Sunday, 3 November 2013

Contempt of (Unlawful?) Court.

In our continuing series concerning the court case(s) of former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret we bring our readers/viewers another exclusive.

Some will know that stuart Syvret is due in court tomorrow, 4th November 2013 to answer charges of (as far as we're aware) "Contempt of court." Those who have been following this story will be aware that this all stems from a superinjunction, or Data Protection case held in a secret court.

There is much speculation surrounding the question of whether he is going to turn up to this latest Hearing, and journalists from the State Media have been asking him, and others, for information/interviews in order to get the(ir) story out there.

Citizens Media (Jersey's only independent media) once more has the exclusive on this story, and in this exclusive interview Mr. Syvret tells us why the State Media doesn't. He also tells us whether he will be turning up to the (unlawful?) Court Hearing tomorrow morning...........And much more.

For recent previous postings on this subject please look HEREHEREHERE and HERE.




150 comments:

  1. Jacques M F Chartier3 November 2013 at 20:08

    No surrender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah should all be doing that Jacques, anarchy to the people.

      Delete
  2. The court seems to be getting even more twisted in its endeavours:
    Give me £200 million and I will give you a lighter sentence. What sort of precedence is being set when even the courts are open to blackmailing people? 'Brown Envelope' tactics in a court of LAW??

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be clear, I believe Jetzification is referring to the Curtis Warren case and not that of Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have an online radio show called Commala Radio. It is broadcast all over the world and its shows are available 24/7 for all time. Stuart is more than welcome to come onto my show and talk about anything he wants. I do not censor anyone.
    Please let him know. I have always liked Stuart and I have been listening to him ever since he became a senator.
    Again, he is welcome and he is free to speak his mind.
    You or he can contact me on FaceBook:
    Jetz Maddox Gr.E
    Broken Breeds
    Broken Breeds Expose Dirty Deeds
    Email:
    brokenbreeds@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. The way for those in both the Uk - and in fact even over here holding positions within non ECHR compliant institutions - to ensure their own names are not tainted is quite simply to stand up and say 'enough is enough!'. Jersey just cannot go on this way. Justice must be for all and not dependent upon one being in the right social 'club'. Excellent interview VFC though a bit of static for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stuart Syvret just talks absolute rubbish and if the Media, the Local Courts with UK Lawyers, the legal firms the Data Protection Commission and everybody involved are as corrupt as he says then how many people are in on this, 500?
    I think the real story is that he seems to think he is above the law and I am surprised you never put that question to him when its on most people minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately you have your facts wrong. The question about Stuart thinking he is above the law has been put to him on a number of occasions. Clearly he is not, nor does he believe he is, above the law.

      He was first taken to court for publishing a police Report that contained people’s names (personal data) which was, arguably, of great public interest. Yet Deputy Sean Power can steal personal e-mails from colleagues (of no public interest) that caused them to be published on the internet (which included innocent children’s names) and he doesn’t face a court, secret, or otherwise?

      He has subsequently been taken to a secret, and taxpayer funded, court on a supposed Data Protection breach for publishing peoples names (personal data apparently). It’s certainly not Stuart Syvret who looks to be above the law here.

      Delete
  7. If the Royal Court has decided that Mr Syvret has broken the Data Protection Law then that's only to do with him, it has nothing to do with what other people have done or supposed to have done. We are not back at School shouting, "but Sir he did it as well."
    Your interview clearly shows that Mr Syvret does think he is above the law in Jersey and you have to be real here, for his claims to be true there would have to be 100s of people involved including the Police.
    To me that's not even plausible in fact it's absurd but you obviously believe this Island is so corrupt by defending the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you look at the track record of Ex Senator Stuart Syvret he has been brave, sharp and true to himself. Not always right, which he accepts and after nineteen years in the States knows the system. He is also an awkward intelligent individual to deal with.

    The more I read about this maverick individual the more I see him white and the majority of the States members who are connected, drunk on power and black, and most of them having very big bank accounts and living in big houses.

    For fun Stuart Syvret runs marathons partly due to the fact he has little or no money, but will not give up the fight to bring to account those that have wronged the people of Jersey using public office and acting as completely unaccountable.

    To finish, how has Jersey got to the unhappy place it is now. Probably because Gorst, Ozouf, Bailhache, Maclean, Routier, Pryke, Le Marquand and other ministers, who's names I forget are in charge.

    Stuart Syvret Jersey's one true son puts Jersey first, not the wishes of the elite or the rich developers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VFC there is nothing brave or intelligent about calling people names on a blog and ending up in Court for it.
      I know you do not do this yourself but some bloggers let themselves down in doing this and then to say, everybody is corrupt and the justice system is unlawful is ridiculous.
      The other point you raise is that Jersey has got unhappy, well people vote in all the names you point out and that's democracy I am afraid. If more people think the Island is full of fat cats then they have to challenge those seats in the States. It will never be a one man crusade here, it will need group thinking and a completely different approach to previous elections.

      Delete
  9. Those crying "conspiracy-theorist" at those of us who are campaigning for the proper objective rule of law are using precisely one of those well-documented, crude propaganda devices I mentioned. It's the device of the "straw-man" argument.

    You falsely depict what your opponents are saying - you ascribe to them some argument they're not actually making - preferably a very weak and absurd argument - even more preferably, an argument already associated with some fringe-group who appear ridiculous - and thus seek to undermine the credibility of your opponents.

