tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post4916786087878995622..comments2024-03-20T11:09:50.796+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: Former Police Chief Statement to Wiltshire Constabulary.voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger436125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-26797067228183792522017-09-30T08:13:44.230+01:002017-09-30T08:13:44.230+01:00I cannot see how somebody asking a hypothetical qu...I cannot see how somebody asking a hypothetical question on an alternate outcome to a case is trolling. However calling people names repetitively certainly is trolling.<br /><br />This Blog is either open to debate or it is not, but people unable to answer a very simple question should not be trying to moderate it to suit themselves. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-50238166791625909532017-09-29T22:14:10.901+01:002017-09-29T22:14:10.901+01:00May I offer some advice to VFC? A great deal of th...May I offer some advice to VFC? A great deal of the comment exchange above does this blog no credit. A distinguishing factor between this blog and Jersey's msm is usually the elevated intellectual quality of debate. Whilst it is also true that a broad allowance of freedom of speech in contrast with Jersey's money media is a feature of this blog, sometimes you give too much latitude. There comes a time when absolute 'free-speech, i.e. letting any old garbage through, actually opposes and damages intellectual standards. If I were to make any criticism of the moderation of this site, that would be it. <br /><br />Let me take the above trolling against the Pitmans and Syvret as an example. The point at issue is the objective administration of justice. Only that. This is a settled, uncontroversial, long established principle in British justice. Whether the Pitmans were right or wrong to pursue the libel action is a secondary consideration, Always and entirely. The primary consideration, the founding principle, is 'was the administration of justice in the case lawful and objective?' <br /><br />If it was not, then the Pitmas win. And that is an end on it. <br /><br />Thieves, rapists, murderers, have been acquitted in British courts, the cases against them collapsed, overturned, thrown out, notwithstanding their apparent guilt, at the merest hint of bias, lack of objectivity, of appearance of bias, in the judicial functions against them. <br /><br />That is the foundation of the rule of law in the British tradition. Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. <br /><br />That point is so beyond all credible contention, that VFC lets itself down by giving space to trolling which seeks to make excuses for the conflicted, biased courts of Jersey. We could accept, for argument's sake, the Pitmans were legal wrong to bring the defamation action. That would make no difference in the face of the question, 'did the court have apparent bias?' <br /><br />I repeat, if the answer to that question is 'yes', and it so clearly is 'yes' in this case, then the Pitmans win. And that is an end on it. <br /><br />Less tolerance of trolling please VFC, or you risk driving away your thinking readers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-55466607737149781662017-09-29T21:52:23.832+01:002017-09-29T21:52:23.832+01:00Andrew Lewis is destroyed. He destroyed himself be...Andrew Lewis is destroyed. He destroyed himself being being an immoral moron and patsy. If you have so much faith in 'free-speech' against politicians, and in the 'objectivity' of Jersey's 'courts' you will 'know' there's no way back for Lewis. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-60300488325231218282017-09-29T08:27:26.933+01:002017-09-29T08:27:26.933+01:00Lewis has done a pretty good job of destroying him...Lewis has done a pretty good job of destroying himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-86876709544973716392017-09-29T08:26:57.760+01:002017-09-29T08:26:57.760+01:0022.20 & 22.51 only moans about Court decisions...22.20 & 22.51 only moans about Court decisions and writes silly attacks on people.<br />Hardly a professional way to address alleged wrong-doings in a legal system.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-86251874485139089892017-09-29T07:59:17.972+01:002017-09-29T07:59:17.972+01:00I'd think twice about allowing the hyperlinkin...I'd think twice about allowing the hyperlinking of words like 'Paedo-Troll' to stories on Andrew Lewis.<br />I'll tell you now, he is out to destroy you is looking for revenge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-26821759847638238852017-09-29T07:51:45.219+01:002017-09-29T07:51:45.219+01:00It is my understanding that Stuart Syvret was take...It is my understanding that Stuart Syvret was taken to court by 4 people so there were 4 separate court actions against him, so he was hardly set up. Perhaps he should have fought the multiple actions against him at the time instead of snubbing the Court as widely reported. But there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Syvret Data Protection case and the Pitmans personal libel action. No reference is made in the judgements and no mention has ever been made by the Media or Law Firms commenting on the Pitman case, so you are sticking 2 things together that are miles apart.