Dear All
I am sorry for the delay in responding to comments, which have turned out to be something of a hot topic.
Despite my lack of attention, I am very pleased to read that people have started to create a dialogue amongst themselves which, in my view, is great news.
So that we make take this to another level please can I ask people to sign the end of the comments with a name.
You do not need to register, you will still come up as anonymous but you will simply write a name or initials at the end of each of your comments.
This way it will make it easier for people to respond to each other rather than everyone being call Anon!!
In response to your comments I offer you the following.
My mentioning the name of the arrested man
I wrote a very brief post on Thursday late afternoon and then retracted the identity of the man the following morning.
Firstly, I would like to again apologise to this man and his family as this decision, on my part, was made in haste.
This was not done as a personal vendetta against this man, this was done because I felt the net had started to close in on those senior civil servants that have managed to cover up disasters in the children's service for years.
This was a big piece of news and I acted inappropriately.
Will the States close my site down?
They might do, we all know they would like to.
I have been receiving correspondence from Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner for some time and she has told me that she will be taking action against me as of the 4th June.
I have taken a leaf out of the States of Jersey book and have ignored her!!
If she does take action I will post it all on here, I will also be reporting her to the States of Jersey police for harassment and intimidation of a witness.
If I get taken to court for breach of Data Protection I will be asking for handouts to pay the fine, I would also enjoy making public all of my concerns which I am trying to raise through my blog.
The attention that a court case would attract from the worlds media would serve my blog, and my cause, well!
Interestingly, the Social Security Department have threatened legal action as well, as I have not paid any social security since I was sacked.
They have assessed me on my salary for the States of Jersey which was nearly 50K, now I am earning a pittance. I told them my choice was simple, I can choose to pay them or feed my daughter and not go bankrupt.
I think they may choose not to take legal action, if they do, I might quite enjoy it.
You should act more responsibly given your professional background, but then I shouldn't be surprised given your past behaviour
Can the person who wrote this post please be brave enough to contact me or this blog further as I would like to discuss this matter in more depth. I am curious to understand what my past behaviour was that has failed to surprise the author?
Is he a friend of Joe Kennedy. It would be interesting to see who are his friends and allies in the establishment !! Like minded people usually stick together!!
Joe Kennedy and the XXXX man were colleagues. The XXXX man was in the meeting with Joe Kennedy when the member of staff was allowed to resign in October 2006 after he (the member of staff) had got a client of social services pregnant. Actually, they told the man that he either resigns now or they will sack him - all tbhis before they had even heard his point of view or considered a disciplinary route. Phil Dennett investiagted the matter but, hey, we all know the answer there.
The man resigned with immediate affect rather than Joe Kennedy and the arrested man pursuing disciplinary action.
Why don't you post ALL comments, Simon, rather than those that support you? My guess is that you aren't as popular as you believe you are!
I do post all comments. There are only 3 comments since I began this blog that I have chosen not to post. Two of these were for reasons of libel as the author accused people of wrongdoing and there was no evidence to substantiate such claims.
The third one was about the author not feeling endeared to me after I said that I did not care about Jersey's international reputation if it was at the cost of good childcare - a comment I still stand by.
The reason I chose not to post this was because it served no purpose to what my blog was about.
I fully accept that not all readers will agree with me. I have not done what I have done to win popularity, generally if you want to be popular you become all things to all people. That clearly is not me.
I am loved by some and hated by many - this I accept.
No matter what it may transpire any arrested person has or has not done, if another person is so committed to justice, to sit as a self appointed judge and jury on a person is fundamentally contrary to justice.
I have already covered this but I would like to point out that although I named this person I did not judge him. I simply stated that he had been arrested, a fact which was true and undisputed.
I made no judgement and I certainly did not convict him as suggested. I am not excusing my actions I am simply placing them back into the context they have been removed from.
The point many of you are missing about the naming of "XXXX XXXX" is that, in a small community, mud sticks.
I agree that mud sticks but I did not miss the point, this is why I removed it. Also, this comment went on to say I was self appointed judge and jury, I have already mentioned, I made no judgement etc etc. It was a mistake, it was rectified.
Pardon my ignorance but it was my understanding that Mr Bellwood was sacked for incompetence and not for whistleblowing. Didn't he admit that at the tribunal?
