tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post1718477448621526462..comments2024-03-07T08:25:48.882+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: P.19/2016 A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-35417468806659844712016-06-09T01:55:35.782+01:002016-06-09T01:55:35.782+01:00VFC
Your post says:
“It seeks to make a criminal...VFC<br /><br />Your post says:<br /><br />“It seeks to make a criminal out of anyone who offends anyone online including the MSM”<br /><br />By coincidence I happened across this article recently, an opinion piece from the Economist, which spells out in detail the dangers in legislation like this. <br /><br />There are very big issues at stake here. The comments after the article offer a rich debate, and show that it is not a simple question. Would anyone care to send the article to States members?<br /><br />http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack<br /><br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-25269913401036269242016-06-02T07:57:00.601+01:002016-06-02T07:57:00.601+01:00It is well worth the time looking at this legislat...It is well worth the time looking at this legislation with it's massive 'we consult' preamble. <br />Before doing that try the 'Conflicted Judge' test. That test is that you have two groups of people one we will call SSTP the other JSMM. For SSTP find reasons to prosecute, and for JSMM find reasons not to prosecute.<br />Now apply those reasons to Article 4.<br /><br />(4) A person who, for the purpose of causing annoyance,<br />inconvenience or needless anxiety to another –<br />(a) sends, by means of a telecommunication system, a message<br />that the person knows to be false; or<br />(b) persistently makes use of a telecommunication system,<br />is guilty of an offence<br /><br />I wonder who you will send to prison and hit with an unlimited fine?Colin Machonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721634820921825500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-68055519309885715052016-06-01T22:39:41.142+01:002016-06-01T22:39:41.142+01:00The first to be targeted by this law should be the...The first to be targeted by this law should be the cowardly drunken bully caught making a death threat phone call as a change from his 24/7 cyber trolling. Le Cocq knows who he is but as AG would never act. Probably because he was a pet little proxy boy?King of Drunksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-62204178774659540402016-06-01T21:31:34.196+01:002016-06-01T21:31:34.196+01:00Just catching up with the interesting comments und...Just catching up with the interesting comments under this important posting.<br /><br />As ever, this being Jersey, and as alluded to in some of the comments, I seriously hesitate to respond - never knowing what is safe for me to say - again - and when appointees of the latest directly conflicted Bailiff and Attorney General will turn up - pounding on my door at dawn - again - to haul me off to be imprisoned - again - with zero access to legal representation - again - let alone an objective, lawful, court - again - in secret - again - with thus no possibility of identifying and calling witnesses in my defence - again - in front of more conflicted Freemasons - again - appointed by the conflicted Bailiffs - again - and when I'm imprisoned - again - the conflicted Bailiff - again - simply vetoes my habeas corpus application - again (I still have the letter from last time) - and I have to sit in prison for months - again - for criticising the government - again - without so much as a lawyer. Again. <br /><br />I'll risk saying this much; the plainly unlawful conduct of what passes for a "judiciary" in Jersey - as evidenced, and boasted of, and of which is brandished as another de facto threat against me such as the comment at 06:19 - is certainly one of the foremost reasons why I live in fear of engaging with things like the purported 'public-inquiry' into Jersey's decades of concealed child-abuse - in the absence of legal representation. <br /><br />I mean - let's face it - we have just witnessed that purported "public-inquiry" serving as a forum before which state-public-authorities - including the Chief Minister's department, the Data Protection Commissioner, the prosecution system, and the actual Police Force - have been given unchallenged, unopposed and uncriticised license to issue public, personally targeted, witness-intimidation and harassment directed against me - against me, specifically, as a named individual. <br /><br />I feared - exactly - this kind of conduct - and the inevitable state-reprisals against me which those threats foreshadow - which is why I asked for legal representation at the very start of the CoI process.<br /><br />When - eventually - inevitably - the true history of the disgusting conduct of Jersey's mafia is produced, it will be noted that so corrupt was it, that the first public official to expose the island's child-abuse cover-ups became - and remains - the only human being without legal representation in the 21st century - amongst the entire populations - of every Council of Europe signatory state (which includes Putin's Russia) - combined. <br /><br />Some facts will be read - and understood - by history - and the deeper meaning will be drawn from them. That is one such fact.