As well as State Radio CUTTING OFF THE MICROPHONE of an opposition politician and refusing to give her the opportunity to provide evidence (she had in her possession) to substantiate some of what she was saying that goes against the status quo. And the BBC burying (after reporting on the prosecution case) the interim defence case submitted by former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.
Or Jersey's only "news"paper hailing a cop who is alleged to have been leaking confidential police information, during a live Child Abuse investigation, to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles as a "WHISTLEBLOWER" when anybody with just a fraction of common sense knows former SIO Mick Gradwell should be investigated as a suspect in "Operation Elveden."
Jersey's State Media has consistently either buried public interest/news stories or OPINION MANAGES them into anything that will help maintain the status quo of this, not fit for purpose, feudal government and what many perceive to be a politicised, and corrupt judicial system.
Readers should ask themselves; when has The Establishment ever been seriously challenged by a local "journalist?" When was the last time a local "journalist" seriously challenged (rather than repeated) a Press Release from an Establishment Politician? When has any of the local State Media challenged the status quo or even asked the most blindingly obvious challenging question?
The answer is they don't/won't they just report whatever Press Release they are given, no matter how ludicrous, and keep their heads down too scared to rock the Establishment boat and any "journalistic" integrity is washed away in favour of keeping their jobs and not becoming a victim of "The Jersey Way."
Readers might now be aware of an exciting new online news/magazine channel THE PEOPLE'S VOICE (TPV) and in particular The Sonia Poulton Show. Sonia has interviewed (so far) former DCO and SIO of Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation LENNY HARPER and local politicians Deputies TREVOR AND SHONA PITMAN and she is keen (I am told) to interview others from Jersey. All going to plan, in the New Year, she will be.
The Sonia Poulton Show is broadcast every week night between 1700-1900hrs GMT and is a wealth of information concerning what is buried, or spun, by the "professional" mainstream media and shows us that Jersey's local State Media is only marginally worse than that of the UK and others.
A few nights ago Sonia Poulton interviewed Keith Allen who directed a documentary on the death of Diana Princess of Wales which can, and should, be viewed HERE. As fascinating as the interview was, it was just before Sonia Poulton introduced Keith Allen that was probably the most truthful and accurate monologue I have ever heard from a journalist live on air and simply has to be shared with readers of this Blog.
Can anybody legitimately argue with what Sonia Poulton has to say in this one minute forty nine second monologue and seriously argue that she isn't describing Jersey's State Media?
Jersey's State Media is no more than Guardians Of The Status Quo who daren't challenge those in power............... Which is exactly what a "journalist" is supposed to do.
Credit, and thanks, for this video recording to TPV.
The clip demonstrates that she is able to be penetrating and concise and she describes well how in journalism there is an increasing tendency to re-cycle news releases rather than ask challenging questions. I do not think that in all of the cases where the hard questions are asked it is any kind of plot. Two things are at work. One is the fact that many modern journalists are incapable of thinking of hard questions. I was once close to a newspaper group, which was struggling a bit financially. New owners balanced the books by getting rid of most of the seasoned proper journalists and replacing them with a bunch of juveniles who gathered their "news" from a computer. The second factor is a general tendency not to "rock the boat" or "make trouble." Company lawyers get nervous. Bosses do not like it. It makes them work for their money as opposed to having a comfortable life with lots of invitations to corporate hospitality, which would soon dry up if too many folk were upset.
ReplyDeleteOf course the Internet is now gradually demolishing those cozy arrangements.
At a social function last year I had the opportunity to talk with a journalist who is no longer based here. He said that all in his time here, he was never once steered away from a story by senior members of staff.
ReplyDeleteI think that that says a lot about the calibre of journalists who are recruited to work here.
The Beano is not the Rag
It has been said many times before here and elsewhere the Jersey cover up of its child abuse could not have happened without the complicity of the local MSM. The blogs have and continue to be the trusted source of news because of their dissection of all the media spin and lies from the authorities. Sonia Poulton has described the Jersey PAID media to a tee in the video clip.