I was sacked for incapability yet the States of Jersey have never provided any evidence of this apart from a few of Joe Kennedy's buddies saying I was rude and arrogant. The very people who endorsed and sanctioned the grandprix system. The very people who were responsible for its existence.
My view is the only thing I was incompetent at, was unlawfully locking up children, but hey, who I am to play judge and jury.
Just for your information, I was the manager of a Secure Children's Home in the UK for two and a half years before coming to Jersey, I received commendations for my work and I went to the tribunal in Jersey with 30 exemplary references from ex colleagues and peers.
Interesting that I have tried to tell more- but my posts aren't being published-to make it look like you have 'scared me away' I suspect?
All posts have been published, this is the truth, apart from the three mentioned already but they were in April.
The Minister for Home affairs has authorised indefinite detention. This was done without consultation or political debate. What sort of a constitution do we have if we can sleep walk into totalitarian practises
I find this totally absurd. What is even more absurd is the following,
1. Those that have been following my blog since the start will have heard of the 15 year female who was held in Greenfields illegally rather than going to La Moye. Why can Senator Kinnard make a decision to indefinitely hold suspects, yet she cannot hold a 15 year old female in Greenfields on a custodial sentence?
2. Based on the above, why can Senator Kinnard not allow young people aged 15 and 16 to serve their sentence at Greenfields? After all, this would only require an address change from La Moye to Greenfields.
As for mud sticking - there have been no resignations.
Please can someone tell me what senior civil servants get sprayed with when they get their well paid jobs?
When I find the secret formula I am going to spay it on saucepans and shovels, I will be the richest man alive - The new teflon. I think Mike Pollard got sprayed twice!
Remember, please sign your comments with a name or inital so that we can track who is saying what.
You can be Koe Jennedy, Dill Pennett, Wrank Falker, Kendy Winnard, or Stuart Syvret!
Thank you for your time.
Simon
Monday, 16 June 2008
Thursday, 12 June 2008
XXX XXX - Arrested
You may have seen the news today, the man that has not been named by the press is XXX XXX - many of you from social services will know him.
He was also in charge of XXXXXX about 6 years ago.
Any comments - I will post more later.
Updated 11.30am 13th June - The man has been released without charge so in the interests of justice, which I have been fighting for too, I have removed his name.
My apologies for any upset this may have caused this man and his family.
He was also in charge of XXXXXX about 6 years ago.
Any comments - I will post more later.
Updated 11.30am 13th June - The man has been released without charge so in the interests of justice, which I have been fighting for too, I have removed his name.
My apologies for any upset this may have caused this man and his family.
Monday, 2 June 2008
Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Section 5 to the end
My apologies for not posting a blog recently I have been too exhausted with other commitments.
Anyway, back on task now, I have had a further look at Phil Dennett's report and I do not feel that the interviews that Phil Dennett conducted with staff merit any discussion here, it is all hear say, personal opinion and not worth bothering to comment upon - there is no external framework of reference so it has no evidential value in such an investigation.
Readers will draw their own conclusions and that is their personal choice, all I urge is that people research beyond what Phil Dennetts and Simon Bellwood suggest and look at research findings and evidence based practice - outside of Jersey.
On this point, the interesting thing about Phil Dennett's report is that he makes no reference to any standards. No reference to UK guidance, no evidence based practice, no Secure Accommodation Network guidance etc etc, why not?
Don't get me wrong, he did probably look for some though.
I decided to look at this in more detail, it got me thinking about how Phil Dennett, the man paid over £80K per year to look after some of the islands most vulnerable young people, would have tackled such an investigation.
I decided the best way to do this would be to put myself in his shoes, the first thing I did was a google search.
I started off with "secure children's home best practice guidance", however, this was like trying to prove that a chocolate teapot was a good idea.
Then I tried "Jersey's guide on how to run a secure children's home", this didn't work either as the results seemed to suggest that there was no such thing.
So, after some consideration I finally resorted to, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".
Anyway, I digress, back to his report.
Section 8.4 of Phil Dennett's report states that none of the three staff that he interviewed found anything 'abusive' about either regime [The Grandprix system and the system in place in January 2007].
I do not wish to belittle the three staff involved but in the context of the investigation I would like to ask these staff if they are happy to be known as 'not having a problem with locking up children in solitary confinement', that's vulnerable children in solitary confinement - not sentenced criminal children?
