Wednesday, June 23, 2010


(Accidentally posted to wrong blog originally)
Trevor’s two oral questions for this weeks States sitting are published below. They are both set to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand and relate to issues Trevor has raised before with regard to the long-standing saga of the suspension of the States of Jersey Police Chief Officer, Graham Power.

According to Trevor the eventual answer – even if he doesn’t get it on Tuesday – to the question on Operation Blast will prove “very interesting and raise a whole lot more questions in it self”.

On a completely different subject, in response to questions a number of people have been asking this past week or so, Trevor also says that, constituent work permitting, he hopes to get his thoughts on the recent by-election and all that has transpired since up on the blog immediately this week’s States sitting is out of the way. This should probably mean by Thursday night.

Question One – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Given that on 8th June 2010 when asked whether he would make available to Members the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ the Minister stated that he would have to take legal advice before coming to a decision, will he now advise whether he has taken such advice, who specifically the advice was sought from, whether he will be making the report available and, if so, at what date?”

Question Two – To the Home Affairs Minister:

“Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether (in the course of the investigation into ‘Operation Blast’) both the former Chief Minister and the current Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers received reports into the background of States Members, including any allegations or record of criminal activity; and, if so, under what authority?”
Posted by JDA Council at 8:13 PM
Labels: Jersey politics

Anonymous said...

I wish Trevor would get away from these repetitive Graham Power suspension questions. Can't he just leave it until Home Affairs have got their final reports out into the public? It is getting tedious.
June 22, 2010 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...

Well done for being persistent on this issue Trevor. I understand what you are getting at - you just want some answers and everything out in the open. Couldn't agree more.
June 23, 2010 5:06 AM


  1. Persistant? Its just time wasting because he is powerless to speed matters up.

  2. Trevor.

    What answers were you given by Ian (the bungling Minister) Le Marquand? As far as I recall, he was living up to his name "Bungling". What I don't get is, if Ogley was involved in Operation Blast, then why isn't he suspended (as a neutral act)?

    I plan on publishing a substantive Blog, in the next day or so, concerning the Bungling Minister and the Wilthshire Report, thinking about it, I think I'll title it "Ground-Hog Blog". Because like yourself and many others, we are all still asking the same "vital" questions, the Bungler just won't answer. And like yourself, will keep asking them until we get a straight forward answer.

    I noticed he (the Bungler) dodged your question about the author of the Interim MET Report (if it exists) being under investigation, by the MET Police themselves! This is yet another "vital" question that deserves an answer.

  3. Ian Le Marquand talks about Groundhog day aand is clearly getting irritated that this issue isn't going to be allowed to get buried as he clearly wants it. All I can say is that we wouldn't have groundhog day if he would only show some respect and answer - finaly - the questions Trevor is putting to him.

  4. Hardly time wasting - ILM could and should be giving answers because as we stand the complete disregard and contempt for deadlines from ILM and his mates is quite disgusting. If being suspended could ever be called a 'nuetral act' which I don't believe anyway - this total farce, dragging on for months when ILM keeps saying things have taken longer than anticipated blah blah blah but doing naff all about it really should see his head roll.

    And where is the six week Napier Report TLS used to con the States against voting for Bob Hill's proposition on a public inquiry. Keep on keeping on Trev - you are doing us proud, your missus too. Forget the foolish snipers they are just a handful. I am not a JDA member nor ever likely to be thanks to Geoff but most people respect hardwork when they see it.

  5. Agree with Trace. Mr & Mrs P are good sorts.
    Get out of the JDA,or dump Southern/Vibert before you lose you seats

  6. I really must complain to the JDA about England's defeat by Germany in the World Cup today. It is quite clear to me that this is all the fault of the JDA, but especially Deputy Geoff Southern. Obviously the linesman had been the subject of a vicious hate campaign and this influenced his decision not to see or give the goal after Frank Lampard's shot had crossed the line. It really isn't good enough and I will now never vote for the JDA again!

  7. Enough with this Graham Power nonsense. ILM will not say anything until July anyway so what is the point. How about tackling Ozouf and all about public spending?

  8. I totally agree with Mr Syvret and I will also go onto say that I blame the JDA for Heather Watson's early exit from Wimbledon last week. It really is not good enough.

  9. Oh yes, I agree with Mr. Syvret too, and I have the firm belief that Mr. Vibert's vicious hate campaign - OK, letter to your local newspaper, they are almost the same thing, aren't they? - caused a chain reaction resulting in my losing the general election to Nick and Dave. Hang your heads in shame JDA!

  10. Anonymous's MateJune 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

    JDA - you b******s! All these years the Germans have been getting the blame for starting the Second World War and now what do I find? You lot started it! Don't deny it - I know its true, Mr Syv told me. B******s! B******s! B******s!

