Sunday, 19 August 2012

Stuart Syvret (The Rule of Law)

Former Senator Stuart Syvret has flown to London (yesterday Sat 18th Aug 20012) in order to prepare tabling an action against the UK Justice Secretary (Ken Clarke) for failing, according to Mr. Syvret, to ensure the Rule Of Law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

There appears to be a growing number of people who strongly believe the Rule of Law has broken down over here and that we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this belief.

The former Senator, in this interview, gives us just a couple of examples of this anecdotal evidence and spells out, in his view, what translates as "The Rule Of Law" and how he, and others, believe it has broken down in Jersey.

There has also, since the time of this interview, been growing speculation that Mr Syvret is the subject of a Super-Injunction, or something similar. Unfortunately he is being extremely tight lipped about this and despite some pretty hard badgering he will neither confirm nor deny it. We have been aware of something going on since last Thursday 16th August when he asked for Citizen's Media to be at the Royal Square at 6:30pm. We were only granted this interview on the proviso we didn't ask him, either on or off camera, just what THIS is/was all about.

Knowing there are a number of Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) that are investigating this we are sure it is only a matter of time before the truth is revealed. In the meantime we are asking the questions (The State Media won't) has the Rule Of Law broken down in Jersey? Do we have a politicised and corrupt Judicial System? Should the UK step in? Is (as Mr. Syvret believes) Jersey more akin to Putin's Russia than a 21st century "Democracy?" Will Mr. Syvret's action against the Justice Secretary be successful? What are the implications if it is? What are the implications if it isn't? Will Jersey's State Media Report on the tabling of Mr. Syvret's action against the UK Justice Secretary? Why, after Reporting on the prosecution case against the Former Police Chief, won't the State Media Report on the defence case?

We explore that final question in part two (coming soon) of this interview.


  1. Excellent interview you guys, Stuart exposes the truth beautifully.

  2. One of your best interviews to date, and it should be cited as a reference to those new to the story of Jersey's suppression of human rights and the rule of law.

    Respect for the rule of law defines the necessary international and internal image of the UK government, and Jersey's finance industry depends on association with UK oversight and the presumption of uncorrupted rule of law. The image of Jersey maintaining a clean courts system and Jersey's public reputation for adherence to modern human rights protections constitutes a veritable permit to continue operating as a Financial Secrecy Jurisdiction.

    Stuart Syvret lays out a compelling argument for UK intervention, and readers of this and other Jersey blogs have glimpsed powerful evidence which overwhelmingly supports his position, that Jersey does not abide by its own stated rule of law, and does not comply with Western human rights norms.

    If there is indeed a super-injunction involved in anything to do with Jersey corruption, or with the cover-up of City of London and UK complicity, it will be revealed in due time. The internet is not yet fully controlled by any government, and super-injunction rules are meaningless outside the judicial and political boundaries of the UK.

    But if much of the deafening UK media and political silence on Jersey corruption cannot be explained by a super-injunction, it can surely be understood in the context of tremendous fear of the ties between the Jersey oligarchy and powerful City of London.

  3. Does anyone with a background in UK law know what the legal ramifications are for Jersey or UK bloggers unknowingly violating a Super-Injunction?

    I am curious because it seems mighty strange there would be a law against publishing something you COULD not know not to publish. How can there be an enforceable legal injunction which someone presumably cannot be aware of violating?

    Is there an actual notice of the injunction which is given to the press? If a particular journalist is provided with said notice prohibiting media mention of the subject, would that journalist also be forbidden to personally speak of it to anyone else?

    I know there are still some people in Jersey who do not consider bloggers to be "real" journalists, but that opinion is not automatically shared anymore outside the Island. So, would a blogger expect to be given a list by some UK regulatory agency of topics under a publishing ban?

    I realize this subject of "Super-Injunctions" came up during the media frenzy surrounding the sex life of a famous athlete, but despite googling this strange term, I still cannot find unequivocal answers to my questions.

  4. P.S
    If there is a Super Injunction on discussing Jersey's breakdown in the rule of law, or related matters, Jersey and the Crown will risk exposure for being as stupid as Putin. The whole world may end up suddenly interested in the reason for the injunction, and there will be absolutely nothing the UK or Jersey can do about that.

  5. why would Stuart be trying to gain access to the Royal court at 6.30pm
    Surely the place is closed at that time?

  6. why would Stuart be trying to gain access to the Royal court at 6.30pm
    Surely the place is closed at that time?

