Tuesday, 22 January 2013


Just another day in the Island of many questions but very few answers...

Right now you should have been looking at the Bald Truth Review Episode 14.

The reason that you are not is because sometimes experience tells you that a particular incident defines a problem in such an incisive fashion one would be hard pressed to make the point any better even if you had the length of a whole book to try and do so. The audio accompanying the lovely smiling faces of several of Jersey's finest politicians (and Senator Paul Routier) above is, I suggest, such a piece.

Indeed, it probably ranks up alongside all time great political exposes such as...

Former Senator Syvret rising to his feet to graphically inform the Assembly that he had apparently just been told by no less than the then Health Minister, Senator Perchard to go and 'top' himself. Well, something like that... Or former Senator Freddie Cohen's infamous attempt to defend the immorality of multi-millionaire and even billionaire 1 (1) K residents paying as little as £3,000 tax per annum. 'Because the decision has already been taken for us by a previous Assembly - so WE don't need to worry about the moral issue today'...

Perhaps the audio above even ranks up there alongside Senator Philip Bailhache's classic, prolonged and wild-eyed rant at me in 2012 for having the impertinence to question...

Why not a single Crown Officer (including him!) over a period of 14 years had felt it slightly worrying and inappropriate that successive 'Superior Numbers' of the Royal Court had done nothing about an individual being allowed to sit as a Jurat having refused to look at evidence against a predatory paedophile friend and colleague; but then still writen in the pervert's support. Claiming - amongst other eye-openers - that unless the police pressed charges there 'might be no case to answer' and the abuse could be viewed as an 'unsubstantiated allegation'?

Because though on the surface not anywhere near as bluntly offensive as the three examples I pick out above, the ten minute audion I now post (thanks, of course, to the excellent work of the (TJW) Jersey Way blogsite) highlights for all just what we who actually care about political competence, democracy and  transparency are up against when trying to hold decision-makers to account within States Sittings.

So please do yourself a favour and listen as I and then a number of political colleagues try to get answers to a straightforward question about the secret spending of tens of thousands of pounds of YOUR taxpayers' money. In fact listen to the recording twice, even three times to ensure you pick out all of the many hidden gems.

Such as...

My question being put - quite appropriately - to the Chief Minister, Senator Gorst who then refers it to his Assistant Minister, Senator Paul Routier. Because... the Senator has apparently now become official 'Political Liaison' with the Data Protection Office.

Unfortuantly it soon transpires that the said Political Liaison clearly knows less about the issues at hand than Lance Armstrong probably does bout drug free cycling. But never mind - we can't talk about it anyway because it is all 'sub judice'. Oh, okay...

Only problem here is that despite this assurance further questioning reveals that whilst quite happy to give me this answer the Senator has... never even seen the details of the relevant Court Order upon which he has just based this assurance.

And, as I and my colleagues are seeking information about where your hard-earned cash is going - NOT any details of what is happening in the actual case is the Senator really quite sure about this claim? After all, if my information is correct such an interpretation would likely be a world first. Certainly an island one.

Remember - this is OUR money. Not cash belonging to any of the individuals bringing the case. I'm not even asking how much has been spent by any of the four individuals specifically. Nor am I asking for information as precisely for what this taxpayers' money has been paid out for!

Never mind...

The Senator further assures us that everything IS being handled appropriately and within the law. Fair enough - but once again how does he actually know? Turns out he doesn't. He can't. He hasn't seen any documents at all so is passing all of this off as fact based simply on trust!

Further good news comes when we are also assured that the costs (did I mention this is being met from YOUR taxes?) are being monitored by the Data Protection Commissioner and it is all within that Office's set budget for the year.

Okay, so I'm sounding a bit pedantic now. But yet again - how can the Senator be sure?

In fairness the Data Protection Office's budget certainly is posted up on their website; and very well set out and seemingly detailed it appears. But this worrying little thing remains: the budget isn't actually that big. Only around £300,000 or so - give or take a few Regulatory Breach fines coming in (perhaps for an e-mail incident or something?) And nowhere does the outlay for the case in question appear to be outlined.