I know this sounds harsh but if the whole subject was not so shockingly abusive then I would find it hilarious that Phil Dennett, the man who is paid a lot taxpayers money, would rely on the opinion of three staff who are not professionally qualified child care workers, three staff who have no experience of childcare services outside of Jersey, people who have never worked in a secure establishment anywhere other than Greenfields.
If Phil Dennett considered that these three staff members opinions were so valid then why would he have not also considered the opinion of the Secure Accommodation Network http://www.secureaccommodation.org.uk/ Why would he have chosen not to contact the lead inspector of secure children's homes in the UK, who works for Ofsted, whose role is to inspect the whole of the UK's secure children's homes - I gave the mobile telephone number of this inspector, with her consent, to Marnie Baudains, and I know that no one, absolutely no one from the States of Jersey telephoned her.
Why did he not contact the Howard League for Penal Reform http://www.howardleague.org/?
Why did he not make reference to the published report written by Lord Carlile into the use of Physical Restraint, Solitary Confinement and Strip Searching in the Secure Estate which was published in January 2006 just a year before his investigation into the use of solitary confinement in a secure children's home?
His references to the opinion of three members of staff which could never be considered as a specialists - I am confused.
To help with my confusion I tried once more to put myself in his shoes, I googled, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".
Then I had my answer - it was that simple.
What would have happened if Phil Dennett had one scrap of being an ethically bound social worker, one ounce of integrity - he would have declared that the Grandprix system was abusive.
The result,
Joe Kennedy would have been sacked.
Joe Kennedy would the have said, "Hold on a minute, I improved the practices - at least I stopped the magistrates ordering vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement as they did before I arrived".
The magistrates would say, "Hold on a minute, we did order vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement but then who is in charge of us...???"
Again I digress, section 9.1 of his report makes reference to an admissions procedure which [Phil Dennett] uses in an attempt to undermine the procedure introduced by me, one which incidentally is used throughout the UK and only it remains that only Jersey uses solitary confinement as part of an admissions procedure to secure accommodation.
On this point, if the procedure introduced by me was so awful then why is the procedure they follow now the same as mine.
No longer do they lock children in solitary confinement as part of their introduction to Greenfields.
Although the management still tell staff that all young people must shower in the admissions area (assuming that they are unclean and washing away any scrap of dignity that they may have)?
The rest of Phil Dennett's report is rather dull, it's constant reference to people's views that don't matter and no external benchmarking and referencing make it a complete Joke.
There are references to the reduction in the use of solitary confinement under Joe Kennedy's management - they did not record solitary confinement unless it was in the secure cells, or the Pits as it was known.
There was no recording of solitary confinement when it was done in bedrooms. These occurred daily, as an example, every day each young person after school was locked in their room for an hour, even with impeccable behaviour, this was all part of the routine. I stopped this, no reference from Phil Dennett though!
His report also makes reference to the Board of Visitors. These people reviewed no paperwork, attended no reviews, had no formal procedures to follow etc etc.
The most significant point with regard to this Board of Visitors is that if they were so good, so reliable to make reference to in a report that was used to dismiss me, why then, if the Board of Visitors was there to protect young people and ensure that their welfare was paramount, why did they not speak up about the Grandprix system and stop it when they inspected every month?
The report also refers to a set of policies which Joe Kennedy had purchased in the summer of 2006. Joe Kennedy had given me a CD rom and asked me to implement the policies across the residential service in September 2006.
Initially I accepted but then a few weeks later I asked Joe Kennedy to take the responsibility of the service wide policies back as I had too much to do completing my own job.
I was happy to develop policies for Greenfields but not do his job as well as my own.
He had been in post for over 3 years so he should actually have already put policies in place across the service.
Phil Dennett has always tried to lay blame on me for the lack of policies, I was there for just over four months and in that time, I worked over 70 hours per week and I was not able to develop the policies, in such a short period of time - the same policies that Joe Kennedy had failed to put in place for 3 years. Of course this was my fault though!
The interesting point about the reference to policies is that Phil Dennetts report states,
Team meeting minutes cite that Mr Kennedy introduced these policies in the weeks following my complaint being submitted, which was 2nd January 2007.
Despite these dates, Linda Dodds' report makes a similar reference as follows;
"There appears to be a high level of care with extensive policies and procedures underpinning the high standards set".
