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.


Anonymous said...

Yes, I don't know what on Earth Andrew Lewis or his legal advisers (or puppet masters) imagined they were going to gain for him by going to war with the JEP over this. Like you said, Rico, in truth the JEP let him off lightly when they reported his performance at the COI. They could have really crucified him. In a big, big way. Come on, those of us who live in Jersey don't have to stretch our imagination to picture what the coverage would have been if an anti-establishment person had been in the Lewis position. They'd of had 3 months of front page headlines, readers polls, special editions in which they surveyed constitutional expert opinion on parliamentary governance and the precedents for impeachment, and souvenir colour supplementary pull-outs, with a chance to win a family holiday for who suggested the most novel punishments.

I guess it's more evidence of the arrogance of the establishment and how these people are away with the fairies and live in a different world and think they can get away with anything. Instead of keeping his head down and his mouth shut and be grateful for each day they media aren't openly calling for his prosecution, Lewis and his handlers still thought they're in the driving seat. Crazy.

That first JEP coverage will have passed most people by. Now, instead of being grateful for that, Andrew Lewis is now the main focus of a rare leader-page legal statement by the JEP which will have really pricked people's interest, singled him out for curious scrutiny by the average not very politically minded Jersey reader, and will have I guess really stood out amongst local media events for the international journalist and others who are following things in Jersey!

Way to go, Andrew!

Anonymous said...

My favourite part of the JEP's response is the final sentence where they say "The transcripts of Deputy Lewis’s evidence can be read in full at They are numbered 136 and 138".

There was almost a sonic boom yesterday as a couple of hundred OAPs with time on their hands fired up their computers and pointed them at the web address of Andrew Lewis' testimony. The Streisand Effect, indeed.

Also, good on you Rico for saying "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."

I can't quite imagine you'll get an invitation to Paul Carter's cocktail party just yet, but you never know!

Anonymous said...

Robert Maxwell was once threatened with legal action and he said that you should not sue people who buy printing ink by the ton. The same might apply to people who buy it by the kilo.

The actions of Lewis and his total "in denial" position on the suspension yet again raises some interesting questions about his mental state. His total lack of reflection, insight or any acceptance that he was not completely perfect in his actions was commented on during his evidence to the care inquiry. You have to ask if his head is totally right, or have the pressures of the whole thing driven him into some strange place from which he refuses to return? For me he is welcome to stay there, but the question might be worth asking by those who care about the well-being of the little lying pipsqueak.

Just when the whole thing was in danger of fading from memory the silly little beggar puts it back on the agenda.

What a doughnut.

Anonymous said...

Firstly Rico you should be complimented on your praise for the JEP and I too praise them for highlighting the deficiencies in Lewis's many different versions of his "truth". Your praise for them shows the objectivity and maturity of this blog as you have been critical of them in the past so giving praise where it's due should bring you the respect you deserve.

What on earth Lewis was thinking about when making a complaint to the JEP is another question and does only cause the Emma Martins effect. He's supposed to be a PR expert? I'm sure this "clarification" by the JEP will do his Public Relations no end of Good! (NOT)

Anonymous said...

People would have forgotten about the original leader in the Jersey Evening Post by now if Lewis hadn’t of been so deluded and thought it would be a good idea to complain to them. His complaint has caused another publication of his lies in the JEP and had a blog written about it………..Great PR Andrew you’ll have to give me the name of your company so I know to avoid it. As always a great blog Rico and well done the JEP.

Póló said...

You would wonder was he stoked up to do this so that the spotlight would remain on him and not where it rightly belongs? Wheels within wheels. Could also cast a different light on the JEP. Where is their analysis and condemnation of Messrs Big?

Did Barking Bill actually write that letter at the time? Why did the other Bill withhold it from Lewis? Was Lewis not told beforehand that he would have to explain is action to the States? Did Mick Gradwell actually interview No.737 under caution and what was the result? Etc. Why is the "JEP investigative team" not all over this stuff?

Constables out said...

And rumour has it he WAS in contention for Chief Minister next time!!
Mind you he seems insane enough to be qualified for the position.
Yes as 9.14 am states would not fancy being a shareholder in Image co his company, hope he has a "pot" in Panama just in case.
The name Lewis in the States is a bit of a disaster as with this chap along with Kevin (no cellars at Haut de la Garenne) Lewis they make a fine pair.

rico sorda said...

Andrew Lewis is of perfectly sane mind its the story that he sticks to that's totally bonkers..

rico sorda said...

I don't like comments that refer to the mental condition of Mr Lewis. That is none of my business. You don't have to be crazy to make crazy decisions. You can simply be the lions dinner.

Anonymous said...

