Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Cost Of Failed, Taxpayer Funded, Super Injunction Remains A Secret.

After more questions asked of alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, by Deputy Trevor Pitman, in the Island's Parliament today we still don't know the full amount, to the taxpayer, of the failed superinjunction placed on former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Senator Gorst ducked, and dived, a number of questions surrounding the case with only very little given away. We did, however, find out that the four proxies, it would appear were "invited" by Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins to take action against Mr. Syvret.

Data protection commissioner "invited" the claimants to come forward, according to Deputy Mike Higgins. How many other people has she "invited" Will she be inviting Stuart Syvret to make a claim against disgraced former Housing Minister, Deputy Sean Power, after he stole personal data belonging to Mr. Syvret and his ex partner which caused it to be published on a reported paedophile protecting hate-site? No she has already ruled that stealing other people's personal data, sharing it with others, and causing it to be published on the internet is a "regulatory" offence and not criminal.

Senator Gorst also revealed that the four "representors" (proxies) contributed nothing, financially, towards the cost of the case. Which brings us back to a previous posting where we published an extract from the court judgement HERE which read;

"he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense." 

They were put to NO expense, unnecessary or otherwise. 

Good (unanswered) questions from Deputies Tadier and Higgins also which left Senator Gorst floundering. (recording below)

VFC credit TJW for this recording.


  1. TJW.
    Hope you got Deputies Trevor, and Shona Pitman's passionate speeches at question time today....

    Obviously the msm didn't. Not a whisper from them!?

  2. Why does Ian Gorst always,s give a statement which is not answering the question prior to asked whilst failing to answer the question.

    The question asked was not asked about the budget of data protection.

    That is known, is already public knowledge. The question asked was what is the total costs. The public deserve full and honest answers if they do not get them, people need to protest.

    There has been mentioned a possible 8 MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLICY MONEY SPENT. PUBLIC MONEY.

    1. Because - and only because - he would not want the public to know the answer. Because - and only because - the answer points to a lawless oligarchy making it up as they go along in order to suppress those who speak or report on that, factually, like Stuart Syvret.

  3. It would appear Stuart Syvret is right again proxy persons brought together for a reason


  4. Who instructed Stuart to enter data on his blog?

  5. This is one of the best audios published. Proper judicial oversight, Would that mean the public must be satisfied with what they are told.

    Listen to 9: 53

  6. Send this to as many of the financial institutions as poss. Hit where it hurts, in the pockets.

    As is done to the public paying for these judicial decisions.

  7. Is there a regulatory offences (Jersey) law?

    We are controlled by regulators with regulatory power.

    How can we live if we are unsure of the offences (Jersey) Law regulating us ,under this regulated power?

  8. http://www.voisinlaw.com/default.asp?contentID=724

  9. voiceforchildren ‏@TheVoiceJersey 2h
    "were "invited" by Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins to take action against Mr. Syvret." http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/09/cost-of-failed-taxpayer-funded-super.html …

    Emma Martin and the secret four use data protection against Mr Syvret?

    If that's not a conspiracy I don't know what is. Was their independence on the use of funds from her department given Given she appears to be the instigator.

    1. Perhaps Emma's father was the instigator? She credits him with advising her during her "difficulties" regarding Stuart Syvret.

  10. Sometimes it's more satisfying to read it in transcript form. Here's the gist of it in non-factual form.

    Chief Minister & Olies:

    "The answer to your question is that your betters told you so, satisfactorily. We've provided our non-answers in the past so please don't ask about this anymore. We have already taken the unusual step of providing these non-answers to you publicly which should be grounds for your further satisfaction."
    You should be satisfied that is quite clear that we are right about this. Please stop being dissatisfied with our non-answers. A single non-answer which you and the public can't glean useful information from should be satisfactory enough because of non-reasons we've already given."

    "We have no doubt that Data Protection acted in the way we would expect and we are satisfied and have no reason to be dissatisfied with that decision. The court has spoken satisfactorily and is satisfied with Data Protection. We are satisfied with the court's satisfaction. "

    "SOME DISSATISFIED MEMBERS should be satisfied and not try to second guess our self-satisfaction with this matter, nor the politicised decisions made by others we hold to be your betters. You have no reason to be dissatisfied enough to make us defend our own quotes which were provided by others and should satisfy you. The court has spoken so that rules out your right to dissatisfaction regarding non-oversight of taxpayer money and of Data Protection Commissioner or her Department."

    "You can't ask expect us to answer anything about your own case or any case you have personal knowledge about if we are satisfied you should not ask."

    "You should satisfy yourself with the determination by the unelected Bailiff that your question was unsatisfactory to us. Accountability is stressful for us, yet we are indulging you despite your dissatisfaction. However, we are satisfied!!!! You should be too."