Her report was done in mid January 2007. This was one week after the policies had been written.
Her report was to look into current and previous practice - surely one would not make reference to 'extensive polices' when they were knowingly created after a complaint had been submitted - the very complaint you are investigating. Perhaps this is what is known as the process of 'Jersification' which Phil Dennett has referred to in team meeting minutes?
The best bit for me though is Phil Dennett's most recent submission.
He has stated to professor Upex (who has been commissioned following my employment tribunal to investigate the circumstances surrounding my employment and subsequent dismissal) that with the 'benefit of hindsight' it was not appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation into my complaint.
Can I say that again, Phil Dennet has stated that, with the benefit of hindsight, he does not think that it was appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation.
Hallelujah!!!
So Phil, if you have now got the benefit of hindsight do everyone a favour and resign with immediate affect so that you don't screw up anymore lives or fail to protect anymore children.
One final thing on Phil Dennett's report, I know I have mentioned it in a previous blog post but I want to write one more time the last paragraph of his report.
Why do I want to do this - because this statement is going to come back and haunt him.
For the record Phil Dennett stated,
"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the previous or current Greenfields".
Anyway, back on task now, I have had a further look at Phil Dennett's report and I do not feel that the interviews that Phil Dennett conducted with staff merit any discussion here, it is all hear say, personal opinion and not worth bothering to comment upon - there is no external framework of reference so it has no evidential value in such an investigation.
Readers will draw their own conclusions and that is their personal choice, all I urge is that people research beyond what Phil Dennetts and Simon Bellwood suggest and look at research findings and evidence based practice - outside of Jersey.
On this point, the interesting thing about Phil Dennett's report is that he makes no reference to any standards. No reference to UK guidance, no evidence based practice, no Secure Accommodation Network guidance etc etc, why not?
Don't get me wrong, he did probably look for some though.
I decided to look at this in more detail, it got me thinking about how Phil Dennett, the man paid over £80K per year to look after some of the islands most vulnerable young people, would have tackled such an investigation.
I decided the best way to do this would be to put myself in his shoes, the first thing I did was a google search.
I started off with "secure children's home best practice guidance", however, this was like trying to prove that a chocolate teapot was a good idea.
Then I tried "Jersey's guide on how to run a secure children's home", this didn't work either as the results seemed to suggest that there was no such thing.
So, after some consideration I finally resorted to, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".
Anyway, I digress, back to his report.
Section 8.4 of Phil Dennett's report states that none of the three staff that he interviewed found anything 'abusive' about either regime [The Grandprix system and the system in place in January 2007].
I do not wish to belittle the three staff involved but in the context of the investigation I would like to ask these staff if they are happy to be known as 'not having a problem with locking up children in solitary confinement', that's vulnerable children in solitary confinement - not sentenced criminal children?
I know this sounds harsh but if the whole subject was not so shockingly abusive then I would find it hilarious that Phil Dennett, the man who is paid a lot taxpayers money, would rely on the opinion of three staff who are not professionally qualified child care workers, three staff who have no experience of childcare services outside of Jersey, people who have never worked in a secure establishment anywhere other than Greenfields.
If Phil Dennett considered that these three staff members opinions were so valid then why would he have not also considered the opinion of the Secure Accommodation Network http://www.secureaccommodation.org.uk/ Why would he have chosen not to contact the lead inspector of secure children's homes in the UK, who works for Ofsted, whose role is to inspect the whole of the UK's secure children's homes - I gave the mobile telephone number of this inspector, with her consent, to Marnie Baudains, and I know that no one, absolutely no one from the States of Jersey telephoned her.
Why did he not contact the Howard League for Penal Reform http://www.howardleague.org/?
Why did he not make reference to the published report written by Lord Carlile into the use of Physical Restraint, Solitary Confinement and Strip Searching in the Secure Estate which was published in January 2006 just a year before his investigation into the use of solitary confinement in a secure children's home?
His references to the opinion of three members of staff which could never be considered as a specialists - I am confused.
To help with my confusion I tried once more to put myself in his shoes, I googled, "How to investigate the use of solitary confinement for young people, make it sound like best practice and get myself out of the shit".
Then I had my answer - it was that simple.
