Monday, 5 August 2013

Stuart Syvret Court Case(s) and Judicial/Political Corruption.

In December 2011 VFC INTERVIEWED former Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, on his release from prison after being convicted of Data Protection/contempt of court charges. The court case(s) have been described as "politicised and corrupt" and Mr. Syvret a "political prisoner." More about that particular court case can be viewed HERE.

On Mr. Syvret's release from prison, during the interview with VFC he said; "They're going to carry on bringing these kind of corrupt, oppressive, malicious prosecutions against me until they've succeeded in either intimidating me into silence or driving me out of Jersey permanently."

Regular readers will be aware that there is a hugely diverse number of people now coming forward claiming judicial corruption and that Jersey's so-called "justice" system is not fit for purpose. For a breakdown of some of these people claiming to have evidence of judicial/political corruption, which include former and sitting politicians, former Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation, members of the public, national and international journalists and others please view THIS which might demonstrate that Mr. Syvret is no longer a lone voice with concerns of political and judicial corruption in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Mr. Syvret is now, and has been, involved in a number of court cases (as he predicted in Dec 2011) where he, and others, believe the purpose of some cases is to intimidate him, and others, namely Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) into silence telling VFC in the interview below, among other things, that although being a litigant in person, it is not unusual for him to receive a five hundred page document and is expected to respond within thirty six hours. Displayed in this latest interview are the eighteen lever-arch folders that concern just one of his court cases and he claims to have many more "possibly hundreds" which would/could be extremely daunting/intimidating to any litigant in person.

Also discussed in this exclusive interview is the apparent dangerous precedents being set by the island's judges (the real power in Jersey) where Mr. Syvret claims investigative journalism and public interest disclosures are being made illegal by the Island's courts by interpreting the democratically approved legislation in a way it was never intended.

The so-called super-injunction and secret court case also get a mention.



112 comments:

  1. As most should know, this site operates a zero tolerance Troll policy. A troll being somebody who posts anonymous comments designed to offend or cause harm, pay no attention to the topic of the Blog Posting and submit personal attacks with nasty, and in most cases childish comments.

    If this is you then please send your comments to the State Media, and in particular, the BBC, who promote this sort of behaviour. If on the other hand you wish to make critical comment concerning the content of the particular Blog topic/thread/interviewee then please do so without name-calling and childish rants whilst sticking to topic.

    It is healthy to have an informed debate on the evidence and facts which is welcomed from all sides. However this site is not going to be lowered to the standards of the BBC and other State Media and descend into tit for tat name calling.

    Reasoned debate on the evidence, and Blog topic, or you'll have to submit your comments to the State Media because they won't be getting published here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should readers think that the zero tolerance Troll policy is unfair, and might stifle robust debate. As a complete one off, here is an example of the kind of stuff that gets submitted and hope readers will understand that it is impossible to argue/debate with this kind of mentality.

      Submitted Troll comment.

      “Stick to the facts?
      You support a criminal so that makes you one.
      And Polo is a Troll with a bogus name anyhow, none of this will get anywhere because its all shit and its time Syvret was put back inside, because he is scum and my contacts tell me its very soon.”

      Delete
    2. My goodness me. Never been called a Troll before. Must put that on my CV :)

      Delete
  2. Another of your excellent interviews.

    It is good to see Stuart looking well and in fighting form despite the oppressive weight of the lever arches.

    It is a very useful interview to circulate to people who may not have the interest or persistence to regularly follow the Jersey bloggers (the island's only independent media).

    Stuart is highly articulate and presents his views with quiet persistence. It should be impossible for newcomers not to be impressed, particularly if they are used to the more in-your-face presentations from the thugs and gangsters running the place and their p(r)oxy trolls.

    I have retweeted Stuarts tweet of the post and done a separate tweet leading directly to the interview.

    Keep up this fabulous teamwork.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The court case(s) have been described as "politicised and corrupt" and Mr. Syvret a "political prisoner."

    What utter tosh and you believe this do you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taken in isolation one would/should question the validity of those claims. However when one looks at the MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE from such a diverse group of people from all kinds of backgrounds, one would be a fool (or a Troll) to ignore it, or dismiss it without looking at all the evidence that supports those claims.

