Simon Bellwood - The Whistleblower

Tomorrow...Home Affairs (and Jersey Oak's Christmas Sale!!!)

2008-12-10T15:54:00.001-08:00

If Ian Le Marquand gets in tomorrow I am giving up.

The police are investigating Les Chene and this guy used to send kids there to be kept in solitary confinement for 28 days.

He has already stated that the Police need to be under more political control.

What's the point................................

Just to cheer me up a little I want to change tact on my blog.

I have kept it purely professional up until now.

But there is something I need to tell you....................

Whats occurring? Well, its.........

Jersey Oak's, first ever 'Sale'.

Thats right, my company Jersey Oak, this weekend in the Royal Square.

25% off Everything.

Come and see me there.

That cheered me up a little bit.

Simon

p.s. Agent 315, if you come to see me you will have to wear a disguise!

My Response - Part 4

2008-12-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

The Grand Prix System

Senator Shenton chooses in his opening paragraphs to criticise the GP system because it is male orientated.

Well done Ben for seeing that it was not perfect after all. No wonder you are Health Minister (for the moment) you really do know your stuff!

Interestingly he chooses a criticism that was levied by the Howard League.

Even more interesting that he chooses to cite this criticism instead of the other one quoted by the Howard League;

"9.26 As we have previously stated at para 1.1, we certainly believe the Grand Prix regime was unlawful."

Shenton goes on to say that it was very affective at reducing the levels of violence and absconding.

So were the guns used by Hitler's army!

The next bit I like the best though.

He says,

"[Simon Bellwood's]...first job was to formally discontinue the Grand Prix system and to build a modern system which reflected modern practice as per the Department of Health's Children's Homes - National Minimum Standards".

Ben Shenton you are the lowest of low. This has been fed to you be Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett. What a bunch of idiots the three of you.

He goes on to write,

"He [Simon Bellwood] was delegated the task of dismantling this sytem by those who recruited him".

'Those that recruited him' - that was Phil Dennett and Joe Kennedy.

Joe, Phil, you're a pair of lying bastards.

When I hear things like this is motivates me further to bring these lying, deceitful and incompetent idiots to justice.

They think they can ruin my 15 year career, do a hopeless job themselves for years and just get away with it.

Not a chance boys.

Joe, Phil you will get what you both deserve trust me.

The truth is they both bullied me when I changed the GP system.

As if they ever told me to stop it. Why would they? Joe was so proud of it!

I am finishing at this point tonight because this really does piss me off.

I am now going to drink a bottle of wine and relax in front of the TV.

I want any staff who are reading this, you know the truth, to tell someone.

Phone the Police and tell them the truth.

You don't have to do it on here but do not stand by and let these two evil people ruin any more lives.

As for the rest of the equally useless and corrupt senior civil servant that conspired to cover this up and get rid of me, I am not going to stop until they have been brought to justice either.

This time next week, you wait, they will not be looking so relaxed

Don't worry, nothing sinister going on, this is not a threat or anything like that.

I would not stoop so low.

I have always played by the book and always will.

Just watch this space!

Justice will be done.

Simon

Frankly, I don't give a damn!

2008-12-02T14:51:00.000-08:00

A letter from Frank, click on it to enlarge!

I did a live interview on BBC Radio Jersey's Breakfast Show again this morning responding to Senator Shenton's Letter. You can click the link below to listen.

I will do a more substantive post tomorrow with my Response - Part 4.

I will also be responding to Frank. Let me know if you have any messages for him, I will be happy to pass them on!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p001kkqy/Jersey_Today_02_12_2008/

My Response - Part 3

2008-11-30T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

My Response - Part 2

2008-11-28T11:48:00.000-08:00

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,

"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

My Response - Part 1

2008-11-27T16:40:00.000-08:00

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.”

.

Health Service offering Free Smears!

2008-11-26T13:17:00.000-08:00

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

JEP - Today's 'Letter to the Editor'

2008-11-25T13:42:00.000-08:00

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

While we wait for a Frank response!

2008-11-24T13:55:00.000-08:00

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

A not so Frank letter - A Letter to the Chief Minister

2008-11-22T14:04:00.000-08:00

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

I have been accused of being "Purile and Conceited"

2008-11-22T09:20:00.000-08:00

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.

Frank's Frank Reply

2008-11-21T04:48:00.002-08:00

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 do you give the Evidence requested to the Chief Minister?

2008-11-20T12:42:00.000-08:00

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

A snippet of evidence - At the request of the Chief Minster

2008-11-19T10:36:00.000-08:00

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..."

News Flash - Emergency Meeting called by Chief Minister

2008-11-19T01:52:00.001-08:00

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?

JEP - Article today on Page 4

2008-11-18T14:27:00.001-08:00

Who was the manager and when?

2008-11-18T13:25:00.000-08:00

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

Urgent request - help required

2008-11-18T11:27:00.000-08:00

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

Radio Jersey 7am on Tuesday 18th November

2008-11-17T12:50:00.000-08:00

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

Letter of appeal to Senator Shenton

2008-11-16T15:25:00.000-08:00

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"

Senator Perchard - Exposed

2008-11-16T11:43:00.000-08:00

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

Finally- the truth about the Grand Prix system and the Cover up led by the States of Jersey

2008-11-14T13:20:00.000-08:00

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;

"...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

The Howard League Report - Friday 14th November 2008

2008-11-13T15:10:00.000-08:00

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!

Simon Bellwood - Round 2!

2008-11-12T14:50:00.001-08:00

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

Search for people who may have information...

2008-08-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

I have recently been exchanging correspondence with a responsible, trustworthy film-maker who is very interested in hearing from those of you who work, or have worked, in the care system in Jersey.

This person works for a large reputable company and would treat this with the utmost discretion.

It can be strictly off-the-record/anonymous if needs be; you can contact the individual through me and I will not disclose any details without your consent.

The film-maker is also interested in talking to people who have been through the child care system.

I know it is difficult to speak out about such matters but if you feel able to speak in confidence please contact me via email at thejerseywhistlleblower@hotmail.com

I would particularly like to hear from Phil Dennett, Joe Kennedy, Marnie Baudains, Linda Dodds, Madeliene Davies and Mike Pollard (should they ever wish to confess their sins and help themsleves sleep a little more easy at night). Oh and let's not forget the recent recruits in the war against justice and good child care practices: Senators Shenton and Perchard) and others who still work for the States of Jersey or private/charitable organisations.

Joking aside, this is a serious matter and a serious offer to anyone who would like to confidentially speak to this particular film-maker, through me.

Simon

Police Investigation into my employment tribunal

2008-08-19T13:21:00.000-07:00

Dear All

It has been some time since I last posted a blog on here - my energy is being focused elsewhere, I am afraid.

However, I figured that it is important for me to post a blog in light of today's JEP article.

The police are conducting an investigation into certain issues in relation to my employment tribunal. Although this has been taking place for some time now, somehow the JEP have just got wind of it. As a result, I understand that the police have had to issue a press statement.

There is little more that I can say on the matter, other than I hope that once - finally - the States might be found culpable for their corruption and cover ups.

I am so grateful to everyone who loyally reads my blog, and thank you for all the support you have given me. Just this afternoon, since the newspapers hit the stands, I have received several encouraging comments from you.

I am sorry that I do not write posts more often than I do. It was becoming a bit of a late night obsession. I eventually figured that the States might not have succeeded in driving me off the island (much to their collective disappointment), but if they managed to drive me crazy, then that would probably gratify them equally!

With regards to the police investigation, dare I raise my hopes again of justice in these matters? Having apparently been vindicated at the employment tribunal, with Professor Upex's report upholding that my dismissal was unfair, and yet being regularly slagged off for my alleged (without any evidence) incompetence, it doesn't feel very fair or just to me.

I cannot comment further on the police investigation for fear of jeopardising the inquiry in any way, but I am happy to post comments and respond to them if appropriate.

I would also be interested to know who you think might be the "senior civil servant" under investigation, if there is in fact only one, and your reasoning why you think it might be them!

Simon

Blog Comment - for discussion

2008-08-07T14:15:00.000-07:00

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

Anyway, that is a post for another day.

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

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

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

How can this happen in the current light of things.

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

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

Are their no set guidelines?"

Any views?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Upex Report

2008-07-18T01:39:00.000-07:00

I only have a PDF of the report so it is easier for you to follow the link below to find it on the States website.

I would like to congratulate Frank Walker and his chums for the Executive Summary which has so desperately been attached to the front the report.

You will notice that the report does not criticise me in any way yet Walker, our great leader, assassinates my character before you even get to read a single word written by Professor Upex.

Great tactic Frank - divert attention, discredit the person who blew the whistle and save face all in one foul swoop.

Also, I would like to hear from the staff/witnesses who were called to Pollard's office the week before my tribunal to talk about how they wanted them to discredit me, how they were going to tell the world I was a bad manager who deserved to be sacked.

I have sacrificed my career, 15 years worth of work, for the children's service in Jersey - now I want you to support me and tell the truth.

I am disgusted that I am still being made the scapegoat and being accused putting staff and children and risk. I am disgusted that the States of Jersey are still making life hell for me and my family, still trying to get me out of our family house by reneging on the employment tribunal agreement.

Tell the truth, stand up for what is right, have you no morals?

The report

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/30111-1547-1572008.pdf

Is Senator Shenton ignoring my reuquest for a meeting?

2008-07-14T04:21:00.000-07:00

I have copied below my reply to Senator Shenton's email dated the 7th July. His email stated that he would, 'get back to you [me] soonest'. It is now the 14th?

Am I expecting too much?

Is a week his 'soonest'?

Lets see, maybe he had just forgotten.

Simon

From:

b.shenton@gov.jeSubject:

RE: Urgent request for a meetingDate: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:21:03 +0000

Dear Senator Shenton

Thank you for your email dated 7th July.

I was anticipating a reply from you once you had spoken to Senator Perchard.

Please can you advise whether you are going to reply or can I assume that you are ignoring my requests for a meeting?

Kind regards

Simon Bellwood

> Subject: RE: Urgent request for a meeting> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:41:08 +0100> From: B.Shenton@gov.je> To: bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk> > **********************************************************************> If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.> **********************************************************************> > > > Simon,> > I've forwarded your e-mail to Jim Perchard (jl.perchard@gov.je) as your original went to a John Perchard.> > I'll have a chat with Jim once he has had chance to read it and shall get back to you soonest.> > Regards,> > Ben> > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Bellwood [mailto:bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk] > Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 9:15 PM > To: Ben Shenton; John Perchard > Cc: > Subject: Urgent request for a meeting> > > **************************************************************************************> This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should> exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the> source or content of the message is authentic.> > If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your> responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).> > The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here:> https://portal3.gov.je/whalecom730bc7931cba5832ac/whalecom0/aware/internet_email_issues.htm> **************************************************************************************> > Dear Senator Shenton and Perchard> > I hope you are both well now that you have 55,000 readers of the JEP believing that all is rosy in the garden of H&SS.> > I write to you with the offer of an informal meeting with me this week. I wish to discuss my Serious Concerns complaint dated 1st January 2007 and how this relates to the Williamson report. > > I appreciate that you are both extremely busy, along with your buddies, spinning the story so that 99% of the public think that the States have a 'clean bill of health' however, I believe that you need to think very seriously about my offer of an informal meeting.> > I expect your initial reaction will be to ignore my request, I suggest that to do so would be at your own peril. > > Think of me a little bit like a bad smell that just won't go away - I will not stop with my battle for justice until justice has been done. > > There is more than one way to win a battle. I have been fighting so that the children of Jersey receive a good service. I will succeed despite the fact that is in currently on your terms and I continue to be the scapegoat, nonetheless, I have still achieved what I wanted for the children. > > Was I sacked for whistle blowing? Let us allow the public to decide. All I know is that all of the things I complained about have been changed, all of the things I recommended have been, or soon will be, implemented. > > If you choose to ignore this request, one day you will crumble, along with the rest of the corrupt senior civil servants and politicians that you are siding with. > > You are all very powerful, but remember, there is one force even more powerful that all of you and that is called, 'the truth'.> > If I do not hear a reply by 10.30pm tonight then I will be posting this email on my blog at 10.31pm. > > If you respond, and agree to a meeting I will not post it. > > I have plenty more energy to keep fighting you all. So, do you want to come to an agreement or keep fighting? > > For your information, I have copied below a list of the media that will also be receiving this email at 10.31pm tonight should you choose not to reply.> > Kind regards> > Simon Bellwood> 07797 888782> > John.Bingham@telegraph.co.uk; Don.mackay@mirror.co.uk; mptastone@yahoo.co.uk; Jane.steeples@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk; newseditor@guernsey-press.com; Marc.baker@people.co.uk; LudlowReporters@shropshirestar.co.uk; aplondon@ap.org; law@foresightnews.co.uk; jane.Dodge@itn.co.uk; Ben.Brill@profilegroup.co.uk; matthew.champion@adfero.co.uk; rstringer@bloomberg.net; jacqueline.clyne@turner.com; Danielle.Taaffe@bbc.co.uk; jill.mowat@stv.tv; nicola.barron@stv.tv; David.Marsland@stv.tv; Effairweather1234@aol.com; Chloe.axford@bbc.co.uk; Matthew.price@bbc.co.uk; Ward.victoria@gmail.com; jon.kay@bbc.co.uk; robert.dersley@bskyb.com; Lucy.panton@notw.co.uk; Roisin.gauson@bbc.co.uk; presscuts@yahoo.es; rtllondon@rtl.de; uk.online@reuters.com; Nick.davies@guardian.co.uk; Steve.bird@thetimes.co.uk; Sebastien.baer@radiofrance.com; SONeill@utvplc.com; Martin.brunt@bskyb.com; Katharine.quarmby@disabilitynow.org.uk; philip.whiteside@news-of-the-world.co.uk;> > S.canavan@gov.je; Caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; John.ayres@bbc.co.uk; l.dequay@journal-marianne.com; Xavier.yvon@rtl.fr; Gordon.rayner@telegraph.co.uk; John.fahey@pa.press.net; rohit.kachroo@ITN.CO.UK; Christine.finn@gmail.com; janemingay@hotmail.com; denzildudley@yahoo.co.uk; s.n.b@btinternet.com; andrew.hough@reuters.com; Nick.tarry@bbc.co.uk; editor@theforester.co.uk; haroon.saddique@guardian.co.uk; Jasper.corbett@bbc.co.uk; kay9_@hotmail.com; ggaitz@nine.com.au; Damon.wake@pa.press.net; newseditors@pa.press.net; ellie@swns.com; Laura.may@pa.press.net; "Nibbs, Louise" ; nharrison@guernsey-press.com; roland.hoskins@virgin.net; pix@mailonsunday.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; bilder@rheinische-post.de; photo@telegraph.co.uk; jonesie50@hotmail.com; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; newsdesk@insnews.co.uk; Roger.protheroe@bskyb.com; sternuk@dial.pipex.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; fmsonn1@kurier.at; photo@jp.dk;> > fotografia@elmundo.es; joneill@guernsey-press.com; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; alex.peake@the-sun.co.uk; Avril.ormsby@reuters.com; Lon.pictures@reuters.com; Catherine.boullay@europe1.fr; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Lucy.ballinger@dailymail.co.uk; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; fmsonn1@kurier.at; m.mccrory@irishnews.com; Stephen.Adams@telegraph.co.uk; nfbgaz@yahoo.co.uk; Ben.leach@telegraph.co.uk; kirsty.gardner@bbc.co.uk; Jacqui.fuller@bskyb.com; nicholas.head@steadfast.tv; jo.knowsley@googlemail.com; sarah.harvey@archant.co.uk; Maria.hamed@rbi.co.uk; pceaux@lexpress.fr; communicationsunit@gov.je; Paula.hancocks@turner.com; timhuelin@mac.com; tthompson@scotsman.com; juliacmay@yahoo.com.au; katie.hedge@pressassociation.co.uk; "sue.turton@itn.co.uk" <'sue.turton@itn.co.uk'>; "Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk" <'Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk'>; "arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk"> > <'arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk'>; helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk; "chris.ison@pa.press.net" <'chris.ison@pa.press.net'>; 'caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; 'mark.stone@bskyb.com; "steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk" <'steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk'>; "adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk" <'adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk'>; "patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk" <'patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk'>; "trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk" <'trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk'>; "stephen.rigley@express.co.uk" <'stephen.rigley@express.co.uk'>; "rowan.walker@observer.co.uk" <'rowan.walker@observer.co.uk'>; "sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk" <'sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk'>; "steven.wright@bbc.co.uk" <'steven.wright@bbc.co.uk'>; "a.johnson@independent.co.uk" <'a.johnson@independent.co.uk'>; "s.gray@independent.co.uk" <'s.gray@independent.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@insnews.co.uk" <'newsdesk@insnews.co.uk'>; "alison.kershaw@pa.press.net" <'alison.kershaw@pa.press.net'>; "phil@spikeproductions.co.uk"> > <'phil@spikeproductions.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@itn.co.uk" <'newsdesk@itn.co.uk'>; "billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk" <'billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk'>; "'irn@itn.co.uk" <''irn@itn.co.uk'>; "caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk" <'caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk'>; "amy.quant@bbc.co.uk" <'amy.quant@bbc.co.uk'>; "jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk" <'jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk'>; "dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk" <'dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk'>; "juliacmay@yahoo.com.au" <'juliacmay@yahoo.com.au'>; "katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk" <'katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk'>; "gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk" <'gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk'>; "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk" <'radiojersey@bbc.co.uk'>; "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'news@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@channel103.com" <'news@channel103.com'>; "broadcast@channeltv.co.uk" <'broadcast@channeltv.co.uk'>; "jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk" <'jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk'>;> > Rafael@abclondon.org; merrilstevenson@economist.com; matt.blake@mirror.co.uk; c.ocarroll@newsletter.co.uk; nharris@swmg.co.uk; heidi.plougsgaard@jp.dk; Amanda.walker@bskyb.com; "tazford@hotmail.co.uk" <'tazford@hotmail.co.uk'>; "tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk" <'tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk'>; Nicola.goulding@cnn.com; Eileen.hsieh@cnn.com; rtllondon@rtl.de; damienfletcher@gmail.com; Hall.camilla@gmail.com; chall24@bloomberg.net; john.andrew@bbc.co.uk; jonathan.hallam@bbc.co.uk; creasy175@aol.com; ian.cobain@guardian.co.uk; paul@swns.com; jeromemarktaylor@googlemail.com; bruce.rebecca@abc.net.au; amisha.desai@acp-natmag.co.uk; david.brown@thetimes.co.uk; info@sebastianborger.net; tthompson@scotsman.com; Russell.hookey@channeltv.co.uk; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; mcourgeon@yahoo.fr; tom.palmer@pressassociation.co.uk; louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk; jcarter@c-dm.co.uk; hester.schoppert@tros.nl; communicationsunit@gov.je; roberts@vg.no; london@rte.ie; mikegunnill@mac.com;> > fuchs.cornelia@stern.de; eduardo.suarez@elmundo.es; rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; sara.merchant@bskyb.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; aislinn.simpson@telegraph.co.uk; Louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk> > > > > _____ > > Get Messenger on your Mobile! Get it now! > > > **********************************************************************> Confidentiality: The information in this email and any attachments may contain proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It must not be disclosed to or used by persons other than the intended recipient. If received in error, please notify us immediately and then delete this document. Any reply to this email may be read by the recipients and servants or agents of the States of Jersey. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of any sensitive personal information you send us by email.> > Confirmation: No employee or servant/agent is authorised to order or commit to ordering any goods or services without the use of an official States of Jersey purchase order. Unless an official States of Jersey purchase order is attached herein, this email does not form any binding agreement on behalf of a Minister or an administration of the States.> > Content: Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the States of Jersey. Please note that the content of this email may be intercepted, monitored or recorded for compliance purposes. Sensitive personal data should not normally be transmitted by email.> > Copyright: Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments created by the States of Jersey belongs to the States of Jersey unless otherwise stated.> > Care: The States of Jersey shall not be liable to the recipient or any third party for any loss or damage howsoever arising from this email and/or its content, including loss or damage caused by virus. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the opening or use of this message and any attachments shall not adversely affect systems or data. > Contact: If you require assistance, please contact the sender of this email, or the States of Jersey Central IT Helpdesk. Helpdesk telephone +44(0)1534 440440 E-mail: CSDHelpdesk@gov.je States of Jersey web site > **********************************************************************>
Get Hotmail on your Mobile! Try it Now!

