Stuart naming names

[crappogre]

I was going to add this to Stuart's blog, but then it would leave him able to reject it, so I decided to post it here.

Stuart, I'm glad you accept the principle of living "by laws or society descends into anarchy" and that "if mob-rule is allowed to prevail – people who are entirely innocent could be assaulted, badly beaten or killed. So – no vigilantism – no naming of people of who we have no evidence against" - despite, as you say, the defects of the law and its application.

Good.

But then you say "I’ve named people on this site – and have done so when I am satisfied the case is robust."

Sorry Senator, but it's not up to you to decide. Elected or not, you're not a one-man supplier of justice like a real life Judge Dredd! That's what we have the police and the courts for.

Naming people online, no matter HOW sure you are personally, is the thin end of the wedge of that vigilantism and mob-rule that you accept should not happen.

I support your views on many many things, but I think you should do no more than collect evidence and supply it privately to those who are supposed to deal with such matters - the police.

If, having done that, the matter is hushed up and nothing ever comes to light, that's another matter. You then have to decide whether you make your case publicly and invite the accused to defend themselves against the libel/slander (and the whole thing descends into a trial by media). That depends upon the specific cirmcumstances and is your decision - but the first course of action is the only civilised one.

Best wishes.

[eastrock]

I have to agree with you on this point. I just posted here:

the-jersey-forum.proboards85.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=117&page=1#1216473202

Roughly wondering why we don't see these crimes being taken seriously. I would expect every victim wanting revenge or justice for the abuse they have suffered. The people mentioned in Stuart's blog are mostly dead now. And there must be a fair amount of frustration that these people have been allowed to live their lives to the end and not have to answer for their alleged crimes.

I believe the name of every sex offender should be made public to everyone. And if they get the living shite kicked out of them because of it..... GOOD!!!

But naming people openly on the web without going through the courts is plainly wrong. However, the courts need to get their acts together, because faith in them at the moment is very very low indeed. That's part of the reason why information is being drip fed into the web at present.

[eastrock]

I reckon Stuart would allow your post though.

[crappogre]

I reckon he would too, but I wanted the comment online ASAP (impatient!) and I'd like to see him join us here.

[fritz]

True democracy, is only reached with the agreement of all anarchists.

[crappogre]

Well he didn't publish the blog comment I made where I informed him of this thread and invited him to comment!

[eastrock]

No surprises there. He can say all he likes on his own blog page. With over 40,000 visitors, he certainly has a big enough audience.

He is of course very welcome here.

[crappogre]

I'm not very impressed with the lack of response from Stuart on this one.
If he really is going to play the vigilante and decide for himself who gets named (before the normal process of justice has its chance), then he will lose my support.
Shame really, he was doing so much right up until now. No matter how caring and righteous he is, I can't back someone who takes matters like this into their own hands.

Stuart, if I'm thinking this way, ask yourself how many other people will be too. You're risking losing a lot of goodwill over this. Please reconsider.

[Nobody]

A couple of days ago a friend of mine anonymously left a comment for him asking what solid proof he had of his accusation against Wilfred Bramble - a fair enough question in the circumstances. That hasn't appeared or been answered either, because of which she's now starting to feel a bit the same as you, though obviously for a slightly different reason.

[Nobody]

Jul 21, 2008 14:23:48 GMT @davroslesueur said:

By his own addmission he does not publish everty comment. There have been a few of mine
missed too. He is a busy guy.

That's a fair enough comment, but the substance of the post in question relied heavily on the accusation of Bramble being guilty of the offence. So a question about proof of that is rather more pertinent than some of the other comments he chose to publish, surely?

[crappogre]

Yes that's true about the deceased, but on his blog he has effectively announced that he will name names as and when he feels it's right, without specifying dead or alive.

While I believe I'd probably trust his judgement on any names of the living, based upon him being satisfied with sufficient evidence, I still don't think the principle is right for him alone to decide these things before the usual wheels of justice have had their turn. No matter how revolting the crime, no matter how obvious it is to him that someone must be guilty, we have rules in a civilised society that we must stick to.

If his judgement turns out to be out of whack on THAT matter, then I'd have no choice but to withdraw all support that I otherwise might have offered, as in all conscience I wouldn't be able to say I'd trust him to do what I believe is right. That would be incredibly sad, given his excellent work so far.

It's not looking good, as he appears to be online (commenting on PJ) but he has ignored this forum and comments I've made on his blog. Maybe he thinks this attitude could only be held by someone with something to hide, but that simply isn't the case. I've had every faith in him up until now, and I'm greatly disappointed if he's going to ruin it now.

[stuartsyvret]

I just thought I would do a quick reply to this string. I have addressed this matter on other occasions and I have said that I am not a judge, a policeman, nor a jury member and therefore I do not need to be neutral, objective and impartial. My duty is to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and in this case that means strongly, representing them in an entirely partial manner because they have not been properly represented by the island's authorities in the past. I certainly agree that an impartial and objective judicial process should determine guilt or innocence.

[the13th parish]

thanks for your post & welcome to the jersey forum i know your a busy guy but would appreciate the odd post now and again

[crappogre]

Thanks for commenting Senator, I'm glad you took the time to.
I haven't time at the moment to work out exactly what your position is........ and all the implications of what you've written. I'll come back later.
All the best for now

[crappogre]

Jul 25, 2008 21:09:45 GMT stuartsyvret said:

I just thought I would do a quick reply to this string. I have addressed this matter on other occasions and I have said that I am not a judge, a policeman, nor a jury member and therefore I do not need to be neutral, objective and impartial. My duty is to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and in this case that means strongly, representing them in an entirely partial manner because they have not been properly represented by the island's authorities in the past. I certainly agree that an impartial and objective judicial process should determine guilt or innocence.

