SENATOR STUART SYVRET

[Malachi]

I'm glad that Stuart has ruffled a few feathers too; his exposure (to outsiders anyway) of the cosy/incestuous nature of the States (insufficient separation of powers/interests etc.) will hopefully be helpful in the long-term. I just wish he hadn't burnt so many bridges whilst doing it (although that assumes that he some bridges to burn in the first place).

I've enjoyed watching Frank Walker squirm too (I didn't know [having rarely heard him speak] that his verbal communication skills were so lacking/unendearing), but I'm not comfortable with the way that the abuse scandal is unfolding (not from an image-of-the-island perspective etc., but the obvious animosity between Frank & Stuart and the way that it is being reported [some newspapers are unable to report on crime without indulging in salaciousness] are not helpful - rumours [not from former residents/victims] are being allowed to spread before there are any [public] facts to back them up).

[Darius]

I've enjoyed watching Frank Walker squirm too (I didn't know [having rarely heard him speak] that his verbal communication skills were so lacking/unendearing), but I'm not comfortable with the way that the abuse scandal is unfolding (not from an image-of-the-island perspective etc., but the obvious animosity between Frank & Stuart and the way that it is being reported

You can hardly blame the press for making the best story out of what they are given, could you imagine Gordon Brown behaving as Senator Walker has? The trouble is that our local press are just too nice to the politicians.

From speaking to journalists Senator Walker's standard response to their questions is 'I'll have to get back to you later' meaning I'll go and ask the communications department to write me up something to say that will sound good. Now is this the bast use of my taxpayer money? I do not want to pay for spin doctors for the Jersey politicians, if they aren't up to the job they shouldn't be doing it.

[TracerB]

Senator Stuart Syvret is the man for the top job.
But for 2008 the word is SHAFT...

[Jason the Maverick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4WT_SaRfK0&feature=related

[Thomas]

For info........Principal features of hypomania and mania

Our research has identified six principal features of hypomania and mania: high energy levels, positive mood, irritability, inappropriate behaviour, creativity and mystical experiences. Those with true mania or hypomania will have changes in at least 3 of these areas.

1. High Energy Levels:
We believe this to be the key feature underlying all states of hypomania and mania. High energy levels are indicated by the individual feeling 'wired' and 'hyper'; finding that their thoughts race; feeling extremely energetic and making decisions in a flash; talking more and talking over people; racing from plan to plan and being constantly on the go; and describing the need for less sleep without feeling tired.

2. Positive Mood:
The positive or hedonistic mood is reflected in descriptions such as feeling confident and capable; being extremely optimistic; feeling that one can succeed in everything; being more creative; and perhaps feeling 'high as a kite'.

3. Irritability:
Is reflected in irritable, impatient and angry behaviours.

4. Inappropriate Behaviour:
Can be reflected by becoming over-involved in other people's activities; by increased risk taking ; saying and doing somewhat outrageous things.
5. Creativity:
Can be experienced as 'seeing things in a new light'; 'seeing things vividly and with crystal clarity'; finding one's senses are heightened; and feeling quite capable of writing the 'great Australian novel'.

6. Mystical Experiences:
Can be experienced by believing that there are special connections between events; that there is a higher rate of coincidences between things happening; feeling one with nature in terms of appreciating the beauty and the world around, and believing that things have special significance.

[Jason the Maverick]

So what are you saying Thomas?  Stuart is hyper?

[AHITS]

Actually JTM,  a lot of those symptoms would seem to fit Thomas himself....

He's doing such an exceptional job of shooting himself in the foot today that I'm starting to believe he's Frank Walker incognito!   

[Thomas]

An informed, considered response AHITS thanks.

"I'm starting to believe he's Frank Walker incognito!"

For info:Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.

[AHITS]

Thomas, if you honestly believe my Frank Walker comment was an example of paranoia, that in itself would (again!) point to you better fitting the characteristics you chose to quote.

Whilst I have your attention I'd also like to ask that you please stop leaving quotes from medical textbooks as a form of response. By all means, leave the quotes and add your own views and explanation, but please remember this is a discussion forum. Feel completely free to say whatever you choose (within the Terms of Use, obviously!), but please include some of your own thoughts, comments or observations when doing so.

Oh, and if the text you have already quoted was from an online source, please could you modify your previous entries to include links, as per the forum Terms of Use, thanks.

