Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2

Above is the reponse from Mike Pollard and I would like to draw your attention to a few points of particular interest.

Firstly, he states that 'the entire matter has been dealt with to the highest possible standards of conduct as per SoJ precedures'. Later this week I will be posting a blog which explains the process of the investigation into my complaint and you will be able to decide for yourselves whether it was done to the 'highest possible standards', or not?

Secondly, the duty of care which I apparently failed to provide for a child, as I found out later was in relation to allowing young people to be introduced and interact with other young people resident after they had been through the admission procedures at Greenfields. This was something that I had introduced as part of the changes that were required. As you will recall, the previous system under the Grandprix regime involved isolating young people in their bedrooms for the first 24 hours.

Attention readers - I would like to hear some comments from either current or previous staff at Greenfields who know how the admissions procedure that I introduced worked and how the previous admissions were done. It may also be useful to hear how they currently admit young people into Greenfields. If anyone from Greenfields is reading this blog please take some time to respond as I am 100% confident that my admissions procedures were lawful, best practice and inline with National Mininum Care Standards which govern secure children's homes in the UK. My job description in Jersey stated , 'Ensure that the Unit is fit for National Minimum Care Standards'.

I would also like to point out that my admissions procedures were adopted from Leverton Hall Secure Chidlren's Home in Essex where I worked as a manager for two and half years prior to coming to Jersey. This admissions process had been subject to scrutiny from the inspectors for the past 12 years and had never been identified as a problem. This process of admitting young people into a secure children's home is also used throughout the UK.

Thirdly, Mike Pollard's email states, 'If his probationary period had expired I would have sacked him - and, unlike on many other occasions in my professional life when I have had to sack someone, would have had no doubt whatsoever that it was the right decision'.

So, does this mean that when it is proven that Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeleine Davies catagorically lied in their final reports into my complaint (which I have no doubt will happen soon), then Mike Pollard will owe me a big apology? I doubt it, the guy could'nt even look me in the eye when he signed the settlement agreement at the employment tribunal. He has too much to lose, he has dug himself a big hole, along with the other senior civil servants that I have already mentioned, and now they have no choice but to fight their way out.

If Stuart is reading my blog it may be good if perhaps he can provide a comment, perhaps a comment about the role of the 'Corporate Parent' and the context of the emails.

My next blog contains the resonse that Stuart gave to Mike Pollard, I want to show this to you as it demonstrates the level of integrity that Stuart showed when he first heard my concerns about Greenfields. It also demonstrates that in June 2007 Stuart was right to be concerned about Greenfields, even though the senior civil servants and Frank Walker deny there was a problem at all.

Senator Stuart Syvret...My Views

Yesterday I began to talk about my views of Senator Stuart Syvret.

When Stuart received my letter appealing against the outcome of my Serious Concerns complaint (See blog yesterday for a full copy of complaint), he responded as you would expect from a Politician.

With integrity, respect and an open mind.

Unbeknown to me at the time Stuart then made some of his own enquiries and was met with resistance, resistance from his own chief officer Mike Pollard. See the letter above for the original email which Stuart sent to Mike Pollard.

Mike Pollard's response to this email is in my next posting called 'Senator Stuart Syvret...My views 2' as this blog will not allow me to put multiple pages in one go.

Stuart Syvret - my opinion

Stuart Syvret – what can I say…?

Well, as a politician it is only normal that you will have your supporters and your opposition, however, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to comment regarding my political opinion as this is not the story here; although I do actually agree with Senator Syvret’s perspective on the majority of issues.

My link to Senator Syvret - I wrote to Stuart on 13th June 2007 appealing against the outcome of my serious concerns complaint dated 1st January 2007, which as you will know was not upheld. I have attached my original serious concerns letter as well as my appeal letter to Senator Syvret so that you can understand the context in which it was written.