      Do I believe Jersey's Judicial System is politicised, and/or corrupt? Going by the "evidence" one would be a fool (or a Troll) not to.

      Delete
    2. The link you just put up holds no proof of a Judicial System that is politicised.
      I would say that for people to make such a connection that they must be desperate.
      Its very easy to Blog stuff and use an excuse like its 'politicised' to escape justice.

      Delete
    3. Like I said "one would be a fool (or a Troll) to ignore it."

      Delete
    4. yes, its what's known through out the civilised world as legal Tyranny!!!

      Delete
    5. Well good luck with it, because after reading the last comments from United Kingdom’s Justice Secretary, Lord McNally on the subject, I would say you are running out of people to ask.

      Delete
    6. Agreed. The UK is failing in its constitutional obligation to ensure good governance and the rule of law in the crown dependency of JERSEY

      Delete
    7. I regret to say that I fully concur with Mr Syvret's assessment of the way Jersey is run. Although we have elected representatives, in real terms the executive decisions are made by the civil service and determinations of matters of law (which the legislature is responsible for developing) is the responsibility of the courts. Most issues of policy and how it is put into effect are therefore the responsibility of the civil service and the judiciary. The legislature has very little say except after-the-fact. The rule of law has very little influence in Jersey, particularly where there is any conflict between the citizen on the one hand and the States of Jersey on the other.

      Delete
  4. Jane Care and Julie Hanning down the pub5 August 2013 at 16:47

    Just viewing the rant calling Polo a troll reveals while James Le Gallais and Sue Young have gone a bit quiet on BBC Jersey: Jonnie Von Woodentop is obviously busy on here! Good interview and very serious points as per usual.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for conducting and publishing a new interview with Stuart, VFC. This articulate, passionate and indomitable ex-snator should give hope to those who need to believe real people can be heroic. What all of you brave independent journalists and campaigners are doing for Jersey is casting brighter light well beyond your island. Well done, yet again. Well done.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  6. We Denver Gals were discussing Stuart's Super-Injunction earlier, today. We have little doubt he would be jailed for mentioning in Jersey what we freely discuss at our neighborhood coffee shop, what has been discussed on the floor of the British Parliament, and published in Hansard. Umm, is this somehow enhancing Jersey's image in the outside world?

    Elle & TDG

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the irony of it all Elle. Our leaders can't see/admit that it is they who are damaging Jersey's reputation by all the cover up and not those of us who are attempting to wipe the slate clean by dealing with the past/present in an open and transparent way and not through secret court cases and super-injunctions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another irony is the way the outside world views you key bloggers in such a positive way, because you are the type of journalists we expect a transparent democracy, with checks and balances, to project. Healthy criticism of one's own government appears more prevalent than it is in Jersey, because the few of you who do practice real investigative journalism are well read and respected by outsiders. That probably creates an impression outside Jersey of a powerful activist population, when in fact, protests and elections draw a small number. In the meantime, the official Jersey PR is foolishly and unknowingly damaging the projected image as fast and thoroughly as it possibly can.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stuart fills that T-shirt a lot better than the same time last year :-)
    Well done Stuart, VFC

    ReplyDelete
  10. What happened to the legal case against jack straw that stuart promised us he was progressing ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I doubt anyone commenting here would try to justify a court system providing only 36 hours notice to a defendant regarding case evidence. People should not let that stand anywhere in the civilized world. Troll, do you have any evidenced counter-claim? No, of course not. You are only about the name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have heard it said that it is unfair that taxpayers are effectively paying for Stuart to be a professional litigant, when he is perfectly capable of using his training as a carpenter to sustain himself rather than rely on welfare, however I always counter that I think he is doing valuable work for all of us, so we should be willing to pay him to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Slightly out of left field I concede,and no I am not related to David Icke...and if it is actually true then sad but fine...call me paranoid but do we really know that Sally Bradley Q.C. is actually incapacitated by a stroke....I know I know sounds cruel.but the conivings of this Govt have stretched the trust to breaking point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that far out in left field. My first response to reading that Sally Bradley QC had suffered a stroke was to think it impossibly convenient propaganda for the establishment, and unlikely to be true. Maybe it is true. If so, a real tragedy. But who among us has not been suspicious about this?

