They want to gag Syvret, says lawyer

LAWYERS representing Senator Stuart Syvret have written to the Attorney General and the police to complain that they have acted illegally against him.

LAWYERS representing Senator Stuart Syvret have written to the Attorney General and the police to complain that they have acted illegally against him.

They claim that the legal authorities have misused a law designed to combat public disorder and low level nuisance in an attempt to gag him.

And they say that the States police and the law officers are breaching his right of expression under the European Convention for the Protection of Rights.

The Senator’s Grouville home was searched on 6 April in relation to an alleged breach of the data protection law. Eight days later, he was handed a States of Jersey Police allegation of harassment form relating to the alleged breach.

See Wednesday's JEP for full story.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "They want to gag Syvret, says lawyer "


Ho Hum here we go again.

Lets get the data case sorted in court first


So....what has happened to freedom of speech in this Island, or are we not entitled to read the TRUTH, and decide for ourselves.

Treading on very thin ice I think our Police State of Jersey Force are.

The only gagging I can think of is that of decent people being sickened by this latest attempt to quieten Senator Syvret.


However valiant the efforts of Syvret to get the matter of potential child abuse investigated may have been the fact that he accuses persons who may be innocent of heinous crimes distracts from that quest and need to be brought to book as no man is above the law.


Sorry i thought no-one had rights in Jersey, except the politicians!!!


Simple question to all our establishment sycophants and those who dip their bread in the gravy....why would there be gagging clauses set up in the damage sttlement packages

david brown

a poke in the eye for free speech.

Tony Banner

If everyone , including the senator would just shut up! Maybe a proper review , investigation of the matter could take place. My view is senator, thou dost protest to much. Wait until a definitive answer has been given, then you will know what you belive you have to object to!

the future

Let us put this into perspective,

One of our elected representatives, possibly the politician with the greatest local following, is being bullied to curb his freedom of speech.

I am appalled and I don't care how badly Stuart Syvret behaves with no freedom of information laws if our politicians have no freedom of speech we are completely lost.

£11.5 Million is spent on the HDLG case and Stuart Syvret cant have an opinion on it ?

If there was freedom of information we could all form our own opinions.

Give us a freedom of information act now !

Any bad decisions that are made can be swept under the carpet and hidden from the public unless we are able to find out about them legally.

If anyone found out about an abuse of power and publicised they could fall foul of this data protection law.

As nearly all communication is by email it is a broad censorship law for all communication.

At this moment in time the data protection law serves to protect the government from the chance of embarrassing secrets being publicised.

I will not be surprised if it has to go all the way to the Euro courts and costs Jersey another couple of million.

Hiding under a rock

I suggest that the critics of SS and Sinels read the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008

My View

Great headline. Just someone would!!!


The Syvret train rumbles on. One thing is certain.It will eventually hit the buffers at the end of a road which leads to nowhere.


Tony Banner 7

I agree completly. The quantity of protests from this one person is reducing his credability


Normally people wouldn't trust a lawyer as far as they could throw them… how that attitude seems to change when one is defending SS. Whilst I agree Jersey's freedom of info is archaic you have to wonder whether SS and his lawyers aren't playing on this weakness to their gain.


Hiding under a rock 9)

I have done so and part 2 seems to potentially cover SSS's actions vis a vis naming uncharged persons as being guilty.

It does not seem limited to speech in that part


I don't know about "them", but all of "us" want to gag him....

I would have thought "a law to combat public disorder and low level nuisance" was just about right.

Magnolia Man

Tony Banner declared above that: "If everyone , including the senator would just shut up! Maybe a proper review , investigation of the matter could take place. My view is senator, thou dost protest to much."

Ah: the "Jersey Way".

This pernicious and self-serving process of sweeping things under the carpet can only foment civil unrest.

It would be a far, far better thing for open and clear-cut justice to be seen to be done on this benighted island.


Don't believe everything you read in the papers... Since when has the good Senator (or his current Advocate) ever been gagged? Unfortunately this very sensible idea would be a complete waste of time... Resistance is futile - beam me up Scottie!


In my opinion he would be gagged if it wasn't for the internet, as the media reports appear to be attacking him for something or other, without reporting much on what he has said to cause these type of reports.

