “The Andrew Lewis Effect.” In my last posting I published the editorial from the Jersey Evening Post (re-posted below) where the paper, rightly, called Andrew Lewis out and exposed his lies when he suspended the chief of police back in 2008, what he told the States Assembly and what he told the child abuse inquiry.

It looks like Andrew Lewis, or a supporter, (if he has any) has complained to the JEP about its PREVIOUS EDITORIAL which has caused the paper to publish a correction/clarification which I publish below.

You have to ask, what the hell was Andrew Lewis (or his supporter) thinking? He had his trousers pulled down in the editorial and now – because of the complaint – he’s had his underpants pulled down as well!

Here is the original editorial from the JEP


 DO the ends justify the means? And if they do, should those who adopt questionable tactics to achieve their objective be honest and transparent about what they are doing?

Those questions – and a good many more – are left hanging today after Deputy Andrew Lewis, the former Home Affairs Minister, finished giving his evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday. He did so following the release recently of the transcript of the 2008 States debate about the suspension of former police chief Graham Power, which was held behind closed doors.

Deputy Lewis has long been accused of misleading the States during that debate. He has always denied the allegation and denied it again, and again, yesterday.
The case against him is that, during the debate, he said unambiguously that Graham Power should be suspended because of the findings of an interim report by the Metropolitan police, which was reviewing the States police’s handling of the historical child abuse inquiry.

He now says that he had never seen the report, but was acting on information supplied to him by former police chief David Warcup in a letter. At no point during the in camera debate did he mention the letter from Mr Warcup.
‘I have read an alarming report by the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place,’ he told Members. He added later: ‘I am purely acting on information contained in a report that was about the investigation.’

Mr Lewis said yesterday that everyone in the States Chamber during the secret debate knew perfectly well that he was referring to the letter and not the interim report. He says he made a mistake under the pressure of being questioned by States Members. During the 2008 debate, he was also asked whether it would be better to wait for the full report before suspending Mr Power. A few weeks ago, William Bailhache, the Attorney General in 2008, revealed that he had advised it would be better for the whole report to be available before any decision was made regarding Mr Power’s suspension. That advice was ignored.

So what of the questions posed at the top of this column?
Deputy Lewis has been left looking ridiculous at best and, to many, dishonest. Due process was not properly followed, advice from lawyers was ignored and warnings from elected representatives resisted. Whether or not the ends – the removal of Mr Power – were justified is a question for another day, and one for the inquiry to ponder.

But revelations about the means will do the reputation of this Island, the credibility of its politicians (and their ability to tell the truth under robust scrutiny) and the institutions of government no good. If Deputy Lewis is the fall guy for what went on behind the scenes in 2008 at the very top of government, he can have little to complain about.

The great irony is that, ultimately, the people who fought so hard to protect Jersey’s reputation in 2008 may end up seriously undermining it. The electorate will decide who they believe. And those privileged to sit in positions of power to serve Jersey must understand the obvious dangers of trying to run this Island in secret and away from public scrutiny

Deputy Andrew Lewis, and It really could only of been Deputy Andrew Lewis, must of put a complaint in about the above editorial. Instead of complaining - I would have thanked the JEP for not totally shafting me with the truth. Not this PR guru. 

Andrew Lewis must now wait. His disastrous testimony, and the conclusions drawn from it, are now in the hands of the Jersey Care Enquiry. 

Andrew Lewis suspended a Police Chief in the middle of one of the biggest Child Abuse Investigations ever. As Minister, it was only he who had the power to do this. His actions were going always going to be scrutinised. Obviously, nobody bothered to tell him this. If you read his evidence nobody actually bothered to tell him anything. He was kept out of the loop until the last minute. The Patsy. 

He knows what he did. And so do all of us. 

The JEP has been spot on with this. It's getting a lot better. If I'm going to slag the JEP then I'm also going to praise it. I only want the truth. Nothing more nothing less.

Below we have the response from the Jersey Evening Post.

Deputy Andrew Lewis and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry

ON 18 February, the JEP published an editorial leader column under the headline “Lewis and the Truth”. The column was published the day after Deputy Andrew Lewis gave evidence to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry.

The Deputy told the inquiry that he had suspended former police chief Graham Power on 12 November 2008 after receiving a letter from Bill Ogley, the then chief executive of the States. Attached to the letter was what Mr. Ogley described as a “report” written by David Warcup, the then deputy police chief.

This “report”, in effect a letter written by Mr. Warcup, included the officer’s own views on the management of Operation Rectangle, the State force’s investigation into historical child abuse, as well as quotes and comments which Mr. Warcup said were the preliminary findings of the Metropolitan Police’s review into the management of the investigation.

Deputy Lewis told the Inquiry that he had never been allowed to see the actual Met report as it contained victims’ sensitive personal data.

During an in-camera States debate on 2 December 2008 about the suspension of Mr Power, Deputy Lewis said: “Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation.” Towards the end of the debate, he added: “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which lead me to this decision (to suspend Mr Power) in the first place.”

At no point during the debate did Deputy Lewis tell Members that the so-called “preliminary report” was written by Mr Warcup and not the Metropolitan police. When asked by the Inquiry to explain why he had said that he head “read an alarming report from the Metropolitan police” when he had not, he said that he had made a mistake under the pressure of questioning. He added that he was, in fact referring to the document produced by Mr Warcup and that he had made that “perfectly clear” during the in-camera debate. Deputy Lewis added that he did not believe his words were misleading and argued that no right-minded Member would have thought he was actually saying that he had read a report written by the Metropolitan police.

The leader column highlighted the discrepancy. It also asked a number of questions about the actions of those involved in Mr Power’s suspension in 2008. It did not state that Deputy Lewis lied to the States. The inquiry will give its view on the evidence put before it in due course.

The leader column stated that advice from the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, (that the full Met Report should be available before making any decision about suspending Mr Power was made) was ignored.

The JEP is happy to clarify that the advice was given in writing in a letter sent to Bill Ogley and Frank Walker. Deputy Lewis says that the advice was not communicated to him before he suspended Mr Power even though he alone, as Home Affairs Minister, had the authority to suspend the police chief.

The leader stated that “warnings” from elected representatives about the need to follow correct procedures in the suspension of Mr Power “were resisted”. The JEP is also happy to clarify that these concerns were raised during the in-camera debate on 3 December 2008, nearly a month after Mr Power was suspended by Deputy Lewis. The comment referred to Mr Power’s ongoing suspension, which lasted until he retired in July 2010.

The transcripts of Deputy Lewis’s evidence can be read in full at They are numbered 136 and 138.  

These post below from VFC are essential reading. They beautifully expose the liar Lewis. 

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist.