Thursday, 5 January 2012

Stuart Syvret Exclusive Interview (Part 1 of 3)

Subsequent to our exclusive brief interview with Former Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret, on his release from PRISON we have, as requested, been able to interview Mr. Syvret in-depth and exclusively.

In part one of this interview (below), among the subjects discussed is, "Data protection." Is this being used as a political tool to silence people who speak out against the government in Jersey? Is the Data Protection Law applied fairly? Has the Jersey government captured the courts/judicial system and the police? If you speak out against the Jersey government will you get a fair trial?

Have you got a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a Blog or website and live in Jersey? Do you believe the charges faced by Mr. Syvret have no significance to you? 


50 comments:

  1. registration is a tool of control

    it is the transfer of superior title

    think you own your car? check the logbook

    for any registration to be lawful/legal it must be done voluntarily, by submitting an application


    no one can be lawfully/legally forced to register anything

    deal with the corporate eyelash mannequin with a notice

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reason you have an exclusive interview with Mr Syvret is , no one will entertain this nutter any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People need to start listening to Syvret before it is too late.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The sooner Jersey gets cleaned up the better but to do that would need an impartial media so don't hold your breath. Oh and KEEP BLOGGING!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You obviously support his breaking of the data protection law already then.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Data Protection Jersey Law 2005 is there to protect people’s data, that is why it was written. So if Stuart Syvret in his wisdom thinks he has a right to ignore the law and write not only personal data about people but lies about them on a blog then like others he deserves everything that’s coming to him. Besides what’s all this political rubbish he keeps on saying? He is as political as anybody else that's not in there anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Skynet-Hackers-Dream-Up-Censor-Proof-Satellite-Internet-Grid-74098.html

    "A group of computer enthusiasts have begun working on creating a satellite network that could be used to thwart censorship on the Internet.

    Called the "Hackerspace Global Grid" (HGG), the network could provide a way for activists to access the Net when a repressive regime suppresses access within its borders."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Point 1 b - What is a Duty to Apply for Registration?
    The word DUTY (Blacks Law Dictionary) means "A human action which is exactly conformable to Laws which require us to obey them". DUTY is sometimes synonymous with MUST, MAY, or SUBMIT. The word DUTY creates the inference that you are OBLIGED, you are never OBLIGED to do anything.

    ‘Submit’ means ‘to agree to bend to another’s will or to ‘leave to another’s discretion’. An agreement is a contract and must be entered into voluntarily. If you are leaving something to someone else’s discretion, it must have been yours to begin with, right? Again it is voluntary in nature. You can never be lawfully compelled to submit.
    However, as Government cannot demand anything from us as men or women, the word "DUTY" is only an offer, nothing more. It is simply an offer for you to accept!

    Point 1 c - What does APPLY mean? To "APPLY/APPLICATION" literally means "TO BEG".

    ‘Application’ legally means ‘to beg, plead, petition, implore, entreat or request’ The assumption this creates in court is fivefold; 1) he who begs knows exactly what he is begging for, 2) he knows exactly what he is giving up for it, 3) he is acknowledging the authority to grant OR 4) he is creating it through transference, and 5) he is doing it all voluntarily.

    Point 1 d - What does "REGISTRATION" mean?

    ‘Registration’ was historically the act of a Ship’s Captain signing over his ship and all chattel contents over to the harbour master for safekeeping. Chattel contents included the condemned, those in debt, prisoners, anything that could be bought or sold and slaves.
    ‘Must’ is likely their trickiest word by far. You will find it used with ‘application’, ‘submission’ and ‘registration’ extensively. They try to use it to make you think you have an obligation to act; you do not, for under law, you are never obliged to beg. If I tell you, “You must come to my party through the front door.” Does that create an obligation for you to come to my party? Or does it perhaps merely define conditions which have to be fulfilled in order for me to have authority over you? If you look in Black’s Law dictionary, you find that ‘must’ is sometimes ‘synonymous with may’. When you take charge of your life, there is no longer need to ask permission of other people or society at large. When you ask permission, you give someone veto power over your life.
    Whenever you see the words Submission/Application/Registration you know you are giving away your inalienable rights and are entering into a contract. Much of the power Government has over you is a result of your actions, not theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The sooner Jersey gets cleaned up the better but to do that would need an impartial media."

