Sunday, November 10, 2013

STUART SYVRET - THE JERSEY JUDICIARY - DATA PROTECTION OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION??



JOHN HEMMING MP
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.


EMMA MARTINS -DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER 

The JEP asked Emma Martins - " Whether further action would be taken against Mr Syvret or others who have named identified the four"


Mrs Martins replied " Every complaint we receive is dealt with in accordance with our statutory powers. 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. This has been a difficult, complex and long-running case which has taken a real personal toll on the applicants. We are all accountable for what we write and say in the online environment  and that accountability applies equally to those who claim journalistic status - they also have to face the legal consequence arising from damage that they do and the lasting harm that they can cause during their actions. This judgement shows clearly that the laws that protect us in our everyday life also extend online. There will be no further comment from this office."End


RICO SORDA -PART TIME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST #CITIZENMEDIA
#BLOGGER #SHOWNOFEAR






A   PAGE OF LINKS AND INTERVIEWS CONCERNING THE ABUSE OF THE DATA PROTECTION LAW AND THE JAILING OF STUART SYVRET.



THIS SHOULD HELP WITH ANY RESEARCH 



JUDGE MADE LAW.



EVERY NAME NOW USED ONLINE IS DATA PROTECTED.- THAT INCLUDES THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. 











THE ABOVE INTERVIEW IS A MUST WATCH AS STUART SYVRET TAKES YOU THROUGH THE PROBLEMS  OF JUDGE MADE LAW












































61 comments:

Gris ventre said...

Very well done Rico an excellent summary.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rico for this fantastic research which will keep my occupied for the day. Citizens media staying out in front.

Jacques. said...

Great work Rico. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see the numerous troll ID's on the JEP comments page come up with a sane rebuttal to that lot :)

Anonymous said...

Its just more and more bollocks.
Syvret is in jail because he is a criminal so start getting used to it and not you or John Hemming can do fuck all about it because your opinions to the courts mean fuck all. Good to see you keep on breaking a Jersey court order though in not keeping these people nameless. You also have in your title that you are a journalist when the Royal Court specifically ordered journalists not to report their names. Play your cards right dickhead you may be joining your buddy sooner than you think.

rico sorda said...

Sorry about the language in the last comment but I believe it's important that I post at least one of these vile comments. Least I am giving one of the four a chance of reply and yes it has come from one of the four. In fact don't think honest nev would take any bets on which one.

You notice the venom that is forthcoming.

I'm reporting on what John Hemming said in the UK Parliament and which is on their Hansard. Once they are instructed to remove it I will no doubt be asked. The Data Protection Commissioner is no doubt on her way there now.

I refuse to be bullied - intimidated or shut up for doing what I believe is right.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You have clearly upset somebody because the amount of (unpublished) Troll comments I have received, much like your Blog hits, are reaching record levels!

It’s good to see the “well reasoned” and “articulate” rebuttal that the establishment has against all the evidence you have published.

Anonymous said...

"I refuse to be bullied - intimidated or shut up for doing what I believe is right."

Thats what the 4 proxies said.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This question has been asked a number of times and still remains unanswered so I’m hoping either you or your readers can help answer it? Perhaps if any of the four proxies are reading this then they can help?

As far as I understand it, the proxies wanted offending articles taken off of Stuart Syvret’s Blog because it was causing them “stress and harm?” The (party line) reason for having a secret court case was to keep the identity of the proxies’ secret.

Emma Martins said;

“and the office of data protection commissioner notes that all of the applicants have been successful in winning the relief that they were seeking.”

I’m asking how could they have been successful in achieving the relief they sought? The “offending articles” are still on Stuart’s Blog and the names of the four proxies are better known (as a result of the court case) than they ever were before it!

I would argue that the court case has caused them more harm and stress than Stuart Syvret ever could?

If one of the proxies is reading this, could you please explain, how you have been successful in winning the relief you were seeking and will you be considering suing the Data Protection Office for causing your names to be much wider publicized than they would have been had you not been talked into this hair-brained idea?

rico sorda said...

