Tuesday, September 18, 2012

JOHN HEMMING - EXPOSES JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS







Today in the House of Commons Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming made the below speech using Parliamentary Privliege


I reproduce it in its entirety 


It has various references to the goings on here in Jersey. 

Anyone with half an ounce of sense (unfortunately this excludes about 45 states members) will know that there are some very serious issues that need addressing here in Jersey.



I am pleased, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, that this debate has been set up today.

Hillsborough is a cover-up that has failed, although it took a long time to fail. Sadly, there are too many cover-ups that continue to succeed. For example, David Southall’s experiments, where he made babies breathe lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide, were covered up by the investigator calling CO an “inert gas”. My constituent Michael Andrews has revealed how he has come under pressure to misreport statistics by my local hospital. The response of the hospital management has been to take action against the whistleblower.

There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly.

The UK is not as bad, but at times it has a good try. The situation in England and Wales is so bad that foreign countries are expressing concern about the abuse of human rights in the English courts. Over the weekend, there was a three-hour programme on Slovak television debating a case in England. In England, however, we are banned from discussing all the details of the case in the media. International conventions, such as The Hague convention and Brussels II bis, are predicated on the concept that each country can trust the legal system in each other country. As such, the country in which people are habitually resident determines the legal system that has jurisdiction. The existence of the Council of Europe and its European Court of Human Rights—it is not the European Union that deals with the ECHR—provides a body that can adjudicate on cases in the domestic courts. The Government of the Slovak Republic have publicly stated on the Slovak Justice Ministry website that they are willing to support their citizens in any case that reaches the Court. It is clear that the Slovak Government believe that there are a number of cases—not just one isolated case—where the human rights of their citizens are being undermined in England.

To my knowledge, this situation is unique. It does, however, raise the question of whether the human rights of UK citizens and others have been regularly and consistently abused in English and Welsh courts over a number of years. One recent Court of Appeal case involved a judge refusing permission to appeal because no evidence had been provided. The appellant had been given a deadline to provide that evidence by 4 pm on 23 September 2011, which they had met by submitting the evidence earlier that day, but the judge had looked at the case before that had happened. It is therefore not surprising that the judge had concluded that the evidence was not there. That was a clear procedural error by the court administration, but domestic proceedings have now been exhausted. The case also involved a citizen of another country. That country has not yet expressed its view on the matter.

A slightly worse problem is referred to in early-day motion 536. The family division of the Court of Appeal appears not to be correcting all the public family law cases that reach it and that it should correct. Clearly, if it were to correct more of the lower court’s decisions, questions would be asked about how well the system was working, but maintaining public confidence in the system is not a good enough reason to sweep problems under the carpet. Permission to appeal was granted in a case today, however, so that is not always the case.

The only objective analysis of psychological expert reports from Professor Jane Ireland found that around two thirds of the reports submitted to the family courts in care proceedings were either poor or very poor. However, that does not appear to be being picked up by the appellate system. My estimate, on a statistical basis, is that around 1,000 children are wrongfully adopted each year. One advantage of having foreign countries’ human rights commissions reviewing cases affecting their citizens is that we can try to get a better estimate of the total number of miscarriages of justice. It would be nice if our Equality and Human Rights Commission were willing to look at these issues as well.

Michael Mansfield has suggested that the country needs a “commission of truth” to discover cover-ups. My response, in part, is that we already have a body that can do more on this. That body is Parliament. Parliament needs to be willing—collectively, through a Committee—to consider a limited number of individual cases, to work out whether there is evidence of a cover-up. It would not take much use of the collective power of Parliament to identify where a cover-up had happened.

Over the years, our constitution has, to some extent, failed. That has created a situation in which matters that should be more widely considered are being left within the judicial estate of the constitution. That applies particularly to cases involving a lot of secrecy, in which people are prevented from discussing matters. I have already mentioned the fact that Slovak television had a three-hour debate on an issue whose details we are not allowed to discuss. There might be a report in the UK media today following today’s hearing, which, although anonymous, might give some guide as to what has been going on. In practice, enough material is available to enable a three-hour discussion on Slovak television, yet we in the UK are unable to debate the matter.

It is clear from my discussions about other cases that this involves not only the Slovak Republic and one other country; other nations are concerned about the matter as well. People are also leaving this country for these reasons. A Channel 4 report broadcast before the recess highlighted the fact that people were leaving this country because they felt they could not get a fair trial in the family courts in the UK. I follow such cases all around the world, and I will be happy to talk to colleagues about them if they are interested. Such cases demonstrate that the system is not working. However, I had some news today that makes me think that perhaps it might work better in future. These are complex systems.