    It's also a text-book approach used in what is known today as "trolling" - hi-jacking threads with entirely diversionary, non-relevant garbage.

    To be clear - my argument is this: what passes for a "judicial" apparatus in Jersey is not lawful.

    Plainly - and on the facts - on the evidence - in application of all credible, respectable case-law - the Jersey "judicial" function does not even get close to having vires.

    That is the argument.

    It is not an argument based upon irrational "conspiracy-theories" - rather, it is an argument based on facts - evidence - and the application of the established jurisprudence.

    So could I suggest that if people can cite respectable, national and international case-law - which runs against my argument - then great; we could have useful - informed - evidenced-based debate about that.

    By way of contrast, empty trolling and the positing of straw-man arguments serves only to hi-jack the thread - and serves the purposes of propaganda.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  10. " VFC there is nothing brave or intelligent about calling people names on a blog "

    Absolutely correct, what Syvret did was put forward evidence of wrongdoing and wrote about it for Jersey to read. Why do you think it was a super injunction secret court case, behind closed doors, with the offended peoples lawyers paid for by the taxpayer? What an open court where Syvret could call witnesses and defend his blog statements that could be a disaster if he has the evidence he says he has. Remember the raid, when they stole his computers they know what he new and what he new was not what they wanted you to know. See where I am coming from.

    That would never do, the four might find themselves arrested if he had an open and fair court. That would have put him in a strong position to call witnesses and as they were questioned, they would be aware that had they lied under oath, the penalty for perjury has serious consequences including prison.

    They could never take that risk with Syvret, it was never about calling people names it was about the truth !

    ReplyDelete
  11. What looks like a "must watch" this evening:

    PANORAMA - BBC1 8.30 pm Monday November 4th, 2013

    AFTER SAVILE NO MORE SECRETS

    "Why was it so easy for paedophiles like Jimmy Savile to get away with abusing children?
    In other countries evidence of abuse must be reported to the authorities. But here, turning a blind eye to child abuse in a school, or a hospital, or a church is not a crime.

    Reporter Sanchia Berg talks to victims, police and senior figures who are now calling for
    Britain to change the law and uncovers secret files which show that the government knew
    for decades that children's homes and schools covered up abuse.

    Head teachers and governors routinely moved abusers, sending them on with a good reference,
    rather than call the police. Even today, some head teachers still fail to act on reports
    and complaints."

    It will be on the i-player for those who miss it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just heard on the news that Stuart has been sentenced to 3 months, please tell me this is where the dung hits the fan with extra material being published?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know. Voice, has Stuart got people who can act for him if he can't access the Net?

      Delete
    2. I believe contingency plans have been put in place should his Blog be taken down.

      Delete
  13. Yes he does. They would be foolish to arrest him, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/04/jersey-stuart-syvret-jailed-blog-allegations

    "None of the four individuals named has ever attempted to sue Syvret for defamation. Instead, the data protection commissioner in Jersey, Emma Martins, has prosecuted him under the Data Protection Act.

    She argues, highly unusually, that Syvret is the "data controller" of his blog (a position usually held in a large corporation) and that he has no right to name and shame people on his blog, whether or not the information he reveals about them is correct."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The court ruled that he is the data controller of his own blog so the Guardian view is irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. Not sure the Powers That Be would agree that a National Newspapers view is irrelevant, but in fairness you could be right, we shall have to wait and see.

      Delete
    3. VFC, UK Judge who had already dealt with data protection cases already.
      All blog owners are data controllers, I mean what else are they?

      Delete
    4. “…. whether or not the information he reveals about them is correct."

      The Data Protection Law ALLOWS publication of “data” for journalism and for public interest disclosures.

      The Data Protection Law has been hijacked by those who wish to cover up appalling child abuse and other crimes.

      This is obvious unless you are a JEP delusionist.

      Delete
  15. Curtis Warren is visiting La Moye. Perhaps Mr Syvert could arrange dinner for two in the canteen to discuss their mutual esteem of the Royal Court.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This will be international news.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you not notice how John Hemming acts like Stuart Syvret is still an acting States Member?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well how can he be a political prisoner then!

      Delete
    2. Do you think you have to be a politician to be a political prisoner? If so I suggest you Google it.

      Delete
  18. dear vfc
    it,s time to give the fear back

    ReplyDelete
  19. From these interviews, it seems Stuart is not afraid of much, Jersey's establishment is acting out of sheer terror and the UK has a great deal to fear. The Crown Courts did not want to have to defend the made-up legal farce of the misused Data Protection Law against Stuart. Remember, this was originally intended to be a top secret hush-hush never-tell prosecution, not something that would have to be defended in the light of day, much less an international incident.

    Now, many more around the world will work tirelessly to defend him, to expose and to disclose beyond the reach of the likes of silly Ms Martins, and her Feudal handlers. His imprisonment will not withstand the scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Can you confirm that Stuart has indeed been arrested? If so, do you know if he's at PHQ or has he been taken straight to La Moye?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry VFC but for once he has been stupid.
      These 4 people were nothing and all he had to do was swallow a bit of pride and take down some posts and avoid all this.
      You should of told him.

      Delete
    2. Or The Powers That Be were stupid by twisting the Data Protection Law beyond recognition and holding a secret court case when there were defamation/libel avenues the four proxies could/should have taken in "open" court.