Now that I have the attention of he who can't be named can I ask the simple question of why didn't you go for a libel action.?

This is a straight question and I will publish your reply as long as it is swear word free and ANSWERS the question raised.

Anonymous said...

Rico

Bravo for this! As you say, no surrender. You and Voice for Children have done all the work for the mainstream media out there, anywhere. It's a piece of cake for them to simply follow in your footsteps now, if they care to do their jobs, and hold power to account.

Elle

Anonymous said...

The reason the troll and his kind will give you for not taking a libel action is that Stuart has no money. The reason we all know libel couldn't be claimed, is the evidence was too sensitive for the Jersey government. It led right to the top, where trolls are fed, murder investigations are blocked, and abusers are protected. Evidence would have been been laid out for all to see in any libel case, so a Super-Injunction and Secret Court, with distortions to Data Protection Law had to be implemented knowing the four would become even more infamous when Stuart Syvret was jailed.

Elle

Anonymous said...

Comment November 10th 12-12pm apart from the fact you should be in bed at this late hour under preferably under supervision, you have just described Mr Syvret as a criminal, what evidence have you got to substantiate this? if you have none then I believe Mr Syvret could take you to court, he has many followers and I am willing to bet that not one of them see him as a criminal, I don't know who you are and more to the point what you are frightened of but you seem very frightened , personally I feel reading the garbage you write you should crawl back up the hole from whence you came, please,

Anonymous said...

"I refuse to be bullied - intimidated or shut up for doing what I believe is right."

Thats what the 4 proxies said.''

Can you provide a link to the evidence of nurse M stating the above, or a link to the 3 other proxies stating same.

Please do not cite the secret court case. We have seen previously on this blog that what is claimed was said behind camera can actually turn out to be the opposite when under scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Stuart is sentenced to 3 months, but with good behaviour will be out in 2.
Realistically though, he has been in there long enough already. Do you, or does anyone know if there is any kind of appeal being prepared by him, or by others for him?

Anonymous said...

Rico, have been reading Jersey's blogs and establishment Troll for years. He who hates Syvret, and all the decent evidenced bloggers. I ask your large readership, if they can spot the similarities not just in the words but in the attitude, all from the stella Troll all taken from the Stuart in Prison story.

Alan

Good.


He has been talking rubbish about so many people for so long and it was time he was dealt with.

Alan

I have read his blog when he told us so many people would be jailed and he was going to London to take the Island down in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Its a side show syd.

Alan

I am not surprised because he must of intimidated a lot of people.

Bishop

I too can agree, from experience, with Blue Knight’s post; all very valid points. Thanks for taking the trouble to post so persuasively and eloquently.

Jimmy

I love how everyone seems to think that his blog is the fountain of truth, because it says it’s the fountain of truth. That’s a circular argument.
But it does make all the conspiracy theories even more hilarious.

Alan

I am told he never turned up to any court appearances or even tried to challenge the case being held in Camera. If this is true then it only proves he must of been writing rubbish about these 4 people as he never had the nerve to go to Court to open things up and defend what he had said! His supporters are like mushrooms.

Real Truthseeker

Davy, you need facts. It is not the judge who asked for closed court. The aggrieved has every right to defend themselves from slander by Syvret. He s te one who has power and the person falsely accused will win.
Logic and a Syvret supporter don’t go together, joker.

Real Truthseeker

The case has started, and is in closed session, the d’uh relates to this. If I went into any further details on this case then the JEP moderator would not publish my comments due to the fact it is CLOSE SESSION!

A private blog is exactly that, however his comments were posted when he was a States member, and published via States computers, to which there is no dispute.
The status of the case I am unclear about, I have a feeling the States ended up settling the dispute, as I don’t believe it is ongoing.
Hamster
Funny how some people cannot see that much of the material he has written about a lot of things is very childish and embarrassing.

Hamster
It is time this side show was put to bed. This man craves the oxygen of the media which can be seen by his recent desperate little video shoots online. Syvret is insignificant and more concentration and attention should be given to the real people who run and care for this Island and not old has-beens who only want to destroy it.

