Part 1 - This covered the Letter from Senator Shenton
Part 2 - This covered the section 'What is Greenfields'.
Part 3 - This will cover 'Les Chene Boys Orgy of Destruction', and more importantly, 'Instructions to Les Chene from The Magistrates Court Greffe'.
Senator Shenton, through his own admission has chosen to cite paragraphs from the JEP instead of citing 'considered and worthy departmental reports...'.
Why?
Why would he use the JEP paragraphs instead. Maybe because their headlines have a greater impact than the wording of a departmental report? A report which talks about young children, a 12 year and a 14 year old!
'Les Chene Boys Orgy of Dustruction',
This does have a much greater affect a report called,
"Incident at Les Chene involving two young boys aged 12 and 14".
Sorry Senator Shenton but this section of your report is complete garbage.
If there are any States Members who cannot see through your spin and diversionary tactics then God help us all.
I am really pleased that you have decided not to go for Chief Minister post.
If this report were to be used as an example you would have the transparency of a house brick.
You would be better off reading story time at the local library; when it is closed!
Moving on, the next section says;
"18 escapes in a five month period".
Did it not occur to anyone that if they keep escaping then the building should be improved. If your rabbit escapes from your garden you fix the fence. Yes?
We have heard time and time again that the Les Chene building was not fit for purpose; It was simply a farmhouse.
It was in use for more than 25 years, why did it not occur to anyone to made some changes? The secure children's home I managed in Essex, UK for two and a half years had no bars on the windows. It has no cell doors. It has no Pits area.
Since it opened in 1994 not one child escaped, not one.
Also, since it opened in 1994 not one child was held in solitary confinement as a punishment.
I have watched a 14 stone young man run at one of these windows that was about 8ft high and 4 ft wide and he bounced off, repeatedly.
All that was needed at Les Chene was proper doors and locks and reinforced double glazed windows.
This, along with better investment in staff.
The very people who the unit is most dependent upon.
The very people who have suffered the most in the past two years.
The very people who are the least to blame for all of this.
It is not rocket science.
So it was just a farmhouse, well you know what, this might work for some readers but in my book this is just a lame excuse. An excuse to justify locking up Jersey's most vulnerable children.
But hey, why spend money on these children when you can just lock them up instead.
To me, this sounds a little like the recent refusal on the part of Senator Shenton, to send three siblings to the UK as it was too expensive. There is no service is Jersey than can provide these three with the specialist treatment that they so desperately need.
We could put the £600,000 per year needed in the rainy day fund instead!
Or, maybe we can invite a few more 11K's to Jersey and charge them virtually zero tax because that would be better for the island wouldn't it?
So, we have seen that its a lack of investment that forced young people to be held in solitary confinement for long periods.
Senator Shenton, when these siblings become so out of control due to the States neglecting their needs will you see that they are locked up in solitary confinement too?
Senator Shenton, when you were a foster carer and they were naughty did you send them to their room? Probably.
What is wrong with this you may say.
Nothing. No until you send them to their room,
lock the door,
remove their personal belongings,
strip them to their boxer shorts,
remove all items from the room apart from a crash mat and a bottle of water,
leave them there for 28 days other than when they want to use the toilet and have some exercise.
Then is it okay?
This brings us to the next section called, 'Instructions to Les Chene from The Magistrates Court Greffe'
The solitary confinement at Les Chene was so effective that the magistrates decided why stop it.
What did they do?
Did they help develop better alternatives to custody?
Did they provide more wide ranging community sentence options?
Did they look at preventative interventions such as working with the family?
No.
They formally ordered that vulnerable children should be locked into solitary confinement as they saw fit.
That's right, the Magistrates, only five years ago, ordered children into solitary confinement.
That meant the next "12 and 14 year old [who] went on the rampage" would now be ordered into solitary confinement until the magistrates decided otherwise.
Cast your mind back to a few weeks ago, who topped the polls?
Ian Le Marquand.
Yep, one of the magistrates who masterminded the whole thing.
What does that tell us?
Not only was this guy allowed to do this but the people of Jersey liked him so much that he topped the polls!
Now he wants to run the Home Affairs department!
This is all mad. Seemingly, the majority of Jersey people support this approach.
I don't actually consider myself to be liberal but when you consider this, it could be argued that Hitler was liberal!
In this section of the report Senator Shenton does not use the words 'solitary confinement' or 'single separation', but do not be fooled.
The statement refers to 'secure unit', 'secure room' and 'locked part of the school'.
This area later became known as the Pits.
This was solitary confinement.
Let me remind you of the interview I did with a young man a couple of weeks ago at the JEP office.
He was given a 'secure remand' as it was know then. This is exactly what Senator Shenton refers to above.
In the case of this young man, solitary confinement for 28 days.
Yet despite this information, many people in Jersey still consider this practice to be okay?
Who was the AG at this time. Who was it before 2000?
I know it was William Balliache from 2000, he was in charge at the time when the Magistartes order them into solitary confinement.
As the AG he must have endorsed the order.
Getting back to resources and money.
Senator Shenton concludes this section by pointing out once again that the building, staffing, training and behaviour management were lacking.
So much so that children were locked up in solitary confinement.
I am sorry that I have used the word solitary confinement so many times but it is needed. We need people to really understand what this was like. Young children locked in a room on their own for weeks, with limited staff/child interaction and virtually no stimulation whatsoever.
Whether they were horrible little brats or not is irrelevant.
I would not subject my dog to such treatment.
Would you?
Joe Kenendy has not been mentioned yet, and lets face it, it is no secret that he is not very high up on my Christmas list.
It has to be said, there are few people in this world that I dislike. In fact, I could count them on one hand.
I have said publicly before, he bullied me, this man literally reduced me to tears.
He really is a bully and a control freak through and through.
He is also ill equipped to be doing the job he is doing.
Since his return from suspension he has not been seen by staff from one month to the next.
Some staff have not seen him since his return four months ago.
However, I do have one good thing to say about him.
He put an end to the Magistrates locking the children up.
Yes, he stopped them doing it. Well done Joe Kennedy.
But before you get too excited, I wrote earlier that he is a bully and a control freak.
Yes he is.
Although he stopped the Magistrates locking them up, he did it himself instead.
He brought along the Grand Prix system which meant that young people were locked in solitary through this system instead of the Magistrates doing it. More of that in Part 4.
Enough of my rant this evening.
If you (States Members included) cannot see that this whole thing is a cover up then there is something wrong.
I have a question to end on.
When the Howard League for Penal Reform first visited Jersey in May of this year they came arrived on a Sunday evening.
Who invited himself to see them 9am on Monday morning?
The Bailiff, Sir Phillip Ballaiche.
Why?
Simon
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Friday, 28 November 2008
My Response - Part 2
Over the coming days I will write my response to Senator Shenton's report.
In my post yesterday I discussed the letter from Senator Shenton but there is one element which leaves me confused.
At the top of the letter is says;
"Our ref: BES/JLP/LAW"
Can anyone tell me what this refers to?
My thoughts are that 'LAW' suggests that it was written or checked by the States of Jersey Law Department. Can anyone shed light on this for me?
I also think that Senator Shenton's numerous references to confidentiality within his letter was intentional. I believe that he did this to offer himself some protection should there be any dispute about defamation etc, knowing full well that the letter would be leaked to the media.
I don't suppose he expected that the leak to the JEP would have been from me though!
The Report
Greenfields - Time for the Truth
That's the first lie, right there in the title, a good start Senator!
In the opening paragraph Senator Shenton suggests that the truth has not been conveyed accurately and this needs to be rectified. He goes on to say, "This task falls to me".
Clearly Senator Shenton is taking full responsibility for the content of both the letter and the report.
What is Greenfields?
This section is very confusing and I apologise if I do not make it any clearer for you. I will try my best to explain things as clearly and simply as I can.
At the start of this section Senator Shenton's report suggests that the detractors (assuming he means me and Senator Syvret), 'either mischievously or out of ignorance seek to confuse..."
I agree that Les Chene/Greenfields is an area which has left some people confused and the majority, but not all, of what Senator Shenton writes here is true.
However, in this section Senator Shenton simply seeks to further confuse people as this is a red herring.
Whether it is called Les Chene or Greenfields makes no difference whatsoever to the allegations that I made in January 2007.
Remember this, my allegations were about the practices that took place and not what the building was called.
One of the things that Senator Shenton seeks to achieve in this section is for people to believe that the Grand Prix system did not take place in Greenfields Secure Unit.
This is merely spin.
That said, this is an important part of the report and I will return to this in a moment.
Senator Shenton, refers to the report written by Dr Kathie Bull, which was commissioned by the Education Sport and Culture Committee.
What Senator Shenton fails to point out is that the Kathie Bull report was commissioned following a complaint from a child who was resident at Les Chene.
The complaint was against the Headteacher and the Deputy Headteacher.
No names mentioned here but consider this, if a man-sells his dog then he will have to wag-it himself!
Senator Shenton's report clearly suggests that the commissioning of Kathie Bull was a proactive 'realisation' by the Education Sport and Culture committee.
This was not proactive and my point is further evidenced on page 318 of the Kathie Bull report in paragraph 10, which states,
This complaint (or incident as Kathie Bull suggests) resulted in a police investigation where both the headteacher and the deputy headteacher were interviewed.
Interestingly, one of the comments made during these interviews was, "Do you know who I am?"
What Senator Shenton also fails to point in his report is that Kathie Bull's findings were highly critical, particularly of Les Chene.
A view that has been recently echoed by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Senator Shenton goes on to suggest that following the Kathie Bull report, Les Chene, was redesignated as a remand centre and renamed Greenfields.
Finally he says that the Greenfields Secure Unit opened in October 2006. This point needs to be considered further.
At the start of this section called, 'What is Greenfields', Senator Shenton stated that 'the detractors' sought to confuse by misusing the term 'Greenfields'.
Senator Shenton has done just that. Are you confused? You should be.
His report suggests that from 2003 when Les Chene was redesignated as a remand centre and called Greenfields, nothing changed further until the new building opened in October 2006.
This is simply not true.
Not that this is significant but the new 'Greenfields Secure Unit' did not simply appear when the new building opened. Nothing changed in October 2006 other than staff and residents moved from one building to the other.
Senator Shenton goes on to say, "... I wish to make it clear that at no time did the Grand Prix system operate in the Greenfields Secure Unit."
For me, this is the most interesting point.
Why would Senator Shenton wish to make this point so very clear'?
What does this achieve?
During the past few weeks Senator Shenton and others have made it clear that they do not consider that the Grand Prix system was abusive or illegal.
The reason for this is very obvious and I will go into this in detail at a later date (this is why I need to know who the Attorney Generals of Jersey have been. Has anyone found the full details yet?).
Joe Kennedy, Senator Perchard, Senator Walker, Senator Vibert, Deputy Lewis and others have all defended the Grand Prix system, saying that there was nothing wrong with it other that the 'unfortunate wording'!
Has anyone spoken to the children or staff about it or have they just spoken to Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett?
Andrew Williamson, Madeleine Davies and the Howard League have all spoken to staff and young people.
I will go into more detail about that another time but if any staff or ex-residents want to comment on here that would be great.
Getting back to the point, why would Senator Shenton want us to believe that the Grand Prix system did not operate in the new building?
What would his point be?
He reinforces his point further in the final paragraph of this section where he writes,
The point, regardless of what the building was called, regardless of whether it was 2003 or 2006, is to avoid the question of whether the Grand Prix system was abusive. I think his report answers this itself.
Senator Shenton is not stupid, the man used to be a foster carer. If he fostered a fractious child would he have put them in the Pits for three days?
My concern is that we have been hearing what the politicians think about whether something was right or wrong.
Do we really care what a politicians opinion is on such a specialist subject?
They are politicians, not experts in this field.
They are advised by people like Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett.
This is not a criticism of Senator Shenton or Senator Perchard but simply a statement of fact.
Who feeds them with this information, it is not the staff on the cold face, it is not the children!
Why do some people choose not to listen to the experts?
These experts have made comments publicly, they have published their reports, surely we should be listening to them and not the politicians?
Whilst some would argue that the Howard League for Penal Reform are liberal in their views, one cannot argue that their interpretation of the Law is less informed than two politicians with backgrounds in finance and farming!
The Howard League for Penal Reform wrote in their report,
So they think that although the Grand Prix system was unlawful, what was there before was even worse?
Reading into Senator Shenton's report, what was there before must have been before Joe Kennedy arrived in 2004?
Who were the managers before Joe Kennedy.
Can anyone provide a chronology of managers?
