Wednesday, April 14, 2010


[From the main JDA website; www, ]

Once again Trevor’s written questions for the forthcoming States sitting arise from a mixture of his St. Helier No. 1 District constituent work, further contact from individual islanders relating to on-going issues of wider public concern, and matters linked to established JDA policy commitments.

The recent JCRA proposals, not to mention the distinct lack of adequate political information, has left a lot of people from all political perspectives scratching their heads, Trevor told

‘If we are serious about maintaining a proper daily delivery service for standard letters, keeping costs as low as is practical linked in with protecting jobs – not to forget the hugely important ‘social’ aspect of many older and/or disabled people actually having that contact with ‘the postie’ – then the competition for competition’s sake approach makes no sense at all. Hopefully,’ Trevor adds, ‘the States will see sense and agree to Deputy Southern’s proposition to ensure a far more in-depth analysis of all of this is implemented before any decisions are taken that could have disastrous long-term implications.’

Trevor tells us that his question relating to the unsafe ‘listed’ building in La Motte Street in St. Helier No. 1 District is also essentially about protecting jobs.

‘Letting people who have worked hard at developing their businesses suffer, due to an inadequate approach to ensuring ugly and obtrusive scaffolding such as this - deterring many shoppers, particularly visitors unfamiliar with the town – are erected and removed in the most rapid of timescales possible is simply not acceptable. The paving in the area has just been upgraded so this just makes a complete mockery of what we are trying to achieve at significant financial outlay.’

Ensuring adequate postal voting facilities are in place is a key aspect of all modern democracies committed to social inclusion, and with the commitments to building a more equal, fairer society featuring so strongly in the Strategic Plan it will be interesting to see if such statements really are little more than words. ‘Is it any wonder that so few turn out to vote in elections,’ Trevor observes, ‘when contrary to every modern democracy you look at Jersey has gone out of its way to make that as difficult as possible for many of those who already struggle to have their political voice heard.’

As to the questions to the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs, Trevor feels these speak for themselves, being related to issues that understandably continue to strike a cord of intense interest with large numbers of the public.

Nevertheless, Trevor did tell us that with regard to the question to the Attorney General he had been contacted by a number of people from across the island expressing concern about material that has recently been made available via the internet and believing that there is a need for further answers to be provided publicly. To this regard Trevor also revealed that he had had a request within his original question for official confirmation that a death certificate had been made available to the Jersey authorities (in relation to developments in the case reported last year) turned down by the Bailiff on the grounds that this was not the responsibility of the Attorney General…

Here at we think the answers to all the questions below will make interesting reading. We will, of course, do our best to publish anything of particular interest in due course. For those readers wanting access to the answers to all written questions from States Members we would remind you that these are eventually available on the States own website.


“a) Given that Jersey Post has worked hard at improving efficiency, including the use of voluntary redundancy packages, and is only 4 months into a four-year plan, what action, if any, will the Minister be taking following the decision of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) to advise the public of its proposal to issue a Class 1 Postal Operator’s Licence to convey Large Letters and Packets to Citipost DSA Ltd and Hub Europe Ltd?

b) Would the Minister set out the impact that the grant of such licences will have for Jersey Post and confirm that the bulk mailing represents the core profit-making aspect of its operations? Would he further state whether the introduction of competition will lead to job losses and increased long-term costs for the public and would he state whether or not he supports the introduction of competition in this area?

c) Would the Minister state how both Jersey Post and competitors can survive and thrive financially in the years ahead within such a limited market where the comparatively unprofitable but socially essential daily mail delivery to domestic and business customers alike is intrinsically dependent on the more profitable side of the business?”


In view of the detailed States of Jersey Police ‘Sequence of Events: Macguire investigation’ timeline published on the internet recently together with the content of the Report by the Manager, Mental Health Services dated 23rd February 1999 and other material including the 26th July 1990 letter from the then Education Committee President, is the Attorney General satisfied that the decision of his predecessor (as summarised in e-mail correspondence from the now Deputy Bailiff copied to all States Members on 8th April 2010) not to pursue the case against Mr. and Mrs. Macguire was both wholly justifiable and correct and, if so, will he state why? Will the Attorney General also clarify whether the issue of Mr. Macguire’s stated terminal illness at the time was ever discussed in any shape or form as a potential justification/reason for not pursuing the case in the 1990’s?


Scaffolding surrounding a ‘listed’ but empty and unsafe business premises in La Motte Street is having a hugely damaging impact on retailers whose businesses are hidden from view from shoppers which is particularly damaging to potential business in relation from visitors to the island who will not know the hidden shops are there; what measures is the Minister taking to ensure that this eyesore is rectified and what assurances, if any, in terms of timescales can he give the proprietors of the retailers being negatively impacted upon as to when this scaffolding will be removed?

