Saturday, 28 September 2013

Deputy Trevor Pitman speaks on Jersey so-called "Justice."


Deputy Trevor Pitman delivered a speech in Jersey's Parliament on Wednesday 25th September 2013 while debating the proposition below.

For those with an interest in how Jersey is run, and who runs it, then please listen to/read Deputy Pitman's speech and you might want to ask why none of Jersey's State Media have reported on some of the subjects contained in it?

To include, according to Deputy Pitman, a child abuse victim of Haut de la Garenne being told "if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison." 

Possibly one of the most, "to the point" speeches made in modern times during a States session spelling out who holds the real power in Jersey, which as regular readers will be aware, is the alleged corrupt and politicised, not fit for purpose, so-called "Justice" system and its unelected, unaccountable officials.

VFC credit TJW for this recording.


 2. Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013)
The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion that, within the Executive branch of Government, the Chief Minister is responsible for justice policy and resources, as clarified in the accompanying report.

2.1.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
It is ironic, after allowing a lot of people to be betrayed yet again, as we did earlier, here we are talking about justice and yet it is all going to be done and dusted in about 10 minutes.  The fact is, in my opinion and in a growing number of the victims of the Jersey justice system, there is zero accountability to those at the top of the justice system in Jersey.  It is a very scary, frightening fact.  I do not know if the Chief Minister kids himself, but he is not in control here.  The political power in this Island lies with the law office; it is an absolute fact, certainly as far as enforcement of its will.  As has been said, and I never used to believe this, but it is all too often a tool of oppression.  It is a great example here today of how we could be saving money and how we do not need the Bailiff; the Greffier and his Assistant are proving that admirably.  We do not need any individual in a red cloak.  I will be quite honest, the reason I did not come to the special sitting last week, I find it highly offensive to see a judge, any judge - and this is not a personal thing - as our first citizen in the 21st century.  It is absolutely ludicrous.  I supported Senator Farnham’s idea for a Minister for Justice, but this is one of those watered-down fudges, and I think he is putting a brave face on and trying to be nice about perhaps convincing himself, wishing to convince himself that this is all going to move in a positive direction.  I think he is mistaken in that.  Senator Gorst, well, I told him yesterday I was not going to support this because I voted for him, as he knows, and I have been appalled that I did vote for him.  He is, in my view - I have to say that or I will get into trouble - utterly too weak to ensure justice in this Island.  If Members ask themselves when do you hear the Chief Minister talk about justice, speak out about it and upholding it?  Practically never.  You cannot go against the rule of the Bailiff.  It is one of the most striking things when you come into this Assembly: the ridiculous and quite offensive deference that is given to someone just because he is a judge.  Let us put it quite clearly: the Bailiff deserves no such deference, any Bailiff.  He is just a judge, and yet he can interfere, he can block what elected representatives to this Assembly say and ask.  As we saw yesterday in a quite embarrassing display, the justice system in this Island is so appalling that when the Bailiff fails appallingly, you can only go and take those failings to the Bailiff.  It is a bit like déjà vu when I remember back years ago when Senator Syvret was forced out of the States for 6 months, in 1996 I think it was.  Who could he ultimately appeal to about that?  Probably the same man who many would say was instrumental in him being removed from that Assembly.  This cannot be trusted to the Chief Minister’s Department because the Chief Minister just does not appear to have the will, the determination and the courage to do the job.  He is too weak.  That might upset some people, but I have to speak the truth, that is what we are meant to do here, are we not?  Where is the judicial accountability now?  There is none whatsoever.  We have a U.K. Minister for Justice who is meant to intervene when he should but he does nothing, and you cannot go through an appeal system.  We heard a really brilliant example of how the Jersey justice system is dysfunctional when we had to hear the desperation ... if you do not get what you think you should have, you can go to the Privy Council or then to Strasbourg, like those poor victims up there today.  It is a bit late by then because you cannot challenge failings properly.  People have had their lives ruined by then.  Is the Chief Minister going to put that right?  No, because he is one of those who I believe strongly is absolutely frightened to death of the aura of the Bailiff and all that it suggests.  The Bailiff has only got that deference from people because of the dual role.  We talk about in this report from the Chief Minister that you have got to have that independence between Judiciary and politics. 
[11:30]
