Wednesday, May 19, 2010


Trevor has the following three written questions lodged for next week’s States sitting. Two of the questions are set to the Minister for Home Affairs. With the highly unsatisfactory process underlying the suspension of the Chief Police Officer showing little sign of satisfactory – specifically transparent conclusion - the first question focuses on the long-standing saga of the crucial ‘document’ repeatedly described as the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’.

Asked about his reasoning for putting the question Trevor says that he has lodged this in an attempt to finally draw out whether this ‘document’ actually exists in a physical, paper format of significant content. Or whether the ‘document’ is, in fact, just an electronic e-mail to which the title ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ has become attached. With some speculating as to whether this much-referred ‘document’ actually exists at all, one way or another, the answer should be highly illuminating,

The second question to Senator Le Marquand follows on from questions Trevor asked the Minister during the sitting of 11th May. Given that the Senator was unable to confirm whether or not some survivors from the Historic Abuse Inquiry had been shown articles of evidence relating to allegations - long before any investigations or trials would have taken place - Trevor says that this question is just an ‘official’ follow-up to get what certainly appears to be a highly unusual move on behalf of the police clarified. Any subsequent questions would obviously be shaped by the nature of the answer.

Trevor’s third question is another follow-up, this time to his questions that revealed the shocking reality of just what double standards have been allowed to exist with regard to taxation by this and the last Council of Ministers. As Trevor says, at a time with the ordinary working person - i.e. most of us reading this - are again being warned how we must face up to tightening our belts for the common good, the reality that not only are the majority of our wealthiest residents not paying the bench mark figure of tax that they should, but that a good number are actually paying less tax than many ‘middle earners’ simply cannot be acceptable. The question for Senator Ozouf if he is to be taken seriously as protector of the public purse is: are we all in this together or does there continue to be one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us?

Question One – To the Home Affairs Minister

“Given that the Minister has previously stated that he has never personally seen the 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ but only an electronic version of an e-mail apparently attached to this document; will he investigate and clarify whether this 'report' actually exists as a physical (paper) document or just in electronic format; whether it exists in the accepted 'report' format most professionals would be familiar with i.e. a detailed document of several pages; or whether this is in the form of just a simple e-mail of a small number of paragraphs; and whether, irrespective of the format the 'report' takes, the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ appear as a title?”

Question Two – To the Minister for Treasury & Resources

“Will the Minister advise whether he views the low degree of taxation (as outlined in response to my question on 23rd March 2010) amongst current 1(1)(k) residents - several of whom are paying between £5,000 and £10,000 tax; and a further ten paying less than £5,000 tax - in comparison with many lower and middle earners as acceptable within the present, highly challenging economic climate, and what measures, if any, he is currently examining to tackle this within the agreed Strategic Plan commitment to creating a fairer, more equal society in Jersey?”

Question Three – To the Home Affairs Minister

“Following my questions on 11th May 2010, when the Minister informed the Assembly that he did not know whether or not the former senior investigating officer of the Historic Abuse Inquiry had invited a number of the Haut de la Garenne survivors to the police station in November 2008, where they were shown evidence recovered from the cellars, will he advise whether this event can now be corroborated by the States of Jersey Police; why and for what purpose such an action took place; and advise whether showing evidence to individuals alleging abuse/assault would have, as a consequence, made all such evidence inadmissible in a Court of law?”


  1. Good questions Trevor - keep the pressure on!

  2. Trevor are you aware that at the meeting the other night an element of the sadder supporters Syvret has around him were trying to smear your name? I know that it had been wrongly put about on Stuart's blog that you were standing so do you think this disgusting action is related? I think that I will give you a call with the details. Much as I admire a lot of what Stuart says something tells me that this by-election will be the dirtiest in living memory. I would not want to be on the husting that is for sure.

  3. Well - I attended Anonymous/Trevor, and am also a 'sad' Syvret supporter.

    I had the responsibility of going round with the microphone when people had questions so was based in various different parts of the hall, and not once did I hear Trevor's name mentioned.

    So, facts please, or is this mischief making?

  4. As you have not put a posting on your site about the JDA's intention to field a candidate in the forthcoming by-election, I can only post here - sorry Trevor.

    My natural sympathies are with the JDA, and I have and would vote for you in any future election. I was brought up in a highly politicised family (my father was a staunch Labour supporter, local councilor and I've stuffed enough envelopes during elections to know how the game works) but in the case of this by-election I cannot support the JDAs position.

    Why - because this is no ordinary election, it is specifically a consequence of Stuart Syvret's action to force the electorate to make a choice - do we accept what we have or do we want to change the face of Jersey politics? This a critical decision and I am so very disappointed that the JDA have used this opportunity only to further the aims of their own members.

    A sad sad day. You have no idea the turmoil you've caused me, and I'm sorry Geoff, I will not be voting for you.

