Search This Blog

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

"Turning A Blind Eye To Murder? - Jersey & The Syvret Treatment"

"Was Syvret Right To Name Nurse M?"

If ever there was a dilemma of the conscience, this is it!
What would 'YOU' have done?
Love Stuart Syvret, or loathe him, it matters not, what matters is what he did. How can it not be right to name a suspected killer? Should he have kept his mouth shut and just sat on his hands like most of our other useless politicians? Could he have done things differently and achieved a result? Did the Jersey Authorities cover this up to protect Jersey's wonderful image? Is Jersey's image worth a life? What if one of your family members had been in the hospital at that time? I think we are going to have a poll on this as I would love to guage the publics response. In the top right corner of the blog, I will set up a poll with some appropriate questions regarding ONLY STUART'S conduct, and his ongoing court case in which our Government are trying to jail him.



21 comments:

  1. Ian.

    Lenny Haper Tells Ben Shenton Sean Power and Jimmy (Potty Mouth) Perchard to PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can understand why Stuart named the nurse. He makes a good case for his reasons. Imagine not knowing if you or your vulnerable loved ones were at potential risk from an unnamed murdering nurse? Rumours would abound in medical settings. Would the corrupt authorities who are persecuting Stuart wish to find themselves in the hands of this murdering nurse? If ever there was a reasonable public interest defense, it would be in this case. The arrest record of the nurse was already enough to have caused his professional disqualification even before the serial murder suspicions were raised.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course he is defiant in his defence because he did the right thing, and most certainly in the public interest.

    But no, get rid of Syvret whatever the rights or wrongs. Stuart put up an extremely good case yesterday, something which even the JEP reporter admitted to.

    We can only hope and pray that Commissioner Pitchers makes the right decision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes GeeGee, Stuart defended himself extremely well yesterday, and with conviction.

    Little of which will mean anything if our judge is batting for the Establishment! Let us hope there is some common sense and reason in the next two days of the Royal Court saga.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When it comes down to efforts on behalf of the greater public interest, Stuart always seems to make more sense than the Jersey courts!

    All you have to ask yourself is "What interest would I have, as a member of the public, in knowing about a murderous nurse still being allowed to practice in my community?"

    Answer: Great big compelling interest.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elle - Stuart certainly made far more sense than the prosecution.

    When Commissioner Pitchers had need to ask the prosecution Advocate (Baker) what the procedure was on a certain matter the reply was 'I haven't a clue'

    Sums the man up perfectly, and had those present having a little titter to themselves!

    As Stuart would say, you couldn't make it up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hahaha! They were being honest then. They don't have a clue!

    What happened today? Did they remain clueless?

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wasn't sheduled for hearing today Elle, resumes tomorrow hun.

    ReplyDelete
  9. GeeGee,

    Thanks! Were you able to attend court today, or was the cluelessness, mentioned above, from what you observed yesterday? Is there anything else that's new? I am trying to follow this case with Elle and some other Denver Gals, today.

    Chelloise

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ian.

    I believe the term "not in the public interest" should be defined. Not sure if Stuart has ever asked the prosecution what they mean by "not in the public interest?"

    It's another one of those "template" sayings we get, rather like the "accredited" media telling us it was an "editorial decision" what does that mean? In the case of BBC Jersey, I think it means we've been told to silence anybody who wants to get to the truth of the Child Abuse cover-up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chelloise - a day off today, but resuming tomorrow with a verdict expected on Friday afternoon.

    There were other examples of 'cluelessness' yesterday too. Stuart referred to an affadavit which had been used by the prosecution against him in the Magistrate's Court. It seems the prosecution did not know what he was referring to, heads were shaking, papers were rattling. The Commissioner had to ask them to go and find it!

    Shame you are not able to witness this farce. If it were not so very, very serious it would be laughable!

    ReplyDelete
  12. VFC, in their speak "legalese" or LAW, as they like to call it, words are their tool, their weapon. Public does refer to people, person, legal fiction. It also refers to a body corporate, corporations, or the States of Jersey Inc, men and women are more commonly known as "the private" in their language.

    Their language, very few of us can understand.

    Example, "understand"....when they ask you in court "do you understand the charges?" what this really means is "do you stand-under". That is their way of tricking you into agreeing to give them power and authority over you.

    It is a foreign language to anyone who does not know about common law and unalienable rights. Stuart was talking yesterday about human rights and civil rights, the courts can trick you out of these in a matter of seconds! They can be taken away in a sentence.

    Unalienable rights are the only protection we have against the corruption of advocates and Law as the courts can only act against your person, and not against you as a man or woman.

    If you read THIS LINK you will "understand" a lot more about what we call "The Great Deception".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why doesn't Christopher Pitchers simply throw the whole case out of court, it's so obvious that the whole thing is a malicious vendetta against Stuart because he tries to protect the vulnerable from being abused?

    Thats what I have been puzzling about. But I am wondering now if Christopher Pitchers is actually letting all the whole wicked saga be told in all its sordid details, so that the mess can be cleared up properly and entirely.

    Christopher Pitchers is either a good man or a bad man, a crafty man or a clever man, and we wont know which he is until all this is over. A good man won't let another man be punished for protecting vulnerable people.

    It's not only Stuart who is on trial.

    Zoompad

    ReplyDelete
  14. ANON, who left the comment about Dave Carol.

    I am unable to publish it as I have not seen any proof and do not know about the case.

    I believe he was due to stand trial a few weeks back but I have heard nothing since! Could it have slipped through the courts without any public mention???

    ReplyDelete
  15. Absolutely Zoompad

    The truth is, that we will not know what the truth is until it is over. One thing is very clear though, if Sir Pitchers was going to let all the sordid truth out, why did he stop Stuart calling all his witnesses???

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just a thought but looking at the results of your poll and they don't seem to tally to me... Maybe some people have thought the 'Should he be jailed' question refers to the nurse ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, but I think it is pretty obvious we are talking about Stuart and his trial.

    There again, we have a number of Government Trolls to take into consideration!

    ReplyDelete
  18. chris pitchers is employed by the plaintiff,
    all other evidence is inadmissable.

    no defence, strict liability enactments, tools of the oppressor.

    c

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is one of the Jurats on Syvret's case Hamish Marett-Crosby?

    If it is, he is establishment through and through.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, I believe that name has been mentioned as one of the Jurats on Stuart's case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hamish Marett-Crosby is not a Jurat.

    ReplyDelete