Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Stuart Syvret Secret Court Case on State Radio.

Further to our EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with former Jersey politician and Health Minister Stuart Syvret concerning the secret court case/super-injunction, BBC Jersey broadcast an edited interview with him this morning on the radio.

The question BBC was asking its listeners was "In the interests of free speech should we be allowed to say anything we like online?"

We have a few others such as;

"Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case? 

Why did these four proxies not use libel/defamation laws in order to publicly clear their names? 

If justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret? 

What ramifications could this very dangerous precedent have for journalism across the board, so-called "accredited" and so-called "non accredited journalists alike?

Who brought these very unlikely bedfellows together and what was the motivation?

Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?

How much did this secret court case really cost the taxpayer?

Below is the recording of this morning's broadcast on State Radio. Deputy Trevor Pitman was also live in the studio which will be published on TJW later this evening.

VFC credit the BBC for the recording below.




183 comments:

  1. I said this on your other thread.
    Where has the DP law been abused?
    Why is there so much hype about 4 people who are not in the public eye and never have been?
    None are footballers, politicians, celebrities, journalists etc etc.
    Why do you keep saying no libel actions are being taken when there are?
    Finally where does Deputy Pitman fit in with this when he says he stands for free speech but cannot tolerate a cartoon or any blogs about him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope this comment left by former Health Minister Stuart Syvret, on the previous thread will help you.

      "A reader says:

      "could you point out where the data protection law has been abused in this judgement because I can't see anything wrong with it?"

      Where to begin?

      1: Much of what the four proxies apparently object to is not - nor ever was - definable as "personal data". The interpretation of what constitutes "personal data" by the Jersey authorities has - by their own admission - no equivalent in any other country.

      2: Even when certain of the four proxies have been referred to in actual documents which I've quoted, such reference is to factual, evidential, incidental matters; for example, Graham Power's statement. The references in question are not private, personal data of the kind the data protection law was designed to cover.

      3: Even when it could be argued - and this in reality only applies to very, very few incidents of information published - certain references are to personal data, taken from official documents, the data protection law has - expressly - exemptions written into it precisely to cover such publication.

      4: The use made of the data protection law is startlingly ultra vires - as it ignores the exemptions built in to the law, such as permitting the handling & publication of data for such purposes as the detection & prevention of crime - and journalism - and public interest disclosure.

      5: The way in which the Commissioner and the Attorney General have used the law is shockingly biased - in pursuing these actions to halt journalism and public interest disclosure - yet refusing to take action against Sean Power for the straight theft, trafficking and publication of private data of zero public-interest merit.

      6: The court is structurally ultra vires. No court in a respectable, western democracy allows directly conflicted individuals, such as Michael Birt, to choose and appoint judges in their own cause.

      7: The conduct of the judges has been - overtly - actually biased. Just for example, receiving - and incorporating into the judgment - third-party interventions - without any notice to the respondent.

      8: The law firm involved - Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global is fatally directly conflicted - in that it is in the firm's own pressing financial & reputational interest to suppress my whistle-blowing & public interest disclosures.

      9: The whole process has been an unlawful abuse of public funds.

      10: The abusive & distorted & oppressive use made of the data protection law in Jersey is wholly incompatible with the "legislative purpose" by which the States approved it - and the grounds upon which it was given approval by Her Majesty in Council.

      There are more - but I think that conveys a flavour of the abuse of the data protection law by Jersey's public authorities.

      Stuart"

      Delete
  2. The fact that it claims the 4 suffered stress and damage by the processing of this data is being ignored and I cannot buy the conflicted argument as its a UK judge and to then bring in law firms working together as further conflicted is going beyond a joke. The law has either been broken or it has not and all this fluffing around it is technically irrelevant.
    I still cannot see why these 4 people are being hyped up as something of public interest when they clearly are not.
    One is a hairdresser for goodness sake. Maybe the copper, who was sometimes in the news but such a fixation over little people who hold no position of Public office is strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I still cannot see why these 4 people are being hyped up as something of public interest when they clearly are not."

      Well stop making such a big deal out of it then!

      Delete
    2. It's important because they should be high profile in order to justify the attacks on them.
      Its a waste of time attacking people who are never in the news.
      Going back to the court conflict argument, haven't the Pitmans said this in a Press release already but it was rejected by Lord McNally?

      Delete
    3. Voice, I think the public interest is perfectly obvious!

      Delete
    4. If their names were being published on here then you might be able to argue they were being attacked, they're not, so they're not.

      McNally rejects anything negative about Jersey.

      Delete
    5. McNally is the last person before the PM and the Queen.
      This conflict argument is therefore flawed because you can forget the other 2.


      Delete
  3. This misuse of the Data Protection Law so clearly violates the stated intent of the law that it should become a prolonged humiliation for those who approved this misadventure. The proper legal remedy - which already existed for the exact purpose of dealing with libelous statements - was the perfectly applicable libel law, whereby the legality of the blogged statements should have been tested by properly objective court evaluation of the blogger's evidence, both in support of his statements and opposing.

    Just because the blogger did not have financial reserves to award (in the event he lost a libel case) and/or because the four distressed individuals perhaps believed they could not afford to initiate libel proceedings, does not make the Data Protection Law in any way relevant to its application in this case.

    It seems this twisted interpretation of the Data Protection Law could, however, be highly relevant to the determination of Jersey's ECHR compliance at proceedings in Strasbourg. Time will tell.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its very flippant to say Sir Charles Gray is misusing the Data Protection Law!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is flippant about the evidenced truth? It is flippant to set aside the truth. Why is the value of evidenced truth so completely lost, so subverted by political interference? Even the Judgement itself, and the state media were careful to avoid stating that Stuart Syvret's blog statements were not true. The court sidestepped any and all of Stuart Syvret's evidence related to accuracy of his words. To an objective public, this could only suggest the greater likelihood of his accuracy.

      Delete
    2. Well I will be a party pooper I am afraid and say that I do not believe half the time the Syvret blog does tell the truth.

      Delete
    3. So that would mean half the time you believe it does tell the truth. As has been mentioned many a time, even if 10% of what he writes is true then this island is a corrupt cesspit. If the secret court case had of been open, then we would have found out if what he has written was true or not. But somebody didn’t want that truth, or otherwise, to get out.

      Delete
    4. You must think I am somebody else because I have never said any such thing.

      Delete
    5. If anybody has acted unlawfully then you take your complaint to the Police, in not doing that and just writing about them only shows you have no evidence to take to the Police.
      I would also say that if you are going to risk your freedom in writing about people then make sure they are high profile so the Media can do a story on them. The Media can't just pester members of the public for their side of the story, these people are nothing.

