Thursday, March 18, 2010

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010

Always at the forefront of endeavouring to ensure the losses of ordinary workers’ jobs – public sector or private - really are the last resort after all other possibilities have been explored, Trevor’s oral question to the Minister for Economic Development raises this issue once again. Readers of the website will have their own views, of course, but as the JDA ask here, laudable though it is, viewed within the present economic climate is the maintenance of the ‘top 500 banks only’ mantra really more important than protecting 30 finance jobs that could have been saved?

Trevor’s oral question to the Home Affairs Minister, reference the spectacularly invisible Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ raise issues that anyone remotely committed to ensuring transparency and natural justice surely agree must be answered – and without further delay.

Just who did produce it? What is really in it? Who has actually seen it – and more to the point who can verify this? Not surprisingly, given what with the best will in the world can only be described as the truly shambolic, strung-out process by which the island’s Chief Police Officer has found himself suspended (for what is now rapidly approaching 18 months), the question really can even understandably be asked: does the Metropolitan Police ‘Interim Report’ actually exist as a physical, written document at all?

Hopefully come next Tuesday we might actually begin to get some answers. If not then suspicions that all really isn’t as it should be can only be given more credence.



Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development ­

“With 30 jobs being lost at Kleinwort Benson due to the Regulator's refusal to grant a licence to a non-top 500 bank, will the Minister advise what support, if any, is being offered by his Department to the staff affected to try and help them find other employment in the sector; further still, does the Minister concede that the Regulator’s decision may actually be counter-productive?”


Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs ­


“Will the Minister inform Members on what date in 2008 the Metropolitan Police were requested to forward an Interim Report, who requested it, whether it was used in connection with the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and whether the Minister will make the report available to States Members?”

11 comments:

  1. Trevor.

    Good question to the Home Affairs Minister. It (the interim Met Report) is believed to have been authored by "Brian Sweeting" although it is also believed he denied this to Lenny Harper.

    This is possibly the most crucial document involved in the very suspicious suspension of our most Senior Police Officer. If it does exist and ILM does not set about releasing it to the public, then his position as HA Minister will be brought into even more question than it already is!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must say that I am having to re-evaluate my perception of the JDA. Good to see that the party does share a concern for all who work in Jersey. I know that you would no doubt tell me that this has always been the case, and quite probably you are right, but it is hardly the image portrayed by elements of the media, is it? Fair play to you. Perhaps party politics is the way to go?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Light at the end of the tunnelMarch 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    It is good to see a whole raft of questions being asked in next weeks States session about this disgraceful, kipper-smelling suspension process. Both Deputies Pitman from the JDA I am pleased to say, Deputies Le Herissier, Hill and Tadier too. Good on you all.

    Maybe those who would cover things up to keep the Jersey Way no matter what have not been as smart as they thought. What price that Jersey's Communication Unit also advises the Vatican?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would have thought that some of our finance people might have had something to add to the mix on the question about Kleinwort Benson and the staff cuts. What is the benefit of 30 people, possibly 30 families losing their livelihood just to keep a sound-byte alive? To me it makes no sense whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Finance people add something to the mix"? Don't be a silly-billy Anonymous most defenders of finance will only add some comment if it can be spun that the JDA is against the industry and anyone who has to work within it per se.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So come on then... How many 1 1 K residents do we supposedly have paying less than ten thousand pounds tax?

    ReplyDelete
  7. That statistic is not available, but it was 32 paying under 20K in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deputy Trevor PitmanMarch 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    Anonymous #6

    David didn't have the information because I just hadn't had time since Tuesday to send it through. But the information on those paying between £5.000 and £10.000 and, indeed, those paying less than £5.000 are as follows:

    Between £5.000 - £10.000

    2005: 11

    2006: 14

    2007: 10

    2008: 8

    Less than £5.000:

    2005: 7

    2006: 8

    2007: 4

    2008: 10

    Make of the above what you will. But the question has to be asked, with everyone else being told that they have to tighten their belts can it be right that in Jersey, as recently as 2008, ten millionaires paid less than £5.000 tax?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder what kind of excuses Gary, Matt, Mike and other various assorted Anonymous loons will come up with as justification for figures like these? Shocking

    ReplyDelete
  10. These are sums that many of us middle earners will be topping. What is Ozouf and Le Sueur's justification I wonder? I thought they always called these people 'high value'? High value in what precisely?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Add to the KB 30 another 20 from RBC, who have been laying off people for the past 18 months (100+), At least 6 went in the last week.

    ReplyDelete

We shall not accept comments that are offensive in language or content, libellous, irrelevant or deranged.
We have no means of editing comments -it is all or nothing. So, if there is any of your comment we can't use, we can't use any of it.