Thursday, 12 June 2008

XXX XXX - Arrested

You may have seen the news today, the man that has not been named by the press is XXX XXX - many of you from social services will know him.

He was also in charge of XXXXXX about 6 years ago.

Any comments - I will post more later.

Updated 11.30am 13th June - The man has been released without charge so in the interests of justice, which I have been fighting for too, I have removed his name.

My apologies for any upset this may have caused this man and his family.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Simon
The net is tightening. Good on you Lenny. Keep fishing there may be bigger fish to catch.

voiceforchildren said...

Is it ok for you to name him?
You can be certain their are a lot of establishment figures that want your site closed down. Please don't give them what they are looking for!!

Anonymous said...

I think it's disgusting that you have placed a name of a person on your blog who has alledgedly been arrested. The person has not been been named by the police because this person has not been charged with anything. Have you no thought for his family. Whether he is guilty or not at this point is irrelevant. You should act more responsibly given your professional background, but then I shouldn't be surprised given your past behaviour.

Anonymous said...

It is ok to mention him, because others have, his name has cropped up before. but hey, lets not witch hunt, innocent before proven guilty right??

Anonymous said...

i always knew he was dodgy

Anonymous said...

Simon
Is he a friend of Joe Kennedy. It would be interesting to see who are his friends and allies in the establishment !! Like minded people usually stick together!! Keep going with the blog Simon.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you post ALL comments, Simon, rather than those that support you? My guess is that you aren't as popular as you believe you are!

TonyB said...

I am pretty sure he was ex-police, career shift into child protection. Did he have any formal training, or was he like a certain ex-prison officer, just left to his own devices?

voiceforchildren said...

He has just been released without charge pending further investigations. 11.a.m. news on channel 103

Anonymous said...

To have named a man who has not been assessed by professional detectives as being liable for a criminal charge, then xxxxing out his name when he is released, 'in the interests of justice(!)' which you 'have been fighting for' is frankly rank hypocrisy. No matter what it may transpire any arrested person has or has not done, if another person is so committed to justice, to sit as a self appointed judge and jury on a person is fundamentally contrary to justice. With all due respect, if you are not going to publish the name of every person ever arrested on any basis then your actions are inconsistent to the point of being contemptible and your apology, whilst at least appropriate, is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted-particularly as Google searches still show the individual's name because you have left it in the source code of your html. You should take it out at once. Words fail me at this high handed judgemental attempt to outdo proper criminal procedure. There are checks and balances in the Criminal Justice system-or don't they apply to you?

TonyB said...

Actually the Sun newspaper cheerfully mentions him by name in their online version which also mentions his release.

Anonymous said...

Dear Simon

It seems that some readers are not your fans like the rest of us?

Well, maybe this will now provide us all with some evidence to discredit your arguements.

You have written lots of information in your blog which appears to be backed up by modern social work practices in UK and elsewhere.

As an avid reader of this blog I would now like to hear the counter arguements to your comments about solitary confinement, recruitment, and invetsigations into your complaints etc.

I am writing this post to your critics - come on tell us all, the truth.

Is Simon wrong in what he stood up for, did all the things that Simon says happened at Greenfields, actually happen, or is he lieing?

Some staff have also posted on this blog and it appears from what they have said that Simon was telling the truth.

There are a few comments of late from people (possibly the same person) who clearly hold a strong opinion about Simon.

I wouuld assume that this/these person(s) work at Greenfields, or perhaps the Alternative Curriculum and do not like the fact that the system they ran was abusive to children.

The arrested/released man named by Simon also worked at Greenfields before Joe Kennedy, did the critic work with him perhaps?

It appears that Simon has struck a nerve with someone who has seemingly not posted on this blog before.

What do they have to hide, feel guilty about???

I hope they write a further post with their comments as this will provide for a truly balanced discussion. It would also help if they could be brave enough to tell us all where they work(ed).

Whoever you are, tell us more.

Anonymous said...

