Saturday, August 19, 2017

STATEMENT OF ANDREW LEWIS IN RESPONSE TO PPC

DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS
FORMER DCO DAVID WARCUP


THE MOST INCREDIBLE PART OF THE STATEMENT FROM THIS PRESS RELEASE IS THIS:

"A quote taken from recent Hansard transcripts from Deputy Hilton suggests that I said during questions in 2008 that I had seen a copy of the Metropolitan Police Report when in fact I said “I had read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police".  I accept that this didn't adequately describe the report to which I was referring. I had read  a report from the Deputy Police Chief (DCO) about the Metropolitan police report. I unfortunately could not name the report fully as this would have identified the DCO who was the whistle blower. At no time was there any intention to deceive members of the assembly. It should also be noted that this was a Q & A session. No vote of approval was being sought from members as the suspension had taken place nearly two weeks previously."

"I unfortunately could not name the report fully as this would have identified the DCO who was the whistle blower."


"DAVID WARCUP IS NOW A WHISTLE BLOWER"


"DID ANDREW LEWIS TELL THE CARE ENQUIRY THAT THE REASON FOR MISLEADING THE HOUSE WAS TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE BLOWER?"

"THIS IS GOING BEYOND MONTY PYTHON"

READ IT AND CRY (WITH LAUGHTER)


Statement Deputy Andrew Lewis 18th August 2017

I note the publication of PPC’s report today and would like to make the following observations.

Firstly the PPC report does not contain any of the relevant points provided to them by Sir Philip Bailhache and myself at the PPC hearing (for the purpose of completeness I attach the statements given to PPC).

The Hansard extracts contained in the PPC’s report from various States sittings have been taken out of context. Consequently the report appears to infer that they are statements of fact. One statement in particular from Deputy Higgins suggests that I received advice from the Attorney General when in fact this advice was not  shared with me but was given to the former Chief Minister Frank Walker and not passed on to me. Deputy Higgins in another statement states that I played a part in an ‘Unfair Dismissal’ of the former police Chief. When in fact the police Chief was never dismissed, he was suspended to allow for a full and fair investigation to take place. (This was in the form of the Wiltshire report a summary of the findings I have also attached).

A quote taken from recent Hansard transcripts from Deputy Hilton suggests that I said during questions in 2008 that I had seen a copy of the Metropolitan Police Report when in fact I said “I had read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police".  I accept that this didn't adequately describe the report to which I was referring. I had read  a report from the Deputy Police Chief (DCO) about the Metropolitan police report. I unfortunately could not name the report fully as this would have identified the DCO who was the whistle blower. At no time was there any intention to deceive members of the assembly. It should also be noted that this was a Q & A session. No vote of approval was being sought from members as the suspension had taken place nearly two weeks previously.

Questions asked in the States Assembly in 2008 by the former Deputy Paul Le Claire are quoted in the PPC's report. However there is no mention of the fact that at this point, proceedings were interrupted by both the Bailiff and the Solicitor General. Therefore, even if I had recognised the significance of Deputy Le Claire’s chosen words there was not an immediate opportunity for me or anyone else to correct the Deputy’s use of language to describe the report to which he was referring.

I also note that on page one of PPC’s report there is a quote from the IJCC report reference 10.40 which is also taken out of context as there is no clarification confirming that in the same IJCC  report they state that the panel found no evidence of any attempt to derail the police investigation by suspending the police chief.

As I have said before, if any members that were present on December 2nd  2008 and felt mislead by anything I said I most sincerely appologise. I have since endeavored to clarify the position for the record.


I will not be making any further comments on this matter until the next States Sitting in September.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

No idea why you spend so much of your personal time on this.

Of course he lied but PPC, the AG or anybody else cannot do a thing about it. We know the PPC list of punishments against a Back Bencher with little accountability like Lewis is zero, nothing. So let's face it, their is no punishment ever forthcoming to Lewis, so do your own sanity a favour and move on.

Anonymous said...

The man is a tragi-comedy on legs

Anonymous said...