There are others not real truth seeker has deeper knowledge being one of the four, just another clue given away by the low life stella Troll.

rico sorda said...

I did ask Anonymous for a straight answer but he has come back from the Arsenal Man Utd game a bit worse for wear so can't publish his comment as it's full of filth.

rs

Anonymous said...

To Anon at November 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

It is amazing that those posts got through but other more reasoned posts did not.

Then again, perhaps not so amazing after all.

Anonymous said...

"I’m asking how could they have been successful in achieving the relief they sought? The “offending articles” are still on Stuart’s Blog and the names of the four proxies are better known (as a result of the court case) than they ever were before it!"

In strict legal terms, within which we can suppose Ms. Martins was operating, when the court found in favour of the four plaintiffs and agreed that the comments had, indeed, caused them "stress and harm" the four achieved the "relief" they had been seeking.

In legal terms "relief" simply means the redress given by a court to someone who brings a legal action (i.e. a court finding in their favour). Their winning was the "relief" and has nothing to do with any further action the court may take to punish, or restrain the actions of the defendant.

Mr. Syvret was not jailed for making the comments about the four, but for failing to obey a clear instruction from the court to remove them. This placed him clearly in Contempt of Court.

May I also seek to clarify some of the nonsense being posted about John Hemmings being liable for naming the four (again) in his Early Day Motion.

In the UK he is totally protected by Parliamentary Privilege.

Absolute and Qualified Privilege are codified in the UK Defamation Act (1996) - and holds true for the UK Data Protection Act. Since the Jersey Data Protection Act is virtually identical to the UK one, Mr Hemmings need have no worries about Ms. Martins coming a-knocking at his door.

One thing which may be relevant is the fact that the UK Defamation Law gives protection (Qualified Privilege) to anyone publishing accurate quotations from the business of parliaments, local authorities, committees etc "anywhere in the world" - including the Channel Islands.

Jersey has not adopted the UK Defamation Act, nor does it have a local counterpart. Jersey's laws on libel and defamation tend to be based in Common Law and are not properly codified.

That is why, while the States of Jersey Act defines and confers Absolute Privilege on the States, its committees, the Jersey Courts etc. Qualified Privilege is neither codified, nor defined, leaving people in Jersey who report, or quote privileged defamatory statements made in the States, or in court liable to actions for defamation.

This ridiculous state of affairs means that if, say, a States Member were to make a defamatory statement about an individual in the House, he/she would be protected by Absolute Privilege (as is the Jersey version of Hansard); journalists in the UK could report it in full and with impunity, under the Qualified Privilege afforded them by the UK Defamation Act, BUT people in Jersey, who do not enjoy that protection, could find themselves facing a court action for defamation, because Jersey lacks a proper codification and legal definition of Qualified Privilege.

In fact, it could be argued that, in the face of such a lack of codification, Qualified Privilege does not exist in Jersey.

The upshot is that it is possible for the four to seek further "relief" against other defendants who name them - even though the publishers are simply quoting a UK Parliamentary Early Day Motion. They could sue for defamation in the Jersey courts, or, even, revisit the Data Protection issues with Ms Martins.

In Jersey law, the fact that the names were part of an EDM is totally irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

No , it is difficult for blog owners to know for sure if the comment is from a real person, or just submitted to cloud the water trying to confuse and pull the debate down and into disarray, the whole object of the exercise, and the only twisted agenda of the TROLL.

What is available to help some blogs is the IP number, not name or any other detail of the poster, if the IP number is the same for several names it is clearly wrong, and a troll at work. It would appear that the JEP are not checking this, as Jane now appears and is clearly a Troll.

Make no mistake, this and other high-ranking blog's are coming out with truth and transparency and factual reporting on important local issues.

Which reasonable, intelligent and normal person would not want that ?

Keep up the good work Rico, VFC, Syvret, Bob Hill, Sam, Darius, Baldtruth, RoR, Tom Gruchy, and the other great blogs that shine a strong light into Jerseys very dark places.