Hi Simon

I do not feel you should feel guilty about naming this person as he was named by the Sun, Mirror and Stuart. He was arrested and therefore the police must have had evidence to arrest him other wise they would have just asked him to the police station to answer some questions. Stuart has talked about him in previous blogs which suggests the name has come up through his contact with the victims of HDLG. Perhaps the critics of your blog should spare a thought for the victims. When families and individuals seek or are subject to social work intervention it is because they need help with their particular difficulties. I find it hard to imagine that the regime at Greenfields was helpful and supportive to people in crisis. You have blown the whistle on only one part of the service. I dread to think what happens else where. You have shown a great deal of courage to your own personal and professional detriment and should not be attacked for this. Keep on blogging and lets hear the rest of the story...

voiceforchildren said...

Simon.

I understand fully where you are coming from and whole heartedly commend you.

You have found yourself in much the same position as myself and many others. That is that no matter who or where you turn to over here you come across brick walls and closed doors at every point.

You are merely a social worker trying to bring some justice for our kids and basically practice your proffessions code of conduct and ethics.

Suddenly you find yourself in a cyber world "the blogging culture" a place you know or knew nothing about but was the only vehicle out there for you to bring your concerns about our islands children and the malpractice and cover ups involved with our esteemed goverment.

Unfortunately as I can testify, you need to be a proffessional journalist or a litigation lawyer to have no fear of telling the truth over the internet.

You undoubtedly will make mistakes, I've had one blogsite closed down by the states and believe me they will be watching yours!!

You will also have people waiting with baited breath for you to trip up so you can be discredited and hushed up.

Don't let the shysters bring you down. This island needs people like you and Stuart Syvret and indeed all the bloggers who tell it how it is.

Democracy will come to this island and the guilty will get held to account, but you can be sure it's not going to happen without a fight with every dirty trick in the book used against anybody who tries to upset the status quo.

Anonymous said...

an ex policeman who worked in childrens serice and lives in st martins even without naming by the media wasnt hard to workout who he was.no smoke without fire.If he is innocent then he has nothing to worry about but as previously stated it is pending further investigations. By the way with reference to previous posthow can you be allegedly arrested you either are or not and do you consider yourelf popular because i cant see anywhere where you have said that you are?

Anonymous said...

Simon

I see you have touched a nerve with certain people.

The person used to work in the XXXXXX services but doesn't
Why was he moved?
I hope the police look at this part

Chin up Simon - you have a lot of support within the service and people know this.

Thanks to you, kids in care have slightly more rights than they previously did.

You didn't take the job in Jersey to go to war, you did it to provide a service.
It is sad that you have lost your career for being humane and ethical, I and others owe you so much. You are a good man in a bad world.

Anonymous said...

Simon

The people who have been scathing about your actions have missed the point.

You have simply stated a fact.
Given the information that has been put into the public arena in the last few weeks it's clear that some people are going to be interviewed under caution.

Looks like truth is starting to hurt some people

Anonymous said...

The point many of you are missing about the naming of "XXXX XXXX" is that, in a small community, mud sticks.

You only have to look at the example of Alphonse Le Gastellois, the man who was falsely accused of being the Beast of Jersey (Ted Paisnel) and who exiled himself to the Echrehous in protest, for 14 years.

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/32717-49199.htm

Ask Syvret about him.

For clarity, I am not the same anonymous as before, I have no connection with XXXX XXXX. I am motivated to write because your self appointed role of judge and jury deeply troubles me.

I concur with the other poster: if you google XXXX XXXX's name, your blog is - still, tonight - result no 1.

Anonymous said...

Pardon my ignorance but it was my understanding that Mr Bellwood was sacked for incompetence and not for whistleblowing. Didn't he admit that at the tribunal? In that case, why is this man being hailed as some kind of hero??!!

Simon Bellwood - The Whistleblower said...

Re Sacked for incompetence not whistleblowing

Just for clarity of information - I did not admit or suggest that I was sacked for incompetence at the tribunal.

Neither did I claim that I was sacked for whistleblowing. Regardless of my view on this matter, Jersey has no law to substantiate such a claim, so that is why I acepted the States of Jersey's request to write in the joint statement that, "I have never claimed, and do not now claim, that I was sacked for whistleblowing".

