Wednesday, 31 August 2011


Below I publish a letter sent from the Scrutiny sub-panel to Channel Television, though it is relevant to all our mainstream media when one considers the way this whole issue has been reported this past year or two. As I have been at pains to stress again and again, the panel has allegiance to no particular camp or perspective in all of this. All we are interested in - as should surely be the media - is reporting hard facts and being fair to all involved. If failings are evident then report them as such. But do not adopt a scatter gun approach that can only result at best in the blurring of fact and fiction; and at worst in undermining and denigrating that which should deserve no such criticism.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that in speaking to the Scrutiny sub-panel the representatives of BDO themselves stressed how they had praised the handling of the Historic Abuse Inquiry in nine specific areas - yet little if any of this appears to have found its way into the mainstream media's reporting. Of course, as BDO also pointed out they have no control over how the media - or, I should add, the Home Affairs Minister - subsequently presented or spun their report. As is outlined in the letter below the sub-panel has already found significant concerns in the way this review was undertaken to fully justify our initiating it. Our report later in September will make these quite clear in both findings and recommendations.

To conclude on a slightly different aspect. I must comment to readers that both the sub-panel and the Scrutiny office has found it deeply concerning to say the least that BDO has subsequently attempted to present Scrutiny with a bill in the region of £14,000 - kindly discounted from around £26,000 - for their participation in the Scrutiny interview process. It needs to be made quite clear that Scrutiny, as with Select Committees the world over, do NOT pay witnesses for hearings where people are only invited because they have some relevant involvement; further still where they could actually be subpoenaed to appear by law. Scrutiny will NOT be paying this bill. To do so would undermine the whole future Scrutiny process as it would result in panels being intimidated out of tackling contentious issues through fear of incurring a huge bill that Scrutiny simply does not have the money - taxpayer money let us not forget - to spend in such an inappropriate way.

I must end by stating that I personally really do find myself asking if accountants do not perhaps understand irony. The original review was, after all, effectively into whether or not public money had been spent appropriately. Yet BDO now even attempt to charge Scrutiny and the taxpayer for the cost of them writing a letter seeking to remove me from the Chairing of this investigation! An attempt I should also remind readers that was thrown out along with the Home Affairs Minister's identical complaint as groundless. Similarly, charging Scrutiny for a meeting held for their benefit to discuss some of their apparent concerns. As someone used to say - you really couldn't make it up…

Scrutiny Office

Managing Director
Channel Television
Television Centre
La Pouquelaye
St Helier

Our Ref: 516/29(5)

30th August 2011

Dear Sir

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel review

Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operation Rectangle - CTV coverage of public hearing with Mr. G. Power, dated 17th August 2011

The Scrutiny Sub Panel wishes to express its strong concerns about the coverage given to the public hearing with Mr. Graham Power last week.

The programme chose once again to highlight aspects of alleged overspending by the Police and in particular Mr. Harper during the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry, referring to Michelin-starred restaurants, 4-star hotels, first class flights to London and Australia, the costs of the dog handler and police overtime.

The CTV commentary used the figure of £7.5 million twice, unqualified in any way, alongside statements about restaurant bills etc ‘which the tax payer unwittingly had to sign for’. It was suggested in this way that that sum was all somehow unjustified or tainted. The impression clearly left with the viewer was that the Police had wasted £7.5 million.

Furthermore, it ought to be noted that the £7.5 million figure was never all down to the decisions, right or wrong ones, by Mr. Power and Mr. Harper. Half of the spending on the enquiry was committed after their time leading the investigation.

The programme attempted to characterise the public hearing as a ‘blame game’ between the Home Affairs department and the States of Jersey Police centred on who was responsible for the £7.5 million bill.

The programme picked up on one point made by Mr. Power in which he alleged that Home Affairs had been responsible for signing off expenses claims, linking this to the total £7.5 million cost of the enquiry. The reporter approached the Home Affairs Chief Officer for a comment on this allegation and was told that the Chief Officer would be speaking to the Sub Panel to explain the position. It is therefore perplexing to note that CTV failed to cover the subsequent hearings (on Thursday 25th August 2011) to discover the answer to their own questions.

Broadcast media have a special responsibility to use the few words that they have carefully in order to avoid false impressions being left in the minds of the public.

No attempt was made during the course of the programme to present an accurate and balanced picture of the Scrutiny Sub Panel’s review.

We wish to make it quite clear that our review is not about re-examining the actual costs of Operation Rectangle nor disputing that there may have been overspends. These matters have been fully examined previously by others. We are looking at a broader picture of whether or not the BDO Alto review gives a fair picture of the way this developed through 2008, given the fact that they didn't have access to the views of the two people at the heart of the SOJP management.

The Scrutiny review is an attempt to examine whether the independent external review of financial management of the Historic Child Abuse enquiry (Operation Rectangle), carried out by local firm of accountants, BDO Alto Limited, presents a fair and balanced view of the cost problems that have been identified in the police investigation.

Our review also includes examining the way aspects of the review were leaked to the media and the way the media has chosen to portray the enquiry as a result of these leaks.

The Sub Panel’s interest began with a determination to find out why Mr. Harper was not interviewed at any stage of the review and how information from the review was leaked to both the local and national media and used apparently to denigrate the enquiry.

Our review has already revealed a number of problems with the way the external review was conducted, not least the fact that Mr. Warcup, the Acting Chief Officer at the time, was unaware that the Mr. Kellett, the police consultant, had been directed by Mr. Gradwell, the SIO, to work on a joint report with BDO Alto and was unaware of the instructions which Mr. Warcup had originally set out for him. Mr Warcup told us that he believed that the work carried out by this consultant was ‘overly focussed on Mr. Harper, lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to Mr. Power and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police’.

In the public hearing Mr. Power gave us his perspective on how the Police Force had tried to establish an effective system of financial control in the midst of a highly pressurised enquiry. This was unavailable to BDO Alto because of the parallel timing with the disciplinary enquiry being carried out by Wiltshire

Mr. Power also told us: ‘I have been frustrated, as a lot of people have, that whenever the debate seems to shift towards where it probably belongs in my view, which is towards to the victims and to asking the hard questions about how it was that it was not challenged for so many years and why it took some rather exceptional police interventions to keep it within the criminal justice system, the conversation seems to be turned away to restaurant bills in London and who has had a second helping.’