If the public don't know what he has said, or even a proper outline, how can they make an informed opinion about any of this?

I myself am surprised that the authorites haven't taken away his internet access under the same law as well? If not, why they haven't just changed the law a bit to cover this?

It appears to be giving them a lot of cause for concern, and a lot of man hours must surely have been spent on this case. Hopefully they aren't short on other fronts like fighting major crime because of this?

These are my own views on things, people are free to disagree should they feel the need.

Magnolia Man

"I myself am surprised that the authorites haven’t taken away his internet access under the same law as well? If not, why they haven’t just changed the law a bit to cover this?"

Doubtless our learned Law Officers (aka Bailhache, Birt & Bailhache) have considered promulgating such legislation.

But if they were to be so stupid as to do so there would be revolution in the Bailiwick of Jersey.

But, then again, that "not the Jersey Way", is it?


Quite a reasonable action by the police.

SS has made unsubstantiated accusations of a horrendous crime against an as yet innocent person. He must be stopped from repeating this.

One only has to read

To understand that the police action was not only legal, but morally necessary.


PJG I myself prefer to have an open mind on things and not just accept things just because someone in authority says it is so. You seem to have the opposite view.

I myself view this as another notch on the belt towards a police state I'm afraid.

the future

A government should be set up so no one man should be afraid of another.

When there are laws in place which slew the balance of power they are wrong.

Our government can legitimise immoral behaviour by making it legally correct.

However an action just being legitimate can not change the morality of an action as that is decided by consensus of the people.

It is common that some laws breach basic human rights.

These laws get changed as they are not morally sound.

Just because there is a way in which the law may or may not be applied to detain Stuart Syvret does not mean it is justified, morally right, or even eventually legal at all.

Nelson Mandela was legally held in prison, the law is an ass.

O J Simpson is the other side of the equation where the law is used to get away with crime.

As in any other government these tools will be used by our politicians for intimidation and reward as they see fit.


22. I heartily agree with your post,the whole danger is an unwillingness or perhaps an inability to think for oneself, blind faith in a group or idea that is no better than yours or worse, maybe flawed is madness, and as history repeatedly tries to teach us mass madness is always started by those in authority, it must always be questioned ,if only to protect it from itself.............


Adrian 21

On the contrary !

Your posts are always predictably anarchic.

You do not have an open mind, in fact you are always ethicalising and moralising how we should all do as you think, never as the majority say. You seem unable to question yourself when faced with a contrary majority decision.

The authority you distrust so is made up by the will of the voters of which I assume you are part of. You are always unable to accept this saying what about, and if, or asking a question escalating your argument into the realms of fantasy that have no bearing on the facts in question.

For example, my post 20.

I state "SS has made unsubstantiated accusations of a horrendous crime against an as yet innocent person. He must be stopped from repeating this."

You answer "I myself view this as another notch on the belt towards a police state I’m afraid."

Adrian where does this come from ? Are you saying anyone can make these accusations (I assume you have read his blog and know these accusations to be what I have said, (unsubstantiated, against an as yet innocent)and the victim should have no way of stopping this. Because to do so would transgresses freedom of speach. do you think freedom of speech is so sacrosanct, that no matter how an individual should suffer it shall never be tempered.

Adrian "open your mind" put yourself in the position of the victim, stop jumping on SSs bandwagon.

Adrian read the laws, assess then if what they are trying to do is for the good of everyone, The law is a double edged sword, it cuts both ways, usually for the good of all.

And Adrian, by the by, you have never answered my question, would you want to live in a society where anyone who disagrees with a law should be allowed to break it, please don't go off on one and start talking about a higher authority and the Nuremburg trials. I am asking you to be real, I am talking about Jersey and our rule of law here.


The Future.

The law needs to be obeyed, or we could descend into the rule of the mighty.

Laws need to be made by a democratic process so all are treated fairly.

There needs to be a way of changing them if or when they become unfair.

You need to add WAKO to your examples of Nelson Mandela and O J Simpson.