  5. I can only concur Anonymous - please Trevor talk Geoff out of a JDA suicide attempt.

    I am so very disappointed.

  6. GeeGee

    Do you approve of bullies who threaten to smear people? I'm sure Trevor will get around to an answer but as for me, I'm more than diappointed with Stuart. I think I would use the term disgusted. Maybe if he can use Ted Vibert's letter as a wake up call he can get back to what he used to be, when people like me used to vote for him.

  7. Ted Viberts letter bore very little weight with me as quite honestly it was factually far wide of the mark, and I would be quite happy to post a reponse to his letter, but doubt the Establishment Rag would print it! Let's face it, they were probably delighted to have the opportunity to put Vibert's letter in the paper.
    I am a little unsure of what you mean regarding threats to smear people. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you are implying when I would be better placed to answer.
    Meanwhile, Ted Vibert is yesterday's man, Geoff seems to be on a 'going nowhere' ego trip, which will destroy the JDA (great shame), and this whole election will descend into a mud-slinging farce.
    Nothing, but nothing will detract from the fact that Stuart is nothing but 100% honest, he will get my vote for this if nothing else, and it will take a lot to persuade me otherwise.
    Over to you Trevor......

  8. GeeGee

    If ever a man was on an ego trip it is Stuart. I will not sink to the depths of insulting ALL Stuart supporters because I was one of them, and I know 99.9% will be ordinary people doing our best to make informed decisions on the information that we have. A large number will vote for all/any of the so called progressives if they have the chance. I certainly fit into that category.

    I think it is a shame that those minority of Stuart's remaining supporters seem incapable of this analysis of facts and just want to attack Geoff Southern, even the JDA as a whole in some case, which is quite bizarre. Very odd as others have commented how Senator Breckon and Deputy Tadier as further 'progressives' are not getting this abuse for putting forward candidates even before the JDA decided to?

    Ted Vibert is yesterday's man in that he is no longer in the States. That he was twice the politician Stuart ever was is another story. Geoff Southern may be going nowhere. Stuart I am afraid already is NOWHERE. But what troubles me most about what you say is about Stuart being 'honest'. Nothing could be further from the truth in recent times. A liar, a bully, a coward, a nasty vindictive fake who has thrown away his talent and thrown away my support as an admirer. Is anyone accused by Stuart automatically 'guilty' of something? No. Yet supporters like you, GeeGee, seem incapable of accepting that or challenging him about it. Why?

    I might not vote for Geoff Southern. But I will definitely not - not ever again - be voting for the creature of darkness that is now Stuart. Sorry.

  9. We will agree to disagree then Anonymous.

    However, I am sure we CAN agree that Stuart himself has been bullied and intimidated by other nasty and vindictive States Members, and not least by the States of Jersey Police when in a total reaction they raided his home.

    Remember Jimmy Perchard's quite outrageous 'suicide' remarks which at first he denied, and then was proven to be a liar. I heard Terry Le Main calling him a 'slimey little git' to his face outside the States Building prior to the last States Meeting. Again, not the sort of behaviour expected of a politician. Indeed the said TLeM can be observed rubbishing anything Stuart had to speak about whilst in States sittings.

    There are numerous other instances I could quote, but we must not single Stuart out for perceived 'bad behaviour', and in all honesty I can see where his frustrations lie. He just needs to curb his feelings constructively and he can/will still be an excellent politician.

    So, he may have lost your vote, but the JDA have lost a lot of my respect, and I have spoken with an awful lot of people who feel the same way. What a great shame.

  10. Stuart should stand down he has lost my support and that of my family and most of my friends. I just hate the ego of the man now. This isn't a referendum. This is just Stuart trying to put a clever spin on things to con people - again. If half of what I am hearing is true about trying to intimidate Geoff Southern and Ted Vibert not to stand then he really should not be allowed to stand at all. Policies first - not personalities. Stuart is all personality and no policy. So if I do vote it would be Geoff Southern. Not my favourite politician but at least he won't take a six month holiday at the expense of my taxes.

  11. Hi GeeGee

    I fully respect your right to view Stuart Syvret the way you do. It is a shame that a small number of other Stuart supporters are not respecting the rights of others in the same way by attacking the JDA as an entity.

    One thing I have to comment on in your post is what you say about Stuart being bullied by other politicians. I don't think you could seriously include Mr. Southern in that? Or any of the other left of centre people in the States?

    So are you now telling me that even some of our excellent newcomers like Trevor Pitman and Daniel Wimberley and Tracey Vallois are all no good closet members of the establishment? I also wonder how many of these sort of people will be willing to sign Stuart's nomination paper? or how many will sign other candidates papers instead?

    Does that make them all not worthy, GeeGee? I have always been a Stuart supporter though certainly have not always agreed with him. Now I just don't have any faith in him anymore.


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.