The Sub Panel is seeking to understand and evaluate the substance of these comments and it was essential to give the Minister and the Chief Officer of Home Affairs the opportunity to respond.

We will fully address all the above issues when we publish our report next month.

In our view your programme serves to illustrate a point made by Mr. Power during the public hearing. He said: ‘This whole business about personal expenses has, I think, been used in particular to trivialise what ought to be a rather more serious debate.’

Our concern about your programme then is that, by focussing on the issue of expenses, it has simply reinforced a stereotypical image of the Police handling of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and largely missed the serious points raised during the hearing with Mr. Power. The emphasis on the hospitality expenses and air flights risks implanting the impression that the entire expenditure on Operation Rectangle was badly managed.

The reporter appears to have undertaken very little background research into our review and has resorted merely to replaying earlier versions of CTV coverage of the matter. We suggest in future the reporters contact the Scrutiny Officer to discuss relevant background information before attending hearings so that they are better prepared to understand the issues under discussion.

We are well aware that ultimately these are matters for editorial judgment and would not seek to dictate how this should be exercised. However, given the immense controversy and polarisation that surrounds these issues, we believe that balanced and well informed reporting is crucial.

Yours sincerely

Deputy T. Pitman
Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel


  1. If CTV don't do the right thing here, then I would suggest a formal complaint to OFCOM who I believe police their broadcasting license.

  2. If 7.5 million was used by CTV as a figure for the overspend and half that amount was spent by Mr.Power and Harper then surely someone can produce accountability for the amount spent by Mr. Warcup and Gradwell?

    As a member of the public this worries me especially in light of the attention given by the media to trash the enquiry based on the overspend.

    Please do not tell me we need a Scrutiny panel to produce this little piece of information

  3. Sh**! You are the man, Deputy. Testicular Fortitude, you ain't kidding. How, oh how has it taken this long for all of this to be draged into the public areana? When I look back at all of the media coverage and I have read it by the truck load like everyone else this simple letter blows it all away. I am grateful to you and your panel. But God am I angry!

  4. Over to you Ian, Ben, Jimmy, Tel, Sean and Troll...

  5. Deputy Trevor Pitman.

    What can/will you and your Scrutiny Sub Panel do/be doing if after your findings and recommendations, due out later this month, are not taken seriously?

  6. This neatly covers my own concerns into this whole affair. If we cut away all the extraneous issues, we seem to be left with these -

    1. Ever since a decision was taken, whatever the true reason might have been at the time, to suspend Graham Power, almost all media reporting has been concentrated on sustained criticism of almost every aspect of the abuse investigation led by Mr Harper and Mr Power - in particular, the cost of the investigation and allegations of financial mismanagement and waste.

    2. It now seems to be confirmed that around 50% of the much publicised cost of £7.5m was committed after Messrs Power and Harper had ceased to be involved in the case. So, around £3.5m - £4m was committed under the direction of Mr Warcup/Senator Le Marquand. Of course, the cost of the various abortive investigations into Mr Power has to be added to this - another £1m+.

    3. The "accredited" media, as it is now generally referred to, have consistently - and now undeniably - either misreported the whole issue or not reported at all many proven facts.
    I wholeheartedly agree with a comment of yours in the recent interview you gave to VFC - i.e. that you believe there are some good journalists in Jersey. The inevitable conclusion to draw is that these journalists are acting under instructions from their superiors. The simple question is why are such instructions being given?

    Finally, and to reinforce another of your points, a serious consequence of the above has been that actual investigations into abuse have been marginalised in the public perception. Now this might well just be what some people in high places want - i.e. preserve international reputation at all costs (and trash the reputations of a couple of cops in the process). But, in a modern society, this is absolutely not what can be allowed to remain. "Justice" is not just a word - it underpins a moral imperative. Those who have been abused whilst under the care of the States of Jersey deserve, at the very least, to have their allegations investigated and prosecuted objectively and thoroughly - not be subjected to the kind of treatment they have experienced so far.

  7. But 8 Million has been wasted on the Tragic Roundabout (Line Grove House aborted Police HQ move) fiasco, and no-one will complain about that, so it's not about the money :)

  8. Big Trev.

    Credit to you and your Sub Panel for speaking out against our State controlled media. Politicians, and members of the public have been held hostage by this lot for far too long. Jersey Bloggers have, and continue to, show the local MSM up for what they are. At best ill informed and shoddy, at worst complicit opinion management.

    It's not only what they do report that is disgraceful but just as, if not more importantly, what they DON'T REPORT

  9. Big Trev.

    Your panel is clearly not alone in its disapproval of the very selective reporting of CTV.

    Lenny Harper made a complaint to ITV but was told to direct the complaint to the alleged offender ie; CTV which he promptly did. Mr. Harper, it is believed is also taking his complaint to OFCOM.

    Re-produced below is Mr. Harper's complaint to CTV.

    "Dear Ms Rankine,

    Thank you for your e mail. My initial complaint relates to your programme of Wednesday 17th August 2011 at 6pm and your reporting of the days proceedings at the Scrutiny Hearing into the circumstances surrounding the commission of the BDO Alto report. My complaint is about the inaccurate nature of the report and the misinformation contained within it. The main issues are as follows;