That was the only thing they seemed to care about!

Keep these comments coming, this has been the best post so far.

It is about time we had a lively discussion, with differing views -this subject really has got up some of your noses.

I will do a post tomorrow night drawing on the comments of this blog.

Please keep posting.

Anonymous said...

Mud sticks
Nah read the magistrates court report JEP 17/3/06
Went on to get a senior position

Then of course there are those who have been convicted of drug offences who remain in post in H&SS.

Anonymous said...

As I understand it - xxxxxx has been released pending further enquiries.............

Obvioulsy people will wonder what has occured here xxxx may have been questioned about his handling of complaints and not his sexual behaviour.

I agree that he should not be judged in cyberspace - let justice take it's course - this enquiry should be rigourous so if he is found to be not guilty of any crime then let it be, if on the other hand he is a guilty man then let justice takes it's course.

Personally I think the appointment of Simon Bellwood was one of the best things that has happened in this island for along time. For far too long there have been cover ups in Jersey, the present turmoil is long overdue!

I live by HDLG and I knew some of the children that were in there one of whom recently appeared in a Sunday paper - there were four of his family in care, their mother had died.

They were beautiful children blond and blue eyed, nicely spoken and well mannered - I actually cried when I saw a picture of him in the paper and heard how his life had panned out - it was difficult to relate this man to the boy I had known.

Spare a thought for every victim in this debacle - IF XXXX is a good man then people will come to his aid, I have to believe that.

Anonymous said...

Simon

Are you aware that Jane Pollard - wife of Mike Pollard is now Assistant Director of States Human Resources. In other words number two in the department to Critch.

You never stood a chance mate.

Ah nepotism don't you just love it!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm interesting. The comment was made earlier that "I hope they write a further post with their comments as this will provide for a truly balanced discussion." (it being suggested that those of us who DARE to disagree with this self congratulatory line of 'discussion' must be "those who work at Greenfields, or perhaps the Alternative Curriculum and do not like the fact that the system they ran was abusive to children."
Finally. "tell us more" you suggest.

Interesting that I have tried to tell more- but my posts aren't being published-to make it look like you have 'scared me away' I suspect?

Nice try.

Just in case you publish this, no I don't work in the Greenfields world, never have, don't work in the public sector. But even if I did, you are totally missing the point. Please read my post again. Its about naming an man in police custody who hasn't been charged. Its EMPHATICALLY NOT about the treatment of staff at Greenfields, or the treatment of the children. that is another matter about which i also have very strong views. I'm old enough to remember Alphonse le Gastelois (and Paisnel, obviously therefore).

In case (just in case) you publish this- here is the summary of my argument.

No one should take the law into their own hands in this or any other way. To demand that the full consequences of the due legal process be applied on behalf of the victims (absolutely right) but to then select which bits of the consequences of the process are to be applied to those we have decided for ourselves to be perpetrators without any evidence, to make us feel better, may appeal to some but it is still wrong. Or don't we think the law applies to everyone? Oh-btw, before someone says it-its nothing to do with whether XXXXX is or is not guilty-that's not your decision. Nor mine.

I know I'm on a hiding to nothing here. If XXXX is ever charged and convicted, I expect you will say 'told you so'. If he is not, you will no doubt say 'he got away with it' (despite a full legal process led by no less policeman than Lenny Harper, a man more professionally robust than virtually any other I've seen in action.

Anonymous said...

So facts cannot be brought into the open because it may be construed as judging an individual

Rubbish - it's a fact and nothing can be inferred from this fact.

Another attempt to curtail information and yet signifcant rights are being eroded in the Island. For example

The Minister for Home affairs has authorised indefinate detention. This was done without consultation or political debate. What sort of a constitution do we have if we can sleep walk into tolalitarian practises

Commentators moan about naming individuals as being unjust and judgemental. No it is not, it is simply a reporting an event. As for mud sticking - there have been no resignations. There has been no charge so what can anybody say apart from released without charges.
That means no evidence and the burden of proof is not on the individual to prove himself innocent. It is a fundamental principle of our law that the individual is innocent.

