LAW BREAKING

[George]

Both Pitman and Southern claim that they were acting on principal.  I feel it's strange that they only declared that they were acting on principal when they had been caught out.  If they were acting on principal and wanted to make a point surley they should have turned themselves in to prove they were making a point.  They didn't, they broke the law and should both resign. NOW.

[rogueelement]

Agreed, principal has a strange way of standing out from the more mundane felonious actions.
Principal enobles people , principal stands alone in history, tawdry vote catching exercises are sickening and illegal.
Perhaps on principal Southern and Pitman would like to test the voters again??
do not hold yopur breath.

[Fritz]

Strange they didn,t hand themselves in, "On Principal", to make a point BEFORE they got caught?

[Extreme]

People cannot cherry pick the law especially those who are responsibility for making it.  If a Policeman or a Judge had broken the law they would have to find another job, we see it all the time throughout the UK.

This action amounts to bringing the whole process into disrepute and if the law was so unfair then why hasn't any other standing deputy complained about it?  Seeing as all the other candidates in Number 2 abided by the law then there should really be a re-election despite final sentencing in April.

[Steve Beddoe]

Fritz you have hit the nail on the hand. IF they really wanted to highlight their case they should have handed themselves in immediately to draw attention to the case and expose the flaws they believe to be in the law

[Voltaire]

Fritz you have hit the nail on the hand. IF they really wanted to highlight their case they should have handed themselves in immediately to draw attention to the case and expose the flaws they believe to be in the law

If they really wanted to make a point of case in regard to so called "human rights" they could so easily have helped people in a district without JDA candidates in order to prove their point thereby not influencing votes in the district where they were standing. As this is not the case, it leads to only one conclusion.

[rico sorda]

I believe deputy T. pitman had a charge sheet from a law breaker in district 2 same crime but the face didn't fit was there mention of this, caused a bit of a stir and a few red faces...... might have got the district wrong but he had a charge sheet

rs

[Voltaire]

I believe deputy T. pitman had a charge sheet from a law breaker in district 2 same crime but the face didn't fit was there mention of this, caused a bit of a stir and a few red faces...... might have got the district wrong but he had a charge sheet

rs

I don't understand what you have written? Are you saying that Deputy T pitman has a charge sheet in that he has been charged before, or are you saying that he has a charge sheet that belongs to someone else from District 2 (other than his wife or Southern?) in relation to breaking the electoral law? The crime could only have been committed this year as the law only came into effect during the last 3 years, so that narrows it down to the seven that stood this year in St Helier No 2. That would be the 3 JDA, Southern, Pitman and De Sousa or the 4 individual candidates Bryans, Stokes, Walsh or Aubin? I don't remember any stir in that district other than the JDA? The only place there was a stir other than No 2 was St Helier No 1 where Deputy T Pitman was standing, where someone had registered someone to vote who no longer lived in the Island.

or is this a sensational fake tidbit to try to diffuse the fact that these two have actually broken the law by changing the thread discussion?

[Extreme]

Its pretty feeble.  “Look we aren’t the only ones that deliberately broke the law see” which Trevor Pitman was doing on TV tonight.

They should face that they are completely in the wrong and immediately face a vote of no confidence if they don’t resign after the Royal Court sentencing.

I do not know anybody that supports their actions and their defense statements to the charges on TV immediately after being accused has astonished some people.  They have put the States and the whole law making and abiding expectations of ministers into disrepute and they need to accept that.

[Pomme de terre]

Sam, this clip explains Trevor Pitman's view on the matter:

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=394107

[rico sorda]

i think he has a good point

rs

[Extreme]

Well Shona claimed the establishment picked on the JDA all the time and if there are Police officers that do not support the JDA then maybe they have pulled some strings to get at them.  As Southern said, he has a human right to break the law, so now the whole legal system including judges has it in for the JDA.   Obviously it is starting to emerge that the every man woman and child that isn't to the left/middle has it in for the JDA.

[rogueelement]

I can hear the screetching now from the classic film carry on cleopatra (or something similar)

Infamy !Infamy! they, have all got it in for me.!!

[GeeGee]

Actually this stinks - one law for one and one for another! In other words if your face don't fit in Jersey watch out!

This cannot be justice surely?

[cpcarrot]

I think in principal Mr Pitman’s point is a valid one. The same laws apply to all candidates and they should therefore be policed the same for all candidates regardless of who they are and their political views.

However I would say that one witness statement a case does not make. If that is all the police have against this other candidate then there is no basis for which they could mount a successful prosecution as they would need some form of corroboration in order to make their case. Either further witnesses (which they appear to have in respect of Deputies Pitman and Southern), or an admission from the candidate in question (which again they have in respect of Deputies Pitman and Southern). Without such corroboration then all it amounts to is a single person claiming one thing and the candidate presumably denying it (be interesting to know who the candidate is and their views though). One person’s word against another person’s word. Given the basis of proof required is beyond all reasonable doubt, no prosecuting authority is going to take up that case, or at least they shouldn’t as there is no prospect of winning the case.

A witness statement is far from proof – it is exactly what it says it is, a statement recorded from a single individual. To get a case you need more. Probably a lot more.

It is therefore difficult to form any real opinion on the matter that Trevor Pitman is making, apart from the fact that what he claims is proof clearly isn’t, and therefore he is overselling his position somewhat. At the moment on that basis it just appears to be mud in the water and if he wants to convince me otherwise, I would need some corroboration, as well as more information on the reliability of the witness in question. Regardless it makes no difference to what should occur in respect of Deputies Pitman and Southern and I’ve previously expressed my view that they should be prosecuted for this deliberate breaking of the election law and also that there will ultimately have to be a re-election in that district. I won’t repeat my full post as it was in a thread that ended up being locked (supposedly until after the Magistrates Court appearance – MODS can we get that post back now given we are now purely awaiting sentence?)

I would however support the notion that if a case can be brought against any other candidates then it should be brought as well. My view on the position of candidates who knowingly and deliberately break the very laws that they wish to sit in the states and debate is not altered by who they may be.

--- GATTAC ---
Thread mentioned above put back for general discussion. http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1727.15