Does he not ever look at the individual and what that represents sitting in that chair every session, the hypocrisy and absolute comical farce of what he is saying?  I cannot remember who said it, it might have been Deputy Tadier, it might have been Deputy S. Pitman, but you would have a Minister still being controlled on issues of justice by an unelected judge.  There is no place for this in the 21st century.  I am sorry the Deputy of Grouville cannot see the problem with it; just about any other right-thinking person can see the problem with it: it is a person wearing 2 hats at one time, it is an unelected judge being involved where he has absolutely no right.  It might have been okay in the 17th century when we were all meant to tug our forelock to our betters, but it is not okay now.  Well, I could not tug my forelock, but there we go; I may doff my cap.  I cannot afford a cap, but there we go.  It makes me so frustrated to say we will happily sit here and discuss ourselves for weeks on end, we will discuss dog mess for hours or days, and justice ... hardly anyone speaks.  Let us spell out the facts again: there are only about 5 of us in here who ever stand up for justice, and we are made out to be some kind of radicals, we are out to destroy known civilisation.  No, for those of us who talk about justice, it is because we care about our Island.  The rest, and I am sorry, that is 95 per cent of the States Assembly, fall into 2 categories: people who just keep their head down, they are too scared; to protect the status quo they will say nothing.  Or, it has to be said, people who perhaps do not care about justice at all, which is even worse.  Some of those people who we were debating earlier said to me yesterday: “For too many people, it is only when an injustice happens to them that they realise what is going on in this Island.”  That is because in the mainstream media they do not report on the true facts.  Again, they have got a huge responsibility, they have more power than we have but they do not talk about the real issues: “Let us just keep attacking the 4 or 5 loony lefties who keep going on about child abuse and the dual role.”  If I am to support this, Chief Minister, what are you going to do about all that?  What are you going to do about all these issues?  As we heard, the Chief Minister cannot go against the word of the Bailiff, so how is this being under his sway, how is his control going to differ?  I was at that meeting the Deputy referred to; he acknowledged there were huge areas that needed to be changed, but would he do them?  We have Jurats elected by lawyers; that is crazy, it does not even happen in Guernsey, and some people are always mocking Guernsey for what they do.  How can you have lawyers choosing people they are then going to be pitching to win their case to later?  It is absolutely bonkers.  The Jurat Law; what stops you being a Jurat?  If you have received assistance from the 1948 Poor Law, it does not matter if you are Jimmy Savile, you are in, you are a pillar of society.  That is what it comes down to, in essence: no convictions against Mr. Savile so he probably would have been welcomed as a pillar of the community.  Sorry if some of this is uncomfortable, but it is true.  I have got so many cases now on justice, I admit - and I will use this to apologise to some people I have not even been able to get back to, because I am being overwhelmed and I know Deputy Higgins has got a huge number - they are diverse and they are shocking.  What is being done about it?  What have successive Chief Ministers done about the injustice in this Island?  Nothing, absolutely nothing.  Justice in Jersey is made up as we go ... a phenomenon which some people may not be aware of: judge-made law.  It is a great example of what happens in Jersey: rulings, decisions given by judges that have absolutely no visible link to the laws that were passed by Assemblies such as ours.  Who challenges it?  Is the Chief Minister going to challenge it?  No, because he is not strong enough, and I put my trust in him, and this is not a personal thing either.  I put my trust in him when he was making his pitch to be Chief Minister and on the key issues, justice, like for the abuse victims, he has really done nothing.  He expressed his satisfaction, his contentment with the case against former Senator Syvret.  I do not agree with a lot of what Mr. Syvret has done, but I will stand with him on justice issues.  Regularly, there is a gentleman who sits up there who can show you his many consistent statements made to the police about, as a child, being pinned down and having blood trickling down his legs after he had been abused.  The person who he alleges, and more than a dozen others allege is an abuser, is still employed by the States of Jersey, has still got access to children.  How is the Chief Minister and his legal team, who are meant to be doing redress, treating that man?  Well, he is accused of never being at Haut de la Garenne.  It is only other people who were at Haut de la Garenne who would remember him there.  Has he had sympathy?  Has he had compassion?  No.  I will tell you what has happened to him: he has been threatened by the legal team that if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison.  Justice in Jersey?  Utter farce.  Yet we are satisfied for the secret court case against Mr. Syvret.  Of course, one of those people given such huge financial assistance is the very man that so many people have accused.  That same case -if we are talking justice, Chief Minister - why is it that there is a letter in existence pitching for individuals to come in and put the case together and decide how they would get Mr. Syvret?  Five people invited; one of them refused.  Proxies; are those what they were?  