Going back to the experts views, Andrew Williamson cited in his report;
He went on to say;
On that note I will end.
On a different point - it has been almost a week since I wrote to Senator Walker informing him that I have the evidence that he has asked for.
He has not replied.
I have the evidence, much of which has not been reported publicly.
His refusal can only be seen as a gross failure in public office.
A stance which clearly supports the cover up instigated by a number of senior civil servants and politicians who are responsible for the welfare and protection of the islands most vulnerable young people.
Sorry that this post is so confusing, it is a complex area which is extremely difficult to explain in simply and clear terms.
I will continue with the next section tomorrow and answer any questions you may have.
Simon
In my post yesterday I discussed the letter from Senator Shenton but there is one element which leaves me confused.
At the top of the letter is says;
"Our ref: BES/JLP/LAW"
Can anyone tell me what this refers to?
My thoughts are that 'LAW' suggests that it was written or checked by the States of Jersey Law Department. Can anyone shed light on this for me?
I also think that Senator Shenton's numerous references to confidentiality within his letter was intentional. I believe that he did this to offer himself some protection should there be any dispute about defamation etc, knowing full well that the letter would be leaked to the media.
I don't suppose he expected that the leak to the JEP would have been from me though!
The Report
Greenfields - Time for the Truth
That's the first lie, right there in the title, a good start Senator!
In the opening paragraph Senator Shenton suggests that the truth has not been conveyed accurately and this needs to be rectified. He goes on to say, "This task falls to me".
Clearly Senator Shenton is taking full responsibility for the content of both the letter and the report.
What is Greenfields?
This section is very confusing and I apologise if I do not make it any clearer for you. I will try my best to explain things as clearly and simply as I can.
At the start of this section Senator Shenton's report suggests that the detractors (assuming he means me and Senator Syvret), 'either mischievously or out of ignorance seek to confuse..."
I agree that Les Chene/Greenfields is an area which has left some people confused and the majority, but not all, of what Senator Shenton writes here is true.
However, in this section Senator Shenton simply seeks to further confuse people as this is a red herring.
Whether it is called Les Chene or Greenfields makes no difference whatsoever to the allegations that I made in January 2007.
Remember this, my allegations were about the practices that took place and not what the building was called.
One of the things that Senator Shenton seeks to achieve in this section is for people to believe that the Grand Prix system did not take place in Greenfields Secure Unit.
This is merely spin.
That said, this is an important part of the report and I will return to this in a moment.
Senator Shenton, refers to the report written by Dr Kathie Bull, which was commissioned by the Education Sport and Culture Committee.
What Senator Shenton fails to point out is that the Kathie Bull report was commissioned following a complaint from a child who was resident at Les Chene.
The complaint was against the Headteacher and the Deputy Headteacher.
No names mentioned here but consider this, if a man-sells his dog then he will have to wag-it himself!
Senator Shenton's report clearly suggests that the commissioning of Kathie Bull was a proactive 'realisation' by the Education Sport and Culture committee.
This was not proactive and my point is further evidenced on page 318 of the Kathie Bull report in paragraph 10, which states,
"Since the incident which prompted the 2001 Review of the remand provision...".
This complaint (or incident as Kathie Bull suggests) resulted in a police investigation where both the headteacher and the deputy headteacher were interviewed.
Interestingly, one of the comments made during these interviews was, "Do you know who I am?"
What Senator Shenton also fails to point in his report is that Kathie Bull's findings were highly critical, particularly of Les Chene.
A view that has been recently echoed by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Senator Shenton goes on to suggest that following the Kathie Bull report, Les Chene, was redesignated as a remand centre and renamed Greenfields.
Finally he says that the Greenfields Secure Unit opened in October 2006. This point needs to be considered further.
At the start of this section called, 'What is Greenfields', Senator Shenton stated that 'the detractors' sought to confuse by misusing the term 'Greenfields'.
Senator Shenton has done just that. Are you confused? You should be.
His report suggests that from 2003 when Les Chene was redesignated as a remand centre and called Greenfields, nothing changed further until the new building opened in October 2006.
This is simply not true.
Not that this is significant but the new 'Greenfields Secure Unit' did not simply appear when the new building opened. Nothing changed in October 2006 other than staff and residents moved from one building to the other.
Senator Shenton goes on to say, "... I wish to make it clear that at no time did the Grand Prix system operate in the Greenfields Secure Unit."
For me, this is the most interesting point.
Why would Senator Shenton wish to make this point so very clear'?
What does this achieve?
During the past few weeks Senator Shenton and others have made it clear that they do not consider that the Grand Prix system was abusive or illegal.
The reason for this is very obvious and I will go into this in detail at a later date (this is why I need to know who the Attorney Generals of Jersey have been. Has anyone found the full details yet?).
Joe Kennedy, Senator Perchard, Senator Walker, Senator Vibert, Deputy Lewis and others have all defended the Grand Prix system, saying that there was nothing wrong with it other that the 'unfortunate wording'!
Has anyone spoken to the children or staff about it or have they just spoken to Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett?
Andrew Williamson, Madeleine Davies and the Howard League have all spoken to staff and young people.
I will go into more detail about that another time but if any staff or ex-residents want to comment on here that would be great.
Getting back to the point, why would Senator Shenton want us to believe that the Grand Prix system did not operate in the new building?
What would his point be?
He reinforces his point further in the final paragraph of this section where he writes,
"Unless you understand these fundamental distinctions, you will understandably be confused about whether policies and practices which were in use in the Les Chene farmhouse were also operating in the new and modern Greenfields Secure Unit".
The point, regardless of what the building was called, regardless of whether it was 2003 or 2006, is to avoid the question of whether the Grand Prix system was abusive. I think his report answers this itself.
Senator Shenton is not stupid, the man used to be a foster carer. If he fostered a fractious child would he have put them in the Pits for three days?
My concern is that we have been hearing what the politicians think about whether something was right or wrong.
Do we really care what a politicians opinion is on such a specialist subject?
They are politicians, not experts in this field.
They are advised by people like Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett.
This is not a criticism of Senator Shenton or Senator Perchard but simply a statement of fact.
Who feeds them with this information, it is not the staff on the cold face, it is not the children!
Why do some people choose not to listen to the experts?
These experts have made comments publicly, they have published their reports, surely we should be listening to them and not the politicians?
Whilst some would argue that the Howard League for Penal Reform are liberal in their views, one cannot argue that their interpretation of the Law is less informed than two politicians with backgrounds in finance and farming!
The Howard League for Penal Reform wrote in their report,
9.26 As we have previously stated in Para 1.1, we certainly believe that the Grand Prix system was unlawful. However, some of the most serious allegations we heard, related to events prior to the establishment of the Grand Prix".
So they think that although the Grand Prix system was unlawful, what was there before was even worse?
Reading into Senator Shenton's report, what was there before must have been before Joe Kennedy arrived in 2004?
Who were the managers before Joe Kennedy.
Can anyone provide a chronology of managers?
Going back to the experts views, Andrew Williamson cited in his report;
5.11 However, to use single separation/isolation, the process whereby children are forcible removed from association with others and confined to a room on their own as a form of punishment for misbehaviour, is clearly inappropriate and should never be sanctioned by any care regime.
He went on to say;
5.16 There are at least two versions of what happened there and the only comment that we can make on the subject is that, if a prima facie case exists or emerges that the system, and therefore children, were abused, action should be taken against those responsible.
On that note I will end.
On a different point - it has been almost a week since I wrote to Senator Walker informing him that I have the evidence that he has asked for.
He has not replied.
I have the evidence, much of which has not been reported publicly.
His refusal can only be seen as a gross failure in public office.
A stance which clearly supports the cover up instigated by a number of senior civil servants and politicians who are responsible for the welfare and protection of the islands most vulnerable young people.
Sorry that this post is so confusing, it is a complex area which is extremely difficult to explain in simply and clear terms.
I will continue with the next section tomorrow and answer any questions you may have.
Simon
Thursday, 27 November 2008
My Response - Part 1
The letter and report, supposedly written by Senator Shenton and co-signed by Senator Perchard, is as it suggests a statement of fact. The letter states,
“…we have had to describe in the attached report all of the facts relating to this man’s employment so that a full and balanced consideration can be made by you [States Members]”.
Senator Shenton also re-emphasises this point in his next paragraph,
“…understand these matters because unless you have the full facts before you, you will be unable to reach balanced and considered judgements…”
I think we can assume therefore that the Senator is making it clear that what is written in this report is factual.
I have sent this document to the Police as further evidence in their ongoing investigation.
In March of this year the States of Jersey submitted written statements and reports to the Employment Tribunal. This tribunal is a Court of Law, in doing so their actions moved away from being civil matters to being possible criminal matters.
If anyone knowingly lied in statements or reports which were later submitted before the tribunal they could now face criminal charges. This includes any person employed by the States of Jersey regardless of their seniority.
This may concern anyone who wrote a witness statement for the tribunal.
If it was me, and I had lied, I would now be seeking legal advice or going to confession this Sunday.
If anyone wrote a statement but never got a copy of it then let me know as I have them all on file.
I will happily send you what was written, perhaps what they wrote on your behalf and then put your name to it even!
To date, I have given two separate statements to the police, the most recent one was on Tuesday this week. The day that the report was sent in the post to all States Members by Senator Shenton.
I cannot say any more at this stage because it is subject of an ongoing police inquiry, however, in a couple of weeks time I will be able to discuss this in more detail – all will become clear in due course!
Senator Shenton states in his report that he will be making no public comment on the matter in either the letter or the report.
We will have to wait and see; I bet he does.
I will of course dissect this letter and report on here in due course.
This report is cleverly written, I will admit that, but the report is full of lies and diversionary spin. The lies will be proven to be so; that I can promise.
Lets face it, if you were me and you had lied, would you write a blog? Would you go live on TV? Would you do live interviews on the radio? Would you have done a Saturday Interview in the JEP? I doubt it.
I will be offering to meet with States Members in due course so that they can see the evidence that I have available (as Frank Walker has refused to see it) and provide them with an opportunity to ask me any questions.
I am happy to share this meeting with Senator Shenton, Senator Perchard and Joe Kennedy if they would like to. I would be more than willing to be questioned together.
During the last two weeks I have also asked the local TV stations, radio and JEP to interview me alongside anyone they wished.
I offered to be interviewed with Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett, Mike Pollard, Senators Shenton, Perchard and Walker. I was happy to do live interviews with any of them.
It never happened
None of them wanted to know.
I have written to Senator Shenton with my appeal. I have written to Senator Walker offering the evidence. I have not received a response from either of them.
The JEP said today that they will be publishing a news story about Senator Shenton’s letter tomorrow and asked me to respond.
How nice of them to give me 6 hours notice in which to prove he is lying and clear my name, All this before 50,000 people read his lies.
Last week I gave the JEP two interviews. One person resided at Le Chene in 1995 and the other at Greenfields in 2006.
The JEP have yet to publish them; saying that they are doing further investigations into the story.
They received the letter written by Senator Shenton today and they are going to print tomorrow!
What does that tell you?
My response for the JEP is this,
“I feel deeply saddened and disturbed that Senator Shenton has unashamedly lied and intentionally misrepresented events.
I believe that Senator Shenton, through his actions, has actively conspired to cover up the abuse that many children have suffered under a regime which saw children held for long periods of time in solitary confinement.
It is for this reason that I have submitted his letter and report to the Police who are currently conducting an investigation into related matters. I am sure that Senator Shenton’s report will help them with their inquiries.
Senator Shenton's letter serves no purpose other than to attempt to divert attention away from the real issues; that vulnerable children were routinely locked in solitary confinement for long periods of time whilst in the care of the States of Jersey. Furthermore, these long and pre determined periods of solitary confinement, often over three days at a time, were often initiated through petty matters such as swearing or being rude to staff.
It has to be acknowledged that this is not the first time that Senator Shenton has acted in this manner. We have previously witnessed his unprofessional comments regarding the former Deputy Chief of Police as well as comments aimed at current colleagues, the Council of Ministers,
Senator Shenton’s time as a minister will no doubt come to an end very shortly. In part I believe this is due to his behaviour and actions whilst holding such a privileged position in public office.
This latest attack will serve to do nothing more than to secure his legacy.
A legacy which leaves States employees with no choice but to stay silent when faced with poor practice.
A legacy which sends a clear message; if you blow the whistle, we will do to you what we did to Simon Bellwood.”
.
“…we have had to describe in the attached report all of the facts relating to this man’s employment so that a full and balanced consideration can be made by you [States Members]”.
