LAW BREAKING

[Extreme]

The police can only make a case if there is sufficient evidence.  The other perpetrator (if this is true, and how did he get a copy of a charge sheet by the way?) may have simply denied the offence and the police could not take it any further.  Southern and Pitman have pleaded guilty, Southern was probably bang to rights due to 20 forms being put to him.

I still think this is a feeble attempt to push away blame and move it away from the real issue here and Trevor Pitman is bound to defend his wife.

But in the eyes of the law, the voters in Number 2 and the other candidates in Number 2 will it rub off with them?  I doubt it, it will just fuel the case against their pursuit for justice even more.  At the end of it all it was an act of blatent cheating in an election and nobody can get away from that.

[Voltaire]

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

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

I had already seen it. It does not offer any proof, names, or details and could be totally ficticious as far as you and I are aware. It lacks any evidence of anything other that the hearsay of Mrs Pitman's husband whose wife has been found guilty of the offence. Like I say, I believe it is a way to try to diffuse the fact that his wife has committed a crime as a politician representing the people of Jersey, it is the real issue here, not some empty piece of paper with glib remarks that may be totally inacurate.

[Extreme]

What does it really say about Jersey to the outside world, when you get two experienced politicians doing this kind of thing at re-election? 

[Nellie Macon]

How about the amendment to the voting law itself? Do you agree that this was acceptable? Do you think that helping people to fill in an application form is "attempting to influence their vote" more than picking them up to take them to the polling station? Why is this a crime but helping them to fill an an electoral roll form and even posting it for them acceptable? Are the hustings and canvassing not an attempt to sway votes? How about mailing people their electoral roll numbers - this is not a crime either? All good stuff for you to discuss and consider.

[rogueelement]

Because Nellie
You can pick them up , take them to the  polling station, and then they sign in , go to a private booth and lodge their vote without further interference from you . I know loads of old ,crabby arsed Jersey residents who would delight in being given a lift and then voting for someone else!
If they are in your house , urging, persuading , nodding then that is a different matter .How the hell did a "resident" of 2 years get voted into the states =De Sousa .I actually do not know if that is true , she may have been here forty years , I am simply going by previous postings so may be wrong.
Anyway nice to be talking to the mechanic at last and not the oily rag!

[GeeGee]

I think Extreme that it says to the outside world that this Jersey law and its government are a complete ass!!!

However, I do agree that however silly this law is it is not too wise to blatantly break it, even if to make a statement of sorts. There are probably more credible ways to do this.

[Extreme]

You have to ask yourself as to why the JDA needed to cheat with these postal votes in the first place, seeing as they have had a table outside BHS for months trying to get people to join their stupid party.

[Ruddler]

Granny farming, pure and simple, a leaf out of a number of Labour Party inner city playbooks.  You call on the voter, create a moral obligation by "helping" them out and they then feel indebted enough to you to, probably, vote for you.  The correct procedure is of course to say "well, I understand your situation and although I can't help you now, I will let the Parish Hall authorities know that you want a postal vote and check back with them that they came out and sorted it out for you.  Oh, I hope I can count on your vote can I?"  Exit candidate, having done the right thing.  Instead the hard worked police have had to go take at least 22 statements from witnesses when they surely have better things to do, a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.  Still can't understand why they didn't hand themselves in to the rozzers having committed a "specimen" offence each which would have made me more inclined to accept their so-called principled stand on the matter.  Of course, they are now re-elected for a 3 year term!

As for the attempt to revoke the Article in the Law, the day before pleading guilty..................I'd like to say it beggars belief but with this crew nothing is a surprise.  Remember folks, £90k + of your taxes goes to support these pillars of the community!

And finally, I agree with Rico (in a post, perhaps on the Blog of the Member for Underclass Central?), whilst it's not a hanging offence imagine the on-line furore if perhaps Phil Ozouf or Alan Maclean had been dobbed in for this kind of thing.  I don't really care what the politicians think or what is convenient for them or voters really at election time, it is our right as voters to be completely sure that the ballot hasn't been tainted and that there is no possibility of it having been seen to be unduly influenced. 