    * On several occasions your presenter refers to a "£7.5 million overspend." Firstly, to overspend there must be a budget to which you are working to. There was no such budget. Despite being set straight on this point by Deputy Pitman in the programme, your presenter repeats it. It is a matter of record now from Scrutiny that despite police requests for a budget, there was none forthcoming. As there was no budget set, there can be therefore, no overspend.
    * Your programme continued to peddle the myth of the £7.5 million spend when it has been publicly stated by the Jersey government that £7.5m was the total cost of the investigation and that over 50% of this was incurred after I retired and in fact was incurred by Mr Warcup and Mr Gradwell despite the fact that they had no crime scene to manage and no expensive team of experts to finance. This information has been not only admitted by the States but has been openly discussed in the BDO report, Scrutiny and available in graphs. Your report neglected to state this and gave the impression that the £7.5m was incurred during my time in charge. This is not the first time your channel has perpetuated this myth but you have never corrected it and chose not to once again.
    * Your presenter twice mentioned that the £7.5m "overspend" was incurred as a result of among other things, "first class flights to Australia." This is despite the fact that it has been publicly admitted by the Home Affairs Minister and others, that the flights concerned which were during my time in charge, were justified and fully authorised. Indeed, two years ago it was made public that I had submitted a detailed report regarding those flights and that they had been approved and justified. Once again, your programme failed to give a true account of this to the public.
    * I would also complain about your recent attempts to link me, without a shred of evidence and on the vague insinuations by three Jersey politicians, to the scandal at the News of the World. You reported on these insinuations at some length and inferred an improper relationship by myself with the media, yet, at the same time the man who had criticised my dealings with the media, former Supt. Mick Gradwell, was being publicly accused by the Home Affairs Minister and others of improperly leaking confidential police information to the media. Indeed, Mr Le Marquand himself stated this week that if Gradwell was a SOJP officer he would be subject to a disciplinary investigation. I find the disparity in the treatment of this serious matter with the non story involving me sinister in the extreme.

    These are the main strains of my complaint. In view of the time restraint on complaints to Ofcom I have taken the precaution of registering my complaint with them also.

    Yours sincerely,

    Leonard Harper" (END)

  10. SO you are claiming impartiality, but tacitly defending the actions of the officers involved, and are happy to reveal findings of the Committee before the final official report of the findings is published ?

    The letter, and your comments, would appear to strongly refute your impartiality, and beg the question of whether it is appropriate for the Chairman of an enquiry to be discussing these matters in such a forum, before the committee itself has released its official findings.

    This all suggests you have already made your mind up as to the outcome.

  11. How, oh how has it taken this long for all of this to be draged into the public areana

    Because a man called Rico had the balls to show no fear..

  12. Dear Anonymous

    Sorry to disappoint you. But firstly,in publishing this letter - as with all such Scrutiny material - we, for it is the entire sub-panel not me alone, are simply following normal practice of transparancy.

    Secondly, the letter having been first sent to the media organisation in question was then sent to all other media. This is because the concerns relate generally to the review and the deeper issues that appear to underlie how/why it has been reported in such a fashion. I am simply reproducing it.It is already in the hands of the media.

    The evidence heard is also available via Scrutiny transcripts. Have you bothered to look?

    Have the media reported on the issues covered in the letter and given their public the opportunity to consider it? Well, that issue goes to the heart of the question most would conclude.

    Thirdly, how is it that I am reaching 'my' conclusions here - yet fine and dandy to discus the review issues with the mainstream media as I have done at their request? I'm afraid your argument holds no water.

    As I, and we, have said before, we have certainly heard enough evidence to fully justify our decision to undertake the review. That is not the same as reaching all of OUR conclusions.

    With due respecct it seems quite likely that it is actually you who has decided on the issues at hand and is desperate not to have to face up to those ideas possibly being challenged by cold, hard facts.

    Please remember, the Scrutiny panel did things the right way - no blatant denial of natural justice such as we saw with the Home Affairs Minister's 'disciplinary' process that never was.

    When you tell the truth - the bald truth - you have nothing to fear...

  13. The most shocking new information here is how the heck a privaate company can attempt to bill Scrutiny for a letter they decided to write to try and get rid of the Scrutiny panel. This is absolutely surreal.

    Thank Heavens you did not pay it or Scrutiny, deeply flawed as I haave to say that it is, would have been finished. Could you also tell us whether the letter seeking your removal was similar to the one we have seen from Senator Le Marquand trying to do the same

  14. You could buy an awful lot of diners at a 4 star restaurant with £26000! Whoops, even with a paltry £14000!

  15. This has nothing to do with the post directly. But I am told Nick Le Cornu is lambasting sitting Deputies for not keeping people abrest of issues. He doesn't name people I'm told but in such a sweeping statement this must include you Trevor.

    I only raise this because while I can't speak for other areas that I don't live in in Number One district, I can say that you have regularly kept us up to date with leaflets on the progress of our concerns that we approached you with to do with dangerous roads.

    You might be surprised and Mr Le Cornu too but because I have family there I also know that Deputy Hilton does the same. This makes Mr Le Cornu's comments sound rather like cheap electioneering. It is wrong to tar all politicians or all people even as the same.

  16. I’m sorry Trevor, but you are continuing to dig yourself a deeper hole and provide further evidence of your bias.

    It is not down to me or any member of the public to look at Scrutiny evidence and to make an unbiased assessment. That is YOUR role. It is the public’s role to decide whether our employees (i.e. you) have acted in accordance with their mandate, which is to make an impartial report in to the circumstances which they are investigating. We will base our conclusions upon our assessment of both the outcome of the review, and the actions of those who have conducted the review.

    It is not appropriate for the Chairman of the Public scrutiny committee to publish postings from those who have a close involvement in the circumstances they are investigating. I know that the Harper letter was not published directly by you, but you have authorised its publication on your website. That is not the behaviour or a professional Chairman of a review panel.

    The media’s role in reporting your work is their role. The Scrutiny panel’s work is to act within their mandate, which is to investigate the matter at hand. Whatever you might feel about the media’s coverage, we are not paying you, as Chairman of the Panel, to police media reporting. We are paying you to conduct a professional, independent review. Please do not try and hide behind the 'Panel' as you have taken the decision to publish this information, and are the Panel's public face.

    You are implying I have come to conclusions which are different to yours. That may or may not be the case, but I am not being paid to undertake an IMPARTIAL review of the circumstances. My conclusions are my business. Your final report and conclusions, not intermediate opinions, are the public’s business, and from everything you imply, your actions and your words, you appear to very much have reached a decision already.

    As a tax paying resident of this island, I am one of your employers, and I find your words and actions inappropriate, and unfortunately for you, as many politicians seems to forget, you answer to us, rather than the other way around.