Senator Shenton also re-emphasises this point in his next paragraph,
“…understand these matters because unless you have the full facts before you, you will be unable to reach balanced and considered judgements…”
I think we can assume therefore that the Senator is making it clear that what is written in this report is factual.
I have sent this document to the Police as further evidence in their ongoing investigation.
In March of this year the States of Jersey submitted written statements and reports to the Employment Tribunal. This tribunal is a Court of Law, in doing so their actions moved away from being civil matters to being possible criminal matters.
If anyone knowingly lied in statements or reports which were later submitted before the tribunal they could now face criminal charges. This includes any person employed by the States of Jersey regardless of their seniority.
This may concern anyone who wrote a witness statement for the tribunal.
If it was me, and I had lied, I would now be seeking legal advice or going to confession this Sunday.
If anyone wrote a statement but never got a copy of it then let me know as I have them all on file.
I will happily send you what was written, perhaps what they wrote on your behalf and then put your name to it even!
To date, I have given two separate statements to the police, the most recent one was on Tuesday this week. The day that the report was sent in the post to all States Members by Senator Shenton.
I cannot say any more at this stage because it is subject of an ongoing police inquiry, however, in a couple of weeks time I will be able to discuss this in more detail – all will become clear in due course!
Senator Shenton states in his report that he will be making no public comment on the matter in either the letter or the report.
We will have to wait and see; I bet he does.
I will of course dissect this letter and report on here in due course.
This report is cleverly written, I will admit that, but the report is full of lies and diversionary spin. The lies will be proven to be so; that I can promise.
Lets face it, if you were me and you had lied, would you write a blog? Would you go live on TV? Would you do live interviews on the radio? Would you have done a Saturday Interview in the JEP? I doubt it.
I will be offering to meet with States Members in due course so that they can see the evidence that I have available (as Frank Walker has refused to see it) and provide them with an opportunity to ask me any questions.
I am happy to share this meeting with Senator Shenton, Senator Perchard and Joe Kennedy if they would like to. I would be more than willing to be questioned together.
During the last two weeks I have also asked the local TV stations, radio and JEP to interview me alongside anyone they wished.
I offered to be interviewed with Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett, Mike Pollard, Senators Shenton, Perchard and Walker. I was happy to do live interviews with any of them.
It never happened
None of them wanted to know.
I have written to Senator Shenton with my appeal. I have written to Senator Walker offering the evidence. I have not received a response from either of them.
The JEP said today that they will be publishing a news story about Senator Shenton’s letter tomorrow and asked me to respond.
How nice of them to give me 6 hours notice in which to prove he is lying and clear my name, All this before 50,000 people read his lies.
Last week I gave the JEP two interviews. One person resided at Le Chene in 1995 and the other at Greenfields in 2006.
The JEP have yet to publish them; saying that they are doing further investigations into the story.
They received the letter written by Senator Shenton today and they are going to print tomorrow!
What does that tell you?
My response for the JEP is this,
“I feel deeply saddened and disturbed that Senator Shenton has unashamedly lied and intentionally misrepresented events.
I believe that Senator Shenton, through his actions, has actively conspired to cover up the abuse that many children have suffered under a regime which saw children held for long periods of time in solitary confinement.
It is for this reason that I have submitted his letter and report to the Police who are currently conducting an investigation into related matters. I am sure that Senator Shenton’s report will help them with their inquiries.
Senator Shenton's letter serves no purpose other than to attempt to divert attention away from the real issues; that vulnerable children were routinely locked in solitary confinement for long periods of time whilst in the care of the States of Jersey. Furthermore, these long and pre determined periods of solitary confinement, often over three days at a time, were often initiated through petty matters such as swearing or being rude to staff.
It has to be acknowledged that this is not the first time that Senator Shenton has acted in this manner. We have previously witnessed his unprofessional comments regarding the former Deputy Chief of Police as well as comments aimed at current colleagues, the Council of Ministers,
Senator Shenton’s time as a minister will no doubt come to an end very shortly. In part I believe this is due to his behaviour and actions whilst holding such a privileged position in public office.
This latest attack will serve to do nothing more than to secure his legacy.
A legacy which leaves States employees with no choice but to stay silent when faced with poor practice.
A legacy which sends a clear message; if you blow the whistle, we will do to you what we did to Simon Bellwood.”
.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Health Service offering Free Smears!
Updated 27th November @8pm.
What you have all been waiting for, the moment of Truth about Simon Bellwood and Greenfields etc.
http://justice4survivors.org/The_Letter_to_All_state_members/intro.htm
I didn't think he had it in him, but Senator Shenton has today affirmed his place in the ranks of the Establishment.
To the right you will find the real truth about Greenfields, as written by Senator Shenton yesterday, on 25th November 2008. This letter was submitted to all States Members.
When you read this you must keep it a secret as the letter is written in the strictest confidence. The letter was leaked to me today, posted through my letterbox in an unmarked envelope. Thank you.
I have placed the letter on my blog. I am sure that it will be of interest to the police officers who are investigating issues relating to the peversion of the course of justice, and misconduct in public office, during my employment tribunal. The tribunal concluded with a settlement on 12th March this year.
I will be writing a more substantive post tomorrow. For tonight, just read the letter. Form your own views, make an unbiased decision based on "the Truth" as reported by Senator Shenton. Read his balanced, fair and honest rendition of events, and make up your own mind, just as all States Members who received this document have been politely advised to do.
Did Senator Shenton pen this letter himeslf? I recognise the hand of Joe Kennedy within its smearing prose, and no doubt Mike Pollard played a substantial role as the 'evidence' presented about my mal-practice has come directly from Mr Pollard's "Bellwood Tribunal Witness Training Programme'.
Just so you are aware, I have not had a reply of any kind from Senator Walker to my letter offering to show him the evidence that he so sincerely seeks.
Nor has Senator Shenton endeavoured to respond to me. Nor his parter in "Truth", Senator Perchard.
Can we now conclude that Senator Walker is refusing to see, hear, or admit the existence of, the evidence? See no evil, hear no evil ...
Can we now also conclude that Senator Shenton is not intending to re-investiagte my complaint into abusive childcare practices at Greenfields, despite the existence of highly credible evidence, as stated by the Howard League?
Enjoy the letter.
It paints a rosy picture of me as a raving, ranting, cussing racist, who didn't have a clue how to look after children in secure accommodation. Even when the children were allegedly very big, heavy, violent and threatening. Which, by the way, they weren't. But does being a big, heavy child mean that you are no longer a child? Apparently so ...
Well done, Senator Shenton, us parents can sleep soundly knowing that you are at the helm of Social Services and that deadful, useless Bellwood chap is...erm...not.
Speak tomorrow
Simon
What you have all been waiting for, the moment of Truth about Simon Bellwood and Greenfields etc.
http://justice4survivors.org/The_Letter_to_All_state_members/intro.htm
I didn't think he had it in him, but Senator Shenton has today affirmed his place in the ranks of the Establishment.
To the right you will find the real truth about Greenfields, as written by Senator Shenton yesterday, on 25th November 2008. This letter was submitted to all States Members.
When you read this you must keep it a secret as the letter is written in the strictest confidence. The letter was leaked to me today, posted through my letterbox in an unmarked envelope. Thank you.
I have placed the letter on my blog. I am sure that it will be of interest to the police officers who are investigating issues relating to the peversion of the course of justice, and misconduct in public office, during my employment tribunal. The tribunal concluded with a settlement on 12th March this year.
I will be writing a more substantive post tomorrow. For tonight, just read the letter. Form your own views, make an unbiased decision based on "the Truth" as reported by Senator Shenton. Read his balanced, fair and honest rendition of events, and make up your own mind, just as all States Members who received this document have been politely advised to do.
Did Senator Shenton pen this letter himeslf? I recognise the hand of Joe Kennedy within its smearing prose, and no doubt Mike Pollard played a substantial role as the 'evidence' presented about my mal-practice has come directly from Mr Pollard's "Bellwood Tribunal Witness Training Programme'.
Just so you are aware, I have not had a reply of any kind from Senator Walker to my letter offering to show him the evidence that he so sincerely seeks.
Nor has Senator Shenton endeavoured to respond to me. Nor his parter in "Truth", Senator Perchard.
Can we now conclude that Senator Walker is refusing to see, hear, or admit the existence of, the evidence? See no evil, hear no evil ...
Can we now also conclude that Senator Shenton is not intending to re-investiagte my complaint into abusive childcare practices at Greenfields, despite the existence of highly credible evidence, as stated by the Howard League?
Enjoy the letter.
It paints a rosy picture of me as a raving, ranting, cussing racist, who didn't have a clue how to look after children in secure accommodation. Even when the children were allegedly very big, heavy, violent and threatening. Which, by the way, they weren't. But does being a big, heavy child mean that you are no longer a child? Apparently so ...
Well done, Senator Shenton, us parents can sleep soundly knowing that you are at the helm of Social Services and that deadful, useless Bellwood chap is...erm...not.
Speak tomorrow
Simon
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
JEP - Today's 'Letter to the Editor'
Edited - I think we should have a discussion about the Letter to the Editor in todays JEP. http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/11/25/it-is-not-a-childrens-home/
IT IS NOT A CHILDREN'S HOME
November 25, 2008
From the Rev Gerry Baudains.
I AM writing independently, as a member of the Youth Court panel, following approaches by members of the public concerned about the treatment of young people in the criminal justice process.
Firstly, I’d like to offer some reassurance to those with genuine concern that, without exception, every agency and body dealing with youth and crime in the Island has the best interests and care of our young people as their first priority.
Furthermore, those agencies work together to assess the social, educational, physical and mental backgrounds of the young offenders in order to provide for their individual needs.
I have never doubted this on any occasion over the six years I have been a lay magistrate in the Youth Court. During this time, I have visited the children’s homes, La Moye prison and the Greenfields centre on three occasions. The first of these was a visit to the old site known as Les Chênes, the second was just after the opening of the new centre, the most recent today, when we lunched with the two residents.
On our first visit, the Grand Prix scheme was outlined in detail. I recall that it was a system of reward and punishment necessary to manage and contain the ‘high spirits’ of the 11 youngsters — a number of whom had recently held a rooftop protest. None of the panel members voiced a concern about the system, and there were no complaints from the youngsters working towards getting a TV or playstation in their room. I noted today that a scheme of achieving graduated levels from one to three is now in force. It looks remarkably similar.
Of great concern to panel members in 2002 was the overcrowding, for a games room had to double up as a dormitory. The building was too small for purpose; it had cramped facilities and a punishment cell which, we were assured, was used only in extreme cases of danger to residents and staff.
In all that we read and hear about Greenfields old and new, we must remember that the young people who live there have been arrested for law-breaking, mostly over and over again, often breaking bail conditions, and they pose a great danger to themselves and the public at large.
Greenfields isn’t a children’s home, it is a remand centre, a place where some excellent work is being undertaken with troubled young people, and its staff old and new deserve nothing but our highest praise.
Three years ago we admired the new facilities: the Greenfields centre is a state-of-the-art building we can be justly proud of. However, its under-use should be of great concern to all Islanders and particularly our politicians.
Something is deeply wrong: we have a system seeking to provide the best in secure accommodation and treatment of young offenders and a state-of-the-art facility which cannot be accessed by the very people who need it — those who have been sentenced to serve a period of time under lock and key.
As a panel member with responsibility for sentencing young offenders, I am ashamed that three years later we are still in the same position and cannot access Greenfields for custodial sentences, and that we continue to have to sentence youths to periods of detention at La Moye, knowing that the conditions are woefully inadequate.
Please be assured that sentencing youngsters to a period of detention is never done lightly and is a sign of failure somewhere along the line. Detention comes very much at the end of a long line of parish hall inquiries, binding-over orders, probation orders and community service orders; each one a further opportunity for the offender to start again.
All of the agencies that work with our troubled youngsters are offering therapeutic treatment — help and advice on behaviour management or misuse of drugs and alcohol, teaching victim empathy, giving educational and sporting opportunities and so on — but ultimately a youngster has to want to change and reform.
In the six years I have been on the Youth Court panel I have sentenced a few, not many, 15-to-18-year-olds to a period of detention; it has been a hard decision but I have never thought it a wrong decision, as, most usually, the needs of that young person can best be met through a custodial sentence.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has called for an end to the Youth Court as we know it, but it fails to recognise that the vast majority of youth crime is dealt with very effectively by the parish hall inquiry system and that it is only a tiny minority of our youth crime that comes before the court.
