Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Share transfer properties
« Last post by shortport on Yesterday at 09:57:00 PM »
Does seem very low to me,especially as many of these new build apartments are aimed at buy to let investors.
So if overseas buyers really are thin in the ground they must be being bought by local investors.Local investors with a vested interest in keeping rents high,even andium homes with their rents at 90% of market value for affordable homes is a joke.
so the next questions to be asked is how many share transfer properties are owner occupied and how many are rented out.Mind you this might give us a false impression as I've heard a high percentage of properties are not bought with a buy to let mortgage,just a normal one.
General Discussion / Re: Share transfer properties
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on Yesterday at 09:13:29 PM »
Following the earlier comments posted two weeks ago on this thread, the States yesterday published a Freedom of Information response which asked for the number of "share transfer residential apartments that have been purchased by non-residents or trusts, companies or any other non-Jersey entity as investments". Read it here:

To be honest, it raises just as many questions as it answers. It shows approximately a dozen or less transactions each year since 2010, with a high of 22 transactions in 2012. That seems a bit low. By comparison, the figures I quoted in my post of 3rd November showed hundreds of transactions per year "relating to the sale of share transfer properties". Maybe a lot of these transactions from my own quoted sources related to the registration of security interests? Plus they presumably included all transactions, whether made by Jersey residents or not.

Moreover, this week's response is an updated version of a response published in December 2015, quoting the same figures. In that original response, question B asked for share transfer transactions made by "companies, trusts, investors" but the response said that the Treasury and Resources Department did not hold the information as requested. In the new request, the person has asked for purchases by "non-residents or trusts, companies or any other non-Jersey entity as investments" and the States has provided the same figures as in the first request, but updated to include the past 2 years, only this time it has not said that the Treasury doesn't hold the information - confusing. Perhaps that means that the number of transactions they have quoted each year can't differentiate between companies, trusts and other entities?

By the way, I think I searched past FOI responses when I did my original research 2 weeks ago but didn't spot the December 2015 response, probably because the headline title doesn't include the words "share transfer". Link to the 2015 response here:

To sum up, I think the current share transfer transaction statistics are not anywhere near detailed enough and there appears to be a lack of interest among States Members to demand clearer and more defined figures. It is up to the public to keep raising this issue if they think it is important enough. States Members don't regard it as a priority but they would soon change tack if they thought enough of us were concerned about it, particularly with an election just months away...
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by shortport on Yesterday at 08:49:18 PM »
Its official,Noel's not standing.Thats one bit of good news,lets hope the rest of the Council of Ministers decide not to stand.

Proff Steven Hawkin is concerned at the speed rhat Ai and robot advancements are developing. We all should be.

Are you sitting comfortably


How about now, when these robots think for themselves and may even be carrying weapons ?

General Discussion / Referendum
« Last post by Chevalier Blanc on November 18, 2017, 03:47:56 PM »
Well as long as bailhache does not have anything to do with writing the question on the referendum then it should be a straight forward question.
Do you want the bailiff to be the speaker in the states?    yes/no.
Knowing bailhache he will try anything he can to word it so the answer is YES.
Just look at the last referendum that he put his fingers in. what a right cockup that was. It was worded so that the answer B would always win.
If the bailiff does lose his place in the chamber, will he have to take a pay cut or freeze his pay?  I mean the states are looking at all salaries to save money so it would only be right for him to get a lower wage or freeze it!
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Fritz on November 18, 2017, 12:41:03 AM »
I think that once he got the road outside his own house tidied up a couple of years ago he lost all interest in DFI position.
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on November 17, 2017, 08:40:41 PM »
Is it really true or fake news about Eddie Noel?

I was half asleep early this morning and listening to the local news headlines. The top stories had finished and they were just reading the pointless flim flam and I thought I heard the voice say Eddie Noel was stepping down next year and gave some reason why he was doing it. The story was over in about 5 seconds like it was nothing important. I thought: "Did I really just hear that?" and decided that as I was so tired, I couldn't have heard it correctly.

Then I get up and check the news and there was nothing about it on most media sites, but the BBC site (which announced the story this morning on the radio) had this very understated article, with a tweet from Noel apparently confirming it:'stepping%20down'%26&ns_fee=0#post_5a0eb6a6e4b0572901471e31

I am still very cautious. After all, the world wrote off Mugabe this week and he was shown conducting public duties in Zimbabwe today. My fear is that he just means stepping down as a Minister but he'll maintain his unopposed seat for life in St Lawrence.

If he subsequently confirms he's leaving the States then it is truly one of the best news stories for the island this year, particularly for those few employees at DFI whose jobs have not yet been siphoned off on the quiet to private companies. The public have suffered his regime of neglect too. I know a car park in town where the signs on the tarmac have not been painted for so many years that unknowing drivers (usually tourists) have been seen driving in by the exit and vice versa. Cars also park in the motorbike spaces because the sign on the tarmac stating that it is reserved for motorbikes is now completely unreadable. Another driver who arrives home late each night when this car park is full, has taken to parking in a place where he is not supposed to, sometimes restricting the access of pedestrians and other car users. The area is painted with lines making it clear that you can't park there, but once again the paint is so worn away that it seems the police have decided not to ticket this guy overnight in case he brings up the unclear signage in court as a defence.

Anyway thanks for all this, Eddie Noel. You certainly made a difference to Jersey which will linger on for years.

Now please f#*k off and never return!
General Discussion / Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Last post by boatyboy on November 12, 2017, 09:36:22 PM »

Shortport as published in the public domain by Ex Deputy Trevor Pitman

Stuart Syvret and the notorious Data Protection ‘secret court case’ scam

Here, should any readers not be aware, four Establishment proxies (there was actually meant to be five but one refused to go along with the ruse having been written to by Data Protection asking him to come in and join them) including one middle-aged, internet troll and convicted petty criminal we shall call for the sake of humour and upsetting his sense of deluded importance, Boozy D’ Eathreat were provided with the better part of £500,000 of our taxpayers’ money by the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office. These monies being to cover ‘legal advice’ costs to take former Senator Syvret to court and prosecute him regarding material on his internet blog.

The actual cost of the whole scam in fact ran in to millions as I know firsthand from one of those involved in the process. However, what really needs to be focussed on for the purposes of this particular post is that Mr D’ Eathreat was allowed access to this taxpayer’s money despite the fact that what Stuart Syvret had actually written about him being an abusive and cowardly cyber bully was demonstrably true. As at least nine other complainants to the police I am now aware of can confirm. Imagine that, readers – in Jersey such is the break down of law and order that you can now actually be taken to court for telling the truth! All our judiciary need to do to succeed is simply ban you from providing the evidence or calling any witnesses.

Scroll down

All credit to Tev. Pitman.

General Discussion / Re: DATA PROTECTION
« Last post by shortport on November 12, 2017, 08:16:55 PM »
Jersey " Life changing and data protected up to the hilt with a court case held in secret to prove it " but still could not stop the Paradise Papers and the petition against tax havens.
What court case is this referring to?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10