Search This Blog

Monday, 29 October 2012

"Jersey's Worst Filth Given The Green Light To Squander Tax Payers Money Persecuting Bloggers"

"Jersey Criminals Try To Silence Bloggers" 



Emma 'vacant' Martins....Showroom Dummy!

Data Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins seems happy for any vile criminal to apply for the peoples hard earned tax money as long as it is in pursuance of persecuting and prosecuting Jersey's Bloggers, and is in the Public Interest. But what exactly is "The Public Interest?" And will she explain it to us? :) I doubt it!

It appears that some of Jersey's worst & disgusting criminals have already benefited from Emma's kind offer to help rid the island of a truthful alternative media source. Amongst these wretched scum are a deranged alcoholic & humanity-despising Internet troll (Jon Sharrock Haworth), one of Jersey's most corrupt and hated cops (David Minty), a lunatic nurse suspected of having committed multiple murders, and the odd rape or two? (Andrew Mariola), and the most brutal vile child abuser imaginable (Danny Wherry).
 
That sadly seems to be the sum total of Emma Martins moral and ethical compass, along with most of our wonderful government of course who are still trying to derail the Committee of Inquiry into Decades of Child Abuse. Getting Williamson in to water down the very robust Terms of Reference of the Verita Group is like asking the kitchen porter to explain to the Three Star Michelin Chef just what was wrong with the banquet he laid on!!!
 
Someone should advise Emma that Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (statutory) only applies to legal fiction persons (body corporates) or those who willingly contract with government.
 
 
Click on the pic to read it





 
 





46 comments:

  1. Steady on Ian.
    Naming super-injuctioned people!
    Arn't you pushing your luck just a bit too much?
    After all we certainly cant aford to loose you to the nick.


    ReplyDelete
  2. "Naming super-injuctioned people!"


    Where exactly did I say anything about any alleged super injunction? All I have stated is what is already in the public domain via lawful channels!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep thanks to an outsider living in England and also being a member of the UK parliment MP John Hemming put this information and the names in the public domain, otherwise you could be in serious trouble.

    How bad and pathetic that it has come to this. How desperate they must be to try and silence the blogs.

    What are they trying to hide that is more important than the democratic rights of the islanders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ian, what date is this JEP cutting? thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question anon, I was alerted to it last Friday and it had apparently been in the filthy rag two or three days earlier. This cutting was emailed to me so I cannot be exact.

      Delete
  5. That Jep is not very helpful.

    we do not know the individual the JEP refers to nor? Is it anything to do with the people named by the MP John Hemming? Thats in the public domain and on UK hansard.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It reads as a summary anon, not applicable to one specific individual in this case.

      Notice how Howard (not so) Sharp states "that under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, a "PERSON" would be given 21 days to remove material before being liable to a civil suit."

      We are not persons, we are men and women, they have to address us as legal fictions (persons), they operate in commerce all the time, a fantasy world of the unreal.

      I do so hope you guys will start delving into Common Law very shortly as it is your only saviour....

      Delete
  6. Sometimes....I just can't do nothing but cry my fucking eyes out sitting here every night watching how humanity degrades and destroys itself, and all through sheer fucking ignorance and cowardice....And yes....Sometimes we swear on this fucking blog!!!....SO FUCK!!!....Makes ya weep people, makes ya fuckin weep :(

    Apologies to the lame in our community for having the utter gaul to swear out loud, I am sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And for those 'good old boys' who don't like my choice of venue....It's my blog, and somtimes I will say what I damn well please, however painful the truth is.

      Delete
  7. So, wait. Can you help a confused outsider understand the JEP clipping? Are they implying that Jersey could allow the Data Protection Commissioner to offer to provide public funding to force a blogger not to annoy someone? And which public interest is it in for taxpayers to pay for this? Is there any public interest in the blogs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was 3 questions anon! I am upset, tearful, and really P*ssed off....And yes, they are basically saying that anyone who supports them, the Jersey Establishment, can apply to this Showroom dummy to get funding to have a drive against anyone who speaks the truth about the disgusting greedy paedophile scum that purport to run this beautiful island. If your not kiddie fiddler....YOUR OUT!!!

      Delete
    2. Hope that cleared thing up for you? Goodnight my friend....