      Delete
    6. Stuart believed these four should be high profile because of their own criminal behaviour. He took some of his evidence to the police, and also published evidence of political interference in one original, very serious police investigation of possible serial murder. The murder investigation was dropped - but not for lack of evidence. That was information in the public interest.

      Delete
  5. Pity the cartoon had to invent a scenario about the Pitmans where not only the Pitmans had to tolerate it.

    The buying public did as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi VFC.

    Just but up the second part of Matthew Price's interviews this morning, makes you think why do we have to pay for this?

    You & your reader's can Listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  7. VFC, a reader says:

    "The fact that it claims the 4 suffered stress and damage by the processing of this data is being ignored and I cannot buy the conflicted argument as its a UK judge and to then bring in law firms working together as further conflicted is going beyond a joke. The law has either been broken or it has not and all this fluffing around it is technically irrelevant.
    I still cannot see why these 4 people are being hyped up as something of public interest when they clearly are not.
    One is a hairdresser for goodness sake. Maybe the copper, who was sometimes in the news but such a fixation over little people who hold no position of Public office is strange."

    I pity the Jersey oligarchy in that this is best it has to offer; utter and obvious intellectual bankruptcy.

    1: The fact that people suffer "stress & damage" - for having their malfeasances & general foulness exposed - is just tough. No law in any respectable western democracy protects them.

    Not even the Jersey data protection law.

    2: The judge was chosen - and appointed - by Michael Birt - a man who is so directly conflicted, space isn't sufficient to list all of the ways - but - to be going on with, Birt's shutting-down of the 1999 investigation into the nurse - and - abandoning the prosecution of the Maguires. The reader may not like reference being made to such conflicts - but that's just tough; settled judicial case-law says, "conflicted"; you cannot appoint judges in your own cause.

    3: The law firm is - evidencedly and unarguably - directly conflicted. So conflicted - it would be in an unlawful position - even if using "private" clients as proxies behind which to litigate in their own interests. But - to be litigating in their own interest - under public direction - means the law firm is engaged in misfeasance in a public office.

    4: The law - as in the data protection law - has not been broken by me. The law - overtly and starkly - on its face - expressly makes provision and allowance for all of my actions. For example, public interest disclosure, the prevention & detection of crime, journalism.

    5: "public interest" - in the legal sense - does not mean a salacious interest the public may have in, say, the sexual habits of celebrities. "Public interest" means the public interest in exposing wrong-doing. For example - such wrong-doing as making drunken death-threats to people - abusing women - corruptly leaking police data to other corrupt officials, abusing children, or covering-up such abuse. In fact, the UK case-law is very settled on that point; the private sex-lives of celebrities are protected by the requirements of privacy; dangerous or corrupt practices by individuals counter to the public good are not - and can be exposed. Which is the very opposite of the nonsense claimed by the reader.

    6: The individuals who may lawfully have their conduct exposed in public interest disclosure or journalism do not necessarily have to be employed in the public-sector. Nor do they have to be employed in any "high" position. If they have acted wrongly - then they can be exposed - criticised - dammed. Even incidentally - collaterally - in the public interest course of exposing their current or former employers.

    7:Crimnal conduct is never - never - shielded by any form of lawful confidentiality - not even data protection laws - not even case-specific injunctions. Criminality - is criminally. The very foundations of civil society require that criminality be combated and exposed.

    All in all - the Jersey oligarchy has both exposed itself - and generated the cause of its own demise - in its corrupt abuse of the power of the sate - to cover-up wrong-doing.

    Stuart.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear BBC Jersey,

    Why do you endeavor to ask the wrong questions? Not once has Stuart Syvret, or anyone else, suggested that "in the interests of free speech, we should be allowed to say anything we like online."

    The question should be, should be, "In the interests of free speech, should Stuart Syvret be allowed to say what he said online?" That is what libel law is used to determine.

    In the case of the Pitmans, the editorial cartoon was not intended to entertainingly inform or enlighten, it did not bring greater understanding to any topic. It was used to mislead because it implied something about the Pitmans which was easily verified to be demonstrably untrue. What is done to mislead is not likely to be in any public interest, but only in the interests of those who wish to further obscure what is in the public's real interest.

    Yes, the court probably could accurately rule that Stuart Syvret's blog statements caused these four individuals great distress. Why did he publish the words in the first place? Appallingly, neither the court nor the BBC wish to see that ever dissected, or even discussed. It was the giant elephant ignored by the BBC's Jersey. We can probably agree with some certainty that the veracity and even motive for those blog statements will never ever be addressed by any of Jersey's mainstream media, but will be thoroughly exposed and investigated by those outside their bubble.

    Straw men flooded the BBC's public airwaves with this segment. If you didn't notice the first time through, listen again to the way the questioner emphasizes "YOUR data" as if Stuart is planning to release everyone's social security and medical records. If this is not an attempt to misdirect concern from both the direct implications for the facts of this case as well as the "wider implications," as they are labeled (and subsequently ignored) what is it?

    So, the BBC can claim to have (reluctantly) broadcast something on this topic of Stuart Syvret's secret court case, but they've carefully managed to divert their listeners from anything of substance or in the public interest. This case has so many compelling implications that such a diversion required some effort.

    Elle




    ReplyDelete
  9. A caveat: In the other segment, Trevor Pitman was permitted by the BBC to raise the substantive argument that Stuart had tried to interest police and relevant officials in the evidence of his allegations but was unsuccessful. This was significant because it shifted the interview emphasis to the more valid reasons the court action was taken, but should not have been: Jersey's system had shielded these four applicants from justice, demonstrating what Stuart describes as a "breakdown in the rule of law."

    That relevant segment is contained in the recording on The Jersey Way Blog, linked to above.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have I missed one of the four injunctees speaking publicly.

    On the BBC radio interview it claims one of them talked of how the accusations of serious criminal wrongdoing had caused damage to his business interests as well as to his health and reputation. Is this PR is it a quote, if so who or where? No denial in the quote? Is this not breaking the super injunction terms.

    Do any of the four operate a business?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why is Mrs Martin of Data protection not accountable to the public?.

    The public deserve answers for decisions made by her department in allowing four people to use Data protection at cost to the public in a case where I believe it should be spelt out in black and white her reasons for doing so.

    Why did the office not recommend libel action to the four people. Mrs Martin is equally accountable for her decisions. If we are all accountable for what we write and say surely it follows we are accountable for what we do Mrs Martin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms Martin knows the four were not accountable for what they did. That's how it all started, I think.

