BY ANY standards, a petition in Guernsey which gathers almost 10,000 signatures is a tremendous achievement.

One organised by a private individual rather than a media group or established charity can be considered a triumph.

Granted, there is no formal auditing process for the 9,500 signatures gathered in favour of Rodney Brouard’s anti-incinerator petition. Some may be repetitions or pseudonyms and, to the dismay of critics, others are children who cannot be expected to understand an issue as complicated as the island’s waste disposal.

But, even after discounting a reasonable percentage of the signatures, Mr Brouard is left with a huge number of supporters.

As with all such public actions (except, bizarrely, elections) there will be those who argue that there are still 50,000 islanders who have not signed the petition. By default, those 50,000 are claimed as supporters of the current plans for a giant burner, as approved by the States.

That is nonsense, of course. But it is nothing new. The thousands who twice marched against the Belle Greve development plans faced the same argument, as if passivity could be equated with passion.

At present, if it were put to a referendum the bookies would have to make the incinerator the underdog.

But how much notice are States members obliged to take of such a petition? If they are individually convinced by the case for Suez should deputies allow their principles and conclusions to be washed away by a tide of public opinion?

Politicians are elected to represent their electors, but retain a duty to do what is right – to act in the public interest – not to do what is popular.

That is especially true here where a woeful job has been done arguing the case for an incinerator.

Instead of knocking down opponents and showing the flaws in the arguments, Public Services has been content to shelter behind the mantra: they did not tender.

Islanders are naturally suspicious of such evasiveness. Against a straight-talking ‘Guernsey Boy’ it really was no contest.