Stuart I can't quite get what your position really is, on this one - forgive me if I'm being thick!

You say you agree that the courts should decide - "impartial and objective judicial process should determine guilt or innocence" - and yet you're also saying that you "do not need to be neutral, objective and impartial" as if to suggest you'll behave any darn way you please if you want? It remains to be seen what exactly this will mean in practice, but at the moment I'm confused.

Do you intend to name names before that impartial and objective judicial process or not?

thanks

[crappogre]

Well, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre was educational, but I can't see how Stuart can really be compared, LOL

[stuartsyvret]

In Response to crappogre

My position on such matters is perfectly clear.

I have named people – both dead - and living.

As far as the living are concerned – should they want to dispute the veracity of what I say – I look forward to seeing them in court.

My position on the need for judicial independence and impartiality is very clear; I’ll come back to this point later.

But it’s important to recognise that I’m not a prosecutor, judge or jurist.

This really is a fundamental point.

There is, therefore, no requirement upon me to temper my representation of my constituents by assuming the people they have named as abusers are innocent.

On the contrary – as many of these survivors will testify – some of who are now grandparents – they did disclose abuses in the past – to people in various positions of authority – and they just weren’t believed.

Basically – they were betrayed by pretty much every arm of the state.

So I make no apologies for being biased – for being 100% on the survivors’ side.

After all, it would appear that the entire Jersey establishment is on the side of the abusers and the cover-up merchants.

Look at it this way – if you were the brother or sister, the father or mother of a child – who came and told you they’d been abused – you would believe them. Well, 99% of people would believe them.

There is absolutely no expectation upon the friends and family of the victim of a crime to adopt a neutral stance. Which is one of the reasons why no person with a personal connection to a case, can be involved as judge or juror in hearing that case.

Many of the survivors have become friends of mine; and like all good friends would – I’m doing all I can to support them.

Returning to the point concerning judicial process and impartiality – I strongly believe that such process should, indeed, be completely objective.

In fact I’ve published on my blog, the first of two posts on this very subject last night; I hope to get the second completed later.

In these posts, I explain and argue that the prosecution and judicial apparatus of Jersey is not remotely capable of appearing objective and impartial.

I’ve also established a new reader’s poll on that subject.

So check it out and join in the debate.

Stuart

stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/

[crappogre]

I'm feeling guilty about taking up your time Stuart, but just to say this - I'm not saying you should or shouldn't behave in any way as a politician - I don't think anyone should name names because that's up to the police to decide whether charges should be made and to pass it on to the courts.
You're in the same position as anyone else on this (although it must be said I'd expect a politician of all people to set an example).

No matter how much you or anyone else believe someone to be guilty, even with overwhelming evidence and credible testimony it's simply not up to you to bypass society's accepted passage of justice. I'm somewhat bemused that an intelligent man as yourself seems to be missing this point. It's fair enough to take issue with someone and invite them to sort the matter in court on issues that the law wouldn't normally get involved with unless one party pursues it, but not in criminal matters such as the abuse.

I'm also a bit saddened to see the Nazi reference in the JEP today : "I expect that's exactly what the Nazis on trial at Nuremburg would have said by way of mitigation". While it may seem a fair comparison to be used to make a point, it's nonetheless downright offensive to bring up such sensitive recent history like that - especially to a Jew. I wish you wouldn't put yourself in that position because I want to feel 100% behind you and your crusade but that kind of thing makes me cringe. I can forgive you a lot of things because of all the good you achieve on balance, but please don't give your opposition ammunition to be used against you so readily.

Thanks

[crappogre]

Well.. your blog comment since has shed some new light on that exchange with Cohen (I should have known better than to form an opinion based upon anything within a JEP).. but still, however satisfying it may be to argue with them, you do unfortunately lose some moral high ground by sinking to their level.

Only a fool argues with a fool, as they say. Is it possible to avoid the temptation to confront them head on, and instead just show them up from a dignified lofty position on that aforementioned moral high ground...... without them being able to pick holes in your approach?

I'd absolutely love it if you could calmly and politely (even if they don't deserve politeness it still remains a good tactic) keep your approach beyond criticism and continue to destroy their credibility without them having a leg to stand on in return. I'm sure you could do it. ;D

[Nobody]

I'm thankful to see someone finally taking Cohen to task for the attitude he exhibits toward his own manifesto.

When eagerly supporting the building of a modernist style housing estate on Portelet headland, he justified his stance by claiming "I was elected on a manifesto of delivering exceptional architecture on buildings in Jersey".

However, the only reference to architecture in his manifesto states "In recent years we have failed to respect Jersey's traditional architecture. We must ensure that our Island heritage is reflected in new buildings constructed." .......which goes exactly against what we saw approved (and publically promoted by Cohen) for the Portelet headland.

Next up we saw Cohen threatening to resign if his Waterfront masterplan wasn't approved. Why? Because "This is the policy I stood for election on, and if I do not achieve it, it will be time to go".

Again, his manifesto makes no reference to this project whatsoever. Infact it contains only one Waterfront-specific policy, and that quite simply states "We must reject poorly designed tall buildings on the Waterfront. There is a strong case for iconic private and public buildings but they do not necessarily need to be tall. We will only be successful if we harness the skills of great architects who have created these elsewhere and delivered great financial and cultural benefit to those communities".....which is nothing more than an expression of the need for good architectural design, not a policy promising to deliver any Waterfront masterplan.

So in my view it's long overdue that Cohen's attitude in relation to his manifesto is publically addressed, mention of Nazis or not.