    That would help, but not that much. The only way to fix this system is through the law and the law officers department.

    Lawful Rebellion, use their laws against them, our remedy is contained in every one of their statute laws....USE THEM for your own good and break the chains of Government

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unbloodied and unbowed! Stronger and as determined as ever.

    They will never break you Stuart!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having now been able to read the statement from ILM on Cover-Up Jersey and elsewhere you have to say that it really did not go far enough. For starters how about an apology from the Home Affairs minister to Deputy Pitman and his team who quite clearly were right in their findings. Shall we hold our breath?

    ReplyDelete
  12. So sad that Syvret has been reduced to this.
    Always voted for him apart from the last election.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When oh well will the lessons of 28September 1769 be learned!
    It has all happened previously in the past - long before the internet was even dreamed of.

    But why has the Town Constable got this obsession with building a statue to Major Peirson, the Yorkshireman killed fighting for the British army in 1781, defending the British empire against the French mercenaries who were trying to assist the Americans overthrow the British colonialists - in Jersey's "Royal Square" ? Then as now overlooked by the very same golden German speaking Hanoverian King George II on his granite plinth.

    Just who should we be supporting now in this confusing mess of historical pottage? No wonder the Lt Governor of the day was sacked but why oh why are the real Jersey heroes of 1769 not even remembered today?
    Peirson surely has more than enough memorials already but the names of the several hundred brave Jersey men and women who risked their lives on 28 September are not even recorded....

    What will Michael Portillo think of that?
    If only the granite could speak....

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So sad that Syvret has been reduced to this.
    Always voted for him apart from the last election. "

    So sad you can't follow what's been happening. He's right, and he's fighting for your freedoms. Sad that you can't see it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jersey Needs Justice6 January 2012 at 10:30

    "You obviously support his breaking of the data protection law already then."

    He's NOT - try listening! A court agreed that he isn't, but the local registrar still doesn't understand :)

    "The Data Protection Jersey Law 2005 is there to protect people’s data"

    It was introduced to safeguard databases of personal information held on computers.

    What Stuart did was simple journalism, that may have included personal "data" (a police report) but didn't necessarily involve a computer. It may have reached him on paper.

    The computer was obviously involved in the publishing on his blog, but it could just as easily have been in a small independent newspaper, or photocopied flyers left around town. The DP Law does not apply.

    Maybe it's a subtle distinction, which is why people are getting confused. Stuart is not "processing" personal data, so the DP law does't apply.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I tend to think that everybody would be doing what Syvret is doing if it was legal don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  17. What utter nonsense. What world is this man living in? He is recorded on his own blog of persecuting a person for their own freedom of speech and calling them a Troll. What double standards does this man work off?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another excellent interview, well done VFC.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "What world is this man living in? He is recorded on his own blog of persecuting a person for their own freedom of speech and calling them a Troll. What double standards does this man work off?"

    Justly deserved if you ask me. The Troll is free to fight the 'libel' if he chooses - that's how it has worked for centuries. Nothing to do with the DP Law, and nothing anyone would have been locked up for, before the internet made publishing easier (which has been generally regarded as a good thing in the rest of the world).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good to see Stuart back.

    Has part 2 been recorded yet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank god for DP law!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Has part 2 been recorded yet.”

    The interview was recorded in one sitting. Part two is in its editing stage and will be published shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's clear to me State media have progressed to stage one of preventing the Committee of Enquiry into HDLG from getting off the ground.

    Is there anything bloggers can do to prevent this happening.

    What can be done to prevent watered down terms of reference that can only benefit the establishment rather than the future generation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The State Media will be doing, as they always do, and that's what they are told. As Bloggers the only thing we can do is expose the facts they don't want the public to know.

    As for the watering down of the TOR's you can contact your Parish Deputy/Senators and the like with your concerns. If you e-mail them, we can publish your e-mail on here, and maybe the response......if you get one.