From a scientific point of view, there has been a tendency to try to rely on unreliable opinion. I was a member of Birmingham city council for 18 years, and its deputy leader for a year, so I got quite used to the council’s operation. The Ministry of Justice believes that an assessment is the same, whether it is carried out by an employee of the council or by an independent assessor. I know, however, that councils are set targets. For example, Surrey county council has been working on its performance assessment figure C23 target to try to increase the number of adoptions from care. We know that the Prime Minister wishes to see more such adoptions taking place, and there is pressure on local government to increase their numbers. That tends to go down the management structure, and those people employed by the council are therefore subject to a conflict of interest. This is nothing new; it has been the case for over 12 years.

I think the Ministry of Justice is making a really big mistake when it considers in the family justice review that a report written by an employee of the council has equal merit to a report written by, say, an independent social worker. The advantage of having an independent social worker is that such a worker is genuinely independent. If a system is run on a cab-rank basis, some independent consideration of the issues is likely, which would not be the case if it was driven by the management structure of the local authority.

Anyone with any experience of local government will understand that biases and pressures are often placed on employees, and sometimes there are bullying management systems. The difficulty comes when judicial decisions are made that rely on that skewed information. As I say, this is nothing new; it has been going on for a long time. Hon. Members will be aware that I often bounce up and down about this issue. At least I now have some Government support—sadly, it is not from the UK Government, but from the Slovak Republic. I would prefer that the UK Government recognised what the Slovak Republic recognises, which is that there are very serious problems here.

I think this matter will go a lot further. Today’s hearing is very positive and things will develop from it. I am aware of the concerns of other east European Governments about exactly the same issue. They might decide to take a robust position in the same way as the Human Rights Commission did in the Slovak Republic. It is unclear whether any of these cases will get before the European Court of Human Rights so that we will see a representative from the UK Government arguing for the UK’s position and a representative from a foreign Government arguing from the alternative perspective. Obviously, if a matter is corrected in the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court, it will not get there, but it would be interesting to see how the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, which I think has a similar jurisdiction for the purposes of EU members, will deal with this issue. This is a really big problem; there has been a really big cover-up, and it needs to be sorted out.


81 comments:

Sam Mézec said...

So the super-injunction is confirmed! Gotta love that parliamentary privilege!

Anonymous said...

"The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done."

The only name missing from that list of four hiding behind Data Protection is Edward Paisnel......You have got to be having a laugh here... Who is paying for this action? The Taxpayer?

rico sorda said...

Im not sure if its true about the Super Injunction but if one of the named contacts me and advises me its not I shall remove it.

rs

Ian Evans said...

Kick Ass John Hemming!

Cheers Rico :)

Anonymous said...

Rico Sorda, taken from the Electoral Commission Submissions. Is this someone taking the mick out of your name.

SUBMISSION TO ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Submission No: From:

Dated:
Submission:
131

Bruno Rioda 22 June 2012
Dear Sirs,

in reference to the above subject, I will make the following points:

1) The ten senators should be increased to 12 for a period of 5 years.

2)The 12 constables should remain of the same number for a period of 4 years. 3) There should not be any deputies at all.

4) There are undoubtedly too many elected members and too many of mediocre calibre. Aspiring members should prove that their earning powers, in the past has been better or at least equal to their income as elected members would be.

5)This current structure should certainly be revised and be made more realistic in terms of the size of this island.

6)Finally the government of Jersey should be scaled down altogether into a sustainable way. Good governance is small governance.
Hoping the above will be useful, I remain,

Yours faithfully,
Bruno Rioda.

rico sorda said...

The Lawyer for Alan Norton has just been on BBC Radio Jersey and is simply fascinating when he talks about the attitude of the Jersey Authorities. An attitude we have seen time and time again.



A man who served 32 years in jail for murdering his sister in Jersey is now trying to clear his name.

Alan Norton has undergone a lie detector test to prove his innocence.

He was found guilty of killing 10 year old Joy in 1965 and sentenced to execution.

He was the last inmate in Britain to escape being hanged.

Last week he passed a polygraph test and now wants to undergo a DNA one.

The police in Jersey say they won't be reopening the case and law officers say the lie detector results don't constitute new evidence.

Norton says he wants to find the real killer and finally get justice for his sister.

Zoompad said...

"Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret"

Lets get to the very heart of this nonsense. How did they do this? What is the process, and who was reponsible for granting this super-injunction?

Póló said...

Congratulations on this clever use of the UK Parliamentary system to give Jersey's problems an airing and attempting to call the Crown to account.

Does UK Parliamentary privilege extend to Jersey? Hope so.

Circumstantial evidence in Jersey suggests that the super-injunction or its equivalent is a fact.

Anonymous said...

"The police in Jersey say they won't be reopening the case and law officers say the lie detector results don't constitute new evidence."

Maybe not new evidence in Jersey law, but surely it is a strong reason in the balance of fairness to check using DNA evidence.

Anonymous said...

Strange group of people to group together, do they all socialise together, if so is it not strange that a serving police officer would do so!!!

Zoompad said...

Super-injunctions in English law refer to a type of injunction in English tort law that prevent publication of the thing that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.[1] The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the Trafigura controversy. Due to their very nature media organisations are not able to report who has obtained a superinjunction without being in contempt of court.

