My old JDA friend and colleague, Deputy Trevor Pitman now has his new personal website up and running at http://www.thebaldtruthjersey.co.uk in addition to a linked blog at http://www.thebaldtruth.blogspot.com
Go visit!!
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Its his version of what he thinks is the truth. I've read his first post and its the same old envy of people with money statement which is forever being echoed from the JDA.
Which, in turn, is your version of what you think is the truth. I can't say that I found it much like the politics of envy rant it apparently read as in your head.
"His version of what he thinks is the truth" is actually quite a handy and useful definition of an opinion. Almost all you get on blogs is opinion, apart from a bit of deliberate lying in a few quarters and some deluded craziness in a few more.
Anyway, opinions are always welcome here. Let us see you defend the suppression of the report, and also debunk Chang, if you can, as you so obviously disagree with Trevor
By the way, you know who Trevor is, and, although I have a policy of not using this particular blog for self-promotion, it is no secret who I am, either. So feel free to put your own name to your piece, too, so you can have some credibility yourself.
I am bored of these deputies who forever talk of change yet never have any sensible ideas to implement any change when it comes to the crunch and Trevor Pitman is certainly one of them.
I hope people will start looking at these States members for what they are doing for this Island as opposed to just as 'friends' who are in there for an easy £44K.
Anonymous #2:
Trevor is not without sensible ideas, just without a Ministerial position where he can do much. And despite the "in it for the money" slur that seems to have stuck to him, he actually made a substantial financial sacrifice to do it.
In fact none of the Deputies I personally know have an easy £44k; they all work very hard for it. Remember it is an Office, not a job, and you can never really be off-duty.
We need new fresher people in Government and if he cannot get a Ministerial Position like so many other time wasters then he may as well go back to his high paid day. Smell the coffee for once!
Anonymous #3:
Do you actually have a clue about the post-Clothier States are structured? The ministers and their assistants must total at least 2 less than half of the house (the "Troy Rule") thus over three-quarters of members cannot be ministers. If all back-benchers were to declare non-ministerial office a waste of time and go back to their old jobs the States would be constitutionally unable to continue, and Jersey's millenium as an autonomous Bailiwick would grind to an ignominious end.
Another thing is that it is not that great an idea to put newly-elected politicians into ministerial posts at the start of their first term, anyway. (For a case study on that one, look at a certain F. Cohen)
"Jersey's millenium as an autonomous Bailiwick would grind to an ignominious end."
Steady. Parliaments are just talking shops. Power rests in a capitalist society with those that own the means of production. Jersey is a Bank and run like one. Banks are not democratic institutions.
The People have allowed thieir island to become nothing but a Bank and now they complain they are ignored. When will they start to draw the connections together?
Perhaps you should reevaluate your contention that Deputy Pitman made a financial sacrifice upon getting elected. I vividly recall a large cartoon in the JEP that Christmas time featuring the Pitmans. This had the caption along the lines of now getting four times the salary darling. A newspaper would hardly do that if it was incorrect would they?
Anonymous #4:
I do indeed remember that cartoon. It was deliberately and offensively inaccurate, and Trevor was most displeased by it. The last I heard on the subject was that he was consulting his lawyers on whether litigation was worthwhile.
You never know, your comment might just be the evidence of lasting and substantial harm to his reputation his lawyers needed to make a case stick.
I see that on a blog posting about Sarah Ferguson's climate change proposition, that Trevor has already included comments referring to:
1) an accusation of murder against a well known person
2) a link to an interview with Lenny Harper
3) people living in fear of their jobs because of a will to 'tell the truth'
I so hoped that it would be a forum for adults to discuss political issues in the run up to the forthcoming elections, however already I can see that Trevor is willing to allow the site to be hijacked by those with various axes to grind against the ‘establishment’. What a pity, as whilst I am sure it will excite those who just want to see a wider promulgation of their grievances, it simply makes it easier to dismiss as another vexatious blog, with the same limited readership as many others.
What a wasted opportunity it will be if he allows it to descend to the depths of so many other sites.
Anonymous #5:
A blogger can only publish the comments he gets, unless he goes down the "Jason"/"Gary"/Jon route of writing all his own. If you want to see another viewpoint on there, write it yourself. I love getting comments from all sides, myself, and the more serious and substantial, the better. If you did write one on his that hasn't appeared, it may be because your anonymity has got it into the spam box, where yours went on my blog.