      Delete
  21. Former Jersey minister Stuart Syvret to be jailed over blog allegations

    Former Channel Islands politician sentenced to three months in prison for refusing to take down 'highly defamatory' articles

    Where is evidence that the articles Mr Syvret published defamed anyone and were not the truth.?

    Stuart was never sued by any of those the Court deemed were defamed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ChannelTV say yesterday he did give an interview to VFC- but they use the wrong video! Accidently incompetant - no way- this was deliberate.
    http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=507994

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fairness I think it was a fair piece and did credit the Blog for the interview.

      Delete
  23. Have just spent several hours on twitter as legal experts, journalists and others around the world discuss this. Does not look good for Jersey's attempt to twist Data Protection Law to fit their retaliatory action against Stuart. Jersey's oligarchy seems to have no legitimate defenders of this case, outside of Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As a very ordinary Jersey man, I feel deep shame and embarrassment that an unelected judiciary sitting in our democratic government is able to circumvent natural justice by making up “new” laws as and when it suits them.

    Ex-Senator Syvret’s imprisonment is not by the process of natural justice, two phrases spring to mind in the false imprisonment of Ex-Senator Syvret, these are:

    “Nemo iudex in causa sua”

    and

    “Audi alteram partem”

    This judgement is clearly a breach of natural justice and also human rights; a dangerous precedent has now been set in the government of this island by a politicised judiciary.

    It is high-time the democratically elected States Members of this island’s government put their heads together and finally put its house in order!

    Remove all unelected members who have no place or right to sit in our government, these unelected feudal left-over’s from a by-gone age have no right to dictate what elected members who represent the people of this island are able to speak about in the house.

    The imprisonment of Ex Senator Syvret represents the darkest moment in the history of this island.

    I am ashamed of my government!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said sir. I'm thoroughly ashamed of my government (UK) too

      Delete
  25. Having lent a certain ex politician a car (old but insured), I was surprised to get a call from Rouge Boullion at 9am Sunday morning saying 'you car has been involved in an incident ,can you confirm who was driving it?'
    I said who it should be and they wanted me to go there and make a statement which I could not and subsequent calls were not followed through from their side and have now stopped for some reason.

    Interestingly the ex politician said that he was partially blocked by a very slow moving white van on the way to a race at the time and carefully overtook it and that was the only incident possible and totally unmemorable.
    Coincidence that that might allow a legitimate check on ownership isn't, it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wonder if Amnesty will be taking an interest in the political nature of the imprisonment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A great idea, and Amnesty has been contacted by a number of individuals and groups but their procedures are too sluggish. There is absolutely no reason we cannot do what Amnesty does best even without their help. Having once spent regular evenings with other volunteers hand writing letters on behalf of political prisoners behind the old "Iron Curtain," there is nothing that prevents us, as individuals, from being even more effective now than we were then. Results are mostly a matter of simply having the will, and then just a very little bit of effort by many. Success is much more likely if people can mount a group meet-up effort in person where possible to email and plan. It energises and elevates participants. This has been demonstrated with documented studies of effective campaigns and social causes.

      Legally, the pressure should be on the UK, as Stuart has suggested when he recommended contacting MPs in the UK. Those who are in Jersey or elsewhere outside the UK, can help by emailing John Hemming MP, who deserves to know he is appreciated for his own efforts on behalf of Stuart. Emails to Mr Hemming in support of Stuart can be important documentation he can use to establish in Parliament the level of concern for Stuart's plight.

      We should be able to have relatively abundant blogsites available outside Jersey's legal reach in which to repost anything he is forced to take down, and even more updates he has not yet disclosed. There is simply nothing for the Jersey oligarchy to gain in keeping him prisoner, and despite the relative quiet in the mainstream (state) media in Jersey, there is plenty of m.s.m. attention outside Jersey already with more promised.

      Twitter has been active on this topic with a number of Stuart's supporters and a few local trolls, and there are well known investigative journalists and bloggers in the UK who can been seen on twitter discussing the ridiculous use of the Data Protection Law to silence him. If you can tweet about this, you can add your voice to many in at least six countries who have expressed support. It can be very helpful to use the same hashtag to tweet about relevant topics, so everyone can view the @StuartSyvret discussions and add to them or retweet. The hashtag to use is #FreeSyvretNow

      Elle (& others)
      On twitter at @DenverElle

      Delete
  27. Ah! They may be looking for yet another motoring offense since the last one from the dawn police raid was so laughable?

    ReplyDelete

  28. Those who engage in this debate and make the point that Stuart has "broken the law" might be missing the point. Jersey has many laws and enforcement is selective. Some people seem able to get away with anything. Some are seized upon for the slightest infringement. It is the creative and selective use of the law to secure the imprisonment of a political opponent of the Jersey regime which is the issue, and it is this aspect which ought to be the focus of local and international concern.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Was Stuart prisoned for making libellous comments on his blog or contempt of Court? Can the two not be separated. Yes Stuart knew he would be put in prison for failing to appear in that Court. Would anyone given the decisions reached in previous cases. How are the public to know if anything published was libellous when he was never sued? With the Data protection commissioner intervening.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Judge in the previous hearing stated no further action to be taken. Stuart had also notified the appeal court he was making an appeal.

    Surely you do not lock someone up when the Judge stated the above and the appeal secretary was notified. What is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mario Lundy was walking around town this morning grinning like the cat that got the cream.