<br />My question only ever concerned the outcome for free speech had the Pitmans won their case, which I personally think would have been disastrous for the Media in general, but instead of giving a straight answer all you've done is write angry comments about their trial.<br />Their trial is over and confined to the archives, so time you accepted it and moved on.<br /><br />Cheers Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-3637136012321938362017-09-29T07:30:41.574+01:002017-09-29T07:30:41.574+01:00Nailed it at 22:51 LOLNailed it at 22:51 LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-73846988333504311572017-09-28T22:51:32.750+01:002017-09-28T22:51:32.750+01:00I think that you have embarrassed yourself suffici...I think that you have embarrassed yourself sufficiently and I should put you out of your misery and do a basic answer to your question:<br /><br />Q. You have not answered my simple question on the ramifications for free speech should they have won this libel action and only you know why. <br />[previously stated as: "- If the Pitmans had won their Case for a satirical cartoon, do you not agree that this would have had serious consequences for the future journalistic lampooning of Politicians? Straight answer - yes or no?"]<br /><br />A. There is no straight answer *obviously*.<br />The effect would depend on the basis on which the won (if indeed they did win)<br />If it was on the basis of the falsehoods being they claimed were being peddled in the advert then the effect on free speech would be minimal.<br />IF the Pitmans were to have won on the basis that you can't do upsetting cartoons about people then the ramifications on free speech would have been massive, though probably not as massive as the detrimental effect on Free Speech of this legislation:<br />https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/p192016-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html<br /><br /><br />A free speech lover like you must have a lot to say about that legislation?<br /><br /><br />The worst thing about the JEPeado cartoon IMO was that it was a crime against humour. Not in the slightest bit funny.<br /><br />Cartoons rely on either being funny or on communicating truths in pictorial form and often using metaphors.<br /><br />A cartoon depicting a Mr.Bellyache strapping down children for Mr.K to torture or otherwise abuse would not be the least bit funny but might have a deal of metaphorical truth in it. <br />However if I sought to distribute this cartoon to every home in Jersey I suspect that in the case of legal redress being sought in Jersey the complainant would have won. With a politicised judiciary the scales of justice are weighted.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Not a Paedo-Troll http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-85011964532438235832017-09-28T22:20:00.199+01:002017-09-28T22:20:00.199+01:00A commenter says "Sob of Digger. Please just ...A commenter says "Sob of Digger. Please just answer the question. Why do you believe the Pitmans should be entitled to a fair and honest court? One free of paedo protecting, dishonest Jurats. Answer or shut up."<br /><br />The question to the one known here as "Digger" (or similar) is still outstanding but I would not have phrased it like that.<br /><br />As another "Anonymous" has joined the fray I shall now adopt the name "Not a Paedo-Troll" for clarity.<br /><br /><br />Son of digger@20:06 must have started on the Stella cans because he now asserts that "Stuart Syvret has nothing to do with the Pitman Libel Case"<br /><br />He may be "Diggering" himself into a bit of a hole or making a Shorock of things because @17:24 the commenter says "You seem to be shooting off into different directions and talking about scenarios that I am not familiar with and sound like they are completely unconnected.<br /><br />If he is not familiar with the "scenario" of the secret Syvret trial how does he know what it is relevant to and not relevant to????<br /><br />Is he doing a bit of an Andrew Lewis and saying whatever comes he thinks helps his case irrespective of whether it is true or not? -looks like it.<br /><br />At the very least the secret Syvret trial is relevant to the Pitman case in that had they believed Ex Health Minister Syvret about how bent the Jersey courts were the Pitmans would have been far less likely to have risked their house and livelihood on seeking recompense for the wrong they felt had been done.<br /><br />In the event of legal corruption all affected cases are relevant to one another.Not a Paedo-Troll http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-70933739779076330752017-09-28T21:14:31.198+01:002017-09-28T21:14:31.198+01:00Still calling me silly names and you talk about tr...Still calling me silly names and you talk about trolls...<br /><br />I am not interested in whether they think they had a fair trial. It was their trial and if they did not enjoy the outcome then they appeal, that is the process. Their are time limits etc, but once you start these things you've got to follow the procedures. <br /><br />You have not answered my simple question on the ramifications for free speech should they have won this libel action and only you know why.