As access to a postal voting mechanism is a fundamental part of all modern, fully functioning, inclusive democracies, will the Chairman inform members what consideration, if any, her Committee has given to ensuring that those who wish to do so, especially the elderly and those with mobility problems or other disabilities, can easily vote by post in the coming elections in line with priorities 6, 8 and 15 of the Strategic Plan 2009 – 14?


"Further to the written and oral answer given on 9th March 2010 relating to the suspension of 2 officers from the States of Jersey Police for just less than 18 months would the Minister advise -

a) which person within the States of Jersey Police was responsible for taking the decision that resulted in the suspension of two police officers and whether the individual responsible for the original decision to suspend them was the same person who made the decision to re-instate them without charge? If so, does the Minister believe that this shows sound judgement?

b) that the costs listed in the answers of 23rd March 2010 showed the total cost to the States of Jersey Police of these suspensions and included all ancillary matters such as staff costs and overtime to cover the suspended officers?"


  1. How can eyesores like the scaffolding at the old music shop in La Motte be allowed? It isn't fair on those who own shops close by and it makes a mockery of spending money on smartening up the town. Freddie, what is going on?

  2. The question to the Homa Affairs Minister. If the person who made these decisions is the same one is he/she in a very senior position? Is he/she in the running for the top job where control of expenditure is so crucial? Is it correct that the amounts involved in this case are between £4-£5.000.000?

  3. Trevor.

    Regarding this "To this regard Trevor also revealed that he had had a request within his original question for official confirmation that a death certificate had been made available to the Jersey authorities (in relation to developments in the case reported last year) turned down by the Bailiff on the grounds that this was not the responsibility of the Attorney General…"

    If it is not the reponsibility of Tim Le Coq, then who's resonsibility is it?

    The reason I ask is because I know a number of the Maguire's "alleged" victims were told 10 years ago that he had died, only for him to bump into Panoroma 10 years later.

    If he has risen from the dead once, i'm sure he could do it again.

    An "original" copy of the death certificate MUST be shown to his "alleged" victims.

    On top of this, the Baliff refused your question? Surely he is horribly conflicted isn't he? Wasn't he the AG at the time this was all going on back in the late nineties?

  4. Can't wait to see the response from the AG - or the non-response! Bet you a pint that you will soon have a troll on here banging on about how this is all rubbish and should be left alone and forgotten.

    Talking about trolls, did the party know that there is even a sad little troll who has started up a joke of a blog site about HDLG and mocking people who have suffered? What a pathetic little nerd.

  5. Hello

    The question reference Jersey Post asks questions that really should have been set by the Economic Development Minister himself long before we got to this position.

    Don't you also agree that they are the same points that should have been made clear to all States members before any such move is even considered.

    It is these outdated free-market policies that are ruining the world. As someones else put it, competition for the sake of it.

  6. Gobbie the States rafter goblinApril 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM

    Having the great good fortune to observe our elected representatives from a peep hole in the Chamber roof, considering this matter of the JCRA and Jersey Post as just the latest example in the ever-increasing policy folly of Phil, Tel and Al, I would politely suggest the following.

    Most States members are totally oblivious to the fact that it is this very kind of political thinking that is destroying the fabric of society all over the globe. It is short term thinking. It is thinking based on greed. It is thinking that shows a total lack of understanding of social issues. It is redundant thinking.

    It is thinking that really says, in the final analysis, that those who come after us can stew in the mess we leave them. This won't create jobs in the longer term, or drive down prices. It will do the exact opposite.

  7. Deputy Trevor PitmanApril 16, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    Anonymous # 1

    I couldn't agree more. Like you say, this makes a mockery of spending money on making the area more attractive to locals and visitors alike. Given the apparently limited powers of the parish this is why taking the issue to Senator Cohen was the necessary next step. Hopefully come next Tuesday we will have some answers, otherwise the next step will be to look at the relevant laws.

  8. Deputy Trevor PitmanApril 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM

    Anonymous # 2

    The issue here is about sound judgment, not least with regard to financial implications. Something on which the Home Affairs Minister has a lot to say just recently. We will know whether the answers to your questions is a yes, yes, yes next week. Hopefully!

  9. Deputy Trevor PitmanApril 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    Hi Team Voice

    You ask whether it is the AG who should be responsible. Maybe it isn't from a purely technical perspective. But like you I would have to conclude that it really should be - if for no other reason than that people can draw a line under this particular aspect. I honestly can't believe that people have been treated in this way by our authorities.

    Well, I can actually. Sadly.

    However, Montford has since put an almost identical version of my question in as an oral, so my hope would be that we can get to the bottom of this with supplentary questions from there.

    Tuesday should be...interesting.

  10. Thanks for getting this back to the States. When it comes to questions relating to the Maguires though I trust you will be stating that neither the Bailiff or the Deputy Bailiff preside over the questions? If they do attempt to do so will you then be asking that both excuse themselves? I'm sure that you will but thought that I would ask any way.


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.