Saturday, May 29, 2010

You Asked - Geoff Answers

Many of you have wondered what has been going on, with Geoff Southern's somewhat unexpected decision to stand against Stuart Syvret. And it is very much a question of standing against Syvret, as well as the heavyweight challenge of Francis le Gresley, not seeking a futile upgrade in Geoff's job title. We have seen some lively comments on the Council's blog, not all supportive, but many asking for explanation. Geoff has been too busy with organising a campaign in a hurry to prepare a soundbite-packed Press Statement, but we can now quote at length from an email in which he explains his position to a leading activist from outside the party.

Geoff admits “I have struggled with this decision over the last few weeks. I originally said that I would not stand against Stuart if he stood, as we share some common principles.I assure you this has not been an easy decision to make.”
“However,” he goes on to explain, “ many people have approached me to indicate that they had lost faith in Stuart and asking whether JDA would stand a candidate. Many said that they were unable to bring themselves to vote for Stuart and might not vote at all. I have tried to find ways to get another credible candidate but have been unable to do so.” Geoff correctly anticipated the tenor of the comments on our blog and others with his prediction that “Stuart has a core vote that will stick. I will not take those votes, I believe. Those who cannot bring themselves to vote for Stuart would in my absence vote Le Gresley if at all. Those are votes I can pick up, based on my record.”
Despite the protests of Syvret's die-hard followers, their man has been less of a leader in the States than they like to think. Geoff reviews his recent performance, as seen by fellow progressives: “I too have been disillusioned and disappointed by Stuart's behaviour. I feel his action in leaving the island has contributed very little to the debate over child abuse and cover-ups, let alone corruption. Many of us have attempted to carry on the fight here on the island including Bob, Trevor and Monty. Stuart's absence from the fight was I believe largely counter-productive... In the meantime I have helped investigate and publish positive moves to prevent abuse in our Protecting Vulnerable Children report.
 “I'm sorry but I have been [working flat out] establishing a party for the last 5 years in the face of incredible opposition. Stuart has maintained his position as outside any party throughout. Whilst we have been fighting public sector cuts, lifting the minimum wage, fighting the wage freeze etc, Stuart has largely sat on the sidelines. I have been trying to form a broader team with other progressives (success over Town Park and redundancy payments). Where was Stuart? Off island.”
Stuart Syvret is clearly so well-loved by his loyalists that we would simply not be believed, were we to leak the whole story of his bombastic threats against us. However, Geoff cites the tip of the iceberg. “Apart from his bullying tactics in stating that all not on his side are his enemies, the final straw for me came with his statement that the only way forward was the forming of an undefined party, his party, to bring about change. This is a line we have often heard from Stuart but he has never followed through. He was invited to join (and indeed lead) the JDA by both Ted and later by me . He refused.”
Geoff draws clear conclusions from all this, as these final quotes show:
“The fact is that after 5 years of struggle I believe that the JDA is the spearhead of a progressive movement which is increasingly respected. Stuart sits outside it and is trying to bully others out of the way. Stuart's way is "my way or no way" it seems. His politics remains personal and not collective. For the JDA to not stand a credible candidate in this election and give the centre-left a way forward  would be a failure of its duty. Whilst we have been striving to create cohesion, Stuart has  chosen to remain apart ... If the JDA were to duck this challenge, many would conclude that we are not a serious political force. Success in this election does not leave us static, but establishes us with an island-wide mandate and the chance to increase our numbers in the following Deputy by-election in St Helier 2. 
“This is not a zero growth policy. It could be a gain. Neither is it due to my personal ambition. I would love to stand aside, but I believe that would damage the party. Like it or not JDA must stand, and equally like it or not, I happen to be the best available candidate. All I ask is a fair contest. Politics is a numbers game, but to predict worst outcomes is defeatist. It has held us back for years. I will not join in. I think the JDA has won the right to carry the banner of the progressives. We will not go away.”


