Saturday, May 8, 2010

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS FOR TUESDAY 11th MAY 2010

Trevor’s two oral questions for next week’s States sitting are published below. Already clearly an issue of some public interest given the comments his written question regarding the subject of ‘part-time’ politicians has attracted, Trevor tells us that he felt following up with an oral was: “the best way to get this problem the serious attention that it merits”.

He explained that in his view – a view he says is supported by a number of backbenchers who regularly witness certain States Members disappearing, not just from the Chamber, but from the States building itself during sittings – politicians who behave in such a way should face some kind of sanction and the matter be brought to the attention of the public who effectively pay their wages.
“If we had ‘live streaming’ on TV this simply wouldn’t happen because members of the public would very quickly note that instead of Senator X all they were seeing for hours was a distinctly empty seat.”

Trevor added that whilst he fully expects some Members to try and dismiss the matter as unimportant it is something that PPC really need to take some action on quickly. “Personally, I actually believe that it is high-time we moved to bring in legislation meaning that anyone considering standing for election knows that he or she has a stark choice. They either commit to serving the public on a full-time, professional basis, dropping all other employment, careers for the duration of their time in office – I make it clear that I am not targeting the holding of directorships or shares that some Members have here – or understand that they will be prevented from standing at all. Being a States Member simply cannot be a part-time job if you are serious about serving the people who elected you. To pretend otherwise is an insult to those people.”



ORAL QUESTION TO CHAIRMAN OF PPC


Given that the issue of ‘part-time’ MPs with second jobs was highlighted in the recent United Kingdom elections, will the Chairman advise the Assembly which reforms, if any, the Privileges and Procedures Committee has considered or will be considering relating to States Members with second jobs and who withdraw from the Chamber after roll call and leave the States building for long periods of time during States sittings.”



The second oral question Trevor has lodged for next week is another follow-up, this time in relation to answers given by the Home Affairs Minister in April regarding the state of prosecutions within the Historic Abuse Inquiry. Trevor says that in his view this subject will continue to be raised by Members again and again until politicians get a full independent inquiry the matter demands. “There continues to be more questions than answers” Trevor states. However, rather than writing any comment at length for the site at this point Trevor says that he will be writing something on this issue at length once he has heard what the Minister has to say next Tuesday




ORAL QUESTION TO MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS





“Would the Minister advise the Assembly how many of the 30 alleged abuse cases relating to the cellars at Haut de la Garenne are still part of the ongoing historic abuse investigations; how many, if any, are not being pursued, when it was decided to discontinue their investigation and for what reason?”

10 comments:

  1. Trevor.

    It would be interesting to learn if any OR ALL, of the cases were dropped because Gradwell and Warcup said the "CELLARS" were only 1.4metres deep. Because we now know, thanks to Deputy Bob Hill, that this isn't the case. Furthermore, as was shown on video by Deputy Hill, 1.4 metres is more than enough depth/height for one of those filthy perverts to ply their trade.

    Respect, once more, to you for keeping your finger on the pulse and trying to get to the truth of this ghastly, ghastly business that others are trying to cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sub question: Would the minister also explain why Gradwell felt it necessary to invite some of the HDLG survivors to the police station and show them exhibits of evidence that had been found in the cellars at HDLG and would this action not have made the evidence inadmissible in a court of Law.
    Carrie

    ReplyDelete
  3. supplementary question

    "Would the Home Affairs Minister agree that the destruction of evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation is perverting the course of justice and in itself a criminal offence and if so can he explain why the current Acting Chief of Police and his previous deputy Gradwell were not charge with such an offence following their press conference in October 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Does the minister not agree that this is in fact a complete sandal - sorry, I meant SCANDAL!!!"

    Nice one Trev!

    PPC? What is the point of Juilette 'Executive Rubber Stamp' Gallichan? No point. A complete waste of space.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gobbie - The States rafter GoblinMay 13, 2010 at 7:55 AM

    Were the survivors shown evidence or not? You asked Ian Le Marquand the question and he could not answer. You also asked him to get that information for you. Will you be following that up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gobbie - The States rafter GoblinMay 13, 2010 at 8:01 AM

    To anyone who says that questions brought in the States don't have results... Looking down I am flabbergasted to report that the shiney Senator Soundbite stayed in the States nearly the whole sitting through. Must be so far behind with his day work now!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Deputy Southern & Pitman(if true) Dont kid, make a fool and destroy yourselves by standing against Syvret in the by-election.

    Just carry on doing a good job as you are, then when the time is right in a year and a half stand for Senator.

    Syvret would like your support right now....

    Dont be an unnessessary hinderance!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deputies Southern and Pitman. Can you let us know once and for all if you are standing against Stuart Syvret in the fourth coming by-election?

    Or is it just rumour?

    Please one or both reply.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Deputy Trevor PitmanMay 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

    Anonymous @ No. 7

    Thanks for your e-mail and kind words - well, some of them. For the record I have never had any intention of standing in this by-election, though I acknowledge that I have been asked to stand by a surprising number of people.

    Frankly, it is a shame Stuart wrote such groundless rubbish as this on his blog - I was questioned about this by someone this very morning in town who wanted to tell me I would have his vote if I was. I had to tell him that this was just another election rumour.

    Perhaps I will do a post on the election issue and other related matters at a later date. Unfortunately, right now I just have too much work to do - not being one of those part-time politicians I was talking about in the States...

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  10. They should shelve this by-election. The seat hasn't been needed up to now so another 15 months won't make any difference.

    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.