Friday, September 17, 2010


Word has reached me that personal opinions expressed by myself in my own name are being attributed by some to former colleagues in a party that none of us are in any more.
No postings on here, nor letters to the JEP, signed by myself alone have been anything other than my own individual work, not discussed with, let alone approved by any other person.
It is an injustice to blame anyone else for opinions of mine, when I have no idea whether they share or disagree with my view, and they may not have even seen my pieces. Conversely, I am nobody else's puppet or mouthpiece.
David Rotherham


  1. What are you talking about?

  2. I am talking about hearing that someone else got slagged at a union meeting for letters they had no part in writing, on the false assumption that I must be their spokesman, just because I was ex-JDA too.

  3. For goodness' sake, Dave.

    The Jersey Millionaires Party and their hangers-on are on the offensive, sticking their fingers up to ordinary people. 500 000 of cuts to health and education, with more to come, coupled with an extra 400 000 subsidy to the quango they set up to promote tax dodging worldwide. They're taking the p*ss!!!

    And as well making sure that they in no way suffer from the effects of the crisis, they are running an ideological offensive as well, filling any blog that will give them space with rightwing bulls**t, trying to demoralise those with an opinion different to their own.

    And they seem to be having some success don't they? You are terrified with being associated with the JDA ...oh no, that's not me..., of being associated with the blessed Stuart... ...ABSOLUTELY NOT...

    Can you not see what is going on here?

  4. My ITIS went up yet another 1% this week. So I think the principle of making some cuts is right. That puts me at odds with Geoff "opposed to all cuts on principle" Southern.
    On the other hand, I am not at all impressed with how badly targetted many of the cuts they are actually agreeing are. I want to see cuts in the Parkinson's Law stuff - layers of management being paid big money to get in the way, just to do something they can get paid big money for. Apart from the excellent Voluntary Redundancy Scheme for senior management, which was a promising and encouraging start, the latest round of front-line service cuts are not what I am asking for, at all.
    I am not terrified of being associated with the JDA - I just don't agree with enough of their latest policy raft to actively support it.
    Associating with the blessed Stuart? Years ago, when he was a Big Fish, and I a humble supporter of his, he made a point of totally blanking me on a couple of meals out with mutual friends. Now he is a fellow Small Fish, and I a disappointed ex-supporter, I don't think I want to know him, either. He is no longer a potentially useful contact, and is not pleasant enough company to associate with for any other reason.

  5. Geoff S. was the same with GST. Totally opposed to it, thus scuppering the GST + exemptions option.

  6. Just to help me out of my ignorance on the subject... The exemptions option was proposed as an amendment to the original projet, the amendment was defeated and then the original passed? And Geoff S. voted against the amendment? If so, not very clever tactics.

    If you were totally opposed to GST, it makes sense to support what you might see as a compromise, if you think that you cannot defeat the main proposition. If you think that the compromise did not have a snowball's chance in hell, then it would be logical to abstain on an amendments and voted no to the final proposition. Equally, if I thought that I could defeat the main proposition, I would not have supported an amendment.

    So it sounds like poor tactics to me, which, of course, can end up being as bad as simple "I'm not listening..."

  7. Someone close to Geoff would like to point out that "opposed to all cuts on principle" is not an accurate summary of his current thinking. The phrase was his retort to me when I raised the subject a year or so ago in a meeting, but I am assured that he has moved on to a more nuanced position. "delay so the whole thing can be looked at intelligently after consultation " is now what he is asking for.

  8. Now that Deputy T.Pitman has been completey vindicated by the napier report for asking questions concerning the ilegal suspension of graham power will he put up a posting telling the doubters "i told you so"

  9. I hope so. Publishing Trev's stuff is the main point to keeping this blog going, but he has had a lot of other stuff on his plate lately, personal as well as political, so he hasn't been writing.

  10. You should of stuck with Ted Vibert. He is starting to gain a lot more support than you realise.


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.