From: bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.ukTo: b.shenton@gov.jeSubject: RE: Urgent request for a meetingDate: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:21:03 +0000
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
Dear Senator ShentonThank you for your email dated 7th July. I was anticipating a reply from you once you had spoken to Senator Perchard. Please can you advise whether you are going to reply or can I assume that you are ignoring my requests for a meeting? Kind regards Simon Bellwood
> Subject: RE: Urgent request for a meeting> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:41:08 +0100> From: B.Shenton@gov.je> To: bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk> > **********************************************************************> If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.> **********************************************************************> > > > Simon,> > I've forwarded your e-mail to Jim Perchard (jl.perchard@gov.je) as your original went to a John Perchard.> > I'll have a chat with Jim once he has had chance to read it and shall get back to you soonest.> > Regards,> > Ben> > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Bellwood [mailto:bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk] > Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 9:15 PM > To: Ben Shenton; John Perchard > Cc: > Subject: Urgent request for a meeting> > > **************************************************************************************> This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should> exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the> source or content of the message is authentic.> > If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your> responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).> > The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here:> https://portal3.gov.je/whalecom730bc7931cba5832ac/whalecom0/aware/internet_email_issues.htm> **************************************************************************************> > Dear Senator Shenton and Perchard> > I hope you are both well now that you have 55,000 readers of the JEP believing that all is rosy in the garden of H&SS.> > I write to you with the offer of an informal meeting with me this week. I wish to discuss my Serious Concerns complaint dated 1st January 2007 and how this relates to the Williamson report. > > I appreciate that you are both extremely busy, along with your buddies, spinning the story so that 99% of the public think that the States have a 'clean bill of health' however, I believe that you need to think very seriously about my offer of an informal meeting.> > I expect your initial reaction will be to ignore my request, I suggest that to do so would be at your own peril. > > Think of me a little bit like a bad smell that just won't go away - I will not stop with my battle for justice until justice has been done. > > There is more than one way to win a battle. I have been fighting so that the children of Jersey receive a good service. I will succeed despite the fact that is in currently on your terms and I continue to be the scapegoat, nonetheless, I have still achieved what I wanted for the children. > > Was I sacked for whistle blowing? Let us allow the public to decide. All I know is that all of the things I complained about have been changed, all of the things I recommended have been, or soon will be, implemented. > > If you choose to ignore this request, one day you will crumble, along with the rest of the corrupt senior civil servants and politicians that you are siding with. > > You are all very powerful, but remember, there is one force even more powerful that all of you and that is called, 'the truth'.> > If I do not hear a reply by 10.30pm tonight then I will be posting this email on my blog at 10.31pm. > > If you respond, and agree to a meeting I will not post it. > > I have plenty more energy to keep fighting you all. So, do you want to come to an agreement or keep fighting? > > For your information, I have copied below a list of the media that will also be receiving this email at 10.31pm tonight should you choose not to reply.> > Kind regards> > Simon Bellwood> 07797 888782> > John.Bingham@telegraph.co.uk; Don.mackay@mirror.co.uk; mptastone@yahoo.co.uk; Jane.steeples@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk; newseditor@guernsey-press.com; Marc.baker@people.co.uk; LudlowReporters@shropshirestar.co.uk; aplondon@ap.org; law@foresightnews.co.uk; jane.Dodge@itn.co.uk; Ben.Brill@profilegroup.co.uk; matthew.champion@adfero.co.uk; rstringer@bloomberg.net; jacqueline.clyne@turner.com; Danielle.Taaffe@bbc.co.uk; jill.mowat@stv.tv; nicola.barron@stv.tv; David.Marsland@stv.tv; Effairweather1234@aol.com; Chloe.axford@bbc.co.uk; Matthew.price@bbc.co.uk; Ward.victoria@gmail.com; jon.kay@bbc.co.uk; robert.dersley@bskyb.com; Lucy.panton@notw.co.uk; Roisin.gauson@bbc.co.uk; presscuts@yahoo.es; rtllondon@rtl.de; uk.online@reuters.com; Nick.davies@guardian.co.uk; Steve.bird@thetimes.co.uk; Sebastien.baer@radiofrance.com; SONeill@utvplc.com; Martin.brunt@bskyb.com; Katharine.quarmby@disabilitynow.org.uk; philip.whiteside@news-of-the-world.co.uk;> > S.canavan@gov.je; Caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; John.ayres@bbc.co.uk; l.dequay@journal-marianne.com; Xavier.yvon@rtl.fr; Gordon.rayner@telegraph.co.uk; John.fahey@pa.press.net; rohit.kachroo@ITN.CO.UK; Christine.finn@gmail.com; janemingay@hotmail.com; denzildudley@yahoo.co.uk; s.n.b@btinternet.com; andrew.hough@reuters.com; Nick.tarry@bbc.co.uk; editor@theforester.co.uk; haroon.saddique@guardian.co.uk; Jasper.corbett@bbc.co.uk; kay9_@hotmail.com; ggaitz@nine.com.au; Damon.wake@pa.press.net; newseditors@pa.press.net; ellie@swns.com; Laura.may@pa.press.net; "Nibbs, Louise" ; nharrison@guernsey-press.com; roland.hoskins@virgin.net; pix@mailonsunday.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; bilder@rheinische-post.de; photo@telegraph.co.uk; jonesie50@hotmail.com; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; newsdesk@insnews.co.uk; Roger.protheroe@bskyb.com; sternuk@dial.pipex.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; fmsonn1@kurier.at; photo@jp.dk;> > fotografia@elmundo.es; joneill@guernsey-press.com; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; alex.peake@the-sun.co.uk; Avril.ormsby@reuters.com; Lon.pictures@reuters.com; Catherine.boullay@europe1.fr; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Lucy.ballinger@dailymail.co.uk; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; fmsonn1@kurier.at; m.mccrory@irishnews.com; Stephen.Adams@telegraph.co.uk; nfbgaz@yahoo.co.uk; Ben.leach@telegraph.co.uk; kirsty.gardner@bbc.co.uk; Jacqui.fuller@bskyb.com; nicholas.head@steadfast.tv; jo.knowsley@googlemail.com; sarah.harvey@archant.co.uk; Maria.hamed@rbi.co.uk; pceaux@lexpress.fr; communicationsunit@gov.je; Paula.hancocks@turner.com; timhuelin@mac.com; tthompson@scotsman.com; juliacmay@yahoo.com.au; katie.hedge@pressassociation.co.uk; "sue.turton@itn.co.uk" <'sue.turton@itn.co.uk'>; "Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk" <'Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk'>; "arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk"> > <'arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk'>; helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk; "chris.ison@pa.press.net" <'chris.ison@pa.press.net'>; 'caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; 'mark.stone@bskyb.com; "steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk" <'steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk'>; "adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk" <'adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk'>; "patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk" <'patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk'>; "trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk" <'trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk'>; "stephen.rigley@express.co.uk" <'stephen.rigley@express.co.uk'>; "rowan.walker@observer.co.uk" <'rowan.walker@observer.co.uk'>; "sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk" <'sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk'>; "steven.wright@bbc.co.uk" <'steven.wright@bbc.co.uk'>; "a.johnson@independent.co.uk" <'a.johnson@independent.co.uk'>; "s.gray@independent.co.uk" <'s.gray@independent.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@insnews.co.uk" <'newsdesk@insnews.co.uk'>; "alison.kershaw@pa.press.net" <'alison.kershaw@pa.press.net'>; "phil@spikeproductions.co.uk"> > <'phil@spikeproductions.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@itn.co.uk" <'newsdesk@itn.co.uk'>; "billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk" <'billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk'>; "'irn@itn.co.uk" <''irn@itn.co.uk'>; "caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk" <'caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk'>; "amy.quant@bbc.co.uk" <'amy.quant@bbc.co.uk'>; "jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk" <'jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk'>; "dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk" <'dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk'>; "juliacmay@yahoo.com.au" <'juliacmay@yahoo.com.au'>; "katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk" <'katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk'>; "gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk" <'gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk'>; "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk" <'radiojersey@bbc.co.uk'>; "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'news@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@channel103.com" <'news@channel103.com'>; "broadcast@channeltv.co.uk" <'broadcast@channeltv.co.uk'>; "jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk" <'jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk'>;> > Rafael@abclondon.org; merrilstevenson@economist.com; matt.blake@mirror.co.uk; c.ocarroll@newsletter.co.uk; nharris@swmg.co.uk; heidi.plougsgaard@jp.dk; Amanda.walker@bskyb.com; "tazford@hotmail.co.uk" <'tazford@hotmail.co.uk'>; "tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk" <'tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk'>; Nicola.goulding@cnn.com; Eileen.hsieh@cnn.com; rtllondon@rtl.de; damienfletcher@gmail.com; Hall.camilla@gmail.com; chall24@bloomberg.net; john.andrew@bbc.co.uk; jonathan.hallam@bbc.co.uk; creasy175@aol.com; ian.cobain@guardian.co.uk; paul@swns.com; jeromemarktaylor@googlemail.com; bruce.rebecca@abc.net.au; amisha.desai@acp-natmag.co.uk; david.brown@thetimes.co.uk; info@sebastianborger.net; tthompson@scotsman.com; Russell.hookey@channeltv.co.uk; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; mcourgeon@yahoo.fr; tom.palmer@pressassociation.co.uk; louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk; jcarter@c-dm.co.uk; hester.schoppert@tros.nl; communicationsunit@gov.je; roberts@vg.no; london@rte.ie; mikegunnill@mac.com;> > fuchs.cornelia@stern.de; eduardo.suarez@elmundo.es; rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; sara.merchant@bskyb.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; aislinn.simpson@telegraph.co.uk; Louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk> > > > > _____ > > Get Messenger on your Mobile! Get it now! > > > **********************************************************************> Confidentiality: The information in this email and any attachments may contain proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It must not be disclosed to or used by persons other than the intended recipient. If received in error, please notify us immediately and then delete this document. Any reply to this email may be read by the recipients and servants or agents of the States of Jersey. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of any sensitive personal information you send us by email.> > Confirmation: No employee or servant/agent is authorised to order or commit to ordering any goods or services without the use of an official States of Jersey purchase order. Unless an official States of Jersey purchase order is attached herein, this email does not form any binding agreement on behalf of a Minister or an administration of the States.> > Content: Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the States of Jersey. Please note that the content of this email may be intercepted, monitored or recorded for compliance purposes. Sensitive personal data should not normally be transmitted by email.> > Copyright: Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments created by the States of Jersey belongs to the States of Jersey unless otherwise stated.> > Care: The States of Jersey shall not be liable to the recipient or any third party for any loss or damage howsoever arising from this email and/or its content, including loss or damage caused by virus. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the opening or use of this message and any attachments shall not adversely affect systems or data. > Contact: If you require assistance, please contact the sender of this email, or the States of Jersey Central IT Helpdesk. Helpdesk telephone +44(0)1534 440440 E-mail: CSDHelpdesk@gov.je States of Jersey web site > **********************************************************************>
Get Hotmail on your Mobile! Try it Now!

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

2008-07-09T16:30:00.000-07:00

Is it acceptable to blackmail politicians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leads me on to - was my request reasonable?

Giving them an hour to reply on a Sunday evening?

Probably not I would say.

So, why did I do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have one further question;

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

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

Simon

Senator Shenton - The Reply and my response

2008-07-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

The reply from Senator Shenton is pasted below, aloing with my brief reply.

"Dear Senator Shenton

Thank you for your email.

Please can I kindly request that you respond in full by 8pm tomorrow, assuming that you will see Senator Perchard at the States Assembly tomorrow?

I am meeting a journalist from the BBC for Dinner tomorrow at 9pm. I would like to take this opportunity to invite Senator Perchard and yourself to join us.

Please let me know if you are available so that I can notify the restaurant that two more guests will also be dining with us.

Kind regards

Simon Bellwood

Subject: RE: Urgent request for a meeting> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:41:08 +0100> From: B.Shenton@gov.je> To: bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk> >

Simon,

I've forwarded your e-mail to Jim Perchard (jl.perchard@gov.je) as your original went to a John Perchard. I'll have a chat with Jim once he has had chance to read it and shall get back to you soonest.

Regards

Ben

-----Original Message----- > From: Simon Bellwood [mailto:bellwoodsimon@hotmail.co.uk] > Sent: Sun 7/6/2008 9:15 PM > To: Ben Shenton; John Perchard > Cc: > Subject: Urgent request for a meeting> > > **************************************************************************************> This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should> exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the> source or content of the message is authentic.> > If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your> responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).> > The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here:> https://portal3.gov.je/whalecom730bc7931cba5832ac/whalecom0/aware/internet_email_issues.htm> **************************************************************************************> > Dear Senator Shenton and Perchard> > I hope you are both well now that you have 55,000 readers of the JEP believing that all is rosy in the garden of H&SS.> > I write to you with the offer of an informal meeting with me this week. I wish to discuss my Serious Concerns complaint dated 1st January 2007 and how this relates to the Williamson report. > > I appreciate that you are both extremely busy, along with your buddies, spinning the story so that 99% of the public think that the States have a 'clean bill of health' however, I believe that you need to think very seriously about my offer of an informal meeting.> > I expect your initial reaction will be to ignore my request, I suggest that to do so would be at your own peril. > > Think of me a little bit like a bad smell that just won't go away - I will not stop with my battle for justice until justice has been done. > > There is more than one way to win a battle. I have been fighting so that the children of Jersey receive a good service. I will succeed despite the fact that is in currently on your terms and I continue to be the scapegoat, nonetheless, I have still achieved what I wanted for the children. > > Was I sacked for whistle blowing? Let us allow the public to decide. All I know is that all of the things I complained about have been changed, all of the things I recommended have been, or soon will be, implemented. > > If you choose to ignore this request, one day you will crumble, along with the rest of the corrupt senior civil servants and politicians that you are siding with. > > You are all very powerful, but remember, there is one force even more powerful that all of you and that is called, 'the truth'.> > If I do not hear a reply by 10.30pm tonight then I will be posting this email on my blog at 10.31pm. > > If you respond, and agree to a meeting I will not post it. > > I have plenty more energy to keep fighting you all. So, do you want to come to an agreement or keep fighting? > > For your information, I have copied below a list of the media that will also be receiving this email at 10.31pm tonight should you choose not to reply.> > Kind regards> > Simon Bellwood> 07797 888782> > John.Bingham@telegraph.co.uk; Don.mackay@mirror.co.uk; mptastone@yahoo.co.uk; Jane.steeples@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk; newseditor@guernsey-press.com; Marc.baker@people.co.uk; LudlowReporters@shropshirestar.co.uk; aplondon@ap.org; law@foresightnews.co.uk; jane.Dodge@itn.co.uk; Ben.Brill@profilegroup.co.uk; matthew.champion@adfero.co.uk; rstringer@bloomberg.net; jacqueline.clyne@turner.com; Danielle.Taaffe@bbc.co.uk; jill.mowat@stv.tv; nicola.barron@stv.tv; David.Marsland@stv.tv; Effairweather1234@aol.com; Chloe.axford@bbc.co.uk; Matthew.price@bbc.co.uk; Ward.victoria@gmail.com; jon.kay@bbc.co.uk; robert.dersley@bskyb.com; Lucy.panton@notw.co.uk; Roisin.gauson@bbc.co.uk; presscuts@yahoo.es; rtllondon@rtl.de; uk.online@reuters.com; Nick.davies@guardian.co.uk; Steve.bird@thetimes.co.uk; Sebastien.baer@radiofrance.com; SONeill@utvplc.com; Martin.brunt@bskyb.com; Katharine.quarmby@disabilitynow.org.uk; philip.whiteside@news-of-the-world.co.uk;> > S.canavan@gov.je; Caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; John.ayres@bbc.co.uk; l.dequay@journal-marianne.com; Xavier.yvon@rtl.fr; Gordon.rayner@telegraph.co.uk; John.fahey@pa.press.net; rohit.kachroo@ITN.CO.UK; Christine.finn@gmail.com; janemingay@hotmail.com; denzildudley@yahoo.co.uk; s.n.b@btinternet.com; andrew.hough@reuters.com; Nick.tarry@bbc.co.uk; editor@theforester.co.uk; haroon.saddique@guardian.co.uk; Jasper.corbett@bbc.co.uk; kay9_@hotmail.com; ggaitz@nine.com.au; Damon.wake@pa.press.net; newseditors@pa.press.net; ellie@swns.com; Laura.may@pa.press.net; "Nibbs, Louise" ; nharrison@guernsey-press.com; roland.hoskins@virgin.net; pix@mailonsunday.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; bilder@rheinische-post.de; photo@telegraph.co.uk; jonesie50@hotmail.com; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; newsdesk@insnews.co.uk; Roger.protheroe@bskyb.com; sternuk@dial.pipex.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; fmsonn1@kurier.at; photo@jp.dk;> > fotografia@elmundo.es; joneill@guernsey-press.com; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; alex.peake@the-sun.co.uk; Avril.ormsby@reuters.com; Lon.pictures@reuters.com; Catherine.boullay@europe1.fr; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Lucy.ballinger@dailymail.co.uk; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; fmsonn1@kurier.at; m.mccrory@irishnews.com; Stephen.Adams@telegraph.co.uk; nfbgaz@yahoo.co.uk; Ben.leach@telegraph.co.uk; kirsty.gardner@bbc.co.uk; Jacqui.fuller@bskyb.com; nicholas.head@steadfast.tv; jo.knowsley@googlemail.com; sarah.harvey@archant.co.uk; Maria.hamed@rbi.co.uk; pceaux@lexpress.fr; communicationsunit@gov.je; Paula.hancocks@turner.com; timhuelin@mac.com; tthompson@scotsman.com; juliacmay@yahoo.com.au; katie.hedge@pressassociation.co.uk; "sue.turton@itn.co.uk" <'sue.turton@itn.co.uk'>; "Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk" <'Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk'>; "arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk"> > <'arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk'>; helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk; "chris.ison@pa.press.net" <'chris.ison@pa.press.net'>; 'caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; 'mark.stone@bskyb.com; "steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk" <'steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk'>; "adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk" <'adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk'>; "patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk" <'patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk'>; "trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk" <'trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk'>; "stephen.rigley@express.co.uk" <'stephen.rigley@express.co.uk'>; "rowan.walker@observer.co.uk" <'rowan.walker@observer.co.uk'>; "sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk" <'sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk'>; "steven.wright@bbc.co.uk" <'steven.wright@bbc.co.uk'>; "a.johnson@independent.co.uk" <'a.johnson@independent.co.uk'>; "s.gray@independent.co.uk" <'s.gray@independent.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@insnews.co.uk" <'newsdesk@insnews.co.uk'>; "alison.kershaw@pa.press.net" <'alison.kershaw@pa.press.net'>; "phil@spikeproductions.co.uk"> > <'phil@spikeproductions.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@itn.co.uk" <'newsdesk@itn.co.uk'>; "billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk" <'billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk'>; "'irn@itn.co.uk" <''irn@itn.co.uk'>; "caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk" <'caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk'>; "amy.quant@bbc.co.uk" <'amy.quant@bbc.co.uk'>; "jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk" <'jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk'>; "dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk" <'dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk'>; "juliacmay@yahoo.com.au" <'juliacmay@yahoo.com.au'>; "katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk" <'katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk'>; "gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk" <'gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk'>; "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk" <'radiojersey@bbc.co.uk'>; "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'news@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@channel103.com" <'news@channel103.com'>; "broadcast@channeltv.co.uk" <'broadcast@channeltv.co.uk'>; "jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk" <'jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk'>;> > Rafael@abclondon.org; merrilstevenson@economist.com; matt.blake@mirror.co.uk; c.ocarroll@newsletter.co.uk; nharris@swmg.co.uk; heidi.plougsgaard@jp.dk; Amanda.walker@bskyb.com; "tazford@hotmail.co.uk" <'tazford@hotmail.co.uk'>; "tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk" <'tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk'>; Nicola.goulding@cnn.com; Eileen.hsieh@cnn.com; rtllondon@rtl.de; damienfletcher@gmail.com; Hall.camilla@gmail.com; chall24@bloomberg.net; john.andrew@bbc.co.uk; jonathan.hallam@bbc.co.uk; creasy175@aol.com; ian.cobain@guardian.co.uk; paul@swns.com; jeromemarktaylor@googlemail.com; bruce.rebecca@abc.net.au; amisha.desai@acp-natmag.co.uk; david.brown@thetimes.co.uk; info@sebastianborger.net; tthompson@scotsman.com; Russell.hookey@channeltv.co.uk; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; mcourgeon@yahoo.fr; tom.palmer@pressassociation.co.uk; louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk; jcarter@c-dm.co.uk; hester.schoppert@tros.nl; communicationsunit@gov.je; roberts@vg.no; london@rte.ie; mikegunnill@mac.com;> > fuchs.cornelia@stern.de; eduardo.suarez@elmundo.es; rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; sara.merchant@bskyb.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; aislinn.simpson@telegraph.co.uk; Louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk> > > > > _____ > > Get Messenger on your Mobile! Get it now! > > > **********************************************************************> Confidentiality: The information in this email and any attachments may contain proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It must not be disclosed to or used by persons other than the intended recipient. If received in error, please notify us immediately and then delete this document. Any reply to this email may be read by the recipients and servants or agents of the States of Jersey. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of any sensitive personal information you send us by email.> > Confirmation: No employee or servant/agent is authorised to order or commit to ordering any goods or services without the use of an official States of Jersey purchase order. Unless an official States of Jersey purchase order is attached herein, this email does not form any binding agreement on behalf of a Minister or an administration of the States.> > Content: Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the States of Jersey. Please note that the content of this email may be intercepted, monitored or recorded for compliance purposes. Sensitive personal data should not normally be transmitted by email.> > Copyright: Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments created by the States of Jersey belongs to the States of Jersey unless otherwise stated.> > Care: The States of Jersey shall not be liable to the recipient or any third party for any loss or damage howsoever arising from this email and/or its content, including loss or damage caused by virus. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the opening or use of this message and any attachments shall not adversely affect systems or data. > Contact: If you require assistance, please contact the sender of this email, or the States of Jersey Central IT Helpdesk. Helpdesk telephone +44(0)1534 440440 E-mail: CSDHelpdesk@gov.je States of Jersey web site > **********************************************************************> "

An email to Senator Shenton and Perchard

2008-07-06T14:25:00.000-07:00

Below is an email that I sent to Sentor Shenton and Perchard earlier this evening. I have heard no reply. I will keep you posted on all future correspondance.