      Delete
  14. Naturally, if true, then support is with Sally Bradley QC and her family. In answer to your question, other than what has been reported on the island's State Media, which is the official line, and totally un-challenged, as one would expect, this is as much as I know. I have seen no credible evidence to substantiate the official line.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can anyone find the Sally Bradley QC 'stroke' report on any other media, such as the UK?

    I must say, that she appeared to be exactly the type of person who would not be 'turned', and fluent in French so I guess she would also have been able to accurately translate any Jersey law written in French, if she had needed to do so.

    It must be one of the biggest unfortunate coincidence's that could have ever take place.

    Okay, so there will no doubt be some looking at past cases where people have been injected with a chemical that can bring on a clot, but it may not do the cause or the blogs any good to speculate.

    She may not be able to chair the COI, but she maybe able to recommend who she thinks would be the best replacement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I rang Trinity Chambers in Newcastle on 0191 232 1927 this afternoon and they said she was not available through personal reasons. They then asked if they could take a message to pass on to her. I asked what the problem was and they said she would be off for a while. I then asked if she had had a stroke and they said yes, that's it, she won't be in for a long time.

      Delete
  16. Well done Ian you are a Star Sir,as the original inquirer I am relieved and saddened that it seems true,a total fluke of fortune for the project and justice...Let's hope that a suitable person is found.I agree it is easy for 'polluted establisment trolls to scream Conspiracy theorist,but I'd sooner that than the Murderous Truth that masquerades as theory so many times we have been conned,so a tough but necessary call.....Thank's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your welcome anon, seemed the sensible thing to do, I'm no Star, or Sir either, just a man :)

      Delete
    2. I might add though, that I am still not convinced myself yet!

      Delete
    3. We "MUST" remember though, that she is a member of the most exclusive club in the World....Loyalty to each other is everything in their World. The World of Baal Worship!

      Delete
  17. Remembering that accused Child Abuse Alan McGuire from the Blanche Pierre atrocities was supposed to have died of a terminal illness. The folks of Jersey were led to believe this for a decade and then he got doorstepped by Panorama, in France, looking as fit as a fiddle! He never faced so-called "justice."

    Questioning The Party Line, particularly in Jersey, is a necessity because we have been told that many lies by the Establishment which never gets questioned by the State Media.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That old adage: Justice must be "Seen To Be Done." The expected justice simply is not seen to be done in Jersey, which makes these suspicions natural, even logical.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Poor woman, I wish her a speedy recovery. I must admit, I wondered 'how did TPTB engineer that?'so it's nice to know I am not the only suspicious one!

    ReplyDelete
  20. i know when a question was knocked back , it was stopped by the deputy bailiff.

    The planning Minister was about to be asked a question by Deputy Pitman when the deputy bailiff, who had direct interest in that question, didn't want the planning minister to incriminate himself.

    So he directly told Deputy Pitman that he wasn't allowed to answer it.

    It was a public interest question and can be viewed on hansard stopping the deputy in his tracks

    ReplyDelete
  21. Team Voice,

    Not directly related to this post, but certainly to others you have posted. Some readers may be interested in this -

    It's time to talk about the BBC

    The culture of cover up at the BBC persists and they are still refusing to deal with the online bullies and trolls they attract for the simple reason that it is embarrassing to them.

    The solution to this? Make it even more embarrassing for them not to deal with it. Please spread the word.

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whilst reading this Post its as if you still think Stuart Syvret is working in the States but his tenure is over and he is a civilian just like you and I. So there is no reason why he should get special treatment or it can be claimed that he is being oppressed by any political motive as he has been out for 3 years. From what I have seen so far he is just answerable to the Courts like anybody else and his previous political connection is no longer of relevance just like any other ex States Member. So if he is involved in Secret Court cases then that is a Royal Court matter and not a political one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In short. The Royal Court IS political.

      Delete
    2. I am yet to see evidence that a Court is being politically influenced and just because a case is in Camera is not proof and nobody involved has any old political connection except the person being tried.