    The next instalment of this interview is on the subject of Jersey's State Media and what they have(n't) been reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nobody sues people who are penniless, its a no brainer. But there are other tools within the law to deal with them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is he serious when he says he is using a blog for freedom of speech whilst not a single UK newspaper will touch or repeat any of his lurid freedom of speech accusations against people because of no evidence? You know it is sad that a former States of Jersey Senator, who after leaving politics hasn't done anything constructive but run a blog calling others childish names ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Unbloodied and unbowed!

    Stronger and as determined as ever.

    Sock it to 'em Stuart!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous said...

    "So sad that Syvret has been reduced to this.
    Always voted for him apart from the last election. "

    Don't be sad, this is the new Stuart, More dedicated then most narrow minded Jersey folk can comprehend and its them he is fighting for. GO STUART!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi VFC.

    Just put up the Audio of the Interviews of Senator La Marquand & Mr Harper. You & your readers can listen to them HERE

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think Stuart has defiantly been bloodied .

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Nobody sues people who are penniless, its a no brainer. But there are other tools within the law to deal with them. "

    INTERPRETATION:

    "We daren't take him to court for libel because he'd expose what we've done, so we'd better have another secret conference to plot how best to stitch him up good and proper, NYHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Is he serious when he says he is using a blog for freedom of speech whilst not a single UK newspaper will touch or repeat any of his lurid freedom of speech accusations against people because of no evidence? You know it is sad that a former States of Jersey Senator, who after leaving politics hasn't done anything constructive but run a blog calling others childish names ever since."

    Still, he could go out and get drunk pick up the phone and the rest as they say is pure youtube gold

    ReplyDelete
  33. Why does Data Protection Law matter in this? Mr Syvret’s blog in real terms in over 3 years has changed nothing. The child abuse investigation remains closed. The people he has heavily attacked remain in office and even States members, civil servants and Police officers he has slurred either ignore him or are pending action. Maybe in your next interview you could ask Mr Syvret to list his achievements from blogging because I cannot count any. In fact I think it is time he admitted that he has done more damage to himself from blogging starting with his loss of a nicely paid seat in the States?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Shall Stuart and the true believers be supporting Peirson or De Rullecourt in the Royal Square today? Who should we remember as a hero fighting for or against American Independence against British Colonialism in 1781?
    Stuart's battles have a very long pedigree but even after nearly 250 years we are still being fed a pack of untruths about these events.
    What hope for any truth in our time about current events.
    Meet in the Royal Square today at midday but for what purpose precisely and should we be erecting yet more memorials to glorify death in war?

    ReplyDelete
  35. There is an assumption that there are political blogs in Jersey and this is an illusion. Scanning today, we have about 3 repeating each other about Haut de la Garenne (regularly). A couple going on about other news headlines anybody can read from the filthy rag and even comment online about already. No blog talking about Jersey's future, its many problems like unemployment, cost of living, immigration, finance etc with maybe the exception of the dead Ted Vibert blog. But no blogs locally seem to respect other people by the looks of it. Name calling the Home Affairs minister for example, as if that's going to get attention from him. There are plenty of political blogs outside of Jersey and if bloggers think they are being political I suggest they start reading them. There is nothing political or professional about using a blog to slag people off and it’s something bloggers should get to grips with. Too much messing around still.

    ReplyDelete
  36. UGH it's him is David Rotheram

    ReplyDelete
  37. "There is an assumption that there are political blogs in Jersey and this is an illusion."

    To assume that would be wrong, as there are at least three excellent political blogs that you appear to have overlooked. One of them is called Ex Senator Stuart Syvret, another is called Rico Sorda and the other is this very one that you left your comment on. There are plenty of other really interesting political blogs coming from Jersey, which you have also overlooked.

    There is also a really interesting book that goes into Jersey politics and the effect the political system has on ordinary people, written by Linda Corby that I am reading right new, it's called Bad Blood and you can download it for a kindle if you want to.

    Hope that's helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, I know Ugh! It's him is David Rotherham, but is he also Tom Gruchy? Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Zoompad.