ReplyDeleteWhen the whole Child Abuse cover-up is exposed mainstream the local State Media will be exposed alongside it. Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media), and the Abuse Victims/Survivors will gain the recognition they deserve.
ReplyDeleteLet's get straight to the point, so you are calling the Solicitor General and Attorney General liars then because the buck stops at them if there are cover ups?
DeleteDidn't the AG deny any knowledge of the Stuart Syvret raid only to admit at a later date that he was aware after all?
DeleteThe Beano is not the Rag
And wasn't the AG aware of the raid because he was the one that approved it?
DeleteAnd wasn't it true that the only reason that this came out in court was that Syvret challenged the validity of his driving licence charge as the evidence had been obtained during an illegal raid on his home?
And wasn't it true that the JEP never reported the real reason that Syvret was contesting the driving licence charge even though it was mentioned several times in open court? Wasn't it true that the JEP reported the story of Syvret contesting the driving licence charge in a manner that mocked and ridiculed Syvret?
Wasn't it is true that Jersey Police stated that they thought Syvret lived in St Helier and went first to the wrong address?
Wasn't it true that an ex-chief of police stated that that account was not credible?
Wan't it true that the policeman that organised the raid was the subject of inquiry by a local poitican for corrupt practices related to land use?
Wasn't it true that that politician was Syvret's partner and that the raid took away her information related to the corrupt practices under investigation.
Wasn't it true that the reason the AG approved the raid was not revealed in court.
Wasn't it true that the Appeal court judge who had seen the AGs order described the raid as excessive.
Past and present Solicitor/Attorney General's have questions to answer. Do you believe they are beyond (like the State Media does) question?
ReplyDeleteNot at all but it's a very serious accusation against people who are not only professionally qualified and experienced to the top of their field but seen as whiter than white. Proof in the form of hard evidence is also required and not just hunches or chitchat which seems to be the only thing we ever see on this subject when it comes to accusations of foul play.
DeleteIs it just Jersey Solicitor/Attorney Generals who are “not only professionally qualified and experienced to the top of their field but seen as whiter than white?”
DeleteIf so you might want to Google Stephen Harding IOM AG?
“Proof in the form of hard evidence is also required”
Proof, and hard evidence, are two completely different things but something tells me that you are not interested in either.
Just on the off chance I could be wrong and you have a strong interest in getting to the truth then please look HERE for as much “hard evidence, and proof” concerning the spin, and in some cases “lies” told to us as you could wish for.
Furthermore the link should demonstrate to any objective mind out there that this Blog, and others, have asked the questions the State Media should have but remained silent.
If it’s allegations without substance, and “chit chat” you are interested in might I suggest you take yourself to the State Media sites?
To finish with;
“Past and present Solicitor/Attorney General's have questions to answer” is NOT “a very serious accusation against people.”
Further "proof, and hard evidence" to demonstrate that past, and present, AG's/SG's have serious questions to answer and don't appear to be as whiter than white that the commentor would believe, or have readers of this Blog believe.
DeleteIt comes in the form of an official police document, leaked exclusively to this Blog, due to its credibility and the distrust of the local State Media.
Not something that could remotely be described as "CHIT CHAT"
Too many shades of grey here and still nothing concrete to make a real accusation of a child abuse cover up.
ReplyDeleteBut that explains why you can continue alluring to these claims forever whilst the powers just dismiss it all as conspiracy and never change their stance.
But if there was a child abuse cover up then it should have been incovered by now.
As I wrote in an earlier comment; “Proof, and hard evidence, are two completely different things but something tells me that you are not interested in either.”
DeleteAfter providing you with both, you still choose to ignore it.
“But if there was a child abuse cover up then it should have been incovered (sic) by now.”
It has been, by this and other Blogs.