      Delete
    3. “I am yet to see evidence that a Court is being politically influenced”

      The Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff both Chair the island’s parliament. They are also judges in the Royal Court. They also appoint any outside judges. Have you read the Carswell Report or the Clothier Report?

      Delete
    4. Oh come on if everybody in Jersey used this argument when they went to Court then there would be full anarchy.
      I would argue a person doing this is scraping at any excuse to avoid justice.

      Delete
    5. The problem (for the Establishment) is that everybody CAN use that "excuse" until there is a separation of the judiciary and legislator. You clearly haven't read the Carswell Report.

      Delete
    6. People are still supposed to abide by the law no matter what gripes they have with the system.
      Best way to avoid the Courts is not to break the law in the first place.

      Delete
    7. You really must read Carswell and Clothier. This is not a "gripe" it is fundamental democratic right to have a separation of powers and justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. "Justice" in Jersey, at the very least, is NOT SEEN to be done.

      Delete
    8. To Anonymous,

      But there is anarchy in Jersey. It comes in the form of well spoken people wearing costumes.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  23. I bet none of the files laid out are from people politically influenced to get him.
    I would say he has simply broken some laws and they are pursuing their rights under those laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am assuming you, like myself, have no idea who, or what, is in those lever-arch folders so it would/could be a foolish bet.

      Delete
    2. I would put my life on it.

      Delete
    3. If you do not even know yourself then you shouldn't be writing speculative posts making out there are political motivations to get him.

      Delete
    4. Th only "speculation" has come from you, who would "put your life" on something you (presumably) haven't seen.

      Delete
    5. You wrote the title - Stuart Syvret Court Case(s) and Judicial/Political Corruption.
      How speculative can you get?

      Delete
    6. That is the subject/topic, apologies if you read it as a statement, which is out of my control.

      Delete
  24. The reasons why I do not believe this is political.

    The people named as taking action by John Hemming are not political.
    The defendant has not been a politician for 3 years.
    The cases which John Hemming said were to do with Data Protection is a law everybody has to abide to and a case involving Data Protection being in Camera is unsurprising.
    Finally I do not believe UK judges are politically influenced in Jersey, I actually find that claim ludicrous. Case law is well documented with decisions made in detail. I am yet to see any past case with a documented biased judgement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may or may not be political, but your reasoning is invalid. People who are politically active are considered to be politicians.

      Delete
  25. “The people named as taking action by John Hemming are not political.”

    How do you know this, do you know the four individuals named by Mr. Hemming MP and their (non) political ties or are you “speculating?”

    “The defendant has not been a politician for 3 years.”

    He was probably the most outspoken opposition politician for 20 years, should that just be ignored?

    “The cases which John Hemming said were to do with Data Protection is a law everybody has to abide to and a case involving Data Protection being in Camera is unsurprising.”

    Without speculating why is it unsurprising? How many secret court cases do you know about…………If they’re secret?

    “Finally I do not believe UK judges are politically influenced in Jersey, I actually find that claim ludicrous. Case law is well documented with decisions made in detail.

    It is clear you haven’t, nor intend to, read Carswell or Clothier and have chosen to ignore the, well documented, conflict between the legislator and judiciary and how it has no place in a (supposed) 21st century “democracy.”

    “I am yet to see any past case with a documented biased judgement (sic).”

    Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I HAVE TO RESPOND IN CAPS LOCK.
    “The people named as taking action by John Hemming are not political.”

    How do you know this, do you know the four individuals named by Mr. Hemming MP and their (non) political ties or are you “speculating?”
    BECAUSE HOW CAN THEY BE? IN FACT NONE HAVE EVER NOMINATED A PERSON FOR THE STATES OF STOOD FOR A SEAT. NONE NAMED ARE JOURNALISTS EVEN. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION?

    “The defendant has not been a politician for 3 years.”

    He was probably the most outspoken opposition politician for 20 years, should that just be ignored?

    20 YEARS, 50 YEARS, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN ANYMORE AND TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WITH NO POLITICAL CONNECTION ARE TAKING ACTION AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE USED TO BE ONE IS RIDICULOUS. I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT MANY STATES MEMBERS AROUND THE WORLD ARE OUTSPOKEN, HE IS NOT UNIQUE BY ANY MEANS.