A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public, or in some cases, passed onto a third party, for the purpose of "hiding" or "covering up" or "white-washing" compromising, questionable, deceptive practices, fraud, or other illegal activities with the help of the legal process itself, or to protect the privacy of victims or minors. Gag orders are most commonly used to conceal information from the public. In some cases, gag orders may be used, for example, to keep legitimate trade secrets of a company. Or, to protect the integrity of ongoing police or military operations. Conversely, as their downside, they are often also abused as a useful tool for those of financial means to intimidate witnesses and prevent release of information in a legal fashion without resorting directly to violence, or other methods of more heightened intimidation. Sometimes corporations or other entities of financial means will also use Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to prevent potential witnesses from speaking against them.

In order to obtain the benefit of the immunity from civil or criminal proceedings under section 3, the individual must prove, before a jury, that the relevant material was published in good faith and without malice.

What Stuart has published certainly comes under that catagory, there was no malice at all, just concern for vulnerable hospital patients.

Larry Rivers said...

So let me get this right. These four people took out a super injunction against a certain individual to prevent him naming them on his blog. That person happens to be a close friend of a UK member of parliament who, to date, is the only MP to publicly name a famous footballer, using parliamentary priviledge, who also took out a similar super injunction over allegations of extra marital affairs.

Are these four really that thick?

I know it's a very over worn phrase but it's worth repeating - you couldn't make it up!

James said...

Anonymous @0652: No, he isn't. I know the Rioda family and they have no connection to this.

Anonymous said...

John Hemming

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

It looks like there will be plenty to talk about during the re-launch of Team Voice live, and interactive, TV broadcast tomorrow (Thursday) night at 7pm HERE

Anonymous said...

"Are these four really that thick?

I know it's a very over worn phrase but it's worth repeating - you couldn't make it up!"

ROFL!

Yeah, I see what they mean. Of all the methods to try and get at Syvret and too keep their names out of things and to silence Syvret a super injunction has got be the dumbest, most mind blowing 'kin stupid thing imaginable. Kind of has 'Doomed To Fail' written all over it. Who advises these people? Is it a secret supporter of Syvret?

Just look at how all of this stuff has erupted again, Big Time, just when it might have begun to fade away. Syvret's publishing of the Police Chief's statement might have been the last 'Big Card' the bloggers had to play. Maybe if the oligarchs had just gritted their teeth and taken it on the chin, and just ignored it, the fade away would have started.

Instead here we go again.

I'm getting some popcorn in for the next couple of months. Watching all this unfold is going to be epic!

Anonymous said...

I not sure if there are any super-injunction laws in Jersey. Even if there is, it is highly unlikely that any of those listed have one given that they cost around £50K each, and have been shown to be ineffective.

Anonymous said...

"I not sure if there are any super-injunction laws in Jersey."

Perhaps one has recently been made up!!

Who paid for the injunction hearing?

What really puzzles me is the unlikely occurrence of those four individuals getting together, forming a joint bond, clubbing together a whole load of cash to pay for an injunction that could not be certain would be possible. There may be further areas to inquire about just on that front alone.

It is also very odd that such an injunction can be used when the national security is not at risk.

What the hell is going on!!!

Anonymous said...

Larry Rivers said... September 19, 2012 1:02 PM
So let me get this right. These four people took out a super injunction against a certain individual to prevent him naming them on his blog. That person happens to be a close friend of a UK member of parliament who, to date, is the only MP to publicly name a famous footballer, using parliamentary privilege, who also took out a similar super injunction over allegations of extra marital affairs.
Are these four really that thick?

DOH ! - I wondered that too, It does not look too clever does it and certainly a couple of the four are short changed in the brains (& morals) department.
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/03/mass-murderer.html
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2011/03/jon-haworth.html

But let's not concentrate on the mucky little "gang of four" for the moment because they did not put up the money.

The Jersey Government/Law Offices put up the money - but let's not concentrate on them because they did not use their own money.

Sad little Jersey voters, They used YOUR MONEY.
So ask yourselves - who is "that thick"
The "thick hicks" just bought themselves a bit more (very expensive) time

Did you vote under the influence of the JEP and the rest of state media ?
Who controls them, even the local BBC franchise.

Will you bend over (gain) at the next elections ?
No? -Well no matter,we will have 12 Constables in a Parliament of 24 with a Bailhache casting vote
Your democracy was always a farce -did you enjoy it while it lasted ?

Anonymous said...

The super injunction is being dressed up through data protection which means you and me are paying for it with our taxes.

Anonymous said...

I think the "Streisand effect" will soon come in to play.

Anonymous said...

At 3:26, someone says:

‘I'm not sure if there are any super-injunction laws in Jersey. Even if there is, it is highly unlikely that any of those listed have one given that they cost around £50K each, and have been shown to be ineffective.'

If I may, I would like to assist that reader and others understand the law in respect of injunctions and super-injunctions, as the comment shows they don't apprehend the subject.