      Delete
  12. This is all nonsense.
    I have just read the full judgement on the Rico Sorda Blog and some people on here have either not read it; or have read it and don't understand it.
    If it is also true that Syvret never even turned up to challenge the secrecy of the hearing or even put his side of the case then he cannot exactly make any claims of an unfair trial afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must have missed the bit where, after learning of a secret court case, that he wasn’t invited to and an injunction was put on him, he immediately asked for his article six Human Right compliant court hearing where he could contest the judgment. He tells us this was denied him. The first he knew of a court case, involving him, was when two officials turned up at his home to deliver two lever arch folders of documents and threatened him with prison.

      Delete
    2. Well if you read into it he has broken these peoples Human Rights.

      Delete
    3. That is your interpretation of the very little information that has been released. Without being able to see the evidence produced to the secret court we might never know who was in the right/wrong. Had it been an open court case (justice must be SEEN to be done) then we would all be that little wiser.

      Delete
    4. ''Well if you read into it he has broken these peoples Human Rights'' How? The four have human rights to a libel case. That is their right then and now.

      Delete
  13. Please correct me if i'm wrong but this reeks of 'misuse of law'. Normally if someone is giving you grief you pay yourself to take them to court and prove your case against theirs. That seems like a fair battle to me, and is what everybody with a good case would do. I'm guessing that these 4 (who've had a few years to do this) have avoided it because perhaps Mister Syvret has far too many witnesses to back him up against these 4, because surely if they had a strong case for defence don't you think they would have no reason at all stopping them taking mister Syvret to court?

    I would assume that these 4 then reached for their last option to attemp to shut up mister Syvret, by trying this data protection 'victim card' leaving the taxpayer to fund their personal battle with Syvret.

    The fact that the courts have allowed this nonsense to get out of hand is also questionable. Why didn't they tell those 4 to take mister Syvret to court and settle their grieviences so? Why must the tax payer fund their battle? Besides, would the taxpayer really want to pay for these 4 who's case against mister Syvret is very obviously so weak that this is perhaps their only way of a weak assed attempt to silence him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I keep on asking the question as to why these 4 people are so important to freedom of speech when nobody has ever heard of them?
      Surely, take somebody big down if you are going to risk your freedom for it.
      The Establishment must be loving this because a fixation with little people has deflected attention away from the Goliaths.

      Delete
  14. I think the big mystery is; how come these four so-called nobodies can be granted, possibly millions of £’s of taxpayers money when our school children have been deprived of school milk, trips to Durrell, a child psychologist and much more because the government is strapped for cash. The establishment clearly think they are “somebodies” to invest such a vast amount of taxpayers money in them, and a secret court case that achieved what exactly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they are members of the public who are entitled, just like you and I, to the protection of the Data Protection Law?

      Delete
    2. "The establishment clearly think they are “somebodies” to invest such a vast amount of taxpayers money in them"

      That is a daft statement.
      The Courts can only act when there is a case to answer.

      Delete
    3. That's the point. Stuart Syvret wasn't given the opportunity to answer the case when the injunction was put in place. The court case was held without him being told about it.

      Delete
  15. Don't you think this may really be about an excuse to shut up Syvret? Who cares about those 4 anyhow.

    Like you say, if we are so moneytight why are we wasting such massive amounts of money on these people who had every chance to fight their own battles themselves in court?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Don't you think this may really be about an excuse to shut up Syvret?"

    Yes, but not only him. This extremely dangerous precedent can now shut up journalism as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Surely the courts have a 'duty of care' to ensure that public money is spent wisely. Surely they know that there are more important Jersey issues requiring public funds than this nonsense over these 4 people of little importance. Surely the courts should have told them to take their battles against Syvret to court themselves and pay like everybody else has to do so?

    It simply beggers belief that tax payers money is being spent on a nonsense of zero importance. Some would say it's a crime!

    ReplyDelete
  18. """Because they are members of the public who are entitled, just like you and I, to the protection of the Data Protection Law? """

    They had plenty of time to address that in a court case they could effect with their own funds. Tax payers money should not have been used for this case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Surely when tax payers money is spent, it's use must be calculated against the benefit for people and society as a whole. In this case firstly it's being spent on something it shouldn't because it doesn't merit so much monetary worth, and even if we ignore that we can still conclude that whatever comes out of this case will be of no benefit to anyone or society. It's simply a total waste of tax payers money with nothing worthwhile or of value to show for. Tax payers money may 'legally' be spent in this manner, but really it should actually be made a criminal offence, since it is such a wasteful thing to do in times of recession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this action seems expensive and wasteful, imagine the cost to the taxpayers when the Jersey government tries to defend this misapplication of the data law and their other judicial failings at the ECHR in Strasbourg.

      Delete
  20. Funny, one minute people say they know very little and then the next they make claims which nobody knows the answers to!
    When has Syvret ever used his own funds!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He represented himself as we have a non Human Right compliant legal aid system. Which brings up the subject of “equality of arms.” He took on the might and wealth of the establishment and despite this by the looks of it he won (no further action to be taken).

      Delete
    2. Good luck with it VFC.

      Delete
  21. Anonymous @ 09:23 said,
    "Because they are members of the public who are entitled, just like you and I, to the protection of the data protection law."

    Oh come come anon. Your blind faith in the naïve fantasy that Jersey has an independent and fair justice system is not borne out by the evidence or facts. Did the victims of Sean Power’s theft and dissemination of their private personal information receive the protection of the data protection law?
    What about a certain second hand car salesman who forged his landlady’s signature on a lease, did he get done for fraud? Answer no to both.
    ‘Law’ in Jersey is wholly arbitrary and depends on who you are, who you know, how useful you can be to TPTB or what dirt you have on those in high places. How does that fit with universally accepted maxims like “ everyone is equal under the law” and “ nobody is above the law”. Answers should be decided by your mates, encrypted and kept secret.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cyril is right and "arbitrary" is the word - an understated word at that. In a system this thoroughly politicised, justice is only possible between two parties unknown to the entire establishment and judiciary, and then only when their case has no bearing on any of their Jersey betters.

      Delete
  22. 2: The judge was chosen - and appointed - by Michael Birt - a man who is so directly conflicted, space isn't sufficient to list all of the ways - but - to be going on with, Birt's shutting-down of the 1999 investigation into the nurse - and - abandoning the prosecution of the Maguires. The reader may not like reference being made to such conflicts - but that's just tough; settled judicial case-law says, "conflicted"; you cannot appoint judges in your own cause.

    ''Birt's shutting-down of the 1999 investigation into the nurse''

    The nurse being one of the four?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The 4 applicants took out the injunction using data protection law wanting internet postings removed and not repeated.