I happened to believe that some of them, certainly a couple, have got cases for what has been done to them.  They may have cases to answer on the accusations against them.  The best way to have done that would be before a court.  As I have said before, then Mr. Syvret could have been taken to account if what he said was completely wrong and those people could have earned justice.  But no, what do we do?  Justice in Jersey, Chief Minister, we have secret court cases.  I do hope he is going to do the decent thing and resign when we get the true figures about how much this has all cost, because the question is already in for next session.  He wants to control justice.  Why is it that data protection and this access ... and it is all very well for him to chuckle over there, perhaps it is how he usually takes  justice.  Why is it that data protection ... this assistance is not available to all?  One of the individuals who was given money - Members might not know - is the scourge of innocent people in this Island.  He has been intercepted by the police threatening ex-partners; does not get charged.  He sends out posters to decent, ordinary people about threats to women; does not get charged.  He puts hate sites up on the internet which emails stolen from one of our own Members end up on.  Does not get charged.  When I went and made a complaint about him, the senior police officer went and looked and he was shocked at the amount of complaints against this individual, so he could see it was just not me.  Put the case to the Attorney General’s office; no case to answer.  Perhaps that explains, for all his faults, why Mr. Syvret went down the route he did, because it all comes back down to this image, hardly anyone wants to risk challenging Jersey’s fluffy image as a shining beacon of democracy, as I think former Senator Perchard said.  The way you improve your image is by confronting the things that are wrong, and that is what me, and those few other Members who stand up and talk about justice, do.  Of course, we get pilloried by the Jersey Evening Post, pilloried by other Members, former judges.  There is a wonderful little clip if Members get bored: go and look at YouTube and they will see a wonderful little clip of a former chief judge in Jersey and he is giving a talk to, I assume, the Law Society or a collection of lawyers, and he laughs and he gets a huge, great ripple of applause: “When I was a judge and the law was silent, I did what everyone did, I made it up because that is what everyone else did”; is that justice?  People laugh.  A chief judge, or a former chief judge ... I must not get into trouble, I must go down the magistrate route of today, confusing individuals.  It is funny, just on the news today the former assistant magistrate is out of prison already, laughing all the way to the bank, while those people we have sent away with their tails between their legs are going home.  One of them is on to income support as a result, she was telling me.  This makes me furious, these tick-box propositions that come back pretending to do something when the proof of the pudding is that this Chief Minister never stands up for justice ever, even when it is wrong.  He is controlled by the law office, in my view.  He does not have the courage to challenge things that are wrong. Why am I not going to support this?  It is not because I do not support Senator Farnham’s original idea, I do, though I ask the question, how many in this Assembly could do that job, 4 or 5, because most - and I mean that as no offence to any particular Member - have not got the courage and the conviction to stand up, as I do, so often.  But this is just a fob, it is a fudge.  It is another one of the Chief Minister’s cop-outs.  Why did we have a Minister for External Relations when we have not even got a Minister for Children?  Far more important.  Why have we not got a Minister for Justice?  Far more important than giving someone a title to do a job that, let us be honest, Senator Ozouf has been doing a pretty good job before we even had this Assistant External Affairs Minister.  I say to Members, do not support this, force the Chief Minister to come back with something that is fit for the 21st century.  Make him come back with something which will provide justice for all.  I think it was Deputy Le Fondré who today said when would justice purely relate to how much money people have got?  Well, that happens all the time in Jersey.  Many of us in St. Helier see constituents.  If they cannot afford to pay for lawyers and they get legal aid, they really may as well give up, because you will get a lawyer who is generally completely not interested or they are so young and inexperienced, it will probably do more harm to your case.  If you are in the middle, you are even worse.  Some people would say the Jersey system is bent.  I do not say it is bent, because if you imply that, then you think it could be put back into shape.  The Jersey justice system needs a full Turks and Caicos style intervention by the U.K.  We need the U.K. Minister for Justice to fulfil his mandate.  We need the Lieutenant Governor to fulfil the powers that he has got - and I like this Lieutenant Governor, I have had some lengthy conversations with him - but if he does not step in when he should, then what are we paying a great deal of money for?  We need a Minister for Justice, but I think it should be appointed from the U.K. because it is entrenched here, it is so entwined, political power with judicial power, that it cannot be done safely otherwise.  Now I think I will sit down and let our former Chief Judge attack me, as he does so often.

