Monday, 9 September 2013

Stuart Syvret Super Injunction Part 2


In continuation of our PREVIOUS POSTING we bring readers/viewers part 2 of the exclusive interview with former Health Minister Stuart Syvret concerning the multi million pound, taxpayer funded, failed super-injunction against him.

Since we recorded the interview there has been even more nonsensical gibberish published in Jersey's ONLY "News"paper, the disgraced Jersey Evening Post, in which its readers are expected to make some sense of.

For example, in the judgement against the former Health Minister, we read;

"he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense."

Then we read in the "News"paper;

"The commissioners office was awarded its legal costs in the prosecution which was funded by the taxpayer."

So the "representors" incurred no cost at all which were awarded to the Data Commissioner's Office (the tax payer) so were the four individuals the "representors", was it the Data Protection Office, or somebody else or a mixture of all three?

Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins, is quoted, in the  Jersey Evening Post as saying "The Royal Court judgement is clear, and the office of data protection commissioner notes that all of the applicants have been successful in winning the relief that they were seeking."

One has to ask, if Ms Martins did say that (because it was in the JEP there's a good chance SHE DIDN'T) then what exactly were the "applicants" looking for? The offending articles, are apparently still up on the internet, and Mr. Syvret is going to be publishing more, indeed he has already!

Yet the JEP question none of it and expect its readers not to either!

Well we have questioned Mr. Syvret about the costs (interview below) and just who it was that was paying them and indeed who the "representors" are/were and as most have known for quite some time despite a multitude of un-answered questions in the island's parliament, that it isn't/wasn't the four individuals named on Mr. Syvret's Blog and the evidence does appear to look as if this court case was brought by "others" with an all together more sinister motive and agenda.

Speaking of un-answered questions in the island's parliament readers MUST listen to THIS which will demonstrate just what a sham this has been for quite some time and further demonstrates how long the disgraced Jersey Evening Post along with all local State Media has known about this Super Injunction.  

We also asked Mr. Syvret exactly what, in his opinion, this court case has achieved? It appears all it's achieved is to line the pockets of Lawyers and not much else as he has not, and will not, take down the offending articles from his Blog. According to Mr. Syvret another achievement of this (not so) secret court case is that it has made The Powers That Be look "even more ridiculous and oppressive than they did already." It has, according to Mr. Syvret, strengthened his case against the UK Justice Secretary/Privy Council as another achievement.

We hope readers/viewers will be a little more informed after watching the video interview than what they might have been from watching, listening to, the State Media.

Part one of this interview can be viewed HERE.



38 comments:

  1. VFC

    Kudos to you and Stuart. I think, without a doubt, this is Stuart's best, most powerful interview, yet. He may write the same words, but his public speaking skills elevate them and this interview illustrates more clearly how terrifying he must be to those criminal officials who are desperate to silence him. This interview should play well to the outside world.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  2. According to Deputy Pitman, who spoke personally with the Attorney General about this case, the AG is on record as saying that his department has nothing to do with the action against Mr Syvret.

    If this is indeed the case, Emma Martins and her department with the collusion of her minister or ministers, went it alone, employing lawyers.

    To some this might appear that the AG is distancing himself and his department from the actions of a states department, using legalised interpretation of shabby catch all data protection law. Of course everyone knows that had the complainants stood up in " open court " using the acknowledged civil liable laws, they would have been under severe scrutiny, and probably had their cases thrown out or preferred to not be heard at all, as Syvret claims he can call on evidence.

    The AG knows this, the politicians know this and now the public know this.

    The council of ministers receive many official visits. It did not go well, after talks with the French tax and financial authorities, it is unlikely that the UK legal minds will be impressed with this latest amateur attempt to silence a dissenting and respected voice using obscure home grown data protection for the wrong purpose.

    There will obviously be repercussions in a Crown, supposed western democracy. Politicians and newspapers will be taking notice, but like the French are in no rush. This may change if they attempt to put him back in Jail, this farce can only get worse for the Jersey authorities and they only have themselves to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now if it is true that the AG's Dept. had nothing to do with the action against Stuart, then, the action must have been a private action i.e. a civil case. After all it is widely understood that the AG is the sole person able to sanction criminal proceedings.