    Emma Martins believes the applicants won the relief they were searching for. How? If the Judge can take it no further and Mr Syvret is not removing the postings. It would not appear the law backs the Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case?

    Why did these four proxies not use libel/defamation laws in order to publicly clear their names?

    If justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret?"

    Say's it all doesn't it.

    Listening to Trevor Pitmans interview, he said that the '4' met in private and decided which way to pursue their case and asked who put them up to this.

    Whoever decided to go against the use of libel/defamation laws must have clearly known that this case would end up costing the tax payer a considerable amount of money, let alone the millions it will in due course.

    ReplyDelete
  25. None of these 4 people even have blogs of their own and to say calling people names is freedom of speech is utterly ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  26. All very well but until you get a response from any of the 4 people involved in this case its just one way traffic at the moment. I also agree with the notion that's completely omitted on here rather naively, its always the law breaker who costs the tax payer money, never the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The only victims I see here are the fee paying public.

    Unless the evidence is allowed to be tested I believe The fours evidence to data protection is their version.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't what people are so concerned about.
    According to the JEP last week its Syvret who has to pay the 4 peoples costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know that the cost to the Data Protection Office (taxpayer) just for legal advice is £387,000. That is probably around 2-3 years of school milk. Court costs will no doubt be awarded against Stuart Syvret, the establishment knowing full well, he is not in a position to meet those costs. They knew this before they embarked on this hair-brained idea in the first place.

      Delete
    2. Whats so hair brained about it?
      Do you not think these people deserve justice?

      Delete
    3. What’s hair-brained about it? Somebody, sat in a big plush office, no doubt on a 6 figure (tax payer funded) salary must have thought “I know, let’s have a secret court case that nobody will ever find out about and put a super injunction on Stuart Syvret, who is good friend’s with John Hemming MP”……….”John who?” “John Hemming MP, you know the guy who famously named Ryan Giggs as being the author of a super injunction by using parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons. #hairbrained.

      Delete
    4. What 'costs'? They were given OUR money.

      Delete
  29. It stated in the news that this was started whilst he was working as a states member anyway back in 2008.
    But from your consistent tone you obviously think its ok for these 4 people to be intimidated on blogs 24/7 so it is obvious where your morals lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have my tone very wrong. If you look through the thread you will see that I have said there COULD be a case to answer for libel, or defamation. The problem lies with secret, taxpayer funded, court cases where "justice" is not SEEN to be done.

      Delete
  30. Some decision maker believes the cost to the public is worth the attempt of keeping both sides of the evidence out of the public domain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least two of the four applicants were previously convicted of crimes which were too well evidenced to be in dispute. They have taken no responsibility for how that prior behaviour led to their having this distress. Do they apply equal victimhood status to those they attack on here?

      Delete
    2. Its still no excuse to harass people online and look at Syvret's own criminal record.

      Delete
    3. Stuart Syvret, and many others, will say what he published was the truth. If this is the case then is it now law that you can’t publish the truth because it harasses people?

      Delete
    4. Oh come on, I just read him calling somebody a drunken worm who is surrounded by empty beer cans and soils himself.
      Are you serious saying that this is acceptable?!

      Delete
    5. No. I would say to whoever is a drunken worm soiling themselves they should seek some help. It certainly isn’t acceptable.

      Delete
    6. If Stuart Syvret really referred to a certain notorious individual as a 'drunken worm' who 'soils himself' then he should be ashamed. Worms do not drink and do not soil themselves. Stuart must apologize to the worm community immediately.

      Delete
  31. Why is Stuart not in prison?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because it was a hair-brained idea and was doomed to failure from the start.

      The same question could/should be asked of the Data Protection Commissioner.

      Delete
    2. If I was a betting man I would say by Xmas.

      Delete
    3. Stuart would probably agree that is a GOOD BET

      Delete
  32. The Judge in his summing up basically said nothing had been gained.

    The cost of the trial is an embarrassment to the States and has been hidden in departmental man hour budgets and other crime fund budgets. There are ways and means in any accounting. This has been made obvious in the states by Senator Routier's spluttering and secrecy when asked honest questions by members.

    The four have been acquitted by one man, but not the public in general, because its all been held in secret, and there was no need to do that if they were innocent.

    Who ever heard of a trial starting without the accused being present or informed ? It just happened in Jersey.

    Mugabeistic behaviour is not normally found in the democratic civilised western world, it is now.

    I disagree that the States have achieved nothing, they have warned they will stop at nothing to dissuade freedom of speech in a medium they cannot control, the internet.

    A bankrupt cannot stand for the states ,Stuart Syvret faced with ridiculous court costs will be formally a bankrupt.

    There are a minority of decent States members who speak out and own a moral compass and conscience.

    The Nazis may have left, but look what we have now and we pay them to travel the world and screw us.

    The Government you voted for and deserve, now smile and bend over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets wait until the fat lady sings.
      A lawyer friend of mine says these bloggers are either deluded or stupid.
      Maybe both!

      Delete
    2. A Jersey (I take it?) Lawyer calling people deluded and stupid? #Irony #intellectual

      Delete
    3. "This has been made obvious in the states by Senator Routier's spluttering and secrecy when asked honest questions by members."

      A REMINDER

      Delete
  33. If Stuart should of been imprisoned why did he not get a sentence.?

    There is no evidence he has broke the law? Or the Court will not hear it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. VFC there is tonnes of abuse on his blog as I read it through and to then say this is freedom of speech and journalism at its best is the biggest laugh of the lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without knowing what "abuse" you are speaking of, if it's true then he has every right to publish it. By the same token if it's his opinion he has a right to publish it also. If what he has written is untrue/libellous/defamatory then there are laws to deal with them which shouldn't include taxpayer funded secret court cases under data protection.

      Delete
    2. None of the words by Voice or opinions permitted by him in his comments sections have ever risen to the level of recorded threats by one of the applicants. Death threats are public interest topics. Journalism is about supplying information in the public interest.

      Delete
  35. Could these 4 feel stressed and distressed....

    Because the truth hurts?!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Readers can view evidence on http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/ copy and past link provided in browser search engine.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What was the point of all this if they knew all along they still couldn't force Stuart to remove the blog postings or imprison him?

    We should all deploy the effective tactic of Ridicule By Parody. Whenever you're out with friends and acquaintances, any time you hear someone talking about someone else, shout "Data Protection Law!". You could turn it into a drinking game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not? This is very similar to what our ancestors did when making fun of royalty. Nursery rhymes contain hidden parody. The use of shared "peoples" language or terms has been used throughout history as a defense against tyranny.

      Delete
    2. I think you are jumping the gun.
      Still all good things to those who wait.