<br /><br />CheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-89014524781602691692017-09-28T21:03:17.723+01:002017-09-28T21:03:17.723+01:00Sob of Digger. Please just answer the question. Wh...Sob of Digger. Please just answer the question. Why do you believe the Pitmans should be entitled to a fair and honest court? One free of paedo protecting, dishonest Jurats. Answer or shut up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-16127215080310426632017-09-28T20:06:34.079+01:002017-09-28T20:06:34.079+01:00Stuart Syvret has nothing to do with the Pitman Li...Stuart Syvret has nothing to do with the Pitman Libel Case so why do you keep on going into Auto-Pilot and yapping on about him? And why do you keep on saying 'trolling' and 'Son of Digger', what are you talking about?<br />If you actually read articles at the time of the Pitman case the issue of free speech within the Press was raised a number of times and this is all I am addressing here.<br />What would have happened to everything we do and say online had the Pitmans won their case because this is evidently what you wanted them to do. You think they should have won. Fine now answer the question on what ramifications that would have created for free speech by the press against Politicians? Only asking for a view. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-6834224795570960942017-09-28T19:34:10.958+01:002017-09-28T19:34:10.958+01:00Indeed I *can* provide a "yes or no" ans...Indeed I *can* provide a "yes or no" answer, Son of digger@17:53<br /><br />And look forward to doing so with appropriate caveats and qualifications<br /><br />However let's first deal with the trolling you insist on repeating<br /><br />I do not believe the Pitman's case was based on controlling "free speech". I understand that it was based on challenging the untruths they felt the cartoon was trying to convey and their motivation.<br /><br />Whether they SHOULD have tried to seek recompense or is IRRELEVANT<br /><br />What WOULD have happened if they had won is IRRELEVANT (& debatable BTW)<br /><br />If you are as concerned about free speech as you would have us believe then I would be most surprised that you claim not to be familiar with the Syvret Data Protection case and the criminal witnesses involved at massive taxpayer's expense.<br /><br />It even got mentioned in the UK Parliament<br />You must be dying to hear about it and filling that gap in your head.<br /><br />I think It would be far better to invest my time in informing you about the *real* and DISASTROUS effects of Jersey free speech of that anti Syvret case AND another equally dangerous piece of Jersey legislation than a representative report on your *hypothetical* question about side effects of the Pitman's winning their case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-69655566401849284452017-09-28T17:53:51.776+01:002017-09-28T17:53:51.776+01:00Why the insults?
Why the name calling?
Well I am t...Why the insults?<br />Why the name calling?<br />Well I am tough as old boots so I shall not be lowering my own tone to match yours.<br /><br />But you keep on telling us Rule of Law and Conflicts when I am talking about any of that.<br />My focus is solely on whether this Case tested Free Speech and my question is so simple. <br /><br />- If the Pitmans had won their Case for a satirical cartoon, do you not agree that this would have had serious consequences for the future journalistic lampooning of Politicians?<br /><br />Straight answer - yes or no? <br /><br />Can you do that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-8564880829632509582017-09-28T17:42:03.519+01:002017-09-28T17:42:03.519+01:00Look, Son of digger@17:24
It is STILL a point of ...Look, Son of digger@17:24<br /><br />It is STILL a point of law<br /><br />The case had multiple conflicts, any one of them would make it void and the Pitmans get their house back which was corruptly taken by the JEPaedo and its accomplices.<br /><br />No matter how many times you post the SAME diversionary statements about "free speech" and "tsunamis" it remains a point of law<br /><br />The case is void in any real court on account of the seriousness of multiple conflicts.<br /><br />The case being VOID does not mean the Pitmans have won so there is NO affect on free speech.<br /><br />Any repetition of this nonsense free speech is just the usual thick trolling and I suspect that you are just all tooo familiar with the Suvret Data Protection and the criminal witnesses involved at massive taxpayer's expense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-59030766611689218602017-09-28T17:24:16.658+01:002017-09-28T17:24:16.658+01:00My question is about Free Speech against Politicia...My question is about Free Speech against Politicians and the implications had this Libel Case been won.<br />You seem to be shooting off into different directions and talking about scenarios that I am not familiar with and sound like they are completely unconnected.<br />Whoever presided over this case is irrelevant because the victory for Free Speech was the right one in the interests of all Journalists. Do you not agree with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-22703634277682848302017-09-28T17:13:57.660+01:002017-09-28T17:13:57.660+01:00A witness who himself abused the States of Jersey ...<br />A witness who himself abused the States of Jersey owned telecommunications system and was prosecuted and found guilty in a court of law by using a phone to make serious threats. He then sat as one of five witness's, in the not so secret Syvret trial. Here is a clear case of Jersey's courts at their worst. He then went on to threaten Rico's lovely wife at a later time again fully recorded over the telephone.