Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2

Above is the reponse from Mike Pollard and I would like to draw your attention to a few points of particular interest.

Firstly, he states that 'the entire matter has been dealt with to the highest possible standards of conduct as per SoJ precedures'. Later this week I will be posting a blog which explains the process of the investigation into my complaint and you will be able to decide for yourselves whether it was done to the 'highest possible standards', or not?

Secondly, the duty of care which I apparently failed to provide for a child, as I found out later was in relation to allowing young people to be introduced and interact with other young people resident after they had been through the admission procedures at Greenfields. This was something that I had introduced as part of the changes that were required. As you will recall, the previous system under the Grandprix regime involved isolating young people in their bedrooms for the first 24 hours.
Attention readers - I would like to hear some comments from either current or previous staff at Greenfields who know how the admissions procedure that I introduced worked and how the previous admissions were done. It may also be useful to hear how they currently admit young people into Greenfields. If anyone from Greenfields is reading this blog please take some time to respond as I am 100% confident that my admissions procedures were lawful, best practice and inline with National Mininum Care Standards which govern secure children's homes in the UK. My job description in Jersey stated , 'Ensure that the Unit is fit for National Minimum Care Standards'.
I would also like to point out that my admissions procedures were adopted from Leverton Hall Secure Chidlren's Home in Essex where I worked as a manager for two and half years prior to coming to Jersey. This admissions process had been subject to scrutiny from the inspectors for the past 12 years and had never been identified as a problem. This process of admitting young people into a secure children's home is also used throughout the UK.

Thirdly, Mike Pollard's email states, 'If his probationary period had expired I would have sacked him - and, unlike on many other occasions in my professional life when I have had to sack someone, would have had no doubt whatsoever that it was the right decision'.

So, does this mean that when it is proven that Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeleine Davies catagorically lied in their final reports into my complaint (which I have no doubt will happen soon), then Mike Pollard will owe me a big apology? I doubt it, the guy could'nt even look me in the eye when he signed the settlement agreement at the employment tribunal. He has too much to lose, he has dug himself a big hole, along with the other senior civil servants that I have already mentioned, and now they have no choice but to fight their way out.

If Stuart is reading my blog it may be good if perhaps he can provide a comment, perhaps a comment about the role of the 'Corporate Parent' and the context of the emails.
My next blog contains the resonse that Stuart gave to Mike Pollard, I want to show this to you as it demonstrates the level of integrity that Stuart showed when he first heard my concerns about Greenfields. It also demonstrates that in June 2007 Stuart was right to be concerned about Greenfields, even though the senior civil servants and Frank Walker deny there was a problem at all.


Anonymous said...


I should be shocked at this behaviour and/or attitude of senior civil servants.

But, sadly it is all too common. As you say they have so much to lose, so they have no option but to lie and fight their way out of things and cover up bad practice.

It reeks of self protectionism, lack of integrity and total corporate failure.

The good people or the ones who challenge the status quo are usually forced out (often without their reputation intact).

The mantra is 'if you want to stay in Jersey - do not rock the boat. If you do rock the boat - you are out. If you join the gang however, you will be protected and rewarded through promotion of the incompetent.

However, what they fail to say is that if you do join the gang you have probably also sold your soul to the devil usually along with your professional duty of care.

Maybe you and Stuart will be able to topple this culture of corruption but be prepared for a rough ride. The majority of senior management have nowhere else to go so will fight to the bitter end together - they have everything to lose.

TonyB said...

If you use JPG files, they will take much less room. There are a number of freeware converters to change BMP files to JPG.

I'd be interested in your comments on the "evidence from a young adult" part of Pollard's email. What did he count as "evidence"?

This is all very good stuff.

Anonymous said...


This is clearly slander, Mike Pollard owes you a career not just an apology!

States of Jersey policy - Is that the policy written by Pollard's wife. The senior HR manager quietly appointed outside States policy.

Mike Pollard didn't he and his second in command refuse to act on a ministerial decision. They of course were probably following states procedure to the highest possible standard!
Is there any room for Pollard in planning?

Standards - what standards - we have a culture of cronyism and malfeasance.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.