    That or the AG was lying to the Deputy.


    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  4. VFC

    How have the local MSM reacted to this court case. I have read on other blog spots about the Jersey Evening Post and there half hearted attempt at covering their backsides but what about BBC or ITV have they acknowledged this very important case. What about outside journalists and politicians will questions be asked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the best of my knowledge none of the local State Media has critically scrutinised this latest debacle, neither would we expect them to. The State Media merely repeat what they are told and call that “journalism.” I heard it was mentioned (repeated) on BBC State Radio the other day and not sure if the disgraced ITV CTV has mentioned a word of it.

      Will questions be asked? Well clearly not by the local State Media, the only people, thus far, who are asking questions are Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media).

      The States (island’s parliament) sit tomorrow there might be a couple of un answered questions in that.

      Delete


  5. Saturday, 13 July 2013

    The 'secret court case' against former Senator, Stuart Syvret and the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money no one in authority wants to be held accountable for...

    On Friday morning I had a meeting with the Attorney General. He wished to clarify that neither he nor his office have any control or involvement relating to the shed loads of taxpayers' cash - our cash - that's been handed out so four private individuals could bring a secret Data Protection Law case (in reality a glorified defamation case) against former Senator Stuart Syvret.

    Deputy Pitman

    http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2012-12-31T16:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-08-03T23:53:00%2B01:00&max-results=34&start=2&by-date=false

    The AG is talking about control of the money in the case, what is missing is, an admission of no involvement by his department full stop. The post above [ 12.59 ] informs readers that he gave permission for money to spent ? Since when does an unelected lawman give permission for the taxpayers to fund an action outside of his department, using private sector lawyers?

    It is unlikely that any States department would go to court without the AG giving legal advice. Deputy Pitman or any other decent politician needs to ask more questions on this matter as do the respected PaC.

    There is a lot not right here, which is obvious to any thinking person.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A year ago just after the super injunction was served on SS, you publish a video of him knocking on the states chambers door. Did not understand the meaning. I may be a bit thick but could you explain? I may have missed a posting. thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I remember that. What was the significance?

      Delete
    2. I believe THIS is the video in question? Perhaps Stuart could explain its significance?

      Delete
  7. That was the day two uniformed Officers of the Judicial Greffe turned up - banging on my door.

    They had with them two huge file-transfer-cases - each consisting about 5 giant lever-arch files. They informed me this was a legal action that had not only been initiated against me - but had actually already been heard by the court - and decided - not only in total secrecy - but also without my - the respondent's - knowledge.

    The two thugs demanded entry into the flat.

    I asked them if they had a search-warrant and if they had some kind of power of entry?

    They said "no", so I said I was not letting them in. They proceeded to explain to me that this was a court-order - that had been heard in camera - and ex-parte - and in a nutshell I had to immediately remove all kinds of material from the blog - or I would be arrested by the police and simply jailed immediately for contempt of court.

    They went to some lengths to emphasise that point, explaining - so that I was left in no doubt - that as the court-order had been granted already - it was not a case of further court-hearings - rather, as the order had already been made - any failure to obey it would be a contempt of court, and the police were empowered to simply come around, arrest me, and put me straight in prison.

    Such are the overt - illegal - oppressions that independent journalists, opposition activists and anti-corruption campaigners face in the UK Crown island of Jersey.

    The local oligarchy know perfectly well that 99.9% of people would be harassed and intimidated into caving-in to such fascism - which is how they've got away with it for centuries.

    I, of course, instead did what one should do - and could do - in any lawful democracy - with an actually functioning judicial system - and contacted the court and sought to call an urgent hearing to challenge this injunction and have it overturned.

    This being Jersey - and it's "judicial" function being a plainly unlawful Potemkin village - the court administration ignored my communications - and refused to provide an urgent hearing. Nevertheless, I attended the court building at the time I had requested - and - predictably - the door was locked.

    So - this "justice" - Jersey-style.