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Cost Of Failed, Taxpayer Funded, Super Injunction Remains A Secret.

After more questions asked of alleged Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, by Deputy Trevor Pitman, in the Island's Parliament today we still don't know the full amount, to the taxpayer, of the failed superinjunction placed on former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Senator Gorst ducked, and dived, a number of questions surrounding the case with only very little given away. We did, however, find out that the four proxies, it would appear were "invited" by Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins to take action against Mr. Syvret.


Data protection commissioner "invited" the claimants to come forward, according to Deputy Mike Higgins. How many other people has she "invited" Will she be inviting Stuart Syvret to make a claim against disgraced former Housing Minister, Deputy Sean Power, after he stole personal data belonging to Mr. Syvret and his ex partner which caused it to be published on a reported paedophile protecting hate-site? No she has already ruled that stealing other people's personal data, sharing it with others, and causing it to be published on the internet is a "regulatory" offence and not criminal.

Senator Gorst also revealed that the four "representors" (proxies) contributed nothing, financially, towards the cost of the case. Which brings us back to a previous posting where we published an extract from the court judgement HERE which 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." 

They were put to NO expense, unnecessary or otherwise. 

Good (unanswered) questions from Deputies Tadier and Higgins also which left Senator Gorst floundering. (recording below)

VFC credit TJW for this recording.







Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Stuart Syvret Secret Court Case on State Radio.

Further to our EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with former Jersey politician and Health Minister Stuart Syvret concerning the secret court case/super-injunction, BBC Jersey broadcast an edited interview with him this morning on the radio.

The question BBC was asking its listeners was "In the interests of free speech should we be allowed to say anything we like online?"

We have a few others such as;

"Has the Data Protection Law been abused in a secret court case? 

Why did these four proxies not use libel/defamation laws in order to publicly clear their names? 

If justice must be SEEN to be done why was this, taxpayer funded, court case in secret? 

What ramifications could this very dangerous precedent have for journalism across the board, so-called "accredited" and so-called "non accredited journalists alike?

Who brought these very unlikely bedfellows together and what was the motivation?

Is everybody treated equally by the law/Data Protection Office when attempting to make complaints?

How much did this secret court case really cost the taxpayer?

Below is the recording of this morning's broadcast on State Radio. Deputy Trevor Pitman was also live in the studio which will be published on TJW later this evening.

VFC credit the BBC for the recording below.




Monday, 16 September 2013

School Shooting in Jersey (Exclusive).


A pupil, at a local (Jersey) secondary school, was shot in the face by a teacher with a starting pistol. The incident took place back in May this year and the teacher was fined in the Magistrate’s Court after pleading guilty to discharging an imitation firearm.

Below is another Blogger (Jersey’s only independent media) exclusive where the mother of the victim tells us, the series of events concerning the shooting, from her perspective and relates some still unanswered questions.

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that NONE of the Island’s State Media has contacted the mother over this, very relevant, child safety issue. In light of the Jimmy Savile/HDLG Child Abuse cover-ups one would have hoped the State Media would be seeing this story as one of immense public interest and might have asked a few questions of the Education Department also?

Incident at school on Monday 13th May 2013

"I came home from work on what I thought was a normal day until my son came in from school after catching the bus home and said to me "You will never guess what happened to me at school today" I looked at him and saw that he had a bloodshot eye and black specks all over his face.