Seen or read is not the question that is neither here nor there. Neither were true. Andrew Lewis had never read nor seen a report from the Metropolitan Police . He lied
Andrew Lewis accepting (fake) that this did not adequately describe the report is nonsence. It is impossible to describe the Met report adequately if you have neither seen or read it. It is a story to try and pass a letter off as ''the report'' as though it were the Met report.
David Warcup today , being touted by Andrew Lewis as a whistle blower is not only sad, but self serving given the circumstances. I assume by being titled and touted as a whistleblower it would involve informing Andrew Lewis of unlawful action of his superior no less. That's what whistleblowers do dont they?
Andrew Lewis is short on information big on stories. It will be intriguing to hear more of the David Warcup whistleblower story elaborated on.
David Warcup (whistleblower,) letter writer promoted into the position of Andrew Lewis's suspended Police Chief shoes. DCO Warcup identified himself when he wrote the letter giving his own opinions to Bill Ogley that Andrew Lewis read and referred to as a report and failed to clarify.
Andrew Lewis knew there was no report that he had read or seen from the Met Police and David Warcup is only now, being touted as whistleblower by Andrew Lewis, as some sort of cover for his actions since the COI released their report and findings that he did Lie?
The story given is that he did not want to name David Warcup. Well he couldn't could he.
How could he? as , had he named David Warcup in the in-camera debate he then could not of passed a letter from David Warcup off in that debate as a report from the Met. It would be clear the report was not a report but David Warcups own letter of his opinions.
Andrew Lewis must of felt prepared fired up and ready to go for the in -camera debate . He must of felt secure in stating ''I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan police which led me to this decision in the first place. I can do no more'' He felt safe to tell a lie in the secrecy of the in-camera debate. Were it not for someone who realise what was taking place in the secret debate.

No further comments on this matter until States sittings in September ( He needs time to see if the lie and stories are working in his favour or if the public are buying it.)

During this time period of silence by Andrew Lewis will the ex Bailiff ex ministers step in to offer their endorsement and support clarifying not elaborating where the public voice concern?)

Anonymous said...

His story (lie) changes be the day.

Now that Bailhache is holding his hand, the bit about being under enormous pressure to suspend, has disappeared
- Funny that!

It was probably the closest thing to the truth that he has yammered so far.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

What Andrew Lewis appears to have done here is to demonstrate he further lied (by omission or otherwise) to the Independent Care Inquiry. In his latest statement to all States Members which you have published he writes:

"I unfortunately could not name the report fully as this would have identified the DCO who was the whistle blower."

You (Rico) asked the question:

"DID ANDREW LEWIS TELL THE CARE ENQUIRY THAT THE REASON FOR MISLEADING THE HOUSE WAS TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE BLOWER?"

The answer to your question is “no” he did NOT. Indeed he went to great lengths attempting to convince the Care Inquiry that he didn’t mislead the States Assembly because just about all States Members knew he was referring to a letter from David Warcup when he said that he had "read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police."

For example from the transcripts of the Care Inquiry:

Cathryn McGahey QC:

"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?"

Andrew Lewis:

"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."

From HERE.

So in his latest statement he appears to be admitting that he DID mislead the States Assembly (protecting a “whistle-blower”) while telling (misleading) the Care Inquiry by saying he DIDN’T mislead the States Assembly because Members were in no doubt he was referring to (the whistle-blower who’s identity he was trying to protect) the David Warcup letter.

It was the former police Chief Graham Power QPM who wrote (of Ian Le Marquand):

"The old saying about "holes and digging" applies well here. When wise folk find themselves in a hole they stop digging. Fools send for a bigger spade." From HERE.

It's time Andrew Lewis "put the spade down" and walked away from politics before he does his own reputation, and by implication, the reputation of all politicians any further damage.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Further evidence that Andrew Lewis was convinced States Members were aware that he was referring to a letter from the "whistle-blower" whose identity he was (not) trying to protect.

Cathryn McGahey:

"Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate (2nd Dec 2008) had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?"

Andrew Lewis:

"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."

Cathryn McGahey:

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

Andrew Lewis:

"Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate (26 June 2012), so you would have to ask all of them"

From HERE.

I suppose another lesson should be learned here and that is if ever you are going to "blow the whistle" don't blow it to Deputy Andrew Lewis.


Anonymous said...

Let us keep in mind. Deputy Andrew Lewis appears to have focused discussion on whether he acted on the Met report or the Warcup letter. It might be worth a reminder that he formed his intention on the basis of neither the Warcup Letter nor the MET report. He claimed he acted on receipt of the report/letter but Napier exposed, and the COI confirmed that he had been working on it for some time, possibly months, attending meetings with Frank Walker and others, and also his careless talk to Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris Where he was exposed as being a liar by the Care Enquiry also. He took his decision first then appointed a hapless stooge in the form of David Warcup, to come up with some "evidence" to justify a decision, which had already been taken.

Anonymous said...

This has gotten beyond farcical. Andrew Lewis changing his story again to one that doesn't support the swathes of evidence against it. Do the right thing Deputy Lewis. Stop bringing yourself and your peers into further disrepute and resign.

Anonymous said...

Talk about MontyPytonesque! Lewis has just admitted to lying to the states and the Care enquiry! This has now gotten beyond ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

When are Lewis's friends family and supporters going to the him "enough is enough"? He is embarrassing himself and digging an even bigger hole overtime he opens his mouth. If those close to him truly care for him they would be advising him to bow out now. Actually they should have told him that a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

How can Lewis survive this? He's just nailed HIMSELF! He has admitted to misleading the Assembly which was a secret debate so the identity of the "whistleblower" (sic) should have been protected anyway. He's admitted to lying to the Assembly which also proves he lied to the care enquiry. Who helps him write these statements?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There's also a dilemma here for (PPC Member) Constable Chris Taylor. The Andrew Lewis "lies" were exposed by a brave whistleblower leaking you, and you publishing the in-camera debate Hansard.