Good work Rico,

Clear and to the point.

If the Government allow in their midst a confirmed liar, what does that say about Jersey's government ?

Action needs to be taken by 48 members as one of them has been caught lying. The only reason that may not happen is if Andrew Lewis threatens to spit out the dummy and drop others in the mire of course the others will not include the whole house.

That probably leaves around forty states members who have a chance to take the moral high ground and prove that integrity still exists in the States, but will they ?

Anonymous said...

It's perfectly obvious that the main protagonist in Graham Power's unlawful suspension was Frank Walker. Lewis was just stupid enough to do his bidding. Lord only knows why.

While I give credit to the JEP for their editorials in this instance, I will believe that the leopard might finally be thinking about changing its spots when a similar editorial is written about Frank Walker's role in suspending Graham Power the child abuse enquiry. I won't hold my breath - especially while John Averty is still Chief Executive.

Anonymous said...

There is one thing that puzzles me with all this and I hope you could have the answer to my question Rico. We all know Lewis is the patsy and there are people further up the chain who are hanging him out to dry. For example Crich, Le Cocq, the Bailhache's and the Law Office and possibly others. My question is why? Why is Lewis happy to be the fall-guy for all these people? Why is he so happy to have his name embedded in history as the guy who is the liar who helped sabotage the child abuse investigation? Something is missing here because nobody would want that on their CV or historical record. This is a genuine question Rico and one you might not have the answer to, if you can't answer it hopefully a reader of this blog could?

Why is Lewis so content to be the fall-guy?

Anonymous said...

I'm still trying to work out what thinking lead the Jersey establishment to let Andrew Lewis get back into politics? You can see how 20 or 30 years ago a "temporary" departure from politics, with the promise being being made by the powers that be, behind the scenes, that he could come back after the fuss had died down, would have been how the Lodges would have arranged these things. But not these days, surely? And not when it comes to undertaking a de facto "assassination" on behalf of "The Firm" of the magnitude of illegally suspending a Police Chief, at the height of a major child-abuse investigation?

You know, the impression I get is that, even today, the Jersey establishment still don't see the seriousness of what they did. Sure, it's possible they might get away with it yet, but none of them appear to understand things can now never be the same again for "The Jersey Way". Look at it this way, if we look at all of the post-WWII major scandals which have shaken the public trust in standards of governance by the British state, and what has often been successions of public-inquiries into those scandals, there are none which have the simply and easily understood stark components of the Jersey child-abuse cover-up.

And it is that simplicity, a simplicity which can't be disguised by £26 million and can't be hidden behind millions of pages of documents, which remains, as irreducible and as inescapable as a scar.

A major child-abuse investigation, which had implications for every part of public administration in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey, and implications for a number of senior figures, was sabotaged by the illegal suspension of the island's Police Chief.

What the Jersey establishment did in 2008 has no precedent in all of British public administration in the post WWII years. It actually jeopardises the good name and standing of the Crown. It actually involves a number of simple and undisguisable examples of unprecedented judicial corruption.

But there's no sign at all that anyone in the Jersey establishment grasps the magnitude of what they've done. Nor understands the nature of the "ask" their conduct has placed, and continues to place, upon the Crown, the Monarchy, in seeking continuing protection for what is unprecedented, jaw-dropping governmental corruption.

There was never any way back into public life for Andrew Lewis after he undertook the de facto assassination of the Police Chief and the capture of the policing function in Jersey by partisan individuals with conflicts of interest in hiding the child-abuse and the cover-ups which were under investigation.

Andrew Lewis being enabled in getting back into politics by the Jersey establishment is, in addition to being another arrogant and contemptuous demand for protection slapped on the desk of the Monarchy, is another self-inflicted wound on the Jersey mafia.

Seriously, the Jersey oligarchs would have been far better advised to have a whip-around, and say to Lewis, 'look, here's a million quid as a "pension". Now just shut up and go away.'

But instead of that, they have Andrew Lewis infecting the current Jersey legislature, and spreading to it the inevitable contagion of this assembly having to de facto endorse the child-abuse cover-ups, by failing to take steps to have Andrew Lewis expelled.

Anonymous said...

Have you got a theory or answer to my question Rico? Why is Lewis so willing to be the fall-guy?

Anonymous said...

Given thatAndrew Lewis' ego is a clouding issue making him the David Icke of Jersey politics, there are some other 'follow the money' issues.
As the 'best PR company in the British offshore finance environment' there is lots of kudos to be gained by being a McKinsey type operation, with lots of money to be got by making connections.
Even so it is hard to see how he could really be successfully lined up for higher office next time, yet this is what it looks like, so why?
Could it be that he is some form of Trojan Horse/ stalking horse plant and for whom?