"Dear Senator Shenton and Perchard

I hope you are both well now that you have 55,000 readers of the JEP believing that all is rosy in the garden of H&SS.

I write to you with the offer of an informal meeting with me this week.

I wish to discuss my Serious Concerns complaint dated 1st January 2007 and how this relates to the Williamson report.

I appreciate that you are both extremely busy, along with your buddies, spinning the story so that 99% of the public think that the States have a 'clean bill of health' however, I believe that you need to think very seriously about my offer of an informal meeting.

I expect your initial reaction will be to ignore my request, I suggest that to do so would be at your own peril.

Think of me a little bit like a bad smell that just won't go away - I will not stop with my battle for justice until justice has been done.

There is more than one way to win a battle.

I have been fighting so that the children of Jersey receive a good service. I will succeed despite the fact that is in currently on your terms and I continue to be the scapegoat, nonetheless, I have still achieved what I wanted for the children.

Was I sacked for whistle blowing? Let us allow the public to decide. All I know is that all of the things I complained about have been changed, all of the things I recommended have been, or soon will be, implemented.

If you choose to ignore this request, one day you will crumble, along with the rest of the corrupt senior civil servants and politicians that you are siding with.

You are all very powerful, but remember, there is one force even more powerful that all of you and that is called, 'the truth'.

If I do not hear a reply by 10.30pm tonight then I will be posting this email on my blog at 10.31pm. If you respond, and agree to a meeting I will not post it.

I have plenty more energy to keep fighting you all. So, do you want to come to an agreement or keep fighting?

For your information, I have copied below a list of the media that will also be receiving this email at 10.31pm tonight should you choose not to reply.

Kind regards

Simon Bellwood
07797 888782

John.Bingham@telegraph.co.uk; Don.mackay@mirror.co.uk; mptastone@yahoo.co.uk; Jane.steeples@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk; newseditor@guernsey-press.com; Marc.baker@people.co.uk; LudlowReporters@shropshirestar.co.uk; aplondon@ap.org; law@foresightnews.co.uk; jane.Dodge@itn.co.uk; Ben.Brill@profilegroup.co.uk; matthew.champion@adfero.co.uk; rstringer@bloomberg.net; jacqueline.clyne@turner.com; Danielle.Taaffe@bbc.co.uk; jill.mowat@stv.tv; nicola.barron@stv.tv; David.Marsland@stv.tv; Effairweather1234@aol.com; Chloe.axford@bbc.co.uk; Matthew.price@bbc.co.uk; Ward.victoria@gmail.com; jon.kay@bbc.co.uk; robert.dersley@bskyb.com; Lucy.panton@notw.co.uk; Roisin.gauson@bbc.co.uk; presscuts@yahoo.es; rtllondon@rtl.de; uk.online@reuters.com; Nick.davies@guardian.co.uk; Steve.bird@thetimes.co.uk; Sebastien.baer@radiofrance.com; SONeill@utvplc.com; Martin.brunt@bskyb.com; Katharine.quarmby@disabilitynow.org.uk; philip.whiteside@news-of-the-world.co.uk;> S.canavan@gov.je; Caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; John.ayres@bbc.co.uk; l.dequay@journal-marianne.com; Xavier.yvon@rtl.fr; Gordon.rayner@telegraph.co.uk; John.fahey@pa.press.net; rohit.kachroo@ITN.CO.UK; Christine.finn@gmail.com; janemingay@hotmail.com; denzildudley@yahoo.co.uk; s.n.b@btinternet.com; andrew.hough@reuters.com; Nick.tarry@bbc.co.uk; editor@theforester.co.uk; haroon.saddique@guardian.co.uk; Jasper.corbett@bbc.co.uk; kay9_@hotmail.com; ggaitz@nine.com.au; Damon.wake@pa.press.net; newseditors@pa.press.net; ellie@swns.com; Laura.may@pa.press.net; "Nibbs, Louise" ; nharrison@guernsey-press.com; roland.hoskins@virgin.net; pix@mailonsunday.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; bilder@rheinische-post.de; photo@telegraph.co.uk; jonesie50@hotmail.com; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; newsdesk@insnews.co.uk; Roger.protheroe@bskyb.com; sternuk@dial.pipex.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; fmsonn1@kurier.at; photo@jp.dk;> fotografia@elmundo.es; joneill@guernsey-press.com; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; cpledger@hotmail.co.uk; alex.peake@the-sun.co.uk; Avril.ormsby@reuters.com; Lon.pictures@reuters.com; Catherine.boullay@europe1.fr; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; Chris.pollard@knp.uk.com; Lucy.ballinger@dailymail.co.uk; Rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; fmsonn1@kurier.at; m.mccrory@irishnews.com; Stephen.Adams@telegraph.co.uk; nfbgaz@yahoo.co.uk; Ben.leach@telegraph.co.uk; kirsty.gardner@bbc.co.uk; Jacqui.fuller@bskyb.com; nicholas.head@steadfast.tv; jo.knowsley@googlemail.com; sarah.harvey@archant.co.uk; Maria.hamed@rbi.co.uk; pceaux@lexpress.fr; communicationsunit@gov.je; Paula.hancocks@turner.com; timhuelin@mac.com; tthompson@scotsman.com; juliacmay@yahoo.com.au; katie.hedge@pressassociation.co.uk; "sue.turton@itn.co.uk" <'sue.turton@itn.co.uk'>; "Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk" <'Brian.flynn@the-sun.co.uk'>; "arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk"> <'arthur.martin@dailymail.co.uk'>; helen.pidd@guardian.co.uk; "chris.ison@pa.press.net" <'chris.ison@pa.press.net'>; 'caroline.gammell@telegraph.co.uk; 'mark.stone@bskyb.com; "steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk" <'steve.swinford@sunday-times.co.uk'>; "adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk" <'adam.lusher@telegraph.co.uk'>; "patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk" <'patrick.sawer@telegraph.co.uk'>; "trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk" <'trish.ellis@telegraph.co.uk'>; "stephen.rigley@express.co.uk" <'stephen.rigley@express.co.uk'>; "rowan.walker@observer.co.uk" <'rowan.walker@observer.co.uk'>; "sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk" <'sabi.phagura@mailonsunday.co.uk'>; "steven.wright@bbc.co.uk" <'steven.wright@bbc.co.uk'>; "a.johnson@independent.co.uk" <'a.johnson@independent.co.uk'>; "s.gray@independent.co.uk" <'s.gray@independent.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@insnews.co.uk" <'newsdesk@insnews.co.uk'>; "alison.kershaw@pa.press.net" <'alison.kershaw@pa.press.net'>; "phil@spikeproductions.co.uk"> <'phil@spikeproductions.co.uk'>; "newsdesk@itn.co.uk" <'newsdesk@itn.co.uk'>; "billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk" <'billy.labrum@dailystar.co.uk'>; "'irn@itn.co.uk" <''irn@itn.co.uk'>; "caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk" <'caroline.mcclatchey@bbc.co.uk'>; "amy.quant@bbc.co.uk" <'amy.quant@bbc.co.uk'>; "jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk" <'jenny.rees@bbc.co.uk'>; "dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk" <'dominic.kennedy@thetimes.co.uk'>; "juliacmay@yahoo.com.au" <'juliacmay@yahoo.com.au'>; "katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk" <'katie.hodge@pressassociation.co.uk'>; "gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk" <'gillian.martindale@channeltv.co.uk'>; "radiojersey@bbc.co.uk" <'radiojersey@bbc.co.uk'>; "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@jerseyeveningpost.com" <'news@jerseyeveningpost.com'>; "news@channel103.com" <'news@channel103.com'>; "broadcast@channeltv.co.uk" <'broadcast@channeltv.co.uk'>; "jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk" <'jonathan.morris@bbc.co.uk'>;> Rafael@abclondon.org; merrilstevenson@economist.com; matt.blake@mirror.co.uk; c.ocarroll@newsletter.co.uk; nharris@swmg.co.uk; heidi.plougsgaard@jp.dk; Amanda.walker@bskyb.com; "tazford@hotmail.co.uk" <'tazford@hotmail.co.uk'>; "tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk" <'tamasin.ford@bbc.co.uk'>; Nicola.goulding@cnn.com; Eileen.hsieh@cnn.com; rtllondon@rtl.de; damienfletcher@gmail.com; Hall.camilla@gmail.com; chall24@bloomberg.net; john.andrew@bbc.co.uk; jonathan.hallam@bbc.co.uk; creasy175@aol.com; ian.cobain@guardian.co.uk; paul@swns.com; jeromemarktaylor@googlemail.com; bruce.rebecca@abc.net.au; amisha.desai@acp-natmag.co.uk; david.brown@thetimes.co.uk; info@sebastianborger.net; tthompson@scotsman.com; Russell.hookey@channeltv.co.uk; broadcast@channeltv.co.uk; mcourgeon@yahoo.fr; tom.palmer@pressassociation.co.uk; louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk; jcarter@c-dm.co.uk; hester.schoppert@tros.nl; communicationsunit@gov.je; roberts@vg.no; london@rte.ie; mikegunnill@mac.com;> fuchs.cornelia@stern.de; eduardo.suarez@elmundo.es; rebecca.camber@dailymail.co.uk; a.makartsev@web.de; sara.merchant@bskyb.com; dylan.dronfield@bskyb.com; aislinn.simpson@telegraph.co.uk; Louise.hubball@bbc.co.uk"

Williamson Report - In full (Word Document Version)

2008-07-06T13:52:00.000-07:00

I have pasted below a Word version of the report. Those of you who would like to have a cpy please email me on thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com

Please keep posting your comments, I will reply in the next couple of days. I will also be holding an online poll about the report. If you have any ideas for the subject let me know.

Simon

AN INQUIRY INTO

CHILD PROTECTION IN JERSEY

ANDREW WILLIAMSON
JUNE 2008

Contents

Page
1. Background 3
2. Procedure 4
3. Residential Care in Jersey today (2008) 6
4. Les Chenes 7
5. Greenfields Centre 8
6. La Preference Children’s Home 11
7. Heathfields Children’s Centre 11
8. Brig Y Don Pre School Group 11
9. Response to Advertisements 12
10. Issues identified from Interviews 13
10.1 Access to the Social Services Department outside office opening hours 13
10.2 CAMHS 13
10.3 Jersey Child Protection Service 14
10.4 Children’s Executive 15
10.5 External Independent Scrutiny 17
10.6 Future direction 17
10.7 Children’s Plan 19
10.8 A Children’s Plan should include 19
10.9 Staffing 20
10.10 Induction process for staff 21
11. Conclusion 22
12. Recommendations 26

Acknowledgements 28

Appendix 1 Advertisement 29
Appendix 2 List of meetings/visits 30
Appendix 3 Documents/Reports received 31
1. BACKGROUND

1.1 I was appointed by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers of the States of Jersey on the 23rd August 2007 to undertake an inquiry into issues relating to child protection in Jersey. Specifically the terms of reference were:

1.2 To investigate and report on:

1. the appropriateness of the policies, advice and procedures produced by the Jersey Child Protection Committee and the Health and Social Services, Education and Home Affairs Departments;

2. the manner in which such policies, advice and procedures are followed by the departments;

3. the standards, experience and qualifications of staff as all levels and within all relevant departments.

1.3 And to make recommendations as to any actions that are considered immediately necessary to ensure the highest standards of child care and protection and thereafter to inform any Committee of Inquiry which the States may subsequently constitute.

1.4 The inquiry was considered to be necessary following a number of serious allegations of malpractice particularly within the Children’s Service which were made by a former Minister for Health & Social Services and other complainants.

1.5 Immediately after my appointment by the Council of Ministers I held a series of meetings with the Chief Executive of the States, Chief Executives of the departments for Health and Social Services, Home Affairs and Education, Sport and Culture as well as the Chief Officers of the Probation and Police Services to acquaint myself with the operational approach of each department and to seek their initial responses to the various complaints. I also sought information on current issues facing the departments – particularly relating to vulnerable children and young people and their families.

2. PROCEDURE

2.1 An advertisement was published in the Jersey Evening Post for six nights over a three week period from the 19th November 2007 seeking responses from any person who had lived at identified children’s homes or had been involved with the Children’s Service, and who wanted to talk to me on a totally confidential basis to please contact me.

A copy of the advertisement is attached to this report at Appendix 1.

2.2 Given that much of the work of the Social Services Department is undertaken on the basis of confidentiality I considered this was the most appropriate method of seeking to establish contact with service users – both former and current users of the Service.

2.3 The final publication date of this advertisement coincided with the series of advertisements by the States of Jersey Police in respect of their inquiry into allegations of criminal behaviour against young people.

2.4 Having ascertained that this was the case I met with the Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and the Head of Child Protection – States of Jersey Police and one of the two police representatives on the Jersey Child Protection Committee, to clarify the working arrangements for both enquiries and to ensure that my work did not in any way adversely affect the police inquiry. The original series of advertisements, outlining my involvement and providing my name and contact details, identified a closing date for referrals or complaints of the 14th December 2007.

2.5 However, with the significant publicity and media interest surrounding the police inquiry a number of referrals and requests for meetings continued to be received by me after that date, and with the agreement of the Council of Ministers the period to enable people to continue to make contact was extended until March 31st 2008.

2.6 During the period of the inquiry I have

· conducted 65 interviews with complainants;

· visited a number of children’s establishments, some without prior notice;
· attended a range of meetings across States departments;

· met with a wide range of staff members employed by the States of Jersey.

2.7 During this period it was also decided that I should move my office and administrative support from the Chief Minister’s Department to the Office of the States Greffe. Arrangements were put in hand to ensure that no communications or post were lost in the transitional period and I have received no indication that the move led to any breakdown in communication between either members of the public or current for former staff who wished to contact me.

2.8 I have conducted a number of personal interviews, 65 of which were as a direct result of people making contact with me voluntarily and in response to the series of press advertisements, and I also held meetings with either current or former members of the staff, Deputies, Senators and Ministers and those working for the voluntary sector in Jersey in relation to services for children.

2.9 As is usual in these circumstances and to ensure a thorough and meaningful discussion I gave an assurance of confidentiality to those people interviewed (within, of course, the parameters of the Law.)

2.10 At the conclusion of each interview and in order to be able to assess the likelihood of any current risks to children I specifically asked whether the individual concerned had any knowledge or concerns about the safety and well being of any child looked after by the States of Jersey as of that date.

2.11 I am pleased to be able to report that the unanimous response was “no”, that they were not aware of any current risks to children in respect of the matter they had sought to discuss with me.

2.12 I should make it clear that had any allegations or concerns regarding the wellbeing of children been reported to me, I would have relayed the information to the police or the Children’s Services immediately.
2.13 The majority of the concerns expressed to me were about the standards of services received over recent years and interviewees often sought to challenge some of the decisions taken by senior representatives of the Children’s Service in the past.

2.14 Some felt aggrieved by what they perceived to be unfair, or judgemental, decisions concerning parental skills or the demonstration of a lack of clarity and professionalism in the decisions regarding child welfare or family life.

2.15 In December 2007 I requested that a former Director of Social Services for Kent County Council, Mr. Peter Smallridge C.B.E., could assist me in the inquiry as I felt that the benefits of having additional independent analysis of the Children’s Service would be extremely advantageous. This was readily agreed. Mr. Smallridge is also currently chair of the Kent and Medway NHS Partnership Trust, Past President of the Association of Directors of Social Services and brings to the inquiry a wealth of experience. He has accompanied me on a number of visits – all of which are listed as Appendix 2 to this report, assisted with some interviews and he has also had sight of all copies of reports I have received– again these are listed in Appendix 3.

3 RESIDENTIAL CARE IN JERSEY TODAY (2008)

3.1 Peter Smallridge and I have undertaken, planned and unannounced visits to all of the residential children’s establishments in Jersey over the last few months. These establishments are:

· Les Chenes (which subsequently became Greenfields Centre);

· La Preference Children’s Home;

· Heathfields Children’s Home and

· Brig Y Don Pre School Group.

3.2 It is important to state at the outset that I have seen no evidence of the institutional or systematic abuse of children in any of these visits and that, so far as we know, the Service is safe for the children and young people in the States of Jersey Children’s Homes today.
3.3 We acknowledge that present investigations into past practice on the Island may unearth a different picture but as we are not involved in those investigations it would not be appropriate for us to comment. Those matters are quite properly for the police to deal with.

We outline below our comments on each of the establishments.

3.4 From our visits and attendance at various meetings we both feel we can be confident that the managers and staff involved in the direct provision of residential services for children are competent in their work and keen to demonstrate high standards of care.

3.5 Essentially they, in conjunction and often increasingly in partnership with foster carers, provide a good service for children and young people who require care and support.

4. LES CHENES

4.1 Les Chenes is a large building which is currently not used for the provision of care for children. Prior to the opening of the new Greenfields Service Unit, Les Chenes was used as the secure facility for children and young people but was not designed for that purpose.

4.2 Staff told us that the previous secure unit was very unsatisfactory and, that far from meeting the needs of the resident children it allowed them to “run riot” and virtually run the establishment to the very real detriment to their care and to the increased risk of harm to themselves or to the staff.

4.3 We were told that there were too many children, some of whom were placed inappropriately, and staff felt lacking in confidence in terms of building design, staffing levels and training to deal with them. In short we were told it was “dangerous and needed to be changed.”

4.4 The Kathy Bull Report (December 2002) recommended the closure of Les Chenes and the decision was made for it to be closed. A new secure unit to replace it was commissioned and staff appointed to assist with the design. Visits were made across the UK to ensure that it would incorporate the latest and most effective techniques to provide a secure environment for children and young people.
4.5 It was also necessary to ensure an appropriate environment for daily living with recreational and educational facilities provided within the secure perimeter.

4.6 The move to the new “Greenfields” Centre was undertaken in a planned way and the staff told us that the extremely challenging and at times “out of control” behaviour exhibited not infrequently by the residents of the former home – Les Chenes – virtually disappeared since moving to Greenfields, which has been much easier to maintain and manage.

4.7 Les Chenes remains empty and proposals are listed later in this report regarding its possible future use.

5. GREENFIELDS CENTRE

5.1 This is a modern secure unit, is purposely designed and built to a high standard and, we believe is “fit for purpose” and appropriately staffed. Although staff tell us that access to training opportunities could be better, they are committed to the care regime that operates there and, to the children placed there.

5.2 On admission each child has his/her Care Plan agreed, reviews are carried out as appropriate depending on the length of stay of the resident. There appears to be a good working relationship between field social workers and their residential colleagues.

5.3 The major concerns expressed about the regime which operated there were about the “Grand Prix” system of managing children’s behaviour. This had been introduced during the unsettled period at Les Chenes, and established at Greenfields as the model for managing the behaviour of the residents. Staff were trained in the use of TCI (Therapeutic Crisis Intervention). In essence this was predicated on a behaviour modification model not unlike many we have seen operating in similar establishments in the UK. Offering rewards for acceptable behaviour and sanctions when it was not achieved, the “Grand Prix” symbolised achievement and failure and sought to make the system topical and understandable for the young people living with it.

