Saturday, 13 July 2013


States prepare to debate Bailhache's strategy for a legal dictatorship...

'Does the PPC Chairman accept that both of the amendments to Option B being put forward (by myself and Deputy A.K.F. Green) ensure much fairer, more equal representation in regard to parity of weight of vote for St. Helier in comparison to other parishes ad, further still, that both more strongly protect the functioning of the so-called 'Troy Rule'?'

The oral question to the Chairman of PPC detailed above leads in to what is not only the last debate before the summer recess; but also something of a rarity for this Assembly - a full and important week of debate. I say this even with my Ministerial Mole's tip off that Chief Minister Gorst suddenly pulled his pitch for a fully fledged Foreign Minister until September because he knew he was on a hiding - not least because of the embarrassment of Bailhache-Gate.

He is, according to the Mole, hoping all will have been forgotten by then. It won't of course and I'll be making sure of that this very Sitting. Not only are there rumours that Senator Bailhache will nevertheless finally make a personal statement next week (I sincerely hope he does) but I am also asking the PPC Chairman why - given that they do not even need an official complaint - he hasn't yet initiated an investigation into the matter.

Fact is its high time Senator Bailhache dropped the petulance, made his apologies to the two businessmen and then resigned. No, he need not apologise to me for his slurs and insults. An apology from a man with zero political credibility like the Senator is something I can live quite happily without. 

St. Helier's representatives truly under the spotlight...

Still, though the big debate of the week certainly is the aforesaid Option B proposals truth be told there is actually very little that hasn't already been said about why Option B in its unamended form simply must be blocked by progressives at all costs. To be fair its also equally true that just as many hares have been set running by Bailhache, Ozouf and the Constables in the hope of managing to slip it through.

Thus my only point - OK, two inter-related points actually - for people to be clear upon are these.  

If Philip Bailhache gets his way then the people of St.Helier - a third of Jersey's population let us not forget - will have their say in what happens to this Island politically hamstrung for at least a generation; possibly even two. They will, at a stroke, be made second class voters wholly at the mercy of the smaller. less populated country parishes dominated by self-interested Establishment supporters.

The second point to remember is this. The 10 St. Helier Deputies and the parish Constable, Simon Crowcroft, together have both a chance and  an obligation to vote for either my or Deputy Green's amendments and thus, just perhaps, save the day for democracy. This is, after all, about protecting the interests of the people we are meant to serve.

Alright, our capital's fate is not in our hands alone.. But what is true is that any St. Helier representative who fails to vote in their constituents' democratic interests next week; but instead bows to Emperor Bailhache's '3 line whip' for legal dictatorship needs to be driven from office come 2014. Driven from office if needs be with flaming torches and pitchforks.

Will any be that foolish or hypocritical? Word in the States is that the only St. Helier representative who will definitely stab his constituents in the back will be St. Helier No. 1's Deputy James Baker. Yet beware: there are also whispers that Rod Bryans and even Constable Crowcroft may bend the knee to Emperor Philip and join him in the hope of future patronage.

Let's hope this is wholly incorrect. Though it must be said such action would certainly be a Godsend to any candidate wishing to stand against one of them in 15 months time...

The 'secret court case' against former Senator, Stuart Syvret and the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money no one in authority wants to be held accountable for...

On Friday morning I had a meeting with the Attorney General. He wished to clarify that neither he nor his office have any control or involvement relating to the shed loads of taxpayers' cash - our cash - that's been handed out so four private individuals could bring a secret Data Protection Law case (in reality a glorified defamation case) against former Senator Stuart Syvret.

Always happy to correct my position I would flag up here that I was grateful to the Attorney General for his clarification; and am equally happy to say sorry if I got any wires crossed on the involvement of his office. Yet the fact is one clarification only creates even more questions in a case like this.

Questions like: who is ultimately responsible for complying with requests from the Data Protection Commissioner's office that result in monies in excess of its entire annual budget being made available?

According to the Attorney General this used to come under the Treasury Minister but now comes under the control of the Chief Minister's office itself. OK then, Senator Gorst - looks like come Monday all eyes will be on you! But I have also asked Senator Ozouf as well. Will I get a full and proper answer to my questions?

Who can tell - and if the Chief Minister once again hands answering this written question over to Senator Routier the likelihood is that we'll all be even more confused than when we started! Yet if the plan is to once again fob us off with vague waffle I trust the Chief Minister (and Treasury for that matter) will also consider this.

If I don't get some proper answers we'll just have start all over again come September. And keep on asking the same questions until we do. After all, I know a whole army of taxpayers intrigued to know if any kind of background checks were carried out - this to ascertain if one particular 'man' and alleged 'victim' afforded financial assistance at their expense actually has complaints against him of Internet bullying and abuse  longer than a proverbial toilet roll!