Who would be standing in 2018 that would want to gain second round votes for Chief Minister from him?

The list is short some start with a B.

Anonymous said...

7.15, April 9th, “Andrew Lewis”, a “contagion infecting the current Jersey legislature”?

Hell, the presence of Lewis back in Jersey politics is a lot worse for the island's establishment than that. Think about it? Follow through the correct logic of the comment. Yes, the present Jersey legislature & current members will be contaminated - 'infected' is a good word - by the child-abuse cover-ups of 2007, 2008, 2009, etc, if the present assembly de facto endorses those child-abuse cover-ups by omitting to take expultatory action against Deputy Andrew Lewis. But if the deep establishment of Jersey do plan to shield Andrew Lewis, they won't have planned to lay that burden on the present States assembly, without Lewis being let off the hook first in crucial ways by the public inquiry.

The Jersey establishment obviously planned all along to elide Andrew Lewis back into Jersey politics (not least as a way of giving, albeit fake, uninformed, 'public electoral endorsement' to the 2008 child-abuse cover-up) a part of that plan will have had to be guaranteeing that the public inquiry produced nothing "terminal" about Lewis. Of course there will have to be lots of 'rough stuff', you know, 'strong words', 'serious criticisms of his judgment', a few paragraphs here and there which must be capable of being quoted by survivors, the whistle-blowers, and the establishment media, as 'dramatic judgments on the calibre of Andrew Lewis' (after all, The Rag has to rehabilitate itself so it too needs the 'Official Patsy', as much as the rest of the establishment). But the findings of the COI can't be "too" strong.

The COI's finding have to stop "just short" of the core truth.

Essentially, for the Jersey establishment plan of rehabilitating Andrew Lewis and giving a coat of gloss to the 2008 child-abuse cover-up they conducted, to work, the public-inquiry had to be guaranteed to stop short of endorsing two obvious facts; a) that Andrew Lewis lied to the Jersey parliament; b) that his actions are prima facie criminal.

But those are the two, central, and unavoidable, facts.

But if the COI wrote the truth in those stark factual terms, the current States assembly would, indeed, be "contaminated", and left with no-where to hide when they, inevitably, fail to take the necessary expultatory actions against Deputy Andrew Lewis. The Jersey establishment generally tries not to gamble; it usually only goes into punts when the game is confidently rigged beforehand so they're sure of getting the 'result' they planned for. The gamble, and it was a huge risk, at least at first blush, of getting Lewis back into politics depended - absolutely depended - on the current States assembly being "protected" from receiving from the public inquiry unambiguous - legally robust - condemnation of Andrew Lewis.

If the current States assembly are not given that "shield" by the COI - if the COI went ahead and produced the plain facts - then the gamble by the Jersey establishment will have failed. The responsibility for taking - or not taking - the unavoidable and obviously necessary actions against Andrew Lewis will be placed squarely back on the desk of this States assembly. And so the nightmare they embarked upon, which they thought would “be all over by Christmas" back in 2008, will have risen again, and be staggering around as un-killable as Frankenstein's monster.

If the COI stopped short of the ultimate condemnations of Andrew Lewis, then, of course, the States assembly is relived; they will have all the £26 million-excuses they could wish, for failing to take action.

But, if the COI condemned Lewis in the ways the already evidenced facts show him to be condemned, then the current members of the States assembly will have no hiding place.

And the Jersey “Our Way” didn’t survive over 800 years by leaving such outcomes to ‘chance’.

rico sorda said...

I have been asked why Lewis would do what he did. I believe it's for many reasons. One definitely being a weak man amongst the powerful.. The question can probably be best answered by reading the transcripts of walker, Ogley and Warcup. They just needed the perfect numpty. He made his bed now he has to lie and lie again in it.

Anonymous said...

A reader said (10th April, 2:00pm), "Given that Andrew Lewis' ego is a clouding issue making him the David Icke of Jersey politics....a McKinsey type operation, with lots of money to be got by making connections. Even so it is hard to see how he could really be successfully lined up for higher office next time……Could it be that he is some form of Trojan Horse/ stalking horse plant ….Who would be standing in 2018 that would want to gain second round votes for Chief Minister from him?....”

Just recently there have been a few comments in the island's free media which have raised the issue of the next general election in the island, and which establishment figures would be the oligarchy front-men candidates, and whether there'd be any vaguely effective, let alone organised, democratic opposition to them.

But if Jersey activists and civil society at large are thinking in such terms 2 years out from the next elections, don't you think we have the time, and the need, frankly, to address more basic issues of democracy, issues to which Jersey is a stranger???