  11. Hope 'Big Trev' as a follow up next week, if only to wind up the increasingly flapping ILM. Doesn't anyone else think it a bit strange how ILM can't possibly comment until the end of July...when GP just happens to be off the books. Odd how these reports have all taken so long in the same way.

  12. Well Stuart told me that if it wasn't for Geoff and Ted of the JDA then Rachael would never have been chucked out of Big Brother the other week. They are also responsible for my missus tripping over in the Bathroom last night.

    We deserve an explanation.

  13. A's Other MateJune 29, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    Rachael has been chucked out of Big Brother? You JDA B******s, you kept this a secret from me - why wasn't it mentioned in your election material? As Stu says you are obviously in league with the oligarchy. As for your wife, Anonymous, she was fine when I left her...

  14. Trevor,

    Bet you never thought becoming a States Member was going to be so "banging your head against a brick wall".

    Never mind you have the support of a few good members in the house.

    Keep up the good work and the good will survive.

  15. Still awaiting Trevor's view on the whole episode. Thurs evening it was due, or did you think we had forgotten!

  16. 'Big Trev' ain't good he is brilliant!

  17. Deputy Trevor PitmanJune 30, 2010 at 12:52 PM

    Hi Anonymous #10?

    No. I did not assume that anyone interested would have forgotten. But the reasoning is simple, as I made clear a number of months ago.

    'Bblogging' for me would be something that I would endeavour to try and do as regularly as I could as another way of putting out information, exchanging views on issues of particular interest etc.

    It was never going to be something that was on a par with what I am paid to do i.e. work on behalf of the people who elected me. This will always come first as it should.

    The fact is that like my politics or not I do work hard and - unlike some - do play a full role in the States. I also have a very big constituent portfolio - which I am not complaining about, I enjoy it - and this takes up a great deal of time.

    'Blogging' will always come a very poor second to all of this in terms of politics. The last month has been particularly busy, and, throw in us taking our first real short break for around a year as me and Shona did and posting just had to fall by the wayside.

    Being honest as I strive to be I also did not want to get involved in some of the pathetic election slaggings, smearing and mud-slinging that has come from some people. This all being said, and with a little bit of sanity slowly returning to the political scene it seems, I will now try and get some thoughts on recent events up on the blog before the week is out.

    Some people had to be told my thoughts first - in person and in plain language - and that has now been done.

    But, if anyone isn't happy with that and they demand someone on line 'blogging' 24/7 writing whatever inane drivel comes into their heads, attacking friend and opponent alike for no discernible reason, then all I can say is: sorry, I am obviously not the politician you are looking for.

    If as a result anyone doesn't want to vote for me, fine. I can live with that. I came into politics to do my best according to my beliefs and convictions and that is what I will continue to do so long as I am here.




    To Anonymous #11

    Thanks for the praise, slightly over the top or not! The surprisingly many nice e-mails, texts and posts I get are very much appreciated.

  18. Trevor, I have to ask something here just to clarify that you are not contradicting yourself. On more than one occassion you have asked a question of Home Affairs or the CM at the same time as an allegation(s) has/have appeared on a certain blog which now clearly detests the JDA to an extent it has said some serious things about a few of its member. Now you said that blogging is not the highlight of your politics yet it is clear from some of your past questions that you must have been reading and following a certain vile blog closely and also a couple of other 'Graham Power' obsessive blogs out there. So would it be right to now say that since the attacks on the JDA you are just saying blogging to you is not as important as it used to be anymore because its bitten the JDA back?

  19. I don't see any contradiction in what Deputy Trevor Pitman said in his post about blogging not being the centre of his political life. Seems to me to fit in with what I have read on here all along.

    If the questions the poster is asking about are the ones about the MET Interim report and Ian Le Marquand's terrible handling of the suspension then I am gald he has been asking them. The whole situation has been a farce to the point where Le Marquand really should resign.

    Maybe just a bit of stirring, Jamie, as it seems you have also written this on the establishment farce site? Do hope Trevor will be back on here soon though making some responses.

  20. Hi Anon

    The Establishment's Farce Site?

    Very amusing!

    Gazza :-x

  21. Well Gazza you do allow a rather high proportion of ill-informed sniping at the likes of anyone vaguely 'progressive' to be fair. Though I grant you the site has improved hugely the past couple of months. One thing though, as you are here, at least the politicians on here write in their own name. Why do allow pieces attacking elected politicians to be accredited to 'a States Member' if they haven't got the guts to put their name to it? This seems like the sort of thing you would have attacked Syvret for?



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.