The Youth Court, with its added gravitas, can in itself be a deterrent to further criminal activity, and that is what all of the agencies, working together, hope to stem. Increasing the age of criminal responsibility from ten to 14 is a fairly obvious suggestion for penal reformers to make, but it could have dire consequences. Consider the future when a 12-year-old hotwires motorbikes and rides them dangerously on the road, without insurance, and without a licence, but also without breaking the law. Consequently he becomes unstoppable.
Finally, please be assured that the numbers of young offenders has reduced considerably over the last six years. There are probably a number of reasons, including demographics, for this drop. However, the early intervention by the Youth Action Team and the work they are doing with families has been a success story we hear little about in the media.
I’m saddened by so much uninformed and negative criticism; it really is time we started to look for the ‘good news’ stories and to give credit where it’s due. To our police and honorary police, to our probation officers and prison workers, and to all who work to reduce crime in the Island.
Le Châtaignier,
Flicquet,
St Martin.
Have your say on this letter with the headline, 'It is not a children’s home', comment below
One thing though, I am not interested in any comments which are personal or discriminatory. This is for discussion of fact only. Anything I consider to be rude will not be published.
I do not wish to have a blog where people get personal with each other.
Those that have previously commented on this you can re-submit to this so that the comments are all together.
Remember, do not attack the person just the opinion.
Simon
IT IS NOT A CHILDREN'S HOME
November 25, 2008
From the Rev Gerry Baudains.
I AM writing independently, as a member of the Youth Court panel, following approaches by members of the public concerned about the treatment of young people in the criminal justice process.
Firstly, I’d like to offer some reassurance to those with genuine concern that, without exception, every agency and body dealing with youth and crime in the Island has the best interests and care of our young people as their first priority.
Furthermore, those agencies work together to assess the social, educational, physical and mental backgrounds of the young offenders in order to provide for their individual needs.
I have never doubted this on any occasion over the six years I have been a lay magistrate in the Youth Court. During this time, I have visited the children’s homes, La Moye prison and the Greenfields centre on three occasions. The first of these was a visit to the old site known as Les Chênes, the second was just after the opening of the new centre, the most recent today, when we lunched with the two residents.
On our first visit, the Grand Prix scheme was outlined in detail. I recall that it was a system of reward and punishment necessary to manage and contain the ‘high spirits’ of the 11 youngsters — a number of whom had recently held a rooftop protest. None of the panel members voiced a concern about the system, and there were no complaints from the youngsters working towards getting a TV or playstation in their room. I noted today that a scheme of achieving graduated levels from one to three is now in force. It looks remarkably similar.
Of great concern to panel members in 2002 was the overcrowding, for a games room had to double up as a dormitory. The building was too small for purpose; it had cramped facilities and a punishment cell which, we were assured, was used only in extreme cases of danger to residents and staff.
In all that we read and hear about Greenfields old and new, we must remember that the young people who live there have been arrested for law-breaking, mostly over and over again, often breaking bail conditions, and they pose a great danger to themselves and the public at large.
Greenfields isn’t a children’s home, it is a remand centre, a place where some excellent work is being undertaken with troubled young people, and its staff old and new deserve nothing but our highest praise.
Three years ago we admired the new facilities: the Greenfields centre is a state-of-the-art building we can be justly proud of. However, its under-use should be of great concern to all Islanders and particularly our politicians.
Something is deeply wrong: we have a system seeking to provide the best in secure accommodation and treatment of young offenders and a state-of-the-art facility which cannot be accessed by the very people who need it — those who have been sentenced to serve a period of time under lock and key.
As a panel member with responsibility for sentencing young offenders, I am ashamed that three years later we are still in the same position and cannot access Greenfields for custodial sentences, and that we continue to have to sentence youths to periods of detention at La Moye, knowing that the conditions are woefully inadequate.
Please be assured that sentencing youngsters to a period of detention is never done lightly and is a sign of failure somewhere along the line. Detention comes very much at the end of a long line of parish hall inquiries, binding-over orders, probation orders and community service orders; each one a further opportunity for the offender to start again.
All of the agencies that work with our troubled youngsters are offering therapeutic treatment — help and advice on behaviour management or misuse of drugs and alcohol, teaching victim empathy, giving educational and sporting opportunities and so on — but ultimately a youngster has to want to change and reform.
In the six years I have been on the Youth Court panel I have sentenced a few, not many, 15-to-18-year-olds to a period of detention; it has been a hard decision but I have never thought it a wrong decision, as, most usually, the needs of that young person can best be met through a custodial sentence.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has called for an end to the Youth Court as we know it, but it fails to recognise that the vast majority of youth crime is dealt with very effectively by the parish hall inquiry system and that it is only a tiny minority of our youth crime that comes before the court.
The Youth Court, with its added gravitas, can in itself be a deterrent to further criminal activity, and that is what all of the agencies, working together, hope to stem. Increasing the age of criminal responsibility from ten to 14 is a fairly obvious suggestion for penal reformers to make, but it could have dire consequences. Consider the future when a 12-year-old hotwires motorbikes and rides them dangerously on the road, without insurance, and without a licence, but also without breaking the law. Consequently he becomes unstoppable.
Finally, please be assured that the numbers of young offenders has reduced considerably over the last six years. There are probably a number of reasons, including demographics, for this drop. However, the early intervention by the Youth Action Team and the work they are doing with families has been a success story we hear little about in the media.
I’m saddened by so much uninformed and negative criticism; it really is time we started to look for the ‘good news’ stories and to give credit where it’s due. To our police and honorary police, to our probation officers and prison workers, and to all who work to reduce crime in the Island.
Le Châtaignier,
Flicquet,
St Martin.
Have your say on this letter with the headline, 'It is not a children’s home', comment below
One thing though, I am not interested in any comments which are personal or discriminatory. This is for discussion of fact only. Anything I consider to be rude will not be published.
I do not wish to have a blog where people get personal with each other.
Those that have previously commented on this you can re-submit to this so that the comments are all together.
Remember, do not attack the person just the opinion.
Simon
Monday, 24 November 2008
While we wait for a Frank response!
While we wait for a response, if any, I would like to discuss where I/we go from here.
Firstly, I would like to say a big thank you for all of your support. Thank you to the regular readers, those that leave comments as well as those who silently support me.
I am sorry that I do not always respond to individual comments but I do try when I have the time.
It is great to see a bit of dialogue on here. Stuart's blog, which he has invested an inordinate amount of time in, has a great deal of dialogue and is great for sharing information and views.
Hopefully my blog, with time, will also provide a forum in which people can share views and get access to information which would perhaps not be printed in the media.
Where do we go next?
I have two aims.
First and foremost, I want the Looked After Children of Jersey to be ‘looked after’ properly. Whether this be Greenfields, Le Moye, Heathfields, La Preference, Bryg y Don or anywhere else. This also includes the homes for children with learning difficulties.
I am not suggesting, and have never suggested, that the frontline staff are at fault. It is the system, the lack of checks and balances, lack of funding, lack of training and, a lack of competent managers. That is where you will find the faults.
Secondly, my aim is that staff who work for the States of Jersey can do so without fear of being bullied.
It is widely known that the States of Jersey's civil service is rife with bullies. Especially by those of you who have been the victim. They know how bad it really is.
Let us be clear, not everyone is a bully. Not everyone will even know a bully or even a victim for that matter.
But they are there, in almost every department throughout the States of Jersey.
The worst thing about these bullies is that they are often middle or senior managers and often they are protected. They are allowed to bully without consequence.
Since my employment tribunal in March of this year I have been contacted by a number of employees. Each with their own story to tell. Each one impacted in a different way. In fact, there is only one department left which I have not yet heard from a victim of this bullying. But the poll topper is Health and Social Services! Well done Mike Pollard - good job!
The common theme which unites these people, is that as well as being bullied, their complaints were not listened to.
The people who are protecting these bullies are a minority, but very senior and very powerful. They are a handful of people who have consistently maintained, time and time again, that ‘there is no evidence of bullying’!
Between them, they earn over 2 million pounds of tax payers money per year.
You can almost forget about the bullies, without their protectors. Without them they would stop. If they failed to stop they would be sacked.
What we need to do is to expose the people who are protecting them.
Going back to my aim, in order to take both of these issues forwards I am considering setting up my business to tackle them head on.
I would be interested in meeting people who have the time and expertise to help set it up and run it.
I have the drive and the passion but I lack the time. I am sure we could gather a few like minded people with specialist knowledge in things such as law, accountancy, PR, psychology/psychiatry, nursing, social workers, IT etc.
I already have a business called Children and Family Services, which this business could be run under.
What do you think? I certainly think there is a need for it - it is just a question of would it actually help anyone?
I also need to speak to witnesses.
I want to hear from anyone who has information about anyone who has played a part in either bullying or the abuse of children. Many names have been mentioned on blogs and we need to crack this issue once and for all.
Information would have to be factual and have the ability to be corroborated independently.
If you know anyone who has been to Les Chene, Greenfields etc then please let them know that I would like to speak to them in confidence. Perhaps you know their families who could offer information.
I know there are also States Members who would be willing to speak with you, or you could go to the Police.
The NSPCC are also still available to speak with in Jersey if required.
If you have any information please don't stay silent anymore.
If you are a teacher, a social worker, a cleaner, a receptionist, if you have information then please share it.
This will help force changes in the system. It is the system that has allowed these abusive practices to exist, even if the abuse was committed by an individual, it was the poor system them let it happen.
If you need to speak with someone in the Police you can contact the incident room at on 0800 735 7777.
There is also the NSPCC helpline on 0800 169 1173 within Jersey, or + 44(0)20 7825 7489 from outside.
Simon
Firstly, I would like to say a big thank you for all of your support. Thank you to the regular readers, those that leave comments as well as those who silently support me.
I am sorry that I do not always respond to individual comments but I do try when I have the time.
It is great to see a bit of dialogue on here. Stuart's blog, which he has invested an inordinate amount of time in, has a great deal of dialogue and is great for sharing information and views.
Hopefully my blog, with time, will also provide a forum in which people can share views and get access to information which would perhaps not be printed in the media.
Where do we go next?
I have two aims.
First and foremost, I want the Looked After Children of Jersey to be ‘looked after’ properly. Whether this be Greenfields, Le Moye, Heathfields, La Preference, Bryg y Don or anywhere else. This also includes the homes for children with learning difficulties.
I am not suggesting, and have never suggested, that the frontline staff are at fault. It is the system, the lack of checks and balances, lack of funding, lack of training and, a lack of competent managers. That is where you will find the faults.
Secondly, my aim is that staff who work for the States of Jersey can do so without fear of being bullied.
It is widely known that the States of Jersey's civil service is rife with bullies. Especially by those of you who have been the victim. They know how bad it really is.
Let us be clear, not everyone is a bully. Not everyone will even know a bully or even a victim for that matter.
But they are there, in almost every department throughout the States of Jersey.
The worst thing about these bullies is that they are often middle or senior managers and often they are protected. They are allowed to bully without consequence.
Since my employment tribunal in March of this year I have been contacted by a number of employees. Each with their own story to tell. Each one impacted in a different way. In fact, there is only one department left which I have not yet heard from a victim of this bullying. But the poll topper is Health and Social Services! Well done Mike Pollard - good job!
The common theme which unites these people, is that as well as being bullied, their complaints were not listened to.
The people who are protecting these bullies are a minority, but very senior and very powerful. They are a handful of people who have consistently maintained, time and time again, that ‘there is no evidence of bullying’!
Between them, they earn over 2 million pounds of tax payers money per year.
You can almost forget about the bullies, without their protectors. Without them they would stop. If they failed to stop they would be sacked.
What we need to do is to expose the people who are protecting them.
Going back to my aim, in order to take both of these issues forwards I am considering setting up my business to tackle them head on.
I would be interested in meeting people who have the time and expertise to help set it up and run it.
I have the drive and the passion but I lack the time. I am sure we could gather a few like minded people with specialist knowledge in things such as law, accountancy, PR, psychology/psychiatry, nursing, social workers, IT etc.
I already have a business called Children and Family Services, which this business could be run under.
What do you think? I certainly think there is a need for it - it is just a question of would it actually help anyone?
I also need to speak to witnesses.
I want to hear from anyone who has information about anyone who has played a part in either bullying or the abuse of children. Many names have been mentioned on blogs and we need to crack this issue once and for all.
Information would have to be factual and have the ability to be corroborated independently.
If you know anyone who has been to Les Chene, Greenfields etc then please let them know that I would like to speak to them in confidence. Perhaps you know their families who could offer information.
I know there are also States Members who would be willing to speak with you, or you could go to the Police.
The NSPCC are also still available to speak with in Jersey if required.
If you have any information please don't stay silent anymore.