I asked him what had happened and he said "(teacher’s name) shot me in the face with a starter pistol" I could not believe my ears! I thought when you sent your child to school they were in a safe place!! I then went on to ask him numerous questions including why had I not been contacted by the school, what time did it happen, did he not get to medical and A&E? Once it had all registered I asked him how exactly it happened and did anyone else see what happened and when it happened?

My son then went on to tell me it was during his 2nd lesson of the day, he was playing 5 aside football in the sports hall, (why would a teacher be in possession of a starter pistol at an indoor 5 a side football match?) was talking to his mate and something made him turn around and as he did he was temporarily blinded by what hit him in the eye. He told me that The teacher quickly took him into the toilets to go and wash his eye and face and then when they came back into the hall (teacher’s name) told the class that none of them were to repeat what had just happened to anyone or he would get the sack.

My Son then went to medical to seek advice about his eye and saw the head of P.E. at the same time and told him what had just happened. After this he took him back to class where, my son told me, 5 of his classmates told him that (teacher’s name) had said just before he pulled the trigger "watch this I'm going to shoot "pupil x"

As soon as I heard the full story I was straight on the phone to the school to speak to the head teacher, when I asked him why I had not been contacted, the moment this had happened (the second class of the day) he told me he knew nothing about the incident and would have to go off and speak to his staff and come back to me, which he did within minutes.

I then took my son to A&E to get his eye checked which clearly should have been done via school that morning but WAS NOT.

I then took it upon myself the following morning to get in contact with the Education Department to report it and I also reported it to the police. 
I still need a lot of questions answered, which include: -

Why did a teacher have access to a gun?

Why did he have it in an enclosed environment during a 5 aside football lesson?

Why was I not contacted for such a major incident in a school?

Why was the headmaster not informed?

My son and my family feel let down by the school and the Education Department; when answering questions in the States from Deputy Trevor Pitman, the Education Minister had said that I had been kept informed of the case throughout. This is not how I see it because you can imagine my horror when I discovered the teacher had been allocated a class to teach this term (school roster sent to parents). This is after he had been found guilty in the magistrate’s court of discharging a firearm and still subject to an internal investigation. It was only as a result of Deputy Pitman’s question I discovered the rosters were printed some four months earlier.

I would have hoped the Education Department would have warned me about (teacher’s name) appearing on the roster, if the Department were keeping me informed as Deputy Ryan said it was.

Deputy Ryan also said, in the states, that my son had made a full recovery. If he was talking in the physical sense he could be right but this episode has had a lasting damaging emotional effect on our whole family who has lost confidence in the school and the department and I no longer feel my children are safe at school.

I have also discovered, partly due to Deputy Pitman’s questions, that the teacher, or the terrifying incident, is subject of an internal enquiry. I have not been told what the Terms of reference are for this enquiry, is it a disciplinary enquiry, a procedural enquiry, what is it if I am being kept informed I should have been told this."(END)

We (Team Voice) would like to ask a couple more questions such as; could the teacher face further criminal charges as a result of this supposed internal investigation? Could he be charged with assault, ABH (Actual Bodily Harm)?

Will this be another of those inquiries that drags on until all goes quiet, the teacher returns to work and the child/family are denied a voice?

The teacher was fined £1,000 how much of that will be given to the child/family for the distress caused? Or is it that the court is profiting through a family’s misery?

We hear, as yet unconfirmed reports, that the teachers Union is paying the £1,000 fine. Who is representing the child’s best interests?

If our States (Island's Parliament) take child safety issues seriously, why is it that not one member had a single question to ask of the Minister during Deputy Trevor Pitman's question(s) concerning this grave matter?

Finally, we ask, what really has changed in child protection since the Haut de la Garenne/Savile cover-up? How much safer are our children now and how better represented are they when up against a States Department?

Thursday, 12 September 2013

Have the Planning & Environment Department breached Planning & Building Law? (PART 1)


THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE, THE FACTS SAY THEY HAVE! EXPERTS SAY THEY HAVE ! , LAWYERS SAY THEY HAVE !

This is might look like a break from the norm for this Blog as we have never, as far as we can recall, published a posting concerning the Planning and Environment Department. However It looks to us that this particular case encompasses the broader subject of a politicised and corrupt "Justice" System here in Jersey. A  prosecution case which has been brought into the magistrate courts by the Planning & Environment Department against a local plumber which started some 16 months ago.

