We discuss, among much more, the confusion as to why Google suspended his Blog in the first place.
Google wrote to Mr. Syvret stating;
"Blogger has been notified that content in your blog: stuartsyvret.blogspot.com contains allegedly defamatory content that may violate the rights of others and the laws of their country and violates the terms of a court order."
But hang on a minute wasn't he taken to court for alleged Data Protection breaches? Has somebody been duping Google? Mr. Syvret seems to think so. Also discussed is the revelation that the Jersey authorities have been trying to get his Blog taken offline since 2008. Remember 2008 when the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry (Operation Rectangle) went public and being reported on his Blog? The very same year that the then Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, was dubiously suspended being reported on his Blog? Long before any action was taken against him under the Data Protection Law by four proxies. Did the four proxies, knowingly, or otherwise, give the Jersey authorities the court order it needed to get Google to take the Blog down?
While discussing the cost to the taxpayer, of the authorities attempting to silence him, (since 2008) and the political/judicial tool of bankruptcy, Mr. Syvret tells us about the timing of his court case this coming Friday and makes something of a revelation.
It's also emerged that the 32 posts, Google want removed, and indeed his entire Blog content, will be up on the internet again soon which begs the question just what exactly has the Jersey authorities achieved other than to put Jersey in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons..................AGAIN?
More Guest Postings, and interviews, of this unfolding story to follow................
Excellent stuff Stuart; good for you. I'll happily fund your political campaign should you ever wish to re-enter politics.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to help with finance. It may not be very much, but I will happily pay a regular sum to have Stuart in the States, or,even not in the States, if it helps Stuart fight this to the end. What an articulate, clever and brave man. Lucky for us plebs in Jersey to have someone like him. Although we're not responsible for the Jersey Way, we bow down to it, while Stuart fights it. We should support him in my view.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a giant step forward if the " good " States members proposed a change in the archaic law so that a bankrupt, can indeed be elected by the will of the people and Judges and any civil servants removed from the pay roll once found guilty of investment fraud.
ReplyDeleteIf Jersey is so Judicially clean and honest why is this happening
Here here. Time such imbalances were addressed and dealt with.
DeleteLarge pay-offs for poor management sucks too. Another gripe.
Is there something about if you have not received an account for work done after one year, yet alone two years you are not obliged to pay said account, or did I dream this? thing if they try to get money out of Stuart.
ReplyDeleteNews will be coming through in the not too distant future relating to another irrefutable case of corruption in Jersey's Royal Court.
ReplyDeleteAnother great interview VFC.
ReplyDeleteWell it wasn't going to be easy for them to shut you up Stuart and with your Bravery anything is possible. Its all about telling the Truth at the end of the Day and I think or hope that the people of Jersey will see that you would not be going this far if it wasn't TRUE whats on your Blog.
Great interview. This goes a long way towards showing new viewers why Jersey fears Stuart Syvret's powerful voice.
ReplyDeleteExcellent interview,well done Stuart you have so many supporters , keep it up .
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff there Stuart. Perhaps as soon as some other people decide to host the material that you have posted in the past, you should go and delete the data Google have listed, put up one page with the reason why such material is no longer hosted on there and provide a list of other interesting sites for people to visit, you could then keep your blog going as normal, as many will still visit it.
ReplyDeleteIdeas man.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
VFC why don't you challenge Syvret to take his claims of criminal conduct to the Police like any other journalist would after breaking the story and if not, why not?
ReplyDeleteIt is not up to people to sue him for defamation but it's up to people to see what evidence he's got against them and then build up a defence in court first isn't it?
Err - yes, it is up to people to sue for defamation.
DeleteThat's what happens - in every respectable, established western democracy.
If that were not the case - free-speech and journalism would be illegal.
And no - it is not usual or common practice for investigative journalists to be those who make criminal complaints.
In societies with functioning law-enforcement systems, it's usually enough for the journalists simply to expose the wrongdoing. The relevant agencies take over from that point.
And as far as the whole issue of law-"enforcement" in Jersey is concerned, look, do pay attention.
The entire controversy - the child-abuse concealments - the decades of cover-ups - the hidden corruption - the concealment of the most serious concerns over the nurse - the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief - all of those things are characteristics of what has been for decades - centuries - a politicised "law-enforcement" system.
For the first time ever in the history of Jersey - the narrow, vested, tribal, self-protecting control of that law-enforcement apparatus was stopped - and instead it became objective and impartial - only when Graham Power was in charge of the Police.
An unlawful coup was mounted against him.
Now the "law-enforcement" system is back under partisan - de facto party-political - control.
The notion that the current system will objectively investigate and prosecute crimes - if the criminals are on the side of the establishment - is laughable.
So many crimes have been reported to the police - different crimes - by different people.
But when it doesn't suit the local oligarchy to investigate them - they don't get properly investigated - let alone prosecuted.