    ReplyDelete
  32. He was jailed for not removing the comments. The Judge previously announced that no further action would take place. He was obviously persuaded to change his mind.

    He refuses to remove anything. It is common knowledge that one of the four he wrote about is indeed an evidenced nasty malicious Troll who gave out death threats down the phone and was prosecuted by the police.

    Then taken to court and found guilty. Should Syvret have taken down his honest person comments about this idiot, then he would ( as strange as it may seem ) be bowing to pressure to remove the truth.

    Only in Jersey, a Crown dependancy with a Govenor turning a blind eye in the name of the Queen would this charade happen, but for how long can the act carry on ?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Has the Justice Minister been informed of this travesty. Is the appeal valid system valid?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi VFC.

    just put up the Audio of the BBC doing a job on the Pitmans. You and your reader's can Listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Perhaps you should be trying to expose the real reason why child abuse can be covered up and also why islanders such as ex-Senator Stuart Syvret can be tried in secret court’s and made political prisoners for speaking out against those controlling this island’s government (The City of London Corporation)!

    Woody, try and get the film “The UK Gold” screened in Jersey:

    http://www.theukgold.co.uk/

    You may also wish to get a nodding acquaintance with this:

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/Jersey.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  36. Stuart recorded a video message to be published after his imprisonment. He has now been in imprisoned and it has now BEEN PUBLISHED

    ReplyDelete
  37. A comment on th Rag on Line.
    "The un-named four brave souls who chose to confront his vile vindictive invective that breeched their precious Data Protection, deserve to have their names published in neon as true genuine Jersey-men on a monument on the Waterfront."

    I believe this was in the style of 'Proud Jersey Man' .

    ReplyDelete
  38. A comment has been submitted with a link to the Early Days Motion that names people which could be pretty "Jersey" legally sensitive. Sorry I can't publish it in fear of being dragged to a secret court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does this help?

      http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-truth-whole-truth-or.html?showComment=1383924011317

      Delete
  39. Thank you for your explanation of why you do not wish to publish the Early Day Motion 685 - tabled by John Hemming MP on the 6th of November 2013.

    This government motion is published openly in the public domain, does this publication now put the U.K. government in a position of being prosecuted for "Data Handling" this information?

    Interesting situation Woody...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Danny not David

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've heard that the Media are reporting on selective bits of information about Stuart Syvret on purposely to make him look barmy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surprise, surprise. Look what they are doing to the Pitmans, for God's sake.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't we all fall faint in shock if the mainstream media in Jersey lost its bias?

      Elle

      Delete
  42. Anonymous @17.42

    Hemming's motion is protected by Parliamentary Privilege in UK. In other words he can't be sued for naming the names. The only constraint on him would be Parliament itself if it deemed it inappropriate for him to name names.

    Jersey is not part of UK, so the privilege does not extend to Jersey. If VFC publishes the motion he could be sued. That's not to say he'd lose the case. Or they could try and again misuse the data protection legislation, run up another bill for the State and make themselves a further (chilling) laughing stock. I assume VFC is OK giving a link to the EDM published on the UK Parliamentary site. But you never know in Jersey. They make it up there as they go along. But for how much longer.

    If I was an investor, or a tax exile, or whatever, while I might want to take advantage of Jersey's financial regime, I would be anxious that the rule of law apply, and this is not the case. If they carry on like this in the civil sphere, what's to stop them making it up in the financial sphere if they panic?

    The wheels are starting to come off the whole show, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Polo.

    "I assume VFC is OK giving a link to the EDM published on the UK Parliamentary site. But you never know in Jersey. They make it up there as they go along."

    You hit the nail on the head. I'm not an expert on this but I believe I have every right to publish a link to the EDM as it is a public document. However it is as you say "They make it up there as they go along." This is the problem you could be the best legal brain in the world and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in a Jersey court. The Syvret case IS having the desired effect and putting people in fear of saying anything about anybody because the law counts for nothing on this island.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So given that the four have now been named on the Parliament website, obviously the data protection commissioner will be taking action against them too, and everybody else who decides to copy and paste the paragraph? There's no point taking this action against him, even if he removes the names from his blog, the case is so well publicised that they are readily accessible on several other sites now...web and blog

    I take it Stuart will be appealing his 3 month Jail sentence within the next few weeks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has been said before but does deserve repeating that with all the hair-brained scatter-gun knee-jerk ideas the Establishment has ever come up with (and there are many) this one has to take the biscuit. Somebody has come up with an idea of putting (for want of a better word) a super-injunction on an acquaintance of John Hemming MP who famously outed Ryan Giggs and thought that nobody would ever find out. The names of the four individuals are now all over the internet, to include on an EDM and they (four proxies and Establishment) believe they have won their case because they have locked Stuart Syvret up for 3 months while the "offending articles" STILL remain on his Blog!

      This lunacy is truly beyond parody and if I was one of the four proxies I'd be looking to sue whoever talked them into taking part in such a flawed scheme. The Establishment (or whoever talked them into this lunacy) have caused them more damage than Stuart Syvret could ever have done on his Blog alone.

      Delete
  45. I don't think Emma Martins' daddy gave her good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Personally I think 3 months inside as a starting point because he will only go in again until he learns to respect the Court is a hell of a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you’re missing the point? This was all about keeping something secret wasn’t it? If there was no court case, it could still be relatively secret, but it’s because of the court case that more people know the names of the four proxies. Jailing him isn’t going to change that, moreover it brings unwanted (by the Establishment) attention to, what is increasingly looking like, a corrupt, and politicised, Judicial system. Who is the winner(s) in all this?