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


I will go in to detail about how the States of Jersey responded to this complaint at a later date, however, my letter to Stuart Syvret, after I had been dismissed was as follows;

13 June 2007

Dear Senator Syvret

I am writing to ask for your help. Until recently, I was Centre Manager at the Greenfields Centre in Five Oaks. I relocated with my family from the UK and commenced this appointment in good faith on 1 August 2006. I have significant experience of managing a local authority secure children’s home in Essex and of working with young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I was excited by the opportunity of creating a leading secure children’s home in the wonderful new facility at Greenfields. I was assured by Phil Dennett, Coordinator of the Children’s Executive, that my skills and passion for maximising outcomes for looked after children were desired by the Children’s Executive to bring the Greenfields Centre in line with UK National Minimum Care Standards for Secure Children’s Homes.

I endeavoured to implement the changes necessary to move the secure unit forward and to improve the treatment of young people at Greenfields. I started to experience strong opposition from senior management and, unfortunately, I soon found myself in a position where I had no option but to formally raise concerns regarding the conduct of my line manager, Mr Joe Kennedy, and the practices and polices which were in place under his management. In an emotional state, I submitted a Serious Concerns complaint on 1 January 2007 to Mike Pollard and Marnie Baudains.

Several months later, following a period of enforced “garden leave” which excluded me from the workplace, I received notification from Mike Pollard (10 May 2007) that the investigation was complete and that there was no evidence to support my concerns.

I am shocked, upset and confused about how this outcome was reached by the investigating officers. I firmly believe that the openness, probity and accountability of this inquiry have not been safeguarded. It is my opinion that the investigation process has breached States of Jersey policies, procedures and best practice guidance on such matters, and that it would not withstand external scrutiny.

I believe that my concerns were well-founded and well-intentioned. I now feel compelled to appeal against the outcome and refer the matter to you for help, support and scrutiny.
-2-



Please find enclosed the Serious Concerns Complaint dated 1 January 2007 which I submitted to Marnie Baudains, Directorate Manager of Social Services and Mike Pollard, Chief Executive of Health and Social Services. Please also find enclosed the response I received from Mike Pollard informing me of the outcome of the investigations.

I hope you are feeling better and recovering well from your recent operation.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.


Yours sincerely



Simon Bellwood

It goes on…

Stuart’s response was to telephone me immediately and ask me for further details. He informed me that he will make further enquiries and that he will let me know what he will do next.

I was later provided with the following email correspondence – you should read this as it reveals the culture of cover-up within the States of Jersey.

After you have read this let me have your comments and I will go further – comments are such a source of inspiration that I want to by you the readers….to be continued…

The Greenfields Centre - the culture

This blog is about the culture , as I saw it, at the Greenfields centre when I arrived.

When I arrived at Greenfields in August 2006 the new £5.5million unit was not quite finished so I worked in the old building until October 8th.

The old building was not fit for purpose, it had inadequate facilities, security and resources. The States of Jersey have publicly stated that they understood that the old building was not fit for purpose and that was why the new building was commissioned.

On the face of it this might seem like a rational explanation. What you don’t read in the media, well not the JEP anyway, is the other side of the story.

My concern about this seemingly rational explanation is this. On 23rd May 2008 during the meeting where he sacked me, Phil Dennett, claimed that the reason why the Grandprix system was used was because the old buildings security was not adequate. The sheer audacity of this statement still concerns me to this day. Phil Dennett claimed that measures (the grandprix system) had to be in place to keep the young people safe and prevent them from absconding.

My question is this, why did you need to place young people in solitary confinement upon admission to the building for 24 hours? Why did you need to have a predetermined length of time in solitary confinement for bad behaviour (See ‘Pits’ section of Grandprix document in my previous blog)? I can only assume that the whole regime was designed purely to instill a sense of ‘behave or you know what’s coming’ into the young people to ensure complaince. Perhaps this is what Phil Dennett meant when he said that it had to be used to keep them safe?

My view is this. I believe that there were a number of other options available to them which did not require the use of solitary confinement, unless absolutely needed and for as short a period as possible.

What was needed was more money; more money for staff, for training and for extra resources. This subject is perhaps better for another day but let me leave you with this thought. Phil Dennett was quoted in the JEP last year saying that it costs £50,000 per child per year to stay in the Greenfields centre. In the UK the average cost per child in a secure children’s home is £200,000 per year.