    Grossly oppressive - and plainly unlawful - super-injunctions - can get served on an individual - without them even being aware that the case exists, and thus having zero opportunity to argue against it - served by a judge, initially Howard Page - a long-standing colleague and admirer of Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt, the two primarily conflicted individuals, and with Page actually being chosen and appointed by Birt - with the first thing the victim knows about the existence of the case being two gorillas banging on his door - telling him that unless he obeys an order that means the end of real journalism in Jersey - he will simply be arrested and imprisoned. In secret.

    And when the victim attempts to resits this - the court refuses to give him an urgent hearing.

    That's the court led by Michael Birt and William Bailhache.

    That is exactly what happened.

    Jersey is not a democracy - not a jurisdiction that has the proper rule of law.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Syvret, are you sure that wasn't the Stasi? Was this in the East Germany of our childhoods? That's surely no western democracy acting in the public good.

      Delete
    2. Hang on a minute! The judgement says:

      "The Respondent did not appear and was not represented"

      On first reading, I took that to mean that you had been invited to attend the proceedings, but had declined to do so. That you had ignored the court, defied a summons, or such like.

      Are you telling me that the first you knew of the injunction was after it had been granted, with you being given no opportunity to oppose it? Please tell me that is not true?

      Paragraph 20 of the judgement even says "Mr Syvret having chosen not to take part in the present proceedings"

      Somebody help me out here, I don't know which way is up!

      Delete
    3. "Are you telling me that the first you knew of the injunction was after it had been granted, with you being given no opportunity to oppose it? Please tell me that is not true?"

      I believe that is exactly what happened. Stuart was given the opportunity to make representation at later hearings but (some might say) for obvious reasons declined to do so.

      Delete
  8. Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret 10Sept 2013 13:21 above - TRULY SHOCKING !

    But at least Jersey can now give up the pretence of being a free and democratic country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most in Jersey are still unaware of this. They only hear from State Media that Stuart Syvret is a convicted criminal, and they know nothing of his case unless they are brave enough to face the evidenced truth published on the blogs. However, anyone researching Jersey for any purpose, will have little doubt it is a lawless and undemocratic rogue state.

      Delete
  9. This is far worse than I had ever imagined, so it was effectively, without doubt a super-injunction. So Staurt, never even had the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, surely not?.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You do omit a key issue here, Syvret does insult people on his blog with countless slurs and intimidation and the Chapman Report concluded he was a bully. So can you explain what makes that journalism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Chapman report told the then Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur to "put up up shut up." The Chapman Report recommended the States PUBLICLY rebuke allegations made against States employees. Terry Le Sueur accepted the findings of thhe report, said that he was going to act on all TEN of them and to the best of my knowledge didn't act on a single one of them. The Chapman report's Terms of Reference were drawn up by the very people (Civil Servants within the Department) Stuart was naming on his Blog. So now PUBLICLY REBUKE has turned into secretly abuse the Data Protection Law.

      As for "missing the point" on the contrary it is you who is missing the point. It is conceded (by some) that Stuart MIGHT have insulted somebody. The "point" is that that's a libel/defamation case not a secret, taxpayer funded, abuse of the Data Protection Law case.

      Delete
    2. You just avoid the question and how people choose to address their own affairs is their business.
      But what makes the insulting and bullying of people online journalism?
      Can you just explain that because you seem to think its acceptable in today's world when others see it as a criminal offence?

      Delete
    3. It is you who is avoiding the question. How did PUBLICLY REBUKE (Chapman Report) turn into secretly abuse the Data Protection Law?

      Insulting, and bullying online is totally unacceptable and those who engage in such activity should be brought before an OPEN court and prosecuted under the CORRECT laws, whether it be harassment, libel defamation etc. And when did I ever say this was journalism?

      You say;“when others see it as a criminal offence” Thank you for making my point. A “criminal” offence that should be dealt with by criminal law. Not a “civil” taxpayer funded secret court.

      Delete
  11. I give up.

    You obviously support the abuse of others online.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Priceless. I write;

      “Insulting, and bullying online is totally unacceptable and those who engage in such activity should be brought before an OPEN court and prosecuted under the CORRECT laws”

      And you write;

      “You obviously support the abuse of others online.”

      Absolutely priceless and thank you for giving up you narrowly neat me to it.

      Delete
  12. The court decision is on the Rico Sorda Blog and it states he has been found guilty of causing distress by the processing of online data about these people so that is bullying VFC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the court was in secret! How does anybody know what (if any) evidence was(n't) produced to back this up?