Getting stronger by the week.

Anonymous said...


Dear Rico,

Ask yourself a very simple question… how does the U.K. Government and the Monarchy bankroll its armed forces?

Dawned on you yet?

Through it’s TAX HAVENS!

The United Kingdom, which the previous Labour Government left on the brink of financial bankruptcy and economically on its knees…

Just look at the news…

So how does the Monarchy and U.K. Government continue to finance its war machine!

Through it’s TAX HAVENS!

That’s why we still have a politicised-Judiciary and a semi-feudal government, this state of affairs keeps Jersey as a TAX HAVEN for a cash hungry U.K. Government-Monarchy to keep its armed forces war machine going!

That’s why both the U.K Government and the Monarchy turn a blind eye to what is happening here!

We do not have true democracy in this island because the British Government and the Monarchy USE US TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE ARMED FORCES TO WAGE WAR!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8-17am 11th Nov, you are quite correct, the UK is reducing its armed forces, and this was to include the Jersey T.A. however I read an article some months ago that the unit was to continue as the Governor of Jersey had persuaded the UK Government that it should remain operational, what rite did he have to interfere?

Anonymous said...

Rico, everything is secret yet the judgement was made public. You are not allowed to name the proxies yet some are!!! One of the proxies in the case said that Nurse M was going to wipe out a family in a taped abusive phone conversation then sits next to Nurse M in a secret court case because SS said that nuse M might be a ....... WTF IS GOING ON HERE????????????? This is stupid. One of the proxies has alleged that Nurse M is a ........ and the micro jersey world just carries on as if this is normal.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Syvret was not jailed for making the comments about the four, but for failing to obey a clear instruction from the court to remove them. This placed him clearly in Contempt of Court

wrong. The Contempt of Court arose from the misuse of the Data Protection Law. They all follow each other.

Anonymous said...

'wrong. The Contempt of Court arose from the misuse of the Data Protection Law. They all follow each other. '

Rico, thank you for publishing this, because your commenter has managed to demonstrate what many of those defending Stuart do not (or will not) seem to understand.

The data protection offence, of which he was found guilty, never carried a custodial sentence. If it had, he would have been in prison already. Stuart is in prison because he deliberately placed himself in contempt of court by firstly refusing to remove data from his blog, and then by failing to attend court.

These are facts. Twisting them merely makes one's argument irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rico. I agree with what you write. Jersey justice is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea as what John Hemming aims to achieve in naming the individuals concerned because on the other side of the argument, what about all the names that have never taken action against the Syvret Blog? Where are they in all this, cowards?

Anonymous said...

When was Stuart charged with this Contempt of Court case? Was it before or after the case whereby the QC said that no further action is to be taken?

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

"what about all the names that have never taken action against the Syvret Blog?"

That is the $64,000.00 Question because some big fish have been accused of many things and they have never even publically said or done anything.

rico sorda said...

I believe that Stuart Syvret is saying that he doesn't recognise the whole court process as being non conflicted and inline with Article 6 of his human rights. That is the crux of his argument. And that is where the argument lies.

rs

Anonymous said...

Well its obvious that the UK Judge, because he is a UK Judge, has dismissed this Article 6 argument.

Anonymous said...

What on earth has Emma Martins done. The four names have gone viral in a global twitter-storm, Jersey's use of the data protection law is being condemned on an international scale, our reputation is being trashed across the world, our government is being made to look like some invidious secretive, feudal cesspit that 'sponsors pedophilia' and all because the data commissioner decided that she would use her powers in a way they were never intended to be used.

Anonymous said...

Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently generated further publicity. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]
Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs.[1][3][4] Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers.[5][6] Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys.[7] As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.[8]

Anonymous said...

A secret GOES VIRAL thanks to the data protection commissioner ONLY IN JERSEY COULD THIS HAPPEN.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 5:30 just nailed it.