That is quadruple the investment that the States of Jersey put into their most vulnerable and needy young people – perhaps this would evidence the link in relation to recidivism rates for young offenders in Jersey and the high occupancy levels at La Moye’s YOI.

That said, back to the subject of further options to the grandprix system. One choice would have been to spend some money on securing the building further, as an interim measure a few years ago so that young people were not subjected to institutionalised abuse in the guide of a Grandprix system?

I am sure that the £5.5 million needed for the new building could have been used better. Perhaps reducing the size of the sports area by 200% (still leaving it big enough for one full size badminton court and room to watch) could have saved them 1% of the new budget.

That 1% would have given them £55,000 to make the old building a little more fit for purpose and more importantly it would have prevented numerous young people being held unlawfully in solitary confinement for years. The fact that the new building would not have had three badminton courts (like it does now) surely would not have been too problematic for the average occupancy of less than 2 children in residence that it has witnessed since it opened in October 2006.

Who is to blame for all this?

There are many facets to this question.

Was the person who introduced the system responsible? If this is true then Joe Kennedy is to blame.

Was the jersey child protection system to blame? If this is true then all of the members of the Jersey Child Protection Committee were to blame. This would also include Marnie Baudains. Mike Pollard, Mario Lundy, Tony Le Sueur, Phil Dennett, Linda Dodds and Stuart Syvret - the senior figures who have responsibility for vulnerable children.

Were the staff who worked at Greenfields to blame? If this is true then they must all be held responsible.

My view, on the face of it would have been to say that the responsibility is shared amongst them all.

However, I have learnt many things since my ordeal began back in October 2006 and this changes my view of who is responsible and who should be held to account.

I have heard people make judgments of the staff who work at Greenfields and this concerns me greatly - I would like to explain why.

To give an example, when I left the building for the last time in January 2007 I went to the Doctors to get signed off work, and to submit my serious concerns complaint (whistleblowing complaint) as I could no longer face my manager and the stress of working with him or ‘his way’ of working.

That night I received one text messages and two phone calls. I still have the text message. I saved it in my phone, not to disclose, but to remind me of the culture of fear that is so prevalent amongst the staff group in Greenfields.

The text reads,

"Call me at home on ****** and then delete this"

The message and the two phone calls, with the numbers withheld, were from staff at the Greenfields Centre. Why you might ask was there so much secrecy and fear?

In my view, the reason for the fear and subsequent compliance by the young people was due to the Grandprix system. The same fear and subsequent comp;iance of the staff was due to the history of watching others speaking out and repeatedly living to regret it. Staff who may have challenged the status quo, the management or the systems were left wishing they had kept quiet.

What happened to them, they were bullied, they were ostracized, they were excluded, they were made to regret it.

Ultimately, they then watched the same thing happen to me. My experience will have done one thing - it will have cemented that fear further and until something is done to change the culture, further potential inadequacies and errors within the service will remain undetected.

It is this culture that I want to change, it is not just to confined to Greenfields and the residential service it is widespread across the States of Jersey civil service, not in all departments and teams but in too many of them.

Anyway, I digress. Want I want to make clear to readers is that whilst they may still hold the view that the staff are somewhat to blame I hope that I have allowed you to understand that it is not that simple.

I for one do not hold the staff to blame. They do a job that is not highly paid, is very demanding and stressful and they do this to the best of their ability. Furthermore, the training that they are given is facilitated by the very people who ARE responsible for the existence of the Grandprix system, the senior civil servants.

This leads me on to Stuart Syvret. I wish to make it clear that my comments are will be in relation to what I have known of Stuart and not about his political stance - not that I disagree with it, I just want to keep this story away from politics.

Its 3am so I will continue this tomorrow night – also this subject deserves a blog of it’s own!

Reply to comments

Sorry for the delay in posting a new blog. I have had no internet access for the past 3 days so I will try and make up for it in the coming days and continue with my story.

Tonight though I want to respond to some of the comments left and attempt to answer the questions asked of me.