But let's move on...

According to my information the costs to the taxpayer in this case started to build up as far back as 2010. So given that this is in essence a case revolving around claimed 'defamation' a reasonable guess would surely appear to be that this has already racked up quite significant costs. (Don't ask me how I know - I just DO!)

So how come, we ask the Assistant Minister, that he cannot even tell us what the limit of the available financial support (taxpayers' money - did I mention that?) from the Data Protection Office is?

To cut a long story short - you guessed it: the Assistant Minister with specific responsibility for this doesn't know. In fact he has, he let's slip, actually based all of this nonsense upon the Hansard report of a previous question asked of the Chief Minister! And anyway...we can't talk about it because it's all 'sub judice'.

So what have we all learnt at the end of this latest farce within States 'Questions without answers'?

Not a lot. Apart from the fact that if you are looking for a spy to drop behind enemy lines. Someone who won't crack under questioning; even torture. Then forget James Bond. Forget John Rambo.

The man you want is 000 Senator Paul Routier. He won't tell the enemy ANYTHING. He doesn't KNOW anything! In a strange and slightly perverse way it almost makes you proud...


  1. Senator Routier is a nice guy but completely useless as a politician to everyone except those that yank his lead in Government.

    It was a smart move by one of his bosses Gorst, to get out of the firing line, what a coward Gorst is proving to be, giving orders from the back, so to speak.

    The points you were making Trevor are so basic and fundamental that there are no honest answers without the instigators of this pathetic show making themselves look stupid. So no answers were offered by the resident puppet.

    Why is Government involved at all in this ? if the three men and one convicted abuser don't like what is being said about them, then they should take out a private case, the laws are in place for this to happen, a path you have indeed taken using your own finance.

    Westminster must look at this crazy carry on, using obscure data protection rules, invented by government as a baseball bat to beat a single individual, but to then use taxpayers money to support a spurious case, which must be held behind closed doors and in complete secret. This is the type of trial Hitlers goons would have carried on and now it is resurfacing in Jersey.

    Clearly this is going to be used by a certain individual in the courts in the UK. My how they make it easier for him. Routier, Gorst and his friends will be finished then, and they probably know it.

    1. Whilst I understand why the term is used - threatening, abusive calls are most definitely a form of 'abuse'

      I would tend to use the term convicted criminal instead. The points you make, however, are certainly with justification.

      A question that needs to be asked is who and how was all of this - coming from a number of different people with hugely differing cases as it all does - get brought together?

  2. I am a bit lost as to what you are trying to get at. Cases go on all the time at the expense of the tax payer so what makes this one of such special interest, and surely the ultimate cost should be bore the people who break the data protection law and not those seeking justice through it?

    1. What is different is that this is being done in secret, with OUR money, and under a highly questionable application/interpretation of the particular law.

      How can we, as representatives of the people, not be allowed to know simple facts such as how much this is costing and what safeguards are in plaace? This information would in no way undermine or reveal speciific aspects of what the case is all about.

      Ans after all, imagine if it later emerged, for example, that one of the individuals involved claimed say a friendship with anyone involved with the provison of public funds?

      Imagine if one of the individuals involved turned out to be abusing the Data Protection Law as well, yet was being protected from prosecution?

      Now I'm sure in a proper, modern democracy this just could not happen. But then I suppose we are not in a proper, modern democracy with a functioning justice system...

  3. I err,I, I, err, um, err um I don't erm, know!

    Sounds like a scene from "The New Statesman" featuring Alan B'Stard!!! LOL

  4. What would be the further order from the court to warrent proceedings are active?

    Where is the risk to proceedings now? The super injunction is known about individuals benefiting from taxpayers funding have been named in UK Parliament and is available on Hansard.

    Discussion on cost to the public is imperative to any further proceedings.

  5. From the data protection commissioners budget how much is spent on wages for 4 staff and commissioner in running that department what is the balance left?