  7. The Oligarchy do risk creating an international "Streisand Effect" if they have issued a Super-Injunction related to Island judicial corruption. Exactly like Putin is doing now with P****Riot.

    From Wikipedia, "Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand, citing privacy violations, unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and for US$50 million in an attempt to have an aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs..."

    "Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys.[7] As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month."

    Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand

  8. The "Spycatcher" saga confirmed that UK rules did not extend to Jersey because the book could be sold here and I seem to remember that Prince Charles had an injunction in the UK which leaked in Jersey.
    The value of a Jersey origin injunction in the UK might be rather less since so few UK journos would know it even existed unless it was widely advertised - which rather defeats the purpose.

    If we are looking at secrecy and information perhaps some people here could focus the glare on the Social Security Dept - the use of obscure terms and language coupled with the dire threats of prosecution to those who don't comply with impossible to understand rules - is like a perverse system of injunctions.
    And we thought that Le Gresley was one of the good guys!!! Wrong wrong wrong, he does not give a damn.

  9. We’ve had a comment submitted that suggests a method of discovering who might have put a Super-injunction on Stuart and the commenter goes on to suggest some likely candidates.

    We must point out that the existence of this Super-injunction is no more than speculation; we have no proof that it exists. We cannot go down the route of speculating who might be the author(s) of it (if it exists). As mentioned in the Blog Posting there are other Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media) who are researching this so we will leave it to them.

    It would be irresponsible of us to start naming authors of something that might not even exist. If the commenter wants to re-submit the comment without the names of the suggested authors it should be published.

    We would like the subject of this posting to remain on Stuart Syvret’s action against the UK Justice Secretary and its implications (if any) to the island……..And why the BBC won’t adhere to its charter.

  10. Thanks Voice I should have kept it simple.

    This cheesy clip sees people disappear off the stage . If you look who was on the stage initially and compare it with the final situation you can see who has left. Nuff said.

    Oh and this is highly relevant to Stuarts current actions I might suggest.

  11. Excellent interview VFC and Stuart. Eagerly await the second half, and good luck to Stuart in his quest, something we should all be taking a deep interest in.

    If this 'speculated' super-injunction is proven to be fact, I am rather surprised that some of those named on another blog site have not come out kicking and screaming denying it was them involved, particularly as this is giving them more unwanted publicity (if this is what they are trying to avoid - speculatively of course)!

    Interesting times.

  12. Any further updates and when does Stuart come back VFC?

  13. Sorry, there are no updates, and as far as we know he was only going over for a few days.

  14. Ctv news,what a load of bull!

  15. [This cheesy clip sees people disappear off the stage . If you look who was on the stage initially and compare it with the final situation you can see who has left. Nuff said.]

    I haven't the faintest idea what this is all about, can someone on Voice please try to explain the significance of this Sound of Music Goodnight, Farewell (cont). All I see is a rather bad quality video with a whole load of kids coming from out of view and then exiting left!!!!!

    Have we some secret agents on this thread :-)

  16. Stuart,
    Thank you so much for being here, still trying to help the people of this Island, every decent man, woman and child should be eternally grateful to you.
    Many thanks all of our Bloggers, I salute you all.

  17. 'Have we some secret agents on this thread :-)'

    I doubt it , but obviously some who don't understand allegory.

    I think in the context of this developing issue is that as many people as possible should be able to see through the devices that may be being used to 'control' information.

    I will rephrase my previous observation that might give a window on what might happen.

    Imagine you are Ian Le Marquand with a report that you don't want to be in the public domain but have no choice. What you can do is REDACT certain names to make it meaningless to new readers. However the big flaw in this is that if people had read the report beforehand they would know the names that had been redacted and why wouldn't they!

  18. "but obviously some who don't understand allegory."

    I fully understand but still none the wiser!

    It reminds me of when in the past I would write up a procedure for some purpose and being well versed in the subject I accidentally miss out fundamental points because I knew them so well I unconsciously thought others would as well. I then had to re-test and re-test so others could understand it as well as I did.

    If one tries to get a message across but fails to engage the audience, no matter how hard they try, they will fail and it becomes a fruitless exercise.

  19. Child Rape is CHEAP this week, ABANDONMENT is even cheaper!

  20. Excellent Speech. The UK government is failing to protect children all round and maintain the law.

  21. not enough comments on this site people don't understand the jersey movvie way its imbeciles in power