  11. Gorst claimed to be satisfied (and everyone else should be too!) that Martin's Dept. had acted satisfactorily, but this half truth answer does not necessarily mean that their FAILURE to act in the other cases Dep. Pitman raised was also satisfactory. As he didn't specifically say it was, then it looks very much as if it wasn't (but he's hoping to sweep that kettle of smelly fish under the carpet).

  12. Have just listened to Shona and Trevor question on the Jersey Way.

    It really shows what this Island is up against. The chair did not care how conflicted he is or is even perceived to be. Arrogance in the extreme.

  13. VFC, a reader says:

    "Who instructed Stuart to enter data on his blog?"

    Nobody instructed me to enter any information on the blog.

    I entered information on the blog, because it would have been an unlawful breach of my oath of office to have not published the things I did.

    Likewise, it would have been unlawful for any citizen to have gone along with the concealment of so many plain criminal acts.

    The polity of Jersey is overtly a criminal enterprise - in which the concerns and interests of ordinary people are trampled in the dirt - and for proof of that see the lies & evasions spouted by the Gorst/Care syndicate yesterday.

    And there's a more fundamental issue, which few seem to have understood - namely that the Jersey cabinet - and all involved with it, just for example Routier, Ozouf etc - and all of the relevant civil servants - and Crown Officers - engaged in a conspiracy to pervert justice - and a direct breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 - in the illegal conspiracy against the Health & Social Services Minister - as witnessed by the legitimate Police Chief Graham Power in the July 2007 file-note.

    The fact that the Jersey polity, Gorst - and in particular, the Whitehall civil servants - refuse to face the stark collapse in the rule of law in the Crown appendage of Jersey shows that the real test which has to be run, is that of the London judiciary.

    And that test is of that system - of the true nature of the British state - not so much its sewer, Jersey.


  14. Brilliantly stated, Stuart. Brilliantly stated but frightening.

  15. What the government of Jersey has invested so heavily in silencing is what Stuart summed up in the comment at 1:05. That's why it's not about the four applicants for the Super-Injunction, and not even about the individual crimes they allegedly committed - as heinous as some undoubtedly were. It's more serious than the outrageous misuse and overt politicization of the Data Protection Law. It is about Jersey's terrifying systematic shakedown of the most fundamental democratic legal protections and ideals which countless individuals struggled for, sacrificed greatly for and expect to now depend on.


  16. anon at 8.10 .....

    ...and true- for too long we've failed to see things clearly. We've allowed the establishment voice pieces and rumour to flood us with statements like- "Stuart is a crack pot", "he speaks rubbish", or "the way Stuart goes about stuff hasn't helped his cause. He's his own worst enemy." I hear the latter so often amongst 'liberal thinking' middle classes. But it's actually the middle classes who need to wake up. The Jersey government is a corrupt enterprise. Why......because the rule of law is not applied consistently, therefore there is no rule of law. Current checks and balances are not sufficient be they internal or external. It's time people started noting that what Stuart says is actually correct.

  17. Great speeches again from the PItmans today just like yesterday. What has Trevor been feeding Shona she seems re-born the way she was a couple of years back, Know she has had truly horrible luck with family deaths and the like but well done to her any way.

  18. I recommend that national/international readers listen to the audio above. It's important further evidence to the long-inescapable conclusion that the Jersey polity is a failed, lawless, oppressive regime which runs on a strange kind anarcho-feudalism - and that those who wield power in the island are wholly inadequate and out-of-their depth.

    It's hard to know where to begin pointing out the gross ultra vires - and naked, unabashed dishonesty on display.

    The Jersey oligarchy and its protectors in London like to imagine that such displays demonstrate a competent administration - which is law-abiding - and in control of events.

    Of course, the opposite is the case - and displays such as that captured on the audio demonstrate only bedlam.

    For starters - simply consider the fact that the Jersey parliamentary session in question was chaired by Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache. If the Jersey parliament was a competent body - with any form of corporate wisdom - and was not starkly dysfunctional - Bailhache would not be chairing the meeting - and nor would his equally conflicted colleague Bailiff Michael Birt.

    I mean - just what - what on Earth - do these idiots think they're doing?

    There is a published affidavit - sworn testimony - from a witness of no-less calibre than the illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power - which recounts the grossly criminally actions of William Bailhache, in attempting to coerce Mr Power into dropping an investigation into planning corruption. During that criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice, Bailhache also denigrated and lied about me and my then partner.

    So what - on Earth - is any competent system - with proper governance standards - doing permitting a prima facie criminal - such as William Bailhache - to vet & edit questions, then chair the session - when he is directly conflicted in the matter at hand?