    “The cases which John Hemming said were to do with Data Protection is a law everybody has to abide to and a case involving Data Protection being in Camera is unsurprising.”

    Without speculating why is it unsurprising? How many secret court cases do you know about…………If they’re secret?
    THE CLUE IS IN THE TITLE OF THE LAW, DATA PROTECTION. IF DATA HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THEN ITS UP TO THE COURT TO STOP IT. A PUBLIC CASE ON ANY DATA PROTECTION CASE WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THAT. BESIDES ITS UP TO THE PERSON ANSWERING THESE CLAIMS TO CHALLENGE THE COURT ON THIS.

    “Finally I do not believe UK judges are politically influenced in Jersey, I actually find that claim ludicrous. Case law is well documented with decisions made in detail.

    It is clear you haven’t, nor intend to, read Carswell or Clothier and have chosen to ignore the, well documented, conflict between the legislator and judiciary and how it has no place in a (supposed) 21st century “democracy.”
    WE RECENTLY HAD PEOPLE OVER FROM THE UK WHO HAVE DISMISSED THIS CONFLICT. WHO DO YOU GO TO NEXT, THE QUEEN?

    “I am yet to see any past case with a documented biased judgement (sic).”

    Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?
    ENOUGH TO SAY THERE IS NO POLITICAL BIASE. MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME 'ONE' CASE THAT YOU THINK IS?

    ReplyDelete
  27. “How do you know this, do you know the four individuals named by Mr. Hemming MP and their (non) political ties or are you “speculating?”
    BECAUSE HOW CAN THEY BE? IN FACT NONE HAVE EVER NOMINATED A PERSON FOR THE STATES OF STOOD FOR A SEAT. NONE NAMED ARE JOURNALISTS EVEN. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION?”

    You clearly have studied the four individuals, and possibly are one of them. Are you saying that none of them have any political affiliation with the establishment? Who brought these four individuals together and what was the motive of this person/people? (Who brought these very unlikely bed partners together?)

    “He was probably the most outspoken opposition politician for 20 years, should that just be ignored?

    20 YEARS, 50 YEARS, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN ANYMORE AND TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WITH NO POLITICAL CONNECTION ARE TAKING ACTION AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE USED TO BE ONE IS RIDICULOUS. I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT MANY STATES MEMBERS AROUND THE WORLD ARE OUTSPOKEN, HE IS NOT UNIQUE BY ANY MEANS.”

    I would “speculate” he is unique being the only “states member around the world” who has been taken to a secret court by four such diverse people on supposed data protection charges, unless you know of other cases?

    “Without speculating why is it unsurprising? How many secret court cases do you know about…………If they’re secret?
    THE CLUE IS IN THE TITLE OF THE LAW, DATA PROTECTION. IF DATA HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THEN ITS UP TO THE COURT TO STOP IT. A PUBLIC CASE ON ANY DATA PROTECTION CASE WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THAT. BESIDES ITS UP TO THE PERSON ANSWERING THESE CLAIMS TO CHALLENGE THE COURT ON THIS.”

    How do you know this wasn’t challenged?

    “I am yet to see any past case with a documented biased judgement (sic).”

    Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?
    ENOUGH TO SAY THERE IS NO POLITICAL BIASE. MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME 'ONE' CASE THAT YOU THINK IS?”

    You didn’t answer the question. “Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?”

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Oh come on if everybody in Jersey used this argument when they went to Court then there would be full anarchy. I would argue a person doing this is scraping at any excuse to avoid justice."


    Hahaha, do you even know what "Anarchy" really means?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have to go out and will respond again later.

    ReplyDelete
  30. “How do you know this, do you know the four individuals named by Mr. Hemming MP and their (non) political ties or are you “speculating?”
    BECAUSE HOW CAN THEY BE? IN FACT NONE HAVE EVER NOMINATED A PERSON FOR THE STATES OF STOOD FOR A SEAT. NONE NAMED ARE JOURNALISTS EVEN. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION?”

    You clearly have studied the four individuals, and possibly are one of them. Are you saying that none of them have any political affiliation with the establishment? Who brought these four individuals together and what was the motive of this person/people? (Who brought these very unlikely bed partners together?)
    THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT ELSEWHERE AND LAST YEAR. NONE HAVE ANY KNOWN POLITICAL CONNECTIONS THAT ARE KNOWN. NONE EVEN HAVE FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN POLITICS EITHER IN JERSEY OR ELSEWHERE.

