Author Topic: FREEDOM OF SPEECH  (Read 7264 times)

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2013, 07:42:00 AM »
So Chief Minister Gorst and Senator Bailhache and a few politicians think they can control 97,000 people including free thinkers like Stuart Syvret, VFC, Rico Sorda, Ian Evans, thejerseyway, Darius, Bob Hill, thebaldtruth and many others including you dear reader.

They stand more chance removing all the sand from Jerseys' beaches using a teaspoon. Lets see what else is coming down the track.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-journalist-who-was-banned-from-investigating-jerseys-child-abuse

As far as I am aware this came from a place a long way from Jersey. Small and informed world init.

Question to the  Cm and Ass CM's and CoM, how will your weird Jersey data protection scam meaning holding courts in secret and behind closed doors, work against those, in another country ?

Good luck to you on that one !

BB
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 07:53:05 AM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2013, 06:25:59 PM »

When a Government starts to deviate from the law on free speech they also deviate from democracy.

It is a fact that MP John Hemming has brought this to the notice of the UK Parliament. MP’s from all walks of life and sides of the house will look side ways and notice Jersey’s Government slipping away from the moral high road of free speech down some dusty lane.
Super Injunctions using obscure man made data protection detail, has also been brought to the attention of the heavy weight British press, so I am lead to believe.

Could Jersey be again after several recent lost legal skirmishes with the UK  be sailing its legal boat into dangerous waters.

All quotes are selective please view complete articles.

Telegraph.

Mr Justice Mostyn lifted a ban on Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph columnist, reporting on a case involving the future of children who are living with their mother.

The injunction barred Mr Booker from making any mention of the dispute, known as MvM and the London Borough of Sutton.
However, last week the High Court heard how the order prevented the reporting of proceedings that were “clearly in the public interest”.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Mostyn said he was lifting the injunction “because the emphasis should be on transparency” in the courts.

He added: “Mr Booker is perfectly entitled to be as rude as he wants about anybody he wants. That is what freedom of speech is about.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9904617/Open-up-family-court-hearings-says-senior-judge.html

Writing in The Daily Telegraph last month, Lord Dear, said that the law had “no place in our country” because the law was being “used to undermine free speech because of the way it is framed”.

Last month House of Lords vote saw peers vote overwhelmingly by 150 to 54 in favour of the change. Campaigners welcomed the change. Simon Calvert, Reform Section 5 campaign director, said he was “very pleased” by the Government’s statement.

He said: “This is a victory for free speech. People of all shades of opinion have suffered at the hands of Section 5.

“By accepting the Lords amendment to reform it the Government has managed to please the widest possible cross-section of society.

They have done the right thing and we congratulate them.”

A ComRes poll commissioned last year by the RS5 campaign showed that 62 per cent of MPs believed it should not be the business of government to outlaw “insults.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9801377/Insulting-words-crime-which-made-it-illegal-to-call-a-police-horse-gay-is-to-be-changed.html

BBC Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-15596225

John Hemmings address in Westminster,

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,

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.

http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/john-hemming-exposes-jersey-in-house-of.html

BB
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 06:39:15 PM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2013, 04:08:34 PM »
Boris Johnson Mayor of London again puts his head above the parapet,in direct opposition to the Chief minister, sorry I meant PM.
I take it when he say's beady-eyed media he also includes citizens media ?

The Guardian writes.

The mayor of London told an audience at the World Islamic Economic Forum on Wednesday that it was important that governments and their spies were held to account by a "beady-eyed" media.

"I think the public deserves to know," said Johnson. "The world is better for government being kept under the beady-eyed scrutiny of the media and for salient and interesting facts about public espionage being brought into the public domain."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/30/boris-johnson-defends-guardian-nsa

bb

« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 04:11:03 PM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2014, 06:06:53 PM »
Is it a man or a mouse of a TV station.

As CTV has been taken over by ITV, why not have a live studio debate, that looks at Jersey’s major problems and issues that would engage the islanders, and encourage open factual debate, once a week. I remember it has been staged before.

CTV would gain certain respect. Four subjects immediately come to mind.

Immigration, the States getting involved with building office blocks, the Anglican Church and its problems and cost to Jersey, and Hospital waiting lists. It would not be just senior politicians putting a one sided view, as with the ITV guest line up mentioned below.

As ITV uses the format, to gain viewers why would CTV- ITV not do the same. The healthy debate would be set by the producer and any politicians not wishing or refusing to appear would obviously be noted by island residents, and this would certainly not help their re-election chances come the October elections. The debate would continue with other speakers regardless.

Express

The ITN Productions programme will take on a similar format to the ­benefits show, with a live studio debate on “one of the hottest topics in Britain today, the influx of immigrants and how it’s affecting our country”.

The show will feature MPs, decision-makers, opinion formers and immigrants who will discuss a subject that is dividing the nation.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/458784/Channel-4-tried-to-buy-White-Dee-s-silence-as-reality-star-is-caught-in-ratings-war

Boatyboy
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 11:56:27 PM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH and Mishcom de Reya lawyers ?
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2016, 07:22:31 AM »
Mishcom de Reya, lawyers acting for a group of business people and academics, said it would be unlawful for a prime minster to trigger Article 50 without a full debate in Parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36700350

About Mishcom de Reya, the plot thickens and some alleged back round regarding this legal firm.

Is this a story the mainstream media are afraid off because a powerful legal firm is involved with wealthy backers ?
It is interesting and makes sense but is it true?  ( see what I did there Mr Ozouf ) that is up to you to decide reader.

Quote:

STATEMENT BY THE AUTHORS

This article has been written by a collective of over 20 reporters from Western Europe and the Eastern European Block. We are all tired of witnessing the endless corruption within our profession and the constant lies which are fed to the public via an ultimately state controlled media.

A breaking scandal implicating the legal firm Mishcon De Reya, who represented Diana, Princess of Wales in her divorce from Prince Charles, appears to suggest that they have full and subversive control of the British Legal System – being allowed to buy and sell firearms without a licence, launder monies through Trust Accounts of deceased clients and seem to conspire to defraud, at will. All of this is common knowledge to some Members of the British Parliament, The Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service of the UK.

http://corruptionuncovered.com/index.php/mishcon-de-reya-corruption-uncovered-and-conspiracy-to-defraud/

bb