      Delete
    3. I would join the call for Ridicule By Parody. "Data Protection Law" or "DPL" should be the new defining phrase for insulting someone. It should move to standard use.

      Delete
  38. If the person, who has submitted a comment, can give an example of when I was “upset” about a particular paedophile protecting local Blog (that I didn’t read) in order to substantiate the claim I will publish the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why is Stuart not in prison? @ 19:04

    That is a key question -well done!

    Let me explain:
    Longstanding libel law was available and using a secret DP court case was a terrible decision made for even worse reasons.

    Ex-Health Minister Syvret faced down the misused DP law and the law gave in.

    The legal system does not usually "give in" but the reason it did on this occasion must be because they knew they were wrong and imprisoning Syvret would not only compound their errors but would ensure that these errors were much more widely known beyond these shores.


    The next question is - Why was libel law not used
    -Has the penny dropped yet? Einstein.........

    (Hint: It's not libel if it is truth backed up with evidence)

    QED

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anon @ 21:53. Wonderful comment! Also accurate.

      Delete
  40. From data protection (Jersey) Law 2005

    1 Interpretation of Law

    (1) In this Law, unless the context otherwise requires


    “data” means information that –

    (a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose


    Who gave Stuart instructions to process the ''data''?

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2013/09/never-mind-mace-sort-out-mess-postcards.html New post.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I posed the question why is Stuart not in prison? Not that I believe he should be.

    I believe the reason he isn't, is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If Stuart was not, given instruction for processing information published on his blog.

    Then the data protection (Jersey) Law 2005 then it has to follow that what was published is not ''data'' as defined in the law?

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's amazing, given the level of supposed legal expertise prevalent here, that none of these experts have seen fit to advise Stuart how to win any of his previous court cases BEFORE he actually appeared, rather than giving us their analysis post case.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stuart can never win here. No amount of evidence, advise being right will help.

    That is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The reason that Stuart in not in prison is because the court in the DP case at no time established jurisdiction over him, hope that answers your question anon :)

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, and this is why you've unnecessarily ended up inside over stupid avoidable cases.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Cyril.

      Delete
  47. The reason Syvret is not in prison, is for two reasons, as the person wrote at 19 September 2013 19:50, a greater number than ever of people are reading the blogs, and realise that Syvret is, and was historically right 90% of the time and truthful, he always has been. Compared to the excesses exhibited by our glorious leaders especially Senator Bailhache on his global expensive trots while hijacking the electoral committee and not reading documents on a plane.

    Syvret will be far more popular come election time than many of the established politicians. As a bankrupt the law says he is unable to stand should he or the people wish him to, this suits them just dandy.

    The second reason is simply there would be an outcry from some politicians in the UK including Hemming, who watches as do others, what happens on Jersey.

    The whole data protection law and its use in Jersey is well dodgy, in any proper lawful democracy. If they jail Syvret because of this case, they will be inviting big interest and big trouble. Jersey is not well thought of with its historic child abuse problems and tax labels.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Had to make this your 100th comment - well done! And unlike the JEP or the Muppet Farce not all written by Stella - Jane Care, Julie Hanning, James Le Gallais, Paul of St. Helier, Hilary of St. Brelade, Sue Young, Dopey of the Gutter - Jon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How sad Trevor that you believe that kind of contribution adds anything to this debate.

      Delete
  49. Anonymous at 18:46 nailed it. TPTB are afraid of "inviting big interest and big trouble." Remember PB's speech about the "real tragedy" of child abuse? All that effort to spin away the underbelly to protect the international image? It has only backfired outside of Jersey, making it seem more than ever a place which bends or breaks its own laws in order to protect an image of a law abiding jurisdiction!

    If Stuart ends up being imprisoned for this, the international interest will only increase. The JEP and CTV could make his oppression appear justified to many locals, and the same locals could publish comments in support of his imprisonment, but the exact opposite view would be taken outside Jersey. Even if the widely and publicly discredited David Rose dared to spin this in Jersey's favour, who would buy it? Politicians, human rights groups, bloggers, a growing number of the blog-informed public and even the mainstream media itself outside of Jersey would immediately know it to be an unlawful, unjustifiable, desperate and downright stupid political imprisonment.

    Elle



    ReplyDelete
  50. Excellent post Elle, maybe to clever for TPTB with the arrogance and mistakes they are making at this moment in time. They forget Jersey is a mere dot in the world.

    They think they are untouchable, so did Sadam Hussain, and Gaddafi.

    They are both dead.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A lot of wannabe legal advisers on here.
    I still fail to see how attacking nobodies on the Internet is a stance for free speech, especially when none have any political influence in the first place to Syvret or anybody else in the States. In fact I would describe this whole action as a private matter which does not concern politics at all because Syvret like Le Sueur, Walker, Shenton and 100's of others is not a States Member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read it again and I cannot see how politics can be dragged into this when the people concerned have no political connections.
      Its almost as if things are being made up on a tangent ad-lib.

      Delete
  52. You miss the point.
    What connection do these 4 people have to politics?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ref. Anon. 06:46

    1.
    "I still fail to see how attacking nobodies on the Internet ........"

    2.
    "....does not concern politics at all because Syvret like Le Sueur, Walker, Shenton and 100's of others is not a States Member."

    -------------------------------

    1.
    They are not nobodies if they have got away with serious crime, covering up serious crime or obstructing justice being done and seen to be done.
    They are all NEWS stories and are just small parts of a much bigger news saga. Parts of which have been touched upon both nationally and internationally -would you like the links :-)

    2.
    Surely you are not that simple!
    Syvret, Le Sueur, Walker, Shenton etc continue to be political figures by virtue of their past / present / future.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Got away with serious crime?
    This is absolute rubbish.
    You are either prosecuted for a crime or you are not, but you cannot have it both ways as that goes against Human Rights.
    And anybody can just turn around and claim things are being covered up when it doesn't go their way.
    Oldest trick in the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You are either prosecuted for a crime or you are not, but you cannot have it both ways as that goes against Human Rights."

      Deputy Sean Power stole personal data and caused it to be published on the internet. Furthermore the personal data included the names of innocent children. He was not prosecuted yet Stuart Syvret did not, as far as I'm aware, steal anything yet he is prosecuted......How does that work?

      Delete
    2. What's Sean Power got to do with them?
      What serious crimes have these people not been prosecuted for and how can it be the case when they have no political connections? I am only trying to foresee what was said in court.

      Delete
    3. “I am only trying to foresee what was said in court.”

      Precisely the point! Nobody knows what was said in court and as far as the public is concerned, a number of them, indeed all of them, could be guilty of serious crimes, as Stuart has stated.