Injunctions and super-injunctions need not arise because of, or be issued under, what we call 'statutory law'; that is, specific laws, actually written down by politicians, to regulate certain fields of human conduct. Rather, injunctions and super-injunctions can have grounds, and be issued, under what we call ‘common law’, that is, law as developed by custom and practice and as, essentially, made by courts and judges over the decades and centuries as ‘case-law’.

So there does not need to be a specific, written law on super-injunctions, in order for a court to issue one. All that is required is for Party A to go to a court, argue that the actions of Party X are prejudicial or damaging in some way towards Party A, and the said actions are unlawful (even if only in the civil sense) and to ask the court to issue an injunction in terms that Party A wishes, in order to prevent the actions of Party X. If Party A succeeds in persuading the court, the injunction or super-injunction is issued.

Party X can then face imprisonment if they defy the court-order of the injunction, for what would be ‘contempt of court’.

To be clear, there is no obstacle I am aware of to the seeking and obtaining of a super-injunction in Jersey.

That is not to say that the issuing of such an injunction would necessarily be good or right – rather, that it is certainly doable.

Given the fact that there appears to be some form of ban on Mr Syvret from himself mentioning even the existence of the injunction and related case, simple inference leads us to conclude that a super-injunction does, in fact, exist – it being one of the defining features of a super-injunction, that the constrained party is not even allowed to speak of the existence of the case.

The fact that no publically listed hearings in open court have, or are scheduled to, deal with the case further clinches the matter. Secret ‘justice’ being another characteristic of super-injunctions.

The reader makes two further statements which are incorrect. They claim that super injunctions don’t work. I’m sorry, but they do. It is the ones that work, that we don’t get to hear about, or, at least, we hear no details of. Those we get to know of, are those that didn’t work for one reason or another.

The other point I consider to be almost certainly wrong is the point about the four individuals not being able to afford to bring such an action. This is touchingly innocent. Certainly, the ordinary person could not afford to embark upon such an action, most certainly if there was a strong risk of them losing (assuming an impartial court, of course). But what if the four (now named) individuals were not paying for this? What, in fact, if it was tax-payers who were funding this questionable and dangerous adventure?

What if those four individuals were mere ‘proxies’? Just bitter pawns who the Jersey Establishment were happy to use, and fund, as ‘weapons’ through which the ‘Establishment’ could wage their war against Mr Syvret?

If I were a Jersey tax-payer, I would be asking just such very serious questions of my elected representatives.

Anonymous said...

How is it possible, that a current high ranking policeman, can take out a super-injunction, regarding the same issues that are included in a complaint, Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret has made to this policeman's boss?!

Anonymous said...

Someone at 3:26
You make great sense, but what if one of the members of Party A mentions the injunction (super or otherwise) to his mates in the pub, has a phone call recorded of him making reference to it, and goads Party X on Party X's blog?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Blog TV RE-LAUNCH

Anonymous said...

"What if those four individuals were mere ‘proxies’? Just bitter pawns who the Jersey Establishment were happy to use, and fund, as ‘weapons’ through which the Establishment’ could wage their war against Mr Syvret?"

Well, of course they are proxies, unconcerned with the costs of such a preposterous court action. That is the only possible explanation.

From reading the comments above and on Stuart's blog, it is plain to see that Jersey blog readers are not fooled. This has to be the stupidest oligarchy move against Stuart thus far. It is akin to telling the entire world not to mention something, something only those in Jersey are legally forbidden to discuss publicly, but which everyone in Jersey now knows about.

Jon's filthy drunken YouTube threats should see some additional hits, exposing yet more of the sinister underbelly of the reining Feudalists with their multiple ties to the most disgusting of petty and not-so-petty criminals.

Now, those of us outside Jersey may say what we wish about this on countless blogs and internet forums which Jersey readers still have full access to, and that will be defended with the full legal might of the giant internet companies based overseas. If Jersey so much as tries to make it an international censorship issue, what Jersey's political and judicial criminals are trying to conceal will be exposed as a smaller but disgusting part of the larger controversy.

They couldn't be quite that stupid could they?

So much of what has gone wrong since the closing down of Operation Rectangle has been due to Jersey trying to keep the outside world from knowing about its dirty little doings.

Oh, bring it on, Jersey. Streisand effect, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Well done John Hemming MP. I noticed he named the nurse but who is David Wherry - a relative of Danny Wherry?

Anonymous said...

Did I hear correctly on CTV, they asked the Chief Minister for a response and he said something like if Mr Hemming would like to meet in Jersey, he would listen to his justification...

Surely CTV didn't miss the clips where Mr Hemming had given his justification, like immediately after saying "There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. "
1) Journalist banned
2) Chief of Police effectively constructively dismissed
3) A Data protection come super injunction against the truth being told.
4) A Jurat who should not have been one..
5) Names being struck from Hansard

Quite frankly there is nothing else for John to say, those who are guilty know he is right. It is more a case of what are they going to do about it, nothing by the sounds of it, and so it will no doubt ratchet up another notch.