  1. Sorry, Geoff, but this does not make sense. There is an election. You are already in the States. Why stand in an election?

    To keep Stuart out, but to prevent Francis GST Le Gresley winning? Because?

    If Stuart is so useless (objectively right-wing), what difference would the election of a right-winger make? Especially since if you win, your own seat would become vacant and presumably up for grabs by a right-winger, would it not? So zero sum at best

    He won't join the JDA... Regrettable, perhaps, but again not a reason for contesting for a place in the States that you already have.

    He's rude... well...

    So what are we left with, as a real reason? His threat to form his own party. If this is it, do you really think that voting for Stuart equates to joining a party that he sets up? Any more than voting for the JDA equates to joining you?

    Voting for someone is completely different from deciding to join a political organisation: you vote for someone because you agree with their positions and course of action on various issues - joining a political party implies a much more considered decision and a deeper level of commitment

    Stuart is a fighter and his particular fights are with the endemic corruption of the nasty cabal that run Jersey.

    If he sets up a party after the election to support that fight, good luck to him. The JDA should seek an alliance with such a group when you agree with its positions, and be critical of it when you do not - a bit like the attitude that you should adopt now to Stuart.

  2. All about the EGO

  3. Sorry Geoff/JDA.... but a load of bullpoo after you realise that you and Mr Vibert have upset a lot of people with your actions and words.

    Your EGO, as someone else has pointed out has taken priority over the issues, and like it or not this is what appears to be the TRUTH.

    There is no way Geoff that anybody can believe that Stuart's ' bombastic threats against you' have brought about the decision to stand against him. Indeed, can you point us in the direction these threats were made, because there is no evidence out there that he did.

    In fact, it would appear that the bad mouthing has come from Mr Vibert and yourself so far.

    I would not disagree that Bob Hill and Trevor have continued the cause of the abuse enquiry/Graham Power's suspension, but you yourself Geoff have not been very vocal on these issues.

    Are you not now looking to excuse the inexcusable?? That is, you have destroyed the credibility of the JDA and sadly some of its more credible members.

    Too little, too late I'm afraid.

  4. A couple of comments.

    The only credible candidate of the current JDA deputies would have been Trevor not Geoff.

    Anybody working as part of a team would have said WE not I have been [working flat out] establishing a party for the last 5 years, a party is made up by a group of individuals working together, You seem to think you are the JDA party.

    All I ask is a fair contest maybe you should speak to Ted then!

  5. It's a mistake and you just can't see it.
    When you said that you wouldn't stand against SS you gained a lot of respect. Now you've blown it. A very damaging decision. Not too late to reconsider.

  6. Unfortunately by back tracking on your decision not to stand against Stuart has now put you firmly in his cross-hairs.
    The truth as to why you left education to become a politician will now be used against you as many people allied to Stuart and know the truth about your previous misdemeanors will furnish Stuart with the evidence he requires to out you.
    As David Laws has discovered, in Politics you don't have a private life (and he was someone who had not upset anyone else).

    So in summary you standing against Stuart WILL cost you your political career.

  7. Geoff you are losing any credibility you may have had, you are already in the States there was absolutely no need for you to stand. I agree with other comments on here Trevor has been a solid supporter on child abuse, I have heard nothing from you as for Stuarts hard core supporters I am not one but I will vote for Stuart he had the guts to step down from the States if you felt so strongly that you had to stand why did you not follow his example you may have gained some respect if you had.

  8. "Success in this election... establishes us with an island-wide mandate and the chance to increase our numbers in the following Deputy by-election in St Helier 2.

    ...I would love to stand aside, but I believe that would damage the party. Like it or not JDA must stand, and equally like it or not, I happen to be the best available candidate."

    "We are proud to announce the return of the now-recovered Ted Vibert to the team."

    So, Geoff changed his mind in an attempt to increase his party's representation in the States. His ego claims that he is the best "available" candidate from his party, whilst seemingly blinding him to the qualities of Big Trev.

