Friday, 6 September 2013

Stuart Syvret, Super-Injunction, and State Media.

After the latest desperate attack on Bloggers from Jersey's only (DISGRACED) "news"paper and as a result of the (not so) secret court case against former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, finally making it into the local mainstream media we have secured an exclusive interview with Mr. Syvret.

We have decided to publish the interview in two parts, the first part (below) concentrating on the truth behind the myths concerning Jersey's State Media, in that it is the local Blogs, who publish evidence and the State Media who either bury evidence or, as in the case of the Jersey Evening Post (JEP), claim they don't know of the evidence, despite reporting on it a year previously which is demonstrated by fellow Blogger, and Team Voice member Rico Sorda HERE.

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that not one of Jersey's esteemed "accredited" "journalists" has contacted Mr. Syvret concerning this so-called Super-Injunction despite being aware of it for about 12 months. If this court case could have such huge ramifications for journalism, and free speech, then one HAS to ask WHY NOT?

Part 2 of this interview is an in-depth discussion of the (not so) secret court case or "Super-Injunction." We discuss, in that interview, what it has, or hasn't achieved, who's paying for the court case, who is the real winner of the case and much more. We hope to have it published in the next couple of days.




38 comments:

  1. Looks like the stress of it all is really getting to Mr Syvret. Is it wrong of me to suggest that he has never looked better after a lengthy run of court cases and prison. keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. brilliant - I hope more people get to see this because the JEP as a vehicle for news is completely corrupt

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another exclusive for VFC. Thank you for posting the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As an ex-Jersey journalist I'll happily say I looked into this super-injunction. I was told it didn't exist as a so-called injunction, but was more of a case against the comments published by Mr. Syvret on his blog because it contained libel.

    You can't just post articles calling someone a child abuse concealer and anyone who thinks the internet is a way of bypassing libel laws needs to wake up.

    As someone who could have a case against Mr. Syvret I suggest this paranoid individual gets some help. He does his cause no good and frankly damages the case against the States which I think many feel uneasy about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. During your “looking into this super-injunction” did you contact Stuart as part of your research or did you just go with the party line?

      Furthermore I don’t think anybody is disputing there COULD be a case for libel or defamation against Stuart. The problem people have is that it looks to be a clear abuse of the Data Protection Law held in a secret court paid for by the taxpayer. Being a journalist, or ex journalist one would have thought you would have had a few questions to ask in that regard?

      Delete
    2. Exactly! Good interview and I look forward to reading your explanation of why libel laws were not used. I do not accept that nobody Stuart has attacked on his Blog had the means to do so

      Delete
  5. I see Stuart hasn't lost any of his resolve whatsoever, well done you two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks VFC, for another excellent broadcast -an ideal interview for viewers to get an introduction to the broader picture, with Stuart at his articulate best.

    And yes, even after all he's been through, he does now resemble what I'd picture as the former Stuart's much younger, athletic brother.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought data protection information protected individuals person details ie doctor records etc etc.

    I do not understand how data protection was used in this instance as the individuals are stating what is claimed against them on blogs is not so. If that is the case why are data protection wanting to involve themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This will all be explained in part two of the interview.

      Delete
  8. JEP "This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched."

    Except, even an ex-Jersey journalist, who considers that Stuart is paranoid individual, who missed the real issue as pointed out by voiceforchildren 20:47, knew there was such an action.

    An ex-journalist, afraid to post under his named, must be a hoax posting :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The informant to the ex journalist was wrong. The super injunction existed perhaps the journalist should of spoke to the bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One of your readers - who claims to be an "ex-Jersey journalist" - says: -

    "You can't just post articles calling someone a child abuse concealer and anyone who thinks the internet is a way of bypassing libel laws needs to wake up."

    Oh, but you can post articles calling someone a child-abuse concealer; indeed, you can say such things - you can broadcast them - you can publish them in traditional newspapers - you can write them in books.

    And if the target disputes the claims - their remedy is a defamation claim. Which is a private-law remedy - that has precisely zero to do with the Data Protection Law.

    And if the person you have posted is a child-abuse concealer - is, in fact, a child-abuse concealer - and you have evidence that shows that to be the case - and /or witnesses you can call who would testify to that being the case - then - you win - they lose.

    Simples.

    That is the settled law.

    It's a private remedy - between private individuals - and there is zero legitimate role for state - tax-payer-funded - involvement.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  11. Knowing rather a lot about defamation I would just add that this really WAS nothing more than a defamation/libel case. The Data Protection Law was thus wholly inappropriate to be used for this.The only explanation can be that it was used out of convenience to get a desired result.

    What also has to be asked here is why did none of the four have to spend their own money as we had to and why was one of the four - a revolting little petty criminal despised by all - allowed to jump on the bandwagon of the others when it appears everything Stuart Syvret had said about him was true?

    Which brings us to the point that the same little drunken yob spends his whole 'life' on the net spreading defamatory lies about other people - including Stuart Syvret who he was given taxpayers' money to prosecute!

    ReplyDelete
  12. A further question for resders to consider.

    What will happen if - and it must be 'when' really - the Independent Child abuse Inquiry takes place and it emerges that one of those who has 'won' his case will actually have more than a dozen people coming forward to give evidence against him relating to allegations of abuse under States care?