Hi, thanks for your reply, however I think you have missed, or chosen to ignore, the wider point I was trying to make. (I have of course tried to make the same point on Trevor’s blog, but as you say, it may have been dismissed as spam. I hope that was the case, and that anonymity doesn’t make the comments less valid)
If Trevor wants the site to promote and communicate his views, and ultimately to assist with, and increase his share of the vote at, the next election by engaging those with an interest, but not necessarily immediate support of his polices, appealing to his 'safe' progressive demographic is not going to achieve much, because they are going to vote for him regardless. By allowing the various off topic comments, and ultimately the attempted radicalisation of the site which a small minority seem to wish to achieve with every blog, it enables wavering voters to be distracted from the salient, important points (the deletion of the climate change statements in this case), and thus the site’s real purpose to be dismissed as just another left wing blog which is happy to give vent other blog sites unrelated grievances.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is whether I would vote for Trevor based on his political outlook ? Potentially (That’s where discussion on the blog could help, as I need convincing). But is my opinion (and the likelihood of me voting for him) enhanced by his decision to publish these other inflammatory comments which are irrelevant to the topic of the blog ? Definitely not, and of course it’s only a guess, but I would assume others feel the same way.
I do have to say that I was impressed with Trevor’s restraint in not becoming involved in the public spat that preceded and followed his departure from the JDA last year, which I thought enhanced his standing as a politician. I just wish he would show the same restraint with the way he runs the blog site.
You are obviously correct in that he can only publish what he receives, he just doesn’t need to publish everything he receives, especially if it makes the medium for his valid points easier to dismiss by those that might support him, but abhor the petty squabbling and point scoring which distracts so many states members from the important work we actually pay them for.
I don’t think my point warranted your comment about Jason / Jon / Gary, which is below you, and your normal level of sensible debate.
Politicians, especially those outside the perceived 'establishment' keep asking for the public to engage, so that is what I am doing.
Thanks
Anonymous #5:
I think I see your point now. Some of it may be that when there is a fairly low level of correspondence, each item becomes that much more precious, and it becomes harder to discard. If in coming months he can afford to knock stuff back and still have a dialogue with his public, he may well do so, but at this stage he is probably not getting much more traffic than I do here. I use nearly everything, or else I would have nothing much at all, and have time to answer back the ones I don't endorse. If, by some fluke, this blog got popular, that would have to change, and I would get picky, myself.
Hi
Can I just correct something within recent comments, please? I haven't rejected any comments on my site apart from two which I talk about on the blog.
One contained nothing more than trouble-making referring to various people as 'scum' etc. This obviously brought nothing to the debate so I rejected it as most would.
The other contained allegations of murder which clearly would need to be backed up by evidence. I contacted the poster and he fully accepted this and agreed that there was no option but to reject.
I have not rejected any other comments so I can only say that your poster should re-check to see if his comments were amongst those temporarily 'lost' when Blogger had problems recently.
Or, the only other possibility that I can think of, were one of the two comments initially blocked by the system having been wronly identified as 'spam.
Both of these are up now, so please check again. If this does not explain then all I can say is sorry - your comments have not been recieved. Send again.
Finally, I would just point out that I took a significant drop in salary upon my election. I'm sick of hearing this crap but will not say any more here as those who spread these wholly fabricated lies will be going to court later in the summer.
Thanks
Trevor
TOM GRUCHY says...
I too seem to be falling into Deputy T. Pitman's spam box and I raised similar sentiments to your well reasoned comment from anonymous.
It's the usual tittle tattle brigade who seem to take up so much space on Pitman's blog and the endless discussion about trolls - but so little discussion of important political and social issues. Not to mention the never ending failure to form a co-ordinated and effective opposition or even a viable alternative government.
The deplorable fact is that there are already more than enough so called "progressives" in the States to run rings around the likes of Le Sueur & Co if only they were prepared to bury their own egos for a few months. Preferably the few months left before Jersey's first ever General Election.
The history of "progressive representation" in Jersey really is a disgrce. The electorate can hardly be blamed - they have returned so called "progressives" to the States since Norman Le Brocq broke the mould - by the bus-load. But always the electorate has been let down.
Just do some counting and consider the likes of Joan Du Feu, Jimmy Johns, Jerry Dorey, Stuart Syvret, Imogen Nichols, Wendy Kinnard, Ted Vibert- but where is their political legacy now? They did not get elected solely through self effort - they were supported by groups of people who raised funds, leafleted, campaigned etc etc without any public recognition or reward. Why did they bother?
Soon, the usual solo prima donnas will be touting for support in the October beauty parade - but how many "progressives" do we need? If we had 27 in the States would they still be fighting amongst themselves and refusing to present agreed policies that have been agreed by the public?
As the "apathetic" public say - what is the point in voting for these people if they fail to deliver. Blame the system, blame the weather, blame whatever you want - but at the end of the day sometime in October - what is the point in voting?
Do you think that the candidates for Chief Minister in November 2011 should face a fresh election? Have you say. Vote here: http://mtadier.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-recovery-code-long-overdue.html
Post a Comment