<br /><br />Stuart Syvret.Ex-Senator Stuart Syvrethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133826278608795054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-29704549201002063562016-06-01T19:38:30.913+01:002016-06-01T19:38:30.913+01:00If people think this law (P19.2016) is dangerous e...If people think this law (P19.2016) is dangerous enough now (which it is) then wait until it is (ab)used in Jersey's infamous <a href="https://youtu.be/KvwJGXGt79I" rel="nofollow">"JUSTICE" SYSTEM.</a> voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-46578497349138591052016-06-01T18:49:45.151+01:002016-06-01T18:49:45.151+01:00@ 17.45
Even a layman can spot two fundament weak... @ 17.45<br /><br />Even a layman can spot two fundament weaknesses. First two witnesses were convicted criminals mentioned on Syvrets blog they were obviously bearing a grudge or even hatred for Syvret. One after being convicted for a malicious phone call to Syvrets residential address and also malicious non factual blogging before and after the trial. The second had confirmed weapons and stolen hospital drugs at his flat and had other alleged crimes ?<br /><br />These people should never have been allowed any where near the trial.<br /><br />Therefore certainly this trial in secret, throws up disturbing questions. <br /><br />Everyone even courts make mistakes but why has a re-trial not be ordered based on these unreliable witnesses ?<br /><br />Why no comment from Jersey's Judiciary or are they happy for dubious dodgy witnesses with police records who know and dislike Syvret to be sponsored and organised by the Data protection head of department to appear in a trial with him as defendant ?<br /><br />Why no public trial it had to be in secret.<br /><br />Obviously the Data Protection Team were getting advice from the Crown Officers.<br /><br />The Judiciary carry on like this and think Jersey and the legal outside world will not notice, how stupid can one get ? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-14191361951901739082016-06-01T18:28:00.152+01:002016-06-01T18:28:00.152+01:00This comment, 'Strange you claim this because ...This comment, 'Strange you claim this because ECHR Article 8 is International Law and the Judge presiding over this Syvret case was from the United Kingdom', is the observation of an idiot and shows the peril of being guided by fools who make claims that have no meaning.<br /><br />The entire ECHR, not only Article 8, is international law, binding on member-states of the Council of Europe. Those member-states are bound by the case-law of the ECtHR at Strasbourg. <br /><br />That case-law is made on the basis of proportionality and necessity. Where, on the face of things, one right might be seen to conflict against another, the relative importance of the rights at issue, the necessity for one possible right overriding another, and the 'proportionality' of any putative breach are all carefully weighed. <br /><br />It is certainly correct that a person's Article 8 right to privacy may be seen to be in conflict with another person's article 10 right to freedom of expression. And certainly, the private affairs of an individual, the acts or omissions of who WERE OF NO PUBLIC-INTEREST MERIT, would tend to attract persuasive Article 8 protection.<br /><br />However, as the extant case-law shows, very great importance is attached to Article 10, freedom of speech being one of the necessities for a lawful, functioning society. It is also extensively recognised by the ECtHR that freedom of speech is necessary in the defence of other rights. <br /><br />That is why journalism is not illegal. If, for example, person (a) was engaging in some form of dangerous, neglectful, abusive or illegal conduct, a journalist on discovering such facts would be entitled to identify person (a) and publicly report on their misfeasances. Person (a) could argue all they liked about a putative Article (8) right to privacy. But they would get no-where. The ECtHR case-law on such Article 8/Article 10 conflicts is settled. Provided there's an arguable public-interest (which has to constitute a 'public-interest' in the sense of a 'public-good', for example the exposure of crime, or danger to the public, as opposed to mere prurience) Article 10 wins. And an instant's thought shows to even the meanest of intelligence that that must be so; were that not the case, journalism would be illegal. But the Jersey courts set their face against Strasbourg case-law.<br /><br />It is interesting that the comment also neglected to mention another ECHR right; one which has even greater power and enforceability than Article 10. That is the Article 6 right to a fair hearing.<br /><br />Stuart Syvret's Article 6 rights were trampled into the dirt and wholly denied to him by the Jersey judicial process. The judge may well have come from England. He can have come from Mars for all the odds it makes. If the judge was chosen and appointed by a conflicted party, a party with an hostile interest in seeing Syvret obstructed and damaged, then the proceedings in question would not be compliant with Article 6. And as that was, exactly, the situation, a fact shown even more starkly by the biased and wrong findings of the 'court' against Syvret, the case in question is unlawful. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-44436788768899655882016-06-01T17:45:54.208+01:002016-06-01T17:45:54.208+01:00I've since moved practice. My former location,...I've since moved practice. My former location, a major city law-firm, was canvassed by the Jersey authorities about the Stuart Syvret situation. It is well-understood by your establishment that the rulings and judgments obtained on-island against Syvret are so unsafe in their entirety as be a source of covert alarm to the UK judicial system, at the highest levels. Your Law Officers' Department incidentally appears to have most major London-based legal practices on retainers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-24949133193464232162016-06-01T17:24:29.852+01:002016-06-01T17:24:29.852+01:00Strange you claim this because ECHR Article 8 is I...Strange you claim this because ECHR Article 8 is International Law and the Judge presiding over this Syvret case was from the United Kingdom.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-70143746225629954932016-06-01T15:38:56.236+01:002016-06-01T15:38:56.236+01:00Regarding the above comment and especially that at...Regarding the above comment and especially that at 06.19.<br /><br />If the Bailiff's court in the secret case against Stuart Syvret were really so concerned about the overriding sanctity of ECHR Article 8 then perhaps someone can answer this?<br /><br />Why was it that in the case of Trevor and Shona Pitman when Channel Television was allowed by the Viscount Michael Wilkins to illegally and without historic precedent publish not just any old details of their en desastre but even their INCOME TAX details why was Article 8 not enforced the same way then?<br /><br />As I say not only was this act by Channel Television and the Viscount illegal and in breach of Jersey's Income Tax legislation and Data Protection Law it was beyond argument far more serious a breach of the Article 8 right to privacy Syvret was penalised for.<br /><br />This new law will be applied and interpreted with just the same selectivity. It is a tool being developed for oppression.<br /><br />On the Pitman example I also know from asking Trevor about this personally that Wilkins apparently claimed there was no need to take any action against ITV or its journalists who broke the law because "it was just a mistake". Maybe Stuart should have tried that line? <br /><br />Given that I was told the Bailiff Michael Birt wouldn't take any action against Wilkins for his part in the breach of Article 8 I think we can safely assume this law is nothing but the latest in a toilet roll long list of bogus legislation created to further cement the public's inability to question, let alone challenge the powers that be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-65505615481149337232016-06-01T12:01:48.336+01:002016-06-01T12:01:48.336+01:00Could not agree more.Could not agree more.Jon of Jonsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-30271413140160874772016-06-01T11:21:41.151+01:002016-06-01T11:21:41.151+01:00And that is why P.19 is so dangerous. It would be ...And that is why P.19 is so dangerous. It would be terminal to functioning democracy in any event. Against the evidenced conduct of Jersey's politicised, biased "court" system, as referred to above, it will be used to suppress anyone who criticises the government or the allies of the government.<br /><br />As in the case above, "proxies" will be used by the state, will be supported with tax-payers money and public-authority power, to pursue any and silence any independent journalist who exposes forms and examples of wrongdoing which have been deemed to be worthy of covering-up by the Jersey authorities.<br /><br />As the most rudimentary of studies of ECtHR case-law show, the right to freedom of speech is given the highest protection. Freedom of speech is not limited only to 'pleasant', 'nice', or 'non-controversial' communication or expressions. The fact that it is controversial expressions of opinion that need protection is recognised by the court in Strasbourg.<br /><br />As has been so long shown by this blog and its comments, Jersey's courts are not real, are not free of bias. The judgments against Syvret are just such evidence. No respectable court would have gone against ECtHR established precedence.