      Delete
  8. Love you all bloggers the people are with the truth! The Public are not the People! It's very evident what needs to be done and i do not condone violence like the "State" does. The infrastructure can stay but new blood throughout the system coming from honestly chosen people is 100% needed and NOW!These are enough quality people in Jersey to step up and take over. A peoples take over of our land and destiny is a must!
    People lets have common-unity : )
    philip skinner

    ReplyDelete
  9. ".. or cause distress." Well that comment is pure legalese as it is vague as a vague thing. Nice work for the industry to define this statement on a case by case basis.

    So what we have here is that if I were a child abuser (as a father one has to say that if any person were to hurt my child I'd rip their heads off and sh_t down their necks) and were to be then outed on a blog, I would state that I had been caused distress by it. As long as the "currency" (a quote from Stuart's blog) I have on others remains valid, I can then rely on the States to prosecute the blogger upon my behalf.

    It must be said that the Jersey tax payers are such benevolent people to allow their monies to be spent as such.

    The Beano is not the Rag

    ReplyDelete
  10. The cutting was Thursday 25th October if i remember correctly.. or Wednesday 24th... Sorry can't remember exactly :/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jersey's worst filth?
    You want to look in the mirror yourself mate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever I am, I am not a paedo, not one of their protectors, not one of their cover up merchants and I don't hide under any anonymous stone either you gutless weak little weasel, get a life you pathetic coward

      Delete
  12. Hear it from H.M. Attorney General mouth, in the States of Jersey. I don't think her Majesty would approve.


    14. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

    “Would H.M. Attorney General explain whether the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can be used, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog and, if so, how this is done?

    Question 14

    http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/10/questions-without-answers-231012.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great post but what real benefit it will do for Stuart Syvret's case is hardly worth thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This posting has nothing to do with Stuart Syvret's case, niether can it influence Stuart's case so I really don't understand what you mean.

      Delete
    2. If they decide to show your link from his blog to the Court it can. Writing posts like this during a live case is so dangerous and if you cannot see it then I fear the worst.

      Delete
    3. Again anon, this is nothing to do with any alleged court case, and where in law does it say that you can be prosecuted for telling the truth?

      Truth is the corner stone of all justice.

      Delete
    4. Look, you are intimidating people during a court case! I can see it, you know it and all your regulars know it. Like I said before, I just hope this post does not add to the prosecution's armoury because I think it could.

      Delete
    5. What court case is that then?

      Delete
  14. Ian,

    Your comments above are interesting but let us assume that the UK MP is wrong, there is no case of this nature happening of the 5th November, with the people mentioned above and some other individual. Lets us play with the idea of what would happen if there was a super-injunction case.

    The case would be heard behind closed doors.
    The press would not be admitted,
    The public would not be admitted,
    Any witnesses called could not talk about anything afterwards or be held in contempt and imprisoned.
    It was not publised that they were incasurated.
    The person or people shoved off to jail, could not talk about the case.

    Why?

    If they did they would be dragged back for breaking a super-injunction and therefore
    serve a longer sentence for contempt.

    It gets worse, was it conflicted Jurats sitting or was it a jury how about the Judge was he accused of being conflicted by the defence. The evidence given was secret but is it correct and substantiated. The person or people on trial want to bring in fresh evidence but the court refuses, is this allowed recorded and open to scrutiny by a higher authority.

    For the last time don't you peasants get it, it's all secret.

    Just think Zimbabwe.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Stuart is the subject of any secret court case or hearing he is entitled to at least one McKenzie friend for advice, and as a witness. Anything less is just plain unlawful.

      And why, if Stuart is being prosecuted, is he being prosecuted by a private company of which he is not a employee? And is not registered with? And has no valid lawful contract with?

      If you work for a company, the boss can tell you what to do on that company's time. If you do not work for that company, the boss has no authority over you.

      Just look at the Liquor Licensing Unit, do they have any authority over unlicensed premises? NO!!! They can only ACT against anyone holding a license as those with licenses have agreed to contract with that particular arm of government. No contract, no broken rules....It's simple.

      Delete
  15. Hmmmm....last few posts from anon resemble the style of those from one of the 4 persons named whose first initial is J (and last initial H). Plus he's talking bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I read this and think you are trying to disrupt alleged actions taken against Syvret.

    But then I think if there is nothing to fear then why write such posts like this in the first place?

    What is it you are trying to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can I disrupt any alleged actions taken against Syvret? Our crooks don't even adhere to their own laws so what chance I of interfering in any alleged case?

      "What is it you are trying to do?"

      I am reporting crimes, but who is going to act?

      Delete
  17. Ian

    Could the Data Protection Commissioner provide bloggers with a Super injunction against those making accusations against bloggers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Equality under the law is paramount and mandatory.