If "they" really are trying to gag Syvret. then I wish "they" would hurry up. just for once it would be nice if he had something constructive to say, rather than his constant bleating about nothing


"I believe christians have a moral responsibilty to disobey unjust laws

an unjust law is no law at all"

Martin luther king


PJG said "The authority you distrust so is made up by the will of the voters of which I assume you are part of."

What do you think the have the following got in common?

Lieutenant Governor


Atourney General

Solicitor General


Chief Minister

All are unelected to office and are the authorities are they not?

So much for your statement above.

If you think it is wrong to have morals and ethics and the majority think like you then is it any wonder things are going down hill?

If laws are unethical and immoral they are wrong. If a law is wrong it shouldn't be a law should it? If the law is wrong who made this law? The authorities write the laws don't they? I would have to say that if any authority writes bad laws then as far as I am concerned they are not fit for office.

The higher authority of morals and ethics always take priority over bad manmade laws. Hence what happened at Nuremberg. I myself couldn't abide by any law that was unethical or immoral so there's you answer. I presume you would then as you still haven't answered my question to you on this?

My police state comments are in reference to the gradual errosion of civil rights which has been ongoing since 9/11. You should read 1984 by George Orwell, he was very insightful, and we are well on our way to a high sureveillance police state as far as I am concerned.

As per Senator Syvret why arrest someone who was prepared to answer any questions they might have? Why send up to 10 police officers around to where he was staying? You might view this as normal procedure I don't.

As per accusations why make them? Do you believe that someone would deliberately publish lies about someone else under their own name online? What is to be gained by this?

I wouldn't make some of the comments as seen on Senator Syvret's blog as either I didn't know about them or I can't substanciate them. You should be asking the question maybe these comments have been made because they can be substanciated? What then?

As per Nuremberg I can assure you this was real, so I don't get where you're coming from.

As per laws they are not there to gag people nor stop their right of free speech. This was tried in the colonies pre American War of Independence, as someone was upset about someone else publishing comments about them. When it went to court the right to free speech was upheld as long as it was the truth. So as long as someone writes something which is factually correct there is nothing anyone else can do about it.

I hope this answers your queries PJG. Maybe you will answer mine now if you dare?

It is interesting that you think I am an anarchic because I believe in morals and ethics and do not blindly accept what anyone says, even if they happen to be the authorities. For your information, just because someone is a member of the authorities doesn't mean they suddenly become superhuman and are beyond making mistakes, or doing anything else wrong. It is when the majority do not engage their brains and ask questions that we tend to get problems around the world.

I myself believe the authorities, anywhere, must always be monitored carefully, by fully independent bodies, as when power is concentrated in few hands there is always the risk of problems.

You are free to think otherwise.

Euan Mee

PJG 24. Hear, hear!! A pleasent change to hear some common sense on this forum!

Offshore Onlooker

Hmmm. Living as I do in a democratic country I am shocked.

I am shocked to find that the government of Jersey is not democratic, has no regard for human rights, and is not at all representative of the people it is supposed to serve.

I am shocked to find that the government of Jersey appears to have the morals of Don Corleone in "The Godfather".

But what shocks me the most is the fact that an island with the population of a small to medium provincial town contimues to behave in this manner. How the government of Jersey can operate with so many of its key employees being suspended is an indicator of its moral bankruptcy.

The eyes of the world are on you, Jersey - and it's not a pretty sight.

the futire


My point exactly the law must be obeyed or it is used to punish.

The problem is, if any of us were followed for a day whilst driving a car many if not all of us could be guilty of breaking a speed limit driving to close or too far away from a pavement etc.

These laws are in place to stop bad driving but could also be used to persecute a man for speaking up.

Many laws can be and are used in a manner they were never created to be used.

There are some who would and can use and abuse laws to persecute others.

I am not in favour of breaking the laws of the land but they are just that, the laws of the land. In the UAE they are putting a man and a woman in jail quite legally for adultery.

We consider that to be madness as some consider not having a freedom of information act to be madness.

I believe SS is being abused, using or should I say by misusing the laws of this land.


How funny, He He, if SS,and Shona and Southern are really inconsequential,silly or just plain wrong, bad people who should be castigated violated or locked up.... why such heated comments.? could it be that Free thinking really scares you ? deep down you've built on sand, for if you're so sure of yourselves why worry.