5.4 In admission to a Secure Unit it is normal practice for the young person to be interviewed, informed of the rules for the general running of the unit, asked to remove their clothing, shower and change into the clothing provided by the unit.
5.5 At Greenfields, this routine takes place in a single room with private bathroom and the clothing given to the young person is in our judgement quite appropriate. There is an additional factor that has to be included in this process which is particularly relevant to a community such as Jersey and that is to ascertain whether the young person knows any of the other resident young people or members of staff within the unit. It does seem relevant, in our judgement, that issues of friendship or enmity that may exist between residents of the unit prior to their admission does need to be clarified and providing there is a constant and reassuring member of staff available to the young person during this process this is a necessary part of the admission procedure. This requires a short period of time when the young person will be kept away from the other residents but providing there is a constant and reassuring member of staff present and instantly available to the young person if not actually present in the room this is a necessary part of the admission process

5.6 The current model of care at Greenfields is based on “Therapeutic Crisis Intervention” (TCI), which was designed at Cornell University in the USA to address the needs and nature of the children and young people resident there.

5.7 We have seen TCI operate in a number of Local Authority Secure Children’s Homes and in Secure Training Centres in the UK, and we know that it is a model well liked and understood by staff and effective with children and young people.

5.8 Staff that we interviewed at Greenfields confirmed our assessment, although like their colleagues in England and Wales they are less confident about the capacity of the restraint mode inherent in TCI especially with larger and stronger teenagers.

5.9 Unpalatable as it may be to discuss the “restraint” of young people in care it is occasionally necessary to prevent harm to the young person themselves, to other young people or to staff.

5.10 The issue of “single separation” (to give the technical term used for what in Jersey has been described as “isolation”) has been, and continues to be, a big issue in the care for children and young people in secure care.

5.11 However, to use single separation/isolation, the process whereby children are forcibly removed from association with others and confined to a room on their own as a punishment for misbehaviour, is clearly inappropriate and should never be sanctioned by any care regime.

5.12 A number of people who responded to my advertisement in the Jersey Evening Post wanted to talk about some of their experiences whilst living in Children’s Homes in Jersey. At the conclusion of these discussions, and with their full knowledge and agreement, I arranged for them to make contact with the Police Inquiry, as it was agreed from the outset of my inquiry that it would be more appropriate for the police to pursue such complaints.

5.13 I was also particularly pleased that the Howard League for Penal Reform accepted an invitation to visit Jersey and see at first hand the new Greenfields Unit as well as the Young Offenders Wing at La Moye Prison. Their visit confirmed our understanding that the Grand Prix system had ceased to be in operation at Greenfields.

5.14 There are however occasions when severely disturbed behaviour is best dealt with by removing the child/young person from the company of others so as to not harm others and, to allow a “cooling off” period for the young person concerned.

5.15 Provided that regular supervision is in place and, if there is concern about the possibility of self harm more observation is established, the process itself need not be damaging to the child/young person.

5.16 It has not been possible to know with any certainty whether or not this process, used as described above, in all secure centres in the UK as necessary, was overused or abused in the regime at Les Chenes in the past. There are at least two versions of what happened there and the only comment 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.

5.17 One of the main issues to be addressed since Greenfields has opened is its future use in terms of occupancy. On the number of occasions I have visited the home, there have been very few residents. Whilst it is commendable that the States of Jersey has this provision to ensure that young people needing such accommodation are able to remain on the Island, (to facilitate parental, family contact etc), it is imperative that consideration is given to develop the full potential of the facility.

6. LA PREFERENCE CHILDREN’S HOME

6.1 Unannounced visits were made to all establishments and La Preference was no exception.

6.2 In general, managers and staff seemed committed to the care of the young people present and those young people we met, who were encouraged to talk to us by the staff appeared well cared for and largely content. The care regime was therapeutic, well understood by management and staff and systematically carried out.

6.3 All children had up to date plans and participated in their production and review.

6.4 The manager was keen to develop services for young people in partnership with other States agencies in order to make available a greater range of educational and career opportunities, especially for those leaving care. He described his work with his management team with concern and enthusiasm.

6.5 In summary we felt this establishment was in good hands and had a clear sense of purpose owned by the staff and the children alike.

7. HEATHFIELDS CHILDREN’S CENTRE

7.1 Two visits have been made to Heathfield, both unannounced, and on both occasions the home seemed to be running well and in a calm professional manner. I was given free access to talk to the resident young people and from my inspection records and Care Plans were up to date.

8. BRIG Y DON PRE SCHOOL GROUP

8.1 Similarly, I made an unannounced visit and was very impressed both by my reception and the open response to my questions and to the discussion with all members of staff present and of current issues facing the Children’s Service. I was encouraged to talk to some of the children and young people and was particularly pleased to hear of a support package being offered to a former resident of the home who lives nearby. The staff were very encouraged by a recent review day looking at Children’s Services for the Island. They are currently involved in discussions regarding the future role of Brig Y Don, which is owned by a Charitable Foundation. Together with the development of the Fostering Service on the Island, the purpose and function of the residential homes are currently being reviewed and the staff at Brig Y Don confirmed during my visit that they are keen to participate in the provision of services for children and young people.

9. RESPONSE TO ADVERTISEMENTS

9.1 Of the 65 responses to the series of advertisements, a significant percentage were from current or former users of the Children’s Service and they were critical of the service they had received. Given the personal nature of the work with children and families, there is often disagreement over what is in the best interests of a child, and therefore an aggrieved parent or relative. Nevertheless, it is imperative that all complaints are vigorously investigated to ensure that poor practice or lack of appropriate provision is identified. In a significant proportion of these complaints, the main area of concern was to do with a perceived lack of effective joint working between schools, Youth Action Team, CAMHS or voluntary agencies, and the Children’s Service on the Island. In following up these individual complaints, I also detected this underlying issue and apparent lack of cohesion. To illustrate this, there is good evidence of an attempt to deliver a “seamless” service at one of the secondary schools - Le Rocquier School. This does not appear to have been developed at the other schools. It was difficult to understand why this has not been developed as a more universal approach, and I would consider that, given the geography of the Island, a common system for access to the specialist services provided by the Children’s Service for potentially vulnerable children of school age and their families could be developed.

9.2 I have read the report “The Future of Children’s Residential Care” by the Social Services Management Team, and support the recommendations. The success of the programme to recruit more foster carers and adoptive parents has resulted in a significant reduction in bed occupancy at Heathfield and La Preference. This does present an opportunity to redesign the children’s residential provision within existing budgets.

9.3 Of the 65 interviews, there were four allegations of abuse while in the care of the Children’s Service.

9.4 These related to periods of time spent at Les Chenes, or in the care of foster parents in the 1990’s. Given the police inquiry into allegations of abuse in residential care, I advised the complainants to make contact with the police and provided contact details. This procedure was agreed with the Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. I subsequently confirmed that the police had been contacted and follow up interviews arrangements.

10. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FROM INTERVIEWS

10.1 Access to the Social Services Department outside office opening hours

10.1.1 This was raised by a number of people and agencies who had reason to make contact with the Department either in the evenings or at weekends. The current arrangements require contact to be made via the States of Jersey Police force. When such assistance is needed in an emergency situation, it is often for issues of a personal and complex matter and I have been told of reluctance to divulge confidential information to a third party agency. Given that the Children’s Service employs staff on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis, e.g. at Greenfields I would recommend that serious consideration be given by the department to relocate the service and ensure an effective on call rota for senior managers to support the on call system.

10.1.2 There have also been access issues during periods of staff absence, when posts are vacant and although this is not such an issue when there is a full complement of field work staff, changes as suggested would in my view help improve the public perception of the service.

10.2 CAMHS

10.2.1 I have had a number of meetings with the Consultant Child Psychiatrist and the Clinical Psychologist (CAMHS) and other staff of this service. They are situated in a separate building in St. Helier which provides good facilities for working with children and families. Generally the service links well with other agencies and is keen to develop a flexible approach to meeting demand. Links with schools, the Youth Service and the Youth Action Team are crucial and proposals for a more integrated service in all secondary schools, with close links to primary schools, will assist in this process. Discussions are ongoing at the present time with senior managers of the relevant agencies to develop a preventative service which will play a significant part in the development of the fostering service and enable children to remain at home with their family and receive the necessary support.

10.3 Jersey Child Protection Service

10.3.1 The Jersey Child Protection Service has recently been subjected to much criticism as expressed in the public media by a former Minister for Health and Social Services. Part of the series of events resulting in my appointment to this inquiry was to do with the Chairmanship and leadership of the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC). The former Minister for Health and Social Services, as one of his last acts as Minister before leaving the post, dismissed the former Chair of the JCPC – a voluntary, unpaid post, because of the alleged conspiracy in relation to the non disclosure of serious allegations of abuse by a formerly employed member of staff in a children’s home. There were further allegations of mismanagement of a serious untoward incident leading to a review of practice by all the agencies involved.

10.3.2 Professor June Thoburn, from the University of East Anglia was asked to assume the role of chairman of the JCPC for one year and Professor Thoburn has undertaken this role since 1st January 2008.

10.3.3 She immediately launched a thorough review of the work of the JCPC and all the reporting and monitoring mechanisms and I have worked closely with her to ensure she is kept fully informed of the progress of my inquiry. Professor Thoburn has similarly kept me fully informed of her developing role and the changes she is introducing into the role and processes of the Child Protection Committee.

10.3.4 Essential to this review is the need for distinction to be made between the strategic and monitoring role of the JCPC with respect to multi agency aspects of child protection and, the day to day work of the Children’s Service staff in supporting families and protecting children from maltreatment. These developments should make it more likely that any inadequacies in the child protection services will come to light and be appropriately addressed in timely fashion.
10.3.5 Given Professor Thoburn’s extensive knowledge of Children’s services and her significant standing in the Child Protection Service in the United Kingdom, I am very confident in stating that the service will be safe, effective and monitored to the highest standards.

10.4 Children’s Executive

10.4.1 This group was established in 2003 as one of the recommendations of the Bull Report. Membership of the Executive comprises senior representatives from the following Departments:

Education, Sport and Culture
Principal Youth Officer
Principal Educational Psychologist
Manager of The Bridge

Health
Consultant Child Psychiatrist
Consultant Paediatrician

Children’s Services
Directorate Manager Social Services
Service Manager-Children’s Service

Social Services
Co-ordinator, Children’s Executive

Police
Police Inspector

Probation
Assistant Chief Probation Officer

Prison
Prison Governor

10.4.2 The Executive is accountable to the Ministers of the Home Affairs (HA), Health and Social Services (HSS) and Education, Sport and Culture (ESC) departments. It meets on a monthly basis and is currently chaired by Co-ordinator of the Children’s Executive.

10.4.3 I have met with officers who attend the Executive meetings, read the minutes of previous meetings and attended one of their meetings to observe at first hand the work of this group.
10.4.4 I have noted that there is a degree of confusion about its purpose and effectiveness given the generally agreed lack of clarity about its overall accountability.

10.4.5 The original proposal, as outlined in the Bull Report was to develop the concept of “corporate parental responsibility”. That in my opinion is a laudable objective. But in my judgement this does not seem to have been achieved. The Children’s Executive appears to operate within the Children’s Service of the Health and Social Services Department and has created an additional tier of management without a clear line of accountability or delegation to ensure a corporate approach to the care of looked after children and since it includes some families support services for children who may be in need of protection whilst living with their families.

10.4.6 These comments should not be interpreted as wholly critical or negative as there have been some positive developments from the Executive. For example, the club that meets at the Greenfield site for young people in the Alternative Curriculum is an innovative multi- agency approach which demonstrates a clear commitment to help these young people develop and return to school at an appropriate time.

10.4.7 My main concerns about the Children’s Executive concern the issue of clear lines of accountability for services for children within the States Assembly. The appointment of a Minister or Commissioner for Children and Young People would go some way to improving the current arrangements and clarify the issue of accountability. I would further recommend that the Children’s Executive be replaced by a Children’s Services Executive Committee at Chief Officer/Deputy level to be responsible for developing and delivering a Children’s Services Plan for all vulnerable children and their families.

10.4.8 The decision as to whether the States of Jersey should appoint a Minister or Commissioner for Children is complex and in my judgement finely balanced. The role of Minister for Children could create some confusion in relation to responsibilities of other significant ministries - Education, Sports and Culture, and Home Affairs - but the benefits of having a single, senior appointment would give a very clear statement that the States of Jersey is determined to provide a high quality service for all children on the Island with clear lines of accountability. Whether the accountability should be for all children or for all vulnerable children who may be in need of additional services should be part of this discussion.
10.5 External Independent Scrutiny

10.5.1 One aspect of working in the public sector in a community that has a distinct geographical definition, which particularly applies to Health and Social Care, is the greater need, in my judgement, for external scrutiny of Services. Managing these services is complex and challenging and for obvious reasons securing appropriate external scrutiny in Jersey is more difficult but very necessary. A good illustration of this is the need for transparency of independence in the Reviewing post for Looked After Children. This is an essential post and the current arrangements, whilst being independent from the Children’s Service and making best use of available resources, in the opinion of many who either receive the service or work in it, are not judged to be sufficiently independent. I recommend that consideration be given to employing an Agency or an individual to undertake the functions of the Independent Reviewing Officer who is not resident on the Island. There are currently 77 children and young people requiring this service and this degree of external overview would provide a level of security for the Chief Executive that services are provided at a satisfactory level and are compliant with all legal requirements.

10.5.2 Further thought should also be given to engaging an organisation to carry out annual or bi annual inspections of the work of the Social Services department to provide independent verification that the required standards are being achieved.

10.6 Future direction

10.6.1 The States of Jersey Children’s Services have been subjected to a number of extensive reviews and as I write this report, there is the highly publicised, on going Police Inquiry into alleged child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, a former Children’s Home in the Island.

10.6.2 Inevitably such a long period of external review can lead to degrees of uncertainty and lack of decision making, and if this has been the case, it is now imperative that a clear, focussed strategic direction for the Children’s Service on the Island is established.

10.6.3 There are a number of areas of good practice which provide the necessary foundation on which to build the future services. The recent development of the Fostering Service must be acknowledged not only because of the initial success of the project but also because as it continues to develop it will provide an opportunity to redesign the provision of residential care for children and young people on the Island. This in turn will allow further discussion and development of the Department’s approach to services for vulnerable children across the age range and their families including Family Centres such as the La Chasse Centre, The Bridge and the Pathways project, managed by the NSPCC. These are developments that can be taken further and such development proposals might attract other voluntary organisations to come into partnership with the Department to improve the range of services available to children, young people and families.

10.6.4 Similarly the replacement of Les Chenes with the new building at Greenfields is a significant improvement in the provision of secure care for young people. The design of the building, which should be acknowledged as being of a very high standard will allow for a review of the use of the building, its links with La Moye YOI provision, and the opportunity to develop accommodation for all young offenders. Given the location of the Youth Offender Wing at La Moye Prison and the levels of occupation of the Greenfields accommodation there is an opportunity to use Greenfields to provide accommodation for all offenders under the age of 16 years. Given that on occasions Greenfields will also be providing care for a young person who has not committed a crime or placed on remand but requires specialist accommodation away from home or family, there are arguments against extending the use of the building in this way but we believe that given the design of the accommodation at Greenfields and the level of staff support, the remit for this building should be extended to provide necessary services for all those under the age of 16 years.

10.6.5 For those young people between the ages of 16 – 18 years, the arguments for and against transfer from La Moye to Greenfields, are more complex, and on balance we feel that such decisions could be taken on an individual basis, depending on circumstances at the time, occupancy levels, group dynamics of the resident population of the home, staffing levels etc and of course the needs of the individual. It might also be appropriate to consider the provision of separate accommodation, within the building, for young people with specific difficulties who are unable to live at home and who need supervision and support.

10.6.6 Television links could also be established with the Courts to reduce the need for transporting young people to Court for formal Hearings including remand. The Greenfields resource required significant expenditure and provides an opportunity for the Island to further develop the range of specialist accommodation with a high level of staff support in an efficient cost effective manner.
10.6.7 The Howard League for Penal Reform accepted an invitation to visit Jersey in May 2008 to look at the provision of services for young people in remand or in custody. I welcomed the invitation to this organisation to provide an independent expert report into this very serious and complex part of the penal system. They are expected to publish their findings in July 2008.

10.6.8 There has been much debate in the States Assembly about the appropriate age for residency at La Moye and Greenfields and the Howard League report will make recommendations in respect of this issue. There are, of course, arguments for and against any change to the present system but given the provision of the new secure unit at Greenfields and the possibilities being developed in the Foster Care Service (for example remand or bail fostering in appropriate circumstances) I do feel further consideration should be given to developing a more flexible approach to the use of the whole site.

10.7 Children’s Plan

10.7.1 The Children’s Service is currently implementing the common assessment framework for planning and assessing the needs of vulnerable and their families who may be in need of a specialist service. I would recommend the States of Jersey consider a biannual requirement for a Children’s Plan to be published and the recommendations adopted by all relevant agencies. This would also give the Minister for Children a clear strategy for the development of services and a yardstick by which to assess performance and delivery. The Plan for children and young people would incorporate the policies for the following:

10.8 A Children’s Plan should include:

· Early years;
· Playschemes;
· Daycare registration;
· Child health strategy;
· Child and adolescent mental health strategy;
· Children who are vulnerable following the divorce or separation of their parents;
· Taking account of children’s needs in a housing strategy – especially in relation to the location of schools;
· An Island wide approach to the management of bullying;
· Youth Action Strategy including restorative justice;
· Increasing opportunities for Educational success;
· Skill development;
· Literacy, numeracy and the review of the primary curriculum;
· Connected youth strategy;
· Youth alcohol strategy;
· Secondary education;
· Restorative justice;
· School at the heart of the community;
· Arrangements to identify and intervene early for children who need additional help;
· Special Needs;
· Parenting Strategy;
· Inclusion;
· Alternative educational provision;
· Detached youth work.

And would lay the foundation for the longer term planning to structure services to deliver the desired outcomes and develop a model for workforce development.

10.9 Staffing

10.9.1 I have conducted interviews with members of staff, visited offices and Children’s homes on a number of occasions and discussed relevant issues concerning the Children’s Services with many other agencies, both statutory and voluntary on the Island.

10.9.2 The majority of the staff of the Children’s Service are appropriately qualified and although there are recruitment difficulties from time to time, there is a positive approach to recruitment and forward planning in an effort to ensure continuity of service.

10.9.3 With regard to staffing levels to meet service demand I am not aware that this is an issue when all the posts are occupied and active. Inevitably issues of cover, absenteeism do arise from time to time when posts fall vacant unexpectedly as when illness or extended periods of leave occur.

10.9.4 One of the most significant conclusions from my series of interviews with members of staff is that there is a general feeling of lack of support or awareness of the difficult and complex issues staff face when working with very vulnerable children and their parents and carers. There was a general reluctance to be identified as expressing these concerns but on a number of occasions members of staff have said they would not expect to be supported in taking difficult decisions and stated “you are on your own”. Whether this is fact or illusion, this issue must be addressed and systems established for staff to be able to voice concerns without fearing instant rebuttal or challenges of malpractice.

10.9.5 This is particularly so when staff are dealing with complex access/residence issues following marital separation and when both parents are challenging the decisions taken by the social care staff. There is a view by some of those involved that making a complaint or seeking further discussion is responded to in a defensive manner which does not allow further debate. This concern has also been expressed to me by Voluntary Agency staff and it appears to me that the Children’s Service is sometimes seen as defensive and resistant to challenge. These criticisms will not come as a surprise to the Social Services Managers as they have been aware of these issues for some time and in fact in 2007 presented a paper proposing an Advisory Service be established based on the CAFCASS service in the U.K. The proposals would draw from existing service within the Children’s and Probation Services with some additional funding requirement for management and administrative resources but the workload demands for such a team should keep the additional funding to a minimum. I feel this proposal is worth developing as it will provide an additional level of scrutiny to a part of the Children’s Service that is often criticised and under pressure from external agencies. Any such developments will need to take into account the work of the Independent Chair of the Children Protection Conferences and of the Independent Reviewing Officer to enhance the quality of the service without unnecessary duplication.

10.10 Induction process for staff

10.10.1 Training

10.10.2 Whilst there is a training programme for all staff there is some disquiet amongst practitioners that this is too prescriptive and does not build on the Training Needs Analysis approach that has been successfully implemented in some Social Care Departments in the UK. A large part of this approach is to design a training and development programme for the individual member of staff and is based on access to good quality supervision/mentoring and the design of a development plan for the individual rather than an annual training programme for all staff. Given the complex nature of much of the work undertaken by the staff of this department the individual training needs analysis approach should be considered as part of the overall drive to ensure a high standard of practice.