She also claimed, in her interview with the Pitmans, that Edward Heath used to have children from HDLG delivered to his yacht, where he would abuse and murder them. Just because she supports your brand of crazy doesn't mean she is always right or beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteYou really do have a problem with staying with the facts, of which you should be careful because that’s how conspiracy theories take hold.
DeleteSonia Poulton never “claimed” anything of the sort and she went to great pains to make clear that she was quoting Michael Shrimpton QC.
You cannot “prove” that children were not murdered on Ted Heath’s yacht, as much as I can’t prove they were. What we do know is that not all children who were sent to HDLG have been ACCOUNTED FOR.
"Sonia Poulton never “claimed” anything of the sort and she went to great pains to make clear that she was quoting Michael Shrimpton QC."
DeleteHere's THE "PROOF" to back up my claims before your conspiracy theory guts under way.
With regard to the AG approved a raid on Syvret's home, the appeal court judge commented along the lines of
ReplyDeletewhy was it necessary to carry out the raid? There was no question that Syvret had the police documents -he had after all placed them on his blog. He could just been invited to the police station for questioning.
It may be hard to prove conspiracy theories, and when conspiracies are conducted by people in power it can be very hard to get the evidence to meet a high standard of proof. However there are often a lot of arrows pointing in the same direction. Unless of course the raid was just because somebody thought his driving licence was out of date. And they got 100% proof that it was
An even more important question, with huge implications for all of us, is why the AG instructed the police to raid Syvret's house WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT? There are long and detailed provisions in the Data Protection law describing the procedures for obtaining a search warrant in relation to alleged data protection breaches. It is clear that the States, when passing the law, intended that a search warrant should be obtained for such raids, so why did the AG wilfully ignore the will of the legislature and subvert the law? Why did he instruct the police to abuse the provisions of the 'PACE' law, which are intended to allow the police to enter premises without a warrant in extreme circumstances (such as threat to life of limb, risk that e.g. drugs will be flushed down the bog)? What, did they think he might do? Set fire to his website?
ReplyDeleteThe effect of the AG's decision is to render the entire concept of a search warrant entirely unnecessary. All the police now need to do to enter our homes is to arrest us on suspicion of committing a trivial offence, then kick in the door and turn the place over. The AG's action was blatantly unlawful and an utter disgrace to his office and his profession, and carried-out merely out of spite. This man will be the next bailiff. Great.
Someone told me they saw Stuart syvret in the co op today. I thought his release was the 30th Dec.?
ReplyDelete'Which are intended to allow the police to enter premises without a warrant in extreme circumstances (such as threat to life of limb'
ReplyDeleteDidn't Stuart threaten that he would never be taken alive, and that he slept with a hammer under his pillow ? Sounds pretty threatening to me ?
Nice try, genius, but even if the police really did believe there was a threat of violence, how would that affect the requirement to have a warrant for a pre-planned operation? When you see the UK police making dawn raids on the homes of violent criminals, do you think they do so without a search warrant?
DeleteThe "genius" took the phrase "You'll never take me alive, copper" completely out of context and anybody following the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up will be aware of this.
DeleteThe original source of the phrase was posted HERE and appeared on a number of subsequent postings from Stuart Syvret where it is blatantly obvious that he was treating the whole oppressive cover-up with the contempt it deserved. To coin a phrase he was "taking the p1ss."
Even the people your commenter describes as "not only professionally qualified and experienced to the top of their field but seen as whiter than white," might laugh at that. They know their dark secrets are potentially ruinous for their power structure and global reputation, which accounts for their obsession with bending the law to suit their own purposes. Even they might be quite surprised at reading that some person somewhere used that description, as they surely lie awake at night wondering how they'll manage to keep the lid on just a little longer.
ReplyDeleteElle
Genius ? Wow, immediate rudeness. Read your fellow commenters explanation of when a PACE order if admissible.