Leah Holmes

I know someone who was pulled over by the Police in the UK based on an outright lie. They made up the fact that their system showed her tax disc to be out of date. As she was a very nervy person she got out of the car, showed them the totally in date and legitimate tax disc and noticed that the 2nd policeman was thoroughly inspecting the car in the hope of finding some vehicular offense to charge her with. She let this farce go on for almost 20 minutes because to her being pulled over by the Police was intimidating.

This was a blatant 'lie to pull someone over and then find something wrong with the car to charge them with'. And I don't doubt that the UK police often use such lies to give them time to find something.

Had they actually checked their system at all they would have known the car was the property of the NHS! Unsurprisingly they didn't find anything else they could accuse her of, they did however leave her quite terrified. Had my friend had me in the car the Police would have been told that she was on her way to a birth (she's an on-call midwife) and that since her tax date was clearly in date the matter was over and they could take it up with her lawyer if they wished to waste more of her time! Unfortunately she wasn't the type to be so forceful with 'authority figures'.

Anyone who thinks the Police don't lie and abuse their power in the hope of eventually finding something legitimate with which to meet ridiculous 'targets' set by Government pen pushers is an idiot! The Police thrive on the fact that many people assume they have more power than they actually do, and that some people are scared of them.



As you request, I will try to answer your questions "again" but I am sure "again" you will ignore the answers because they do not conform with your biased train of thought

(1)Those you mention do not make the law they interpret it.They can be removed from office by the queen, or don't you trust her either.

The AG is an appointed position, were it an elected position we could end up with an uneducated flavour of the month moron who could do untold damage until voted out at the next election (can you imagine the likes of SS as AG ?), all in the name of the people, you could not make it up. Politicians need to work in groups to be democratic, Laws need to be interpreted definitively, this would be impossible for a group (you must have heard the old one about the committee designing a horse and ending up with a camel ?)It requires one trusted man.

What is needed, and in my opinion we have is a fair minded man of good educational qualifications who can read and interpret our law "as intended by our politicians", who have in turn been elected by us, also this man/woman must be prepared to work for the island because he loves the island at a wage far lower than he could command in the market place. If the AG were to abuse this position our democratically elected states could make representation to the queen to have him removed, anytime. Or are you saying she is corrupt too,and we need to become a republic ?

In short there are methods to remove him from office, what's your problem ?

(2)It is not wrong to have morals and ethics. It is wrong to be so closed minded to believe yours are more moral and ethical than others

(3)Bad laws (sometimes for mistaken good reasons) are enacted, They need to be changed. To just break them because they offend your personal code would reduce us to a state of anarchy where the rule of the strongest would prevail. We have democratically elected politicians who enact these laws, they are also charged with de-enacting them when they become obsolete, or are voted "wrong". We "have" to trust these elected politicians and the system, there is no one else. Or are you suggesting we make you dictator so you can can unopposed thrust your omnipotent morals and ethics upon us ? The AG only rules on the meaning of these laws he does not make them, similarly an electrician at the JEC would not allow you to misuse electricity in your home through ignorance( why have a dog and bark yourself)

(4) The Nuremburg trials were about people claiming their committing genocide was only obeying orders, I agree with you this was wrong they should have shot themselves before participating in this atrocity (how does that tie in with your ethics and morals ).To take a life you say is wrong. How about when an armed policeman is faced with the order to shoot an armed hostage-taker dead, when he has just shot 2 kids and is proceeding to the next 6, Is that justified ? The law says it is, and I believe its moral and ethical, do you ? In all laws there are grey areas, this is why we have men such as the AG also its why there is such a backlog on the law draftsmen's books. What we have at the moment is not perfect, it never will be, things change constantly. Its my opinion that what we have in place is pretty good, it gives us ways and means to accept change.

What does not make it better is the likes of SS GS and SP behaving like spoilt children and making their own rules up.

(5)Free speach,are you saying you want to be able to say anything you think about anybody you like so long you believe its true ? That sounds very high and mighty, how do you know its not mistaken, even if it is true sometimes the damage it can do outweighs the good it can do. Should we have a list in the royal square of all persons with venereal disease so we can avoid contact with them, or how about racial abuse because of a persons skin colour, the colours a fact your not telling a lie ? In all things there are grey areas, the world is not your black and white, truth and lie. Everything needs to be judged on its own merit. Yours is the easy way out.