If you are a teacher, a social worker, a cleaner, a receptionist, if you have information then please share it.
This will help force changes in the system. It is the system that has allowed these abusive practices to exist, even if the abuse was committed by an individual, it was the poor system them let it happen.
If you need to speak with someone in the Police you can contact the incident room at on 0800 735 7777.
There is also the NSPCC helpline on 0800 169 1173 within Jersey, or + 44(0)20 7825 7489 from outside.
Simon
Saturday, 22 November 2008
A not so Frank letter - A Letter to the Chief Minister
To date, I have made five attempts to meet with the Cheif Minister so that I can give him the evidence he has requested.
To date, he has refused to meet with me.
Below is a letter which I have sent to him this evening to request that he meet with me so that I can provide the evidence that he has requested.
Whistleblower House
La Grande Route de St Jean
Trinity JE3 5XX
Tel. 07797 888XXX
22 November 2008
Senator Walker
Chief Minister's Department
P.O. Box 140
Cyril Le Marquand House
The Parade
St Helier JE4 8QT
Dear Senator Walker
I am writing to you concerning the long standing controversy over the Grand Prix behaviour management system, Greenfields and Les Chênes. I write with regards to the handling of these issues as it is my view that you and certain senior figures in the States of Jersey have conspired to cover up the fact that abusive childcare practices have taken place.
I believe that this cover up has involved a significant number of senior civil servants and politicians with the responsibility of protecting and supporting the young people of Jersey.
You recently stated on BBC Radio Jersey:
“Can I stress at this point that there is no credible evidence whatsoever of serious misconduct by a senior civil servant, by any civil servants, and certainly no evidence of criminality? I have asked for any such evidence to be provided to me, and, so far, no such evidence, after many months of asking, no such evidence has been forthcoming.”
Your stance is clear - you have not yet seen credible evidence of serious misconduct or criminality by a civil servant.
As you are aware, through our recent communications, this is now the sixth attempt that I have made to persuade you to meet with me so that I can provide you with credible evidence. I am not sure what else I can do. I have evidence to explain to you, but you have thus far refused to speak to me about it. After you have apparently spent many months asking, I am offering to give you the proof that you seek.
Some of the evidence in my possession has previously been accessible to you, but you have chosen to ignore it. I also have new evidence which came to light this week from a number of credible sources. All the evidence available to you can be corroborated independently by professional witnesses within your civil service, and they have expressed willingness to speak with you on the matter.
- 2 -
You have suggested that I meet with your Chief Officer, Bill Ogley, to give him the evidence. Mr Ogley is a civil servant and I have reason to believe that he has been involved in the cover up of abusive childcare practices at Greenfields and Les Chênes. I hope you agree that it would not be acceptable, appropriate, or good practice for me to share such evidence with Mr Ogley.
You have also suggested that I send you any evidence I have. Much as I wish it were that simple, I am afraid that the kind of evidence available is not the kind that I can pop into an envelope. It would involve many hours of transcribing conversations, and collating documents from the dozens of files which I have accumulated on these matters. Moreover, sending you information in this manner would not allow for any communication, explanation or discussion between us.
You also told me by text message it is not possible for you to meet with me and that I should be aware of the reason why. I am afraid that I actually have no idea why it is not possible for you to meet me.
I now find myself pleading with you. I have always held serious concerns about the suitability of certain senior figures in the civil service to their positions of responsibility. I hold evidence of serious misconduct and criminality by civil servants. Please permit me to show it to you.
I have copied this letter to all States Members so that they, as elected representatives, will be free to contact you, or me, to discuss this matter as they see fit. I truly hope that all States Members take these matters very seriously. I can assure you that my intentions have never been to cause trouble, and are only with the best interests of the children and young people of Jersey at heart.
I remain disappointed by your lack of response to my requests for a meeting, and I sincerely hope that you will choose to hear the evidence and uncover the truth before the end of your term of office.
I look forward to meeting with you as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely
Simon Bellwood
To date, he has refused to meet with me.
Below is a letter which I have sent to him this evening to request that he meet with me so that I can provide the evidence that he has requested.
Whistleblower House
La Grande Route de St Jean
Trinity JE3 5XX
Tel. 07797 888XXX
22 November 2008
Senator Walker
Chief Minister's Department
P.O. Box 140
Cyril Le Marquand House
The Parade
St Helier JE4 8QT
Dear Senator Walker
I am writing to you concerning the long standing controversy over the Grand Prix behaviour management system, Greenfields and Les Chênes. I write with regards to the handling of these issues as it is my view that you and certain senior figures in the States of Jersey have conspired to cover up the fact that abusive childcare practices have taken place.
I believe that this cover up has involved a significant number of senior civil servants and politicians with the responsibility of protecting and supporting the young people of Jersey.
You recently stated on BBC Radio Jersey:
“Can I stress at this point that there is no credible evidence whatsoever of serious misconduct by a senior civil servant, by any civil servants, and certainly no evidence of criminality? I have asked for any such evidence to be provided to me, and, so far, no such evidence, after many months of asking, no such evidence has been forthcoming.”
Your stance is clear - you have not yet seen credible evidence of serious misconduct or criminality by a civil servant.
As you are aware, through our recent communications, this is now the sixth attempt that I have made to persuade you to meet with me so that I can provide you with credible evidence. I am not sure what else I can do. I have evidence to explain to you, but you have thus far refused to speak to me about it. After you have apparently spent many months asking, I am offering to give you the proof that you seek.
Some of the evidence in my possession has previously been accessible to you, but you have chosen to ignore it. I also have new evidence which came to light this week from a number of credible sources. All the evidence available to you can be corroborated independently by professional witnesses within your civil service, and they have expressed willingness to speak with you on the matter.
- 2 -
You have suggested that I meet with your Chief Officer, Bill Ogley, to give him the evidence. Mr Ogley is a civil servant and I have reason to believe that he has been involved in the cover up of abusive childcare practices at Greenfields and Les Chênes. I hope you agree that it would not be acceptable, appropriate, or good practice for me to share such evidence with Mr Ogley.
You have also suggested that I send you any evidence I have. Much as I wish it were that simple, I am afraid that the kind of evidence available is not the kind that I can pop into an envelope. It would involve many hours of transcribing conversations, and collating documents from the dozens of files which I have accumulated on these matters. Moreover, sending you information in this manner would not allow for any communication, explanation or discussion between us.
You also told me by text message it is not possible for you to meet with me and that I should be aware of the reason why. I am afraid that I actually have no idea why it is not possible for you to meet me.
I now find myself pleading with you. I have always held serious concerns about the suitability of certain senior figures in the civil service to their positions of responsibility. I hold evidence of serious misconduct and criminality by civil servants. Please permit me to show it to you.
I have copied this letter to all States Members so that they, as elected representatives, will be free to contact you, or me, to discuss this matter as they see fit. I truly hope that all States Members take these matters very seriously. I can assure you that my intentions have never been to cause trouble, and are only with the best interests of the children and young people of Jersey at heart.
I remain disappointed by your lack of response to my requests for a meeting, and I sincerely hope that you will choose to hear the evidence and uncover the truth before the end of your term of office.
I look forward to meeting with you as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely
Simon Bellwood
I have been accused of being "Purile and Conceited"
A blog comment has been left stating,
"If you are serious about providing Frank with the evidence, put it in an envelope. Then you can hold your head up and say you have provided it. otherwise you are just dicking around. By the way, the piece in today's JEP, bad move. You came across as purile and conceited. Not impressed."
The word "Purile" does not exist. Did you mean Puerile or Puriel, they can easily be confused?
However, a minor slip of spelling tells a different story.
Puerile means childish and immature
However, if you meant I was Puriel then Dictionary.com says,
"Puriel is an angel who appears in the apocryphal work of the Testament of Abraham... charged with the task of examining the soul of each person brought to heaven after death".
Let us hope that this person's soul is good or perhaps I am just being childish?
Simon
ps. I will be posting a blog later with a Frank email to Frank.
"If you are serious about providing Frank with the evidence, put it in an envelope. Then you can hold your head up and say you have provided it. otherwise you are just dicking around. By the way, the piece in today's JEP, bad move. You came across as purile and conceited. Not impressed."
The word "Purile" does not exist. Did you mean Puerile or Puriel, they can easily be confused?
However, a minor slip of spelling tells a different story.
Puerile means childish and immature
However, if you meant I was Puriel then Dictionary.com says,
"Puriel is an angel who appears in the apocryphal work of the Testament of Abraham... charged with the task of examining the soul of each person brought to heaven after death".
Let us hope that this person's soul is good or perhaps I am just being childish?
Simon
ps. I will be posting a blog later with a Frank email to Frank.
Friday, 21 November 2008
Frank's Frank Reply
You will all be pleased to know that I have received a reply from Frank.
How did he do it?
Did he email me?
Did he send a car to collect me in order to meet with him?
Did he get a letter couriered to me?
Did he telephone me?
No. He sent me a text!
Yep, that's right, Jersey’s Chief Minister in response to someone offering him 'The Evidence' he has requested, he sent a text.
Why didn’t he just pick up his banana shaped, 'life enriching' phone and call me?
So, what did the text say?
"Dear Mr. Belwood. I have received you message. For reasons you should be well aware of, and some you will be shortly become aware of, I'm afraid I am not prepared to meet you. If after all this time you do indeed have new evidence please either send it to me or give it to Bill Ogly, who has already offered to meet you. I can assure you it will be given our full attention. Frank Walke"
What do you think?
Let’s have a competition to see who can come up with the best text message that I can send back?
The rules - there are only two (which is one more than the Chief Ministers Dept, who's only rule is "We are always right")
1. Must be under 100 words
2. Must not be libellous
Look forward to your texts.
Simon
How did he do it?
Did he email me?
Did he send a car to collect me in order to meet with him?
Did he get a letter couriered to me?
Did he telephone me?
No. He sent me a text!
Yep, that's right, Jersey’s Chief Minister in response to someone offering him 'The Evidence' he has requested, he sent a text.
Why didn’t he just pick up his banana shaped, 'life enriching' phone and call me?
So, what did the text say?
"Dear Mr. Belwood. I have received you message. For reasons you should be well aware of, and some you will be shortly become aware of, I'm afraid I am not prepared to meet you. If after all this time you do indeed have new evidence please either send it to me or give it to Bill Ogly, who has already offered to meet you. I can assure you it will be given our full attention. Frank Walke"
What do you think?
Let’s have a competition to see who can come up with the best text message that I can send back?
The rules - there are only two (which is one more than the Chief Ministers Dept, who's only rule is "We are always right")
1. Must be under 100 words
2. Must not be libellous
Look forward to your texts.
Simon
Thursday, 20 November 2008
How do you give the Evidence requested to the Chief Minister?
How do you indeed?
Well I will explain what I have tried to do in detail below. However, before I go into detail I would like to highlight an attempt which I made in August 2007, this was my first attempt.
Attempt 1
I asked my advocate to write to Senator Walker to arrange a meeting in order for me to discuss what had happened at greenfields and to present him with the evidence.
On this occasion he declined the offer.
Since then you will have heard the Chief Minister’s very loud and public plea for evidence to be given to him.
I took this as an opportunity to provide him with what he so boldly asked for.
The question is how do you do that, how do you get to speak to Frank?
Attempt 2
Yesterday, Wednesday 19th November, after hearing that he was attending a meeting at the Pomme Dor Hotel at 10.30am (see my previous blog), I drove to the hotel and left a message for him via the duty manager, see “A Frank Message” attached.
It read:
“Simon Bellwood
Offer of meeting with you in Aug 2007, which he [you] declined.
I extend that invitation today.
He [Frank] requested on radio this morning for evidence to be presented to him. Should he wish to see this evidence, then please contact [me] for a meeting. 07797 888XXX”
I received no response to this invitation.
Attempt 3
I telephoned the Chief Ministers Department this morning and left an urgent message for the Chief Minister.
The reply I received was not from him but a senior civil servant, namely Bill Ogley.
Incidently, the last time I spoke to this man was when he apologised that my family and I had to go through what we had been through (the day following the employment tribunal)!
More money than morals and in a great big hole with no shovel!
Anyway, during this call from Bill Ogley, which was very ‘Frank’ and to the point. I quickly established that he [Bill] wanted me to give him [Bill} the evidence.
I of course said no chance mate! I suggested that he was assuming the evidence was not about him. He replied, ‘Is it about me’?
Anyway, an exchange of words followed and after I made it plainly clear that I was inviting the Chief Minister to attend a meeting with me so that I could present him with the evidence that he has requested.