    The recovered Ted Vibert has written a piece of naked propaganda in which, assuming he is not simply ignorant of the full facts, he lies by omission to do a hatchet job on Stuart. If he is ignorant of the full facts, or is not able to integrate them to see the bigger picture, one wonders why the JDA are so "proud to announce the return of the now-recovered Ted Vibert to the team"

    The JDA needs to retain its credibility and Geoff's self serving volte-face has done the opposite.

  9. Mac and Nick:
    Big Trev did not even want to be considered as a candidate for this by-election.

  10. Parties do not need to stand a candadate to be credible. They can quite legitimately endorse an existing candidate, campaign for them and be seen to be promoting their wider aims.

  11. JDA Council

    After looking at the bigger picture, one can only come to the conclusion that Deputy Geoff Southern is standing for one reason and one reason only:

    "His totally over inflated ego".

    The work Deputies Trevor Pitman and Shone Pitman have put in on the child abuse scandal is surely commendable and sets them apart from the likes of Geoff "my own personal gain first" Southern, who, albeit works very hard in the States Chamber and is extremely well researched, has allowed personal gain to interfere with his better judgement over the forthcoming by-election.

    If the JDA are to move forward from this debacle, firstly they must put Ted Vibert back in the box from which he came. After the By-Election, Geoff Southern's leadership of the JDA should be contested, because, make no mistake, this by-election has shown Geoff in his true light. That is sad for the JDA, sad for the people who support him and, in my opinion, reinforces the view of the general public that all politicians, despite what they may say, enter the states each with their own personal agenda irrespective of the so called "party political stance" they wish to portray.

    I will vote in this by-election, but many of my friends will not. My vote will go to Stuart Syvret and there are many reasons for this, but I will give you one reason now and that is that he had the integrity to give up his seat to force this by-election. Geoff however could not even manage that.


  12. Surely the JDA council can resolve this tell Geoff to stand down before he destroys the JDAs reputation he is not the JDA just one part of a political party

  13. Fair play to Geoff Southern and he is correct. Look at the same people coming on time and time again to push for Stuart. The same people are already turning up at the hustings when they do not even live in the parish to plant questions. Desperate.

    The JDA have gained a lot of respect even from some hardened middle to rights and that is progressive for any party anywhere.

    Stuart Syvret is not the only up and coming alternate around.

    Jersey has to move on, time is precious and holding onto people that do nothing and then take 6 month holidays, will never change anything for the struggling man on the street living in Jersey.

    I have had enough of this propoganda coming from supporters of Stuart Syvret. If he is such a great leader than where is the evidence because I cannot find any?

  14. A good question posed on another local blog site, which you might do well to respond to:

    'The truth as to why you left education to become a politician will now be used against you as many people allied to Stuart and know the truth about your previous misdemeanors will furnish Stuart with the evidence he requires to out you.'

    This is one of many messages posted on various blog sites, alleging potential past misdemeanours by one of our Senatorial candidates. Why is is that these supposed supporters of Stuart Syvret are only coming forward with this evidence now, given that the GS left the teaching profession many years ago ?

    There are 2 possibilities here:

    1) They have been sitting on evidence for years, waiting for the time to reveal it, which makes them not only potential abuse concealers, but but also blackmailers

    2) They have no evidence of anything, and are merely making up scurrilous lies to try and demean a candidate, and are thus are not only blackmailers, but desperate, desperate idiots.

    It's about time we heard the truth from the JDA about the supposed threats made by Syvret and his followers if GS decided to stand. I think this would be enough to finish Syvret's campaign immediately. '

    Given that Stuart is obviously encouraging this behaviour, can you respond ?

  15. Stuart Syvret has one issue - child abuse. He lives, breathes and wallows in it. In more ways than one.

    He now lives with a vunerable child abuse victim. Takes advantage of her hospitality and god knows what else.

