Wednesday, 23 April 2008
I have attached Stuart's response to MIke Pollard.
When you read it you will see that despite Mike Pollard's attempts to convince Stuart that all was rosey in the garden and that they (the senior civil servants) had sorted it all out, Stuart felt that he needed to make sure, for himself, whether it actually was all fine.
When Stuart began investigating further he realised that the way the my complaint had been dealt with was nothing but a complete and utter shambles.
If it was not for Stuart then this would have been covered up and brushed under the carpet the way many other complaints havee been dealt with.
So, whatever you think of Stuart, here is the evidence that he was, and still is, prepared to go out on a limb and do what is right for the people of Jersey. My question is this, how many other politicians or senior civil servants would do this? I am sure there are a few but I am also sure there are maney that would prefer to protect their own jobs and pensions before they did what was morally and ethically the right thing to do.
When it comes to voting, I want to vote for someone with a passion for people's rights, a person who will stand up for me when I am being kicked, someone who will help change the culture of oppession and concealment that too many senior figures in Jersey are seemingly hell bent on doing without consideration for the personal cost to others.
Stuart, you get my vote.
Above is the reponse from Mike Pollard and I would like to draw your attention to a few points of particular interest.
Firstly, he states that 'the entire matter has been dealt with to the highest possible standards of conduct as per SoJ precedures'. Later this week I will be posting a blog which explains the process of the investigation into my complaint and you will be able to decide for yourselves whether it was done to the 'highest possible standards', or not?
Secondly, the duty of care which I apparently failed to provide for a child, as I found out later was in relation to allowing young people to be introduced and interact with other young people resident after they had been through the admission procedures at Greenfields. This was something that I had introduced as part of the changes that were required. As you will recall, the previous system under the Grandprix regime involved isolating young people in their bedrooms for the first 24 hours.
Attention readers - I would like to hear some comments from either current or previous staff at Greenfields who know how the admissions procedure that I introduced worked and how the previous admissions were done. It may also be useful to hear how they currently admit young people into Greenfields. If anyone from Greenfields is reading this blog please take some time to respond as I am 100% confident that my admissions procedures were lawful, best practice and inline with National Mininum Care Standards which govern secure children's homes in the UK. My job description in Jersey stated , 'Ensure that the Unit is fit for National Minimum Care Standards'.
I would also like to point out that my admissions procedures were adopted from Leverton Hall Secure Chidlren's Home in Essex where I worked as a manager for two and half years prior to coming to Jersey. This admissions process had been subject to scrutiny from the inspectors for the past 12 years and had never been identified as a problem. This process of admitting young people into a secure children's home is also used throughout the UK.
Thirdly, Mike Pollard's email states, 'If his probationary period had expired I would have sacked him - and, unlike on many other occasions in my professional life when I have had to sack someone, would have had no doubt whatsoever that it was the right decision'.
So, does this mean that when it is proven that Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeleine Davies catagorically lied in their final reports into my complaint (which I have no doubt will happen soon), then Mike Pollard will owe me a big apology? I doubt it, the guy could'nt even look me in the eye when he signed the settlement agreement at the employment tribunal. He has too much to lose, he has dug himself a big hole, along with the other senior civil servants that I have already mentioned, and now they have no choice but to fight their way out.
If Stuart is reading my blog it may be good if perhaps he can provide a comment, perhaps a comment about the role of the 'Corporate Parent' and the context of the emails.
My next blog contains the resonse that Stuart gave to Mike Pollard, I want to show this to you as it demonstrates the level of integrity that Stuart showed when he first heard my concerns about Greenfields. It also demonstrates that in June 2007 Stuart was right to be concerned about Greenfields, even though the senior civil servants and Frank Walker deny there was a problem at all.
Yesterday I began to talk about my views of Senator Stuart Syvret.
When Stuart received my letter appealing against the outcome of my Serious Concerns complaint (See blog yesterday for a full copy of complaint), he responded as you would expect from a Politician.
With integrity, respect and an open mind.
Unbeknown to me at the time Stuart then made some of his own enquiries and was met with resistance, resistance from his own chief officer Mike Pollard. See the letter above for the original email which Stuart sent to Mike Pollard.
Mike Pollard's response to this email is in my next posting called 'Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2' as this blog will not allow me to put multiple pages in one go.