ReplyDeleteUnlike you people, I don't have to constantly try and twist, or reinterpret, basic statements to illustrate a point.
The facts are:
He stated, in print, that he wouldn't be taken alive
He stated, in print, that he slept with a hammer under his pillow.
Do you really think the police could take a chance that he was only joking ?
Oh, and the hammer comment ? Care to comment on this, or shall we just go back to denigrating me ?
Genius.
Delete“You” are not being denigrated, it might have escaped your attention, but you are posting anonymously.
The point to be made is that there was no legitimate excuse to send 10 cops round to raid the premises (allegedly) looking for something he had posted on the Internet. They could have/should have just asked him for it. It was a fishing trip.
The “won’t take me alive” comment was sent in a jovial/sarcastic manner as demonstrated in the link above. The reason he had to sleep with a hammer under his pillow was because he was receiving death threats either from paedophiles or their protectors.
Funny how the armed cops weren’t deployed when they were deployed for someone in possession of a screwdriver. Perhaps the cops think a hammer isn’t as deadly as a screwdriver?
At least try and stay on subject.
ReplyDeleteThe question asked was 'why the AG instructed the police to raid Syvret's house WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT? '
My answer was that his comments could have been interpreted as a threat to himself or others, in which case PACE would be applicable. Your willingness to spring to the defence of the questioner is admirable, but, in the context of the question I answered, superfluous.
Why providing a reasonable answer to a simple question makes me a genius I'm not sure ?
Still waiting for our troll genius to explain the relevance of a potential for violence to the need to obtain a search warrant for a pre-planned police raid. PACE rules allow police entry without a search warrant where they attend an incident and believe immediate entry is required to prevent harm. This doesn't apply to pre-planned operations to arrest a person during a dawn raid, where there is ample time to apply for a search warrant.
ReplyDeleteNotwithstanding the cops could have/should have just asked for the document(s). As mentioned above, there is no legitimate excuse for a 10 cop dawn raid (without a search warrant) to obtain something he had already published on the internet...........It was a fishing trip.
DeleteIs Stuart out of prison?
ReplyDeleteNo. Early January if he's a good boy and early February if he is not such a good boy.
Delete"early February if he is not such a good boy". VFC, do you know something we don't?
ReplyDeleteNo. I believe that will be his remission. He will do two thirds of his sentence if he behaves himself (which I believe he is) but could lose time (up to the remaining third of his sentence) if he does not.
DeleteDecember the thirtieth it is then,
ReplyDeleteReally? What is the betting that 'The Offended Four' or more specifically Bergerac Barbie and their 'unpaid' (cough!) legal advisers go to court to get the 'contempt' renewed until the blog is taken down which presumably he cannot do in prison (even if he wanted to) . Thus perpetuating ad infinitum .. ad absurdum his incarceration.
DeleteIf Stuart's prison sentence is calculated on calendar months he will be released on January 4.
DeleteWith a clean sheet. He did his sentence for contempt of court. Therefore his blog postings are allowed now to stay.
I don't think "the offended four" or Ms Bergerac have any further involvement. Stuart is incarcerated for contempt of court, and any extension of his imprisonment will be more or less automatic while he remains in contempt. I expect he will be released and given a deadline to remove the offending material, and then locked-up again if he refuses. Rinse and repeat, with ever-increasing sentences. It's a question of who blinks first. If I were in Stuart's shoes, I would remove the offending material, since it is readily available elsewhere on t'internet, and I'm sure he has some new material he might like to publish if he fancies another stretch at La Moye. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
DeleteI agree with most of what you say and it could be that he ends up spending a lot of his time in Prison. It's not a case (for Stuart) that the four proxies are more (in)famous now and their names on a number of websites, UK Hansard, Early Days Motion etc.
DeleteIt's a case that now because of the JUDGE MADE LAW it can be an offence to even name somebody on the internet. Whether what you say about them is true, or not, you can become a victim of Jersey's "Justice System if the person(s) named claims it causes them stress or harm.