CTV, what a piece of work, surely what Mr Hemming said about the Journalist was more news worthy than reporting him naming Ryan, which incidentally was the truth, and what significance were they trying to infer by talking about Mr Syvret contacts with him. No prizes for seeing a familiar pattern developing, no doubt they will be claiming Mr Hemming is derranged individual!!

Ian Evans said...

MURDER MOST FOUL

Anonymous said...

I also wonder what it is that Stuart has on JH? Why is this troll involved? Why do the Olis need to protect him? And having said that, maybe the Olis need to keep the troll on their side............

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

I think I've found the actual tv fortage of the debate. Let you know latter. Can't do it at the moment.

TJW


rico sorda said...

As far as the super-injunction is concerned I'm more interested in the role of Data Protection and what, if any, is the role of the Data Commissioner Emma Martins. Also, lets follow the money and how if its all true did these four people come together as mentioned by anonymous previously.

This obviously isn't about what Stuart Syvret has said on his blog as being true or not as im not sure that is the role of Data Protection. This looks more like silencing someone without having the evidence aired and this simply can't be a good thing.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico As others have posted, I too don't believe those 4 came together. My thoughts are they were brought together with a plan of action put to them.

Not for one minute do I think the individuals are paying from there own pocket.

Ian Evans said...

Another shocking post by Aangirfan who has again featured the Jersey Bloggers.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/privacy-law-2010/programme.html

BLOGS AND PRIVACY


Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner, Jersey

This session features a study of a very topical and controversial case – the first of its kind in UK and dependencies – where issues of data protection and the public interest collide. Jersey is prosecuting a whistleblower for disclosing private information on a blog. Google (which applies a US approach) has refused to remove the blog despite repeated submissions that it was in flagrant breach of Jersey's privacy and data protection laws.

rico sorda said...

Can I just say that I will not be posting any comments that just abuse the 4 people named. I believe its far more important to stick to what is the real issues concerning the so called super-injunction and not to get lost is name calling.

Let the evidence breathe

rs

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Found the Debate On this Page of I think the BBC Website. Democracy Live BBC.

You & your reader's can Listen HERE

Mr John Hemming MP starts he's Debate at around 1 hour 58 min too 2 hours 10 mins.

Hope this Helps. O I have recorded in as well! But I think it needs the video.

Anonymous said...

The comment with link to Sweet and Maxwell is intriguing. Does anyone know if minutes or transcript of the Emma Martins seminar are available in the public domain?

rico sorda said...

It would be very interesting to hear what she said. My guess is that she would be very heavily involved with whats going on. Who would be paying for the services of Data Protection?

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico I posted the link to Sweet and Maxwell. I have had a quick look and cannot find transcript I did find this blog and wonder if this is what she is referring to.
http://simonbellwood.blogspot.com/2008_06_17_archive.html

The paragraph below from the blog above.

I will place it all on this blog (with the authors consent of course) and then we will see if the States of Jersey can really shut this blog down.

If they do start to getting twitchy the first thing that will happen is Emma Martins will be in touch with me threatening court action (she has already tod me as of the 4th June that she will be taking the appropriate action under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law.

Anonymous said...

http://www.monckton.com/docs/general/PrivacyandtheLawConference2010.pdf

BLOGS AND PRIVACY
Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner, Jersey
This session features an analysis of a very topical and
controversial issue – where privacy protection and claims
to freedom of expression collide. in Jersey legal action is
being taken against an ex-Senator who disclosed private
information on a blog. one interesting feature of the case is
that the blog was hosted by Google which refused to remove
the material despite repeated submissions that it

Anonymous said...

Rico In the post at 9:18 it says Jersey is prosecuting. I presume States of Jersey Limited.

Anonymous said...

One more
http://cpdcentre.lawsociety.org.uk/course/1312/the-privacy-and-the-law-conference-2010

Anonymous said...

Maybe John Hemming and Sir Philip Bailhache will be able to discuss these issues at the Lib Dem conference.

http://www.gov.je/News/2012/Pages/LibDemConference.aspx

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio of the Interviews that happen today on the BBC Radio, with Mr Norton, his Lawyer & Mr Hemming MP.

You & your readers can Listen HERE

We, as much as we think we Know, just have not got a CLUE about the goings on of this Lovely Island!

What will come out NEXT?

Anonymous said...

http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk Are they a law publishing companY?

Is Emma Martins on 1st Dec 2010 not breaking data protetions laws herself, with people paying to listen?

Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner, Jersey

This session features a study of a very topical and controversial case – the first of its kind in UK and dependencies – where issues of data protection and the public interest collide. Jersey is prosecuting a whistleblower for disclosing private information on a blog. Google (which applies a US approach) has refused to remove the blog despite repeated submissions that it was in flagrant breach of Jersey's privacy and data protection laws.