Constable Taylor thinks that particular whistleblower should be "dragged down to the Royal Square and flogged." Presumably he believes the same should happen to "whistleblower" Warcup?

Anonymous said...

@2:14pm
"How can Lewis survive this? He's just nailed HIMSELF! He has admitted to misleading the Assembly which was a secret debate so the identity of the "whistleblower" (sic) should have been protected anyway. He's admitted to lying to the Assembly which also proves he lied to the care enquiry. Who helps him write these statements?"


It appears to be to be "Please don't go down this road" Sir Philip Bailhache who is helping him write these statements.

Sheesh. Where is there a good lawyer when you need one????

Off VFC Blog said...

Honour among thieves ????????

With Lewis' latest version of "God's honest truth" I can't help thinking that he is being played for a fool by whoever is advising him.

Lewis lid and misled Parliament - that was obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70,
even before it was somehow made "official" by a £25m Public Inquiry.

Lewis' multiple versions of the "truth" make him look like, not just a liar but a pathological liar.

This plays into the hands of those who he is shielding because it makes him a larger and larger receptacle to pour blame into. Blame which is ultimately theirs.

Do they have real dirt on Lewis to make him dance to their tune, or is he just that weak and dim?

TonyTheProf said...

The critical thing of course is that he could have mislead members with impunity so long as the debate was protected by being “in camera”. And remember Napier did not have any detail of that, and while it was “in camera” no one could point out the contradiction. He is probably speaking the truth when he said he thought nothing about it until Mike Higgins raised it –it had been put safety to bed until then and there was no need to revisit it!

When a later debate occurred in 2012, from which the transcript was leaked, a number of politicians attempted to say that when he mentioned a report, he must have been mentioning the Warcup letter, but at the time of the 2008 debate, no one knew of a Warcup letter, so how could members present then do so?

Proper historical explanations should not involve bringing it matters known after the event for which participants at the event would have been ignorant. That is an anachronistic explanation and just does not hold up.

rico sorda said...

I agree Tony. As soon as we were leaked the "in camera" debate and I published on my blog we knew we had a game changer.. The one problem the Establishment had was how to suspend Graham Power without it coming from David Warcup.. The mess Lewis is now in results from that.. A Patsy. Nothing going more than a Patsy. He knew what he was doing and why he was doing it..

rico sorda said...

Also, his latest press release is just bonkers.. Who the he'll is advising this individual? Comical Ali from Baghdad?

Anonymous said...

Reflections on Truth, Lies and Bullshit:
I have just read the magazine New Philosopher. It provides useful insights into the behaviour of Andrew Lewis. “The essence of bullshit,” argued philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his 2005 book On Bullshit, “is not that it is false but that it is phony”. Both a liar and an honest person are interested in the truth – they’re playing on opposite sides in the same game. A bullshitter, however, has no such constraints. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. The world according to the bullshitter is whatever he wishes it to be. The question is what sort of system do the States of Jersey Members value the most? Is it one in which truth and lies test their opposed strengths - or one in which winners get to make up the rules as they go along? Are they interested in reality or will they continue to turn a blind eye to the Jersey Way? The Censure debate will be a test of whether the promises made following the Child Abuse Inquiry are to be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Lewis buys his car fuel from the garage at Sion, I saw him paying the other day, there were 7 people in the shop, no one spoke to him, but as soon as he left they all starting talking about him, comments like lying git, what a clown taking all the blame and the dicks who advised and pushed him to do it go free because maybe, they have something on him, his reputation will be ruined while his advisers go free and keep getting full pay, He must know he is on his way out, so why not resign before the vote and take the others down with him? then all the focus would not be on him. Other comments were to the effect that he will never be voted in to the states again. And St John are well rid of him. Personally I think he should write a short report stating the facts and naming anyone involved in this saga and read it out in the next states sitting and take them down with him this is what many islanders want but it must be the truth, Mr Lewis you have to go so to gain any creditability take them down with you.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

What is it with some politicians and their reluctance to impart THE TRUTH?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Former Police Chief Statement to WILTSHIRE CONSTABULARY.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This stuff really is beyond parody. Reading Deputy Andrew Lewis' statement again I came across this little gem.

"I unfortunately could not name the report fully as this would have identified the DCO who was the whistle blower. At no time was there any intention to deceive members of the assembly."

So he admits that he his withholding information (protecting a "whistleblower") and then goes on to say there was never any intention to deceive Members and the Assembly. Since when did withholding the truth not become an act of deceit?

Anonymous said...

But hasnt Lewis also stated that Members were Perfectly Clear that he was referring to The Warcup Letter?

What a lying FUNT.