Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Section 4

This commentary is a continuation of yesterday's blog and will focus on Section 4 of Phil Dennett's report into my whistle blowing complaint.

The full report written by Phil Dennett is included in my previous post dated Sunday 18th May 2008.

Section 4 of the report considers what he refers to as 'information from Simon Bellwood'.

Before I go on, I want to emphasise something, there are many readers of my blog who have never worked in Greenfields or under Joe Kennedy's management, they can read this current blog for their information only - others, who have worked there read it with knowledge and views on issues raised by me and others.

However, in truth, I am writing this blog for all of you who work there now and for those who worked in the old building for Joe Kennedy and those managers before him - including me.

I want you to really listen to what I am asking of you and you can choose to ignore what I am saying or you can do what you feel is morally and ethically right.

Section 4.2 of Phil Dennett's report highlights the concerns raised by me in my Serious Concerns complaint of 2nd January 2007. It refers specifically to the new admissions procedure which was implemented whilst I was on annual leave over Christmas.

Anyone who worked at Greenfields will know what I mean. The one which was communicated to staff via the communications book. To help your memories I have written below what it said:

, “All staff - as from today room one will now be the new admission room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty fours hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour”

The person who wrote this claims that, upon reflection, they can understand how it could have been misunderstood by others. I don't want to labour this point because I do not wish to cause any unnecessary stress to that person, however, what I do want is for you all to tell me, and more importantly, the other readers what was meant and understood by that communications book entry.

I have always understood the entry to be the same as the admissions policy in the grandprix system so I have always been bewildered when anyone, like Phil Dennett, tries to argue that it was not the same.

Ooppss sorry, my mistake, Phil Dennett has never pretended it was different, he always claimed that admissions under the grandprix system, despite the wording in the document, did not involve locking children in solitary confinement, so was fine anyway.

I want to stop right there, you tell me what this all means.

You worked there.

You knew how the policy worked in reality.

You understood it.

You witnessed it.

Surely you can explain to us all in a way that is much better than Phil Dennett or I can.

Moving on to section 4.3, although this section does not use the word 'grandprix', clearly Phil Dennett is talking about that very system. He says how I felt that the system was inappropriate.

This is a slight understatement to say the least, however, despite his choice of words, let us remember that Phil Dennett's report concludes that there was nothing abusive about the grandprix system anyway.

Again, I look at you, the staff who work there, to clarify this point for me and the other readers.

You worked there.

You know how the policy worked in reality.

You understood it.

You witnessed it.

Explain to us all - the truth.

Oh and by the way, Chris Knights, the young lad who bravely went on camera about his experiences at Greenfields, his claim that he was subjected to a period of solitary confinement for nearly two months; Pbil Dennett told the Howard League for Penal Reform that Chris Knights was lying.

Some of you were there.

Speak out.

Tell the truth.

Tell us what actually happened.

Is Chris Knights lying, or is Phil Dennett lying?

I am not going to look at any other sections of Phil Dennett's reports until we have clarified the points that he has made in Section 4.

I feel that unless we can contextualise what we are talking about here, ie, what was the actual practice of the grandprix system and the new admissions procedure, then what is the point of debating the rest of the report.

Once you have helped to clarify the situation we can move on to the next issue; Joe Kennedy and I sit on different sides of the fence when it comes to our philosophy in what constitutes good child care within secure and residential settings.

The thing is only one of us can be right.

Phil Dennett, Madeleine Davies, Linda Dodds, Mario Lundy, Marnie Baudains, Mike Pollard, Bill Ogley, Mick Pinel, Micheala Clifford, and even Frank Wa*ker think I am wrong, so, they must think that Joe Kennedy is right - yes?

Oh, I nearly forgot Tony Le Sewer (damn, could never get his name right), head of the Children's Service.

Well, lets imagine that the the fence which divides Joe Kennedy and myself is broken and no-one can sit on it anymore, let us hear which side of the fence you are going to go - you can either agree with me and sit on my side or agree with Joe Kennedy and the others and go with them.

Tonight I am ready to give up, the fact that the States of Jersey have clearly decided that Joe Kennedy was right all along simply re-affirms that I am either going mad or they are too powerful for me to beat.

I am bored of writing these blogs to a seemingly invisible audience.

I am demotivated, stressed, tired, and have little fight left in me.

I need some help, I need to know your views.

Now is the time to speak up, speak up for what you believe in.

Don't feel that you should have an allegiance to me or to Joe Kennedy, do what feels right, the only thing I ask you not to do - is to do nothing as this helps nobody but yourself.

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem - do you want to be part of the problem?

If anyone wishes to comment on the above I will post it. As for me I am tired, I need a break, they have beaten me - so for now, farewell.

Simon