11. CONCLUSION

11.1 Given the intense media interest generated by allegations of abuse at the former Children’s Home, Haut de la Garenne, and the very public departure of a former employee of Greenfields Secure Unit, it is not surprising that I found a dispirited work force who feel a lack of public recognition for their work – some of which is of a high standard.

11.2 The public response to my series of advertisements was in excess of 65 and of these, 4 involved allegations of abuse whilst in the care of the Children’s Service. These have been separately investigated and with the consent of the individuals concerned they were referred to the police.

11.3 Considerable effort has been made by both the Police and myself, and my administrative support, to ensure no contacts are lost in the process of redirection and nothing in the process of this inquiry could adversely impact on the Police Inquiry.

11.4 To ensure a full and proper record is kept of this process, I have requested that I provided a Witness Statement to the police to assist the official recording of their Inquiry.

11.5 I have read a large number of relevant reports produced by the Children’s Service and other relevant agencies and these are listed in the Appendices. I have also read with great interest the Report by Professor Kathy Bull, into the Provision of Services for Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Disorders which was submitted to the States of Jersey Government in December 2002. This was commissioned by the Education, Health and Social Services and Home Affairs Committees and was an extensive piece of work culminating in 50 recommendations. The Bull Report, as it is known, marks a significant event in the development of the Children’s Service in Jersey. For example it was the Bull report that recommended the establishment of the Children’s Executive, with the aim of developing the role of the Corporate Parent within Government. It also recommended the development of the Fostering and Adoption Service which has seen significant progress over the past year.

11.6 Of all the responses to the advertisement the majority expressed some dissatisfaction what they perceived as a lack of quality of the work undertaken with either the complainant or complainant’s family. Given the nature of the work undertaken by the Children’s Service, it is not surprising to receive such comments, but a common issue that arose throughout was the perception either by individuals or other agencies of difficulty of access to the service.

11.7 I have discussed this complaint with the Management Team who, whilst accepting the complaints, believes this reflected a time when the Service was coping with a number of staff vacancies. This has now been rectified and hopefully concerns about the Department’s services have improved.

11.8 I have made contact with many other agencies working with children on the Island and whilst concern has been expressed at the difficulty of making contact, the general response is that there is a need for a more “joined up” approach to providing services for children and young people. This is not to deny that there is some very good work taking place every day, but more could be achieved if an agreed set of objectives and approaches can be formulated across the Island. To this end the development of a Children’s Plan, possibly reviewed on a biannual basis, should provide the necessary framework.

11.9 With regard to the provision of appropriate training and development opportunities, there is a training programme and staff joining the department are provided with an induction programme. However, there is a need to ensure these programmes are coherent at the qualifying and post qualifying levels and are also individually tailored to ensure the members of staff meet the requirements for the renewal of their professional registration.

11.10 There are currently three residential homes for children and young people managed by the Children’s Executive and one home, Brig Y Don, which is owned and managed by a local charitable institution. Two of the homes, Heathfields and La Preference are large buildings that are often underused – mainly as a result of the success of the developing Fostering Service. I understand that the Children’s Service is currently in the process of negotiating a new contact with the charity that provides the service at Brig Y Don Home and is looking at likely future demand for residential provision. Given the continued investment in preventative services and the Adoption and Fostering programme, there is an opportunity to determine future requirements and the potential for development without the need for additional finance.

11.11 The third residential home, Greenfields, has been the centre of significant interest. The Centre provides secure accommodation for young people in a newly opened and much praised building. At the time of writing this report, the Howard League for Penal Reform are writing their report following a two visits to Jersey in May and June 2008 which included meeting staff and residents at both Greenfields and La Moye Prison YOI wing. Early indications are that their recommendations will be to do with expanding the role of Greenfields, challenging the use of custodial sentences rather than a welfare approach for young people and establishing a separate policy for youth justice.

11.12 It is considered that with some minor alterations more effective use could be made of the building which is an impressive resource in terms of design but more flexibility needs to be built in to the structure to develop opportunities to maximise the resource.

11.13 I am pleased that following their initial visit the Howard League have confirmed the view of both Peter Smallridge and myself that the “Grand Prix” system is no longer in operation and a welfare model of care of residents is the prevailing approach.

11.14 I have met with the Board of Visitors of Greenfields, looked at all their reports, visited on a number of occasions, met individually with members of staff who have wished to see me, talked to a number of resident young people – again without staff members present or within view and read all the files of young people who have stayed at Greenfields since it opened. I am confident that with the proposed changes the resource will be well used and able to provide a positive influence on the lives of some of the young people of Jersey.

11.15 An essential requirement in the provision of a safe, high quality service for children and young people is the encouragement of external advocacy for children looked after by the States. The appointment of an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who would guarantee that personalised planning is provided for all children looked after, and provide external scrutiny of the work carried out by the service. Whilst I accept that attempts have been made to provide this approach, there is an IRO in post who is resident on the Island, a more transparently independent post would be to the benefit of both the children and young people and their families and the Managers of the Service.

11.16 One of the terms of reference of the inquiry was “Child Protection” and whilst I have looked at this service with considerable interest, attended meetings of the JCPC and interviewed members of the Committee, I have been very aware of the work undertaken by Professor June Thoburn.

11.17 Professor June Thoburn, was asked by the States of Jersey to review the work of the JCPC and assumed the role of Chair in January 2008, for an initial 12 month period. I have sought to work closely with Professor Thoburn in looking at the work of the JCPC and recommendations to the structure and the terms of reference to ensure the integrity of the Committee and to clarify the status and authority of the JCPC in relation to the Child Protection work on the Island. I am more than satisfied that the work undertaken by Professor Thoburn will achieve these ambitions and lay the foundations for the JCPC to operate effectively and efficiently as a stand alone, authorative Committee, ensuring the work of the various agencies involved in Child Protection within the Island is of the highest standard, and answerable for its work to the appropriate departments and Ministers and to the people of Jersey.

11.18 The Children’s Executive Group meets on a monthly basis. The establishment of the Group was recommended in the Bull Report to develop a “Co-ordinated approach to the delivery of services for children and young people” and I would assume assist in the development of the role of the Corporate Parent for the States of Jersey.

11.19 Having looking at the broad papers, interviewed members of the group and attended a meeting of the group I remain unclear as to its function and more importantly the line of accountability to Ministers. This is not to say that the Children’s Executive has no value – indeed the dynamic approach towards rationalising Children’s residential services and the development of groups for children and young people excluded from school demonstrate the value of the Executive but I remain concerned at the Executive’s lack of clear accountability in such an important area of care for children.

11.20 The Corporate Parent Group composing Ministers for ESC, HA and HSS is unclear about the actual lines of accountability and in my view such clarity is crucial in this field of public service. I consider the time may be right to take this development to the next stage and appoint a Minister with responsibility for Children, who would have the over-arching responsibility to ensure the delivery of a coordinated service for all children. The structure and responsibilities of the Children’s Executive would then need to be reviewed to ensure the resources of the States of Jersey for Children and Young People are used and developed to best advantage. A good illustration of the need for this work is demonstrated in my judgement in the impressive work of the Jersey Youth Service, while the role of the Youth Action Team (YAT) seems unclear in terms of delivering a comprehensive multi-agency service for young people across the Island. With clearer lines of accountability more can be achieved from the present level of service investment.

11.21 Many of the conclusions lead me to recommend a review of the management structure of the Social Services Department and I have held a number of discussions with the Chief Executive of the HSS department to pursue these ideas. As I stated at the outset of these conclusions many staff feel they have been on the receiving end of intense scrutiny and criticism for a long period of time and it is the responsibility of the senior managers to ensure that high quality services are provided for children and young people which use and develop all the skills available within the Department.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 At the conclusion of this extensive investigation into issues relating to child protection in Jersey, I should like to make the following recommendations:

1 Create the post of Minister for Children whose responsibilities should be determined following discussions about whether the scope of this role should be for all children or specifically vulnerable children and their families.

2 Re design Children’s Executive to report to Minister.

3 Appoint external organisation to review Children’s Service on a bi annual basis.

4 Appoint external Reviewing Officer.

5 Establish group representing users of remodelled Children’s Service.
6 Refine contractual approach to external agencies eg NSPCC Brig Y Don, The Bridge.

7 Consider future role of children’s residential homes with a possible minor redesign of Greenfields to develop a range of services available at Greenfields.

8 Develop a new management structure to ensure all services – CAMHS, YAT, Youth Service and Schools contribute to well being of children and young people.

9 Develop whistleblowing policy for all staff.

10 Develop a link between the Greenfields Secure Unit and La Moye Youth Offenders Wing with the Jersey Child Protection Committee to ensure that the safeguarding responsibilities are maintained.

11 Replace the present Emergency Duty system which uses the Police Service by one which uses 24 hour Health and Social Services availability.

Andrew Williamson
30.06.2008

Acknowledgements

The Inquiry has been complex and demanding - given the parallel running of the major Police Inquiry into alleged abuse at former Children’s homes and an employment appeal relating to one of the major Children’s resources on the Island.

It has been necessary throughout this process to ensure that my work did not in any way adversely affect the smooth running of the 2 separate enquiries.

I was also aware of the review of the Jersey Child Protection Committee by Professor June Thoburn and the need for this to be independent from my inquiry.

I am assured by all parties mentioned that these various enquiries have not been adversely affected by running concurrently.

This is due in no small measure to the excellent administrative support I have received from Mrs Lyn Houguez of the States Greffe Department and many of her colleagues and Mrs Tina Soley and colleagues from the Chief Minister’s Department. I should also like to thank the Greffier of the States of Jersey, Mr Michael de la Haye for his assistance and guidance in understanding the operational systems in Jersey.

Throughout this inquiry I have found all Ministers, Senators and Deputies and staff of the various Departments of the States of Jersey to be helpful and supportive in their responses, as have the Voluntary and Independent agencies. My thanks also to Peter Smallridge, for readily agreeing to work with me, to help me achieve a balanced and thorough approach through all our investigations.

Finally my thanks to those residents of Jersey who made contact with me, not only in relation to their own complaint or experience, but also to help in building a first class Children’s Service for the Island of Jersey.

Andrew Williamson
30.06.2008
APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

MEETINGS/VISITS

Greenfields Centre
Les Chenes Residential School
La Preference Children’s Home
Heathfields Children’s Centre
Brig Y Don Pre School Group
CAMHS – St. Helier
The Bridge – St. Helier
HMP La Moye Young Offenders Wing
Maison La Pape
La Chasse Centre
Le Rocquier School
Pathways Centre – NSPCC
Children’s Executive Meeting
Children’s Management Meeting
Jersey Child Protection Committee
States of Jersey Police Headquarters
2 meetings – Greenfields Visitors
Additional meetings with Director of Education, Sport and Culture and Directorate; the Manager Social Services
Howard League for Penal Reform
Professor June Thoburn – Chair Jersey Child Protection Committee
APPENDIX 3

DOCUMENTS/REPORTS RECEIVED

Receiving Young People into Greenfields Secure Centre
Services Case Reviews – U.K. Government Publications of Overview Reports of Services Case Reviews
Review of Effectiveness of the Children’s Executive May 2007
Governance Arrangements for the Children’s Executive September 2006
Report on the Children’s Executive 2008
Review of the Principles, Practices and Provisions for Children and Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Disorders in the Island of Jersey Profession. K. Bull December 2002
The Future of Children’s Residential Care – February 2008-06-25 States of Jersey Prison Board of Visitors Report 2007
Review of Principles, Procedures and Practices at Les Chenes School
Report of Jersey Child Protection Committee Early Years Ministry of Education, and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel
Brig Y Don – children’s Home Statement of Purpose 2002
Brig Y Don Children’s Home – Children’s Guide
States of Jersey Education, Sport and Culture Department Day Care Registration, Police Role and Responsibilities
States of Jersey Education, Sport and Culture Department Child Protection Documentation and Policy
States of Jersey CAMHS Service Review June 2006
Youth Work in Jersey
Jersey Child Protection Committee – Child Protection Training Programme 2008
Jersey Child Protection Committee – Draft Child Protection Training Strategy – 2113
Le Rocquier School – Multi Agency Support Team
States of Jersey – Review of Parenting Services in Jersey 2007
An Integrated Centre for Families and Young People – The Bridge Annual Report 2007
The Pathways Centre – NCPCC
Reports of the Greenfields Visitors
Report and Policy Procedures & Practice at the Greenfields Secure Unit
Grand Prix Documentation
Child Protection Policy and Instruction No. 2 La Moye Prison August 2007
Earned Privileges and Incentives Scheme – La Moye Prison
Report of the Serious Case Review 2007
U.K. Government Report into Rewards and Sanctions in Secure Care Homes
Various Reports from U.K. into Child Protection Services and Safeguarding Boards
Report of Independent Chair of Jersey Child Protection Committee.

Williamson - The Report

2008-07-04T14:51:00.000-07:00

Andrew Williamson's report - in full tonight at 12.01am

2008-07-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

Dear All

I have a copy of the report which was completed by Andrew Williamson and I will post it here tonight at 12.01am. It is embargoed until tomorrow.

Linda Dodds' report - my view

2008-07-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

Firstly, well done today Stuart, all great stuff - Jersey have sold out of painkillers. The council of ministers have been drip fed with inbruprofen lately.

Well, Linda Dodds' report, where do we start.

Clearly there are some strong views on her report. And, off the the record there are some very strong views about her.

In fact, out of all the senior civil servants, more people have contacted me about Linda Dodds than anyone else, not that it lets Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett and you, yes, you Pike Mollard, off the hook!

However from her opening lines, is she a highly refined child protection machine or what, you decide!!!

I would like to consider her report with you, step by step, one day at a time (because I am tired).

For tonight, I would like to concentrate on Linda's resume, lets look at this in more detail.

1. She has been a reviewing officer for Northumberland County Council, chairing LAC and Child Protections reviews.

2. She has been a Reg 33 inspector under the Children's Homes Regulations 2001

3 She has worked for the NSPCC as a specialist investigator where she undertook, amongst other things, investigations into allegations of abuse of young people by professionals.

Damn, this woman is good, she is perfect for the job.

Let us think for one moment. I was complaining about the service for Looked After Children, she has experience of inspecting such services.

I was complaining about a service which lacked checks and balances, more specifically, if Reg 33 inspections were carried out there could have been no complaint by me, even so, she has experience of inspecting such services.

And, finally, I was complaining, as a professional, about allegations of abuse against young people, and yes you've guessed it, she has experience of inspecting such complaints.

In view of the above, my question is simple - Why, oh why, did the Council of Ministers bother to get Andrew Williamson to investigate anything at all - Linda to the rescue!

Linda Dodds is just perrrfeccctttt for the job, much more qualified that him, or even June Thoburn for that matter.

"If anyone can do it Linda can", I here you chant.

So, what did Linda do, she makes it quite clear in her report.

She, undertook a review of policies and procedural guidelines following concerns raised!

She, reviewed the policies and procedural guidelines being used at Greendfields

She, visited the centre and observed staff and residents (albeit, on one occasion and only for 25 minutes)

She interviewed Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett (Dumb and Dumber - and before you criticise me for being judge and jury I make no reference to any particular order with regards to the dumb and dumber perspective)

And, she reviewed the process of admitting a young person to the centre.

Well,, what can we say, I should mention now, if this was CSI, then it would be done and dusted in one fowl swoop, alas, CSI this is not, this is the real world.

I will continue tomorrow - for those of you reading Stuart's blog you may want to ask him this simple question?

What role did Linda Dodd's play role in the letter from Iris Le Fevre to Frank Wa*ker, Che*f Min*ster in July 2007?

Speak tomorrow

Simon

Linda Dodds' report - in full

2008-06-28T12:21:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the delay. I have now managed, with advice from others I might add, to upload the report.

Thank you to all of you who posted comments to help me and also to those of you who emailed me on thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com to offer support, advice and guidance.

Please leave questions and comments for me and I will endevour to post a full critique of the report over the coming days. Double click one each page to read then click 'back' on your browser in order to be able to move to the next page.

Please take note of Linda Dodd's amazing resume at the start of her report - this lady is very experienced and knows exactly what she is talking about!

Linda Dodds' report.

2008-06-26T15:05:00.000-07:00

Can anyone help. I am trying to load Linda Dodds' report and the blogger doesn't seem to want to help me.

I have a scanned the document onto a word file and the blogger will only accept jpg, gif, bmp and png images, 8 MB maximum size, can anyone email on thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com so that I can send them the document and you can transfer it to a jpg etc for me so that I can then publish it for you all?

Thanks

Simon

Senator Ben Shenton - Good or bad apple?

2008-06-17T15:34:00.000-07:00

Hello again

Some of you may be aware that in the States Chambers today Senator Syvret asked a question 'without notice' to Senator Shenton.

Senator Syvret's question was whether Senator Shenton will now be requesting an independent investigation into my serious concerns complaint, dated 1st January 2007, given the ‘tangible facts’ that are now available.

Senator Syvret cited that these facts are now available from the following sources:

BBC South West “The Politics Show” (aired 13th January 2008)Witness statements taken as part of Madeline Davies’ investigation Police interviews with former residents of Greenfields/Les Chênes Information received by Gerald WhiteInformation received by Andrew WilliamsonInformation received by the Howard League for Penal Reform

This question was asked at my request because I had received a letter from Senator Shenton on 7th January 2008 which refused my right of appeal against the outcome of my original complaint which was dated 1st January 2007.

In his response to my appeal letter, despite declining my appeal, Senator Shenton wrote,

"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."

Personally I hold the view that the above list does indeed provide such tangible facts.

In Senator Shenton's reply to Senator Syvret today he stated that an independent investigation is already being undertaken (he was referring to the current investigation by Professor Upex).

I have serious misgivings about this response, very serious, as I believe that Senator Shenton has either lied or he has no idea what his department are doing; which as a minister, is deeply worrying).

I will explain my view as follows.

The question asked of him was whether he would re-investigate my complaint; this complaint was primarily about Joe Kennedy and the Grand Prix system.

For clarity, and to highlight the inaccuracies of his answer, Professor Upex is not investigating either of these issues; he is scrutinising the procedures that the States of Jersey followed during my employment and subsequent dismissal.

Professor Upex will not be making a judgment on my complaint, Joe Kennedy, the Grand Prix system or whether or not my complaint should have been upheld, it is purely about process.

So, from his answer, it is clear that Senator Shenton either does not know what his department is doing or he has lied in order to mislead the public and obfuscate from the question asked of him.

I will be writing to Senator Shenton tomorrow to ask him the same question that Senator Syvret asked him and explain how his answer was so appallingly political. I will post all correspondence on this blog.

While we are on this subject, in order to assist Senator Shenton, can anyone provide me with any evidence (either through this blog or to thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com) that I can give to Senator Shenton that may be considered as 'tangible facts' and that can also be corroborated independently?

This would include information about the Grand Prix system, the 24 hours in a room upon admission, any information about the failure on the part of Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett, Linda Dodds, Madeleine Davies, Gerald White etc etc.

Also, any information about the previous regimes which were run by XXXXX and Wendy Hurford, Kevin Mansell, Mario Lundy, Tom Mckeon, Cliff Chipperfield etc.

I appreciate that this is a lot to ask of readers, but this is the time when the likes of Pollard (more aptly named as Bollard), Ogley, Walker etc they will have no choice but to sit up and listen.

I will place it all on this blog (with the authors consent of course) and then we will see if the States of Jersey can really shut this blog down.

If they do start to getting twitchy the first thing that will happen is Emma Martins will be in touch with me threatening court action (she has already tod me as of the 4th June that she will be taking the appropriate action under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law.

If she does I will post that on this blog too.

Before I digress too much though, I reproduce below the letter which I sent to Senator Syvret so that you may fully understand the context of my question to Senator Shenton and how typically political his answer was - in that he failed to answer the question.

If anyone is confused due to lack of information please let me know and I will post any information required to help you to understand.