Look at twitter advanced search for Stuart Syvret, allow for retweets, and watch as this entirely stupid Data Protection fiasco is being broadcast directly in the following countries: Canada, Ireland, Australia, Holland, Mexico, the Caribbean, Nigeria, Germany, United States, Portugal, Brazil, France, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Bermuda, and of course, the UK.

People know an evidenced Jersey serial murder investigation was botched for political reasons and a whistleblower with an international profile is in prison. Everybody out there thinks it a GOOD act to expose someone potentially dangerous like that. It isn't even considered controversial.

Will you be calling David Rose for some more of his easily discredited spin? or Matt Tapp? Or will the drunken-death-threat troll continue as the voice of the Jersey oligarchy on this?

How's this obsessional investment of the Data Protection Department working out for you now, Emma?

Anonymous said...

Without a doubt this appears to have happened with Jersey. Karma or something like it?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

It's as I have said on VFC, the proxies still seem to think that the Establishment/Data Protection Office has done them a favour! The Establishment get the JUDGE MADE LAW it was looking for and the very thing the proxies wanted kept secret apparently goes viral!

The proxies have been played like a fiddle and it's only them who can't see it.......IMO.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it is only the one troll who is inebriated enough he cannot see or doesn't mind being used this way. The other three proxies must feel utterly betrayed, and the unnamed fifth individual reportedly approached by Emma can only feel relief for declining the circus invitation.

Anonymous said...

"The proxies have been played like a fiddle and it's only them who can't see it.......IMO."

And you have spoken to them and now that do you?

rico sorda said...

"The proxies have been played like a fiddle and it's only them who can't see it.......IMO."

And you have spoken to them and now that do you?

Maybe the penny has finally dropped for 3 of them but there is always the 1.

rs

Anonymous said...

As you must know, the only thing being exposed to the wider world by all of this is that a small cadre of conspiracy theorists are willing to try and twist the truth to suit their own political agenda.

As soon as anybody with a modicum of intelligence looks at this, they will see the situation for what it is. A man with past convictions has been jailed for contempt.

But of course you don't really want people to look too closely do you, because you assume that others will be deceived into believing your side of the story simply by reading some sort of misleaing headline.

Unfortunately the only people taking any notice of this internationally are the likes of Elle and Polo, neither of whom live here, and rely solely on the self-reinforcing nonsense published by the blogs for their 'local' knowledge.

Manipulating the truth will always be exposed. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself 'am I being honest ?'

rico sorda said...

"Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself 'am I being honest ?'

Yes

rs

rico sorda said...

Anonymous, what you fail to realise and have always failed to realise is the intelligence of people to come to their own conclusions.

Simple as that mirror man

rs

Anonymous said...


As you must know, the only thing being exposed to the wider world by all of this is that a small cadre of conspiracy theorists are willing to try and twist the truth to suit their own political agenda.

What ?

This Joker is so off the mark. The truth stands for itself. If the truth is being twisted by a cadre of theorists, make the bloody effort to write down how the cadre are twisting the truth, which political points, on which political agenda or just put up a lot of tosh as you exhibit you are more that capable of.

Boatyboy.

Anonymous said...

JEP did a story today on Hemming's EDM. Said they were not naming the four for legal reasons. But any reader of the JEP can now look up his EDM.

Anonymous said...

Rico wtf is going on with Ian Evan's right of reply blog spot? The RIP tombstone is worrying. Is big Ian alright. I hope so. Doubt hes in the next room to Stuart or would take a blind bit of notice of any court injunction, secret or otherwise, trying to stop him so now I am worried about his health. Do you know anything?

JRCbean

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Unhappy Anniversary FIVE

Anonymous said...

Great post Rico, I'm not if any of the links you have included above can take any new readers on the cataylst of the whole issue, so here is one clip:-

Public Interest Exposure:

One of the absurd arguments used against me by the prosecution – and accepted by the courts – was that it would have been perfectly OK for me to publish the 1999 report – but without nurse M’s name included. According to Jersey’s judiciary - publication of the 1999 police report would have been just fine – if only I had replaced nurse M’s name whenever it appeared in the document, with something like “male nurse X”.