      If it had of been an open court these people could have been vindicated, or Stuart Syvret could have been vindicated. As it stands NOBODY has been vindicated as a result of this taxpayer funded secret court case and the very thing it claims to have set out to achieve (removing offending articles from his Blog) it has failed as they are still there!

      Delete
  55. "What connection do these 4 people have to politics?"

    I'm not sure anybody IS claiming the 4 unlikely bedfellows are political. They were used (abused) by, what many see to be, a political and corrupt, judiciary and others. Stuart explains this HERE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you seriously saying that a blogger who calls somebody a drunk that wets himself is only doing so because that person is a victim of the system?

      Delete
  56. "2.
    Surely you are not that simple!
    Syvret, Le Sueur, Walker, Shenton etc continue to be political figures by virtue of their past / present / future."

    A political job is not for life and it never will be. This is why they have to complete short terms so that if they are no good then the public can vote them out. You may as well be saying Jerry Dorey is still active in politics by virtue of him being a deputy but he like everybody else just moves on.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You have got to interview these 4 people for some kind of balance because there are far too many unanswered questions here and most of these posts are just written from one side of the argument with some claims I just I find too difficult to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I do not think its up to anybody to find public vindication from his blog.
    That's a ridiculous comment because he is not representative of any police authority.
    The saying is put up or shut up.
    All his victims are vindicated simply by doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is your opinion and I am happy to publish it. However, there are other opinions that include Stuart Syvret, free speech, journalism, Jersey’s reputation and the taxpayer are the victims.

      There is also the opinion that an even bigger cloud of suspicion hangs over the heads of the four unlikely bedfellows, and the judicial system, by holding this taxpayer funded court case in secret.

      As for “put up or shut up” that is what the Chapman Report told Terry Le Sueur to do and he chose to “shut up.”

      “All his victims are vindicated simply by doing nothing.”

      They took out an unsuccessful, taxpayer funded, possibly costing in the region of millions of £’s secret court case in order to have offending articles removed from his Blog. It’s not that they DID nothing more that they ACHIEVED nothing other than to set a very dangerous precedent against journalism.

      Delete
    2. Just because a court case is held in camera is irrelevant, it is not unusual and as stated in the paper perfectly legal. Mind you I would not be surprised if it was partly brought about by the constant hounding of these people which appears on at least 4 blogs.

      Delete
  59. 'You are either prosecuted for a crime or you are not, but you cannot have it both ways as that goes against Human Rights.'

    Spot on Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 'They took out an unsuccessful, taxpayer funded, possibly costing in the region of millions of £’s secret court case in order to have offending articles removed from his Blog. It’s not that they DID nothing more that they ACHIEVED nothing other than to set a very dangerous precedent against journalism.'

    I think you are just patronising the court.
    If people are dumb enough to ignore any court order than do not be fooled in thinking nothing will happen.
    As for journalism, calling people drunks is not journalism VFC, it never will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling people drunks might not be journalism. it could, however, be a fact, or an opinion, which gives the author every right to publish it.

      Delete
    2. Serious journalists never write such churlish nonsense.

      Delete
    3. Try telling that to people like the late George Best.

      Delete
  61. 'All his victims are vindicated simply by doing nothing.'

    That is what they do.
    The only time any of his victims would ever need to defend themselves is if they are ever charged with a serious crime which unsurprisingly never happens.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ''You have got to interview these 4 people for some kind of balance because there are far too many unanswered questions here and most of these posts are just written from one side of the argument with some claims I just I find too difficult to believe''

    Ignore the claims and read the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I' have made efforts to get an interview with one, or all, of the unlikely bedfellows but thus far am unsuccessful but I remain hopeful.

      Delete
  63. ''some claims I just I find too difficult to believe.'' Perhaps if you were more specific in the claims you have difficulty with.

    People could provide you the source of evidence available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple one.
      That an entire legal firm can be involved in cover ups.
      But you know it is the same old story, we read such claims on blogs yet the Police are never involved thereafter.

      Delete
    2. Are you forgetting Hillsborough. Wasn't that proclaimed a conspiracy theory then turned out to be true.

      It only requires a little intelligence to search out evidence than believe what your told.

      Delete
  64. There is mention of "police authority" and "You are either prosecuted for a crime or you are not, but you cannot have it both ways...."

    Are people stupid or are they astroturfers under the spell or even the payroll of the "Communications Department" ?

    Perhaps the poster(s) is honest and intelligent but just has a child like unquestioning deference to authority. A deference that many of us had before we learned through bitter experience or by facing the mounting pile of facts.

    Angels are few and far between on this earth and those who are given authority with no checks or oversight are prone to misuse their that power. Jersey's prosecuting function certainly has some serious questions to answer.
    We can expect things to get worse before they get better because Jersey's new Police Authority has been hijacked at the outset by one of the main establishment integrated law firms.

    Effectively Jersey's Police Authority power has been SOLD to a private company for about £100,000 pa under the guise of honorary service. The key words here may be "honorary" and "private".

    As it happens Stuart Syvret and others have raised concerns about Ogier, their connections and their part in past cover ups - Their failure to represent victims properly and even to the alleged theft or deliberate retention of client files.

    www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/31/lawyer-to-be-head-of-new-police-watchdog/

    http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-ogier-group.html

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/08/30/jerseys-finance-industry-has-now-taken-control-of-its-police/

    We will all pay one way or another. Jersey States police have been brought under honorary control !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is going on a tangent once again.
      What on earth has the above comment got to do with the 4 people who have won a case against a blogger under data protection?
      A poster above also summed it all up in pointing out that nobody he has accused has ever been done for serious crime, and how many are we talking of here, 50, 100?
      There is no reason for anybody to vindicate themselves at all, it is up to the blogger to prove them guilty, which is something he seems unable to do and I wonder why?

      Delete
    2. “it is up to the blogger to prove them guilty, which is something he seems unable to do and I wonder why?”

      Because he was denied a fair, impartial, and OPEN hearing, in compliance with Human Rights?

      Delete
    3. I will go over this one more time.
      Nobody he has accused in 5 years of blogging has been charged with serious crime.
      Now why is that and where do their Human Rights fit in all this?

      Delete
    4. I think I can see why this was a closed court.
      These people are innocent.

      Delete
    5. “Nobody he has accused in 5 years of blogging has been charged with serious crime.”

      Sorry but I believe that 2, of the alleged 4, HAVE been, not only charged, but convicted of serious crime.

      “I think I can see why this was a closed court.
These people are innocent.”