Bill Ogley said that it was his job, as Chief Minister’s agent, to get the evidence from me and then speak to Frank.
I declined of course!
I reiterated my offer and said that I would not give him the evidence and that he needs to make a decision about whether to tell Frank.
The call ended by me telling him I no longer wished to speak with him and that I would like him to ask Frank to call me.
I then said good day ended the call.
Attempt 4
I looked in the telephone directory and there was a number for Frank.
To be Frank I was amazed the Chief Ministers number is actually in the phone book.
I dialed but no answer.
Attempt 5
Has anyone got a mobile number for him?
If anyone sees him in passing then please pass the message on to him that I have the evidence he wants. All he has to do is call me for it.
Also, pass on to him that I have another very very significant person who has kindly agreed to provide him with other independent and cast iron evidence too.
Seriously, though, this is concrete evidence that can never be denied, discredited, rejected or criticised. Please pass this on to him for me.
I could go on but I wanted to be Frank!
UPDATE @22.10. Attempt 5
Just called Frank on his mobile. No Answer but I left a message for him to call me. I will try and get the recording on this blog for you if I can.
Simon
Well I will explain what I have tried to do in detail below. However, before I go into detail I would like to highlight an attempt which I made in August 2007, this was my first attempt.
Attempt 1
I asked my advocate to write to Senator Walker to arrange a meeting in order for me to discuss what had happened at greenfields and to present him with the evidence.
On this occasion he declined the offer.
Since then you will have heard the Chief Minister’s very loud and public plea for evidence to be given to him.
I took this as an opportunity to provide him with what he so boldly asked for.
The question is how do you do that, how do you get to speak to Frank?
Attempt 2
Yesterday, Wednesday 19th November, after hearing that he was attending a meeting at the Pomme Dor Hotel at 10.30am (see my previous blog), I drove to the hotel and left a message for him via the duty manager, see “A Frank Message” attached.
It read:
“Simon Bellwood
Offer of meeting with you in Aug 2007, which he [you] declined.
I extend that invitation today.
He [Frank] requested on radio this morning for evidence to be presented to him. Should he wish to see this evidence, then please contact [me] for a meeting. 07797 888XXX”
I received no response to this invitation.
Attempt 3
I telephoned the Chief Ministers Department this morning and left an urgent message for the Chief Minister.
The reply I received was not from him but a senior civil servant, namely Bill Ogley.
Incidently, the last time I spoke to this man was when he apologised that my family and I had to go through what we had been through (the day following the employment tribunal)!
More money than morals and in a great big hole with no shovel!
Anyway, during this call from Bill Ogley, which was very ‘Frank’ and to the point. I quickly established that he [Bill] wanted me to give him [Bill} the evidence.
I of course said no chance mate! I suggested that he was assuming the evidence was not about him. He replied, ‘Is it about me’?
Anyway, an exchange of words followed and after I made it plainly clear that I was inviting the Chief Minister to attend a meeting with me so that I could present him with the evidence that he has requested.
Bill Ogley said that it was his job, as Chief Minister’s agent, to get the evidence from me and then speak to Frank.
I declined of course!
I reiterated my offer and said that I would not give him the evidence and that he needs to make a decision about whether to tell Frank.
The call ended by me telling him I no longer wished to speak with him and that I would like him to ask Frank to call me.
I then said good day ended the call.
Attempt 4
I looked in the telephone directory and there was a number for Frank.
To be Frank I was amazed the Chief Ministers number is actually in the phone book.
I dialed but no answer.
Attempt 5
Has anyone got a mobile number for him?
If anyone sees him in passing then please pass the message on to him that I have the evidence he wants. All he has to do is call me for it.
Also, pass on to him that I have another very very significant person who has kindly agreed to provide him with other independent and cast iron evidence too.
Seriously, though, this is concrete evidence that can never be denied, discredited, rejected or criticised. Please pass this on to him for me.
I could go on but I wanted to be Frank!
UPDATE @22.10. Attempt 5
Just called Frank on his mobile. No Answer but I left a message for him to call me. I will try and get the recording on this blog for you if I can.
Simon
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
A snippet of evidence - At the request of the Chief Minster
This is perhaps the most important and most distressing blog that I have written to date.
Recent events have accumulated which has left Senator Syvrey and I on one side (the side of the children) and politicians and senior civil servants on the other. They have claimed there is no evidence.
As you know I have called for a public inquiry into the Grand Prix system and Le Chene/Greenfields and I will be submitting a letter to the Chief Minister with the evidence he has requested in the next day or so.
They have a significant amount of evidence already but it is convenient for them to say otherwise.
I will publish that letter in full (minus any libellous bits) on this blog as well as submitting it to the media and all States Members.
Frank Walker and Co have been very busy today. Following the meeting at the Pomme Dor Hotel there was an invitation for the local BBC to go to Greenfields.
No doubt in the next few days there will be a nice piece of footage which attempts to show that Greenfields is all rosy and that the staff love it.
Whilst this was going on I was involved in a very distressing interview over the road from Greenfields at the JEP offices.
This involved two people.
One was a former resident of Greenfields, during the times of the Grand Prix era when Joe Kennedy was manager.
The other was a resident in 1995 when Mario Lundy was manager. Remember the Howard League's view that before the Grand Prix system it has been alleged that things were much worse.
I will not, and cannot, go into detail regarding the content of these interviews but I have had permission from the two interviewees to publish a small snippet of what was disclosed.
The interviewee who was at Greenfields when the Grand Prix was in force, when Joe Kenned was manager discussed the following,
Question "Was the Grand Prix system there when you were there?
Answer "Yes"
Question "What happened?"
Answer "they take you upstairs to a bedroom where you'd be locked in a bedroom for 24hours..."
"If you fall asleep they removed your mattress"
Question "What happened if you didn't behave?
"we were in there [the Pits] for four nights" "if you ran away you got put in the cells for three days".
"There were loads of people in there (the Pits, solitary confinement), there was......was always in there...basically lived there...would run away and get put in the cell for three days".
The interview with the former resident of Le Chene stated the following;
Question "You said earlier on you were in Le Chene, is that correct?"
Answer "Yes" "I first went there in 1994"
"The judge remanded me and my mate back into secure custody at Le Chene...28 days remand"
Question "You said secure remand, what was that?"
Answer "a cell..you were stripped...to boxer shorts...there was a crash mat and there was just three speakers on the roof and then that's it."
Question "What else was in the room, quilt, blanket?"
Answer "No that was it, just you in boxer shorts and a crash mat. The Courts had said, it was a big thing, we had to be kept in secure."
Question "Who was in charge at this time"
Answer "Who was in Charge? It was Mario Lundy."
"There is loads more..."
Recent events have accumulated which has left Senator Syvrey and I on one side (the side of the children) and politicians and senior civil servants on the other. They have claimed there is no evidence.
As you know I have called for a public inquiry into the Grand Prix system and Le Chene/Greenfields and I will be submitting a letter to the Chief Minister with the evidence he has requested in the next day or so.
They have a significant amount of evidence already but it is convenient for them to say otherwise.
I will publish that letter in full (minus any libellous bits) on this blog as well as submitting it to the media and all States Members.
Frank Walker and Co have been very busy today. Following the meeting at the Pomme Dor Hotel there was an invitation for the local BBC to go to Greenfields.
No doubt in the next few days there will be a nice piece of footage which attempts to show that Greenfields is all rosy and that the staff love it.
Whilst this was going on I was involved in a very distressing interview over the road from Greenfields at the JEP offices.
This involved two people.
One was a former resident of Greenfields, during the times of the Grand Prix era when Joe Kennedy was manager.
The other was a resident in 1995 when Mario Lundy was manager. Remember the Howard League's view that before the Grand Prix system it has been alleged that things were much worse.
I will not, and cannot, go into detail regarding the content of these interviews but I have had permission from the two interviewees to publish a small snippet of what was disclosed.
The interviewee who was at Greenfields when the Grand Prix was in force, when Joe Kenned was manager discussed the following,
Question "Was the Grand Prix system there when you were there?
Answer "Yes"
Question "What happened?"
Answer "they take you upstairs to a bedroom where you'd be locked in a bedroom for 24hours..."
"If you fall asleep they removed your mattress"
Question "What happened if you didn't behave?
"we were in there [the Pits] for four nights" "if you ran away you got put in the cells for three days".
"There were loads of people in there (the Pits, solitary confinement), there was......was always in there...basically lived there...would run away and get put in the cell for three days".
The interview with the former resident of Le Chene stated the following;
Question "You said earlier on you were in Le Chene, is that correct?"
Answer "Yes" "I first went there in 1994"
"The judge remanded me and my mate back into secure custody at Le Chene...28 days remand"
Question "You said secure remand, what was that?"
Answer "a cell..you were stripped...to boxer shorts...there was a crash mat and there was just three speakers on the roof and then that's it."
Question "What else was in the room, quilt, blanket?"
Answer "No that was it, just you in boxer shorts and a crash mat. The Courts had said, it was a big thing, we had to be kept in secure."
Question "Who was in charge at this time"
Answer "Who was in Charge? It was Mario Lundy."
"There is loads more..."
News Flash - Emergency Meeting called by Chief Minister
The Chief Minister has called an emergency meeting of the States of Jersey 'leadership'. The meeting is taking place today at the Pomme d'Or Hotel at 10.30am.
Is it time for change...? I'm ever optimistic, but is it too much to hope that the truth might be addressed at last?
Is it time for change...? I'm ever optimistic, but is it too much to hope that the truth might be addressed at last?
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Who was the manager and when?
I wish to compile a chronology of managers at Le Chene/Greenfields.
Can anyone help with this.
I will start
Simon Bellwood: August 2006 until June 2007 (Absent on garden leave, but still employed, from January 2007 until June 2007)
This is factual information so there is no issue with libel.
Thanks
Simon
Can anyone help with this.
I will start
Simon Bellwood: August 2006 until June 2007 (Absent on garden leave, but still employed, from January 2007 until June 2007)
This is factual information so there is no issue with libel.
Thanks
Simon
Urgent request - help required
As you may have heard from the local BBC radio and the JEP tonight I am calling for a full public inquiry into the Grand Prix system and the alleged cover up by some senior civil servants and, even perhaps even more worrying, some of our politicians.
I will be sending a letter to the Chief Minister in the next few days and would also like to copy in all States Members so that they can view the evidence contained within my letter rather than let the Chief Ministers office take it apart and spin it to the UK and back.
Does anyone have all of the States Members email addresses, or could someone who wants to help compile a list of all these email addresses maybe?
In order to respect the privacy of the States Members I shall not be publishing these email addresses and I will be using them only for the purpose as mentioned above.
If anyone can help please email me at bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk.
Simon
I will be sending a letter to the Chief Minister in the next few days and would also like to copy in all States Members so that they can view the evidence contained within my letter rather than let the Chief Ministers office take it apart and spin it to the UK and back.
Does anyone have all of the States Members email addresses, or could someone who wants to help compile a list of all these email addresses maybe?
In order to respect the privacy of the States Members I shall not be publishing these email addresses and I will be using them only for the purpose as mentioned above.
If anyone can help please email me at bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk.
Simon
Monday, 17 November 2008
Radio Jersey 7am on Tuesday 18th November
I will be interviewed by Roger Bara tomorrow (Tuesday) on the 7am breakfast show, please join me!
Is anyone reading this know anything about marketing? If so, how do I get the blog exposed further?
Maybe someone can write one of those emails we all haite which asks everyone to send it to at least 10 of their friends!
Simon
Is anyone reading this know anything about marketing? If so, how do I get the blog exposed further?
Maybe someone can write one of those emails we all haite which asks everyone to send it to at least 10 of their friends!
Simon
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Letter of appeal to Senator Shenton
Below I have copied the letter which I sent to Senator Shenton this evening.
I think you will find it self explanatory. if you do require further information about my original complaint dated 1st January 2007 see the following link.
http://simonbellwood.blogspot.com/2008/04/stuart-syvret-my-opinion.html
"Whistleblower House
La Grande Route de St Jean
Trinity JE3
Tel. 07797
16 November 2008
Senator Shenton
XXX
Jersey
Dear Senator Shenton
When we spoke after the press conference by the Howard League for Penal Reform on Friday 14 November 2008, I informed you that I would be re-submitting my appeal. This is the appeal in connection with my complaint dated 1 January 2007, which I raised under the States of Jersey Serious Concerns Policy.
As you are aware, you wrote to me on 7 January 2008, informing me that I had no right of appeal as I was no longer a States of Jersey employee; that I was not entitled to use the States of Jersey appeals procedures.