    She chairs the Care Leavers Association and claims to act for victims of child abuse. She can't even get their unanimous support, yet writes political letters to the JEP using their office address to defend her live-in 'house guest'.

    The pair of them are a discusting disgrace and represent no one but themselves.

  16. David,

    It's a shame that you post comments like the one above from anonymous trolls, if they're so sure and believe in what they are saying why not put a name to it. Or is any excuse to have a dig at Stuart?

  17. Mac:

    You are effectively anonymous, too. In fact I don't even have any effective way of verifying the authenticity of comments in the names of real people: You are obviously taking the word of an anonymous poster with the appropriate degree of caution, and I think that is right. If I hear from a convincing source that it is definitely untrue, I shall delete it. Meanwhile, that is what is being said, and that is all the weight that can reasonably be put on any blog comments: it is what some people say. I am agnostic on the believability.
    I censor as little as possible, because I want a vibrant forum where people feel able to discuss their contrasting viewpoints on things. Even if they disagree with us!

  18. I agree with Mac, and can even give an educated guess to who the poster (Anonymous) is. I think it could be the self same person who mentioned going to Stuart's public meeting with a 9mm gun!
    Shows what sort of person is afraid to use their own name, with good reason.

    Hopefully, you will be enlightened by one of the parties involved themselves. If not you will hear it from me!

    I think this young man should be very, very careful.

    Jill Gracia

  19. Actually Anonymous (posted 2.11), in some instances neither of the options you place before us are correct in my case.

    We were out with long standing friends on Saturday, with whom politics have never formed part of any conversations we have ever had with them. However we did get around to talking about the forthcoming election, and Geoff Southern's name came up. As one of the party had been taught by him at Hautlieu mention was made of 'inappropriate' goings on. This information was neither asked for or expected, but given in total innocence. I hasten to add they do not support Stuart Syvret.

    I have to say I have read nothing on Stuart Syvret's blog either which would indicate what he may or may not have been told what we were.

    Therefore, I suspect that people will think maybe there is some past history until Mr Southern comes out and denies it.

  20. Jill:

    I know whom you mean. The 9mm comment was on a mutual friend's Facebook thread, and seemed like a stereotypical young man's bad taste joke to me, rather than a genuine threat.
    On the other hand he is no friend of the JDA, and has spelt out his antipathy in emails to us, so it would be a surprise to catch him contributing to our blog.

  21. To all of those rushing to criticise my earlier post at 2.11, (if thats not what you are criticising, i of course apologise) do you really think it is appropriate for one of Stuart's supporters to threaten to provide Stuart with information in order for him to 'use against' or to 'out' another candidate ? Because in my book, that is blackmail.

    And to the poster at 12.50, its not being in receipt of information. Its the threat to use it to demean another candidate that I think is abhorrent.

  22. I can now furnish readers of your Blog and Mr Anonymous (RdH??) with the facts relating to his scurrilous posting.

    Firstly Stuart Syvret is most certainly staying with the democratically elected Chair of the JCLA, at her invitation, because naturally when he returned to Jersey he did not have a home. So the problem is......??

    He would have been welcome to stay at my home had I been able to accomodate him. By implication you are suggesting that there is something more sinister to this, which I know 100% there is not. Indeed Mr Anonymous you may wish to retract this insinuation.

    I myself have been giving Stuart as much assistance as I have been able over the last few days. I have given him lifts, so by implication does this suggest anything more than a genuine desire to help?? I think not.

    Furthermore, the lady, who I think we all know you are talking about without having the courage to name is most certainly NOT vulnerable. Indeed she has more fight, courage and intelligence than anybody who posts under the protection of anonymity as does Stuart Syvret. Furthermore knowing the calibre of this lady she would certainly not be taken advantage of by anybody. It seems to me she is perhaps repaying Stuart in some small way for all the work he has done, and what he has sacrificed for the survivors of abuse. She has fought and believed in the cause of the Care Leavers, organised marches, bravely spoken on their behalf in the Royal Square and on the mainstream media. What on earth gives you the right to say she only 'claims' to act on behalf of the abused.