    And who on Earth - other than a complete halfwit - could in such a session criticise a member, imputing personal motivation on their part - as Gorst did with Deputy Pitman - whilst quite content to have the actual session run by one of the most expressly and catastrophically conflicted individuals in Jersey?

    And were Gorst not a fool - and plainly without shame - he would face the stark and un-disguisable fact that the Data Protection Commissioner and the Attorney General engaged in an unlawful, discriminatory abuse of the "law" against me - whilst allowing actually evidenced - thieving - criminals like Sean Power - to break the law with impunity.

    Gorst is, of course, a vacuous non-entity - and the sock-puppet of his Jersey oligarch father-in-law Carre - shoehorned into the post because a few Jersey oligarchs - and the City of London Corporation - recognised that actually having Phil Bailhache as Chief Minister would make Jersey's descent into an Apocalypse-Now-type Kurtzian nightmare wholly complete.

    The fact remains - and so devoid of as much as one single person of calibre within their ranks are the Jersey oligarchy - that they fail to see the stark fact that the actual Jersey cabinet - several of its current members - and the Data Protection Commissioner - and the illegally hi-jacked police Force - and the Crown Officers empowered by Her Majesty's "Letters Patent" - all engaged in a plain and evidenced criminal enterprise - to illegally obstruct the proper discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

    Until the rule of law is brought to bear upon that criminal enterprise - Jersey is lost - and its descent into the madness of the of the feudal oligarchs will continue.


  19. 08:18 '' Given the Chief Ministers answer in his press release, I believe he expressed his contentment, that with the way the process had been unfolded against former Senator Syvret. Could he tell us, is he also content that other individuals are actually denied by the data protection commissioners office, to bring the same sanctions, processes against individuals, one of the individuals involved in the case, indeed a gentlemen who's got numerous complaints against the police and was actually found guilty of making death threats to the family Stuart Syvret lived with.''

    An Answer the public are looking for is,
    Is the Chief Minister content that other individuals are being denied, by the Data Protection Commissioner the very same, sanctions and processes as given by Emma Martins in the case described.?

    Why was the question not answered? Why did Ian Gorst spin off with waffle, ''its not me saying that its the Court saying that and I stand by the courts decision''

    Where is the answer to the question asked.Could he tell us, is he also content that other individuals are actually denied by the data protection commissioners office, to bring the same sanctions, processes against individuals?''

    Why did the chair not pull the Chief Minister up for not answering the question?

    Aside In the quote below, did Mr Pitman mean the gentlemen has had numerous complaints made against him to the police? rather than as I hear on the audio. The gentlemen has got complaints against the police?

    '' indeed a gentlemen who's got numerous complaints against the police and was actually found guilty of making death threats to the family Stuart Syvret lived with.''

    Where is the consistency in that! Is the Minister content, and can he please give us a proper answer instead of saying that he is quite happy to accept anything that the commissioner says?
    A The court is happy with the commissioners decision to

  20. I hope Ian posts up page 7 of the JEP. Read in conjunction with the above video it is hilarious 'Yesterday the States voted in favour of Chief Minister Ian Gorst's proposal to make his office responsible for justice matters, including safeguarding human rights, data protection, legal services, constitutional reform and strengthening democracy.

    A taster above.

  21. channel TV News States of Jersey have 10 million overspend. Wow could this account for the data protection case?

  22. This bears repeating; from the 2nd page of comments (#215) at


    2 October 2013 15:02
    "A civilised Jersey conservative" said...

    Mr Syvret, the magnitude of what you have done may well be lost on most of your readers. It isn't lost on the legal profession nor intelligent observers further afield. You have, as you correctly observed, 'faced down' the Jersey courts. People never, and I mean 'never', 'face down' a court. At least, not if the society is respectable and the person not a tyrant with an army at his back. Or, of course, in the case of an ordinary person like yourself, no court confident of its respectability would be 'faced down'. Our society is not respectable. And alas our courts even less so. As some 'higher external power' has finally had the good sense to recognise, it would seem. There can be no other explanation for you not being in prison. I am, incidentally, glad that you are not, and relieved, and deeply saddened at the same time. I've savoured a certain schadenfreude when discussing the situation with other lawyers & saying 'I told you so' when reminding them of the innumerable times I said 'no good would ever come of the folly of the actions against you, and it could only end in lasting damage to the island'. So it has come to pass. It saddens me that so many colleagues have been too fearful & foolish to have moved to stop this madness (and that is not an inappropriate word)when our Crown Officers embarked on the lunacy several years ago.

    Will you be a candidate in the next elections?