"XXXXLa Grande Route de St JeanTrinity JE3 XXX Tel. 07797 XXXXXX 16 June 2008 Senator Stuart SyvretXXXXXXXXXXXXSt Helier JE2 XXX Dear Senator Syvret I am writing to you once again to ask for your help. An extraordinary year has passed since my initial letter to you on 13 June 2008 regarding my experiences with the Children’s Service. As you are aware, a so-called “independent” investigation into my Serious Concerns Complaint dated 1 January 2007 was carried out by several senior civil servants with a vested interest in its outcome. When they apparently found no evidence to support my allegations, I followed the appeals process which lead me to you. You championed my concerns about the service children in Greenfields were receiving, and understood my feelings about how I had been treated for raising awareness of poor practice, and then you yourself lost your ministerial post. As you already know, I later lodged an appeal with the new Minister for Health and Social Services, Senator Shenton, regarding the outcome of investigations into my complaint. As you are also aware, I received a reply from Senator Shenton dated 7 January 2008 which denied me a right of appeal on the grounds that I was no longer an employee of the States of Jersey. The letter read, “As you are no longer an employee of the States of Jersey, it is not possible to consider how there could be an ‘”appeal” from you.” You may recall that Senator Shenton admitted to me, in your presence, that his letter had been drafted by the Chief Executive of Health and Social Service, Mike Pollard. The same senior civil servant who had decided that my Serious Concerns Complaint had no merit and that my employment as Centre Manager of Greenfields had become untenable for whistleblowing on abusive childcare practices. The letter went on to say, “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 feel that it is time for Senator Shenton to consider his position on this matter. - 2 - Due to your supportive and passionate response to my initial concerns, and to all the horrendous childcare failings that we have learned about in the past year, I am writing to request that you consider posing a question to Senator Shenton in the States Assembly tomorrow. I understand that this is a ‘questions without notice’ session, so Mr Pollard will not be able to draft Senator Shenton’s response this time. My question to Senator Shenton would be: “In light of the following ‘tangible facts’, perhaps you might now find enough independently corroborated evidence to agree that a re-investigation into my complaints about childcare practices at Greenfields might hold some merit?” I list below the evidence that I believe is “tangible” enough to satisfy Senator Shenton, all of which can be “corroborated independently”: BBC South West “The Politics Show” (aired 13th January 2008)Witness statements taken as part of Madeline Davies’ investigation Police interviews with former residents of Greenfields/Les Chênes Information received by Gerald WhiteInformation received by Andrew WilliamsonInformation received by the Howard League for Penal Reform A quick solution to this might be to request that the terms of reference for the Howard League for Penal Reform be extended to include full consideration of the Grand Prix behaviour management regime. I realise that this would not re-investigate my personal treatment by my line manager, Joe Kennedy - an unpleasant experience which he can continue to put his staff through as he was allowed to return to work following suspension, investigation and disciplinary hearing. This would however serve to properly investigate the treatment of vulnerable children in Jersey’s secure children’s home over a period of years until I discontinued use of abusive practices in October 2006. Thank you for your relentless support in these matters. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely Simon Bellwood"

Thank you all, keep posting a name or initial as it is much easier to follow.

Also, if you have any information that may assist in finally getting rid of those senior civil servants who have allowed this institutional abuse to continue for so long then now is the time to speak up - not for me, but for the children of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

One more thing before I go.

Rumour has it that there is an informer, a spy, a grass, amongst the staff within the residential service.

Let us set the record straight, this is a myth. In truth, there are lots of them.

They are everywhere.

Trust nobody.

Check for cameras.

They are watching you.

They are so deep undercover working for the WSS (Whistleblowers Secret Service) that they will never be caught.

They are the best we have got. On this subject, agent 329 (you know who you are) you reported to me last week, or was it last year, that the managers (Phil Dennett especially) were so desperate to know who gave me the copy of the team meeting minutes that they stated that if they found out who gave them to me they would be sacked immediately.

These minutes by the way, are the ones which prove that Phil Dennett and Joe Kennedy changed their minds on the criteria for solitary confinement just after they had received my complaint.

And, for the benefit of Senator Shenton, yes these minutes could also be considered as tangible facts that can be corroborated independently.

I am undecided as to whether or not I should disclose the name of these informers to you all.

Actually there is no need as this information passed through so many hands that it disguised the actual perpetrator to the extent that I am not even sure that I know who it was.

Okay, lets not pull any punches here.

The trail is as follows, Madeleine Davies included these minutes in her evidence to the Corporate Parent (it was forgotten that Suart Syvret was the actual CP with Kinnard and Vibert and they (he at least) were never told of this meeting). In this meeting, Madeleine Davies gave the minutes to Mike Pollard, who subsequently gave it to Stuart Syvret who gave it to me.

Great isn't it?

Mike Pollard soon realised things had got a little f**ked up and then tried to get the information back from me.

Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner issued an enforcement notice on Mike Pollard, as a result of my Subject Access request, and he had to give me a redacted version of the information.

I destroyed the original copy I had received though Senator Syvret, as requested, however, the version given to me through Mike Pollard (the redacted version) was the same - quite comical really.

So I suppose with some hesitation, I should thank Madeleiane Davies and Mike Pollard for being so incompetent and giving me some of the 'Tangible facts' as requested by Senator Shenton, the Minister for Health and Social Security.

Speak again soon

Simon

Response to Comments

2008-06-16T14:43:00.000-07:00

Dear All

I am sorry for the delay in responding to comments, which have turned out to be something of a hot topic.

Despite my lack of attention, I am very pleased to read that people have started to create a dialogue amongst themselves which, in my view, is great news.

So that we make take this to another level please can I ask people to sign the end of the comments with a name.

You do not need to register, you will still come up as anonymous but you will simply write a name or initials at the end of each of your comments.

This way it will make it easier for people to respond to each other rather than everyone being call Anon!!

In response to your comments I offer you the following.

My mentioning the name of the arrested man

I wrote a very brief post on Thursday late afternoon and then retracted the identity of the man the following morning.

Firstly, I would like to again apologise to this man and his family as this decision, on my part, was made in haste.

This was not done as a personal vendetta against this man, this was done because I felt the net had started to close in on those senior civil servants that have managed to cover up disasters in the children's service for years.

This was a big piece of news and I acted inappropriately.

Will the States close my site down?

They might do, we all know they would like to.

I have been receiving correspondence from Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner for some time and she has told me that she will be taking action against me as of the 4th June.

I have taken a leaf out of the States of Jersey book and have ignored her!!

If she does take action I will post it all on here, I will also be reporting her to the States of Jersey police for harassment and intimidation of a witness.

If I get taken to court for breach of Data Protection I will be asking for handouts to pay the fine, I would also enjoy making public all of my concerns which I am trying to raise through my blog.

The attention that a court case would attract from the worlds media would serve my blog, and my cause, well!

Interestingly, the Social Security Department have threatened legal action as well, as I have not paid any social security since I was sacked.

They have assessed me on my salary for the States of Jersey which was nearly 50K, now I am earning a pittance. I told them my choice was simple, I can choose to pay them or feed my daughter and not go bankrupt.

I think they may choose not to take legal action, if they do, I might quite enjoy it.

You should act more responsibly given your professional background, but then I shouldn't be surprised given your past behaviour

Can the person who wrote this post please be brave enough to contact me or this blog further as I would like to discuss this matter in more depth. I am curious to understand what my past behaviour was that has failed to surprise the author?

Is he a friend of Joe Kennedy. It would be interesting to see who are his friends and allies in the establishment !! Like minded people usually stick together!!

Joe Kennedy and the XXXX man were colleagues. The XXXX man was in the meeting with Joe Kennedy when the member of staff was allowed to resign in October 2006 after he (the member of staff) had got a client of social services pregnant. Actually, they told the man that he either resigns now or they will sack him - all tbhis before they had even heard his point of view or considered a disciplinary route. Phil Dennett investiagted the matter but, hey, we all know the answer there.

The man resigned with immediate affect rather than Joe Kennedy and the arrested man pursuing disciplinary action.

Why don't you post ALL comments, Simon, rather than those that support you? My guess is that you aren't as popular as you believe you are!

I do post all comments. There are only 3 comments since I began this blog that I have chosen not to post. Two of these were for reasons of libel as the author accused people of wrongdoing and there was no evidence to substantiate such claims.

The third one was about the author not feeling endeared to me after I said that I did not care about Jersey's international reputation if it was at the cost of good childcare - a comment I still stand by.

The reason I chose not to post this was because it served no purpose to what my blog was about.

I fully accept that not all readers will agree with me. I have not done what I have done to win popularity, generally if you want to be popular you become all things to all people. That clearly is not me.

I am loved by some and hated by many - this I accept.

No matter what it may transpire any arrested person has or has not done, if another person is so committed to justice, to sit as a self appointed judge and jury on a person is fundamentally contrary to justice.

I have already covered this but I would like to point out that although I named this person I did not judge him. I simply stated that he had been arrested, a fact which was true and undisputed.

I made no judgement and I certainly did not convict him as suggested. I am not excusing my actions I am simply placing them back into the context they have been removed from.

The point many of you are missing about the naming of "XXXX XXXX" is that, in a small community, mud sticks.

I agree that mud sticks but I did not miss the point, this is why I removed it. Also, this comment went on to say I was self appointed judge and jury, I have already mentioned, I made no judgement etc etc. It was a mistake, it was rectified.

Pardon my ignorance but it was my understanding that Mr Bellwood was sacked for incompetence and not for whistleblowing. Didn't he admit that at the tribunal?

I was sacked for incapability yet the States of Jersey have never provided any evidence of this apart from a few of Joe Kennedy's buddies saying I was rude and arrogant. The very people who endorsed and sanctioned the grandprix system. The very people who were responsible for its existence.

My view is the only thing I was incompetent at, was unlawfully locking up children, but hey, who I am to play judge and jury.

Just for your information, I was the manager of a Secure Children's Home in the UK for two and a half years before coming to Jersey, I received commendations for my work and I went to the tribunal in Jersey with 30 exemplary references from ex colleagues and peers.

Interesting that I have tried to tell more- but my posts aren't being published-to make it look like you have 'scared me away' I suspect?

All posts have been published, this is the truth, apart from the three mentioned already but they were in April.

The Minister for Home affairs has authorised indefinite detention. This was done without consultation or political debate. What sort of a constitution do we have if we can sleep walk into totalitarian practises

I find this totally absurd. What is even more absurd is the following,

1. Those that have been following my blog since the start will have heard of the 15 year female who was held in Greenfields illegally rather than going to La Moye. Why can Senator Kinnard make a decision to indefinitely hold suspects, yet she cannot hold a 15 year old female in Greenfields on a custodial sentence?

2. Based on the above, why can Senator Kinnard not allow young people aged 15 and 16 to serve their sentence at Greenfields? After all, this would only require an address change from La Moye to Greenfields.

As for mud sticking - there have been no resignations.

Please can someone tell me what senior civil servants get sprayed with when they get their well paid jobs?

When I find the secret formula I am going to spay it on saucepans and shovels, I will be the richest man alive - The new teflon. I think Mike Pollard got sprayed twice!

Remember, please sign your comments with a name or inital so that we can track who is saying what.

You can be Koe Jennedy, Dill Pennett, Wrank Falker, Kendy Winnard, or Stuart Syvret!

Thank you for your time.

Simon

XXX XXX - Arrested

2008-06-12T07:38:00.000-07:00

You may have seen the news today, the man that has not been named by the press is XXX XXX - many of you from social services will know him.

He was also in charge of XXXXXX about 6 years ago.

Any comments - I will post more later.

Updated 11.30am 13th June - The man has been released without charge so in the interests of justice, which I have been fighting for too, I have removed his name.

My apologies for any upset this may have caused this man and his family.

Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Section 5 to the end

2008-06-02T14:21:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not posting a blog recently I have been too exhausted with other commitments.

Anyway, back on task now, I have had a further look at Phil Dennett's report and I do not feel that the interviews that Phil Dennett conducted with staff merit any discussion here, it is all hear say, personal opinion and not worth bothering to comment upon - there is no external framework of reference so it has no evidential value in such an investigation.

Readers will draw their own conclusions and that is their personal choice, all I urge is that people research beyond what Phil Dennetts and Simon Bellwood suggest and look at research findings and evidence based practice - outside of Jersey.

On this point, the interesting thing about Phil Dennett's report is that he makes no reference to any standards. No reference to UK guidance, no evidence based practice, no Secure Accommodation Network guidance etc etc, why not?

Don't get me wrong, he did probably look for some though.

I decided to look at this in more detail, it got me thinking about how Phil Dennett, the man paid over £80K per year to look after some of the islands most vulnerable young people, would have tackled such an investigation.

I decided the best way to do this would be to put myself in his shoes, the first thing I did was a google search.

I started off with "secure children's home best practice guidance", however, this was like trying to prove that a chocolate teapot was a good idea.

Then I tried "Jersey's guide on how to run a secure children's home", this didn't work either as the results seemed to suggest that there was no such thing.

So, after some consideration I finally resorted to, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".

Anyway, I digress, back to his report.

Section 8.4 of Phil Dennett's report states that none of the three staff that he interviewed found anything 'abusive' about either regime [The Grandprix system and the system in place in January 2007].

I do not wish to belittle the three staff involved but in the context of the investigation I would like to ask these staff if they are happy to be known as 'not having a problem with locking up children in solitary confinement', that's vulnerable children in solitary confinement - not sentenced criminal children?

I know this sounds harsh but if the whole subject was not so shockingly abusive then I would find it hilarious that Phil Dennett, the man who is paid a lot taxpayers money, would rely on the opinion of three staff who are not professionally qualified child care workers, three staff who have no experience of childcare services outside of Jersey, people who have never worked in a secure establishment anywhere other than Greenfields.

If Phil Dennett considered that these three staff members opinions were so valid then why would he have not also considered the opinion of the Secure Accommodation Network http://www.secureaccommodation.org.uk/ Why would he have chosen not to contact the lead inspector of secure children's homes in the UK, who works for Ofsted, whose role is to inspect the whole of the UK's secure children's homes - I gave the mobile telephone number of this inspector, with her consent, to Marnie Baudains, and I know that no one, absolutely no one from the States of Jersey telephoned her.

Why did he not contact the Howard League for Penal Reform http://www.howardleague.org/?

Why did he not make reference to the published report written by Lord Carlile into the use of Physical Restraint, Solitary Confinement and Strip Searching in the Secure Estate which was published in January 2006 just a year before his investigation into the use of solitary confinement in a secure children's home?

His references to the opinion of three members of staff which could never be considered as a specialists - I am confused.

To help with my confusion I tried once more to put myself in his shoes, I googled, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".

Then I had my answer - it was that simple.

What would have happened if Phil Dennett had one scrap of being an ethically bound social worker, one ounce of integrity - he would have declared that the Grandprix system was abusive.

The result,

Joe Kennedy would have been sacked.

Joe Kennedy would the have said, "Hold on a minute, I improved the practices - at least I stopped the magistrates ordering vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement as they did before I arrived".

The magistrates would say, "Hold on a minute, we did order vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement but then who is in charge of us...???"

Again I digress, section 9.1 of his report makes reference to an admissions procedure which [Phil Dennett] uses in an attempt to undermine the procedure introduced by me, one which incidentally is used throughout the UK and only it remains that only Jersey uses solitary confinement as part of an admissions procedure to secure accommodation.

On this point, if the procedure introduced by me was so awful then why is the procedure they follow now the same as mine.

No longer do they lock children in solitary confinement as part of their introduction to Greenfields.

Although the management still tell staff that all young people must shower in the admissions area (assuming that they are unclean and washing away any scrap of dignity that they may have)?

The rest of Phil Dennett's report is rather dull, it's constant reference to people's views that don't matter and no external benchmarking and referencing make it a complete Joke.

There are references to the reduction in the use of solitary confinement under Joe Kennedy's management - they did not record solitary confinement unless it was in the secure cells, or the Pits as it was known.

There was no recording of solitary confinement when it was done in bedrooms. These occurred daily, as an example, every day each young person after school was locked in their room for an hour, even with impeccable behaviour, this was all part of the routine. I stopped this, no reference from Phil Dennett though!

His report also makes reference to the Board of Visitors. These people reviewed no paperwork, attended no reviews, had no formal procedures to follow etc etc.

The most significant point with regard to this Board of Visitors is that if they were so good, so reliable to make reference to in a report that was used to dismiss me, why then, if the Board of Visitors was there to protect young people and ensure that their welfare was paramount, why did they not speak up about the Grandprix system and stop it when they inspected every month?

The report also refers to a set of policies which Joe Kennedy had purchased in the summer of 2006. Joe Kennedy had given me a CD rom and asked me to implement the policies across the residential service in September 2006.

Initially I accepted but then a few weeks later I asked Joe Kennedy to take the responsibility of the service wide policies back as I had too much to do completing my own job.

I was happy to develop policies for Greenfields but not do his job as well as my own.

He had been in post for over 3 years so he should actually have already put policies in place across the service.

Phil Dennett has always tried to lay blame on me for the lack of policies, I was there for just over four months and in that time, I worked over 70 hours per week and I was not able to develop the policies, in such a short period of time - the same policies that Joe Kennedy had failed to put in place for 3 years. Of course this was my fault though!

The interesting point about the reference to policies is that Phil Dennetts report states,

"Following Mr Kennedy's intervention, these policies are now in place..."

Team meeting minutes cite that Mr Kennedy introduced these policies in the weeks following my complaint being submitted, which was 2nd January 2007.

Despite these dates, Linda Dodds' report makes a similar reference as follows;

"There appears to be a high level of care with extensive policies and procedures underpinning the high standards set".

Her report was done in mid January 2007. This was one week after the policies had been written.

Her report was to look into current and previous practice - surely one would not make reference to 'extensive polices' when they were knowingly created after a complaint had been submitted - the very complaint you are investigating. Perhaps this is what is known as the process of 'Jersification' which Phil Dennett has referred to in team meeting minutes?

The best bit for me though is Phil Dennett's most recent submission.

He has stated to professor Upex (who has been commissioned following my employment tribunal to investigate the circumstances surrounding my employment and subsequent dismissal) that with the 'benefit of hindsight' it was not appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation into my complaint.

Can I say that again, Phil Dennet has stated that, with the benefit of hindsight, he does not think that it was appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation.

Hallelujah!!!

So Phil, if you have now got the benefit of hindsight do everyone a favour and resign with immediate affect so that you don't screw up anymore lives or fail to protect anymore children.

One final thing on Phil Dennett's report, I know I have mentioned it in a previous blog post but I want to write one more time the last paragraph of his report.

Why do I want to do this - because this statement is going to come back and haunt him.

For the record Phil Dennett stated,

"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the previous or current Greenfields".

Is this the truth we have been waiting for?

2008-05-27T15:28:00.000-07:00

Dear All

It has been a week since I last posted a blog. I am sorry for the delay in posting but I was tired, although I have been very busy I now feel somewhat refreshed and have a renewed energy to uncover the truth about the children's service and the States of Jersey's senior civil servants.

Those that have looked at the comments from my last blog post will realise that three members of staff have decided that they wish to speak out and help to expose the truth.

I would like to thank these staff and all of the others who have posted comments and voted in the poll - it provides a source of encouragement for me to know that I am not alone in this war on children's rights.

For thise post, I want to focus on this one comment before I return to my commentary on Phil Dennett's report.

I have provided a copy of the comment below for you to view;

"We are a group of 3 staff, we have discussed your blog on many occasions.

Most staff are viewing your blog. We think you want us to explain the grand prix admission.

For years all young people spent 24 hours in a bedroom, prior to Jo Keneddy arriving they would spend 24 hours in a secure cell.

He changed that at least so they could go to a proper bedroom!

If a young person showed bad behaviour or got 3 strikes they would go to the pits for 3 days, living in the secure cell.

They were isolated from the others.

The matteress would often be taken out.

It was dark nd cold.

Toilet behind low level wall in seperate room.

ISOLATION DID happen, you are NOT lieing.

The manager must of convinced his executives that it did not happen and they were foolish to believe them.

Jo Keneddy will blame the staff and say he did not no how long young people were in a cell. the staff who were employed at the time will get the blame.

Read the records.

We understand that the system you fought for and lost your job for is now the system which is being used.

the 24 hours has stopped and so has the 3 days in pits.

Many young people spent weeks in the secure cell.

The managers you talked about never visited the young people.

Tuesday, 27 May, 2008"

The three people who wrote this are very brave and clearly have high morals and integrity - Or, maybe, Bill Ogley will say that they too are lying, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Lets see if the States respond to the comments officially or not - I suspect not, they will figure that the 1400 hits my blog has received in the past 18 days are insignificant and need not worry about the fall out from it.

That said, it appears from the comment posted that the following can be considered as true;

1. Young people were kept in solitary confinement for the first 24 hours upon arrival at Greenfields.

2. Young people would spend 3 days, sometimes more, in the Pits for bad behaviour.

Let is assume that what is being said here is true and that people would be prepared to give evidence to that affect.

Let us also assume that Andrew Williamson and the Howard League for Penal Reform agree that such use of solitary confinement would at best be poor practice and at worst would be illegal.

If this is the case then where does this leave those senior civil servants who have chosen to ignore the issues and instead chose to either minimise or deny the existence of such practices.

