Search This Blog

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

"Is Trevor Pitman Becoming The New Stuart Syvret?" The Elder Statesman

Ben Shenton Must Be Worried

Politicians' salaries should be stopped if their attendance in the States chamber is poor.

That is according to St Helier Deputy Trevor Pitman.

Deputy Pitman wants steps to be taken in order to cut or withhold salaries when States members fail to spend an acceptable amount of time attending debates.

The St Helier Deputy says his fellow politicians should not be allowed to turn up for roll call in the morning, then leave to attend private business. Deputy Pitman says all states members have sworn to do their best for islanders and that includes attending States sittings in full.

Deputy Pitman said: "I take the oath very seriously and I think we all should. But when you've got people that come in, give their name and within an hour they're gone sometimes for six hours at a time, that's the tax payers money being used. We've got ample facilities within the States if you need to work, so there's really no excuse to go off to private businesses. I actually think peoples salaries should be stopped."

Looks like Deputy Trevor Pitman is singling himself out for the "Syvret Treatment". BUT....fair play to him, not since Stuart, have we had someone with decent sized gonads!

I think Trevor is fast becoming what all politicians are expected to be. Passionate, hard working, and with their constituents always in mind. Looking at the performances of Senator Ben (empty chair) Shenton and Terry (I'm going home) Le Main, there is a stark contrast in calibre and dedication.

I must confess, I always wondered about Trevor, his ethos, his determination, and his dedication. I am very pleased to state that


  1. Trevor Pitman is a diamond, exactly what a politician should be but so few of our other bozos are. Fair play to you for holding up your hands and saying that you were wrong too. Imagine if the JEP and ILM could bring themselves to do the same.

  2. I am presuming it is Mr. Shenton being referred too based on his reputation for non attendance.

    Begs the question Was Shentons name mentioned or edited out?

  3. I respect the guy, but I'd be happier if I hadn't seen him wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt - I quote from t'internet : "Among historians I don't think there's really any controversy: Guevara was a brutal, murdering monster."

  4. the money doesn't come into it for "milionares" row,they'll just keep coming & going as they please.

  5. Back in September 2010 the Chairmen's Committee considered the matter of a States Member who refused to do any parliamentarian work during States recesses. The Member took the view that when the States was in recess then that time should be a holiday period for Members.

    We are now approaching the summer recess again and the general election follows in October.
    Whether this un-named Member is typical of others is a matter that needs to be made known because the Committee realised that the whole working of the States could be undermined by such lack of activity.

    Then, the matter was referred to PPC in order to formulate a protocol on holidays and recesses. Whether that was done is not clear but so far as the electorate is concerned the need to know which States Members go to sleep during holiday periods does seem important.

    Are States Members paid for a whole year's work less reasonable holiday periods or just whilst the States are active?

    The Ministers have just published their expenses details but similar disclosure standards should surely apply to all the business of our elected reps.

    With more and more Members declining to take part in the dying scrutiny process the whole government function is liable to collapse. We need to know before October just what our potential reps are prepared to do for us.
    Tom Gruchy says.

  6. Hello Ian,I met Trevor a while ago on the beach. Having never met him before I was pleasantly surprised when he offered his help without my having to ask for it. Top bloke in my opinion.

  7. Anyone who wears a che Guevara t-shirt must be a Top Bloke IMHO! Now if he had been wearing a Maggie Thatcher one...

  8. Your anonymous commenter gives a few highly disputable cherry picked words to claim, in a disingenuous folksy fashion - "quote from t'internet" - that

    "Among historians I don't think there's really any controversy: Guevara was a brutal, murdering monster."

    Well, Anon, if you're going to tell a lie, they do say to make it a big one!

    This link will give a more balanced view than your highly biased drive-by sound bite

  9. I'm going by what Peter Rhodes wrote in the JEP
    ( )

    "... Guevara’s infamous views on black people: “The black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink.”