      Delete
    2. It depends whether they care or not VFC because John Hemming has done this before.
      The fact remains they have had a winning result and if anything the more publicity is probably better for them.

      Delete
    3. “if anything the more publicity is probably better for them.”

      Just priceless. These four individuals bring a “secret” court case against Stuart (rather than attempt to clear their names publicly) the secret court case was to protect their identity, their names have not publicly been cleared and even more people know about them now because of the court case. The whole idea of this was supposed to be secret in order to protect the four proxies identity and you think the more publicity the better. This stuff really is beyond parody.

      Delete
    4. There is one criminal out of the four who longs for more publicity, because he treats the world as a game. That would be your pet troll. The other three, and the Jersey authorities, can't be as happy about the fact that millions can now permanently access all four names, and just see Stuart Syvret as a public interest whistleblowing political prisoner. At least they see this clearly from outside of Jersey.

      Elle

      Delete
  47. Funny.
    In all your little video clips he has never once addressed the abuse he has written about these 4 people and you seem to turn a blind eye to it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s not me who has turned a blind eye to the allegations made against the four proxies; indeed they (the allegations) are being investigated by others more capable than I and will be addressed on this Blog and further afield…….Stay tuned.

      Delete
    2. And they will come up with the same conclusions.
      If its true that Mr Syvret never even bothered to challenge the case being held in camera then what does that tell you?
      If people were guilty as alleged then they would not even risk an in camera trial never mind a public one.

      Delete
    3. "If its true that Mr Syvret never even bothered to challenge the case being held in camera then what does that tell you?"...........................It's not true?

      Delete
  48. "rather than attempt to clear their names publicly"
    Are you seriously suggesting that these people need to clear their names publically just to satisfy some bloggers?
    I would agree if the MSM had repeated the claims but they never did like so much Mr Syvret has said in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I’m “seriously suggesting” the four proxies should have attempted to clear their names to satisfy themselves. They were talked into a hair-brained idea that casts even more suspicion on them and a lot more people know who they are now.

      The local MSM (State Media) has been utterly discredited by Bloggers during the Child Abuse reporting (or not) not least because that’s about all it can do is “repeat” thinking about it, it can’t even do that let alone “investigate” anything!

      Delete
  49. I doubt the 4 are bothered about being publically cleared after recent events.
    One was accused of heinous crime for starters and by just walking around as a free man is proof enough to me that he has no case to answer.
    Claims against the others are probably seen as so farfetched it would just be seen as silly to even go any further than data protection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or we have a corrupt and politicised feudal judicial system.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree. Your troll is practically making your case for you, now. The reasons evidenced criminals can run free in Jersey is exactly what is at issue.

      Delete
  50. Yet outside of Jersey there are countless individuals and organisations supporting Stuart Syvret, and these outsiders may know more than some Islanders do about the past criminal convictions, courtroom testimony and other evidence regarding these four. Because Jersey tried to silence a whistleblower, the names of these four now remain documented and published on Hansard as well as on blogs. An own goal for Jersey and all who oppress truth except for the attention seeking troll who likes his criminal notoriety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I read comments on the VFC blog like this all I see is an attempt to drive up a hate campaign against the 4 people involved.

      Delete
    2. Or stating a fact that the four are leaving a legacy that might not be that well received in years to come by their family.

      Delete
  51. Yes, just walking around proves innocence. What an idiot troll.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What is trolling about saying if the person is walking around then how can he be guilty of heinous crime?
    Are you saying publically that you have evidence to have this person banged up?
    I get the impression that people want a witch trial here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I get the impression that people want a witch trial here." A media led one like that of the State Media against those who are seeking the truth of the child abuse cover-up?

      Delete
  53. "Or we have a corrupt and politicised feudal judicial system."

    Or we have people who either think they are above the law.
    It is funny how only the people who have lost cases continue to bark on about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is just getting beyond ridiculous now.

      “It is funny how only the people who have lost cases continue to bark on about this.”

      So do you expect people who have won a case to complain about it?

      Delete
    2. Are you a barking troll because you lost a court case for making death threats and that makes you go on about this?

      Delete
  54. This is pointless like you say.
    They won their case and I say fair play to them and none of these people are involved in child abuse cover ups, thats a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “none of these people are involved in child abuse cover ups, thats a fact.”

      It’s your “opinion” and that’s a “fact” however there is evidence to the contrary.

      Delete
  55. Don't know if this persistent troll is the one who was convicted of making death threats or simply one of his loyal supporters, but does he agree with the troll losing that case in court? How about the nurse's court conviction on other crimes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a supporter of the 4 and I am not surprised it got to court by the way these people have been harassed over time as even you find it necessary to call me a troll for just a having a differing view, which I find insulting.
      I also know the person you referred to never made a threat to kill so that is yet another exaggerated piece of information and its my understanding the person accused of heinous crime was cleared sometime ago.

      Delete
    2. “you find it necessary to call me a troll for just a having a differing view, which I find insulting.”

      You are “Anonymous” so “you” are not being insulted.

      The thread is now straying off topic into one that has been well rehearsed previously and will no doubt be the feature of Blogs to come.