      Why was he prosecuted in a secret, taxpayer funded, “civil” court case when you yourself believe he committed a “criminal” offence?

      Why did Terry Le Sueur say he was going to act on the Chapman recommendations and then do the complete opposite?

      I thought you had given up?

      Delete
  13. No, you (commenter starting @ 08:20) omit a key issue here.
    Due to the hijack of the data protection law real JOURNALISM has been made illegal in Jersey.

    If it is true it is not an insult ..........it is the TRUTH .......even if it is an unpleasant truth.

    The Chapman Report was an yet another expensive "our chap" report commissioned for a specific purpose under partial information and terms of reference.

    Even the Chapman Report conceded that Mr. Syvret's concerns warranted proper investigation and this has largely not been done despite the dramatic revelations since.

    When faced with decades of entrenched cover up of horrific child abuse and corruption how polite do you think Mr. Syvret should have been ?

    Mr. Syvret was (and still is) being systematically bullied because of his defence of victims of child abuse and corruption. The Chapman Report and this malicious and expensive data protection case form small parts of this ongoing bullying.

    Just to help you overcome your alethephobia and to help you understand what "bullying" REALLY is please play the 2 minute video on the following link:

    http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

    There you have it - "nurse M is going to kill your family"

    With unholy irony both "nurse M" and the phone caller giving his name, issuing the death threats and boasting of his protection by the police/authorities happen to be 2 out of the 4 beneficiaries of massive public funding to bring the secret data protection prosecution.

    How freaky is that ?

    "Jon the Blackshirt" was only prosecuted because he was recorded intimidating witnesses but is still out there and probably himself still flouting data protection on a [cottage] industrial scale. [irony overload ?]

    No doubt the remaining two 'proxies' are absolute angels LOL
    The evidenced allegations on Mr. Syvret's blog suggest otherwise

    If the allegations were largely untrue the appropriate course of action would have been a libel case.

    The fact that the Data Protection Law was abused (with massive repercussions) indicates that the allegations are largely true.

    The intellectually and morally challenged of this island may benefit from the following simplification:

    Libel = FALSE

    Data = TRUE

    Journalism = ILLEGAL

    In the words of George Orwell
    “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is PR”

    Those who unquestioningly swallow PR from the JEP (et al) under the guise of journalism are bound to make fools of themselves. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have given up because its clearly stated in the judgement as to why the case was held in camera and this was further backed up by comment in the States that such cases are normal.
    The case was legit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That righttoreply blog is just a load of insults against people, I mean why put a picture of a drunk in the street and expect serious attention from people when it concerns a victim?

    The phone call was done by somebody in response to what he says in the article were lies written about him. That means that person has rejected the claims already and in court.
    The nurse was never found guilty of murder. The court concluded that a couple of years ago.
    The police man was cleared of any wrong doing, the inquiry concluded that and the alleged pedophile was never charged.

    It is obvious why they won their case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jersey: The modern demonocracy of 1984*
    by George Orwell

    Embarrassingly backward :-(

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is all irrelevant.
    The Royal Court has made its judgement and the ball has started rolling.
    Amusing comment in today's paper about Syvret's foolish attitude to Royal Court orders though and I bet the 4 concerned are grinning like Cheshire Cats.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A good point made @20:12 -

    'If the allegations were largely untrue the appropriate course of action would have been a libel case.

    The fact that the Data Protection Law was abused (with massive repercussions) indicates that the allegations are largely true.'

    Exactly, as even the judge ruled it was only because the '4' had found some of Stuart comments distressing, the judge did not have to consider if they were true. If I were one of those four that Stuart reported on, and if I had done what he said, I guess I would find it distressing to know a vast number of people would have read it, if I hadn't done anything, I would have wanted everybody to know, so as to clear my name. The judgement was a hollow one and served no real pupose for the four, especially as, it has probably encouraged even more people to find out what Staurt had said.

    In my view Stuart's comments must be true - this opens up a whole can of worms.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "In my view Stuart's comments must be true - this opens up a whole can of worms."
    Indeed, but too much water has run under the bridge since he has made countless claims and nobody in the States has ever publically agreed with what he has said about others.
    Renegades come and go but they also need support.