Anonymous said...

"Jersey's privacy and data protection laws."

What law is this then?


Anonymous said...

The data protection issue is very serious. Cant a member of your parliament use their own parliamentary privilege to get some answers?

What happened to all the planning corruption that was being investigated? Who was in charge of investigating it?

rico sorda said...

I find it amazing that the BBC are using now retired Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell as their Police expert on the police handling of Hillsborough.

This man would have faced charges in Jersey for his corrupt dealings with Journalist David Rose of the Daily Mail..

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/07/dsupt-mick-gradwell-where-are-you.html

When I started exposing what this policeman had done I went to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel and called for a review into my findings.. It was fascinating.

The only person not to turn up or give evidence was Gradwell. He had been caught out.

rs

rico sorda said...

Mick Gradwell discrediting the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation whilst it was still live..

An investigation he was running between September 2008 -2009

The man is abhorrent

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/11/scrutiny-review-findings-2.html

RS

Anonymous said...

So Phil Bailhache, talking to other politicians about common problems!

However, I can't help thinking he will be trying to persuade all those who listen that the real problem for both UK and Jersey is Stuart Syvret and John Hemming and how deranged they both are etc..

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico

re: "one interesting feature of the case is that the blog was hosted by Google which refused to remove the material despite repeated submissions that it was in breach of privacy and data protection laws."

I guess all blogs in Jersey would have been furnished with the Data Protection Law, to ensure they are not broken, so do you know what that law is exactly?



Zoompad said...

"I find it amazing that the BBC are using now retired Dept/Supt Mick Gradwell as their Police expert on the police handling of Hillsborough."

I'm not. Think about it. Who were the two "free" lawyers "helping" the Hillsborough action group?

The only thing that amazes me is the bare faced cheek of these moneygrubbers.

Zoompad said...

The opinion of a corrupt scoundrel

Zoompad said...

It's a really interesting radio debate and I hope people will have a good listen to it. I was going to leave some times about when to listen to the debate, ie when Gradwell is on, but I won't because I just hope people will listen to the whole thing.

rico sorda said...

I find it amazing that the Chief Minister, Philip Bailhache and his Deputy, Senator Gorst are willing to talk toJohn Hemming about his speech.

Well why don't these two tell Hemming how its taken 4 yrs and waiting to get A Committee of Enquiry into child abuse.

Gorst can even take the TOR'S to John Hemming in way of proving that they are now willing to have a very serious look at all the failings.. Will this happen?

Bailhache will say, "Don't worry John, nothing to see, and no, im not conflicted"

A complete laughing stock

rs

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

Since I started blogging in 2010 i have never been contacted by anyone or anything to do with my blog or what it contains..

I try and just stick to the evidence. Bailhache and Gorst can ask me for a chat if they like as I have plenty to say..

Starting tonight at 7pm live on Blog Tv

Anonymous said...

The JEP has really laid into Hemming and the bloggers today. Accused Hemming of using parliamentary privilege to slander people and the bloggers of rumour mongering people without foundation. I did hear that some people are thinking of getting together and suing some of the bloggers in a combined action which would be interesting because the onus would then be on the bloggers to prove people are involved in cover ups which they should be able to prove as the JEP implies.

Anonymous said...

"I did hear that some people are thinking of getting together and suing some of the bloggers in a combined action"

Why bother, just get a super injunction courtesy of the States.

Typical JEP, attack the messenger rather than the assassin.

Anonymous said...

"Accused Hemming of using parliamentary privilege to slander people and the bloggers of rumour mongering people without foundation."

I bet the only thing Mr BIG wants to really know is who told Mr Hemming about a super injunction, if it was Stuart, then slam-bam-thank-you-mam.

I guess it is the only form of defence, other than own up.

Ian Evans said...

Lawyers of "STEAL!"

Zoompad said...

"I did hear that some people are thinking of getting together and suing some of the bloggers in a combined action"

Who did you hear that rumour off then, and who are you?

rico sorda said...

The only rumour we should be concerned about is the Data Protection Super-injunction - the rest is not important because if it was they would have used that instead of the SI..

rs

Zoompad said...

At least with court actions real names (rather than trolling names) have to be used.

So then, the ones who have been goading bloggers into making angry comments about a certain man who was running a very offensive blog which attacked whistleblowers and survivors of institutional child abuse by pretending to be him and posting troll comments using his surname, as an excuse to set up a libel court action (entrapment, a typical MI5 trick that has been used many times for bad purposes) against those same bloggers will have their own identities revealed and everyone (who doesn't already know) will gasp to see who has been doing it.

So perhaps that will all in all be a very good thing.

Zoompad said...

Sorry, I meant using his first name, not his surname. He was posting on John Wards site as well as the Jersey anti child abuse sites, he tried to post on my site but I refused to post his silly and nasty remarks.

I could see it was not who he was pretending to be. I didn't know why he was doing it though.

I do now though.

Anonymous said...