      Can we please stay on topic and remember that Stuart Syvret has said he would gladly attend a “lawful” court. So why won’t the Establishment provide him with one? Or have they?

      Delete
  56. Voice

    Not sure if this is on topic or if you can answer it, but was the one convicted of crimes ever cleared?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Straying off topic but any convictions still stand.

      Delete
    2. Depends what the crime is because most convictions get classed as spent over time.
      I think if you have been to prison for more than 2 years then you have it for life.
      Sadly even paedophiles get taken off sex offender lists after 5 years.

      Delete
  57. Stuart Syvret does not make any sense because if his claims were all spot on about the courts then we would have had a major uprising by now against the State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the State Media make sure the general public are kept ignorant of the politicised and corrupt judiciary?

      Delete
  58. Hi VFC.

    Here's another terrible piece of interviewing by a BBC Journo, MP Hemming shows her up for what she is, just a Mouth Piece for the Government.

    You and your readers can Listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "I don't think Emma Martins' daddy gave her good advice."
    He was from the Bureau des Tres Etranges

    ReplyDelete
  60. those contributors who keep saying time after time that someone " aggrieved or considers themselves libelled by Syvret " should sue him for the libel, yes in the real world one would but who can afford to spend thousands upon thousands probably six figures plus to sue Syvret who is " penniless "has no job, he admits to having no money etc, that's why no one is seeking legal address against him, Syvret owes hundreds of thousands of pounds in court ordered costs already..so come on be sensible no one in their right mind are going to sue, look at the mess the Pitman's find themselves in.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A fair comment but the problem lies with the fact that the four proxies’ names have not been publicly cleared. If the (abuse of the Data Protection Law) court case had of been “open” rather than “secret” and evidence of the allegations tested, and found to have no substance, then it might have been a worthwhile cause where some could argue it was taxpayers money well spent.

    As far as I can tell, the (abuse of the Data Protection Law) court case, didn’t/couldn’t judge the allegations to be true, or false, only that they caused the proxies harm and stress.

    As for Deputies Pitman it is argued that “they” didn’t get themselves into any mess. Other than to say they (wrongly) believed they were going to get a non-conflicted, impartial and article 6 compliant court hearing.

    Furthermore if the proxies couldn’t have afforded to take Stuart Syvret to court then they could have approached the (non Human Right compliant) Legal Aid System for representation.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "A fair comment but the problem lies with the fact that the four proxies’ names have not been publicly cleared"

    I would say thats irrelevant to them after this result and you can't get legal aid for libel actions as the Pitmans found out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s irrelevant to the four proxies that as a result of their secret court case, their names a more widely known than they would have been without the court case? I thought, just by their names being published on Stuart Syvret’s Blog was causing them “stress and harm?” And you think it is irrelevant that their names are on an EDM and UK Hansard not to mention a number of websites/Blog sites? What kind of logic is that then?

      Delete
  63. Come on Voice. you well know you cannot get legal aid for " Civil actions " only criminal cases and even then I well know of working class people who have had to pay up even though they were on legal aid, there is no such thing as free legal because the lawyers will always have their snouts in the trough !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rules can be bent (beyond recognition in the Data Protection case) where, if it was in the public interest, a Legal Aid certificate could have been issued. Curtis Warren's Lawyer was paid close to £3m wasn't he, and nit by Curtis Warren.

      Delete
    2. Curtis Warren's was a criminal trial and he still insists that he has nothing, no assets and the prosecution still cannot prove then at the pre- trial or even now if he has assets stashed away and a legal aid certificate was not possible in the data protection case...please check your facts and stop making assumptions etc

      Delete
    3. bullshit anon 14.15. You can get legal Aid for civil cases. Look recently at the Simon Abbott defamation case ( may he rest in peace ).

      Where you get that idea from about not being allowed legal aid in civil case its completely wrong . There are loads of cases .

      Delete
  64. Readers might want to take a look at THIS which looks to be a welcome addition to Citizens Media.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "their names a more widely known than they would have been without the court case?"

    So what?

    I think that because Stuart Syvret has been found guilty of data protection offences against them and subsequently jailed that more people will side with them.
    Best people to ask is them though.

    ReplyDelete
  66. People who know what these four men did and who they are will never personally think well of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact remains that they actually never did anything!
      The blog claims against them never went to court for starters and how many others on that blog have been maligned without a hint of trial?
      Because so little has happened when claims have been made, nobody can possibly be taken in by it anymore.

      Delete
    2. Or we’ve got a corrupt and politicsed judicial system.

      Delete
  67. anonymous 19.23, I will not use such language but perhaps you could highlight these " civil actions funded by legal aid " including the so called Abbott case..dates and details please and i do not need you to be using bad language thank you...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Annon says:
    The fact remains that they actually never did anything!

    Three out of four of them, there is proof/allegations, at least enough to say they did do something.
    First one a police report, now besides Syvrets blog, shockingly, readily, available online.
    Second one still available on line from The Sun newspaper.
    Third one on line sound and vision, stalking Syvrets landlord....

    Proof enough, proving there is NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE!?

    ReplyDelete
  69. To understand all of this sh*t, you only need to ask yourself one question?

    How does the Monarchy and U.K. Government find the money to bank-roll its armed forces?

    Dawned on you yet?

    Through its TAX HAVENS!