  17. It's clear that I missed something along the way. Can you confirm that BDO actually tried to stop you from being on the Sub Panel? What reasons did they give?
    If this is the case, I presume you told them to take a hike. So they did then turn up to give evidence and subsequently charged for it?
    Unbelievable. Another comment mentions the word "surreal". Well, I go along with that. It's totally absurd in every respect.
    I'm going to have to have my coffee analysed to make sure someone is not slipping something into it!!!!

  18. Eeer - surely this cannot be the same CTV who won an award for a stage managed report on a confidential leaked document from which they quoted 'ad verbatim'?

    Surely this cannot be the same CTV whose reporter was not even aware of who Mike Kellett was?

    Surely this cannot be the same CTV of whom Steve Austin-Vautier said that the reporting which showed his comments out of context made him 'sick to the pit of his stomach'?

    And furthermore surely not the same CTV who did not even bother (along with the remainder of the MSM) to attend at the last Scrutiny hearing?

    It is them? I would never have believed it!

  19. Interesting developments re scrutiny and States "value for money" generally.
    I just saw Ozouf and Le Marquand on the CTV sofa being interviewed about the proposed new police HQ building.
    Oh dear, oh dear - these two are obviously not happy with each other. Ozouf (not my fault; just doing my job)slickly shunting the blame onto others, particularly Property Holdings and Le Marquand just bluntly disagreeing with Ozouf. And let's not forget that the baby went out with the bathwater here.
    And these two are the front-runners for next Chief Minister ...................... Oh dear!

  20. From Lenny Harper's letter reproduced above:

    On several occasions your presenter refers to a "£7.5 million overspend."

    Assuming this is accurate, it's an even worse piece of weaselly twisted spin than that which Mr Harper points out - that there was no budget set (so how could there be an overspend).

    This bizarre bit of "reporting" actually tries to suggest to the gullible that every single penny of the £7.5 million was in excess - overspend - of the "proper" amount. Taken to the logical extreme, it looks like the implication by Rankine Television is that any amount spent on the investigation was inappropriate - the "correct" figure to - according to Channel TV - spend was zero!

  21. Anonymous is talking complete twaddle. It is quite appropriate that this letter from the panel raising these concerns should be in the public domain. What Anonymous should be asking is why we haven't as yet read of these concerns in that very SAME media?

    I see no conclusions reached other than what you rightly point out about the panel having already seen enough to justify undertaking the review. Hardly the same thing. What I would like to know from this Anonymous is whether he/she approved of Ian Le Marquand's wholly inappropriate handling of the Power affair. basicaly IMHO a vendetta?

    If the media won't tell us the truth then thank God someone is doing so. 'A deeper hole' Anonymous? Maybe you just have to dig deep to get to the truth.

  22. Has ssomeone got to hand the breakdown of how precisely the 50% spent by Warcup and Gradwell was used? It would be interesting for the public to compare the two sets.

  23. If the Troll has to keep posting to himself you would think he might try and disguise his writing a bit if only to try and convince himself that his posts aren't his at all? But he must have a really big bedroom. Seemss like there are several countries that can fit in to it judging from his made up stats. Creepy really.

  24. Not seen or heard any mention of this in the MSM yet. A case of closing ranks to try and keep the myth going?

  25. This afternoon Lyndon Farnham, senatorial candidate, was all over Radio Jersey talking about his plans for a schools /youth hustings. Curiously the item posted
    at A view from the West, August 23rd to the education minister was completely ignored. And yes, the contents had been communicated to the media at the time of writing. See
    Education letter

  26. Trevor

    I was happy to believe that the post from the 'anonymous' attacking you for your panel doing the right thing and asking that the media report honestly was a real, if misguided person. After his or her second post I now admit I think this is another case of trolling. Ot else someone with something to hide.

    The bit that really struck me was when he or she tried to accuse you of hiding behind the panel. 'Anonymous' if you genuinely follow politics then love Trevor or hate him none would ever accuse Trevor of hiding behind anything or anyone.A rarity in the States certainly but facts is facts.

    How can it be wrong for people in government to stand up for simple accuracy and honesty in reporting? Everyone I know is absolutely sick of spin and that is all we have had from Walker and Ozouf and co. Le Marquand is no better either.

    Don't be swayed Trevor you are one of only a dozen who can hold their head up with pride. Keep on fighting for what is right.

  27. More and more people I meet during the course of ordinary life are now becoming suspicious of the local media.
    The anonymous comments recently criticising your actions are to be expected - but not taken too seriously. I believe that you and your panel has done the Island a significant service in this matter. You have been forthright and factual - something that cannot be said of any Minister's performance.
    There was a time, not that long ago, when I actually believed that the media were reporting well enough. Then I began to read the evidence and I realised how gullible I had been. I now readily share my views with friends and acquaintances, especially as elections are becoming a topic of ordinary conversation, and I can feel a groundswell of opinion building up against the "Jersey Way". Indeed, I could go one step further and say that many friends are now sharing my concern and even disgust at the appalling performance of the local media and, perhaps equally importantly, those behind the scenes who are manipulating the content of media reporting.
    I have been happy to accept in the past that only in communist countries or harsh dictatorships are the people denied access to facts. Well, Jersey is certainly not communist nor overtly a dictatorship but the media have effectively strangled the flow of factual information to the general public anyway.
    The plain and simple fact , I suppose, is that the media have been doing this for decades and have done so successfully. The big difference now is the internet and the sheer bloody-minded persistence of a few bloggers.
    I say "well done" to the bloggers and I say "well done" to you!

  28. Will ozouf step down over this latest fiasco with another 8 million of our money wasted? Pigs might fly!

  29. The letter in the JEP was highly offensive. But then this 'lady' regularly writes nasty garbage.

    I remember her trying to compare Trevor and others with Pol Pot and Communism simply because being intelligent people with morals like me they believe that just because you happen to be rich doesn't justify you paying less tax in percentage terms. She doesn't have a clue.

    Mad as a barrel of frogs as my old gran used to say?