Keep the Faith

Note: My full list of questions - both oral and written - for next week's Sitting can be read on the States Assembly website. 


  1. I hope Baker DOES vote against looking after St. Heliers interests. He has done sod all for us in the district and such an action will just help us send him on his way.

  2. It disgusts me that option b can even be allowed to be brought forward by ppc. What the heck ever happened to fairness in my island?

  3. If the PPC Chairman Crowcroft the so called father of the Parish of St Helier, and outspoken in favour of option A then votes with Bailhache ( he of the conflicted and biased EC ) then Crowcroft can forget the future Patronage, because it will make him appear ant-democratic and a hypocrite.

    He will be out at the next election, as long as a half credible candidate stands, and there is no magic wand, any politician Senator, cm or Dean can wave, when thousands of voters have the power.

    The difference compared to other elections, is in the detail, more and more people reading the blogs than ever before, and this may be a shock for some in the big house, when they understand that the public knows what is going on.

    It gets better as the internet readers update and discuss issues and share information with others.

    1. I believe that at least one deputy from St.H number 3 will stand against Crowcroft if he does not support one of the amendments.

  4. Trevor,

    regards option B: the Green amendment (I've not seen yours, how is it different?) is good for St Helier. But it still leaves the rest of us saddled with two classes of member - the Deputies and (with a couple of honourable exceptions) a bunch of senile buffoons...

    1. Your words, james but I largely agree with the sentiment.

      Thing is given what is on the table we have to ensure that if the worst comes to the worst at least St. Helier has parity with all other parishes.

      We can then take it from there and Members can decide to throw the whole thing out and start again - without Bailhache being allowed to hijack any Commission.

      As for difference. My amendment simply used the full population figures where Deputy green ran with what was put forward by Bailhache - i.e. 'eligible' voters.

      This conveniently knocked of more than 6,000 people in St. Helier to help Bailhache, Baker and Constable Gallichan (smallest mandate in the States!)make what they were doing less dispicable.

      I also so ask only for 4 extra seats in St. helier. Deputy Green is asking for 5. Both should be supported and with Deputy Green's coming first I will be supporting him to the hilt.

  5. Good luck Trevor....

  6. Thank you for keeping up the pressure over this abuse of the publics hard earnt cash. Just because one middle-aged yobbo benefitting from we people who actually do go to work hasn't got a pot to p in is irrelevant. If people waste their lives due to drinking and gambling it is their look out. This is our money and we have a right to know how it is handed out.

  7. I demand to know if it is true that a low life scrounger who has refused to work for yonks has been given tens of thousands of our money to allow him to bring a case based on utter trivia.

    There surely should be some sort of vetting system that prevents people who are cowardly bullies making such vexatious complaints against people they just don't like with other folk's money. This island is becoming a joke.

  8. Option B is highly offensive and so are boozed up trolls who sponge off society.

  9. Hi Trevor

    What get me in all of this is this number Senator Bailhache is trying to sell us of 42 x states members. Where did it come from? what is the logic behind it? How could it make things more efficient? It is all a very bad joke and I just hope enough of your colleagues see sense.

    1. You are quite right. There is no logice behind the number whatsoever. It is simply about Bailhache trying to hamstring democracy and any dissenting voices as much as he can.

  10. Very strange message (even for him!) from the man who hides his face under blackets. Seems he saw me coming along the street the other day and lay down in the gutter so I wouldn't notice him. Don't worry Haywire - you are so irrelevant that most people would never notice you under ANY circumstances!

  11. The 'mushroom effect'- voters were kept in the dark.
    NEWLY elected States Member,James Baker was caught speeding at 52 mph in a 30 mph zone.
    Anyone can make a mistake (but 52mph!) so let's hope that he demonstrates more responsibility and care for others as a states member. Sadly not.

    Mr. Baker was lucky as earlier reporting of this information could easily have cost him 68 votes (or 34 redistributed),leaving him in 4th place & unelected.
    He was even luckier that the consequences were not even more severe:

    But fear not, this young "Master Baker" would have got off lightly too.

    Perhaps he will zoom off to get elected in a country parish having shafted St.Helier.

  12. Can you just clarify something.
    Are you saying Stuart Syvret is innocent and should not be taken to court under Data Protection and have you contacted Emma Martins about the costs yet?

    1. Yes, I have met with the Data Protection Commissioner - on more than one occasion.

      Is Stuart Syvret 'innocent' to use your words? With respect you appear to be missing the point.

      As I have made clear countless times I do not agree with Stuart on every issue nor would I expect him to agree with me.

      The issue is that such behind closed doors. secret courts are an affront to justice and democracy. These are not family courts which operate as they do in the interests of all - not least vulnerable children.

      If he - or anyone else - has a case to answer let them do so in full public scrutiny. lastly, we have a right to know where, how and on who taxpayers' money is being spent.