    Remember, actions speak far louder than words Mr Anonymous.

    What you call a 'political' letter was a perfectly justified response to a 'political' letter from Ted Vibert, and I cannot see a problem with that, and as chair of the JCLA why on earth should she not use the office address?

    I do not know what a disCusting disgrace is, but I presume you mean disGusting. Well it seems from here that you are the disgrace, trying to lead people into reading more into a situation than there is, and then making a non-argument to try and justify it.

    Perhaps you would be man enough to put your name to such dangerous comments in future.

    Finally, I personally would be delighted to know when Trevor and Shona are due back from holiday so that some semblance of normality returns to this blog. I also feel that Trevor, knowing the truth would not have permitted Mr Anonymous's comment.

    Jill Gracia

  23. Sorry I disagree, but I stand to be corrected. Yes, I too amongst many other people saw it on Monty's blog, and indeed I know that it has been printed off and retained by some.

    However, there are elements of his posting which make me 99% certain that it is one and the same person, for reasons which I personally cannot give you the explanation because it would not be my remit to do so. Whoever it is however (and if I AM wrong what I have said still applies)you are receiving comments from others who would not normally comment on this blog, and it follows this is mischief making and untrue.

  24. David,

    I don't hide behind a made up or Anonymous name I use what most people know me as. You are probably one off the few people who call me Adrian, If your confused just think Disaster Mind (those were the day's)


  25. Jill:
    you have essentially confirmed that Syvret is Ms Modral's house guest, as RdH? alleges. I am aware that CM and RdH are in different factions of the JCLA, although I have no idea of their relative support, so I suppose Anon could be RdH, and if not is probably close to him.


    Ever since you started posting on PJ I have wondered whether you were that Mac, but it is not a rare diminutive, so I did not assume. Welcome to our contributors, anyway.

  26. “Stuart Syvret has one issue - child abuse. He lives, breathes and wallows in it. In more ways than one.

    He now lives with a vunerable child abuse victim. Takes advantage of her hospitality and god knows what else.

    She chairs the Care Leavers Association and claims to act for victims of child abuse. She can't even get their unanimous support, yet writes political letters to the JEP using their office address to defend her live-in 'house guest'.

    The pair of them are a discusting disgrace and represent no one but themselves.”

    As with Jill, I am 99.9% sure that this is the handy work of RdH! Interestingly, I received an e-mail last week which bares a startling resemblance to the above diatribe with the same characteristics but with one slight difference, the person who sent me the e-mail was not anonymous and is very close to RdH!

    Yes, Stuart is staying in my home; this has never been a secret. I class Stuart as a friend and that’s what friends do, they help each other out! Where in the rule book of life does it say that this is not allowed? I will make this very clear, he is not taking advantage of my hospitality and just what are you suggesting with the “god knows what else” bit? Do you live in my home? Have you any idea of my personal circumstances and if anyone else lives with me? Your accusations are totally unfounded and very immature.

    You are correct in one thing! I was indeed democratically elected as Chair at the AGM on 2 December 2009 by an overwhelming majority of the members at that meeting however, since that time, I have been illegally locked out of JCLA as have all the other members which is the real “disgusting disgrace”. I will continue to fight with and for the care leavers and again, you are correct in that I do not have the unanimous support of the care leavers, after all, would you vote for me? Thought not!

    I have followed JDA for several years; many members have carried out sterling work on behalf of the ordinary residents of Jersey and should be commended for their efforts. Allowing trolls such as this onto your blog attacking people in such a venomous way could do more harm than good!

    David, you have me at a disadvantage as it is clear from the fact that you have posted my name that you know who I am! I am sorry, but I do not believe I know who you are but perhaps we could meet up and have a coffee and chat one day!

