My Response - Part 2

Over the coming days I will write my response to Senator Shenton's report.

In my post yesterday I discussed the letter from Senator Shenton but there is one element which leaves me confused.

At the top of the letter is says;

"Our ref: BES/JLP/LAW"

Can anyone tell me what this refers to?

My thoughts are that 'LAW' suggests that it was written or checked by the States of Jersey Law Department. Can anyone shed light on this for me?

I also think that Senator Shenton's numerous references to confidentiality within his letter was intentional. I believe that he did this to offer himself some protection should there be any dispute about defamation etc, knowing full well that the letter would be leaked to the media.

I don't suppose he expected that the leak to the JEP would have been from me though!

The Report

Greenfields - Time for the Truth

That's the first lie, right there in the title, a good start Senator!

In the opening paragraph Senator Shenton suggests that the truth has not been conveyed accurately and this needs to be rectified. He goes on to say, "This task falls to me".

Clearly Senator Shenton is taking full responsibility for the content of both the letter and the report.

What is Greenfields?

This section is very confusing and I apologise if I do not make it any clearer for you. I will try my best to explain things as clearly and simply as I can.

At the start of this section Senator Shenton's report suggests that the detractors (assuming he means me and Senator Syvret), 'either mischievously or out of ignorance seek to confuse..."

I agree that Les Chene/Greenfields is an area which has left some people confused and the majority, but not all, of what Senator Shenton writes here is true.

However, in this section Senator Shenton simply seeks to further confuse people as this is a red herring.

Whether it is called Les Chene or Greenfields makes no difference whatsoever to the allegations that I made in January 2007.

Remember this, my allegations were about the practices that took place and not what the building was called.

One of the things that Senator Shenton seeks to achieve in this section is for people to believe that the Grand Prix system did not take place in Greenfields Secure Unit.

This is merely spin.

That said, this is an important part of the report and I will return to this in a moment.

Senator Shenton, refers to the report written by Dr Kathie Bull, which was commissioned by the Education Sport and Culture Committee.

What Senator Shenton fails to point out is that the Kathie Bull report was commissioned following a complaint from a child who was resident at Les Chene.

The complaint was against the Headteacher and the Deputy Headteacher.

No names mentioned here but consider this, if a man-sells his dog then he will have to wag-it himself!

Senator Shenton's report clearly suggests that the commissioning of Kathie Bull was a proactive 'realisation' by the Education Sport and Culture committee.

This was not proactive and my point is further evidenced on page 318 of the Kathie Bull report in paragraph 10, which states,

"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

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!

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'

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!

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

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"

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.