(6)"I myself believe the authorities, anywhere, must always be monitored carefully, by fully independent bodies, as when power is concentrated in few hands there is always the risk of problems"

And who watches the watchers ?

At some stage you must have trust, this can be reinforced by a persons history, but in the end it does come to down trusting someone.

Do you trust anybody ? except yourself that is.


Well that all made interesting reading! I see old Adrian is after his perfect system again, the world according to Adrian!I do like his approach as he is indeed a creative alternative thinker if somewhat out of this world in his approach. I do have to correct one of his assertions however, he lists the Governor, The Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff,The Attorney General,The Dean,The Chief Minister as "Unelected" and in someway gives them some kind of power that brands these individuals as "The Authorities"?

Well it may be obvious to the informed but including the Chief Minister in that list is not actually accurate. He may not be directly elected as Chief Minister by the electorate but he is elected to the States in the first instance by them, and when he stands for the office of Chief Minister he is subject to the vote of his fellow States Members all of whom are there courtecy of the electorate's vote.Secondly the rest of the "List" have powers limited by the Laws of the Land all of which come into being following scrutiny and acceptance by the States assembly,an elected body.This asertion that these listed individuals, in particular the Law Officers are making the Laws up as they go along is deeply misleading. SS as an elected member of the States should indeed be allowed to raise matters of concern, and as a Minister was obviously allowed access to information concerning matters under investigation that were likely to lead to the criminal prosecution of certain individuals, and a number of other issues under investigation where allegations were being made which to that point were unsubstantiated.However to remove this information from a secure environment and publish it, as is alleged SS has done, does predjudice any subsequent official move to prosecute and leads to a kangaroo court style trial of individuals who whether guilty or not are entitled to a fair trial and to be assumed innocent until proved guilty. If SS is allowed to drive a coach and horses through the freedom of information act using freedom of speech of a States member as justification for such action, we are only one step away from all personal financial information and medical records being freely available to all on the internet!The mistake SS made (Arguably deliberately?) was to approach and berate the Bailiff in his role as "Speaker" of the States on matters which being sub judice were more correctly to be put to him in the Royal Court in his role as the Island's Senior Judge, and then only after due process and proper representation being in place for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. I do wonder whether it was entirely necessary to send so many police officers to SS's home to investigate these matters, I can only assume that SS's ability to cause a storm over any matter however large or small meant that the police felt they might need crowd control or something? I do agree with the observation that a less volatile and less self focused individual would have probably achieved a great deal more positive progress, an observation that was made even I believe by Esther Rantzen.

Oh and the Dean?Well yes he is unelected but has a role as spiritual adviser, our laws, like it or not being based, as a matter of historical record,primarily on Christian values and ethics.


Yawn..It's like the annoying child in the corner of the class who insists on disrupting the lesson for everyone else so he can have his moment in the spotlight. Just ignore him, and hopefully he'll go away (fingers crossed). He's not a pillar of justice, he's not a crusader of truth, he's just determined to cause nothing but anarchy.


PJG why have bad laws? What is the point?

This means those making them haven't done their homework properly does it not?

Why do you "have" to trust politicians? Do you think in the UK that politicians are top of peoples' trust lists? Maybe you shouldn't answer that in case you incriminate yourself?

I have never been into dictatorship though I know some who have been. As we haven't got democracy in the proper sense, is it not better to make the system more democratic or aren't you really interested in democracy after all?

If you believe in democracy you would be asking to have all unelected members withdrawn from the States. Are you truly democratic or just playing at it?

I have told you it is not against the law to publish the truth maybe you don't believe me? So telling the truth shouldn't be done according to you in case it does more harm than good? So I take it that you are happy to lie about things then?

PJG said "In all things there are grey areas, the world is not your black and white, truth and lie."

Did you ever do maths at school did you get points for grey answers? It is the same with the truth, the truth is the truth, it is not grey. Lies are always lies unless they are the truth. There are no inbetweens are there?