    “He was probably the most outspoken opposition politician for 20 years, should that just be ignored?

    20 YEARS, 50 YEARS, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN ANYMORE AND TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WITH NO POLITICAL CONNECTION ARE TAKING ACTION AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE USED TO BE ONE IS RIDICULOUS. I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT MANY STATES MEMBERS AROUND THE WORLD ARE OUTSPOKEN, HE IS NOT UNIQUE BY ANY MEANS.”

    I would “speculate” he is unique being the only “states member around the world” who has been taken to a secret court by four such diverse people on supposed data protection charges, unless you know of other cases?
    HE HAS EITHER BROKEN THE DATA PROTECTION LAW OR HE HASN'T. FORGET HIS BACKGROUND, ASK YOURSELF WHETHER HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW INSTEAD? WE SHOULD STOP USING A PERSON'S POSITION TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR A CRIME OR NOT.

    “Without speculating why is it unsurprising? How many secret court cases do you know about…………If they’re secret?
    THE CLUE IS IN THE TITLE OF THE LAW, DATA PROTECTION. IF DATA HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THEN ITS UP TO THE COURT TO STOP IT. A PUBLIC CASE ON ANY DATA PROTECTION CASE WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THAT. BESIDES ITS UP TO THE PERSON ANSWERING THESE CLAIMS TO CHALLENGE THE COURT ON THIS.”

    How do you know this wasn’t challenged?
    LIKE I SAID ITS UP TO THE PERSON CONCERNED AND I PRESUME HE HAD AND FAILED. I STILL SAY THE CLUE IS IN THE TITLE OF THE LAW THOUGH.

    “I am yet to see any past case with a documented biased judgement (sic).”

    Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?
    ENOUGH TO SAY THERE IS NO POLITICAL BIASE. MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME 'ONE' CASE THAT YOU THINK IS?”

    You didn’t answer the question. “Out of the 100’s of 1000’s, possibly millions, of court judgments how many of them have you read?”
    A FAIR FEW BUT CAN YOU GIVE US JUST ONE?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'HE HAS EITHER BROKEN THE DATA PROTECTION LAW OR HE HASN'T. FORGET HIS BACKGROUND, ASK YOURSELF WHETHER HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW INSTEAD? WE SHOULD STOP USING A PERSON'S POSITION TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR A CRIME OR NOT.'

    Spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I cannot understand why the four individuals are receiving taxpayers money to take their grievances to court? Why is this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strange question.
      The tax payer funds the administration of all laws.

      Delete
    2. The taxpayer does not fund civil cases. We will have to wait to see whether this was a civil or criminal case.

      Delete
  33. I think you are going to have to start explaing why you think the 4 known Data Protection people are politically involved?
    Otherwise its just hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that I have said these 4 individuals are politically involved, if I have, can you point me to where I said it?

      Delete
  34. I would say that the "alleged" prosecution against Mr. Syvret WAS politically motivated and the 4 "alleged" people who "allegedly" brought the case against him were used, knowingly, or otherwise, as pawns in the agenda of whoever it was who got these 4 unlikely bed partners together.

    When we find out who assembled "The Magnificent Four" we will have a better understanding of their motivation(s).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I go back to my comment earlier.
      Has he broken the law?
      If he has then it makes no difference who has made the complaint.

      Delete
  35. Nobody knows (presumably including you) if he has broken the law or not because it’s a secret……………..Allegedly!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Has this secret court case come to a conclusion yet? Because surely, if it has or when it does we will, and Syvret will be able to talk about it. There is no way it can stay secret forever?

    ReplyDelete
  37. No doubt all will be revealed at some stage and no doubt in order to get the facts of the case people will need to read them on the Blogs (Jersey's only independent media).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hope to call attention to this internationally in upcoming weeks.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  39. You've linked this up on Twitter.
    Can you just answer this, why does Mr Syvret claim to be politically picked on when he is not a politician anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  40. ''Can you just answer this, why does Mr Syvret claim to be politically picked on when he is not a politician anymore?''