    "The world has moved on. Guevara may make a great poster but he is not the cool, liberal Robin Hood we all imagined 40 years ago. Guevara was a vicious Marxist who took a sickening pleasure in killing people. He wrote with psychotic coolness about putting a bullet in a traitor’s head. He talked of atom-bombing New York.
    I would be far more concerned about a manager with a poster of Che on the wall than any God-botherer with a cross in his van."

  10. " can killing cure killing? Does it not add to the disease?"

    "How can a cause be good which demands the taking of a life?"

    "Between giving up and making bombs, must lie many paths."

  11. Three nice links for you, Nick -

    "highly biased drive-by sound bite" - how very condescending! Wikipedia isn't very well respected, you know - it has a lot of problems :)

  12. I know for a fact that Trevor Pitman is a huge fan of Martin Luther King which says a lot. Having said that if me and mine were being threatened with daily murders, tortures and rape like was happening in Cuba under the FBI supported Batista regime I too would probably put peaceful protest aside and kill the killers.

  13. One link is to political forum with varied views. Another is to an article about a one sided cherry-picked arguments book by Fontova.

    The last is to a Times article about a "revisionist biography" by Machover which, judging by the article, takes a strawman argument - that intellectuals "turned a blind eye to anything that did not fit in with their idealised image of Guevara" - and then proceeds to cherry-pick (a most powerful weapon of propagandists) incidents out of a very long career then present and describe them in a biased way, crafted to create a certain impression in the mind of the average reader who won't look at the whole picture.

    I remember how Che Guevara was promoted in the 60s/70s. We were all aware that revolution can often turn into a bloody business and that is mostly because of the intransigence of those being revolted against. War is hell and fighting establishments is usually brutal.

    There may well have been some people who "turned a blind eye" and somehow thought that a revolutionary fighter operated by issuing press releases, sending flowers and powerful poetry to the enemy but everybody else realises that fighting generally involves doing violent stuff to your adversaries, who are usually trying to do the same thing to you. That behaviour is not confined to revolutionaries fighting for the oppressed, murdered and abused either. Such revered figures as Churchill firebombed Dresden, Hamburg and Pforzheim - no doubt in the burning of at least 95,000 (mostly) civilians there were some innocent people.

    For six months before the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombings, the United States intensely fire-bombed 67 Japanese cities. President Harry S. Truman's actions incinerated 100s of thousands of innocent people, puppies and kittens, many of whom might not have supported their government's actions.

    So you find my comment condescending? Good. I know this is Ian Evan's blog and he's not averse to tough talking, but you'll just have to imagine what I think about the value and the morals of people who twist the truth and try to falsely steer and fool people using rhetoric, misdirection and polemic. You tried to create a false impression with your propaganda style sound bite. I pointed it out. Perhaps you would care to explain why you did that? What was your motivation, Anonymous?

    Consider yourself condescended on again from an even greater height.

  14. That's precisely why I'm glad you failed to get yourself elected, Nick!
    As blinkered as Bridget.
    A bit more humility wouldn't hurt.

  15. Arrogance!
    Wonder why you didn't get elected?!

  16. Whatever.

    Let's have a recap. You crafted a transparent piece of spin to diss Trevor by first trying to appear reasonable

    "I respect the guy"

    then disingenuously claimed you were worried because of something he was wearing

    "but I'd be happier if I hadn't seen him wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt".

    You then came up with the aforementioned biased cherry picked quote in the aforementioned folksy fashion

    "I quote from t'internet : "Among historians I don't think there's really any controversy: Guevara was a brutal, murdering monster.""

    The point of your drive-by sound-bite was to characterise Trevor as someone who is happy to wear the image of a "brutal, murdering monster" thus you hoped to engender revulsion in the minds of the electorate so they won't vote for him again. However, probably the primary focus of your sound-bite spin was to blacken left wing policies and politicians generally.

    As I despise traducers, whether they be from the left, centre or right, I pointed out the nasty simple-minded wrongness of what you did, illustrated with examples from history, and expressed what I think of "people" like you. Particularly, anonymous cowards like you.

    And what was the response? You came up with two stupid content-free remarks either side of your tea break without addressing any of the points I made. You're an immature troll or an amateurish wannabe spin doctor.