Just one example - Deputy Sean Power - simply thieving private data of no public interest merit - then trafficking that stolen material to a pro-child-abuse-cover-up web site where it was illegally published.
Serious criminal complaints made.
Zero credible investigation.
No charges.
But, you know - the comment is so absurd.
Plainly - the very cause ordinary decent people are fighting for - the Big Picture - is the obvious fact that law-enforcement does not work properly in Jersey at present.
Stuart
Brave, eloquent, honest, determined and unbowed as ever.
ReplyDeleteWhat a futile and expensive exercise the 'powers that be' have undertaken, drawing yet more attention to themselves and their blog. Shot themselves in the foot methinks.
Take the blinkers off then!
DeleteYawn.
DeleteFurther to my 23:36 post - The headline to push then will be "Google re-open Stuart Syvret's blogspot", I guess many who haven't looked, will, and find out the truth and even find some interesting links to visit!
ReplyDeleteAny chance of viewing that attached letter sent with the email?
ReplyDeleteSure, I've no objection at all.
DeleteBut I can't publish it myself just at the moment, you'll understand.
Stuart
Had an e-mail from my friend in New Zealand, who has watched Stuarts interview and says its excellent, adding that he always reads the jersey blogs, and he is so glad he now lives in New Zealand, and there is a lot of talk in his office and with friends re what Google have done. they are watching this space with interest. and send their best wishes.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know who gave Google the permission to photograph my home both from the roadway and from the air, and then link this to my post code for all the world to have access.
ReplyDeleteStuart. It doesn't matter whether its a bluff or its for real that you are thinking of standing in the next general election....
ReplyDeleteYou just say it will get them quaking in their boots!?
So Jersey is mixed up with Google regarding o3b working out of St John. Again local blog news, streets ahead of the local - cannot be bothered - media - nice story's - only crowd.
ReplyDeleteThis could backfire on Google if they are not careful. Removing a political thorn in the side of Jersey's Government to keep their new joint business venture going forward.
Bastards.
Excellent interview VFC. The truth is, just as Stuart States, the blogs have finally both given the voiceless that voice - and just as crucially - has meant things can no longer be swept under the carpet as they always were when we had to depend on the Jersey MSM.
ReplyDelete'So Jersey is mixed up with Google regarding o3b working out of St John. Again local blog news, streets ahead of the local - cannot be bothered - media - nice story's - only crowd.'
ReplyDeleteWhat?
Could that be explained for us?
o3b ? http://gigaom.com/2008/09/09/google-invests-in-satellite-based-internet-startup/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hollandtradeandinvest.com/media/news/news-archive/index.asp?bstnum=5253&PageIndex=10
http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/google-backed-o3b-satellite-venture-gets-funding-for-liftoff/
I have just suggested to Deputies Higgins and Tadier a question as follows:
ReplyDeleteto the Chief Minister (CM)
Could the CM outline for members the history of the Jersey government's attempts to get Stuart Syvret's blog removed from the Internet?
possible supplementaries.
This started in November 2008. Why?
Pure coincidence that this was when Graham Power was suspended?
Will you publish correspondence from the island authorities to Google?
(If not) why not?
Could the CM explain to members how closing down an "opposition" blog , (and the refusal to tell members how this was done - assuming they do refuse to publish the correspondence) squares with the commitment in the Strategic Plan to openness, transpareency and public debate (or whatever the current phrase is!!) OR how it makes Jersey appear to the world and even to our own residents?
etc.
Good luck
Off topic ,ctv tonight, le marquand, is he for real ?
ReplyDeleteThis post by Rob Kent (who is always on the money) on Planet Jersey absolutely nails the key issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,242.msg58760.html#msg58760
"The Jersey authorities were trying to take the blog down before Stuart mentioned any of the supposed defamation victims, which shows that they were simply trying to suppress information about the suspension of Graham Power. Ever since then they have been trying to get it shut down and falling back upon different ruses to do it. Google's rules state clearly that they will issue a takedown notice if it can be proven that the offending articles have been proven as defamation in a court of law. Jersey has tricked them because there has been no such ruling. They went through the whole process of imprisoning Stuart just so that they could convince Google that it was defamatory, even though they produced no evidence of that.
But what does it matter? The blog can be replicated a thousand times if required. I guess that Stuart is in the process of getting somebody else to host it in a jurisdiction Jersey cannot touch. the people who host WikiLeaks in Sweden would host it and Jersey authorities would have to travel to Sweden and start a court case there, proving the defamation.
It's a shame Stuart didn't move his blog earlier, knowing that Google would eventually take it down, but it doesn't really matter. Every time the Jersey authorities do something stupid like this, it simply amplifies the sound of their corruption and bring it to the attention of a wider audience."
I beleve that www.dw.de.com would be very interested in what Google has done to the Stuart Syvret blog and would be very interested in Human Rights violations in the UK Crown Dependency State of Jersey aswell
DeleteVFC didn't your video say that Stuart was in Court today?
ReplyDeleteWell stated Rob.