      But we will never know though will we? As a result of this “secret” court case, as mentioned earlier, a bigger cloud of suspicion now hangs over them.

      Delete
  65. "calling people drunks is not journalism"

    lol , YES IT IS if their unfortunate drink problem is a factor in making death threats to innocent members of the public.

    Some of the EVIDENCE is available on the audio recording at:

    http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

    It is a threatening phone call where amongst other things he says "Nurse M is going to kill your family" and he effectively boasts of his protection by the police/authorities.
    Note: BOASTS OF HIS PROTECTION BY THE POLICE/AUTHORITIES

    Would you think odd IF - note IF :-) - the caller were one of the 4 recipients of £000000's of public funding to bring this failed super injunction ?

    "Nurse M" is apparently another of the beneficiaries of Emma Martin's generosity with taxpayers money.

    Do you see the picture if you are able to put the pieces together ?

    P.S.
    So sorry to have "gone on a tangent" above - since when were you the umpire as to what is relevant to the failure of good governance in Jersey ?

    P.P.S
    Do hope that you approve of this return to the subject :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bloke was drunk and bound over, so what?
      And calling somebody a Jersey Freak is no better.
      The JEP clearly states the person said in open court that lies had been written about him on a blog so why be surprised at the reaction?

      Delete
    2. "It is a threatening phone call"

      Dealt with by the courts over two and half years ago by the looks of it.
      I just wonder how much internet abuse the same person has suffered since because that link you just put up is disgusting.
      That alone suggests Emma Martin is right to help these people.

      Delete
  66. Anyway, seeing as nobody he has ever accused has been charged with serious crime I will leave it there as I think it sums it all up.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Sorry but I believe that 2, of the alleged 4, HAVE been, not only charged, but convicted of serious crime."

    List them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What and get dragged before a secret, taxpayer funded, court?.........Yeah right!

      Delete
  68. "But we will never know though will we? As a result of this “secret” court case, as mentioned earlier, a bigger cloud of suspicion now hangs over them."

    By who? The bloggers?
    We have said already, unless people are charged with serious crime they have no need to vindicate themselves.
    Rumours on blogs do not appear on criminal records.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on, get real! Jimmy Savile, Ted Heath, Cyril Smith were never charged with a serious crime. Evidence now exists that they should have been. Because somebody hasn’t been charged with a serious crime, are you expecting readers to believe they haven’t committed one?

      Delete
    2. Well you had better get cracking and get them charged with serious crime before they die then.

      Delete
  69. "Would you think odd IF - note IF :-) - the caller were one of the 4 recipients of £000000's of public funding to bring this failed super injunction ?
    "Nurse M" is apparently another of the beneficiaries of Emma Martin's generosity with taxpayers money.
    Do you see the picture if you are able to put the pieces together ?"

    What a stupid statement.
    Everybody is entitled to use the justice system no matter who they are.
    Just look at all these Terrorists using the system to stay in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Just look at all these Terrorists using the system to stay in the UK”

      Yes in open court, not secret.

      Delete
  70. Getting back to the main posting.

    "Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case?

    Why did these four proxies not use libel/defamation laws in order to publicly clear their names?

    If justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret?

    What ramifications could this very dangerous precedent have for journalism across the board, so-called "accredited" and so-called "non accredited journalists alike?

    Who brought these very unlikely bedfellows together and what was the motivation?

    Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?

    How much did this secret court case really cost the taxpayer?

    ReplyDelete
  71. PMSL. this trolling is brought to you by the "house of worthless"

    Anonymous 16:45
    "I will go over this one more time.
    Nobody he has accused in 5 years of blogging has been charged with serious crime.
    Now why is that and where do their Human Rights fit in all this?"

    Anonymous 16:50
    "I think I can see why this was a closed court.
    These people are innocent."

    & 16:57
    & 17:04
    & 17:09
    & etc. etc ....

    Well played VFC !

    You can smell the desperation. and maybe the stella and .....
    How many more idiotic and fact denying comments are you going to allow before you get bored ?

    A bit like seeing a cat play with a rodent.

    He thinks death threats are normal behaviour @17:09

    How come he knows and remembers so much of the case and what was said in court ?

    "We have said already" @17:04 -who is "We"? or do you mean wee ?

    ..... as in wee-wee ?

    ReplyDelete
  72. It’s a case of giving the commenter enough rope to hang him/herself with and readers can draw their own conclusions as to who wishes to stay with the evidence and who wants to side step it. Yes it is a bit like a cat playing with a rodent, made all that more worth it, seeing as you recognised it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, I was waiting for the troll insults to appear and I am surprised it took so long.
      I listened to the recording and its not even a death threat but somebody on laughing gas.
      I guess it sums up it all, the blogs never get anywhere because they can never be totally accurate on anything and these 4 people have won a landmark case for dealing with nuisance blogging.
      Ironic how the person who did all the finger pointing but was the one who ended up in court in the end.
      And you talk about people hanging themselves.

      Delete
    2. “I listened to the recording and its not even a death threat but somebody on laughing gas.”

      “Nurse M is going to kill your family” is not a death threat?

      “and these 4 people have won a landmark case for dealing with nuisance blogging.”

      They wanted the so-called “data” removed, it’s still there, how did they win?

      They won a landmark victory in shutting down journalism. Admittedly I strongly believe this was not their intention, but they were played like a fiddle by TPTB.

      Delete
  73. From data protection (Jersey) Law 2005

    1 Interpretation of Law

    (1) In this Law, unless the context otherwise requires


    “data” means information that –

    (a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose


    Who gave Stuart instructions to process the ''data''?

    How ''data'' is interpreted is specific in the data protection (Jersey) Law 2005

    ReplyDelete
  74. Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?

    Did Trevor Pitman state on the recent radio interview that he went to Data protection and was not given the same assistance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed he did. There has also been quite a number of people who have complained to the Data Protection Office with similar complaints to those of the "fab four" and have not been granted the same assistance as them. Although it must be said that Deputy Sean Power must be pleased with the "assistance" he received.

      Delete
  75. This bears repeating :

    "calling people drunks is not journalism"

    lol , YES IT IS if their unfortunate drink problem is a factor in making death threats to innocent members of the public.

    Some of the EVIDENCE is available on the audio recording at:

    http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

    It is a threatening phone call where amongst other things he says "Nurse M is going to kill your family" and he effectively boasts of his protection by the police/authorities.
    Note: BOASTS OF HIS PROTECTION BY THE POLICE/AUTHORITIES

    Would you think odd IF - note IF :-) - the caller were one of the 4 recipients of £000000's of public funding to bring this failed super injunction ?

    "Nurse M" is apparently another of the beneficiaries of Emma Martin's generosity with taxpayers money.