For example, I know that Joe Kennedy, on camera for the BBC, stated that in reality, the actual practice of the Grandprix system was not how the policy reads, and that it has been 'read in its darkest light'.

I also know that Phil Dennett has stated that there were 'no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated in either the former or present Greenfields'.

So, what next -

Lets assume that most of you who are reading this blog believe that what I am saying, and what the three staff are saying, is true and that I/we haven't just decided to make this all up and lead you all astray.

Lets also assume that the majority of us want the wrong doing by the States of Jersey to be exposed, prevent it from occurring again and those who are responsible for such wrong doing to be held to account.

If this is true, then let us fight this together - I want you all to find as much factual information, which can be evidenced, and post it on this blog so that we can expose the truth.

Expose the truth and finally seek justice for the children who were held in solitary confinement

Help push for positive change in tomorrow's service for those children who may need it when they are at their most vulnerable.

I want you all to search in the archives, google, write to the BBC, speak to colleagues and lets put all the evidence of poor practice which was produced in response to allegations about the grandprix system into the public domain.

For example, look in JEP archives, Community Care website, national newspaper articles, States website etc etc.

Find the words that people like Bill Ogley, Mike Pollard, Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett etc have used to protect themselves and lets prove that they have been lying to the media, to the people of Jersey and to the children.

Also, if the staff who left this message can explain to us all in more detail what happened with the Grandprix system when young people were in the Pits, how much of the time was in solitary confinement, how much was with staff, being education, eating etc?

Also, can you explain how much time out of the first 24 hours was this with staff and how much was in solitary confinement?

One final note, to the three staff, I know it is very hard for you to do but please do this for the children - no one else has the knowledge that you have to protect future children from your managers, the senior civil servants the current Health Minister and his esteemed side kick!

Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Section 4

2008-05-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

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

An email from a Greenfields member of staff to me at thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com

2008-05-18T15:29:00.001-07:00

I have received a number of emails from staff within the Greenfields and other homes as well as social wervices staff and parents alike, however, this one particularly gives a real indication of the culture which I have been referring.

I can assure you I have not changed the wording, I have asked the member of staff's permission to post this email on my blog - I of course have anonymised it, you will understand why this is necessary after you read it.

Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:23:14 +0000
From: XXX
Subject: Greenfields staff
To: thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com

Hi Simon,

XXXX XXXX from Greenfields here, i and a few others at Greenfields have always supported you when you were fired from your job but we were made to feel as if we were somehow mad when we said we had no problems with how you worked.

After you left some of us wanted to leave also because we found it so difficult to work with people who enjoyed controlling and intimidating the kids in the unit(these people are at all levels within the unit).

The reason we stayed was because we realised that if we left then the children would have nobody to protect them. There was even one kid...[section taken out to protect identities].

...[section taken out to protect identities] about staff boasting about how they sorted out a child who threatened their family by asking another staff member to leave the room so that they can have a few minutes with him,

He then threatened the kid.

I wish you well and i will contact you again soon.

XXXX

Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Sections 1 to 3

2008-05-18T13:08:00.000-07:00

I would like to offer the following commentary on Phil Dennett's report.

Firstly, you may wonder why he did not interview me. He did try bless him, he telephoned me me to come in for an interview , a week after I had left Greenfields in an emotional state - the state I found myself in after many weeks of enduring bullying and harassment from Joe Kennedy which was compounded by and endorsed by Phil Dennett. During the call he asked me to come to his office for an interview, the very office which is above Joe Kennedy's, no letter, no offer for me to bring representation, no guidance on the content of the meeting - nothing.

After this call from Phil Dennett I wrote to him, I have copied this letter below.

16 January 2007

Mr P Dennett
Greenfields Centre
La Grande Route de St Martin
St Saviour

Dear Phil

I write in response to your telephone call this afternoon requesting my attendance at a meeting with you on Thursday 18 January at 9.30am. I would like to highlight the level of anxiety that this situation is causing me. I thank you for understanding my concerns that the meeting was to be conducted in your office, given that it is practically adjacent to Joe Kennedy’s office as I am sure you appreciate how stressful it would be for me to discuss important issues in this location. I am relieved therefore that the meeting is now to be held at The Bridge.

I have been advised by the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) that your role in the investigation and the purpose of the meeting should be clarified by you in writing, with appropriate notice, in advance of the meeting. I also believe that, in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy, I am entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by a work colleague or a professional representative.

I have expressed concern about your objectivity in this investigation to Marnie Baudains and, in my recent interview, to Madeleine Davies. I believe that an exposure of malpractice by Joe Kennedy would implicate you, as his line manager. It could therefore be argued that you have a conflict of interests in this matter because it might be detrimental to you if issues of malpractice or abuse are found within current or previous practice at the Greenfields Centre, as you are ultimately responsible for this service provision under the Children’s Executive. I have previously mentioned that your failure to respond sympathetically to my concerns in the recent past have enabled the situation at Greenfields to escalate to the unfortunate position in which we now find ourselves.

I would like to know if Linda Dodds, as your co-investigating officer, will be present and conducting the meeting with you. Please can you also advise who will be taking notes, and whether this will be in shorthand or by note-taking?

I hope you can understand my concerns in this matter. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that this investigation is carried out in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy. Moreover, should this investigation not achieve a satisfactory conclusion and require further enquiry, it will be vital that all procedures have been strictly adhered to. With this is mind, I feel that it is not appropriate for Thursday’s meeting to take place. I would like to receive written correspondence from you which clarifies the above points, together with a suggested time and date for a rescheduled meeting.

Yours sincerely

cc Marnie Baudains
Simon Bellwood Mike Pollard

I also wrote to Marnie Baudains and explained that it was simply unacceptable for the very man who endorsed all of the issues I had raised, including the grandprix system, to interview me as part of an investigation into the service for which he was responsible for. Great start to what was to be a very thorough and credible investigation by the States of Jersey - well done.

At least, following receipt of my letter they recognised that there was actually a good point to what I was saying.

So, in response, they decided that it would be better for Phil Dennett to not interview me.

Instead it was agreed that he should continue his investigation - yes the very investigation which was commissioned because I had complained about his service. So in a nutshell he would continue without the input from the person who blew the whistle on it - very clever!

Let us now look at the content of his report.

Section 1. looks at the terms of reference for the investigation. What Phil Dennett fails to point out here is that Marnie Baudains had informed him that his report should also explicitly look at the grandprix system. I am aware of this because, in response to a letter I had written, Marnie Baudains wrote to me on 23rd January 2007 stating that,

"I confirm that the terms of reference for the investigation have been broadened to include previous practice, in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system".

The interesting thing about this is that Phil Dennett's report fails to mention the word 'grandprix' - that's right, not once. So how does the report of an investigation that has terms of reference which, according to Marnie Baudains' letter, required it to look into, "in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system" manage to do so without writing the word once?

In fact the report also only refers to matters which predate the opening of the new Greenfields building once (which was 8th October 2006, the same day that I abolished the grandprix system).

The reference in section 12.7 states,

"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the former or present Greenfields".

I will comment more on this point at a later stage.

Section 3 of Phil Dennetts report refers to the methodology used. This is perhaps one of the most important sections of the report as it provides evidence of the culture of the self serving abuse of power used by Phil Dennett to his advantage and my detriment - the very same approach adopted by other senior civil servants who have condoned his report and endorsed its findings.

Incidentally, the findings of this report were fundamental in supporting the decision to dismiss me from my post some months later on 23rd May 2007. Who was it that dismissed me? Guess, yes thats right, Phil Dennett.

back to his report. In section 3 Phil Dennett reports that he interviewed seven staff, interviewed one resident, looked at internal records, files and policies, and made some direct observations.

He also made reference to section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.

To explain this further, section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 200 refers to the National Minimum Standards for Children's Home. If anyone knows these Standards then they will know that this is an absolute blatant lie by Phil Dennett.

To be honest there is more chance of Frank Walker giving Stuart Syvret his job back than the conclusion of Phil Dennett's investigation ever being considered as having made reference to these Standards - seriously, this is such a laughable statement to have made but does raise the levels of culpability on Phil Dennett's part.

He wouldn't know what these Standards represented if they tapped him on the shoulder and said 'Boo'.

Perhaps he used a little bit of 'Jersification' as he applied and considered them, a little bit of the 'Jersey Way' to help make them fit his own self serving views, opinions and cover-ups?

I digress, back to the important stuff.

Another thing you will notice about his methodology, is that he has not spoken to, referred to, commented etc etc, on anything outside of Jersey.

He has not used or considered any best practice, any evidence based research, or statistics from other countries at all let alone the UK which is expressly referred to in both mine and Joe Kennedy's job descriptions.

I know I have posted my complaints letter on this blog before, but I would like you to again read what I wrote in section 1 of that complaint as surely this should have guided the methodology used by Phil Dennett?:

"I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”

The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”

The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes. His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.

The reason I wanted people to re-read this section is that I need to emphasise that the sentiment and basis of 'my' complaint was bench marked against all of the guidance, legislation and policy available in the UK and which provides comprehensive guidance on practice and policies that can be applied within Secure Children's Homes.

Phil Dennett's report however, does not benchmark against anything other than his own perspective. He does not mention any external practices and polices, research, evidence based practice, he does not even consider the recommendations made by Lord or the practice guidance developed by the Secure Accommodation Network (which is made up of all of the Secure Children's Home in the UK). I had provided the States of Jersey with all of this information.

To be continued...

Phil Dennett's Report into my whistleblowing complaint

2008-05-18T04:10:00.000-07:00

I have removed a section of this report as it contains interview notes with staff members, whilst this information is valid, I do not wish to publish their personal views and information as they were interviewed in confidence. Other information such as the content of this report is in the interests of the public.

Please leave some comments and I will add a further post this evening to answer them all. I will also make some points about this report. I particularly like the point 8.4 which suggests that none of the people interviewed considered either regime abusive. Oh, also, Phil Dennett did not speak to anyone who has ever worked, or inspected, a secure children's home since the UK adopted current practice and policies - despite me giving him the contact telephone number for the UK's leading inspector at Ofsted! I wonder why he would choose not to speak with a genuine inspector who knows what they are talking about?

I am aware that some staff from Greenfields are reading this blog and I, as well as other readers, would be grateful for your own comments - anonymously of course.

Please don't sit on the fence any longer, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem and these issues will continue until you stand up for the children's rights and your own rights. Yes Will, that includes you too, you can't just go to work and keep your head down anymore.

I think this is the time for people to speak out. One young person has and was interviewed on the Politics Show - the States of Jersey's response to this young man saying he was held in solitary confinement for long periods, they said he is lying!

I look forward to your comments on this report - Madeleine Davies' and Linda Dodds' are still to follow.

Is Joe Kennedy going back to Greenfields? - Bill Ogley says he is???

2008-05-17T13:44:00.001-07:00

I thought you may all like to know that I had dinner with Senator Syvret the other night and one of his moles from Health and Social Services has told him of a meeting chaired by Bill Ogley last Tuesday.

Stuart was informed that around 35 people were called to this meeting and they were told a number of things, he spoke about Stuart's blog, and my blog, Joe Kennedy and Andrew Williamson and Howard League.

Some of the points he made were:

1. There will be no more investigations for a long time (I find it interesting that the top Chief Executive of the civil service can be so sure that no forthcoming events will require investigations - this kind of statement does fill me with confidence about States of Jersey!!!).

2. We have lessons to learn (but Will they learn them - I doubt it very much? Why would they start learning lessons now?).

3. After being asked why they don't sue Stuart Syvret and myself he responded by saying we don't have much money and they don't want to make us bankrupt (or perhaps he meant to say that if they did sue the Court hearing would make public all that we have to say, and that wouldn't be good news!).

4. He was asked how they are going to deal with the likely problems of recruiting more social workers from the UK. He stated that they want to get on side with Community Care but unfortunately they seem to be believing Simon Bellwood's story (Erm.., I think he meant to say that unfortunately the Community Care team cannot be bought off or manipulated and that they prefer to believe the truth than the cock and bull stories that the States of Jersey tell them!).

5. He was asked why Andrew Williams did not interview all staff from social services. He responded by saying that 'maybe he was happy with what other people had already told him'.

6. He praised the police on their great job in relation to Haute de La Garenne (Here here, I agree they have done a great job. Look out when they start coming for the people in top civil servants jobs - Bill Ogley may not be so full of praise then when his mates start feeling a hand on their collars).

7. Finally, he said that Joe Kennedy, who has been suspended, will be back at Greenfields in a few days.

The other stuff was not so important than what I have written above.

So, questions, is Joe Kennedy going back or not? I saw Joe Kennedy being driven to Greenfields on Wednesday afternoon - would be great to know whats going on.

If anyone has any information which I can publish here, I would be very happy to share it with the readers.

Please leave some comments. I will be publishing the reports written by Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeliene Davies in the next day or so.

Response to comments

2008-05-14T17:26:00.000-07:00

Thank you for the comments.

Yes the Howard League and Community Care are aware of these issues and are following my blog.

I am in communication with both organisations and I have every faith in their abilities to remain independent and not swayed by the self protecting, self serving civil servants that have more to lose than most of us.

I would again encourage anyone reading this to tell their story, good or bad.
You can contact me in confidence on www.thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com or contact the Howard League in relation custodial and youth justice matters. You can contact them through www.howardleague.org.

Community Care would also be happy to speak with people. Maria Ahmed has been following the Jersey story since August last year and has done a fantastic job with regular updates in the magazine and online at www.communitycare.co.uk

Howard League for Penal Reform

2008-05-13T11:45:00.000-07:00

As you may be aware the Howard league for Penal reform are currently in Jersey to look at Greenfields and the Young Offenders Institution at La Moye.

The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the UK. It was established in 1866 and is named after John Howard, one of the first prison reformers. The Howard League for Penal Reform is entirely independent of government and is funded by voluntary donations.

The Howard League became involved last August after I telephoned them anonymously and asked them to make contact with Stuart Syvret as he would be able to give them information about Greenfields and the child protection system in Jersey that may be of interest to them.

Fortunately Stuart was made a ministerial decision before he was dimissed from his post as Health Minister to set out the terms of reference for the propsed review by the Howard League.

It is this letter and the subsequent terms of reference that I want to focus on. It appears on the face of it that the States of Jersey have failed to carry out that ministerial decision. Of course there may be a perfectly rational explanation for this, but read below and see what you think.

The ministerial decision made by Stuart Syvret is as follows:

"Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform. (MD-HSS-2007-0053)

Decision Reference: MD-H SS-2007-0053

Decision Summary Title (File Name):

Letter to Director, Howard League for Penal Reform

Date of Decision Summary: 30 August 2007

Decision Summary Author: Mike Pollard, Chief Executive

Date of Written Report: 28 August 2007

Written Report Author: Senator Stuart Syvret

Subject: To commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Decision(s): The Minister decided to commission an investigation and appraisal by the Howard League for Penal Reform as per the Ministers letter of 28 August 2007

Reason(s) for Decision: As per Minister’s letter of 28 August , a copy of the “Grand Prix” arrangements, advice from Mr C Callender dated 23 August 2007

Action required: To undertake a comprehensive assessment into “areas of enquiry” as per 1-9 of the Ministers’ letter to Ms Crook dated 28 August 2007.

Position: Minister Health and Social Services Department

Date Signed: 30 August 2007

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 28 August 2007

Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services

The Letter that this Ministerial decision refers to is as follows:

"28th August 2007
Frances Crook
Director, Howard League for Penal Reform
1 Ardleigh Road
London
N1 4HS

Dear Ms Crook

I am extremely grateful that the Howard League has taken an interest in events in Jersey. As you may have been told by your colleagues, a number of issues are causing some of us deep concern.

My purpose in writing is to request and invite the Howard League for Penal Reform to send a team to Jersey to undertake a completely independent and comprehensive examination of the whole sphere of child and young person custody in Jersey.

I issue this invitation as Minister for Health & Social Services, States of Jersey. As the politician with legal and political responsibility for child welfare and protection, I am lawfully empowered to initiate whatever enquiries I consider necessary into child welfare and protection issues.

My understanding and strong wish would be that you publish your report once completed; though obviously taking whatever necessary steps to protect the anonymity of victims and witnesses if anonymity is their wish.

A range of information has recently come into my possession which leads me to be concerned that the island may not be meeting appropriate standards of care and support for children and young people in custody.

For example, it was recently brought to my attention by a whistleblower that children – already very damaged, confused and angry young people – were being subjected to the routine coercive and punitive use of solitary confinement in the Jersey secure unit. This involved 24 hours solitary confinement upon admission to the unit in a locked bedroom, with 1 hour allowed out for exercise – but even this 1 hour was “behaviour dependent”. However worse than this was the solitary confinement in locked cells known as the “Pits”. These were featureless cement cells with a concrete bed. Again, the 1 hour exercise was behaviour dependent.
The so-called “Grand Prix” document clearly states that any child confined to the “Pits” would have their bedding and mattress removed for most of the day, only to be returned in the evenings.

Children who had emotional and behavioural difficulties that displeased management would often be confined for longer than 24 hours. We are aware of one damaged young man who was in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks.

The public debate triggered by my concerns has also led to other child custody issues being brought to my attention. A significant number of people, including staff, former staff, social workers and victims have contacted me. This has led to my initial concerns developing to take in other issues in relation to child custody.

These are issues that require some urgent attention from an organisation like the Howard League. The welfare of the children and the freshness of evidence will be best served by a speedy initiation of any review. For example, if a team from the Howard League were able to come to Jersey and, at least, begin its work in the next few weeks, that would be excellent. Were it possible to begin sooner – then even better.

The Howard League is a completely independent organisation. I absolutely respect this and do not, therefore, attempt to prescribe in any way the work you may consider necessary, nor the methodology you might use, in the course of an enquiry into the custody of children and young people in Jersey.

Therefore, what I describe below should not be seen as any kind of fixed ‘terms of reference’. Instead I offer these areas of enquiry merely as suggestions and background information based upon grass-roots feed-back I have received from the community.

The team from the Howard League will receive full and frank co-operation and assistance from the States of Jersey.

In my opinion and that of a number of other people in Jersey, including professionals who work with these children, the areas of enquiry would usefully be:

1: The imprisonment of children in the Jersey secure unit now known as Greenfields. (Previously known as Les Chenes)

The regime as it was until October last year at which date the use of the so-called “Grand Prix” policy of coercive and punitive solitary confinement was halted after the intervention of a whistleblower?

The experiences of the children who were subjected to the “Grand Prix” regime over the period of years it was in use?

The particular experiences of those children subjected to solitary confinement for 24 hours or longer. For example, one child was held in solitary confinement in the “Pits” for 2 weeks?

Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime, especially those parts of it involving coercive solitary confinement for periods of 24 hours or more, could be considered an unlawful breach of the human rights of these children?

Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be reasonably considered to be harmful to children?

Whether the use of the “Grand Prix” regime of coercive solitary confinement could be considered to be an unlawful breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002?

Whether such a regime could ever be regarded as appropriate and acceptable, not only in the 21st century, but in recent decades?

The regime as it is now, that is, post-October 2006?

Whether the current regime meets all relevant Human Rights and other legal requirements?

Whether, even if lawful, the regime was or is appropriate and beneficial for the children confined?

Notwithstanding the fact that the building was recently re-modelled, is the
physical structure and amenity of the facility appropriate to meet the needs of children residents?

2: The imprisonment of children at the Greenfields unit, prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime.

Were the policies and practices used against children at Greenfields prior to the introduction of the “Grand Prix” regime always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?

Were the policies and practices used against children at the secure unit during the period of some years when it was known as Les Chenes always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?

3: The imprisonment of children in the former secure unit in Jersey, know as Haute de la Garren.

Were the policies and practices used against children at Haute de la Garren always appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children?

4: The imprisonment of children/young people at the Jersey Young Offenders Institution at La Moye prison.

Are the policies and practices used against children and young people in the Jersey Y.O.I today, appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?

Were the past policies and practices used against children and young people at the Jersey Y.O.I appropriate, lawful and beneficial to the children and young people?

Is the physical structure and amenity of the Y.O.I facility appropriate to meet the needs of the children and young person residents?

5: Children and young people and the law.
Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective and competent legal representation in Jersey, given the absence of a UK style legal aid system?

Do children and young people have appropriate access to effective advocacy of their needs and concerns?

Are the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people appropriate, constructive and beneficial to the children and young people?

Do the overarching policies and practices of the States of Jersey in respect of the criminalisation, prosecution and sentencing of children and young people actually work? That is, how successful are such policies and approaches in contributing to the engendering of self-worth and stable lifestyles of children and young people?

6: The effectiveness, or otherwise, of Governance, oversight and regulation within a small, self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey.