For example, for any election process in Jersey to be valid, to be lawful, to be democratic, potential candidates in that election need to be free of fear, free of intimidation, free of the threat of "consequences", before they could even come forward as a real candidate; before they could freely and democratically table the issues of corruption and concealed crime to the voting public, to give that voting pubic a real, informed choice.

At present in Jersey, and this is an evidenced fact, serious candidates who address the real issues of corruption, breakdowns in good governance, and abuses of public safety in the island, then face being arrested, prosecuted, jailed. Jailed by directly conflicted "judges", via rare (for Britain) "secret trials", in which the public can't, therefore, scrutinise the trial. In such banana-republic “courts”, it’s an axiomatic consequence of the secrecy that it’s impossible for the former election candidate now on trial, to ever be able to run a functioning, Article 6 compliant, defence.

Under the present regime of "The Jersey Way", there will be serious potential candidates, people who would, absolutely, have spoken freely, representing the concerns and interests of the average reader of this blog, but who won't even get to the starting-line of being actual candidates, because of the fear, intimidation and oppression your oligarchy have, very clearly, established over such people.

So before you start thinking of "which candidates" might reflect our concerns, and "which possible candidates might oppose X or Y Jersey establishment party candidates", is it not the case that more basic questions need to asked, before then?

Namely, “do we even have a free and fair choice of candidates to PARTICIPATE in the election? Are we even able to enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms of having good, effective, candidates, candidates who would represent our concerns, even getting to the starting-line of our Jersey “election” process? In reality, is it not the case that we, concerned voting members of civil society in Jersey, don’t have a free choice of who we elect to the legislature?”

It was an abuse of my human rights as supposedly guaranteed under the ECHR that my Deputy, my democratic choice as agreed by a lawful majority of fellow voters, Trevor Pitman, was removed from the legislature seat to which I and others elected him. And removed by a corrupt and conflicted court process at that. But not only was my democratic choice abused by corrupt judges, my right to a free and fair choice of candidates is STILL being abused because Trevor Pitman couldn’t be a candidate in the next elections, because of the actions of that unlawful court.

We need to be given our rights to real elections before we start planning campaigns.

Kettle said...

Don't worry. According to the echo chamber of the JEP on line stories (Ozouf defending Powell and his chums collossal travel costs story) good old MM is going to be standing in St Helier 2 district so all will soon be well! Word straight from the horse's mouth Petal.

Anonymous said...

'MM'? Sorry, could someone clarify that please?

I get concerned that sometimes readers of Jersey's free media are beginning to fall into the "echo chamber", to borrow the phrase, of looking at the issues of 'The Jersey Situation' from the same parochial perspective of your oligarchy and their media and their trolls. Speaking in localised 'shorthand', using obscure phrases, acronyms, unsourced references to stories or threads in your hick-town, make believe media, does not help your international audience to a broader understanding of the mutation of power on your London-protected island.

Who the hell is "MM"? I don't know, and I'm on your side. Could we have greater clarity please.


voiceforchildren said...


Adrian Lynch. The Official Line QUESTIONED.

voiceforchildren said...



voiceforchildren said...


Adrian Lynch still missing. Questions to THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE.

Daniel said...

I have just read this post, well done Rico. Several points:

First, Polo writes (April 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM):

"You would wonder was he stoked up to do this so that the spotlight would remain on him and not where it rightly belongs? Wheels within wheels. Could also cast a different light on the JEP. Where is their analysis and condemnation of Messrs Big?"

Exactly, it does seem to me that there is a real possibility that the COI will focus on Lewis, the questioning was pretty savage. Was the questioning equally tough On say William Bailhache, or Birt?

about expelling Andrew Lewis from the States:

It is futile to start this process now. The COI will, I believe, state the obvious, it is very hard for them to do otherwise (see my first comment).

Then anyone, member of the States, former member of the States, or even a States member, can then refer the case to PPC. Yes. I know, ha ha, PPC. But again, this is one, following on from the report of the COI, which is really pretty hard for them to ignore. It will help at that point if A LOT of [people refer AL to PPC.

Why did he not turn around and say what really happened? Why did he not say he is now amazed and upset that he was kept in the dark about the legal advice. But he said nothing to the COI, even though he had the opportunity and he was being put through the wringer for not so doing. Could it be fear? This really is a key question. And no, he is not a serious possibility for remaining a States member, and then running for Chief minister . . .

If anyone wants an insight into the shenanigans around the suspension of Graham Power, can I recommend reading Napier? Maybe someone could put up a link?

Just search on the following names in turn: Bailhache, Le Cocq, Warcup, Ogley, Walker, Crich, Lewis. It is very instructive!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.