That is how absurd and dangerous Jersey’s courts are.

Quite seriously – they put forward the argument that I could have published a report saying that there is a serial-killer male nurse out there in Jersey – but not naming him.

You do not need much sense, do you, to see what happens next.

All of the professional, caring decent male nurses in Jersey would have immediately fallen under suspicion – and would, rightly, have been outraged that their collective integrity had been undermined. And every patient in Jersey, who found themselves being cared for by a male nurse would have looked at them in fear - and would have refused to have male nurses near them.

Every hospital ward, outpatient department, residential care home and nursing home in Jersey would have been barraged with demands from patients and families and journalists to know if ‘the suspected murderer was one of their male nurses?’

And – of course – if I had adopted such an irresponsible approach – would those institutions have been able to honestly answer any of those inevitable questions?

No. They would not.

For if the identity of the suspected murderer had been kept secret by me – all of those clinical employers would have had no more idea than the patients – whether the male nurse in question was amongst their staff.

A state of affairs that would have negated the very purpose of making the public interest disclosure in the first place – namely exposing nurse M, as a dangerous individual – so that potential clinical employers were aware of the dangers he represented, and would be able to ensure they did not employ him.

But – it gets worse; for not only is the “reasoning” adopted by Jersey’s judiciary plainly irrational, and, frankly stupid – it is not even compatible with the law.

Anonymous said...

Hi JRCbean,

Big Ian is all right, social are expecting him to survive on £50 per week obviously he couldn't afford to pay his broadband on that pittance so it has been cut off.

The message from social is clear, don't have a heart attack in Jersey because if that don't kill you, they will finish you off.

cyril

Anonymous said...

JEP coverage of John Hemming's EDM

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/11/12/mp-uses-parliament-privilege-to-name-syvret-blog-victims/

Anonymous said...

JEP/Hemmings
censorship at work once again NO space for comment!!

Anonymous said...

That JEP headline alone is a standout in journalistic bias. You can always predict their slant on a story but that one defies belief.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon @ 7:41, There is a remedy to this, every time the JEP publish such stories without including a space for readers to comment; reproduce the article on your blog and invite readers to comment... Simples!

Anonymous said...

John Hemming has only had one signature for his EDM which is pretty pathetic.

Perhaps it maybe time to admit that people do not care anymore?

Anonymous said...

Ok thanks Cyril good to hear. I miss his colorful insight. I guess the cynic in me says that the system may have deliberately worked in this instance to silence him but maybe they could not have foreseen that easily that this would be the result.

JRCbean

Anonymous said...


"Anonymous said...
John Hemming has only had one signature for his EDM which is pretty pathetic.
Perhaps it maybe time to admit that people do not care anymore?
November 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM"

That unintentional bit of levity and laughter from you is priceless! Don't worry. This isn't going away so you'll still have a job trolling.

Anonymous said...

Stuart, along with his supporters, followers, believers, knew that going to prison again, had to happen.

Realistically though what have those imprisoning him, achieved....

Except to add even more irons to his fire!?

rico sorda said...

I have often wondered what happens next? Stuart gets put in prison and his blog entries that he refused to remove remain in place. What comes next?

I would imagine that that is it. He refused - they jailed him - case closed.

Stuart will come out and on he goes. The jail thing has been played. It that their ace card?

The world is moving forward faster than some dinosaurs would care to admit

rs

rico sorda said...

Anonymous, you miss the point. Prison isn't about keeping some blog posts up. The bigger - bigger picture my dear man.

rs

Anonymous said...

please excuse my ignorance, but when someone goes to court for an offence, lets say speeding, has the judge got access to written guide lines ie so many miles over forty mph equals so much by way of fine, if its a second offence so much more maybe.. Stuart was sent to prison for contempt of court we are told, are guide lines set for such an offence or did the magistrate decide on three months in prison on his own volition?.

rico sorda said...

I believe you are correct. They just went for 3 months. such a a nice number.

rs