Team Voice has studied a wealth of evidence which does take some time to explain with understanding the motivation of why this prosecution has been instigated or is still going on, and after a lot of private investigation and scrutiny of law and facts from qualified Lawyers and external Building Control experts the impartial view and qualified opinion is “YES”, that’s yes, the Planning & Environment Dept. look to have committed an offence of the building law.

This Friday 13th September at 10 am, within the magistrates court, there will be a another chapter in the 11th Court Hearing (since litigation begun in June 2012) of a particular Planning & Building prosecution of a local plumber  for not applying for permission to install an Oil Fired Boiler (even though it was impossible for him to apply for permission for works in private people’s homes (whom he had no novation with as he was not dealing with them ) whilst being  instructed by the PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT yes the Planning & Environment Department’s  multi million pound 100% Public funded Energy Efficiency Service to assist in replacing Oil Fired Boilers.

Team Voice have been studying this case for  a while and it’s taken some time for us to get a full understanding of the case as its “bizarre” to say the least, not just the words of Team Voice being “bizarre” but the words of a local Advocate. (Transcripts of court) -  So after 16 months of litigation, yes 16 months of litigation without a trial,  and after documented expert advice we have been shown, we are as sure as we can be that the prosecution against this member of the public can only be seen as malicious because of some very pertinent evidence which appears to show the department’s motivation of its “ abuse of the court”  is to fulfil a private agenda  to cover up serious failings within the department’s management of the Energy Efficiency Scheme -  including prima facie  evidence  of  libel, defamation,(or should that be "Data Protection" now?) misuse of public money, causing health issues to members of the public, incompetent officers, and the department being identified of the alleged breach of the planning & building law under the question of law and fact.

Team Voice cannot go into the full facts and evidence at this time as it’s too long for this part 1 post but we will be writing the full case details very soon within PART 2 including one of the most detailed evidential chronologies we have ever seen including documents, audio, emails , and written evidence.

Now, to try and help readers have an understanding of the titled question “Have the Planning & Environment Department breached Planning Law” it will take some time to understand the application of building bye-laws- and that can only be seen in the up-coming chronology or some individual research, or to take an interest in the case, as again it would be too much to write up on an introduction post. But in the evidence we have seen concerning the case over a long period of time we believe the Reg Skips case will be engulfed on such a large scale it's deeply shocking with how the department thought they were going to get away with it (although they probably will!) It just shows how incompetent and downright corrupt certain officers look to be within the Planning & Environment department and the wrongful delegation of powers from the AG and centeniers to that departments unqualified officers( more to come in part 2)

But what’s really important here is to highly stress to the public of how this case quite clearly encompass the issues that we at Team Voice and other concerned members of the public have been tirelessly stating with how the Judiciary, States departments, and local lawyers overlap within their working relationships which eventually equals to corruption and unlawful procedures within a court process.

When you look at the evidential chronology of this case, which we are eager to publish when we have planned its presentation in Part 2 , it shows such a stark example of when you have an apparent corrupted states department instigating malicious prosecutions to cover up their own failings and then, what looks to be, corrupt actions of private advocates being too closely entwined with the law offices department,who are acting on behalf of persons making what looks to be, vexatious or malicious complaints.

Team Voice urge members of the public to pop down to the Magistrates Court at 10 am tomorrow (Friday 13th Sept) to learn about the case because when you really get an understanding , it becomes quite obvious, that this has to be the mother of failures within the Department’s history, it makes the Reg Skips case look like a picnic in the park and  it has raised some important questions and concerns with some quite shocking evidence of how local advocates and the law offices conduct their daily relationships when working on cases especially with regards to Planning & Environment cases.

To conclude part 1 introduction, Team Voice will say at this stage is that the failings and upcoming scandal of the Energy Efficiency Scheme will go well beyond this current court case.  We would say it’s hard to believe and sounds unbelievable , but hey, it takes a lot to shock Team Voice and many discerning islanders now – especially when it comes to the States or its "Justice" system which appears to be, politicised and corrupt.

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.