    ReplyDelete
  70. "As far as I can tell, the (abuse of the Data Protection Law) court case, didn’t/couldn’t judge the allegations to be true, or false, only that they caused the proxies harm and stress."

    In this case, the narrowness of the Data Protection Law served the plaintiffs' purpose better than an action for defamation, which would require a full examination of any allegations made and objected to. The Data Protection Law makes it an offence to publish sensitive personal data without permission if:

    "(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to the individual or to another individual; and

    (b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted." (Article 10 Data Protection Law 2005)

    The allegations published by Mr. Syvret are clearly "sensitive personal data" as defined in the Data Protection Law.

    SInce Mr. Syvret had previously been found guilty of: processing personal data while not being registered as a Data Controller under the Law; and the improper use of sensitive personal data as defined in the Law (i.e. accusing identifiable individual(s) of criminal activity.) it's difficult to see how the court, secret, or otherwise, could do other than find in favour of the four plaintiffs.

    As Data Commissioner, Ms. Martins was within her brief and the Law to grant assistance to the four:

    "(1) An individual who is an actual or prospective party to proceedings (whether actual or prospective) under Article 7(12), 10(4), 12(7) or 14, or by virtue of Article 13, that relate to personal data processed for the special purposes may apply to the Commissioner for assistance in relation to those proceedings.

    (2) The Commissioner shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving an application under paragraph (1), consider it and decide to what extent to grant it, but shall not grant the application unless, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the case involves a matter of substantial public importance." Article 53 Data Protection Law (2005)

    Ms. Martins must have considered the case of the four to be of "substantial public importance." Has she made any justification for her decision to grant assistance?

    To sum it all up. the Data Protection Law concerns itself with the fact of sensitive personal data being published without the subjects' permission and to their detriment. The detailed nature of the "data" is of little importance. It is the fact of publication and the stress and/or injury caused by that publication with which the court concerned itself.

    You could say "but what was published was true," but the court would assess the truth of allegations of criminality very simply, by asking, "Has any of the plaintiffs been charged with, or found guilty of any of the alleged offences?" The answer is "No." Therefore, the court would decide that their were no grounds in law to support the truth of the allegations against the four and would work on the principle of "The Presumption of Innocence."

    One thing we're not clear about in all this is whether, or not the Data Protection Law was followed strictly, with Mr. Syvret receiving a written notice from the plaintiffs, giving him a deadline by which to remove the offending comments; and whether he responded, as the law requires, with a written reply justifying his refusal to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Was it the four individuals themselves who took action against Stuart Syvret or, the Data protection commissioner.

    I ask because as it is apparently not possible to take a private prosecution unless I believe with consent of Attorney General in certain circumstances. I would like to know who took the action?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The action was brought by the Data Protection Office.

      Delete
  72. Why was there no financial cost to the four if they themselves took the action?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The action was brought by the Data Protection Office, on behalf of the proxies. It was a convenient relationship (IMO) The Proxies wanted stuff removed from Stuart's Blog (that's still there) and the Establishment got what it wanted in a JUDGE MADE LAW.

      The proxies still think they have got what they wanted and don't seem to understand that the Establishment has got what it wanted and used the proxies to get it. Payed for by the taxpayer and a huge assault on public interest disclosure, investigative journalism and freedom of speech.

      Delete
    2. VFC I have spent some time looking at the material Mr Syvret has defended and are you seriously calling all of it investigative journalism because I can think of other names for it?
      Actually I am surprised he never took it down to save the hassle.
      Why didn't you advise him to take it all down?

      Delete
    3. No I am not defending ALL of what is posted on Stuart’s Blog or calling it all investigative journalism. What I am defending is free speech, public interest disclosure and investigative journalism.

      With what I, and many others, believe to be a bent and twisted interpretation of the Data Protection Law, so bent and twisted that apparently there is no precedent anywhere in the western world where the DP Law has been interpreted the same way as the Jersey Court has.

      Because of this judge made law it now looks like you can’t say anything about anybody on the Internet. If everything written is TRUE, it makes no difference. You could expose a paedophile/rapist/murderer but if what you said about him/her causes that person stress, or harm, the Data Protection Office can take you to a secret taxpayer funded court and slam a Super-injunction on you.

      I maintain my opinion that the Establishment used these four individuals as proxies in order to shut down independent journalism or exposure of corruption on this island. The four proxies have been played like a fiddle…….And the taxpayer has paid for it.

      Delete
  73. '' If everything written is TRUE, it makes no difference. You could expose a paedophile/rapist/murderer but if what you said about him/her causes that person stress, or harm, the Data Protection Office can take you to a secret taxpayer funded court and slam a Super-injunction on you.''

    If everything written was true then it follows it would cause distress to those named if the public are alerted to it. That is a given.

    If untrue then the named would feel safe secure and protected.

    ReplyDelete
  74. VFC there is freedom of speech and there is the online harassment of people.
    From what I have read I would say I have mainly seen the latter and as the judge said of this material it was 'unnecessary'.
    He should of just taken it down and lived to fight another day, if he had then he wouldn't be up La Moye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “VFC there is freedom of speech and there is the online harassment of people.”

      That’s my point there are adequate criminal laws to deal with online harassment. If anything Stuart had posted amounted to harassment then the four proxies could have made a criminal complaint, which would have been dealt with in “open” court.

      I maintain my opinion that this was a corrupt, and politicised, “secret” court case in order to shut down political dissent and exposure of corruption in Jersey.