    Carrie Modral

  27. Jill & Carrie:

    Even if none of us like Rdh very much, I think it was a legitimate question to ask whether there may be personal reasons why an organisation (and I believe he is a member of it) is publicly engaging in political activity that is not to his taste.

    Now that there are definitive answers that there are not, from both of you, and I consider you both to have an order of magnitude more credibility than he would have, even if he signed his post, I think the question is satisfactorily resolved.

    Re-asking a resolved question would just be mischievous trolling, though, and will get censored.

  28. Geoff Southern is the only person who gives actual answers.

  29. Deputy Trevor PitmanJune 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM

    Just to answer GeeGee's question. Having enjoyed our first proper break since last summer Shona and me are back on the island and, once I have caught up with nine days constituent work, I will do my best to get back to some postings fairly soon.

  30. The Pitbulls are legends and will remain so. Their attitude to all of this and their work ethic are second to none. Keep it up.

  31. Anonymous

    Stuart Syvret did not 'give up' his seat. he lost it due to six months sulking and as someone else commmented, skiving, in London at how expense. Suddenly he was out of an easy £22.000 for a six month holiday. The first we all heard about 'giving up' the seat and forcing a referendum was once he sloped back here.

    Much to his disappointment or so it seemed to me when I saw him on tv he wasn't even thrown in jail upon his return. I am not a JDA member but I do admire the work their deputies do. I would vote for them or a JDA candidate if in my district. I have always voted for Stuart Syvret. But not any more.

    Sorry. This attacking Geoff Southern yet not others who are standing is very sad and clearly personal, even if it is only from a handful of Stuart Syvret's supporters.

  32. Gobbie The States rafter goblinJune 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM

    Hello, Gobbie here

    Trevor, JDA, can you tell me who that shaven headed chap was who popped in briefly to sit on the Senatorial benches today? As Trevor has highlighted, this chap who I believe is called Shenton, was there till about thirty minutes into the Housing Minister vote and then gone - quicker than a rat from a sinking ship. Only to return after lunch! How this man can run to the media carping on about the cost of States members is beyond me. In my opinion he has more front than a page 3 model! Perhaps someone in the party can advise - can one bring a vote of no confidence in the PAC Chairman simply on grounds of his shocking attendance record at sittings?

  33. That would be the same Shenton that used to keep statistics on the number of votes Members missed, I presume?

  34. Dear Carrie and Jill

    You sound like a couple of mother hens idolising Stuart.

    Neither of you have known him very long but 'as a friend' you have got to accommodate him and made sure you were the first to cease upon him on his return.

    Ask yourselves this.

    Why someone who was born and educated in Jersey, has family here, at the age of 40 odd, has no other friends other than child abuse victims he has known for 2 minutes, to turn to for accommodation. I am starting to believe the contributor who says he wallows in child abuse.

    Also, do either of you think this is a bit odd? That none of his colleagues can work with him?

    And Carrie, you might have been elected to the CLA democratically, but did you get a democratic consenses before pening your political (personal) views in your letter defending your 'house guest' to the JEP?

    A fair question, I think.

  35. I will not speak for Carrie, but I am sure she is more than capable of answering for herself!

    Firstly, I am not a victim of abuse, and I have not accomodated Stuart (please read my post properly). I have lived in Jersey for many, many years and always been a supporter of Stuarts. I do not have the need to 'mother hen' anybody.I have children and grandchildren of my own, and indeed a partner if I need to do any clucking!

    I am sure Stuart does not need anybody fussing around him. However, the offer of a roof and help with his election campaign is more akin to friendship and support. I am sure other candidates in this election have help and support from friends and family, and this is the way it should be.

    What you mean by 'cease' upon him I am not sure?? However it does not really matter, as I think your comment is rather mis-judged.

    Yes, may I repeat, I support Stuart as an honest man. I also support other States Members from this blog site for the same reason. I will not support Geoff in this election for other reasons.

    Hopefully this has clarified your rather distorted view.