<br /><br />The relevant precedents protect public-interest disclosure. That can be seen every day of the week in the British press. People who have behaved corruptly are exposed by the press. Public-interest disclosure trumps 'personal privacy' when wrongdoing can be demonstrated. The 'remedy' held by the individuals is to sue for defamation. The state-sponsored, 'defamation-law-precedent' we see in Jersey against Stuart Syvret has no counter-part in any other place in the British Isles. The Jersey judge-made-law is worse, in fact, than that to be found in Putin's Russia. <br /><br />Further, the 'judges' in the case cited were all chosen and appointed by the directly conflicted Jersey Bailiffs, so the court itself was structurally unlawful from the very start. And, further, the case was conducted in secret. it was therefore axiomatically impossible for Syvret to defend, and was thus unlawfully non-compliant with his Article 6 Rights. <br /><br />No respectable court would have chosen to introduce judge-made-law, that is, set precedents which actually have the effect of crippling an entire community's right to free-speech, in a case in which there were state-supported, tax-payer-supported proxies, against a single-un-resourced individual, who had been denied legal representation.<br /><br />Further, it must be born in mind that other members of the public, a significant number of them, have sought similar protections as those given to the four proxies in light of the state-protection given to them. As has been referred to numerous times on the blogs, Rico Sorda, and Trevor and Shona Pitman amongst them. The result? No such protection has been given to those with anti-establishment views. Another example of the oppressive and suppressive bias of the Jersey Establishment.<br /><br />The type of state-suppression we're reminded of, which the Jersey authorities conduct against Stuart Syvret re-enforces his reasons for not engaged with the COI in the absence of legal representation. Who knows what crazed, banana-republic suppressions would be carried out against him if he said the "wrong" thing. As he points out, and as is usefully illustrated by the comment at 06:19, Syvret is the only person in all this to be subjected to state-oppression. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88074559453989712462016-06-01T11:17:17.698+01:002016-06-01T11:17:17.698+01:00How ironic that the Jersey Evening Post is allowin...How ironic that the Jersey Evening Post is allowing the troll who really started this law off with his obsessive on line stalking to once again harrass and abuse on their pages with offensive posts. Once again he is being allowed to do this as his old TPs bounced cheque fake account on top of his Maureen double act as the Reform unfatuated King of Kings. What this shows us that this new law will be as useless as going to the police because it's enforcement will always be selective. All the Ozoufs, Le Cocqs and JEPs of this world really want is the veneer of a legitimate law to close down sites like this because you tell the truth. We are the East Germany of the English Channel.Sharrock's wet matressnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-4559222625763873092016-06-01T06:19:15.068+01:002016-06-01T06:19:15.068+01:00Freedom of Speech online has already been covered ...Freedom of Speech online has already been covered in Court and the rights of victims takes precedence under Human Rights Law. <br /><br />"Mr Syvret has sought to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is however, established law that the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 10 has to be balanced against the right to respect for private and family life contained in Article 8 of the Convention. Whilst we accept that Article 8 does not encompass a right to privacy as such, there is ample authority that the Court is required in cases such as the present one to have regard to the rights of individuals such as the representors in the present case to respect for their private and family life. We are in no doubt that the right of Mr Syvret to freedom of expression is outweighed by the right of the representors to protection under Article 8." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-55085582467390859072016-06-01T06:03:18.610+01:002016-06-01T06:03:18.610+01:00^ both types exist in their abundance in Irish pol...^ both types exist in their abundance in Irish politics...fortunately there are (usually) just about enough checks and balances to put manners on them.<br /><br />At the end of the day, as Stuart Syvret never tires of saying, it comes back to basic checks and balances and the rule of law. Humphreyhttps://twitter.com/Humphrey123123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-82308173950979305822016-05-31T18:44:54.930+01:002016-05-31T18:44:54.930+01:00A vigil also hijacked by the despicable Bailiff of...A vigil also hijacked by the despicable Bailiff of the day, Michael Birt, who allowed the secret court oppression of Stuart Syvret and set up the Pitmans with the dishonest, disgraced Jurat to ensure they had less chance of justice than a cat in hell. Government we deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-1710732136843437302016-05-31T18:13:47.020+01:002016-05-31T18:13:47.020+01:00Wasn't there a vigil held in the Royal square ...Wasn't there a vigil held in the Royal square for the Charlie Ebdo attack? Who called that vigil and will the same people be calling for something similar over this political attack on free speech? Will Philip Ozouf turn up to it? Hypocrite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-25992318926666805992016-05-31T17:54:04.926+01:002016-05-31T17:54:04.926+01:00Great research Rico and while I hope it is still l...Great research Rico and while I hope it is still legal I want to say what a hypocrite Philip Ozouf is. He cashes in on photo-ops when people have lost their lives fighting for free speech in Paris and then he tries to shut down free speech in Jersey. Or is he saying it's alright to offend Muslims but not to offend Jersey politicians online?