  30. Hello Trevor

    Nice to see you again today. Thanks for telling me about the website. I will check it regularly now I promise. You have our votes you can rely on that. If Mister Ozouf gets to be Chief Minister who knows where he will waste eight million pounds of our money next!

  31. Hello Trevor, Having always believed in Scrutiny to be the safest way hopefully of the Public getting at the Truth from those who do come before your groups in all Panel meetings. What I've followed so far has come out fair and seen as sterling, essential work, The Public are not fools and can see opposition to any details e.c.t. and what's needed information being kept back,or to prepare for finished articles in time for the Tuesday States sittings along for following day as seen often happens. What a pity to see that so many on Scrutiny continue to bicker, change jobs, and leave jobs Taxpayers expect differences, whatever, should be settled as a group on also when alone Not so that media J.E.P.who loves to report them Or as we are seeing petty arguments amounting to squabbling in children's behavour Along with the critical personal attacks of States members outside in the Royal Square after States sittings have ended. With so many members Jobs on the Line, even Ministers can no longer be sure of their jobs. The general feeling among the Public that the ex Bailiff's in standing and joining the States, is in fact
    to keep among others later Members in line,As he once did in his previously role. Many times refusing perfectly good and adequate questions of members to be anwered as in part of their jobs. Trevor? as a strong member. Unafraid in asking the awkward questions yourself. If the Will is there, Could you not use whatever influence you have to curb bad behaviour especially in front of the Media of some of the members? Journalist are quick to broadcast these failings even while reporting in the gallery while sitting there. As one who still votes as many of us elderly and disabled pensioners do in every election.It certainly a great disadvantage continually when listening to the Radio broadcast on Tuesdays though one does know their voices.Even if one does'nt see them
    They surely know this would not be tolerated in the private sector. Do keep up the good work those who are working for Scrutiny. Not easy but very worthwhile.

  32. Trev. Good to see that Adrian Walsh is not wasting his time in standing again here in no.2. Suppose he must be too busy with that awful website.Even better news I hear the rag is about to get its comeupence>

  33. Had a real good laugh reading the vicious anti-democracy 'comments' on the JEP's website. As we all know 90% of these are written by Jon anyway. But when I read 'Donald Pond's post you really do realise just how sad and pathetic some of these handful of losers are.
    According to Mr Pondlife you and Shona 'fit a certain sort' of politician. Ones who apparently don't have any qualifications or serious employment history!God, you might have thought that poor 'Donald' who rumour has it is apparently a clerk in charge of the office paperclips would know somthing about those he is attacking and try to make it a little more convincing? But no.Just a quick trawl through the internet and I found that Shona has both a degree and a Masters Degree. Trevor's qualification as many people know is in youth and community development at ESC after following a management career. No 'qualifications' or 'serious employment'!!!!Dear 'Donald' most of the politicians your political rants suggest you idolize likely haven't even got a GCSE. Yes 'Donald' we really need more failed accountants and people who rip the hard working people of our island off by pushing off to the day job instead of doing political work. God help us if any more of these idiots slither under the rador.

  34. Hi

    Especially for Jon the Troll - who has even taken to attempting to phone me up for one of his drink-fuelled rants now that he appears to have almost no-one left to call but himself...

    But also for the benefit of the majority of ordinary people who being committed to truth and facts despise such disgusting, cowardly individuals and their lies and hatred...

    A quick post about the latest fake letter published by the Jersey Evening Post.

    Yes, you really would have thought that this 'newspaper' would have learnt its lessons after being exposed with the fake B. Riantz letters by me and a few others last time.

    But obviously not.

    Unfortunately for these revolting, cowardly people who concoct such hate-filled garbage some decent people still do have the brains to smell a rat and the backbone to go and investigate regardless of the bullying.

    'Simon Barette' of '23 Belmont Road' in St. Helier No. 2...

    Sorry boys and girls, but rather like the hundreds of fake posts on the blog of the Troll and the serial election failure, 'Simon Barette' and his letter from the above address is ANOTHER fake.

    How do I know?

    Been down there. Spoke to residents.

    Double-checked this with some further inquiries.

    Far from one house this property is actually divided into flats.

    And guess what...according to residents, and one particularly helpful gentleman, Andy, who I spoke to at length nobody of this name lives there at all.

    And Andy has lived at the address for around two years and knows all the other residents too!

    Fascinating eh? But guess what? Yes - there once was a 'Simon Barette'at the address.

    But not for around...a couple of years!

    And better still...I was told our 'Simon'hasn't been seen in all of this time!

    His mail is never collected!

    It lies there for months.

    It eventually gets dumped.

    Because 'Simon' never comes...

    'Simon Barette' as of '23 belmont Road' just does not exist!

    Yet he apparently writes letters to the JEP?

    A bit like B. Riantz who also lived at Belmont Road and wrote attacking Shona and one Lenny Harper...

    And what did the lady at the JEP say to me faced with these latest facts?

    'Oh but we wouldn't know.'


    Could this be the same JEP who have in the past contacted a number of people I know personally who have written letters to the 'newspaper' to check out that they and the address were real?

    Mmmmm? Perhaps it is only dependent on what perspective one writes from that such basics are checked?

    So the next question - having gone straight to the JEP as I say, just as I did the last time this stunt was pulled - is where is the apology, dear Editor?

    Second, when will the decent ordinary people fed this latest disgusting fake garbage by your 'newspaaper' be getting to read the right of reply for Shona, Stuart and Geoff?

    Or will it be like the last time one of these desperate establishment party smears was rumbled and proven to be nothing more than the hate-filled actions of the politically desperate and none too bright?

    i.e nothing but a cowardly silence from those who edit the 'newspaper'?

    So the JEP are 'going to phone us tomorrow'.

    Readers - I can hardly wait!

    Keep the Faith


  35. Well done Trevor! Would you not have thought that they learnt their lesson last time but no, as it was a hate filled rant that suited the JEP agenda quite happily in the filthy Rag it went.

    Yet, quite an opposite side to this disgrace of a paper, a lady who was a survivor of Haut de la Garenne and was truly a genuine person who many people can vouch for, wrote a letter in response to that of Astrid Kisch, and gave her relevant details (which could have been verified by a lot of people), and her letter has not seen the light of day!