  36. Having politicised themselves, and moreover backed somebody who long ago declared active enmity to the JDA, the JCLA are not above discussion here. However, we don't run this blog as a facility for publicly washing their dirty laundry.
    The anti-Modral wing have had a couple of questions not only published, but promptly answered. That is enough for now, thank you. It is your turf war, you go and start your own blogs to fight it on.

  37. OOeer - sorry. I thought the right to reply was democratic!

    Jill Gracia

  38. Jill:
    I have let you reply. Rikki has had his moan, Carrie has put her side, and that will do for me. If the dispute is just going to go in circles, it can do it on someone else's webpage, preferably one I don't read.

    And "right to reply" is another can of worms, altogether. This is the JDA Council's blog, although in practice they leave most of it up to me as the keenest blogger. Other parties may be granted the privilege of posting comments as our guests. I personally set quite broad limits on what I find acceptable from guests, while some of the blog's co-owners have different criteria and have even made me delete my own comment. But it is about guest/host relationship and privileges not democracy and rights. I usually allow almost anything, but there is no obligation to publish any submitted material.

  39. That's fine David. Thanks for your reasoning, and I am pleased to note that the story behind this is now on Stuart's blog, so no need to keep it going on here.

    If you do not normally read Stuart's blog however, you may find this particular posting interesting to say the least.

    I find it hard to believe you do not at least scan through other blogs, whatever you may think of them. Not do do so, and yet be a member of a 'Democratic' Alliance seems rather blinkered to me.

  40. Jill:
    I read a lot of blogs, including Stuart's and Gazza's.

  41. GeeGee. You take a dig at David Rotherham about being 'blinkered' as a member of a democratic alliance. On those same lines maybe you could give us your excuse - or not, if it isn't the case - on how your posts seem to be highly 'blinkered' in not commenting on your hero's pathetic threats to smear people to try and intimidate them not to stand in the election?

  42. I'd say this poster on Planet Jersey has a point or two to make:-

    "which candidate couldn't be arsed to turn up for work on most days prior to running away?, which candidate had been in the States for the past 20 years and, so far, has failed to make any difference?, which candidate has yet to put forward any positive ideas concerning the Island's future?, which candidate is incapable of forming long term professional or personal relationships?, which candidate will consider any idea or point of view as long as it's his own?, which candidate preys on the feelings, of the hurt and damaged members of our society to bolster his own ego?, which candidate feels that he must insult, demean and degrade anyone or anything he doesn't agree with?, which candidate would be a total unmitigated disaster if he were re-elected?"

  43. If you can explain what you mean, or about whom you are speaking about in regard to attempts to 'smear' people in order not to stand in the election, maybe I can answer, or maybe I cannot as I have not seen any of these threats in the public domain.
    I stand to be corrected if I have missed them, so please point me in the right direction. I have no problem with JDA per se, but I really feel Geoff and Ted Vibert have done more harm than good.
    I do not consider Stuart a hero, as I am sure he does not himself. That is an immature remark. However, I do see him as a man of honesty, unafraid to face the electorate in what must be a challenging time for him. Through him we have learnt of many of the failures of this Government which we would otherwise not have done.
    So, apropos your comment, please confirm where I can see these threatening intimidation attempts then I hope I can respond.

  44. GeeGee. Bit hard to 'show you' phone calls made, I have it on first hand authority, at the Great One's order. But I guess you could always ask the Citizens Media individual who was wickedly used to pass the threat of being smeared on. Or maybe you excuse such actions? Which begs the further question: how would you react to such actions if the target was the Great One Himself? Stuart is now a truly horrible bully. Just as bad a total fake. If he were re-elected it would be a disaster. Even electing Patrick Ryan is now preferable.And that really is saying something.

  45. Thanks for your 'evidence'. However, we are going down the road of 'he said, she said', second hand information etc. This is playground stuff, which this whole thing seems to be turning into. As before, nothing has been put in the public domain in regard to any smear, so how can the public judge. I have to say usually there is no smoke without fire.