    Ummm, easy. Claims made by Mr Syvret relate to his time as a politician whence he spoke his mind and continue today.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Does anon above really think you have to be a politician to be politically picked on?

    I find that claim wholly risible.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well anybody who finds themselves being taken to court can blame politics can't they?
    Its a poor excuse but unsurprising.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It’s actually a perfectly valid “excuse” and one that can be made (as you rightly say) by “anybody who finds themselves being taken to court.” Until the judiciary is separated from the legislator this “problem” is always going to arise….#Carswell…..#Clothier.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well if people do not like or trust the situation in Jersey then they could always try 'staying out of trouble'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or have a separation between the legislator and judiciary so corrupt, political, prosecutions would be more difficult to bring.

      Delete
  45. Oh come on! Syvret has been using the conflict of interest argument to avoid answering the law for some time.
    He tipped the balance of silliness when he tried to use it to avoid a motoring offence though!
    It's a frivolous argument and always rejected by the Courts because nobody including him is above the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most senior judges presiding over the island’s parliament, either sitting on, or appointing their friends/acquaintances to hear sometimes politically sensitive court cases and you think this is “frivolous?” Justice, not only must be done, but must be SEEN to be done. Jersey courts, in my opinion, fail miserably in both counts.

      Delete
    2. Anon, your argument is inchoate. No lawful modern democracy would uphold the bizarre warrantless police team raid, search and property seisure resulting in the charges, particularly the one for the outdated license discovered during their fishing expedition. Do you honestly think a politically motivated raid like that is an acceptable police and government practice? Of course you know it isn't. Better change the subject, and throw more insults against the wall to see if one will stick. This one won't.

      Delete
    3. We have heard this time and time again.
      The fact is, he was found guilty of a number of charges and it would have been the same verdict whether in Jersey or elsewhere. I reject the political argument as sensational.

      Delete
  46. “I reject the political argument as sensational.”

    What’s “sensational” about it? Perhaps a more apt word would be “feudal?”

    ReplyDelete
  47. No its just a fanciful excuse to dodge justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But don’t you agree it a “fanciful excuse” that can be used legitimately until we get a separation of the judiciary and legislator like they have in democracies?

      Delete
  48. No, there is no visible conflict and Lord McNally recently supported Jersey on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The conflict of the legislator and judiciary isn't visible?

      Delete
  49. I just read it as a collection of people who have lost cases and just want something or somebody else to blame.
    The cases you talk about, where available, are well documented.
    Just because people don't like the verdict is life I am afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What does no visible conflict mean?

    ReplyDelete
  51. What gives a lowly Magistrate the authority to deem as inadmissible a public interest disclosure that is clearly written into the data protection law, does a Magistrate have the power to change laws passed by the legislature, of course not, it was the Magistrate who broke the law in Stuart Syvrets' data protection case.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cyril is correct. There's no more inarguable example of a public interest defense being properly allowed in a case. Even if Stuart had lost the case in the end, and it was likely a case which should have won on that legal merit alone, the fact that a public interest defense was flatly denied should automatically negate the ruling on appeal.

      There were two particularly troubling Jersey court decisions which can't be legally upheld. The first was the wrongful denial of the entire public interest defense, but the second was the non-ECHR compliant decision to inform the defendant of that unlawful decision just before trial. The timing rendered his preparation useless, and would be - should be - overturned in any lawful court jurisdiction. A legitimate appellate court (hell, even the court of international public opinion) would have no choice but to reverse the Jersey ruling as selective denial of the law's intended and stated statutory purpose.

      Then, the court is left with only a conviction for tardy driving license update. Does a jurisdiction with a politically oppressive, neo-feudalist reputation really want to be seen as that punitive? Really?

      Troll, you can't claim a warrantless raid, obviously a fishing expedition, is an acceptable practice. You just can't. The Nazis lost the war and their legal arguments with it. You'll have to switch topics and ignore the specific facts here if you are arguing those were lawful decisions. Otherwise you are left with the argument that anything they decide is correct, which is the view of feudalists, Nazis and such who can't rationally argue the intended merits of case law. Again, you must stick with insults and generalisations which avoid acceptable western legal merits, and that's something Jersey is fearful of being seen avoiding.