Suing bloggers is fraught with danger. I could legally call myself Philip Bailhache and even get a change by deed poll, either way there is immediate way of anyone knowing whether I was Philip Bailhache ex-Baliff and part time CM or another one from just about anywhere.

I could accuse another Philip Bailhache of lying, he may live in Australia, he may be on holiday in Jersey etc...

Which leads me into another problem, how would I know that a certain an allegation is specifically aimed at me or another Philip Bailhache. What if there is another Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

Commentator at 4:48.

Yes, you are spot on regarding your paragraph two and three.

TJW hope you recorded the interview with Mr BIG(?) at 17:12 to 17:18 BBC radio Jersey is evening?!

Ian Evans said...

The Jersey Evening Post takes on John Hemming & THE JERSEY BLOGGERS :)

rico sorda said...

Team Voice re-launched our Blog TV tonight. I would to thank everyone who watched and took part in it.

A lot of issues were covered but it should be up online at Voiceforchildren sometime tomorrow.

The link above from Ian Evans must be read as it blows the JEP editorial out of the water and shows them uas the people who offer no evidence.

rs

Anonymous said...

You bloggers have your facts and the State Media is lying, but how does an unbiased reader know this? You invite debate with links to documented evidence which no one has been willing to refute with any opposing evidence. You instruct your BlogTV listeners and your blog readers not to take your word for it, but to stick with the evidence. You invite debate, if anyone has factual evidence to back their views, but they simply don't.

Now what would happen if the State Media hosted a truly open, transparent and factually evidenced debate on these same issues? Jersey's current neo-feudalist power structure would collapse immediately under the weight of that evidence.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Gradwell on Radio Five Live last Friday morning.

You & your readers can Listen HERE

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

More Interviews Bailhache & Leah Goodman HERE

Zoompad said...

"Suing bloggers is fraught with danger"

Persecuting the afflicted in the sight of God is always a bad idea, lest those being persecuted cry out for help from God. Psalm 35 makes that point, and Matthew 10 v 26 is Jesus's view on superinjunctions being used to shut up people who have been hurt by criminal gangsters.

If the gangsters want to continue to persecute the victims and whistleblowers of the dreadful crimes that took place in children's homes then that's their choice, but every last detail of what they do is being recorded, and there will be a proper trial.

In my case, all I ever wanted was a proper apology and the chance to live my life in peace. I didn't get raped in the Pindown home but I did get abused and treated in a cruel way, and it affected my life, it crushed my spirit and I ended up with clinical depression. The gangsters (I don't know what else to call them) encircled me and tried to make out that I was a nutter and a liar. The people I went to for help joined in trying to stub me out, and the more they did the more depressed I got, until I wept out in grief to God and God heard my prayer.

All I wanted was an apology and a chance to live. I just wanted my own life, that had been stolen away from me because of the Pindown Fundswell gangsters.

There will be a proper trial and everything - all the truth - will be revealed.

Anonymous said...

Any institution that assumes itself perfect and beyond reproach will always fail. Any government that does not allow real, open and objective investigation of it’s process has lost and will never gain any trust from it’s constituent and will always fail. If there is nothing to hide, then why hide at all? If there is truly honest intention in all of this “cover up” then open up and show us we are wrong and that we are properly, honestly and righteously governed?…………………finally, YOU, Jersey Evening Post, for once give us a true and objective report on this and any issue, if you do not want to fail, then do that for one time. Stop being governed by a government that appears to the majority of us to be (at the very least) an obstructive and untrustworthy establishment……….

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9.20 am is quite right. It's simply not good enough for our government and law officers (aided and abetted by the media) to keep saying that the bloggers are wrong etc. without producing a shred of evidence to support that contention.

It is arrogant (or foolish, or both) to simply make statements to the effect that "we are the government, your elected representatives, and therefore honest and trustworthy - so when we say that the bloggers are malicious troublemakers you should believe us".

What utter nonsense!

Does anyone know what the current state of play is regarding the Committee of Inquiry?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Relaunched with A CHALLENGE

Anonymous said...

"It is arrogant (or foolish, or both) to simply make statements to the effect that "we are the government, your elected representatives, and therefore honest and trustworthy - so when we say that the bloggers are malicious troublemakers you should believe us".

That is feudalism at a most basic level. And yes, they do believe that. What they want, though, is for you to vote for them to tell you what is good for you, as opposed to participatory, representative democracy, where they must represent the will of an informed public. They are at war with the entire idea of an informed public, and certainly do not plan to ever take orders from an electorate acquainted with the hard evidence only the bloggers will provide.

Anonymous said...

Have just read one of your postings on the role of Mick Gradwell and his leaking to David Rose. Can you re-post "scrutiny findings 2" from your blog as I believe people should read it...

Anonymous said...

At the 2005 Labour Party conference, an 82-year old anti-war protester was man-handled out of the hall and detained by the police, using provisions of the Terrorism Act. They were roundly condemned for such profound abuse of legislation intended to protect the public from being blown-up, not to neutralise a harmless heckler.