    This is truly appalling as is CTV's blatant disregard of the rules of impartial reporting on elections/candidates on tonight's on-lime profile of the Senatorial candidates in relation to Stuart. Truly disgusting.

    Good detective work, and I know others were very suspicious of this letter also.

    Oh....definitely keeping the faith!!

  36. Save Our Democracy From Spivs6 September 2011 at 20:03:00 BST


    Your news is disgusting. How does this 'newspaper' get away with it?

    They must just hate those like you who have the guts to challenge their lies instead of just rolling over.

    If you are not running for Senator you really should have. I don't want to listen to idiots like our ludicrous ex-Bay leaf and that fruitcake Darius.

  37. Big Trev.

    Full credit to you for having the courage (testicular fortitude) to speak out against the JEP.

    I have spoken with politicians who live in fear of the JEP, feel intimidated by them. Not only the JEP but the entire State controlled local "accredited" media. I've seen a letter written by an editor of one of Jersey's "accredited" media telling a politician they could finish that poltician's career.

    You are, so far, the only politician that will confront this despicable bias and intimidation from the media who have been getting away with it over here for far too long.

    Let's hope some of your political colleagues will gain the courage to speak up now that you have.

  38. Deputy Trevor Pitman.

    This is all complete desperation for the local media to keep their establishment candidates in the majority voting power.

    Because if the media loose majority voting power they are in trouble.

    And the JEP will be finished!

  39. Ha, ha, ha boy does that troll look stupid now!Apparently according to the troll people are up in arms and won't let this matter drop.

    For once the troll is right. People aren't going to let the awful injustice done to Shona and Southern be spun. Helping an unfortunate cripple to ask for a postal vote. Should get a community award not a court appearnace.

    Think Rod 'The Rumour Monger' is going to come unstuck big time. Might even get less votes than Le Main and that is saying something. How many millions of maintenance did you neglect at housing Tel boy? Wasn't it the best part of £100.000.000?

  40. Big up deputy pitman! about time somebody in government start saying how it is with the Jersey Evening Propaganda. The jersey bloggers have rumbled their cover ups and lies for the last couple of years plus their non existent letter writers.

  41. You are a LEGEND!

    No messing about. Tell it how it is. Good for you. The Jersey Evening Post. How DO they get away with it?

  42. Tonight was interesting. If one thing came out of it it was the dawning of just how desperate the Walker/Ozouf party is that they might not hang on to power. Bailache is a shocking enough throw of the dice to chuck in. Delusions of grandure about Bailiffs being akin to the Royal family and zero dynamism and charisma. But when you add this to the hapless Cohen, the useless Gorst and the new Ben Shenton Lyndan 'Never hardly in his seat' Farnham the concern if these incompetents were all elected is seriously worrying. Add this to some of the 100% no-hopers being wheeled in to various Deputy seats e.g. O'Keef-Burger and James 'Mate of Ozouf' Baker and the barrel has surely been scraped in terms of quality.

  43. Can't agree with the barrel being scraped aanonymous. You didn't mention Rod Bryans. I went on his joke of a website and that really is a laugh. Here was a bloke who was crap on the hustings - I was there. He supports Philip Ozouf. He tries but luckily fails to give the impression that he was some how robbed because 2 people 4 people really wasn't it mate but only 2 got taken to court)broke the law by helping a handful of old people complete an application form. Yet the cold uncomfortable fact is that Shona Pitman and Geoff Southern thrashed him by around 200 votes. LOL! This nerd really will come unstuck and specially if he knocks on my door. Then you get Adrian Walsh of the Truly Vile Blog. This nutter is on Bryan's website telling people that he didn't want to spilt the vote for his Ozouf mate Rod by standing! Hang on Adrian. You have barely managed to get in to double figures if you add up every vote you have ever got in every election that you have lost!

  44. Can anyone on here put up a link to Jon's terrible conviction story?

    Imagine if someone who makes such horrific threats to vulnerable people moved next to you.

    There should be some kind of register to safeguard us. Has anyone got a photo of this creep?

  45. I have to take back part of what I said in my last comment regarding a letter not being published in the JEP. It has last appeared tonights edition, albeit nearly a week later.

    However I also see in tonights paper, they have to harp on (yet again) about Stuart's criminal convictions - yawn, yawn. As if they have not already given us enough exposure on all this.

    No doubt Shona will warrant the same tonight. Is it only when they can come up with the same old tripe about the faces that don't fit, they can print something akin to the truth?

  46. Hi

    In answer to a question asked privately, the poster not wishing it to be published. Yes, complaints about the dispicable behaviour have already been made back in August to the relevant agencies. The antics are also being monitored professionally. Enough said for now.


  47. Hello

    I have tried to post on the troll's website. You might have thought he and his handful of nutters would have been glad of a genuine post. But instead it didn't get used. Probably somthing to do with me challenging the disgusting gutter behaviour. We might like the truth Trevor but obviously some people can't deal with it. But talking of last night can you imagine if the troll ever stood for election? Imagine having to have a conviction like that read out, something that would sicken all decent humanity!

  48. Hi Trevor

    A very good speech from the young lady who proposed you. It was really nice to see someone working in our Finance industry getting behind the type of politician who this island really needs to sort out the mess Ozouf, Walker and co have made of Jersey.

    Bang goes another myth spread by the establishment party that all of us in Finance want more brainless numpties in the mould of Horsfall and the rest. They have bled working people dry long enough. This young lady got it spot on in saying why she was supporting you.

    I would also like to say well done to Chris Wakeham MBE. Shona is so right what an absolute political legend this great lady is. The fact that someone like Mrs Wakeham is backing Shona says it all. Working people want other working people who like Mrs Wakeham said about Shona DO, not just talk aout doing.

    People don't want plastic fakes like slimey Bryans and the man with the orange face from Trinity. Most of all we don't want Terry Le Main who is already trying to cover up his laziness by conning people that he has a gammy leg so can't knock on all of their doors!

    Roll on October 19th. egards to all progresives.