  17. Not at all, your comprehension skills are leading you to jump to conclusions, Nick.
    I genuinely do respect the guy, I say hello when I pass him, and I raised the T-Shirt point because I think he may want to reconsider being seen to support a questionable figure, after researching the controversy, in case he wasn't aware of all the views on both sides of the argument.

    I wasn't there in Cuba back then, so I'm taking the words of other people in the matter (just like you are), and I don't know what to believe without doing a whole load of extra research. I'm just putting a spotlight onto the issue to stimulate debate and further inform myself. If that's "trolling" then you have a different definition of it to me.

    "people" in quotes, cowards, stupid, immature - wow you're a charming man! You'd fit right in, in the States!

  18. Sorry I jumped to an incorrect conclusion, if I did, but there are an awful lot of propagandists and wannabe propagandists out there who do load political and environmental fora with "drive-by sound bites" designed to mislead. Your comments looked very much like those. If you were so concerned for any negative political effects on Trevor, it's curious why didn't you email him or at least make your comments on his blog instead?

    If they don't know that what they are writing is disinformation, then they are ignorant or stupid - it follows that they are also irresponsible to willingly pass on such deceit. If they know what they are doing, then they are pretty rotten human beings.

    One meets these people all the time in the comment sections of national newspapers, science sites and blogs etc. etc. We know that there is an organised campaign to plant this disinformation because there is documentary and video evidence of group leaders urging their groups to do this. I think I linked to a video of one of these Heartland fundamentalist types boasting that he spends two hours a day seeding comment sections to give the illusion that the majority distrust climate change science and to "tip" the unsure.

    You may not know that there are computer programmes - "bots" - out there that monitor mass media such as newspapers, Youtube and, as soon as any accurate (or at least positive) global warming story is published it is passed to teams of propaganda writers who's task it is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) who know that what they are writing has been disproved a zillion times but they also know that (attributed to P T Barnum) "there's a sucker born every minute" and that even though it is easy to prove what they say wrong, deceitful or misleading they don't care because many will be sucked in.

    Look at Google trends for the term "global warming". Doesn't it strike you as strange that Tagalog (Philippine language) is the most common detected language of the initiating computers? A close second is Indonesian. A similar, although less blatantly obvious picture comes from the term "climate change". When you couple this with the software packages that enable one person to create and track multiple online personas to give the illusion of an army of dissent.

    see part 2

  19. Part 2

    I blogged about these strategies under the title evil works behind the scenes which a has video link in it showing a "teacher" from Americans For Progress "astroturfing" and telling his crew how to load comment sections of Amazon reviews etc.

    The deceitful arguments they use come from far right/libertarian think tanks, Institutes etc based in the USA but obviously somebody is outsourcing the daily grind of spreading lies and bullshit to poorly paid third world workers.

    Here is a link that discusses the "persona management software" being used to create these "armies of dissent".

    There is a scene in Douglas Adam's HHGTG where the protagonists find themselves in a disco

    [Shouts] Beeblebrox!! All these dancers! They’re robots!!

    [Shouts] They’re just to make the place look crowded!! Give it some atmosphere!!

    [Shouts] But there aren’t any real people here at all!!

    The online universe is so riven with denial factories and "denierbots" posting propaganda that it sometimes seems that there are few real people there either. Perhaps if you posted under a consistent pseudonym, rather than a simple "anonymous", you wouldn't get a response like you did. Your real name initial isn't "S" is it?

  20. No, LOL, definitely not Stuart :)

  21. I was thinking of another "S"...

  22. I know that Nick, Stuart is far to busy at the minute, preparing for next weeks shenanigans!!!

  23. “Che” it should be noted was an orthodox Stalinist. We must be wary of the “Cult of the Personality” be it in its Stalinist or Jersey incarnation.

    That individual politicians feel the need to puff up their image and egos, indicates that there is no social base for their activity. A real organised and democratic opposition movement would not tolerate such self indulgence.

    We need issue based politics, with solidarity between like-minded individuals, not personality politics, which has caused so much damage in the past.