Peter Wiltshire

First chance for Islanders to hear from the new Brexit Party’s candidate, Peter Wiltshire

Last updated:

This week The Brexit Party announced their Prospective Parliamentary Candidates across the country, including the one for the Isle of Wight.

This is the first published interview with Peter Wiltshire.

As this was the first chance for Islanders to hear what he’s about, we ran over a number of broad questions as Peter waited to board the ferry after he’d spent the day on the Island.

Have a listen, there’s a lot more detail in the recording than is outlined below.

Overview
Below is an overview of what we spoke about:

What was his route into politics?
In short – Frustrated by the progress and bumped into Nigel Farage.

What are his connections to the Isle of Wight?
Currently splits his week between his house on the Mainland and the one he bought in Sandown last year. He has two businesses: One in Derby – Payment systems software house and another in Hemel Hempstead – a Recruitment company.

What does he see as the main issues for the IW?
When asked what he felt were the main issues for the IW – He didn’t have a lot of fixed ideas on this, as he tells us he wants to hear from people as what they should be.

Two IW relevant items he did speak about were tourism – Why some towns aren’t busy all year round, as they are in Cornwall – and the ferries – where he thought he could cast a fresh eye over it, but didn’t rule out the possibility of Nationalising them.

On Bob Seely
He wouldn’t be draw on what he thought Bob Seely’s strengths and weakness were, but did bring up that that the Island’s current MP voted for Theresa May’s treaty – which Peter saw as being worse than staying in the EU, describing it as ‘a trap’.

We also asked Peter about his previously-stated desire to stand as a PCC in Bracknell against Dr Philip Lee and why he switched to the Island.

Article edit
11.52am 12th Jul 2024 – Changed source of audio

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
11 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Margie
14, November 2014 4:45 pm

This is great news for the residents. Well done everyone for your persistence.

Hamster
14, November 2014 4:48 pm

Very interesting report. I thought the reference to the strong odour in the first report seemed odd. Especially as one of the residents said there was no-one else there except them during the rebuild.

tryme
Reply to  Hamster
14, November 2014 5:58 pm

See no.5 on p.2, Hamster, saying they are to send materials for contamination risk tests, “specific concerns … with which we would generally agree”;

and

Recommendation no.8 on p.5 “unauthorised tippings of untested materials in an SSSI area”.

Mr T
14, November 2014 4:50 pm

Good work PW, let’s just hope your report leads to the councillors letting this road be reopened to the residents.

Live cut off by car is not pleasant for these folks.

Craig
14, November 2014 4:51 pm

Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Stephen
14, November 2014 5:07 pm

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the brief or instruction given to each consultancy.
I suspect the brief to PW was broader in its scope thus allowing a more measured but fully risk identified conclusion to be reached.
Could it be that Messrs Ramboll might have concluded much the same as PW with a differently worded brief?

tryme
14, November 2014 5:31 pm

Cllr Jordan’s response sounds sensible.
The restrictions PW stipulate, eg. on vehicle weight and size, and no vehicular access by the general public, vindicates the councillors’ previous caution. Well done them for requiring a second opinion.

Residentify 2
14, November 2014 5:54 pm

Now we see different conclusions from an independent engineers report on the residents repair. Making the observation that the island roads contractors had left materials which was of some concern loading the lower parts of the slip maybe it’s time for him to look at the failure reports of the civil engineering by island roads contractors bet he has a different view of the planning, design,standard of… Read more »

Lee Morris
Reply to  Residentify 2
14, November 2014 6:06 pm

What would be equally interesting to see is what Pritchard Wilmot may have made of the “construction” work at Woodlands.

Residentify 2
Reply to  Lee Morris
14, November 2014 7:20 pm

I think he would see the concret was weakened by plasticisers, that the steel bars are too close to the surface of the ground beam. That the beam has no footing or piling.That the beam has fractured under its own weight without even a road load been applied.That the ground beam was actually build over a water coarse (some people call that a bridge!) That the ground… Read more »

Philip Hawkins
Reply to  Residentify 2
15, November 2014 10:34 am

The failure of the western end of the reinforcing beam was assisted by the fill dumped between it and the remaining road carriageway, in an apparent attempt to stop the un-supported edge of that collapsing. Too many laden trucks bouncing along next to something like a 10′ vertical drop? The fact that the ground there was unable to retain the ground anchors should have been known, and… Read more »

Highwayman
14, November 2014 11:01 pm

One of the advantages of the traditional highways maintenance regime (i.e. local authorities employing their own engineers) used to be that directly employed staff having detailed knowledge of their local area could work to lower factors of safety than outside consultants: Knowing they would themselves be responsible for dealing with any failures, officers could weigh up the likely costs of ongoing repairs against the possibly much greater… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined