Thursday, 7 August 2008

Blog Comment - for discussion

Sorry for my delay in posting further. I have been tied up trying to get my new business going, and fighting the States of Jersey as they persist in trying to prevent me and my family from staying in our family home.

Anyway, that is a post for another day.

I was contacted this evening by someone who wrote the following:

"I was quite disturbed today by a conversation I had with a work colleague. Having attended a family b.b.q one of her relatives was very upset that his grand daughter, who is in care had phoned him that evening, worried that she had to have a bath and it was only male staff on duty.

He subsequently phoned the home, to be told, yes due to the holiday roster there were no female staff on duty.

How can this happen in the current light of things.

I am not a care worker or have anything to do with this field but alarm bells are ringing in my ears when a venerable young girl feels so desperate.

Surely their should be a mix of staff at all times.

Are their no set guidelines?"

Any views?

I know what National Minimum Care Standards say but this is Jersey, does anyone know what National Minimum Care (Jersey) Standards guidelines say?!

Unfortunately, it could be argued that there is nothing wrong with this scenario as Jersey have no set standards, preferring to make it up as they go along. As far as good practice is concerned, it would be acceptable to have only male staff on duty during the day, but there should always be one female staff member present at night. However, it should be possible for the young person concerned to feel safe enough in the children's home that they can have a bath, in a bathroom with a locked door, without fearing that anyone will walk in on them.

I would encourage the parent to make a complaint about this, but be warned that there is no proper complaints policy, so the way that the complaint will be dealt with is hit and miss. Probably miss. But it's still worth making the complaint.

Unless of course you're an employee, then you can blow the whistle using the Serious Concerns Policy. My advice on that point would be, don't do it - if you do use it they will get rid of you and then proceed to tell everyone that you were rubbish at your job, ruin your career, make your life hell, and carry on as if nothing happened.

When they have finished doing all this, then you could telephone the Minister, Senator Shenton, and he will reassure that" have been shafted but that's politics; if it wasn't for you, none of these changes would have happened." He might go on to say, "what is said behind closed doors is not what is said to the media."

He might even promise to make a public statement after the summer recess in support of you, but don't hold your breath.


Anonymous said...

Shenton's excuse, like Cohen's regarding his vote in favour of GST , will be "I am a team player".

Are we paying our ministers for being team players or should they have the strength and integrity to go against the groupthink of the establishment, for the greater good. I thought initially Shenton would be an independent thinker but I have never seen anyone go native so quickly. Shame on you, BS.

Regarding your blog, the effect of having no standards will continue because we have no really independent reviews. But dont worry everyone says "we have a world class service". How can they say that - well we pay peole to come in and say that, ie Williamson.

The Upex report was excellent but it was dirtied by the three page preamble from Frank W. The establishment are so scared about being rumbled that lying, deceiving and spoiling some peoples lives are of no consequence.

Anonymous said...

Please could you elaborate on your housing issue?

The impression I have is that you reneged on your deal with the States. Calling your blog The Whistleblower can't have helped.


Simon Bellwood - The Whistleblower said...

Dear BC

On the contrary, I have been very careful not to renege on the agreement that I entered into with the States of Jersey.

My agreement was that I was not 'sacked for whistleblowing'. I did not, and still have not, claimed this.

I did report poor child care practices, which remains a fact, and those practices have since ceased, and that is why I have called my blog the whistleblower.

I would be very interested to understand why you believe that I have reneged on my agreement with the States of Jersey.


Anonymous said...

Because I still don't understand the "I wasn't sacked for whistleblowing" agreement you made, which is in contrast with the subsequent blog name.

You have attempted to explain it before, but I didn't understand your explanation.

To an observer, it looks like you agreed one thing, but did another, that's all.


Simon Bellwood - The Whistleblower said...

Dear BC

The blog is called 'the jersey whistleblower', this does not mean that I am claiming I was sacked because of whitsleblowing.

The fact remains, I did whistleblow.

The difference is that at the time of the tribunal I agreed to sign a statement with the States of Jersey that the reason I was sacked was not because I whistleblew.

The fact still remains, and has never been disputed, that I did blow the whistle - this is the term used when you report poor practice.

Perhaps my explanation is nor very clear but you have to recognise that there is a fundamental difference in saying I was sacked 'for' whistleblowing, and being sack 'after' whistleblowing.

I hope this makes it clearer for you.


Anonymous said...

Thank you Simon, that does make it clearer.

I put two and two together and probably made five, in considering why you would still be having grief with the States, this time in relation to accomodation.

I naturally assumed the blog was the cause of that grief, and that they viewed it as you breaking your agreement.


Anonymous said...

"I thought initially Shenton would be an independent thinker but I have never seen anyone go native so quickly. Shame on you, BS."

You are not alone in this. When Shenton first came into view I, for the first time in a number of years, felt I was seeing a local politician I could have complete faith in.

In recent months that opinion has changed, completely. The man is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

just saw the news today about the police investigation into your tribunal - very best of luck. I just wish Lenny was still here. Do you have a good case? please please post and keep us up to date.


voiceforchildren said...

Simon the rag are denying it's readers (online) to "have your say" so nobody can offer you any support or encouragement on their site.

I wish you all the luck in the world, you and your family, deserve it.

Please keep us posted on here?

Anonymous said...


Who is the senior civil servant?

Perhaps this time justice will be done - the Upex report clearly indicated a biased investigation against you - hopefully the police will be able to prove that this was criminal.

Interestingly Upex use PACE procedures to record his evidence - this means that it can be used in a court of law and it may prove very useful in any future action. Wonder if he has handed his tapes over to the SOJ Police?

We all live in hope!!

Anonymous said...

please update us if you can. I have visited your site about ten times every day over the last two to three weeks hoping that you would have posted again.

Best of luck with the investigation as reported in the JEP tonight. You didnt make it into the Channel News or BBC news -well there is a surprise.

Keep up the good work - you truly are a thorn in their side and no about of surgery is going to sweep this under the carpet.

The best defense is attack.