What would have happened if Phil Dennett had one scrap of being an ethically bound social worker, one ounce of integrity - he would have declared that the Grandprix system was abusive.
The result,
Joe Kennedy would have been sacked.
Joe Kennedy would the have said, "Hold on a minute, I improved the practices - at least I stopped the magistrates ordering vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement as they did before I arrived".
The magistrates would say, "Hold on a minute, we did order vulnerable young people to be locked in solitary confinement but then who is in charge of us...???"
Again I digress, section 9.1 of his report makes reference to an admissions procedure which [Phil Dennett] uses in an attempt to undermine the procedure introduced by me, one which incidentally is used throughout the UK and only it remains that only Jersey uses solitary confinement as part of an admissions procedure to secure accommodation.
On this point, if the procedure introduced by me was so awful then why is the procedure they follow now the same as mine.
No longer do they lock children in solitary confinement as part of their introduction to Greenfields.
Although the management still tell staff that all young people must shower in the admissions area (assuming that they are unclean and washing away any scrap of dignity that they may have)?
The rest of Phil Dennett's report is rather dull, it's constant reference to people's views that don't matter and no external benchmarking and referencing make it a complete Joke.
There are references to the reduction in the use of solitary confinement under Joe Kennedy's management - they did not record solitary confinement unless it was in the secure cells, or the Pits as it was known.
There was no recording of solitary confinement when it was done in bedrooms. These occurred daily, as an example, every day each young person after school was locked in their room for an hour, even with impeccable behaviour, this was all part of the routine. I stopped this, no reference from Phil Dennett though!
His report also makes reference to the Board of Visitors. These people reviewed no paperwork, attended no reviews, had no formal procedures to follow etc etc.
The most significant point with regard to this Board of Visitors is that if they were so good, so reliable to make reference to in a report that was used to dismiss me, why then, if the Board of Visitors was there to protect young people and ensure that their welfare was paramount, why did they not speak up about the Grandprix system and stop it when they inspected every month?
The report also refers to a set of policies which Joe Kennedy had purchased in the summer of 2006. Joe Kennedy had given me a CD rom and asked me to implement the policies across the residential service in September 2006.
Initially I accepted but then a few weeks later I asked Joe Kennedy to take the responsibility of the service wide policies back as I had too much to do completing my own job.
I was happy to develop policies for Greenfields but not do his job as well as my own.
He had been in post for over 3 years so he should actually have already put policies in place across the service.
Phil Dennett has always tried to lay blame on me for the lack of policies, I was there for just over four months and in that time, I worked over 70 hours per week and I was not able to develop the policies, in such a short period of time - the same policies that Joe Kennedy had failed to put in place for 3 years. Of course this was my fault though!
The interesting point about the reference to policies is that Phil Dennetts report states,
"Following Mr Kennedy's intervention, these policies are now in place..."
Team meeting minutes cite that Mr Kennedy introduced these policies in the weeks following my complaint being submitted, which was 2nd January 2007.
Despite these dates, Linda Dodds' report makes a similar reference as follows;
"There appears to be a high level of care with extensive policies and procedures underpinning the high standards set".
Her report was done in mid January 2007. This was one week after the policies had been written.
Her report was to look into current and previous practice - surely one would not make reference to 'extensive polices' when they were knowingly created after a complaint had been submitted - the very complaint you are investigating. Perhaps this is what is known as the process of 'Jersification' which Phil Dennett has referred to in team meeting minutes?
The best bit for me though is Phil Dennett's most recent submission.
He has stated to professor Upex (who has been commissioned following my employment tribunal to investigate the circumstances surrounding my employment and subsequent dismissal) that with the 'benefit of hindsight' it was not appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation into my complaint.
Can I say that again, Phil Dennet has stated that, with the benefit of hindsight, he does not think that it was appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation.
Hallelujah!!!
So Phil, if you have now got the benefit of hindsight do everyone a favour and resign with immediate affect so that you don't screw up anymore lives or fail to protect anymore children.
One final thing on Phil Dennett's report, I know I have mentioned it in a previous blog post but I want to write one more time the last paragraph of his report.
Why do I want to do this - because this statement is going to come back and haunt him.
For the record Phil Dennett stated,
"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the previous or current Greenfields".
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Is this the truth we have been waiting for?