[Thomas]

Sorry if I appeared a little attention seeking. It does seem that there is an awful lot of discussion on this board which is speculative, and to some extent appears paranoid.Whilst having respect for peoples views there is very little being said that is 'evidence based'.
One get the feeling that being negative and critical is the norm. So how about some more positive thoughts?
It's so easy to be anti-establishment and that will attract other disenchanted people to join in - so the balance shifts, we move away from reality?

[AHITS]

In a discussion forum of course you'll find a lot of speculation, this isn't an online encyclopedia. When you stand in the pub talking to your friends, do your conversations revolve 100% around hard facts, or is there suggestion, speculation and conjecture within the discussion?

If you feel negative comments have been unfairly raised without evidence, then please draw attention to those comments so people can respond, and the original author can further explain the basis for their making those comments. It's all too easy to sit there and generalise by saying "there's lots of negativity, we need some positivity". Point out the negativity and then we can address the issue.

That said, I don't think the large quotes you've so far placed on the forum are glowing examples of positivity, are they?

And have you considered that people may have good reason to be making comments that are critical and anti-establishment? I doubt many forum members choose to feel that way purely because it's the easy option! I for one would love to find myself in a situation where it's difficult to disparage our government....

[macfadyan]

ah, but thomas, when they're out to get you, it makes sense to be paranoid!

as for being anti-establishement, well...face facts here, its because of the laxity and/or complience by said establishment that such terrible things were allowed to happen over the past years. Whilst I'm sure evidence WILL eventually come into the public domain, there is no way that such prolonged and systmatic abuse could go on without the establishement sweeping it under the carpet - look at the amount of claims people have made that when they had complained nobody took any notice. Over at the site I'm involved with, http://www.staggeringstories.net (its not a political site, but I'd had enough!) we have a blog. I've only posted one main entry about all this, though I am planning more. However, a reply to the blog entry is from an abuse victem who, even though he had proof, could get nowhere. Even appeals to the mainland went unheeded as the reply was  that it was a local matter.

I'm all for healthy debate, but alas, Thomas, a blind defence of an institution that has so spectacually failed the people of Jersey is not healthy. IT is, in fact, denying reality

[voiceforchildren]

I just had a look on the reinstate senator syvret online petition. The last time I looked there was 265 signitures, now there's only 254 how can this be?

[Jason the Maverick]

Maybe they have identified a few replications?

As for negativity, I don't think there has been anything else in the news lately anyway.

What do we have?

A child abuse scandal which now involves people allegedly all the way up to the top and goes back to the war;

A new VAT style tax that is due to put upon us in around 6 weeks time;

A Credit Crunch which is now creating a recession in the USA and will hit our shores by the end of the year;

A storm that has devastated our coastline and no doubt caused £ Millions of pounds worth of damage;

And a Government that has made an ass of itself on the world stage.

 

[Malachi]

My mental health diagnosis is shifting from conventional/unipolar depression with anxiety and obsessional thinking to bipolar type II or cyclothymia (not sure which, hard to guage the severity of the regular [two weeks up > two weeks down] hypomanic & depressive episodes) at the moment. I think your trivialising of something like this in order to dis-credit Stuart Syret is offensive.

It is possible that Stuart may have some as yet undiagnosed personality disorder. His apparent inability to get on with other people/work in a team (although who would want to team up with some of the individuals in the States at the moment?) and his apparent refusal to behave in accordance with the generally accepted rules or conventions for senior politicians are consistent with a narcissistic personality disorder (aka NPD), but it would be impossible to assert that he does have a personality disorder without a psychological assessment (and the usefulness of such broad labels/categories which ignore variations between individuals with superficially similar behavioural problems is questionable at best).

I'm very disappointed with Stuart's recent conduct (which resulted in him being forced to relinquish a ministerial post). I agree with his stance on many issues and his level of despair at the competence of the States as a whole (the dumping of incinerator ash on the reclamation site being one of many examples of incompetence/short-sightedness which simply beggar belief), but he isn't go to achieve anything if he isn't prepared to lobby & annoy & harass via the accepted and/or legal channels (breaching the  Data Protection Act = big slap on the wrist), and he doesn't deserve to be re-instated. I hope that  he is able to acquire another senior post in the future, but the people signing that petition really don't have a clue.