Unless of course the Minister has changed that.

I am more concerned about the state of justice in the island with the introduction of indefinate detention, than a civil servant's hurt feelings

He is paid enough to be less sensitive.

Anonymous said...

Some of these arguments really are descending into the borderline nonsensical.
First-lets separate two issues-the indefinite detention debacle is a monstrous interference with anyone's freedom and needs to be rescinded immediately. I'm not arguing against the points made .

However, to say that facts can always be brought out into the open because nothing can be inferred from it is simply untrue. It is human nature to want to infer from specific facts to broader conclusions. I'm getting tired of referring to that famous victim of injustice Alphonse le Gastelois.

As for it being "another attempt to curtail information' can I remind us that just because we live in the information world doesn't entitle us to all information. If it does, please post your medical records on this site. After all, no-one will infer anything, will they???!!!


And btw I'm not 'moaning' about naming individuals as being unjust and judgemental. I'm objecting to gung ho lay people thinking they know more than a full time dedicated police investigation. Just how does the capacity to object to the indefinite detention (a human right in the midst of criminal invetigations) fit in with breaking the rule that only persons "charged" (note that word -its not spelt a-c-c-u-s-e-d)? Or are you now the arbitrator of what rules can and can't be adhered to?

Now this: "As for mud sticking - there have been no resignations. There has been no charge so what can anybody say apart from released without charges".
I'll tell you what they can say-they can say "nudge nudge, wink wink, no smoke without fire, eh? etc. And what., pray, is the connection between mud sticking and resignations? You've lost me there. People labeled as guilty of crimes (and again lets note that this is about people generally-I'm not saying anything about the man named that stared this whole thing off) having to resign is probably the least of your problems. If you don't know what the actual consequences can be, then that's really worrying.

As for the comments about "a civil servant's hurt feelings"-are you really so uninformed? Do you really think this is about HURT FEELINGS?

"He is paid enough to be less sensitive."

Listen. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. Once (as Ms Kinnard needs to realise) you start messing with the need for the application of the rule of law to be protected by safeguards we are on a steep short and very slippery slope to totalitarianism. And in one breath you condemn the detention ruling, then applaud those who in another closely related area take the law into their own hands.
Remember martin Niemoller:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Now lets make this something for Jersey in 2008:
"First we started ignoring the rights of accused persons...

You can fill in the rest for yourself.

TonyB said...

Now lets make this something for Jersey in 2008:
"First we started ignoring the rights of accused persons...

Thats easy! First we started ignoring the rights of accused persons...and then we get Wendy Kinnard to rescind Habeas Corpus because the law draftsmen dropped a clanger, and various magistrates didn't want to lose valuable golf and cocktail party time.

Local Boy In The Photograph said...

Tony B-my observations and the quote from Niemoller were deadly serious. Please don't make it out to be a joke.
As to the folly of pre-judging the guilt or innocence ahead of a proper police investigation, please read this extract from the BBC News in 1999. It's about Alphonse le Gastelois, who was suspected by the good people of Jersey of being "The Beast":

"After 40 hours of questioning, detectives found nothing to connect him to the decade-long series of attacks on women and children.

But his name was released to the press and he became the subject of a hate campaign on the island.

He was forced to flee to Ecrehous, a tiny reef between Jersey and France and only returned when the real offender was caught and sentenced 14 years later.

He now lives in a tiny damp house owned by the Government of Jersey, the Island States, in extreme poverty."

This is what happens when we start the tabloid press attitude to "name and shame". It MUST be left to the police, and Courts. That's when we get our say-via a jury. (If anybody ever gets that far thanks to Senator Kinnard's new rules).

PS I'm no longer blogging anonymously-as you can see.

Anonymous said...

with ref to your demands from Social Security - can anyone confirn that if you are unemokiyed do you have to pay contributions - YES or No. I choose to be unemployed and manage on my pension I do not seek orreceive any benefits - I understand my OAP will be reduced as a consequence - I se that as my choice ....I have tried to get an answer fron the Social Sec dept but they are not forthcoming with a definitive answer..is there anyone out there that can answer my query???
Regards JB