Jersey’s data protection law is being abused in the same way. It is a piece of legislation that is drafted in a way that – when wilfully misinterpreted – it becomes a tool of state repression.

In an island lacking an independent and credible mainstream media, it has fallen on the shoulders of a handful of private citizen-journalists to publish details of matters of public interest that our authorities have tried to hide because they reflect badly on the competence of our government.
In many cases, these matters of grave public interest involve the behaviour of individuals. Jersey is a small island, and our public institutions are rudimentary.

Where a large nation such as the UK might have whole departments occupying several office buildings, Jersey may only have one or two individuals performing the same function. Coupled with the insularity, nepotism and cronyism that are inevitable in a small community, the truth is that we lack proper checks and balances to prevent predatory individuals from exploiting their positions of power or trust.

It is therefore equally inevitable that exposure and criticism of wrong-doing in public institutions generally involves accusations against individuals. For example, you cannot blame a Crown Prosecution Service in Jersey for failing to prosecute an individual, because there isn’t one. Such blame falls on the shoulders of an individual: the Attorney General.

In a normal state with functioning civil society, a person making public allegations of wrongdoing by an individual does not fall within the ambit of the criminal law. There is a fundamental right to free speech, and the state has no right or responsibility to act against the person making the allegations. The correct remedy in law is for the person against whom the allegations have been made to bring a civil action and sue for defamation.

It is singularly notable that none of the four individuals who are alleged to have been party to a gagging order against Stuart Syvret have taken this natural step. Stuart has made repeated and consistent allegations against all four of them over a number of years. Why have they not sued? If there is no substance to the allegations, they will win, and suing need not be an expensive process if they represent themselves. I am sure the Greffe would fall over itself to give them all the help and advice they might need.

Instead of taking the civil route – which would require examination of evidence in open court – these individuals have clearly been encouraged to take a different course of action, namely to use the provisions of the data protection law to gag Mr Syvret.
This has two attractive advantages: first, the Jersey taxpayer foots the bill; second there is no need to answer to evidence of any alleged wrongdoing provided by witnesses in open court.

And so we come back to the octogenarian heckler and the abuse of terrorism legislation – a law drafted for one purpose that can be shoehorned and twisted by the authorities to allow them to do things that the legislature almost certainly never intended.
Let’s be honest, the data protection law was really meant to stop banks from selling your personal details to Nigerian fraudsters, or hospitals from leaving your confidential medical records lying around in a skip.
Did any of the States members who voted for the Jersey data protection law think for a moment that it would be used as a political weapon to silence serious accusations of wrong-doing by public sector employees? That the office of data protection commissioner would be usurped by individuals seeking to prosecute personal and political vendettas? That the law would be used as a blunt instrument to curb free speech that the authorities don’t like?

Ian Evans said...

Jersey Record Broken!!!

Only seven months to get a complaint filed against BRIDGET SHAW alleged magistrate.

KATE said...

I am not used to blogging but on reading some of your site I am living in hope that there is someone here to assist me.
I am in the process of working on a website which should be up and running by the end of this week.
I am a close friend of Alan Noerton who I am sure some of your bloggers are aware of.We a small group of people are working to enable Alan now to initially have over turned a document he signed under duress within 24 hours of his sentence of death giving his right to appeal away and dismissing his lawyers. It is interesting to note that on the front page of the JEP the night the trial was over while Alan was left a scared young man of 22 year languishing in Newgate prison facing hanging that his defence was on the front page of the JEP smiling shaking hands with the attorney general saying the got their man.
Alan in a quite unassuming man who speaks his truth quietly & knows he will never see the killer of his sister come to trial, in 20 years we have gathered much evidence and statement together to point at the real perpetrator .Yes poor Joy was abused but not by Alan. Recent evidence has come to light that we know who Joy's abuser was and the sad part was had the Jersey Police acted on a statement three years before Joy might have lived and we wouldn't be here today. I hasten Alan was unaware of any of this evidence until it has now come to light. It is almost impossible to get Jersey to admit their mistake who claim there is no DNA evidence left. Perhaps this is so now considering they are trying to divert the truth. In recent paper articles they claim they are looking for a dress when Joy Norton was not wearing a dress on that day but a tee-shirt. A tee-shirt that we have two sworn statement of people claiming was on one of the leading officers kitchen table at one stage during the investigation. We can prove the body of Joy was tampered with before she was removed from the field at St Lawrence. There is so much evidence that was not brought out in the trial but is there anyone out there who knows where we can start to get the ball rolling for Alan to get the opportunity for justice to get his case listened to.
There is so much more to this travesty of justice and while many would say it happened a long time ago. Yes it did and Alan spent 32 years behind prison walls for a crime he didn't commit. I defy anyone to read the dossier we have and claim he is a guilty man.
Thank you for reading and perhaps taking an interest even if your unable to assist.