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-11498631146714586932016-05-31T17:44:26.057+01:002016-05-31T17:44:26.057+01:00I first started to take note of on line political ...I first started to take note of on line political comment due to two things.<br /><br />The brief possibility that we might actually get a proper party political system. And the breaking of the Haut de la Garenne scandal.I guess that means approximately a span of some seven or eight years. <br /><br />During that time I can say unequivocally that I think some of the worst on line abuse of people was regularly to be found on the mainstream media pages. Worst of these in my opinion was Channel TV and the JEP.<br /><br />Abuse on blogs if you take the hate sites linked to a notorious internet troll and a disgraced former Housing Minister and Deputy who lost his seat at the last election out of the equation was almost non-existent.<br /><br />So you have to ask who is this new law really aimed at and why? The justification for it simply just doesn't stack up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-28386191413474714322016-05-31T17:32:23.289+01:002016-05-31T17:32:23.289+01:00Yeah, soooooo sincere is Our Phil. Believes in pro...Yeah, soooooo sincere is Our Phil. Believes in protecting free speech. Just not over here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-35157524705345837712016-05-31T17:21:53.525+01:002016-05-31T17:21:53.525+01:00"France is our nearest neighbour. There was a..."France is our nearest neighbour. There was atrocities we have never seen before and all communities from around the world needed to stand in solidarity with our French cousins to condemn what as an unacceptable infringement on the ability for freedom of expression and speech."<br /><br />It was a truly humbling experience.<br /><br />– SENATOR PHILIP OZOUF<br /><br /><a href="http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2015-01-12/philip-ozouf-represented-jersey-in-paris-unity-rally/" rel="nofollow">http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2015-01-12/philip-ozouf-represented-jersey-in-paris-unity-rally/</a>rico sordahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370637157786202673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88942224472617195702016-05-31T17:08:27.936+01:002016-05-31T17:08:27.936+01:00So if as a registered voter I had objected to the ...So if as a registered voter I had objected to the disgusting Broadlands advert misrepresenting my local Deputy at the time and her husband in the Evening Post the newspaper would have been forced to remove it and the editor who had allowed its publication and the estate agent creating it would be fined and/or imprisoned? <br /><br />I havr to ask. Does Senator Ozouf and the Deputy Bailiff really think we all came down with yesterday's rain? Nobody can say that our islanders leaders don't have a vibrant sense of humour that's for sure!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-76127813293796891292016-05-31T16:40:50.713+01:002016-05-31T16:40:50.713+01:00Alongside this worrying development is the recent ...Alongside this worrying development is the recent deregulation of Gazettes. Now that the States are no longer obliged to publish them will this be the first step to hiding information from the public inside their impenetrable website? This government talks about transparency but behaves as if it has a different agenda by stifling (controlling?) debate and the distribution of informationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-46861476762718435332016-05-31T16:33:51.484+01:002016-05-31T16:33:51.484+01:00Most telling that after all of your and other blog...Most telling that after all of your and other bloggers cutting edge journalism over recent years the JEP now, finally decide to quote you on a story they twist to be about 'bullying' rather than oppression. Even more revealing that the first comment they publish on the story is from 'King of Kings'. This being an abusive avatar known to be shared between an embittered, twice failed election candidate and a man once convicted for harassment. Both individuals being two of the very worst offenders in regard to the on line abuse this law pretends to be targeting. Only in Jersey!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-20396346824473934492016-05-31T14:51:13.158+01:002016-05-31T14:51:13.158+01:00I see JEP are reporting you on their web page. Won...I see JEP are reporting you on their web page. Wonders will never cease. What are they up to?<br /><br />Are they using you as a proxy or setting you up or what?<br /><br /><a href="http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/05/31/will-tougher-cyber-bullying-laws-stifle-free-speech/" rel="nofollow">Link</a>Pólóhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08661092894104384856noreply@blogger.com