      Why ever not, we are all equal under the law :)

      Delete
  18. Look, you are intimidating people during a court case!

    I seem to be confused. What court case is the commentor referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is this super-injunction/court case, anything to do with Stuart Syvret knocking on the door of the Royal Court, proving that he had been let down/stood up/ignored by the officials(?)?

    He got it filmed/witnessed for a reason.

    Ian, any chance of putting it on here (the cam corder footage)?

    But only if you agree that its relevant.


    ReplyDelete
  20. Just a quick off topic.....guys, have any of you noticed that it takes longer to load a web page/home page recently? especially loading blog related sites? How come with our new NGN super fast network?

    Seems funny doesn't it?

    PROXY! (JT are running a better one now)
    LOADS to tell but can't on here

    JT are watching yooz & meez aswell!

    read up about it

    You have all been warned

    KR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds interesting Rolo me boy, so why not on here?

      Delete
    2. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that, on behalf of the establishment, JT had installed a Transparent Proxy to monitor both incoming (blog read) and outgoing (blog comment) traffic. Though they would most likely have had to obtain a RIPA warrant of sorts; but I wouldn't have thought this to be too difficult given the identity of the persons being criticised on blogs of the nature.

      The feat would be achieved using their routers to dynamically redirect incoming traffic to a single machine running piece of software like "squid", which then executes the request on your behalf and relays the results back to you.

      Irrespective, it's remarkably easy to capture traffic going to/from known IP addresses; the problem is the volume of data generated and the full time job it is to investigate the activities of users.

      If it's helpful, I'll try to find a way of identifying whether a transparent proxy is being used.

      In the meantime, if anybody sees apparent corruption of the page that contains a picture not dissimilar to this, then it is possible that you might be seeing the result of a minor glitch in the transparent proxy.

      Very briefly, there is a way of preventing transparent proxy / network packet capture from being of any use. It requires the use of encryption. However, according to the following, it's relatively easy to bolt SSL on to a Blogger website. Only problem is it comes with a premium of about $20 USD per month.

      http://blog.cloudflare.com/ssl-on-tumblr-wordpress-blogger-appengine-pos

      Its not likely to completely secure as the path from the SSL service provider to the blogging software is going to operate without encryption but it would at least reduce the scope for unlawful monitoring of data connections.

      The question, ultimately, is whether you or anybody else are sufficiently concerned about having your web activities monitored / recorded. Going to have to think about that one, but minded to say that counter-intelligence people often feed misinformation into intelligence / open channels to cause the opponent to make mistakes ...

      Delete
    3. Many thanks KR, very interesting indeed. I must confess that since the police stole my computer I am in no doubt that it has been tampered with in some way to track all my moves.

      Would it be possible for you to ring me later in the week as I would like a chat, my number is in the book :)

      Delete
  21. If you think somebody has tampered with your computer, I would *always* recommend buying a new hard disk for it and freshly installing the operating system and any software you have on it. That goes for if the computer was stolen, or if the Police have seized it; once it has left your hands it is potentially compromised. New hard drives are cheap these days. I would also consider software like TrueCrypt to encrypt certain data, but I imagine that most stuff on your computer is pretty innocuous so it may not be necessary. TrueCrypt is routinely used in the commercial world for securing data. You must, however, bear in mind that under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers laws, you may commit an offence if you do not provide the password to encrypted data when asked.

    As far as tracking you though, if I were tracking you for example (which I am not) it would be easier to do it through the network unless you routinely used SSL communications. I say this because it defeats the object of monitoring if its possible for the subject to detect whether their being monitored, and what is being monitored. There are plenty of websites that explain what SSL is but, in a nutshell, its whenever you use, say, a bank or Amazon to buy goods - your connection moves from http to https - from cleartext to encrypted.

    I would also investigate using "Virtual Machines", basically "computers" running in a window on your computer (if it's powerful enough). The represent an easy way of starting with a fresh computer whenever you need one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ian,

    I didnt write the above (as I ALWAYS sign KR) but.............
    Its true what ANON says..

    Shout you tomorrow, you know where I work (remember the van markings?)if you fancy popping in for a conflab.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And, received some chunky insults tonight on another posting, all the traits of the Haworth thing, coupled with the very limited knowledge of that Minty halfwit :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or was it perhaps a Law Officer who has access to everything to do with me? Maybe too smart for twerps like Minty & Haworth, was it you, Mr Law Officer, who said they would Email me the "Proceedures" and "DIDN'T?

      Delete