I have not published all of the comments because of potential libellous claims. If you have posted a comment which I have not published perhaps you can take out any names of individuals and then I will publish them in full as they made very interesting reading and would be great to share with other readers.

Questions

Who knows any current or previous civil servants?
Comments have been made about other civil servants who have perhaps come and gone, and those that are still suffering whilst working for the States of Jersey. Comments have also made reference to fears of speaking out – I know how you feel, I learned the hard way! As with my previous blog I would like to make it clear that I know there are hundreds of civil servants who are happy working for the States of Jersey. My issue is not to simply criticise the States of Jersey, it is to raise awareness and prevent people senior civil servants from using and abusing their positions of power to the detriment of others. The States of Jersey need to ensure that they have the necessary safeguarding systems in place to stop this being able to go on undetected.

For those of you who do not feel that you can reply to this blog, or speak out in another way through your own fear of reprisal, but would still like to speak with me then I have set up an email account which only I know the password. I can assure you that any information will remain confidential and I will never publish anything which is sent to me without the express permission of the author.

The email address is – thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com

Who is the Pinball?
I don’t think I can answer this question as it is an allegation against a senior civil servant. I have no proof that they were known as Pinball and therefore it would not be for me to comment futher.

Grandprix System – Did senior managers know about it?
Yes, senior managers did know about it. In fact Phil Dennett and Linda Dodds were specifically asked, by Marnie Baudains and Mario Lundy to investigate it in January 2007.

In his report Phil Dennett stated,

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

This report, written by Phil Dennett was completed without consultation with a single
person who has ever worked, under modern policies and practices, in a Secure Children’s Home outside of Jersey.

The report written by Linda Dodds actually failed to mention the Grandprix system, not even once. Linda Dodds’ inspection included visiting the Greenfields unit on one occasion and this visit lasted for 25 minutes. Incredible really when you consider that she was being asked to investigate whether vulnerable children were being abused by being locked up in solitary confinement!

Other senior managers were also aware of it.

Was Greenfields inspected?
There are possibly two answers to this question, if you want my view then the answer would be no. No it wasn’t inspected. The reason it would be no is that it was not inspected by anyone who would know how to spot a problem if there was one. The States of Jersey however believe that it was inspected,

How? The Board of Visitors – these were monthly visits by people who were either magistrates and/or good citizens within the local community. Now before I go on, my comments are not against these people as individuals, I am sure they have the best interests of the children at heart. My concern is that they are untrained for this role; do not have up to date knowledge about secure settings and the system was wholly inadequate. This point may be disputed and perhaps it would be good to happen on this blog. My question is this, if the system of inspection at Greenfields was adequate then how did the Grandprix system manage to exist for over 4 years? It is a simple as that.

Was I gagged after the tribunal?
I was not gagged, I was very clear that I would never sign a gagging clause (unless they paid me an obscene amount of money of course!) as I had every intention of exposing the truth about the Grandprix system and the civil servants who I believe are responsible for its existence. Following the employment tribunal I was quiet for a month because I sold my story to the Mail on Sunday, who did not publish it, but it was an exclusive and therefore I had to stay quiet for 30 days. Now I am back and I intend to continue the battles – not for me but for the vulnerable young people in Jersey.

Why did I settle out of court?
I will think further about my answer to this question and come back to you.. I do have some very legitimate reasons, however, some things in the agreement which was reached have not yet been fulfilled and I want to ensure that they do before I write further.

How can I call myself a whistleblower after I agreed I was not?
Just to clarify, what I agreed to was that ‘I wasn’t sacked for whistleblowing’. This doesn’t prevent me from calling myself a whistleblower. I did blow the whistle and I was sacked after I did it. I agreed not to say I sacked for whistleblowing. I have never claimed this; the media did. The reason I never claimed I was sacked for whistleblowing is simple – there is no law in Jersey to substantiate such a claim being made so it was pointless.

