Monday, 16 June 2008

Response to Comments

Dear All

I am sorry for the delay in responding to comments, which have turned out to be something of a hot topic.

Despite my lack of attention, I am very pleased to read that people have started to create a dialogue amongst themselves which, in my view, is great news.

So that we make take this to another level please can I ask people to sign the end of the comments with a name.

You do not need to register, you will still come up as anonymous but you will simply write a name or initials at the end of each of your comments.

This way it will make it easier for people to respond to each other rather than everyone being call Anon!!

In response to your comments I offer you the following.

My mentioning the name of the arrested man

I wrote a very brief post on Thursday late afternoon and then retracted the identity of the man the following morning.

Firstly, I would like to again apologise to this man and his family as this decision, on my part, was made in haste.

This was not done as a personal vendetta against this man, this was done because I felt the net had started to close in on those senior civil servants that have managed to cover up disasters in the children's service for years.

This was a big piece of news and I acted inappropriately.

Will the States close my site down?

They might do, we all know they would like to.

I have been receiving correspondence from Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner for some time and she has told me that she will be taking action against me as of the 4th June.

I have taken a leaf out of the States of Jersey book and have ignored her!!

If she does take action I will post it all on here, I will also be reporting her to the States of Jersey police for harassment and intimidation of a witness.

If I get taken to court for breach of Data Protection I will be asking for handouts to pay the fine, I would also enjoy making public all of my concerns which I am trying to raise through my blog.

The attention that a court case would attract from the worlds media would serve my blog, and my cause, well!

Interestingly, the Social Security Department have threatened legal action as well, as I have not paid any social security since I was sacked.

They have assessed me on my salary for the States of Jersey which was nearly 50K, now I am earning a pittance. I told them my choice was simple, I can choose to pay them or feed my daughter and not go bankrupt.

I think they may choose not to take legal action, if they do, I might quite enjoy it.

You should act more responsibly given your professional background, but then I shouldn't be surprised given your past behaviour

Can the person who wrote this post please be brave enough to contact me or this blog further as I would like to discuss this matter in more depth. I am curious to understand what my past behaviour was that has failed to surprise the author?

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!!

Joe Kennedy and the XXXX man were colleagues. The XXXX man was in the meeting with Joe Kennedy when the member of staff was allowed to resign in October 2006 after he (the member of staff) had got a client of social services pregnant. Actually, they told the man that he either resigns now or they will sack him - all tbhis before they had even heard his point of view or considered a disciplinary route. Phil Dennett investiagted the matter but, hey, we all know the answer there.

The man resigned with immediate affect rather than Joe Kennedy and the arrested man pursuing disciplinary action.

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!

I do post all comments. There are only 3 comments since I began this blog that I have chosen not to post. Two of these were for reasons of libel as the author accused people of wrongdoing and there was no evidence to substantiate such claims.

The third one was about the author not feeling endeared to me after I said that I did not care about Jersey's international reputation if it was at the cost of good childcare - a comment I still stand by.

The reason I chose not to post this was because it served no purpose to what my blog was about.

I fully accept that not all readers will agree with me. I have not done what I have done to win popularity, generally if you want to be popular you become all things to all people. That clearly is not me.

I am loved by some and hated by many - this I accept.

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.

I have already covered this but I would like to point out that although I named this person I did not judge him. I simply stated that he had been arrested, a fact which was true and undisputed.

I made no judgement and I certainly did not convict him as suggested. I am not excusing my actions I am simply placing them back into the context they have been removed from.

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

I agree that mud sticks but I did not miss the point, this is why I removed it. Also, this comment went on to say I was self appointed judge and jury, I have already mentioned, I made no judgement etc etc. It was a mistake, it was rectified.

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?

I was sacked for incapability yet the States of Jersey have never provided any evidence of this apart from a few of Joe Kennedy's buddies saying I was rude and arrogant. The very people who endorsed and sanctioned the grandprix system. The very people who were responsible for its existence.

My view is the only thing I was incompetent at, was unlawfully locking up children, but hey, who I am to play judge and jury.

Just for your information, I was the manager of a Secure Children's Home in the UK for two and a half years before coming to Jersey, I received commendations for my work and I went to the tribunal in Jersey with 30 exemplary references from ex colleagues and peers.

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?

All posts have been published, this is the truth, apart from the three mentioned already but they were in April.

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

I find this totally absurd. What is even more absurd is the following,

1. Those that have been following my blog since the start will have heard of the 15 year female who was held in Greenfields illegally rather than going to La Moye. Why can Senator Kinnard make a decision to indefinitely hold suspects, yet she cannot hold a 15 year old female in Greenfields on a custodial sentence?

2. Based on the above, why can Senator Kinnard not allow young people aged 15 and 16 to serve their sentence at Greenfields? After all, this would only require an address change from La Moye to Greenfields.

As for mud sticking - there have been no resignations.

Please can someone tell me what senior civil servants get sprayed with when they get their well paid jobs?

When I find the secret formula I am going to spay it on saucepans and shovels, I will be the richest man alive - The new teflon. I think Mike Pollard got sprayed twice!

Remember, please sign your comments with a name or inital so that we can track who is saying what.

You can be Koe Jennedy, Dill Pennett, Wrank Falker, Kendy Winnard, or Stuart Syvret!

Thank you for your time.



Anonymous said...

If you do fall out with Emma,I would advise against a trip to 'Midsomer'. laugh


Anonymous said...

Dear Simon

It would be interesting to see the communication with Data Protection and principles you are in breach with your blog

It seems an unusual way of using DP to stifle issues around child protection. Isn't there a public interest here

Pata Drotection

Anonymous said...

Simon, what good is all this XXXX stuff, when the relevant blog entry - even today - still has the address ?

All one needs to do is hover over any of the relevant links on your blog to see it. Or google Danny Wherry's name...

Copy and paste that url into your browser, see what comes up.

So, your apology to him and his family is pretty pointless. I would say that you are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but, erm, you're not even doing that.

And no, I don't even know the fella. I just think you are out of line on this, until such time as he might be charged with an offence. Your apology to him is meaningless.


Simon Bellwood - The Whistleblower said...

Thank you all for using names and initials it does make it much easier to follow.

As for the XXX person being listed on Google, please tell me how I can amend this, I am not a technical person I do not have the expertise to change this.

Also, I find it interesting that AP thinks that my naming of XXX is 'out of line', yet AP goes on to suggest that if XXX is charged it would be okay to name him.

Is the man not still innocent even if he is charged?

I know it is different, but Joe Kennedy was named when he was suspended from work and look at the outome of that.

Joe Kennedy is an innocent man, he had done nothing wrong!!!

Another point, not to excuse my behaviour here but, have you also written to the Sun and Mirror AP, they have 6 million readers between them, I have less than 100 a day.


Anonymous said...

Hi Simon,

AP here. If you want to, I think you'll have to completely rename the original post, to get rid of the person's name in the url. I'm not a user of google's blogging site, so this is just a guess. Sorry I can't help more.

You've kind of compounded the error, by repeating the name in my earlier comment. I did expect you to edit it out, given the nature of the discussion - I used the name just to make the point to you. I'd be grateful if you could remove the name from the earlier comment if you can.

If "XXXX" is charged, it is OK to name him. The police will do so. That's the accepted norm.

No, I haven't written to the Sun and the Mirror. For all I know, the tabloids could have got the information from your blog. Or, it was leaked to them, I dunno. The difference is: they're scumbag tabloid journos, you're not. I expect it from them.