    ReplyDelete
  20. RE. 13Sept 13:54 "In my view Stuart's comments must be true - this opens up a whole can of worms. Indeed, but too much water has run under the bridge ...."

    But it is not "water" running under the bridge, it is decades of sewerage. Some old, some fresh, but all inadequately or totally untreated.

    So are Mr. Syvret's actions that inappropriate having already exhausted the normal channels and come up against the block wall of the entrenched establishment fortress. Mr. Syvret started his blog long AFTER he was constructively dismissed as Health Minister by civil serpents BECAUSE he was trying to get these things investigated through the proper channels.

    Decades of abuse and structural and cultural failure in it's continuance and cover up involve a good number of directly guilty parties but also inevitably a large number of other people who failed in their duty of care, due diligence, failed to do their job, or failed to do the right thing.
    This is understandable because we lived, and still live, in a culture where "doing the right thing" would likely lead to the loss of their job, or worse.
    Health Minister Syvret rocked the boat and he was ousted and mercilessly berated PRIOR to starting his blog.

    As for agreement in the states; Members have a habit of agreeing with Ex-Health Minister Syvret's words -years or decades after he has spoken them.
    You might like to listen to the debate on the Commission of Inquiry:

    http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-committee-of-inquiry-into-child.html

    Stuart Syvret was liberally quoted from his 2007 "Father of the House" Christmas Speech - the parts of it before Mr. Bailhache UNPLUGGED HIS MICROPHONE & DISBANDED THE SITTING !

    The vote for the Commission of Inquiry was carried unanimously with Mr. Bailhache notably making himself absent. Perhaps Mr. Bailhache did not have the guts to sit through it or perhaps he had something far more important to hear or do ?

    Don't miss : "Senator Le Gresley speaks on the Proposition" -click play on TJW site.

    In Historic Jersey style - after stating that he does not 'believe himself' to be conflicted there was just one fabulously hand wringing speech : "Constable Le Troquer speaks on the Proposition" -click play on TJW site.

    With issues such as horrific child abuse and corruption, each of us are intellectually either part of the problem or part of the solution. The middle ground is perilously narrow and we cannot tacitly or oh-so-indirectly defend these things without it tainting our soul to the core.

    The Chief Minister warned members that they will find the content of the CoI "deeply shocking". You may not like his blog but you will find that Mr.Syvret is in possession of far more information than he has revealed on the blog.
    This is a "can of worms" that some are desperate to bury or at least hold the lid on until some more of the critical remaining players have variously left office, retired, died, or left the island.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The person attempting to challenge the logic of this blog entry is not able to use your sophisticated logic in his argument. He has, as he must, confused evidence with "it is true because because someone in authority said so."

      This is the illogic even children see through when parents tell them enough reason for a parenting decision is just because they (parents) have "said so." You'll get no further in dialogue with a troll, to whom any greater truth is meaningless and never absorbed. His underlying rants in support of lies you know to be blatant lies are (to him) an evidenced-enough argument "because they said so."

      What your troll can't address is that concerns about Jersey's misuse of the Data Protection Law against Stuart Syvret are going to be around for a long, long time. In no jurisdiction outside Jersey could the Crown Court judgement be publicly defended on merit or as a legal precedent. Reading between the lines of the Judgement, I am convinced the Court knew it was an own goal, that Jersey's pursuance of this case would be unanimously condemned by any objective review. At most, it reads like a resigned and feeble attempt to provide some locally acceptable pseudo-legalistic cover for the idiots who authorised this instead of recommending a proper libel case. Anyone can be assured, this Judgement cannot be defended on legal merit in any lawful courtroom, and there are no lawyers who can't see how at best, this was to intimidate Stuart Syvret unlawfully and to postpone dealing with the underlying legal merits of his disclosures.

      This must be a terrifying time for Jersey's oligarchs and their closest supporters. Surely they know that in the UK, or other established Western European system, this embarrassing Data Protection case would have never been brought, knowing it could only guarantee the harshest condemnation or ridicule on an international scale. It still could be. It still could be.

      Elle

      Delete

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