    ReplyDelete
  13. VFC - more great stuff. Keep it up

    Trevor - thanks for that very clear exposition above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My most important ever posting, and just for the survival of HUMANKIND Wake the hell up sheep!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for making sense out of a prosecution case which had been senseless in the first place. This is getting some play internationally, I see. It's even up on Jonathan (Lord Bonkers) Calder's blog. Well done. This is a case which should send shivers down the spines of anyone, anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do I understand this; if the 'libel' had been in pamphlets left around town in pubs and coffee shops, then it would have been totally different? i.e. just because a computer was involved (scary word 'blog', to these backwards oligarchs) it's assumed to be a matter for the Data Protection Law? Even though the DP Law wasn't supposed to be used for anything like that?!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well done Stuart.
    Now please when the elections come round stand, people want and need you in the States.
    All the lies that bailhache has come out with since being in the states and they have been proved to be lies we need honest members who believe in looking after the public of this island. There is only you who stands against the corrupt establishment party that is ruining this island and it's people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't believe the public of Jersey deserve Stuart Syvret. I still don't believe that the public of Jersey fully understands Stuart Syvret or what he has been telling them for years. What can SS achieve by becoming a States Member? Only a radical shake up of the states can lead the way for someone like stuart to be influential. If the States of Jersey is to radically change then two things need to happen. Senator Philip Ozouf and Senator Philip Bailhache need to be voted out. Then and only then you will see overnight change.

    The loss of Ozouf is pivotal.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The biggest radical shake up needed on this Island is a MSM that doesn't betray its public and a fit for purpose justice system

      Delete
    2. Is it true that Ozouf said he wasn't standing again anyhow?

      Delete
    3. It is a quandary as to where he will stand, or how he will get elected, but I've not heard that he won't stand. So far as I know it is only the disgraced Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who has publicly stated that he won't be standing in the next election. I've got an idea as to where he will be spending his new -found SPARE TIME

      Delete
    4. I can imagine PB making some kind of excuse not to stand again as he really doesn't like being questioned, does he?!

      Delete
  19. If THIS is what can happen, in the open, one can only imagine what is going on in secret and the State Media is keeping under wraps.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The last time the disgraced Jersey Evening Post came out with its "allegations without substance" Rico Sorda challenged it to "put up or shut up"...............It DECLINED HIS OFFER

    ReplyDelete
  21. Since the documents are in the public domain, there is nothing to stop anyone copying the data and hosting it in a jurisdiction over which Jersey has no influence. Stuart no longer 'owns' the information in question. There are numerous options for reposting the information - one is to use the same ISP used by WikiLeaks and PirateBay (http://prq.se/?intl=1).

    Jersey would have to go to a Swedish court and prove it was illegal in Sweden: "If it is legal in Sweden, we will host it, and will keep it up regardless of any pressure to take it down." I don't think Jersey would want to have to argue the evidence in a Swedish court.

    The anonymity of the person hosting the data is completely preserved, but again, if that person was a US national, for example, Jersey would have to take action against them in a US court.

    As Stuart says in the video interview, this has nothing to do with Data Protection and all to do with avoiding have to defend the content of his postings in a defamation case. They can only get away with this in Jersey, with a complicit legal system and judges.

    Of course, Google may take down the offending articles form Stuart's blog if provided with a 'valid' court judgment, but the genie is already out the bottle. As we have discovered recently from the Snowden leaks, Google cannot be trusted in numerous respects, from personal privacy, commercial confidence, and complicity with the US security apparatus.

    If you want to preserve your anonymity while searching for personal, private, or subversive subjects on the web, avoid Google and use DuckDuckGo instead. Here is why: http://donttrack.us/ For Google's complicity with US surveillance, see the Guardian articles on the Snowden material or read this interesting anecdote from Julian Assange: http://thestringer.com.au/google-and-the-nsa-whos-holding-the-shit-bag-now/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob.

      Very informative comment and links. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Yes, that is an excellent and informative description of the current options for those championing free speech.

      This is why the Jersey Way of employing a selectively class-based, feudalistic interpretation of law is no longer a secret, and why Jersey's unjustifiable investment in silencing Stuart Syvret never payed off. The old guard do not fully comprehend the global internet's impact on their own future and even the local main stream media act like it's still 1995.

      Once upon a time Jersey's ruling elite understood and controlled the most politically sensitive information, keeping the rest of the Island in a bubble. Now the bubble contains those in power and the mainstream media can only learn vital news from bloggers. As they say, information is power, and that power is no longer local for any ruling elite in the west.

      The challenge for Jersey's oligarchs will now be to prevent outsiders from becoming interested and well-informed, whilst keeping a broad segment of the local population utterly ignorant, apathetic or misinformed.

      Delete
  22. http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/This%20is%20very%20serious.%20Can%20we%20all%20now%20bring%20an%20action%20against%20the%20MSM%20if%20they%20mis-repsent%20us?

    Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. In this secret court hearing the lawyers had to cite English precedents on Data protection because there were no Jersey ones.
    Now of course Jersey has set its own standard by this judgement which will no doubt be argued over in future English cases as "persuasive" too. So it may well be "overturned" without any Jersey participation or effort...
    However, that "Gossip" was set to become "a criminal offence in Jersey" by virtue of the Data Protection law was the subject of a posting on "Voice for Protest" 3 March 2010, so nothing should really come as a surprize, not even the avalanche that must engulf us all eventually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Gruchy.

      Gossip to be a criminal offence in JERSEY

      Delete
  24. Tom Gruchy,
    Could you, or anyone who is familiar with the proceedings, please provide more on the use of the English precedents used? This is an ominous case if it has precedent in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It will be interesting to see whether the Social Security Appeal Tribunal hearing scheduled for 2pm Friday 13 September is open to the public - bearing in mind the Judge's words re Syvret and the need for such hearings to take place in public except in exceptional cases.
    This is supposed to be open to the public but generally such Tribunals are held in secret because the scrutiny of government administration tends to look rather shoddy when examined critically.
    The location is the JET premises at 1st floor behind the Ann Summers shop in Bath Street so do turn up if you have the time and interest. You might be allowed to express a "public interest" view if the shutters come down on this occasion....

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.