    Has extra public funding been provided for legal representation by Mr. Le Marquand to the litigants?

  6. When you listen to these 'answers' you really begin to wonder if Jersey would not be in better, safer hands by transfering control of government to the chimps at the zoo?

  7. This secrecy of behind closed doors, nobody can be allowed to know what is going on, court proceedings is a deeply worrying turn for Jersey to take. Unheard of and more in line with a totalitarian state. It must not be allowed become an accepted norm. What have these people got to hide?

  8. 'What have these people got to hide?'

    Well, in one case at least I would suggest an awful lot - and an attitude to the net that is totally hypocritical to say the least.

    I would also suggest that ultimately going down this route of secrecy within a small island will eventually create a whole lot more interest and coverage. With the steady rise of Citizens Media things just can't be buried by the Establishment as they once could.

    1. You should raise it with Emma Martins.

  9. Trevor.

    Hopefully, at the next States sitting, when more questions are asked of unlimited tax payers money thrown at four unexplainable local Super Injuctions....

    Chief Minister Gorst will finally come clean!?

  10. 'I know one thing - I know nothing'.

    A quote from Socrates who was a wise man, but could be attributed to Senator Routier who appears not quite as wise.

    This exchange is worthy of a Whitehall farce and were it not so important it would be amusing. Quite frankly I was embarrassed to listen to it last week.

  11. Came by some fascinating information yesterday via my Ministerial Mole.

    thought that I would see if the MSM picked up on it today before considering publishing.

    But not a mention. Could this be because it shows the ever-growing factions in the Council of Ministers' camp?

    Not to mention the growing anger aimed at the Man who would be King (but who keeps acting as if he is one already)?

    May publish tomorrow as the story says such a lot about where Jersey politics currently founders in the mud...

  12. Hi Trevor,

    I'm sure your readers will be just as worried as I am about the idea of a States of Jersey of only 42 members including the 12 Constables. Such an outcome would be a step backwards for democracy in Jersey and any democrat in the island (left or right) needs to make sure the island picks the only democratic option in the referendum - Option A.

    I've written a blog making the case for Option A and welcome any constructive criticism or words from people wanting to join the campaign for a fair, simple and equal voting system.


  13. Hi Deputy.

    "Don't even tell them your name Paul" It is Mad but this is what were up against. They are that bad the Jersey people think they are right? If you Know that I mean.


  14. The Routier of the problem22 January 2013 at 22:50:00 GMT

    Senator Routier can only be one of two things.

    He is either an incredibley wise politican who see's no problem with appearing as if he is a total fool to the electorate.

    Or he is a total fool who is told what to do by others who know he is a very weak politican

  15. Mr Mezec believes ( that Option A is the way forward, and that the Troy Rule is automatically protected (see the comments there). Is he right? Or are we being hoodwinked into the backbenchers being outnumbered by the ministers bloc - game over?

    1. Well if it isn't automatic, what are the chances of it being actually safeguarded once they're outnumbered?
      Game over!

    2. Without the conservative voting block of the Constables I would think the chances would be greater.

      As I said on my blog, the States as it is currently constituted could vote to abolish the Troy Rule tomorrow if they want. And they are generally an undemocratic thinking bunch that I would not put it past them.

      I'd rather take my chances of it being keep in a democratic system like Option A than the current one.

  16. Two messages:

    On the BBC again as of 8.30am Thursday. Who knows - maybe I'll even get invited on to the Sunday 'Politics Hour' one day?

    I mean, share my political views or not it would surely be a nice antidote to having to listen to Rod Bryans talking about issues he knows nothing about, such as culture and the youth service.

    Other than that can I just say that likely I won't be on the net tomorrow. We have the funeral for Shona's step-sister so it is going to be a very sad and difficult day.

    Please spare a thought or prayer for Jo's young children if you have the time. Can't be too much worse than losing your mum so young.

  17. Very best wishes to everyone Trev, hope the day goes as well as it is able in the circumstances mate :(

  18. Two other quickies...

    Private message: The 'question' is in. If you know what I mean.