At the end of your letter, you made the following statement:
“However, in the wider public interest, if you can furnish me with tangible facts which can be corroborated independently then I will consider how best to proceed."
I am sure you will agree that the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform, and information given by Andrew Nielson, Jon Fayle, and Lynne Ravenscroft at the press conference, are indeed “tangible facts which can be corroborated independently”.
I invite you to consider how best to proceed with this appeal and look forward to your response as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely
Simon Bellwood"
I think you will find it self explanatory. if you do require further information about my original complaint dated 1st January 2007 see the following link.
http://simonbellwood.blogspot.com/2008/04/stuart-syvret-my-opinion.html
"Whistleblower House
La Grande Route de St Jean
Trinity JE3
Tel. 07797
16 November 2008
Senator Shenton
XXX
Jersey
Dear Senator Shenton
When we spoke after the press conference by the Howard League for Penal Reform on Friday 14 November 2008, I informed you that I would be re-submitting my appeal. This is the appeal in connection with my complaint dated 1 January 2007, which I raised under the States of Jersey Serious Concerns Policy.
As you are aware, you wrote to me on 7 January 2008, informing me that I had no right of appeal as I was no longer a States of Jersey employee; that I was not entitled to use the States of Jersey appeals procedures.
At the end of your letter, you made the following statement:
“However, in the wider public interest, if you can furnish me with tangible facts which can be corroborated independently then I will consider how best to proceed."
I am sure you will agree that the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform, and information given by Andrew Nielson, Jon Fayle, and Lynne Ravenscroft at the press conference, are indeed “tangible facts which can be corroborated independently”.
I invite you to consider how best to proceed with this appeal and look forward to your response as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely
Simon Bellwood"
Senator Perchard - Exposed
Those of you who have been following the local TV and radio since the Howard League published their report on Friday will have quickly learnt badly how Senator Perchard has managed the press interviews.
You think he would have learnt after watching his boss Senator Walker last February.
Although very worrying that a man like this has political responsibility for Jersey most vulnerable children is was also quite amusing, especially the one when he looked like he was going to be physically sick!
This interview was with Adam Fowler of Channel TV on Friday.
You can view it interview here, it is well worth the watch;
http://www.channelonline.tv/videoplayer/itv_channel_report_friday.htm
Now, if there are any computer buffs out that that know how to download all of these interviews then please can you help out and put them on You Tube. We can then post links to this blog for all to see.
Take a look at his face when Adam Fowler stings him the quote from the HL report.
Surely no politician can pull a stunt like that and survive.
If I was a States member I would be lodging a vote of no confidence immediately.
I am however going to write to Senator Frank Walker and Senator Perchard asking for his resignation forthwith.
Thank you for the links where civil servants have stated that the Grand Prix system did not happen and was not abusive.
We could do with some more so that I can submit a portfolio of evidence to Senator Walker, the NSPCC and the General Social Care Council (GSCC) which will prove that there has been a cover up in Jersey.
Admittedly, there may be some who genuinely believed that the Grand Prix system did not happen or was not abusive in which case it would be unfair to accuse them of partaking in a cover up.
This ignorance however does not excuse them or provide them with immunity from the fallout.
It simply proves that whilst not corrupt, they are simply incompetent, and should resign or be suspended (as a neutral act of course) pending investigation.
I will post a further blog later tonight.
Please drop me some comments as we need to step this up a gear if we are to seek any form of justice. Please remember what we achieve now will help the vulnerable children of tomorrow.
Simon
You think he would have learnt after watching his boss Senator Walker last February.
Although very worrying that a man like this has political responsibility for Jersey most vulnerable children is was also quite amusing, especially the one when he looked like he was going to be physically sick!
This interview was with Adam Fowler of Channel TV on Friday.
You can view it interview here, it is well worth the watch;
http://www.channelonline.tv/videoplayer/itv_channel_report_friday.htm
Now, if there are any computer buffs out that that know how to download all of these interviews then please can you help out and put them on You Tube. We can then post links to this blog for all to see.
Take a look at his face when Adam Fowler stings him the quote from the HL report.
Surely no politician can pull a stunt like that and survive.
If I was a States member I would be lodging a vote of no confidence immediately.
I am however going to write to Senator Frank Walker and Senator Perchard asking for his resignation forthwith.
Thank you for the links where civil servants have stated that the Grand Prix system did not happen and was not abusive.
We could do with some more so that I can submit a portfolio of evidence to Senator Walker, the NSPCC and the General Social Care Council (GSCC) which will prove that there has been a cover up in Jersey.
Admittedly, there may be some who genuinely believed that the Grand Prix system did not happen or was not abusive in which case it would be unfair to accuse them of partaking in a cover up.
This ignorance however does not excuse them or provide them with immunity from the fallout.
It simply proves that whilst not corrupt, they are simply incompetent, and should resign or be suspended (as a neutral act of course) pending investigation.
I will post a further blog later tonight.
Please drop me some comments as we need to step this up a gear if we are to seek any form of justice. Please remember what we achieve now will help the vulnerable children of tomorrow.
Simon
Friday, 14 November 2008
Finally- the truth about the Grand Prix system and the Cover up led by the States of Jersey
Today has taken a long time in coming.
There have been many battles along the way, some have been won some have been lost.
Today however, I believe we won the war for vulnerable children in Jersey who come into contact with the criminal justice and welfare system.
Despite the stress, the worry, the bullying and intimidation, the lies, the deceit and condemnation, today has made the whole ordeal worth while.
Never again will a vulnerable child held in the secure estate in Jersey, be locked up upon arrival - a time when they desperately need to be cared for and reassured.
Never again will a vulnerable child have to endure lengthy periods of solitary confinement.
Today has been a big day for those of us who have been fighting for justice for these children. It has also been one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for the politicians and senior managers.
The very people who have spent the past 18 months telling you all that I and Senator Syvret are lying, that we are disaffected.
In fact, they have been so hell bent on denying that anything was abusive that they have scored the most spectacular own goal yet.
The boomerang of political spin has finally come full circle and hit them square in the ass!
So, where do we start.
I intend to post a series of blogs as the days unfold. I also want you all to shout about my blog from the rooftops, email your friends. If a few of you can be bothered even post fliers around the island. If someone can get some car window stickers made then do it.
We need to expose the truth, prevent the usual bullshit spin from diluting the truly damning evidence within the report.
In my view, this report is even more damning that the infamous Cathy Bull report back in 2001.
I will hopefully be attending a number of media interviews over the coming days. Breakfast time with Roger Bara at 7.05am on Tuesday booked in so far and the JEP.
So that I am prepared for these interviews, so that I can provide the evidence needed to counter the usual spin from the States of Jersey I need some help. I need you to help me collate all of the statements, that the senior civil servants and politicians have given to the press in the past 18 months.
It is this evidence that I will use to call for a full and independent investigation into the handling of my original complaint and about the Grand Prix system.
If anyone can help with this, searching through Community Care website, the States Greffe, all of the major press websites and provide me with a link and their statements.
This can only work for statements that give direct quotes, it cannot be paraphrased statements.
Once I have this evidence I will be writing to the Chief Minister and Senator Shenton requesting the immediate suspension of any individual that can be proven to have been involved in the cover up of the Grand Prix system.
I will also be making a further statement to the Jersey Police with regards to any of these individuals who have perverted the course of justice or misconduct in public office.
You can access the full report by the Howard League on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7727840.stm
To give just one example of the kind of evidence that I am after consider the following;
After I had made my original complaint on the 1st January 2008, Marnie Baudain, Mario Lundy and Tony Le Seuer requested that Phil Dennett undertake an investigation into my complaint.
The terms of reference given to Phil Dennett were as follows;
There have been many battles along the way, some have been won some have been lost.
Today however, I believe we won the war for vulnerable children in Jersey who come into contact with the criminal justice and welfare system.
Despite the stress, the worry, the bullying and intimidation, the lies, the deceit and condemnation, today has made the whole ordeal worth while.
Never again will a vulnerable child held in the secure estate in Jersey, be locked up upon arrival - a time when they desperately need to be cared for and reassured.
Never again will a vulnerable child have to endure lengthy periods of solitary confinement.
Today has been a big day for those of us who have been fighting for justice for these children. It has also been one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for the politicians and senior managers.
The very people who have spent the past 18 months telling you all that I and Senator Syvret are lying, that we are disaffected.
In fact, they have been so hell bent on denying that anything was abusive that they have scored the most spectacular own goal yet.
The boomerang of political spin has finally come full circle and hit them square in the ass!
So, where do we start.
I intend to post a series of blogs as the days unfold. I also want you all to shout about my blog from the rooftops, email your friends. If a few of you can be bothered even post fliers around the island. If someone can get some car window stickers made then do it.
We need to expose the truth, prevent the usual bullshit spin from diluting the truly damning evidence within the report.
In my view, this report is even more damning that the infamous Cathy Bull report back in 2001.
I will hopefully be attending a number of media interviews over the coming days. Breakfast time with Roger Bara at 7.05am on Tuesday booked in so far and the JEP.
So that I am prepared for these interviews, so that I can provide the evidence needed to counter the usual spin from the States of Jersey I need some help. I need you to help me collate all of the statements, that the senior civil servants and politicians have given to the press in the past 18 months.
It is this evidence that I will use to call for a full and independent investigation into the handling of my original complaint and about the Grand Prix system.
If anyone can help with this, searching through Community Care website, the States Greffe, all of the major press websites and provide me with a link and their statements.
This can only work for statements that give direct quotes, it cannot be paraphrased statements.
Once I have this evidence I will be writing to the Chief Minister and Senator Shenton requesting the immediate suspension of any individual that can be proven to have been involved in the cover up of the Grand Prix system.
I will also be making a further statement to the Jersey Police with regards to any of these individuals who have perverted the course of justice or misconduct in public office.
You can access the full report by the Howard League on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7727840.stm
To give just one example of the kind of evidence that I am after consider the following;
After I had made my original complaint on the 1st January 2008, Marnie Baudain, Mario Lundy and Tony Le Seuer requested that Phil Dennett undertake an investigation into my complaint.
The terms of reference given to Phil Dennett were as follows;
"...investigate all professional practice and policy issues at the Greenfields Secure Unit in order to establish whether quality of care, welfare and human rights safeguards are of an appropriate standard and quality".
In Section 12 of his report, Phil Dennett stated,
"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated in either the former or present Greenfields"
Now, I am no lawyer, but does this not prove that Phil Dennett has been involved in a cover up?
If not, it certainly proves that he is incapable of carrying out his job.
He was either aware of it and covered it up or he was not aware of it and should have been.
There is plenty of evidence available we just have to find it. I know that the following people have made statements about the Grand Prix system;
Joe Kennedy
Phil Dennett
Senator Vibert
Bill Ogley
Senator Walker
Marnie Baudains
Mario Lundy
Mike Pollard
Steven Austin-Vautier
Tom McKeon
Senator Perchard
See what information you can get for me.
Please, this is very important.
I am not interested in hear say, just fact. Only factual evidence that can be corroborated will be published on this blog. Any rumours however will still be gratefully received but not published!
Simon
Thursday, 13 November 2008
The Howard League Report - Friday 14th November 2008
As you will probably know by now, tomorrow is Judgement Day.
The Howard League will be publishing their report.
I will do a lengthy blog tomorrow when the embargo has ended. However, it is my belief that the report will, through it's findings, call into question the tenability of many civil servants and politicians.
From this, some should be suspended and some should resign, lets see? Yeah right!
It is expected that the report will throw up many question. My previous blogs have highlighted some of my concerns and those raised by Senator Syvret.
Since yesterday, when I restarted my blog the following has been asked;
Question 1.
"Was the Grande Prix system used or not? i am confused. Is Mr perchard saying "yes,this is the behaviour system they adopted, but they did'nt use it"?If this is the case, what behaviour system was used?All very confusing.How long has Mr perchard been assistant health minister? not very long is it?Perhaps Mr perchard can explain the definitions of exactly what did and did'nt happen at greenfields, he seems to have all the details.He must have been very busy reading all the files and records, and talking to everyone who was ever involved with Le Chenes and Greenfields, so perhaps he can explain what it means.So,Let's get this right, the Grande Prix, it existed in theory but was'nt put into practice?So were residents put in a cell for 24 hours on arrival or not?Were residents put into a cell for 3 days if they misbehaved or refused to do what was asked? Was that time extended if conduct wasn't complient in the cell? Didn't several residents spend weeks in a cell? Is that what they mean by a watered down version of Grande Prix?Who introduced Grande Prix? and When?When did it stop?I'm confused.com"
Answer 1
Yes, the Grand Prix system did exist. Yes residents were put in a cell for 24 hours. Yes residents were put into a cell for three days if they misbehaved or refused to do what was asked.
