Skip to main content

My phone number is now a state secret (in Jersey)

The linked story is a bit odd. The Jersey police on returning Senator Stuart Syvret his mobile phone had erased my phone number.

It is all a bit weird. There will be an emergency meeting of the Jersey Parliament on Tuesday.

I wonder, however, what the police had to benefit from by deleting my phone number.

It is worth listening to the interview on the link about this.

Comments

Chelloise said…
Once again, the Jersey establishment has shot itself in the foot and drawn more suspicious press attention to the corruption, there..

The island's longest serving and most popular elected official is alternately derided as paranoid or arrested like a terrorist, for "Shafting Jersey in the eyes of the world."

Let's hope tampering with the good senator's phone and erasing your number will be the straw which breaks Big Brother's back, so Jersey may someday enjoy real participatory democracy.
Chelloise said…
Once again, Jersey establishment have cut off their noses to spite their faces by behaving like some third world dictatorship.

Senator Stuart Syvret is their most popular and longest serving elected official, but he is treated as an enemy bent on destroying the island whenever he speaks out about Jersey's lack of governmental transparency.

Do they not see the irony in alternately denigrating the good senator as "paranoid" about Jersey's misuse of political power, just before arresting him in a manner more suited to an armed terrorist?

Surly they know Senator Syvret's blog is only becoming so popular internationally because the public is intrigued by such ridiculous, and highly suspicious methods in their attempts to silence him.

Tampering with his telephone and then erasing your phone number will only further justify to the world what he writes on that "vile blog."

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…