    Tom Gruchy (who I know) is not “Ugh it’s him.” There might have been, quite some time ago, differences between Tom Gruchy and Stuart. The hatchet has somewhat been buried and are both fighting the same cause.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The attack on the blogs smacks of some establishment goon, perhaps an editor of the local newspaper? The reporting on a number of blogs is generally of a much higher standard than the so called mainstream media.

    The writing of sitting politicians like Trevor Pitman and Monty Tadier is also IMHO of a far greater quality than what you would read in the JEP.

    As for the allegation of attacking others get real. This is all the mainstream media especially JEP and BBC do to politicians and bloggers not of the establishment persuasion. Yet I see no criticism of this.

    Sadly Trevor Pitman and Monty Tadier seem to have too much to do or are perhaps losing interest in their own blogging. People should encourage these two to reconsider because though I recognise blogging must come pretty low down on a politicians list of priorities the difference such individuals can make through this medium is considerable.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Channel TV are currently using some old news footage to congratulate themselves for surviving for 50 years as a local TV station (with all that competition too! i.e. none).

    One of the clips is of a victim of a drink-driver accident, a close-up of medics treating a woman lying on the tarmac in severe pain. We hear her pleading "Please help me, I don't want to die". It's disgusting that her suffering is being used to promote the TV station. Just when you think Cover-up TV can't get any worse, it does (and if I may digress it now looks like whenever they need generic footage of elections they have taken to showing clips of their friend and ex-presenter Kristina Moore - how fair to other politicians).

    I know that the unfortunate lady involved is still battling those injuries years later, with no sign of getting better. I shudder to think how she feels about re-living that trauma when watching this sick promotional ad.

    Karen Rankine finishes off the piece with obnoxious guff about the quality of Channel TV, and it makes me want to throw something at my telly! Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If Tom Gruchy's blog is not wholly political then somebody is using a fake dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Deputy Trevor Pitman's latest Blog Posting is a very informative and MUST READ

    ReplyDelete
  44. So it is OK for Stuart Syvret to act as JUDGE & JURY on his blog.

    Do you think it is any valid argument that if Stuart either tels a lie about an innocent person (or just makes an error of judgement) that the person who has suffered has only one remedy.

    That remedy is to go to court and commence liable/defamation proceedings?

    This would cost cira £ 10,000 in legal and court fees to see through the first stages (even if Stuart did not turn up in court). (Full defamation procedings cost £50,000 - £ 100,000)

    Stuart has admitted he has no money so then the person would then suffer huge financial loss (even if Stuart was forced to remove any incorrect statement).

    Perhaps Zoompad and some of Stuart's other defenders would be less keen if it was suggested that I could tell lies about them and state their only remedy is to sue me?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've just come across the comment above.

    The cretin who wrote it says:

    "So it is OK for Stuart Syvret to act as JUDGE & JURY on his blog."

    The answer is "yes".

    Yes - because that is what the law allows.

    The reader than goes on to say:

    "Do you think it is any valid argument that if Stuart either tels a lie about an innocent person (or just makes an error of judgement) that the person who has suffered has only one remedy.

    That remedy is to go to court and commence liable/defamation proceedings?"

    Again - the answer is "yes".

    Yes - because that is what the law says.

    If someone has written things about you - that you believe are lies - the remedy - in law - is just that; to sue for defamation.

    The law - is the law - is the law.

    People have free-speech - and that free-speech may only be constrained in the most unambiguous and justifiable of circumstances.

    As all of the case-law says - saying or writing things that others consider "offensive" - is no reason of itself to constrain the speech in question.

    It is against the law to abuse and stretch the criminal law to oppress people's free-speech.

    Don't like like it?

    Tough.

    That's what the law says.

    They way to deal with that, is to democratically elect politicians, who will then introduce laws to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights - and who will then introduce a law saying that anyone who writes things that upsets members of the oligarhcy or its vassals, can be imprisoned.

    Once you've achieved those policy and legislation changes - then, indeed, you could oppress people as you suggest.

    But until then, what was done against me was illegal oppression.

    Simple as that.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.