<br /><br />Any other decent court of justice would not have had him, ( hi digger, red25 and many other of a basket of silly names ) a known petty criminal and still jersey's most prolific Troll any where near a witness stand, for fear of collapsing the trial.<br /><br />If only I were wealthy enough I would fund lawyers to start with this one example of a unreliable witness and then move on to an ex nurse ( also with a criminal record ) and then ask the court in Jersey and the legal advisors what the hell they are playing at using people like this as supposed honest witnesses.<br /><br />No doubt other universities and acedemics will be alarmed looking at the way the Jersey judicial system works. It is also strange that the Attorney General advices the States of Jersey Government and it's departments and also sits in judgement should the states be sued.<br /><br />Is that not completely weird ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-84177250128127339592017-09-28T17:08:01.451+01:002017-09-28T17:08:01.451+01:00You are still ignoring the tsunami against free sp...You are still ignoring the tsunami against free speech that would have been caused had this case been won.<br />It is a shame a mature debate has never been had on this Libel case because I do not believe it would have been in any bloggers interest for the case to be won. <br />Being able to handle Free Speech is something that goes with the job of Public Office anyhow so whoever presided over the case itself really has no relevance. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-54207749771122620612017-09-28T16:46:25.537+01:002017-09-28T16:46:25.537+01:00Son of digger@16:31
Free speech is vitally import...Son of digger@16:31<br /><br />Free speech is vitally important but sadly lacking in Jersey. For instance I cannot name a notorious troll for fear of "upsetting" the poor little mite<br /><br />It is a point of law<br /><br />The case had multiple conflicts, any one of them would make it void and the Pitmans get their house back which was corruptly taken by the JEPaedo and its accomplices.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-86357130486766917342017-09-28T16:42:54.097+01:002017-09-28T16:42:54.097+01:00In reality for the benefit of Internet users, News...In reality for the benefit of Internet users, Newspaper cartoonists/journalists, the Media in general, people who want to have a go at Politicians should be quietly relieved that this case was not won. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-5039064380877072072017-09-28T16:31:11.302+01:002017-09-28T16:31:11.302+01:00Fair play to VFC for publishing my opinion on this...Fair play to VFC for publishing my opinion on this.<br /><br />Anon 14:17 you are ignoring the case.<br />This is all about whether it is right for Politicians to sue a newspaper after being lampooned. Look at Private Eye who mock Politicians full time with cartoons, speech bubbles and Photoshop pictures that imply lots of different things. It makes Politicians look stupid, greedy or selfish. So whoever presided over this JEP case is not relevant, its the threat to Free Speech against politicians that I am getting at here. This Case if won could have started a censorship precedent that would have would have been a disaster for Free Speech. This is why I do not understand why people think the case should have been won. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-89674892131803752752017-09-28T15:31:50.994+01:002017-09-28T15:31:50.994+01:00I should add that I personally do NOT think the Co...I should add that I personally do NOT think the CoI was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />It has achieved perhaps a quarter of what it was set out to do. This is actually a massive achievement in Jersey and for Jersey<br /><br />However it was clearly a PR and damage control exercise and a vast waste or "embezzlement" of taxpayers money<br /><br />taxpayers money that could probably be recovered from the guilty or incompetent parties who ran the show.......In memory of Dannie Jarman .......http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-10197131608909746062017-09-28T15:11:29.839+01:002017-09-28T15:11:29.839+01:00Regarding the rather silly comment registered @11-...Regarding the rather silly comment registered @11-31 it should be pointed out that though we now know that the Bailiff's Office will have known about Jurat Le Breton's failings, his being the Attorney General at the time the police were trying to bring people to justice in the Vic College abuse cover up, the information revealed by one of the policemen was not available to the Pitmans or the Appeal Court. <br /><br />It only came in to the public domain via the Care Inquiry. In the light of this I have to agree that the case should be quashed and the Pitman's en desastre with it. Not to mention a public apology and significant compensation as Stuart Syvret suggested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-63117247335139441872017-09-28T14:21:47.676+01:002017-09-28T14:21:47.676+01:00Much more for sure. A jurat that covered up child ...Much more for sure. A jurat that covered up child abuse. AS for the Pitmans 'not getting on with' the Jurat. This is something you obviously make up because if they or any person in a case 'did not get on with' or even knew a Jurat they would have requested he or she not be allowed to sit. You talk utter tosh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com