This is getting weirder. You posted that Andrews had been found to be corrupt at an inquiry. I asked you when he was found to be corrupt, expecting that you would either post the findings of an inquiry that I was unaware of, or state that you were in error and that while you believe he's corrupt there's been no such formal finding. I'm not trying to establish your opinion of Andrews, or put a position on Andrews of my own. I was trying to establish whether he had been the subject of an adverse corruption finding. You've taken a circuitous route, but I think you've brought us to the conclusion that he has not....