He is fighting for the freedom of the internet in Jersey, not the naming of the four proxies.
VFC Syvret is an internet bully and if you think bullying is a form of freedom of speech then you must either be living in another dimension to the rest of us or a bully yourself.
DeleteIt makes little difference if he is a bully or not. The precedent set by this “Judge Made Law” and the bending of the Data Protection Law, beyond any recognition, means that (as mentioned above) people can now be dragged through a secret, taxpayer funded, court case simply because they published somebody’s name. It doesn’t matter what was said about the person, or whether it’s true or not.
DeleteAn extremely dangerous precedent has been set with the (not so) secret court case against Stuart Syvret that can/will impact Internet freedom in Jersey as a whole.
"It makes little difference if he is a bully or not." As people have actually committed suicide due to this kind of thing you are joking right?
DeleteI don't know about you but I find the idea of any States Member past or present going online and bullying members of the public absolutely disgusting.
Oh! I get it Stuart was taken to court for “bullying?” Was he found to be a bully? Were all the allegations he made against the proxies proven to be false? Or was it found that he used their data (name) and that was his offence?
DeleteStraight question. Was he convicted of bullying or was he convicted for publishing data?
I am reading the 'data' and its bullying and that's post after post.
DeleteWhat was said in court, I don't know, but I cannot imagine his written hatred about people was not read out can you?
VFC you support this bully and your constant defense of Syvret says it all.
There you have it, and why the “bullying” was/is irrelevant. As a result of the (not so) secret court case everything Stuart accused these people of could well be true. It wasn’t there to determine if it was true or not it was there to determine whether he published data.
DeleteLet me give you an example as to how dangerous this “Judge Made Law” is.
If Stuart Syvret (or anybody) accused Jimmy Savile of being a paedophile, on the Internet, then (in Jersey at least) he (or anybody) could be taken to a secret taxpayer funded court and silenced and the paedophile (in this case Savile) could carry on plying his trade and abusing children. The court wouldn’t be interested as to whether Savile is a paedophile or not, only interested in whether Savile’s data was used or not.
Like I said…………..a very dangerous precedent has been set.
Well people should try accusing you and your family of crime online and see how you deal with it because you obviously cannot see it through the eyes of his victims.
DeleteYou clearly miss the point. By using/abusing the Data Protection Law, rather than going through the correct channels, the proxies have not had their names cleared, they still stand accused of the allegations made against them. The court COULD NOT (as far as I see it) clear their names; all it could do was make a judgement as to whether Stuart had published their data (names).
DeleteIf they wanted their names cleared then they went the wrong way about it and should look to sue whoever it was that convinced them it would be a good idea to have a secret court case that no one would ever find out about.
VFC how many people have been accused of things on the Syvret blog because I have lost count and are you seriously suggesting that everybody named on that blog including the former Bailiff and Attorney General should be clearing their names?
DeleteI think you are giving this blogger's work a lot more credibilty than others!
In the case(s) of the former Bailiff and Attorney General yes they should be publicly clearing their names.
DeleteYou must also remember the Chapman Report recommended that the accusations made against States Employees should publically be rebutted with documented evidence. The then Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, said that he was going to adopt ALL of the Chapman recommendations, and I’m not sure he adopted ANY of them.
He (Terry Le Sueur) was basically told to “put up or shut up.” His silence has been deafening.
Like I said, I think you are giving this blogger's work or should I say 'wayward words' a lot more credibilty than others and if there was truth in his attacks of these proxy 4 then why did he never turn up to court or challenge the proceedings being in camera because that's whats written on Jersey Law Reports?
ReplyDeleteThe sheer fact he never even tried to defend the actions against him and stupidly ended up in Jail over it all just shows a coward to me.