    Secondly, excellent piece in Sam Mezec's blog regarding the hijacked Electoral Commission. Option A is the only one that improves things. But more on this later in the week.

  19. Well done on Leah Goodman.

  20. Thank you and over and out for the day.

    Please still feel free to post. Off to funeral but will check and vet any comments either late tonight or early tomorrow.

    Regarding Leah Goodman, pleased to be able to speak to the BBC about the return of Leah's visa status. So a thank you to them.

    As their reporter said to me before I went on - I think this is down to your on line petition, citizens media and all who signed and promoted it. I could not agree more.

    Anyone not having seen the full press release - please check out the Rico Sorda blog where he has it up in full.

    Thank you.

  21. I just walked past Routier's kitchen window. Goddamit he was doing the washing up with his feet!

  22. Hi Deputy.

    Just put up the Audio of Deputy T. Pitman being Interviewed about Leah McGrath Goodman.

    You & your readers can Listen HERE


  23. Dear Deputy Pitman,

    How can I even begin to express my anger and utter contempt for Senator Alan Mc Clean, he who thinks it is quite O.K to throw taxpayers monies here , there and every where. £600,000 for a complete and utter waste of time over the Low value saga, tens of thousands to the Rubgy club (yawn) and his latest moment of madness...yes it is £200,000 GRANT?? to some b....y film company who may, might, could perhaps, thinking about it, will let you know, thanks for the money. What gives this complete and utter idiot the right to spend OUR money like this?? no checks, no scrutiny, no approval of the other members of the chamber but most of all NO ACCOUNTABILITY. Why this little rant?? well perhaps it is because at 92 years old my dear old Mum is STILL paying Income Tax because she receives a war widows pension and a few other pensions which JUST push her over the so called threshold. It really makes me so very angry when I see her with not the slightest HELP from our government at her time in life while McClean and others see fit to spend HER tax money the way they do. As her protector (she is not so well these days) I feel like saying the next time she get's her tax bill 'sorry my Mum needs it more than you so she will no longer be contributing' but the way this Islands law makers carry on she would no doubt be up at La Moye in a blink of an eye.

    1. "What gives this complete and utter idiot the right to spend OUR money like this??"

      You Do! You paid them money that you do not owe to them, lawfully, only corporations, and people who consent to pay tax can be taxed....Ask yourself one long hard question, did you read the income tax law before you started paying income tax?

      If you did not read it, then how do you know that you are obliged to pay income tax?

  24. Deputy Trevor Pitman dealing with more cases of DOCTORED TRIAL TAPES.

  25. I spent an interested evening discussing corrupt Jersey Law Offices and what passes for justice in Jersey. I was stumped when it came to........"how come Ian Christmas is in jail then?"

    So I came back home and did some research, and guess what I found on Ex Senator Syvret blog in that infamous posting about nurse m? (Please see below). Now the super injunction and its timing makes perfect sense. Please read that post again.

    I republish here below:

    "The purpose of the meeting will be to receive an oral brief from Mr. Faudemer who will be able to answer questions which you and others may have, followed by a general discussion to determine the way forward.

    The meeting has been arranged for Thursday 20th May at 2.15 p.m. in the Conference Room at Police Headquarters and I look forward to seeing you.

    Yours sincerely,

    R. H. Le Breton
    Chief Officer

    c.c. Legal Adviser – MR IAN CHRISTMAS, Deputy Viscount – Mr. P. De Gruchy, Chief Executive Health Service – Mr. G Jennings, Deputy Chief Officer – Mr. R. Jones, Superintendent – T. Garrett, Director of Finance – Mr. M. Szpera.


    Submitted by: Detective Inspector B. Faudemer.

    Date: 8th May, 1999.

    Subject: Investigation of NURSE M.


    This report has been compiled into three separate areas, namely:

    1.Evidence which gives rise to concern, relating to the activities of NURSE M.

    2. The recommended for phase 1 of any investigation. "

    3. The suggested manpower requirements for conducting such an investigation.