  49. Interesting to see the sudden desperate change of track from Adrian and the troll. With all the print offs of the lies though far too late to avoid the eventual legal action. Everyone I know who knows about these lowlifes say they can't wait to see the horrible little cowards brought to book for all the garbage they peddle. Too think they go on and on about Stuart. Talk about hypocrites. And at least Stuart regularly got elected a Adrian?

  50. Trevor, what are you trying to achieve by posting Tracey D's post ? It just a rant and really doesn't make much sense.

  51. Hello Dep. Pitman

    I managed to go to the Nominations last night and I was also impressed by the speech of the lady who proposed you. Nicely thought out and well presented.

    How differnt from the low brow and personality driven vitriol we heard from the failed former Senator Horsefal.

    No doubt you will be putting something up thanking your proposers. When you do (if you do) can I ask that you also put the lady's speech up if it is possible? I really did think it said such a lot about the type of politician you are and that we need so many more of.

    I would also add that I will definitely not be considering voting for Mrs. O Keef-Bugher after that. Anyone happy to have Horsefal propose them cannot have the welfare of woking people at heart.

  52. Hi


    Thanks for the post. Yes I will definitely be putting up a thank you post to Janine - my propoer - and the other nine who kindly signed the paper very soon. Like you I thought it was a very good speech.

    What was funny - in a nice way - is that unlike many of the speeches which candidates quite openly acknowledged that they had written for their proposers, Janine not only wrote her speech herself but I had not even seen it until twenty minutes before she read it out! So if you thought I looked a bit nervous that is why!

    As far as your comments on the speech from former Senator Horsfall I have some very interesting information on this. I will likely be putting up a post about this soon. But as I said to him last night. He is right. The fight back does start here.

    Just not in the way he thinks. It is time that ordinary working people took our Island back from these greed-driven, elities incompetents who have taken us to the brink of the Abyss. And we will.

    Other Anonymous.

    You ask about the post from Tracey D. The post isn't offensive - unlike some I have to block. So I am happy to put it up. It is a bit cryptic I agree. But I also know some of the background to what she is referring I think so I fully understand where she appears to be coming from.

    Indeed, if one particular IT 'consultant' ends up being made redundant by his employers it has to be said that he really has brought it on himself.

  53. Everyone should have the right to free speech whether you are an IT consultant or unemployed.

    Unfortunately, you would expect the IT consultant to have a bit more savvy in what is allowed to be posted on a well known blog, apparently initiated by an IT consultant.

    What a shame that there are these so called blog wars and that one in particular has more comments going on about who said what on another blog, presumably by the same person doing their bit for informing the readers. Its not as if they cant go and read for themselves.

    The It consultants blog started out quite well in at least giving a different opinion but then it degenerated in faking posts and losing any credibility it had as an alternative opinion. The only point in the blog now is for its right hand man to have a place to vocalise his/or hers diatribes.

  54. Ullo peeps. Fink putting up your proposer's speech is a good idea. Can you do it please and good luck with the election. Glad Shenton and Perchard aren't standing. Would also like to see jeune,Dupre and Lewis lose their seats. Can't believe that Pryke and her Constable are elected. What do these people contribute?

  55. Free speech yes, but as long as it is constructive, interesting, relevant and not an attack on personalities.

    This 'IT consultant's' blog has descended into exactly what it calls itself, a farce blog, a childish school playground blog which offers nothing of interest.

    My turn to get villified on there now!! Watch that space.

  56. i hope on monday some one will ask about the states tug like why is the tax payer paying two irish master,s to stay here 3 weeks on 3 weeks off the one who hit rocks was only on he,s 2nd 3 weeks on? allso whey was the job not in jep or states web site and how much this is going to be for jersey tax payer,s

  57. Trevor, how much can a candidate spend on their campaign and how is it reconciled?

  58. Big Trev.

    Thanks for the interview, part two asks.

    Will Scrutiny PAY THE PRICE?

  59. Submission by Tom Gruchy to Senator Philip Ozouf’s Blog dated 9 September 2011 regarding Lime Grove House – St Helier.

    “I have attended most of the Scrutiny hearings regarding this failed project and been impressed by the professionalism of expert witnesses.
    On the other hand, I have been appalled at the blustering and bullying attitude of yourself and the inconsistencies of your evidence.
    In spite of the large team assembled by your Treasury Department to support you and your actions I have heard more than enough to convince me that your decision to abandon this project was wrong.
    Your decision is certainly not supported by the spurious reasons offered before the Scrutiny Panel or the written statements offered by you since.

    The financial loss to the public of Jersey by your personal decision could be many £millions and this is of course particularly blameworthy since you are forcing cuts and your CSR policies elsewhere.

    The further delays in providing adequate accommodation to an already demoralised Police department is just one part of the considerable practical, public loss arising from this and related developments.
    The reputational damage that has been caused to so many by your words and actions must also be considered and it is possible that legal actions will follow from those who have been damaged.

    All in all, I hope that you will take the earliest opportunity to step back and to reconsider your ministerial position. I have no doubt that the Scrutiny Panel must publish a damning report of your department’s behaviour very soon. But we are now in the midst of Jersey’s first ever General Election and there are many other important issues that need to be discussed with the electorate. If you now allow this particular failure to dominate the elections and if you leave the public in any doubts about your political future it will be especially unfortunate for the democratic process.

    Of course, the failure is a very important issue and needs to be discussed as part of the election process but such matters in Jersey have a habit of dragging on for years with reports being made upon reports - and those who are blameworthy allowed to slip away into the fog.

    On this occasion, I would ask that you make the clearest statement now about your own position. I think that your resignation is inevitable but I am aware of the personal magnitude of such a decision for you since politics is an important part of your life.
    In all the circumstances I invite you, in the public interest, to make the appropriate announcement.”

  60. Hi

    I hope to get a new post up tomorrow after the State sitting. As requested this will be focus on nominations night.As regards the election the response around the district to the October election has been really encouraging these first few days.