Yes, the time was extended if they failed to comply. Yes several residents did spend weeks in their cell. Senator Perchard will dispute this of course, a debate which will be had in due course.
For me, the real question is who is the liar? Is it me or Senator Perchard et al?
Two days ago, during a telephone conversation, Senator Perchard informed me that there was nothing illegal about the Grand Prix system!
My view is that the only way to uncover the truth is through the staff and young people who were there at the time. Without them the truth will be lost. Was I the liar along with Senator Syvret or was it them!!!
Can the staff speak out? Will they speak out? I doubt it, but lets hope and pray that they do. Now is the time to reveal the truth, they are protected more than ever before, do the right thing and tell the truth.
As and when the truth does emerge, it will prove that one of us is lying.
Question 2.
Do you know anything about the two 15year olds incarcerated at LaMoye .I know that a tutor is going up there to give them lessons but I still cannot understand how or why a child could possibly be held in an adult prison. I have since learnt that these children are not kept in solitary confinement but the really worrying issues are who’re they mixing with".
Answer 2
I have heard nothing of the two 15 year olds at La Moye. The Tutor however, is likely to be from the Alternative Curriculum.
If they (the young people) are sentenced then that is why they are at La Moye and not Greenfields. The law says that they have to be held in a YOI (Young Offenders Institution) hence Greenfields cannot hold them.
The esteemed Wendy Kinnard clearly felt that it was more appropriate to stick to the Jersey laws rather than the Euopean Convention on the Rights of the Child which is why sentenced children, often vulnerable children are incarcerated at the adult prison!
If you look at my previous blog I did refer to the case of a young girl who was held illegally in La Moye. I suspect that the Howard League report will support my earlier comments.
On 13th April 2008 I wrote;
"It did not take me long to realise that the States of Jersey’s had an odd view of what constituted good child care. My concerns were first raised when I reviewed the care status of the children in residence at the time. There was one resident that I was confused as to their legal status. They were not there on Remand, nor were they subject to a Secure Accommodation Order; these being the only two legal routes into Greenfields.After some probing questions I learnt that this child was subject to a Community Order (a non custodial sentence for a criminal offence) a requirement of this Order included a residency requirement (a requirement imposed to reduce the risk of re-offending such as residing with a family member or a specific children’s home). Having previously worked in a Youth Offending Team for two years in the UK I was well aware of such requirements, however, this one was different. This residency requirement was at Greenfields a secure children's home; a requirement which was clearly designed to remove the child’s liberty and keep them in a custodial setting.I later learnt that this was considered a positive choice by the States of Jersey as the child had previously been sentenced to La Moye, the adult prison. Given their age it was considered as inappropriate so the custodial sentence had been quashed. A sensible choice in my view. The decision to remove them from La Moye was good, the decision to remove their liberty with a residency requirement as part of a Community Order was illegal. The European Convention on Human Rights does not allow someones liberty to be taken away without a lawful Order, and certainly not because a country has decided not to invest in adequate care provisions for its young and vulnerable children.This is just one example of the poor and often unlawful practice which the States of Jersey is responsible for, practices which I soon realised were long standing in relation to their provision of social services and child protection systems."
As mentioned earlier and with regards to tonight's interviews, I cannot find the link but I was on Channel TV tonight at 7.30pm. It was in relation to the imminent release of the Howard League report.
If anyone can find a link please post it for me on here.
I will post more tomorrow.
Simon Bellwood
The Whistleblower!
The Howard League will be publishing their report.
I will do a lengthy blog tomorrow when the embargo has ended. However, it is my belief that the report will, through it's findings, call into question the tenability of many civil servants and politicians.
From this, some should be suspended and some should resign, lets see? Yeah right!
It is expected that the report will throw up many question. My previous blogs have highlighted some of my concerns and those raised by Senator Syvret.
Since yesterday, when I restarted my blog the following has been asked;
Question 1.
"Was the Grande Prix system used or not? i am confused. Is Mr perchard saying "yes,this is the behaviour system they adopted, but they did'nt use it"?If this is the case, what behaviour system was used?All very confusing.How long has Mr perchard been assistant health minister? not very long is it?Perhaps Mr perchard can explain the definitions of exactly what did and did'nt happen at greenfields, he seems to have all the details.He must have been very busy reading all the files and records, and talking to everyone who was ever involved with Le Chenes and Greenfields, so perhaps he can explain what it means.So,Let's get this right, the Grande Prix, it existed in theory but was'nt put into practice?So were residents put in a cell for 24 hours on arrival or not?Were residents put into a cell for 3 days if they misbehaved or refused to do what was asked? Was that time extended if conduct wasn't complient in the cell? Didn't several residents spend weeks in a cell? Is that what they mean by a watered down version of Grande Prix?Who introduced Grande Prix? and When?When did it stop?I'm confused.com"
Answer 1
Yes, the Grand Prix system did exist. Yes residents were put in a cell for 24 hours. Yes residents were put into a cell for three days if they misbehaved or refused to do what was asked.
Yes, the time was extended if they failed to comply. Yes several residents did spend weeks in their cell. Senator Perchard will dispute this of course, a debate which will be had in due course.
For me, the real question is who is the liar? Is it me or Senator Perchard et al?
Two days ago, during a telephone conversation, Senator Perchard informed me that there was nothing illegal about the Grand Prix system!
My view is that the only way to uncover the truth is through the staff and young people who were there at the time. Without them the truth will be lost. Was I the liar along with Senator Syvret or was it them!!!
Can the staff speak out? Will they speak out? I doubt it, but lets hope and pray that they do. Now is the time to reveal the truth, they are protected more than ever before, do the right thing and tell the truth.
As and when the truth does emerge, it will prove that one of us is lying.
Question 2.
Do you know anything about the two 15year olds incarcerated at LaMoye .I know that a tutor is going up there to give them lessons but I still cannot understand how or why a child could possibly be held in an adult prison. I have since learnt that these children are not kept in solitary confinement but the really worrying issues are who’re they mixing with".
Answer 2
I have heard nothing of the two 15 year olds at La Moye. The Tutor however, is likely to be from the Alternative Curriculum.
If they (the young people) are sentenced then that is why they are at La Moye and not Greenfields. The law says that they have to be held in a YOI (Young Offenders Institution) hence Greenfields cannot hold them.
The esteemed Wendy Kinnard clearly felt that it was more appropriate to stick to the Jersey laws rather than the Euopean Convention on the Rights of the Child which is why sentenced children, often vulnerable children are incarcerated at the adult prison!
If you look at my previous blog I did refer to the case of a young girl who was held illegally in La Moye. I suspect that the Howard League report will support my earlier comments.
On 13th April 2008 I wrote;
"It did not take me long to realise that the States of Jersey’s had an odd view of what constituted good child care. My concerns were first raised when I reviewed the care status of the children in residence at the time. There was one resident that I was confused as to their legal status. They were not there on Remand, nor were they subject to a Secure Accommodation Order; these being the only two legal routes into Greenfields.After some probing questions I learnt that this child was subject to a Community Order (a non custodial sentence for a criminal offence) a requirement of this Order included a residency requirement (a requirement imposed to reduce the risk of re-offending such as residing with a family member or a specific children’s home). Having previously worked in a Youth Offending Team for two years in the UK I was well aware of such requirements, however, this one was different. This residency requirement was at Greenfields a secure children's home; a requirement which was clearly designed to remove the child’s liberty and keep them in a custodial setting.I later learnt that this was considered a positive choice by the States of Jersey as the child had previously been sentenced to La Moye, the adult prison. Given their age it was considered as inappropriate so the custodial sentence had been quashed. A sensible choice in my view. The decision to remove them from La Moye was good, the decision to remove their liberty with a residency requirement as part of a Community Order was illegal. The European Convention on Human Rights does not allow someones liberty to be taken away without a lawful Order, and certainly not because a country has decided not to invest in adequate care provisions for its young and vulnerable children.This is just one example of the poor and often unlawful practice which the States of Jersey is responsible for, practices which I soon realised were long standing in relation to their provision of social services and child protection systems."
As mentioned earlier and with regards to tonight's interviews, I cannot find the link but I was on Channel TV tonight at 7.30pm. It was in relation to the imminent release of the Howard League report.
If anyone can find a link please post it for me on here.
I will post more tomorrow.
Simon Bellwood
The Whistleblower!
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Simon Bellwood - Round 2!
Dear all,
Firstly let me apologise for the lack of attention to my blog site over recent months.
I have no excuse other than I have been really busy... starting a new career.
Those of you who had previously followed my blog will know that the States of Jersey decided that I was not very good at social work and to prove their point they sacked me.
In response, rather than leave Jersey (much to their disappointment), I embarked on a new career and I am here to stay. Although not as active in pursuit of justice as I would like to be, and despite my lack of attention to my blog, I have endeavoured to keep the pressure on in order to promote the rights of children.
Oh, before I go on, I almost forgotto say 'Hi' to Phil (Dennett). Marnie (Baudains), Joe (Kennedy), Linda (Dodds), Madeleine (Davies), Mikey (Pollard) and Mickey (Pinel), Billy (Ogley) and Franky (Wa*ker). Long time no speak, I hope you are all well?
Anyway, getting back to my blog, where have I found the energy to start blogging again? All will be revealed!
I intend on posting blogs in relation to the imminent publication of the Howard League report as well as looking at the entrenched bullying culture within the States of Jersey's civil service.
An area I am sure will provoke some strong reactions. Have you been bullied and not believed?
The imminent release of the Howard League report will also provoke some strong responses, whether they be employees, former residents or the general public.
Did you know that Jersey lock up more children than the rest of Europe? Ironic when you consider the previous role of the senatorial pole topper?
I would love to hear from you with suggestions of what topics should be covered within this blog.
As always I am particularly keen to hear from Greenfields staff and residents (and their families).
But just to warn you, the Grand Prix system...it didn't happen.
We all know and accept that it was an unfortunate policy document that was misrepresented.
Just so you know, do not try and condemn this view as it will not be mentioned on my blog due to the controversy it may cause.
Clearly there is no evidence to suggest that it happened, it is only disaffected individuals (like me) who claim that children were locked in solitary confinement for long periods of time (which was unlawful).
It is an open and shut case, put it to rest, lest talk about more pressing issues like the...uhhmmm?
I look forward to your comments.
Simon Bellwood
The Social Worker who was sacked AFTER (and not for)whistle blowing
Firstly let me apologise for the lack of attention to my blog site over recent months.
I have no excuse other than I have been really busy... starting a new career.
Those of you who had previously followed my blog will know that the States of Jersey decided that I was not very good at social work and to prove their point they sacked me.
In response, rather than leave Jersey (much to their disappointment), I embarked on a new career and I am here to stay. Although not as active in pursuit of justice as I would like to be, and despite my lack of attention to my blog, I have endeavoured to keep the pressure on in order to promote the rights of children.
Oh, before I go on, I almost forgotto say 'Hi' to Phil (Dennett). Marnie (Baudains), Joe (Kennedy), Linda (Dodds), Madeleine (Davies), Mikey (Pollard) and Mickey (Pinel), Billy (Ogley) and Franky (Wa*ker). Long time no speak, I hope you are all well?
Anyway, getting back to my blog, where have I found the energy to start blogging again? All will be revealed!
I intend on posting blogs in relation to the imminent publication of the Howard League report as well as looking at the entrenched bullying culture within the States of Jersey's civil service.
An area I am sure will provoke some strong reactions. Have you been bullied and not believed?
The imminent release of the Howard League report will also provoke some strong responses, whether they be employees, former residents or the general public.
Did you know that Jersey lock up more children than the rest of Europe? Ironic when you consider the previous role of the senatorial pole topper?
I would love to hear from you with suggestions of what topics should be covered within this blog.
As always I am particularly keen to hear from Greenfields staff and residents (and their families).
But just to warn you, the Grand Prix system...it didn't happen.
We all know and accept that it was an unfortunate policy document that was misrepresented.
Just so you know, do not try and condemn this view as it will not be mentioned on my blog due to the controversy it may cause.
Clearly there is no evidence to suggest that it happened, it is only disaffected individuals (like me) who claim that children were locked in solitary confinement for long periods of time (which was unlawful).
It is an open and shut case, put it to rest, lest talk about more pressing issues like the...uhhmmm?
I look forward to your comments.
Simon Bellwood
The Social Worker who was sacked AFTER (and not for)whistle blowing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)