Can the past Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?

Can the present Governance, oversight and regulatory approaches in respect of the imprisonment of children and young people in Jersey be considered effective, safe and robustly impartial?

7: Inter-agency working.
Do the various agencies with a role to play in law enforcement, prosecution, custody and welfare of children work in an effective and co-ordinated manner?
Are all such agencies supplied with appropriate legislative and policy guidance by the island’s government?

8: Justice for victims.
Could the Howard League, perhaps through advertisements, media comments and the use of local out-reach agencies encourage those who have been subject to the regimes, or similar, described above during recent decades to make contact?
Could the Howard League assist any person or group of people who may have been treated unlawfully in any of the regimes above, to seek justice?

9: Any other areas of enquiry or investigation that the Howard League for Penal Reform consider necessary.

Were the Howard League able to undertake an independent enquiry we would be most grateful. As stated above, the independence of your organisation is fully respected. The paragraphs numbered 1 to 9 above are suggested simply as guidance as these are the areas of concern that have been raised by many people.

Should you prefer to work to different terms, those of your own choosing, that would be perfectly acceptable.

As I said earlier in this letter, the sooner the Howard League could come and begin its review, the better. Any ongoing mistreatment will be rooted out that much sooner; evidence will be fresher; the memories of witnesses will be clearer.

Also, the sooner your work begins, the more difficult it will become for any person, who might wish to do such things, to create obstructions to your work.

I understand that the Howard League, as an independent organisation, would prefer to receive no government payment for the undertaking of its investigations? If that is your wish it will, of course, be respected. But given the range of issues that might need examining over a period of some time, resource considerations may arise. In which case the Health & Social Services Department can meet any reasonable expense.

Thank you very much for agreeing to undertake an enquiry. It will be of immense benefit to the troubled young people of our community.

Yours sincerely

Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
States of Jersey

As you can see this letter is concise, informative and transparent.

To recap, this was a Ministerial decision made in August 2007 by Senator Stuart Syvret in his post as Health Minister.

It is now May 2008 and the Howard League are in Jersey undertaking the review as agreed.

The terms of reference that are being used for this review bare no resemblance to the letter by Stuart Syvret whatsoever.

The Press Release given by the Howard League on the 3rd March 2008 states:

"The review has the following terms of reference, agreed with the Jersey government:

• To examine existing policies and procedures to safeguard the welfare and wellbeing of children in the penal system in Jersey and to make recommendations about how these may be improved."

Interestingly the new terms do not refer to anything which is can be classed as historical. Note the opening line which states, 'To examine existing policies and procedures..."

In conclusion, how has this change occurred?

How is that a Ministerial Decision which was made in August 2007 has seeminlgy been ignored by March 2008?

Can anyone answer this question for me?

My Story - Part 6 (The response from the States of Jersey)

2008-05-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the poor quality of this copy. If you double click the document it will show up much clearer.

This document was written by Marnie Baudains and was in response to my serious concerns complaint (whistleblowing) on the 2nd January 2007.

As you can see from the terms of reference there were three distinct investigations that resulted from my complaint.

I will take you through these investigations and their subsequent reports one by one and publish them on this blog for you to view and comment.

In doing so, I will post a blog in relation to each of the individuals who had responsibility in investigating or reviewing the findings, this will include, Phil Dennett, Linda Dodds, Madeleine Davies and let is not forget Marnie Baudains and Co.

One of the first issues which you may well have noticed is that my complaint made explicit reference to it being investigated externally. Clearly, this was not done, when I write about Marnie Baudain I will explain how I received virtually no support or unsolicited communication following on from my complaint and that there clearly was no intention to ever have the matter investigated externally or even independently for that matter.

My Story - Part 5 (The day I blew the whistle)

2008-05-09T10:47:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday I wrote about the recruitment issues, yesterday I wrote about what can only be described as a re-introduction of one element of the grandprix system.

After reading through some paperwork last night I came across the following extracts from statements that staff had made in January and February 2007, as part of the investigation into my complaint.

"That three day system [referring to the pits in the grandprix system] was no longer happening, although young people could still spend the first 24 hours in their room..."

"SB [Simon Bellwood] was in the UK the following day and JK [Joe Kennedy] came in and changed everything SB had been doing. JK took over, took XX [young person] out of the classroom and locked him up, that was the beginning of things.

"It was as if [JK] was canvassing staff for evidence against SB."

"During the first meeting with Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett staff were told that it was acceptable to lock a young person in their room for the first 24 hours after their admission or if they displayed poor behaviour. But during the second staff meeting there appeared to be some changes regarding locking young people in their rooms".

"Phil Dennett also told staff they were to use their own discretion regarding the 24-hour in room policy after admission, allowing more flexibility depending on the young person".

I thought I would share these with you as they further evidence the re-emergance of the grandprix system, albeit not in name but certainly in philosphy.

I submitted my complaint on 2nd Jnaury 2007. I left work that day at 1pm to go to the Doctor to get signed off work. I could no longer cope with Joe Kennedy and his side kick Phil Dennett.

I was very emotional, I telephoned Marnie Baudains, Directorate Manager of Social Services, in tears, to inform her that I wanted to see her to submit a complaint.

I visited her that afternoon, I also visited Mike Pollard, Chief Executive of Health and Social Services to submit the complaint to them both.

I will speak about these two individuals in a later blog as they need and deserve blogs all of their own!

I have attached my original Serious Concerns complaint in full below. For clarity, the Serious Concerns Policy which I used to submit this complaint is more widely known as the Whistleblowing policy; hence the name - The Whistleblower.

XXX XXXX
XXXX
XXXXX
Jersey JE3 XXX
Tel. 07797 XXXXXX
1 January 2007

To Whom It May Concern

I am the Centre Manager of the Greenfields Secure Centre. I was recruited from the UK by Joe Kennedy and Phil Dennett on a non-permanent J-category contract, and I have been in post since 1 August 2006. I now find myself in the difficult position of writing to express serious concerns about my line manager Joe Kennedy, Manager of Secure and Residential Services for the Children’s Executive.

My concerns are based on four areas:

1. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s conduct towards the vulnerable children and young people in the secure accommodation provision at the Greenfields Centre constitutes serious abuse.

In my holiday absence over Christmas, Mr Kennedy has enforced a behaviour management procedure that can potentially involve locking a young person in a room (known as single separation) for over 36 hours.

I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”

The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”

The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes.

His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.

During my holiday absence over the Christmas period, Mr Kennedy had Bedroom 1 prepared as a room which now has only a bed, pillow, pillowcase, duvet, duvet cover, beanbag and toilet roll in it. Mr Kennedy has formally directed staff through the communications book at the secure centre to confine a young person to Bedroom 1 upon admission to Greenfields for a minimum period of 24 hours. The entry, dated 20 December 2006, reads, “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”.

I am unable to leave this senior management directive unchallenged. As a social care worker registered with the General Social Care Council, I am bound by their Code of Practice for Social Care Workers 2002 which states:

“Social care workers are responsible for making sure that their conduct does not fall below the standards set out in this code and that no action or omission on their part harms the wellbeing of service users. The General Social Care Council expects social care workers to meet this code and may take action if registered workers fail to do so.”

2. Since the opening of the new secure children’s home on 8 October 2006, I have felt harassed and bullied by Mr Kennedy. I have implemented a number of changes within the secure provision in order to commence the process of bringing the service in line with UK National Standards, which is one of the tasks for which I was recruited, as expressly stated in my job description.

Mr Kennedy has disapproved of many of these changes. I have used the formal supervision process to raise my concerns with Mr Kennedy, but I have found him to be intimidating, oppressive, undermining, and manipulative. He has failed to respond to my frequent reasonable requests for support and collaboration, yet he repeatedly claims to be supporting me. He has rarely offered unsolicited positive feedback to me, but rather he has persistently and unfairly criticised me.

I have made Mr Kennedy aware of the fact that I feel bullied by him, and I have raised my concerns with his line manager, Phil Dennett. To date, I have not formalised my complaint against Mr Kennedy, but I now feel that his harassment and bullying has become intolerable. I fear that my employment in Jersey is now in jeopardy due to Mr Kennedy’s victimising behaviour towards me.

3. I believe that Mr Kennedy’s professional practice contravenes the States of Jersey Code of Conduct. My witness of Mr Kennedy’s actions relating to recruitment, grievance and disciplinary procedures, for example, evidences his failure to comply with States’ policies and approved practices. On one notable occasion, I challenged Mr Kennedy’s executive decision to overrule a promotion interview process which was Equal Opportunities compliant and conducted according to Human Resources policy. I have felt personally and professionally threatened by Mr Kennedy since this occasion.

4. In my position of Centre Manager, I have been informed of numerous incidences of malpractice, including sexual harassment and bullying, which are alleged to have occurred since Mr Kennedy has been employed by the Children’s Executive. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that members of staff have felt unable to formally raise these concerns about Mr Kennedy for fear of reprisal. As their manager, I feel I have a duty to advocate for them and I hope that this formal complaints process will offer them protection and enable them to express their concerns in confidence.

I am in the process of expressing my concerns about the professional practice I am experiencing at Greenfields to the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), of which I am a member. The Association has a duty to ensure as far as possible that its members discharge their ethical obligations and are afforded the professional rights which are necessary for the safeguarding and promotion of the rights of service users. The Association’s Code of Ethics expresses the values and principles which are integral to social work and to give guidance on ethical practice, and it is binding on all members.

Prior to raising this serious concern, I examined all relevant States policies. I am worried that, should this matter be investigated internally, members of staff at Greenfields will not come forward because they will not trust the confidentiality of their disclosures. I trust that this will not occur as it would contravene the Policy on Reporting Serious Concerns. My opinion is that the only means of safeguarding the openness, probity and accountability of an investigation into my serious concerns will be an external investigation or independent inquiry.

Mr Kennedy wrote to me on 29 December to explain that I will not be continuing in the post of Centre Manager at Greenfields after the end of my probation period on 31 January 2007 “unless there is a marked and sustained change”. Mr Kennedy has thus far set no SMART targets or objectives for me, so any change or improvement in the current situation would be totally open to his interpretation.

I strongly feel that Mr Kennedy has no intention of keeping me in post after the end of January. Mr Kennedy is aware that I feel strongly about his directive to lock up vulnerable young people in single separation to punish them, and I will not be able to condone his professional practice which I believe is abusive.

I have supporting information regarding my concerns and written information explaining what action I have taken to date. I hope that you will act swiftly in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you by telephone at your earliest convenience. I request that this matter remain in the strictest confidence until I have spoken with you directly.

Yours faithfully

Simon Bellwood

cc Mike Pollard
Marnie Baudains
Phil Dennett

My Story - Part 4 (Did the grandprix system come back from the dead???)

2008-05-08T13:34:00.000-07:00

Before I embark on the next chapter, I just wanted to point out to readers that a previous blog post of mine made mention to an email account I had set up for readers to contact me anonymously if they preferred.

The email address is thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com

You can use this and I will ensure it remains confidential. I am the only person who knows the password.

The Story continues...

On 15th December 2006, shortly after the battle over recruitment, I left the island to spend Christmas with my family in the UK.

On my return I walked into Greenfields and it felt as if I had not been there for years. I felt out of place, there was a deathly silence amongst the staff group when I walked in a room. Something was going on and I was confused and very uncomfortable.

I read the communications book, which I had introduced for staff to inform each other of significant information more effectively than is possible with traditional memos and all staff read the book at the start of each shift and signed their name. I was aware that this would inform me of any significant events that had occurred during the two weeks I was on annual leave.

From what I read I was little surprise that staff were feeling very uncomfortable around me.

There were a few significant entries in the book, but for the purpose of this blog post I want to focus on one.

On the 20th December 2006 an entry had been written as follows,

"All staff as from today room one will now be the new admissions 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 four hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour".

Now, before I move on, I want us to consider these words more closely. It suggests does it not, that an allocated room will be used for all new young people arriving? It also suggests that they will remain there for 24 hours. Furthermore, it goes on to say that should they do something wrong then the 24 hours can start again. Yes?

Right, now lets look at the wording of the grandprix system document which I posted on this blog back in April.

The grandprix system policy states;

"You will have been placed in a bedroom (depending on your behaviour and attitude to staff), where you will spend 24 hours".

Are there any similarities or is it just my imagination?

On the morning of 29th December, after arriving back from annual leave a member of staff asked me what they should do about a young person who was locked in their room (the young person had arrived the previous evening). I explained that until I speak with Joe Kennedy they must do what they had been told to do in my absence.

There response was, "okay fine, he can stay in his room then".

I have told you about this point, not to blame the member of staff, but to highlight that all the staff were very clear that this entry in the communications book was telling them to do what they had previously done with the grandprix system when young people arrived.

The first 24 hours was always in solitary confinement, albeit with some time for exercise, meals and a little staff interaction.

I submitted my Serious Concerns complaint the next working day - I will talk about this in my next blog. Before I do this, I want to share a snippet of the response from senior managers who are highly paid and responsible for the Greenfields service.

As a result of my complaint one part of the investigation was done by Phil Dennett, Coordinator of the Children's Executive, and amongst other things, he looked into this new admissions procedure that I have highlighted above.

In his report he wrote that he had interviewed the member of staff who had written the entry in the communications book on 20th December.

In his report he states,

"7.4 On re-reading her own communication she stated that she could see how it might have been open to mis-interpretation."

A convenient perspective you may think?

However, the story doesn't end there - the person who wrote this entry into the communications book, who then later realised how unfortunate her wording was, is the same person who has been alleged to have been having an affair with Joe Kennedy. The same person that has been suspected of being promoted because of this alleged affair.

This is a very difficult story for me to tell on such a public forum - I am not doing this out of any bitterness or malice for any one individual and I am sorry that this blog may cause them some embaressment or discomfort.

We have all been dragged into what has become a very political battlefield and this I believe is the only way to force change in the system and stop the culture of concealment and oppression against those who dare to speak out.

Please help me fight for justice so that children who find themselves at the mercy of the children's service tomorrow will get a better deal that the ones who are there today.

My Story - Part 3 (Recruitment)

2008-05-07T15:04:00.000-07:00

I have been avoiding writing this part of the story for some time. I have even considered giving up writing this blog altogether. Partly because I am tired of fighting and partly because I have been struggling with the moral dilemma of publishing the events that occurred.

That said, I cannot stop here. The truth needs to be told and whilst this information is highly sensitive and perhaps controversial it is none the less part of my story and was a fundamental part of my employment at the Greenfields Secure Centre.

In November 2006 I was asked by Joe Kennedy, along with Micheal Bowyer (Manager of La Preference children's home), to conduct interviews for internal candidates to be promoted to senior grade child care officers.

In a senior management meeting we discussed the process and it was agreed by Joe Kennedy that we did not require anyone from the Human Resources Department to be present on the interview panel as Michael Bowyer held the "Certificate to Practice" (training in conducting interviews so no HR presence would be required), although I did not hold this certificate I had been involved in interviewing staff for a number of years prior to coming to Jersey.

The interviews were carried out and Joe Kennedy played no part in the process whatsoever.
Joe Kennedy did request however that we feed back our conclusions to him at the end.

All applicants were internal and they were all interviewed, therefore there was no shortlisting process. From the interviews we agreed that four candidates met the criteria to be eligible for promotion, and there were three available posts. We ranked the four candidates in order of how they performed throughout the interview process, from the initial application form, their written piece, and the formal interview.

Prior to feeding back to Joe Kennedy, Michael Bowyer suggested to me that Joe Kennedy would not agree with our decision. I stated that this was not an issue as we had conducted the interviews and that I was 100% sure that we had followed all relevant policies and procedures and that our decision was final.

We gave the feedback to Joe Kennedy, but as suspected, he raised concerns about the person that we had ranked highest of the four. I was satisfied that our decision was correct and fair as it had been based on the whole interview process. During this meeting, despite Michael Bowyer having already stated to me that we were likely to receive opposition about our conclusions from Joe Kennedy because we knew that he would prefer to promote certain members of staff rather than others, he backed down and agreed for Joe Kennedy to have the overall decision on who should receive the promotion - this was despite the fact that Joe Kennedy had not been part of the interview process. If this were to be the case why bother having interviews at all?

A long discussion followed and Joe Kennedy made it very difficult for me to stand by my decision and I felt very intimidated, bullied and pressured by Joe Kennedy and said that I needed more time to consider the situation and would get back to him in the morning as a way in which to end the meeting which I found to be very difficult emotionally.

The following morning, having spent considerable time thinking about it, I upheld that the first three should be promoted because the interview process had been fair and robust. However, Joe Kennedy stated that, despite my view, he would make an “executive decision” not to promote the highest ranking candidate in favour of the lowest ranking candidate.

I was not happy with this decision and informed Joe Kennedy of this, he replied by saying that that was what he was doing and if I did not like it then I could make a complaint. This amounted to a short meeting of only a few minutes and Joe Kennedy ended it as soon as this had been said.

I then spoke to Phil Dennett, Joe Kennedy's line manager (that's another story in itself) and the following day Joe Kennedy sent me an email saying that he had reflected on the conversation and suggested that the four candidates be subjected to a matrix style evaluation.

My response proposed that, given the sensitivity of this issue, HR should be involved to ensure that the matter was done fairly and in line with equal opportunities and HR policies.

Despite their involvement, Joe Kennedy still maintained that the person placed lowest should be appointed based on their past experience.

My concern, apart from Joe Kennedy's decision being a breach of the recruitment policies was that I had heard from a number of staff that Joe Kennedy had, or was still having, an affair with the fourth ranked candidate. In fact, according to these sources, this was widely known amongst the staff group and Joe Kennedy had been seen kissing the member of staff on more than one occasion.

I made no moral judgement on Joe Kennedy for this and informed him as such, but if it were to be true, I was deeply concerned that Joe Kennedy had overruled the outcome of an interview process and as such would result in someone being promoted with whom he was personally involved - to the detriment of the highest ranking candidate.

I felt that any recruitment process should be fair, robust, carried out in accordance with equal opportunities legislation and HR compliant as well as being able to withstand scrutiny should this process ever get challenged.

Any deviation from the process at Joe Kennedy's instruction would leave me, as the interviewer, accountable.

After I had raised this in private with Joe Kennedy, he decided they could make both No1 and No4 positions training posts. Although not in agreement with this strategy I felt that this at least provided the highest ranking candidate an opportunity to prove her capabilities, if I had not agreed then this candidate simply would not have had a chance to prove her ability.

Following on from this episode I was shortly placed on Garden Leave after submitting my Serious Concerns complaint.

As a result of my complaint, Madeleine Davies, was asked to investigate, amongst other things, the saga surrounding this recruitment.

He conclusion - Simon Bellwood failed to adhere to the Recruitment Code. Yes, that's right, I was at fault, no mention of the alleged affair at all.

More on Madeline Davies and her fiasco of an investigation another day.

Incidentally though, one of the reasons that Joe Kennedy is currently suspended from his post is to ascertain whether he did have an inappropriate relationship with that member of staff and whether or not he did use his authority to gain this person a promotion.

For the record - I am absolutely 100% sure that I was not in breach of the recruitment code, without question - this has also been confirmed by Gerald White who is investigating the disciplinary issues against Joe Kennedy.

I would welcome any views on this part of the story - this does not sit at all comfortably with me but I am at a loss on how else to tell the true story. I even avoided using names in the employment tribunal so that it would not be publicised by the media who were present, however, the Chair made it clear that it was an issue that needed to be discussed.

The States of Jersey have continually chosen not to listen to me, they have refused my appeals on all counts, and even criticised me publicly - I feel that I have no choice but to use a forum such as this so that I can tell the truth.

Hopefully, the States of Jersey will one day start thinking about what they do to people and realise that they need to listen to those who have genuine concerns and act accordingly.

I appreciate that this information may be potentially harmful to some people, particularly Joe Kennedy, however, I will not allow my story to remain untold for such a reason.

Many people may be feeling sorry for Joe Kennedy at the moment but spare a thought for me - me and my family still struggle to find the money to pay the rent each month because of what this man and others did to me. Lets not forget that I also had a very successful career which I had worked hard for 15 years to achieve, now, thanks to these people, it is all gone - in Jersey at least.

Andrew Williamson Report

2008-05-06T12:59:00.000-07:00

I number of people have asked when Andrew Williamson's report is to be expected.

As requested, I emailed Andrew and asked him.

He replied by saying that there is no date set as a number of people have been in contact with him recently and he is still meeting with others.

It appears that everytime the media do another story in Jersey more people make contact with him.

I for one am glad that people are still contacting him, the more people voice their stories the more rounded the picture that will presented, even if this means delaying the report.

If any of you have anything to say to him I suggest that you get in touch with him also.