It was Simon Bellwood who initiated the settlement?
On 12th March, day 3 of the tribunal, my advocate (Jersey Solicitor) approached Mike Pollard, representing the States of Jersey and asked him if he was aware that my case had made the editorial in the Times newspaper the previous day. He also asked him if he wanted to continue with the tribunal as they were heading for a big car crash. The States of Jersey decided that they would like to talk further and requested an adjournment from the Chair of the tribunal. The Chair agreed and also informed the States of Jersey that the panel were ‘uneasy’ about the failure to disclose the information that had come to light the previous day. Incidentally, this information was also, in part, what led to the suspension of Joe Kennedy the following morning.

What next?
I will continue my story about my employment tomorrow; I hope I have answered some of your questions here. Please feel free to post further comments and I will endeavour to answer them all as best I can.

I would also like to say thank you for the support shown in your comments, despite not publishing some of them as mentioned earlier they have all been 100% supportive about what I am trying to achieve.

Grand Prix System - Continued

My Story - Where it all started

Having worked as an Operations Manager in a Secure Children's Home for Essex County Council since February 2004 an advert in Community Care magazine (19–25 January 2006) looked appealing.

The advert was for the post of Centre Manager at Greenfields in Jersey, Channel Islands.

This advert included the following statement of values:

‘It is our core value that clients and colleagues are treated with respect, consideration, dignity, courtesy and as individuals. We value diversity and welcome applications from all sections of the community’

A statement which I would soon realise had little meaning in reality.

Although Jersey has its own government known as the States of Jersey, and it is not part of the European Union, the job description for the post of Greenfields Centre Manager made explicit reference to National Minimum Care Standards, which is a set of standards to ensure that good practice is adhered to in all United Kingdom children’s homes and secure accommodation provisions.

The States of Jersey also requires all of its social workers to be registered with the General Social Care Council (GSCC) which require all workers and their employers to abide by a Code of Conduct which describes a set of agreed codes of practice and conduct for registered social care workers and their employers.

It was these facts that gave me confidence and assurance that the States of Jersey really meant what they said; that they were committed to good child care practices.

During my interview for this post I raised my concerns about the terminology which had been used by Joe Kennedy (who was soon to become my line manager) and his line manager, Phil Dennett, during my visit to the Greenfields Centre that morning. The terminology which disturbed me was children’s bedrooms being referred to as “cells”. I told them that I was uncomfortable with these terms being used in secure children’s home and stated that I would prefer to call them “bedrooms”.

During my visit the children had also been referred to as ‘Inmates’ and the living areas had been referred to as ‘Association’. Anyone who has ever worked at a prison or visited one will recognise that this is prison terminology and I strongly believe that this has no place in a secure children’s home. Remember, none of these children were sentenced to custody; none were there because they had been convicted of a criminal offence.

It was also at the interview stage that I first heard of the ‘Grand Prix’ system, which I will cover in more detail later.

I was formally offered the post on 13 March 2006 and I relocated to Jersey with my wife and young daughter in July 2006.

When I started work in August 2006 I met the staff. The vast majority were great, in fact really great, they were enthusiastic, capable and very genuine people. As with all places of work however, there were also some which were more suited to working somewhere else, more specifically, somewhere else where they were not tasked with caring for vulnerable children. Luckily there were only a few of these.

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 leant 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 someone's liberty to be taken away without a lawful Order, and certainly not becasue 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.

It was in the first few weeks of working for the States of Jersey that I also came to understand the reality of the Grand Prix system. A system which was designed to ensure compliance of children through a fear of the consequences it so clearly represented.

It is this policy that I would like to consider more at this stage. I will go into more detail once readers have had a chance to read , digest and reflect upon it. The States of Jersey will, and have previously, argued that the policy represents the system in its ‘darkest light’ and in reality it did not keep children in solitary confinement as the policy suggests. We will consider this point further in later blogs, but first read it and offer your comments as you see fit.

I have attached some of the pages from the Grand Prix System in this blog and due to restrictions on size, I have opened another blog called, Grand Prix System Continued, where I have attachd the rest of the policy document which I photocopied in my final days at the Greenfields Centre. This is the same copy which was given to senior civil servants, the Jersey Employment Tribunal and to the media.