Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Is it acceptable to blackmail politicans? - A reply to a comment

Is it acceptable to blackmail politicians?

Well, actually, I think it is yes. At least it is when you are challenging the widespread cover up of child abuse and the unethical standards of child care.

Or, if those politicians are trying to tell the world that a wholly negative, albeit diplomatically written, report has given the Health and Social Services Dept a 'clean bill of health'.

Also, the 'Anon' person who asked the question, I have a question in return.

Have you read the actual report? It is only 31 pages long. Or have you just read the spin from the States' communications dept and the JEP?

A further point to your question, take a look at the dictionary definition of blackmail.

You will see that what I did was actually not blackmail, it was a simple threat.

A mere highlighting of a consequence should they choose not to comply with my request.

This leads me on to - was my request reasonable?

Giving them an hour to reply on a Sunday evening?

Probably not I would say.

So, why did I do it?

I did it to raise the profile of the report in order to prevent the States spinning it as they do with everything - as they had done up until Monday.

I strongly urge everyone to read the report and make a comment. If you take the time you will see that it is actually very critical of the States, the children's service and child protection system.

This is not about the staff, this is about the systems, the senior civil service - not front line staff.

In fact, it is highly critical, in particular of the Children's Executive.

This is why, on BBC radio yesterday I asked for the resignation of both Phil Dennett and Marnie Baudains.

The very people who were head of the Children's Service and head of Social Services, respectively, when Kathy Bull completed her review. They should have been fired then.

So, with all the resources that the Bull report gave them, all the recommendations, the free reign to develop new strategies, new standards, new services. What have they done, nothing, apart from f**king it up royally that's what.

Phil Dennett, amongst other things endorsed and promoted a regime of solitary confinement, a system designed to ensure compliance through fear of reprisal. As for Marnie Baudains, she didn't even know about it - what does that say, for a women at the helm of social services?

If anyone can provide me with a convincing argument of why they should stay then I will listen. My view from the information I have on them, nothing will move forwards until they go, they are incapable of driving the service forwards.

They had their opportunity after Kathy Bull, they crashed and burned - big time.

That is why I have started the Poll, you can vote, have your say.

I have one further question;

- can anyone tell me more of a recent incident which has supposedly led to a senior manager within the Children's Executive being suspended for alleged physical child abuse?

Please don't use names as it will not be published here.



Anonymous said...

Marnie Baudains has always stated that external inspection is not helpful.

Given that the Williamson report has suggested this does occur she may find herself conflicted and resign on principle.

She will not be sacked, that sanction is reserved for the whistle blowers.

Isolation, restaint are condoned in the service.

If they were serious about reform they would have acted by now.

Mike Pollard and Jim Perchard think its a world class service

The Williamson Report is critical
but carefully worded to maintain a bland front to the speed readers

Who knows there may be another version which is not for public consumption. Of course we will never know because we have no Freedom of Information Law

Keep the facts from public and bury the evidence. That's the life enriching reponse of the select few in our small banana republic!

Banana Peeler

TonyTheProf said...

Incompetent civil servants rarely resign unless involved in illegality and a resultant criminal prosecution. How many could you name in the UK who have?

They normally just get moved to another department - or promoted - or both. Or get nice severance packages and take early retirement.

You have to put yourself in their shoes. You have a fairly secure job, good money (and a family to support), you have made some bad mistakes, but nothing criminal. Wouldn't you just keep your head down and carry on? Realistically not.

Anonymous said...

More balderdash from the spin doctors of Europe.

These people are above the law their buddies will see they are well looked after. Welfare doesn't exist, apperances are all that matters even if they have to be prefabricated to fit the bill.