[Pomme de terre]

Well said Ruddler.

If the old or infirm can't get to a polling station, let's help them, let's change that. But don't do it as a politician, creating a moral obligation on their part.

[Ruddler]

Cheers Pomme, we agree on that if not the big fire box!

One other thing is that it seems a fairly patronising attitude to the old/infirm, as if they somehow can't think or act for themselves.  My gran always voted (something to do with suffragettes apparently!) and the last 3 times had a postal vote at the home where she lived.  She managed to organise it all without the help of any of the candidates and was assisted by the Matron I think and someone from the Parish Hall.  Anyway, she voted and I couldn't be bothered to (shame on me!) but I have no idea who for.  I suspect she would have been a JDA type actually.............So the point is the Electoral Law is there is a proctection for the voters, not a convenience for the candidates.  If people want to engage with the electoral process, as you say, every facility must be made available to them but this doesn't in my opinion extend to candidates intermeddling with any part of the process.  Politicians don't like it?  Tough, they are there to serve us and must do so according to the rules.  If they change this Article in the Law after a vote, well and good, but until then play by the rules.

Oh, and to compare the JDA 2 to Martin Luther King/Nelson Mandela et al is just fatuous - neither of them as far as I am aware tried to rig elections!

Enjoy the sunshine out there today!

[boatyboy]

Ruddler you said,

was assisted by the Matron I think and someone from the Parish Hall.  Anyway, she voted and I couldn't be bothered to (shame on me!)

Do you bother to vote now ? may we ask, has been a rather low turnout over the years.

BB

[Ruddler]

Hello Boaty, yes I do generally vote and have done for a number of years on the basis that if you don't you really can have no complaints about what you get.  I think you still have the free speech right to complain though, even if you didn't vote, but you do undermine your credibility if you didn't turn out.  I'm also of the view that, once elected, my representatives should by and large get on with it, subject to representations I might make to them (which I sometimes do).  We are governed a bit by Consultation these days which is a bit tiresome.

As a newbie here, I think it's worth saying that I must be one of those tax payers who is broadly satisfied with Jersey and how it is run, compared to other places I've lived.  It might just be that what some perceive as apathy in relation to low turn out might just be relative satisfaction with how things are.  I've no doubt some things could be done somewhat better than they are but I really don't detect the malign undercurrents some claim to or the level of dissatifaction which is often cited as the reason for voter apathy.  Most of my friends are pretty happy with things, but politically apathetic as they don't really feel much needs changing and I think I am rather treated as the political wonk in the crowd!

Chacun a son gout and all that!

[rico sorda]

Hi Ruddler

Blog of the member for underclass central... What's that about

rs

[Ruddler]

Hi Rico, it's just that someone said to me a few weeks ago that it was interesting how SSS had transformed himself from a left of centre green tinged politician with an Island wide mandate into a single issue pressure group only interested in being the "Member for Underclass Central", in much the same way as Dick Shenton was sometimes known as the Member for Jersey.  Although it seemed a bit pejorative (implying as it might that everyone in Town is in the underclass) it has an element of truth.  I freely admit I voted for "good old Stuart" last time around on the basis that he would at least be in the States and stir them up a bit but I no longer feel any connection with him as one of my representatives nor do I have any idea what he stands for, beyond the child abuse business, which all rational people find completely unacceptable, and by his own admission the police had been investigating that for a considerable time before he raised the subject.  He also blogspeaks about "his constituents" but seems to mean only those who claim to have been abused and not the many 1000's of us who voted for him in 2005.  I wouldn't vote for him again as I really can't see what he has achieved beyond polarising the Island in a way I find unacceptable.  I tend to favour a more concensus approach these days (must be the age).  Hope that explains it?

[rico sorda]

Hi Ruddler

Yeah thanks for that i have trouble writing long posts i totally understand what your saying thou..  Im more happy being face to face

RS