    No, I abhor bullies and bullying, but having said that we are talking grown men who should be well able to stand up to the cut and thrust of politics, and without being squeaky clean it is something that they should be able to handle and probably expect. I take it that it is Geoff that we are talking about when we are talking your candidate, as he is your only one, and I am sure he is more than capable of defending his corner, or man enough to admit/deny anything that was not used in evidence against him!!

    We must not forget either that Stuart himself has been subjected to many forms of bullying, probably too numerous to mention. Think Jimmy Perchard, police raids, comments on blogs etc., etc. Indeed, when he first came back to Jersey I heard Terry Le Main call him something unpleasant to his face on his way into a States meeting. All that is a form of bullying, and I think we tend to overlook that just because it is Stuart. Citizen's Media are subjected to threats as are it's individual authors and so it goes on. Carrie Modral who is the chair of the JCLA has had attempts to intimidate her because of her stance on the abuse issues. How disgraceful is that?

    I always approach things with a fair open mind and do my best to see things from both sides. At the end of the day this is about voting in a politician, and I am, and will support the one who I feel can deliver what I want, and who is prepared to stand up and be counted at whatever cost. Stuart has the stoicism.

    My overall feeling is that everybody involved should do an exercise in growing up a little, and get on with the job in hand for the electorate out here who get drawn in to all the pettiness, as indeed I seem to have done as well just because of the person I am supporting.

    So, I guess once again we will have to agree to disagree.

  46. Jill

    Your ignorance of your hero knows no bounds.

    Stuart Syvret is a bully.

    If you were privy to some of the phone calls he has been making from your mate Carrie's place and the emails he has been sending, you would see a very different side of this 'stoic' man.

    Not everything happens on the blog you know. You really ought to get out more

  47. Sorry, bit I do get out an awful lot. Too much sometimes.

    So, there are e-mails then, so there is proof!! Produce it then.

    Did you not read my previous post where I stated I did not consider him a hero, but someone I supported for his honesty. A slight difference I think.

    So, it now appears that you have a problem with Carrie being a friend, and the fact that to you I appear ignorant.

    As you know who I am, perhaps you would have the courage to let me know who you are?? I have no problem talking with people face to face. Maybe you are a bully too, because I always maintain bullies are cowards.

    No...I thought not. Right I'm off out now, and not to the hustings either!!

  48. one word disgustful
    on one hand you tell jill not to use this blog to air her concerms what leaving eveyone else to do so
    as a former member JDA and was there at the start ask yourself why i left and many followed
    but to attack the new chair of the JCLA because she cares is a disgrace i hope many of you out there see through this smear and vote accordedly i know i will as many of the people i know will do the same .
    Rosemary Pestana

  49. Rosemary:
    You have not put your point very clearly. However, taking it bit by bit:
    I did not tell Jill not to use this blog to air her concerns - I did say that now Carrie has answered Rikki's concerns about whether her personal relationship was affecting her position, I did not want to host an ongoing dispute over the internal affairs of the JCLA.
    As I remember, you left because you didn't fancy your chances running for Deputy as a JDA candidate after Geoff and Denise's poor showing in the Senatorial. Not that going it alone did you much good.
    Nobody has attacked anybody for caring: I just let one of the JDA's opponents ask why the JCLA was backing another of our opponents, and let the challenge be answered.
    So who has been smeared? Everyone concerned seems to agree that Syvret actually is Carrie's lodger, and she has made her statement on the terms of that arrangement. That is not a smear, that is something cleared up.

  50. Rosemary was in the JDA? Thank heavens she isn't now or I would never even consider voting for the party let alone joining it. Always slagging other people off behind their back.

    Heck, this is the woman who had the cheek to try and say what had Geoff Southern ever done for the union! As a union member I can tell you Rosemary - 100 times more than Stuart Syvret!


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.