      Delete
    2. That is your opinion VFC but I would argue it is up to the 4 people involved to decide as to how they want to proceed.
      I also know that Mr Syvret has had plenty of chances to make political speeches in court cases of the past already, as I have seen him action.
      Mr Syvret has to date, has had his fair share of speaking his mind to an audience already.

      Delete
  75. Stuart Syvret was not registered with the data protection office as a data controller, therefor he did not process personal data.

    Stuart Syvret published allegations about 4 people, the remedy for which is a civil libel suit.

    The data protection Law has been misused, the legislature did not intend the data protection Law to supersede or take the place of libel suits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do not have to be registered with data protection to break data protection law.
      But most journalists who want to be taken seriously will register.

      Delete
  76. the whole point of data protection Laws (worldwide) is to protect people who give their private information to organisations( social security, banks etc.) it is not to allow the state to prosecute anyone they dislike with pseudo legal bullsh*t masquerading as lawful behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Was Stuart Syvret ever charged with contempt of court by a centenier personally?

    Bet not,

    more flouting of their own laws by the local judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Just checked Stuart's blog page counter - the numbers since last Monday have rocketed - only around four hundred more and he will reach the big 1 and 6 zeros! Clearly a lot of people are watching.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Stuart's imprisonment has gained interest from across the world and questions are being asked about the UK's silence. This could prove to be embarrassing/problematic for the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry VFC but this is more wishful thinking than fact.
      You seem to think that Stuart Syvret has a legal right to be in contempt of court and the UK is hardly going to step in and endorse his behaviour of late.

      Delete
  80. http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/

    Total Pageviews


    999,870

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bailhaches brothers hate what is being written about them on Stuart Syvret's blog. Rather than take him to task, in open court without conflicted friends as judges, they and others have manipulated the data protection law in a underhand effort to discredit and trounce Syvret. What they have actually achieved is to trounce Jersey on the international stage making Jersey look very bad indeed.

    They have had help from many out of touch politicians drunk on power, and removed mentally from reality. The same politicians who refuse to hold to account, their out of control beach masters, for beach masters, think ministers.

    They will be talking to you soon, oh yes, as they want your vote, to get back in and serve you more of the same. I wasn't going to mention Barbados, but hell why not.

    ReplyDelete
  82. May be helpful for new readers if contributors could provide quick answer / Evidence to the questions asked by Stuart Syvret in the video above proving or disproving the claims.


    1. This court is choosing conflicted Judges

    2. Ignoring there previous judgement in which they said no further action to be taken and a couple of weeks later take further action.

    3. The secretariat was notified an appeal was being undertaken to be filed still matters of appeal.

    4. Technically the charge is contempt of court.

    5. The charge arises from corrupt abuse and suppressive distorted application of the data protection law in Jersey.

    6. Is this court a lawful court?

    7. Does it meet the tests of objectivity?

    8. Does it meet the test of impartiality?

    9. Is it compliant with Article 6 of the European convention of human rights?

    ReplyDelete
  83. I was able to capture the screen shot of his blog hitting 1,000,000 pageviews a few hours ago, to send to Stuart. Sending him It's also posted on twitter. Sending him to prison certainly didn't keep his blog from being read. If anything, it has brought him many new international readers.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have thought that the last thing Stuart would want would be for more people to be looking at his blog. The sum of the impact his blog has had since its beginning is for Stuart to have been locked up twice for breaking the law. Any rational person reading it would be able to deduce from it that the man is guilty of everything he has been convicted of.

      It's simply car crash blogging. Most people are there to gawp at the disaster, rather than analyse the background to the crash.

      But don't let that put you off.

      Delete
    2. I think the point being made is that the Data Protection Office convinced the four proxies by taking the action they did would get the offending articles taken off the Blog and nobody will ever find out about it. The evidence shows the complete opposite to be the truth where even more people know about it/them as a result of the “secret” court case.

      Delete
  84. These people have been harassed by Stuart Syvret, and none have been convicted of the crimes of which he is accusing them. They are innocent in the eyes of the law.

    These innocent people are sleeping safely in their own beds in the company of their families. Stuart Syvret is sleeping alone in a cell with another conviction under his belt.

    You are making utter fools of yourselves as trying to spin this as any sort of victory.

    ReplyDelete
  85. These four people took Stuart Syvret to court in order to have their names removed from his Blog. As a result of this action their names are on UK Parliament Hansard, and Early Day Motion, Facebook, Twitter, Blog sites and websites and STILL on Stuart Syvret’s Blog.

    You/They (proxies) are deluding themselves if they/you believe this is any kind of a victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just hate the proxy 4 and its written all over this blog as you just patronise them all the time. Syvret is a convicted criminal, try talking to people ouitside of your gang for a change.

      Delete
    2. Firstly I don’t “hate” anybody including the 4 proxies. I believe they have all been done up like a kipper in order for the Establishment to get a judge made law to silence any political dissent on the internet.

      You might see “Syvret” as a convicted criminal but others see him as a Political Prisoner who is a victim of the Island’s corrupt, and politicised, “Justice” system.

      Perhaps you should try talking to people outside your gang (I’m not part of one). I have spoken with one of the 4 proxies (who I don’t hate) and tried to obtain an interview but to no avail.

      Delete
  86. Could some one who uses twitter tweet the above video link to George Galloway please.

    ReplyDelete