To others it might show a man of integrity who refused to legitimise a corrupt/politicised kangaroo (not so) secret court. There are many different opinions on this of which yours is one.
DeleteNotwithstanding Chapman gave his work credibility, as did the Council Of Ministers, who spent (if memory serves correct) somewhere in the region of £60,000 to produce a Report and recommendations only to ignore both.
Like so many of Stuart Syvret's critics, you simply ignore the facts and make stuff up. You ask "if there was truth in his attacks of these proxy 4 then why did he never turn up to court?"
DeleteDo you have any idea what you are talking about? The proxy 4 did not go to court to argue that what Stuart wrote about them was untrue; they went to court to argue that it was unlawful for him to disclose data about them. You do appreciate what this means, don't you - that they weren't trying to clear their names by having their day in court and arguing the facts, but the precise opposite.
Any one of those 4 individuals could have brought a defamation action against Stuart at any point (and still can). They could have made him stand up in court and produce evidence to prove his claims against them, and if he failed to do so, they would clear their names. Not one of them has chosen to do that. In other words, none of the 4 has even tried to defend himself against the allegations. And you think Stuart is the coward here?
First they came for Syvvret. Then they came for ...
DeleteThis blog features the best reader commentary to be found on this topic.
DeleteIt's astonishing that a person would make a load of claims about people on a blog and when challenged to come to court about it all refuses to with such a petty excuse as this.
ReplyDeleteFight of flight isn't it?
He was not challenged to come to court and substantiate his claims. He was challenged to come to (a not so secret) court, where he was not aloud to bring any witnesses because nobody was supposed to know about the case, to argue if he had published data or not……..At least that’s how I see it.
DeleteIt was Terry Le Sueur who took flight when he was challenged (by Chapman) to publish (with documented evidence) rebuttals to Stuart Syvret’s allegations.
You seem to know an awful lot about this case VFC but the judgements seem to be telling a diffent story about Syvret's attitude towards the Court compared to your version.
DeleteThe court judgement and I are telling the same story and that is he had contempt for this court. Where we part company is “why” he had contempt for it.
DeleteIf people disrespect our laws and it does not matter who it is, then why give them any time of day, so what do you want instead, anarchy? I hope not.
DeleteYou are starting to come across as if you promote the snubbing of the law which is so wrong.
It’s the way the Data Protection Law was abused that I, and many others, both on and off Island, have a problem with. I’m sure Rosa Parks wouldn’t share your sentiments.
DeleteThere is an Appeal process VFC but just because you do not like a law which holds people to account for abusing others online is not a reason for having court decision over turned.
DeleteAnybody who abuses people online should be held to account for abusing them. Stuart was not taken to court for abusing anybody online, he was taken to court (as far as I see it) for processing their data (names).
DeleteYou need to start reading the judgements and the law itself instead of twisting this into something it isn't.
ReplyDeleteNow you are saying that Syvret obviously wrote stuff on his blog under the presumption he would get away with it then?
Well UK Judges said otherwise.
“Now you are saying that Syvret obviously wrote stuff on his blog under the presumption he would get away with it then?”
DeleteNo I’m saying he wrote stuff on his Blog knowing full well that if what he was writing was untrue/libelous/defamatory/harassing that his allegations would have to be proven in an “OPEN” court under existing laws and face the consequences.
He had no idea that the Data Protection Law would be abused to such an extent that he would be haled before a secret court where NONE of his evidence could be tested.
"Hauled" not "haled."
Delete"If people disrespect our laws and it does not matter who it is, then why give them any time of day, so what do you want instead, anarchy? I hope not."
ReplyDeleteNone of us want anarchy. What we want is the rule of law; what we have in Jersey is the rule of lawyers. Stuart is in jail for being in contempt of court, but anybody who is paying attention will understand that he is really in jail because Jersey's crown officers - those legal geniuses you seem to hold in such high esteem - chose to interpret the data protection law in a way that invalidates the existence of the 'journalism' and 'public interest' exemptions. They have, in effect, turned the data protection law into both a tool of state censorship, and criminalised the civil offence of defamation. Neither of which are even remotely appropriate uses of this law.