As per grey when does grey become white?

Answer it never does because any black makes it grey and therefore not white (true).

It is important to watch the watchers. If the watchers watch the rest why are they above being watched themselves?

Nick as per the Dean what has he got to do with politics? As our society becomes less and less Christian why have him there? What about other religions do they not deserve a representitive in the States assembly?


What a load of absolute rubbish. Senator Syvret has always said exactly what he likes with no consideration given to truth, accuracy, the people he often mistakenly accuses of heinous crimes or even the potential paedophiles will escape justice because he has compromised a fair trial. He is not a whistleblower but the person who was responsible for both the health service and children’s service when many of these events occurred, only making a stand after he became aware of the various investigations and after he was sacked. He was a minister who spent more time pursing personal vendettas that doing his job which if he had done in a diligent manner many of these events may not have occurred.

He now uses his position as senator as a platform for the misinformation and often serious allegation which is his chosen weapon against all those he blames for his demise. He does not represent Jersey or its people and I only wish that somebody in the States would be strong enough to stand up to him and bring him to book.



(1) things change.

(2)Sometimes trust is all there is.

(3)we do have a democracy.

(4)your opinion.

(5)this is the real world, not your fantasy version.

(6)this is not maths this is life.

(7)grey become white, when all the black has been taken away.

(8) the question was rhetorical.

(and just in case you ask me to answer a question yes or no)

9)yes or no

I Hope this brings some light into your blackness

And Adrian I must congratulate you for the sheer entertainment value of your posts, for that, they are the best on here.


Well done Sanity at last someone speaking sence.Why can't Syvret just leave the Island and us all in peace.


Apparently the watchers ARE being watched,and very likely many others are also, I imagine multiple sphincters are fluttering wildly at this time and will continue. Is it really an over simplification to say,we teach little kids that honesty is the best policy, loving your neighbor is the right way forward,and that all are equal under God, we seem to be a Judaeo Christian society saying prayers in our courts, taking solemn oaths, and under the covers we have the cloak and dagger stuff going on......look closely and see that FEAR is at the root of all this carry on...openness let's in the light,let us continue to push for it at all levels so we can hold our heads up or cower like Dracula only feeling safe in the dank Mike Higgins


PJG "Sometimes trust is all there is."

This excuse didn't work at Nuremberg did it?

PJG "we do have a democracy."

Since when are unelected representitives in government in a democracy?

From your next answer I take it that you are happy to lie about things to either gain an advantage or to get away with something?

Grey cannot be white, even you must realise this, and with it the fact the the truth cannot be a lie.

I speak as I see things. I am not into spin I leave that to others.

truthseeker makes valid points, even if some others might not like them. Yes I would imagine some are having a dickey fit over this.

The sad thing is if it had Senator Syvret on his own I am sure not an eye lid would have been batted on the establishment side of the fence. However when oneself is put in the spotlight one's opinion can change dramatically can it not?


Adrian - please explain your concerns because as far as I can make out their roles are largely administrative or advisory and they are certainly not permitted to vote so I cannot see the problem. If these tasks were carried out by an elected member this would disenfranchise whole sections of voters which would be of concern. Further there are probably hundreds of civil servants who influence the decision making process to a greater degree and with far less openness than the few you mention. They also have powers to raise taxes through the various licences and charges they make and indeed create their own laws through powers contained in the various orders they are permitted to make. I think you have been suckered into directing all your attentions to the wrong targets.



True SS stands up for what he thinks is true but lets face it, he hasn't got a clue about how to do it!

A wee pathetic man with one huge chip on his shoulder!

If he was really fighting for the people he is meant to be representing then he would learn to do things in the correct way!

A question:

Has SS realley ever achieved anything? Or has he just hindered?