ReplyDeleteIt now appears that there must have been some sort of State sponsored vendeatta against Stuart, all because legitimately posted a copy of an affidavit written by ex Jersey Police Chief Graham Power, for anyone unsure of the significance of such a statement, here is a brief: 'it is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence to its veracity and is required for court proceedings.', it definately was not defamatory.
I am not sure that Stuart is directly involved with getting his site back up, rather than other people seeing the injustice and wanting to help, perhaps some have asked him if he minded that they had copied his site, so he may be aware, but not in control.
I note on Rico's blog someone (not Staurt) has indeed put up what appears to be a repliaction of Stuart's blog, quite for anyone to do, who had already copied all data from the blog when it was in operation.
Stuart's obvious talents are wasted in Jersey. He really should go off and work with Glenn Greenwald and Pierre Omidyar over on The Intercept. Interesting interview here http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/221d11c4-93db-11e3-a0e1-00144feab7de.html#axzz2tOmwyfcQ
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting what Greenwald says: "The way I entered the public discourse was a fairly untraditional route. I did not get my own column in the New York Times, I created my own blog on Blogspot,” he says. “In order to break through and be heard and force media figures to respond, there had to be a lot of aggression."
Googled Defamatory
ReplyDeleteGoogle says :
1.(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libelous.
18:55 - Exactly - which is why it is so odd that the list of posting's that the Jersey authorities wanted Google to shut off because of being alledged as defamatory, included Graham Power's affidavit - surely that is at best disingenuous, at worse a blatant lie. It does add weight to Stuart's belief that the abuse of the Data Protection Law was driven by a vendetta!
ReplyDeleteDid the four have good reputations? Before the defamatory?
ReplyDelete"Googled Defamatory
ReplyDeleteGoogle says :
1.(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libelous."
Googled Libel
Google says:
1. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
This'll need some spinning by the PR dept:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560282/Prison-manager-two-year-affair-Britains-biggest-gangster-jail-cell-But-allowed-away-it.html
LINK.
DeleteI warned the authorities of Ms Rodrigues' "activities" back in 2003/4. Needless to say it was covered up.
Well let's see how they wriggle out of this one Neil! You know and I know just what she was like even before she got her job at La Moye.
ReplyDeleteShe should be arrested and brought back here to face the music, as should those who have covered the whole sorry tale up.
Yes Jill we both know only too well how much harm that woman has caused, long before this latest debacle.
DeleteShe should have been an inmate at the prison and not a member of staff. Notice the Mail Online article doesn't mention how/why she left the prison? What her qualifications were(n't) to be a "councillor?" What her "success" rate was(n't) in getting addicts/alcoholics clean and sober? How many of her "clients" are still alive today?
She is a very sick individual who I reported to (after yet another death) the then Deputy Viscount Peter De Gruchy but to no avail. There are many people who have questions to answer for their part in Ms Rodrigues' trail of destruction but as we know this will all be swept under the carpet.
Curtis warren comments daily mail
ReplyDeleteThere is probably a firm case of misconduct in a public office, but is it really in the public interest to bring her back to answer searching questions as to why she acted in such a way while being on the public payroll.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the subject of how CW managed to get mobile phones. How many outside visitors would have been able to smuggle phones in to prison, with the security that visitors undergo.
Another example of poor management, and checks and balances being close to non existent in a States department.
"Not in the public interest" sounds like a euphemism for "it might embarrass the powers that be". From my perspective as a member of the public I'm "interested" in seeing someone who abused their position of trust in such a sordid way at least having to provide the full story so that any crimes committed or still being committed can be stopped and punished as necessary.
DeleteNO ONE will be held to account though in another fine example of the Jersey way!
In respect of the prison drugs "councillor", it is common knowledge that this case was another example of a "Jersey Way" cover-up.
ReplyDeleteTo have dealt with it correctly, would have been to expose the prison authorities and the States, to a deeply serious and embarrassing scandal - which would leave a lot of questions to answer.
So - just like toxic-waste dumping - and planning corruption - and conflicted Jurats - and rape - and attempted murder - and murder - and child-abuse - and the illegal suspension of the Police Chief - it's brush, brush - carpet, carpet. There you go. Sorted!
Out of sight - out of mind.
And the Jersey oligarchy - and its toxic and dangerous excuse for a public administration - sails on - with all the rot concealed under another layer of cosmetic surgery.
Stuart
Stuart.
ReplyDeleteI hope to have an "interesting" Blog concerning this subject published tomorrow. Serious questions need to be asked..................But, as you say,..................................... they won't be!
The following urgent oral question has been approved by the Bailiff since the Order Paper was published on 13th February 2014.
ReplyDeleteDeputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following urgent oral question of the Minister for Home Affairs –
“Would the Minister advise whether a former prison employee had an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner at HMP La Moye and, if so, what assurances can he give that correct safeguards are in place so that such alleged practice may not occur in future?”