      Delete
    2. Hi VFC,

      To use a modern word, the situation would appear to be an omnishambles (shambles form whichever way a situation is viewed)!

      Delete
  52. The court decisions have happened, they are over and appeals have been made and rejected. What I find ironic about this thread is that the victims of cyber abuse do not seem to have any human rights.
    In fact people who have taken Syvret to court for data protection are apparently 'not allowed to' and on some blogs are subject to hatred for it.
    In some circles that would be called the 'intimidation of witnesses'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you explain who the witness is, who intimidated the witness, and what human rights were involved, without making an unsupportably broad generalisation?

      Delete
  53. This blog does not belong to you. It is an individual's diary, opinion, private forum or what ever VFC wants. He is welcome to create the boundaries within the law and he does. Even Jersey law. So you complain about that? Get over it, troll. If your own blog becomes widely respected, so be it. But I wouldn't take your word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If people cannot discuss a subject without calling others 'trolls' then its just a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if you would mind awfully to read Anonymous' post at 27 August 2013 19:34 and then making a comment on that please.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
    2. Beano.

      Not sure if your request was aimed at me? If so, I pretty much agree with the entire comment.

      Delete
    3. Sorry for any confusion, VFC, it was aimed at Anonymous at 27 August 2013 20:23 - and possibly the owner of a couple of subsequent posts too.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  55. Congratulations Anon at 07.05

    You have suddenly reached the point at discovering that this blog, like most of the others, despite wanting to appear as objective, has no real interest in 'discussion'. They are incapable of considering anybody else's perspective on an issue (how many times in the last few years have you seen any of the blog authors concede that a viewpoint other than their own has merit), and, whilst the insults hurled at dissenting voices are milder here than some other places, it is really no less intolerant.

    This is just a place for the truly powerless to try and make believe they have some influence. The insults and belittling happen when the answers to questions run out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry you have such a low opinion of this Blog, you're clearly not a regular reader. If you were you would know that this (and other Blogs) publish "evidence" to support its "opinion."

      The majority of posts on here is basically adding balance to the party line churned out by the local Stat Media, nearly always backed up with supporting evidence.

      Like it, or not, Blogs are becoming the most trusted source of information in Jersey, and elsewhere because they have built up a reputation and gained trust from some very influential sources who impart exclusive stories to us (not the State Media) as they are dealt with on their merits and we (as mentioned earlier) stay with the "evidence" rather than just churn out whatever we are sent (a la State Media).

      Delete
  56. I have no objections to people paying their own cost on data protection issues. Why should the public fund it?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon at 18:13: Do you object then, to super injunctions being paid for by the tax payers, when these peoples excuses are, that these issues are data protection issues?

    ReplyDelete
  58. anon 19:16 I object to super injunctions unless exceptional circumstance. They are used by a select few who can afford to buy justice. Where is the equality in that?

    In a case of, he said, she said about such and such. There is the remedy of sueing.


    That is my belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one anon, but you forgot the most important point of suing someone, the only tossers that make out of this process are the scum within the the judiciary, the law society, and private bar guilds!!!

      That's why I love the old westerns where common law was the art of the day. You got a beef with some asshole, you go see the Sheriff, he stands out in the street making sure no innocents get hurt whilst you, and your adversary dual it out by CONSENT!!!

      You peeps getting the picture now?

      It's exactly "THE SAME DUAL" only these parasitic WAN*ERS have monetized that dual for their benefit :)

      Delete
    2. To put matters into an even clearer prospective....Stuart's case, and the four pigs of the apocalypse....Who gets anything out of it other than the pigs at the trough that I mentioned in my comment above?

      They have succeeded in siphoning off public money to pay themselves a King's ransom for the set-up THEY created....Wake the F*ck up people.

      Delete
  59. If you have a zero Troll policy you should also have a zero ANONYMOUS comment policy. Comments from people who will not be named are worthless. I cld make comments like these up all day about anything and they wld be completely meaningless. It seems that in Jersey very few people are prepared to openly stand up for what they believe. Is your island populated in the main by cowards????????

    ReplyDelete