Stuart was convicted in a politicised and conflicted court, a court that is simply one arm of the hydra that is the Jersey establishment. He was never going to get away with challenging power in Jersey, and the data protection law was a convenient tool that could be misused to 'get' him. If it wasn't data protection, they would simply have found some other law to twist to their purpose.
If you don't believe what I am saying, consider two things. First, consider what VFC wrote above about Jimmy Savile. Were he still alive, in Jersey it would be now be unlawful for one of his victims to accuse him publically of abuse. It would be unlawful for a journalist to publish an article stating that he was a paedophile. Second, read Trevor Pitman's latest blog posting, where he describes yet another appalling instance of judicial conflict of interest. Seriously, read what he has to say about Jurat Crill...and tell me with a straight face that Jersey is a place where our legal establishment respects the law.
The Data Protection Law wasn't 'abused'. It was used in one of the ways it was intended to be used, which is to prevent the unlawful publication of an individual's details online. Stuart was guilty of doing so, and was therefore convicted. The court was actually very lenient with him, allowing him a number of opportunities to conform with the court' instructions. He chose to become in contempt, which you seem to conveniently forget was the reason for his imprisonment.
DeleteThe very basic tenet behind much legislation is to prevent people accusing others, who are innocent in the eyes of the law, of crimes. No matter what you believe about someone, it's down to the police to get a conviction, not bloggers. Let's hope you never get wrongly accused of something, and have to ask for legal action against your accuser.
This is the sort of nonsense I’m up against. I write;
Delete“The court judgement and I are telling the same story and that is he had contempt for this court.”
Then you write;
“He chose to become in contempt, which you seem to conveniently forget”……………………#Priceless
It's not worth ripping to shreds the rest of the misinformation published in your comment as you will no doubt "conveniently forget" it.
Ha Ha. Could you edit a quote any more obviously ?
DeleteThe full quote was 'He chose to become in contempt, which you seem to conveniently forget WAS THE REASON FOR HIS IMPRISONMENT'.
You are becoming a parody, having to manipulate and re-interpret anything and everything, to suit your own view. It's actually pretty surprising that you appear to be willing to do so in such an obvious manner.
Please feel free to rip the rest of my comment to shreds. If you genuinely believe that we should be free to just make accusations against innocent people on the internet without fear of legal recourse, then I'd be interested in how you justify this.
You must have "conveniently forgot" THIS COMMENT ALSO
DeleteYour desperation is starting to show through now and you have “conveniently forgotten” my previous comment where I have already addressed "If you genuinely believe that we should be free to just make accusations against innocent people on the internet without fear of legal recourse," To help jog you memory it is HERE
DeleteInterestingly there is some compelling evidence that an attempt to 'set up' Sturat Syvret on the day immediately before his actual arrest.He recounts on driving to a running race on the Sunday morning that an unmarked white van in front of him suddenly slowed to walking pace, he waited then carefully overtook the van.Consequently this was reported as a 'traffic incident' and a sequence of investigations and statements were demanded on vehicle ownership ,rights and permissions but surprisingly not insurance ( could be checked from the windscreen at some other time).
ReplyDeleteThat this is a coincidence is possibly true but given the previous driving licence issue even the most cynical of observers must question the remarkable timing here.
I should have added that Stuart had always commented that he would be on "best behaviour" on the road so as to to draw attention and of course there is the remarkable ability of a slow moving van driver to accurately read and record a five or six digit number plate on a vehicle that had ' just overtaken dangerously'.Unless of course the van driver was experienced in such matters.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if any of your readers know the data protection law aspect here, perhaps before a formal number,owner inquiry can be undertaken a traffic offence must be reported, just an idea.