Adrian, you ask why is the Dean in the States Assembly and then go on to repeat the massive generalisation that our Society is becoming less and less Christian (Says who?)when I have already made the point that as matter of historical record the majority of the Laws on which our society is based are founded on Christian morals and ethics. I did not say to the exclusion of other faith's opinions,ethics and morals where there is a consensus of opinion albeit reached by different approaches.In fact the Christian religion as represented by the Dean (a trained theologian) is more tolerant these days of the views of a great many other religions than vice versa.And it is precisely as a trained theologian that the Dean is present in the States Assembly as an unelected member with no vote. He is there as a point of reference on Christian ethics, morals and principles for benefit of the elected members who do have a vote, should they require clarification on those matters in the course of their deliberations.He is also these days most probably well versed in the theology of other faiths.The point to make is that it is down to the elected members own choice as to whether they agree with or follow ,or indeed seek his advice. It is the same with the other unelected members of the States, all of whom are there as available points of expert reference in their acknowleged fields on whom the elected members can call for advice should they so wish. This source of expertise covering matters spiritual, procedural,and legal are essential to ensure the smooth running of the Assembly, and also to enable decisions of the Assembly to progress into practice in the form of viable Statute Law.

I am not quite clear as to why Nuremburg features so often in your arguement.I did for a number of years work in a European Financial operation in the City whose Chairman was Lord Shawcross. Hartley Shawcross was prehaps the most eminent Barrister of his generation and was the lead British Prosecuting Council at the Nuremburg Trials. In fact he totally dominated those trials.I was very fortunate to have a number of lively conversations with him (From memory even when our paths crossed in the lift)mainly on the subject of those trials, and I have to say that even though he was in his eighties then he was a sharp as a chef's knife and personally not entirely certain just what had been achieved at Nuremburg!A matter which occupied him at that time quite alot as the main shareholder of the consortium bank we both worked for (late 1970'S) was a large German Cooperative Bank!I note that he was also UK Attorney General and turned down the offer to challenge for leadership of the Labour Party, a Lord Chancellorship, and several other offers of high office during his career.(He also eloped with his 3rd wife at 95 and sadly passed away in 2003 aged 101)He therefore was effectively operating in the same capacity in the UK as one of the unelected individuals in Jersey you wish to see removed from the States? And at Nuremburg he was the champion of your natural justice that according to you just happens by accident!

As for Stuart Syvret if he could accept that he might just not know everything about everything and learn to recognise and listen to those who might know alot more, then he might just make a politician. However I'm not sure Jersey can afford the cost of his education as evidenced by the bill to date as a result of his outspoken activities.


Nick do you think we are more religious today? Do you think many follow the scriptures in any capacity as to what is right and wrong?

I remember at school you were taught not to lie, cheat, deceive, etc etc.

Well if we were all taught this how come most of this goes out the window when people grow up and they start working?

How many times do you get lied to or deceived or stabbed in the back at work every day? What about dealings with others outside of work? How many lie, cheat deceive or are economical with the truth for personal gain? Is this what Christianity is all about?

As per the Dean, why have an arbitarily choosen state religion? What about, say, a Catholic head, or a Methodist head, or alternating to give more balanced views with other religions? This is selective religious principles being applied here. You could find more Catholics members in the States for example, so why not a Catholic in the house? Many questions but no real answers.

I would have thought anyone of a religious leaning would consult with their own priest/vicar anyway so I don't see why is he needed in the actual States anyway?

My views as per unelected representives is the fact they are in an elected assembly and do have an influence by their very presence whether intentional or not. This will therefore affect outcomes will it not, especially if they have a magnetic personality as people tend to follow these types as some will just follow like sheep?

If you want something nearer a democracy please explain how unelected representives to States office including the Chief Minister fullfill this role, because I can't see it? If you aren't really bothered about democracy then this is fine. However most bleet on about democracy and how important it is when they don't really understand its true implications? This was the point I was trying to make.

As per Nuremburg this was brought in as an example to explain why abiding by immoral or unethical laws is wrong. However there are those who will blindly follow regardless of examples like this because they must abide by the law. Has anyone yet said they would not follow a bad law, which does beg the question can a Nurenburg type incidence happen again? If people aren't fussed about morals and ethics then unfortuantely the answer is yes.

As per Stuart Syvret, people voted him in as the top Senator more than once. If he isn't a politician, who is over here?

In my opinion the most obvious question everyone should be asking is whether what Senator Syvret says is correct or not. On this answer hangs everything, whether you personally like him or not.

Obviously these are my own views on things and people are free to think otherwise.