    The feeling that we, the ordinary people of this Island, need to take it back from the tax dodgers and the fiscal incompetents like Senators Ozuf, Le Sueur, not to mention the likes of Horsfall, Walker and Andres Lewis currently behind so many of the Establsihment Party stooges being dropped in to stand against 'progressives' has been loud and clear. The spin is no longer beeing bought.

    Also, thanks to you know who for the photo and the documentation. Should make fascinating reading when the time is right. A bit like when I name the right-wing politicians the troll has been naming and blaming to all and sundry (including to me)in his druknen phone calls.

    Bullying always comes back to haunt such people in the end and people must never give in to such cowards.

    Keep the faith


  61. I'm so pleased that Senator Terry Le Main is standing in St. Helier and not here in St. Clement. I mean Ann Do nuthin' Depre is bad enough but imagine if we got this useless wally elected as our Deputy? Not that it would happen given how he is loathed down here by most people. Anyone who lived at Le Squeze won't forget Le Main's total lack of care for them in refusing to get maintenance done when he was at Housing for so many years. He is not even liked by most people I know down in Maupertuis Lane.It is a bit odd that having lived down here in St. Clement for 30 years or something that he has so little faith in his ability to stand though. From what I am hearing he is also a dead duck in St. Helier because working people just don't want these Ozouf supporters any more. Especially ones who sleep in the States while we pay them their wages!

  62. There is a rumour doing the rounds that a politician has got so fed up with Sean's attacking others on a certain web site that the truth about the infamous misappropriated email is going to be told to the public. Could be goodbye Sean then and hello MLM? Must be said Sean deserves it.

  63. Is Vauxhall Street in your district Trevor?

  64. Thank you for your election leaflet delivered today. This resulted in my first visit to your blog which I was unaware of previously. Keep up the good work. I will be using two of my votes and you will be the first of them.

  65. Hi

    You know, as one of those people who is a full-time politician I am very busy right now as you might expect.

    Not only is the election process just starting to rumble into life, but I am trying to finish a Scrutiny report and my always busy constituent case load is currently in overdrive.


    As I think it is always a good learning curve for a bully to get a taste of his own medicine I thought that during the next day or two I might just put up a couple of interesting addresses on the net.

    I'll probably start with a very interesting address in Vauxhall Street and a certain Flat 2...

    Who knows, later maybe we could even put up a particular Sean's real address too?

    Some people. They just can't help themselves even though they musy know bullies never win in the end.

    Keep the faith

  66. If it's the same particular Sean that I'm thinking of he's staying at the Hilton.

  67. Trevor, the Treasury minister is up for questions without notice today. Could you ask him why you are getting asked to publish comments posted to his blog but he refuses to publish them because they disagree with his spin?

    A case in point is one sent to him 3-4 days ago he hasn't published nor has he published any comments. The comment in question is from Tom Gruchy and is spot on.

    Submission by Tom Gruchy to Senator Philip Ozouf’s Blog dated 9 September 2011 regarding Lime Grove House – St Helier.

    “I have attended most of the Scrutiny hearings regarding this failed project and been impressed by the professionalism of expert witnesses.
    On the other hand, I have been appalled at the blustering and bullying attitude of yourself and the inconsistencies of your evidence.
    In spite of the large team assembled by your Treasury Department to support you and your actions I have heard more than enough to convince me that your decision to abandon this project was wrong.
    Your decision is certainly not supported by the spurious reasons offered before the Scrutiny Panel or the written statements offered by you since.

    The financial loss to the public of Jersey by your personal decision could be many £millions and this is of course particularly blameworthy since you are forcing cuts and your CSR policies elsewhere.

    The further delays in providing adequate accommodation to an already demoralised Police department is just one part of the considerable practical, public loss arising from this and related developments.
    The reputational damage that has been caused to so many by your words and actions must also be considered and it is possible that legal actions will follow from those who have been damaged.

    All in all, I hope that you will take the earliest opportunity to step back and to reconsider your ministerial position. I have no doubt that the Scrutiny Panel must publish a damning report of your department’s behaviour very soon. But we are now in the midst of Jersey’s first ever General Election and there are many other important issues that need to be discussed with the electorate. If you now allow this particular failure to dominate the elections and if you leave the public in any doubts about your political future it will be especially unfortunate for the democratic process.

    Of course, the failure is a very important issue and needs to be discussed as part of the election process but such matters in Jersey have a habit of dragging on for years with reports being made upon reports - and those who are blameworthy allowed to slip away into the fog.

    On this occasion, I would ask that you make the clearest statement now about your own position. I think that your resignation is inevitable but I am aware of the personal magnitude of such a decision for you since politics is an important part of your life.
    In all the circumstances I invite you, in the public interest, to make the appropriate announcement.”

  68. I was so angry with the answers from Philip Ozouf today. I honestly think this man has utter contempt for both States members and the public the way he treats us all as fools. How I would like to see him take his record to the public in an election.

  69. A link initially accepted to a posting on a different site has been removed at Trevor's request.

    Though we fully understand the strong feeling on the cowardly attempts to dismiss and ridicule the victims of child abuse in the local paper and on a particular 'blog' we believe that the image utlised by the other site was not acceptable We apologise to anyone offended by this error.

    We certainly do not wish to go down the path of publishing anything that could be viewed in a similar light to the vicious, lowbrow bullying and the spreading of hateful lies practiced by the sick, dysfunctional individuals behind the likes of the farce Blog.

    This would also seem an appropriate opportunity to again point out that there is absolutely zero point in Jon and similar individuals continually posting offensive messages to this site.

    They will not be published and will continue to be advised to the authorities.

  70. Glad you had your Admin take down the ill-considered post sent through by Ian Evans. I think on reflection even Ian will come to acknowledge that the image was not thought through in terms of the negative impact it could have. I think Ian should consider that his use of the image may well of distracted from the very real concern he was raising. Thanks for removing it Trev. As another Marc Bolan fan like you I know you wouldn't have been happy with the way it could have been taken. Take care. Keep up the good work.

  71. My apologies Trevor, and to anyone else (excepting for two individuals) who was offended by a certain picture. I confess, it was ill conceived, but at a time when emotions were running high. Said images have been removed, and again, apologies to almost all who may have been offended.