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
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
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
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
Monday, 24 November 2008
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
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
Saturday, 22 November 2008
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
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.
"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.
Friday, 21 November 2008
Frank's Frank Reply
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 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
Thursday, 20 November 2008
How do you give the Evidence requested to the Chief Minister?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)