    2. Syvret already had a history of breaking the Data Protection law so has obviously learnt nothing. With regard to Public trials, I think you seem to forget he is not a States Member anymore.

  13. Dear Deputy Pitman,
    The post below is perhaps even more relevant now than when it was posted to Stuarts blog some years ago.

    Dear Stuart,

    This is the THIRD time I have copied the following posting I sent on Sunday 19th September 2010 and I hope you will see fit to post it again because not only is it still relevant but it becomes more relevant with each passing day. I was under the distinct impression that the Chief Minister (elect) was Ian Gorst so why is Philip Bailhache carrying on as if he were the man in question? Before we hear any more B/S from him about the GIANT red herrings of the U.K government 'doing this or that to us' and as a result of passports, low value goods, etc...etc (i.e red herrings) the crucial and most fundermental points should this Island choose Independance are these but to name a few.
    a)We have no proper written constituiton as per "We the people... etc"
    b)We have so called Jersey Law made up by who exactly? and administered by the very people who made it up, when you are found 'Guilty' of dubious charges who will you appeal to? if we are 'independent' certainly not the privy council, not the ECHR, no you will be appealing to the very people who found you guilty.
    c) What currency will we have?
    d) What passport will we hold?
    e) What defence strategy will we embrace?
    f) Will blogs be allowed? or perhaps more to the point will writing to a blog result in the same punishment as the 'crystal set' of the occupation.
    g) What will be OUR human rights in this blessed Island of ours?

    This list is to me almost endless and most very fundemental in so far as each and all and every such key issue must be resolved BEFORE we (or more to the point P.B) talk's of so called Independence from the U.K, enough said, read the post below and reflect on what might come to pass.

    Sunday 19th September 2010

    Independance Day?? Unlike the block buster movie I fear this particular 'quasi putsch'will not have a happy ending. Once again our Ex. bailiff has raised this matter, but at £295 per ticket that meant 'no plebs' would be present. Let there be no doubt about this move, it is in fact the final "move" in a long and drawn out game of Chess, which the establishment have played over hundreds of years and the result (if accepted by the people of this Island) will be the perfect Coup D'etat and we will have a dictatorship in place. So let us all, as Islanders make it very plain to the Ex. Bailiff and all others who may think along these lines it is NOT for them to decide if the people of this Island are to become independent of the U.K, but the PEOPLE of this Island and this (if it came to it) would be done on a simple 'YES' or 'NO' vote (i.e NO clever SPIN as we have all witnessed in the past). This whole end game was set in motion with the blatant plagiarism and cherry picking of 'The Clothier Report', the outcome, once adopted set in place a 'legal' framework for all that was before a loose arrangement BUT after became law. Now we see the final move in this game, and let us all be very aware that (IF) once we go independant, we in this Island will have no secondary course of appeal should we not like what is being done to us, were not part of the European Union and there would no longer be any appeal to the U.K Privy Council, in other words, we would all be appealing unto Caesar, with no further avenue of appeal. So people of this Island you just watch the next moves in that, a talking point, becomes a suggested policy, and that becomes, established policy (with the usual 'selected' input from US, the ordinary Islanders)and then the final twist of the knife being the FINAL decision will be taken by the C.O.M and in the words from the film J.F.K, that my friends is called a 'Coup D'Etat'.
    Wednesday, 27 June 2012 21:04:00 BST

  14. Writing using the stolen identity of a child - just as he did to make a bogus submission to the Electoral Commission hijacked by Senator Bailhache - the island's most dispicable posts to me again.

    Must be the 11th or 12th time today!

    Highlighting that his stupidity is up there on a par with his pathetic hatred of normal people the Stella Kid attributes a statement to me made within a scrutiny hearing that is actually listed in the transcripts as being made by the person giving evidence.

    Troll. I say it again as so many others have before. Please go and get some help. Or at least hand yourself in to the police. You know you will end up in cell eventually.

    1. Meant to add - so mind-bogglingly thick is our troll that he talks about a Scrutiny hearing chaired by me that he wasn't even present at!

      Well, he hardly ever goes out until after dark at all so terrified is he that someone will get his loathsome mug on camera and thus put a face to the hate-monger.

  15. Look out for a most interesting new post tomorrow around about 11am.

    Guaranteed to even get a drunken troll out of bed and cranking up his smoke machine...

  16. What an intelligent piece of writing at 20.37 and a good warning.

    1. Yes, and look what (that is sacrosanct in a functioning democracy) has been bulldozed aside to clear the way for Cesar to rule as he pleases. The minions who do the dirty work for their masters are given IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

      Appendages like the "unclean dean" are protected from outside scrutiny by the 2012 Jersey Cannons law - which Bailhache then tries (successfully it seems) to apply retrospectively to Bob's 2008 failings. The pious hand-wringing church now rendered profane.