    Do you see the picture if you are able to put the pieces together ?

    ================

    This was not an isolated incident. a 'one off' in a moment of madness.
    The sailed super injunction suggests that 'The death threat caller' rather understated the level of protection by the jersey authorities.

    Fortunately this protection could not erase actual recordings when raised the issue of witness intimidation in court.

    I wonder if his death threats are now classed as his personal "data" in the catch-all DP law.

    How many political prisoners will the Jersey Mafia need before they can shut down information and discussion ?

    Time for some more links I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This was not an isolated incident. a 'one off' in a moment of madness.
      The sailed super injunction suggests that 'The death threat caller' rather understated the level of protection by the jersey authorities."

      You are having a laugh?
      A member of the public makes a laughing gas phone call after being intimidated on a blog and its that serious.
      There wasn't even a death threat in it and I think a bounding over for 6 months shows how serious the court took it.
      Get a recorded message with a sober person and then I may start to understand.

      Delete
    2. So is it your contention that ““Nurse M is going to kill your family” is not a death threat?

      Delete
    3. The key is to find out what data the troll accessed and processed to make the death threat? He has repeatedly claimed to have access, protection, and to be able to find out who and where others are. He uses words like " we are watching," and "we know everything...," so how does he obtain identification and contact data on the family he threatened, where Stuart Syvret was a house guest? Does he have to be sober enough to process this officially private data properly to be prosecuted for his drunken and criminally threatening misuse of it? Would this question( by and to elected representatives) in The States be acceptable enough for the Queen's appointee? Never mind. We can guess the answer. That question would not be permitted and there is no legal method available to find out the answers.

      Delete
  76. Getting back to the main posting.

    "Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case?
    No read the judgement.

    Why did these four proxies not use libel/defamation laws in order to publicly clear their names?
    You would have to ask them.

    If justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret?
    Its not unusual for cases like this, its been said in the States and reported by the media.

    What ramifications could this very dangerous precedent have for journalism across the board, so-called "accredited" and so-called "non accredited journalists alike?
    None, this is not about journalism.

    Who brought these very unlikely bedfellows together and what was the motivation?
    What does it matter and why do you call them bedfellows, isn't that insulting?

    Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?
    I would say they are, the Data Protection office said following the Pitmans making a complaint that their complaint was not an issue for data protection law.

    How much did this secret court case really cost the taxpayer?
    Who cares because the person who was found guilty of breaking the law evidently isn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my favourite line of all your comments so far: "getting back to the main posting." I've never seen you get back to a main posting.

      Delete
    2. If there's such a thing as painfully slow progress by the painfully slow...that must be it.

      Delete
  77. "Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case?
    No read the judgement.

    Are you for real? You read it, so its true?If

    justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret?
    Its not unusual for cases like this, its been said in the States and reported by the media.

    And politicians and media don't lie. Behave yourself.

    What ramifications could this very dangerous precedent have for journalism across the board, so-called "accredited" and so-called "non accredited journalists alike?
    None, this is not about journalism.

    Oh please now I know your not serious.

    Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?

    I would say they are, the Data Protection office said following the Pitmans making a complaint that their complaint was not an issue for data protection law.

    There you go accepting like a good boy everything told to you.

    How much did this secret court case really cost the taxpayer?
    Who cares because the person who was found guilty of breaking the law evidently isn't

    Now your getting it. Did you figure that all on your own with out help?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thank you, Anonymous Defender of the Four Wondrous Innocents! I, for one, am glad to finally see the complex Crown Court Judgement and Data Protection Case laid out so eloquently and defended so rationally. Finally, we are privy to an example of their best legal minds! ;-p

    What a shame the Syvret Blog is at all-time reader popularity, especially since the case is closed.

    ReplyDelete
  79. VFC do you believe that extorting money is a crime that deserves to be exposed ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we are talking about the possible millions of £'s spent on this secret court case then yes I believe whoever the Accounting Officer is who sanctioned the spend should be called to account and justify it.

      Either PAC (Public Accounts Committee) or Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (Parliamentary Select Committee) should be launching an investigation. Something tells me that this won't happen.

      Delete
  80. Will the logical questions on the implications of this secret - but very grave - public interest matter be permitted by the Bailiff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better question: Will a Crown Appointee deny democratically elected representatives the right to ask and learn anything more about it? Honest answer: Without a doubt.

      Delete
  81. So trying to get money you are not entitled to from others to help pay for legal costs deserves to be investigated and exposed ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a word "yes." An accounting Officer has signed off £387,000 which is close to £100,000 more than the Data Protection Office's annual budget. This Accounting Officer needs to justify such a huge expenditure on such a dodgy cause.

      Delete
    2. And that malfeasance should be exposed by whatever means necessary ?





      voiceforchildren23 September 2013 08:47

      In a word "yes."


      Delete
    3. So trying to get money you are not entitled to from others to help pay for legal costs deserves to be investigated and exposed ?
      And that malfeasance should be exposed by whatever means necessary ?

      voiceforchildren23 September 2013 08:47

      In a word "yes."

      Seems, even by your own estimation, that Sean Power did the right thing then in releasing Stuart's E-Mail to the press ?

      Delete
    4. Deputy Sean Power STOLE personal data, which caused it to be published, on what many perceive to be, a paedophile protecting hate-site. He did the wrong thing because he didn’t get the data by legitimate means…..He stole it.

      The said data also identified innocent children who, due to this latest court judgement will now have a strong case, as will Stuart Syvret, to make a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner for causing them distress.

      Question is, why has Sean Power not been put through a secret, taxpayer funded, court case and Stuart Syvret has? Do you think Deputy Sean Power should face prosecution for his Data theft and subsequent publication of it?

      Delete
  82. In a democracy, which Jersey has great pretensions to, investigation and transparent exposure are necessary, highly respected cornerstones. You need to become informed about how checks and balances function for the greater good. It is simply not all about you.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "democracy, which Jersey has great pretensions to"
    HAHAHHAHHAAAAAAAA., oh that's funny - and tragic.

    Jersey is run by the legal profession, and even headed by an unelected chief judge. The Senators/Deputies/Constables bit is just smoke and mirrors to keep the "sheeple" happy.

    ReplyDelete
  84. http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/senator-sir-philip-bailhache-man-of_23.html

    ReplyDelete
  85. Voiceforchildren.

    I think it would be ,keeping a record of dates, times & subject matter when the breaks in transmission occurs during States sittings, broadcast by BBC Jersey.

    The frequency with which this occurs has to be more than accidental.

    ReplyDelete
  86. 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!?

    ReplyDelete