Dear All
It has been a week since I last posted a blog. I am sorry for the delay in posting but I was tired, although I have been very busy I now feel somewhat refreshed and have a renewed energy to uncover the truth about the children's service and the States of Jersey's senior civil servants.
Those that have looked at the comments from my last blog post will realise that three members of staff have decided that they wish to speak out and help to expose the truth.
I would like to thank these staff and all of the others who have posted comments and voted in the poll - it provides a source of encouragement for me to know that I am not alone in this war on children's rights.
For thise post, I want to focus on this one comment before I return to my commentary on Phil Dennett's report.
I have provided a copy of the comment below for you to view;
"We are a group of 3 staff, we have discussed your blog on many occasions.
Most staff are viewing your blog. We think you want us to explain the grand prix admission.
For years all young people spent 24 hours in a bedroom, prior to Jo Keneddy arriving they would spend 24 hours in a secure cell.
He changed that at least so they could go to a proper bedroom!
If a young person showed bad behaviour or got 3 strikes they would go to the pits for 3 days, living in the secure cell.
They were isolated from the others.
The matteress would often be taken out.
It was dark nd cold.
Toilet behind low level wall in seperate room.
ISOLATION DID happen, you are NOT lieing.
The manager must of convinced his executives that it did not happen and they were foolish to believe them.
Jo Keneddy will blame the staff and say he did not no how long young people were in a cell. the staff who were employed at the time will get the blame.
Read the records.
We understand that the system you fought for and lost your job for is now the system which is being used.
the 24 hours has stopped and so has the 3 days in pits.
Many young people spent weeks in the secure cell.
The managers you talked about never visited the young people.
Tuesday, 27 May, 2008"
The three people who wrote this are very brave and clearly have high morals and integrity - Or, maybe, Bill Ogley will say that they too are lying, and everyone will live happily ever after.
Lets see if the States respond to the comments officially or not - I suspect not, they will figure that the 1400 hits my blog has received in the past 18 days are insignificant and need not worry about the fall out from it.
That said, it appears from the comment posted that the following can be considered as true;
1. Young people were kept in solitary confinement for the first 24 hours upon arrival at Greenfields.
2. Young people would spend 3 days, sometimes more, in the Pits for bad behaviour.
Let is assume that what is being said here is true and that people would be prepared to give evidence to that affect.
Let us also assume that Andrew Williamson and the Howard League for Penal Reform agree that such use of solitary confinement would at best be poor practice and at worst would be illegal.
If this is the case then where does this leave those senior civil servants who have chosen to ignore the issues and instead chose to either minimise or deny the existence of such practices.
For example, I know that Joe Kennedy, on camera for the BBC, stated that in reality, the actual practice of the Grandprix system was not how the policy reads, and that it has been 'read in its darkest light'.
I also know that Phil Dennett has stated that there were 'no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated in either the former or present Greenfields'.
So, what next -
Lets assume that most of you who are reading this blog believe that what I am saying, and what the three staff are saying, is true and that I/we haven't just decided to make this all up and lead you all astray.
Lets also assume that the majority of us want the wrong doing by the States of Jersey to be exposed, prevent it from occurring again and those who are responsible for such wrong doing to be held to account.
If this is true, then let us fight this together - I want you all to find as much factual information, which can be evidenced, and post it on this blog so that we can expose the truth.
Expose the truth and finally seek justice for the children who were held in solitary confinement
Help push for positive change in tomorrow's service for those children who may need it when they are at their most vulnerable.
I want you all to search in the archives, google, write to the BBC, speak to colleagues and lets put all the evidence of poor practice which was produced in response to allegations about the grandprix system into the public domain.
For example, look in JEP archives, Community Care website, national newspaper articles, States website etc etc.
Find the words that people like Bill Ogley, Mike Pollard, Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett etc have used to protect themselves and lets prove that they have been lying to the media, to the people of Jersey and to the children.
Also, if the staff who left this message can explain to us all in more detail what happened with the Grandprix system when young people were in the Pits, how much of the time was in solitary confinement, how much was with staff, being education, eating etc?
Also, can you explain how much time out of the first 24 hours was this with staff and how much was in solitary confinement?
One final note, to the three staff, I know it is very hard for you to do but please do this for the children - no one else has the knowledge that you have to protect future children from your managers, the senior civil servants the current Health Minister and his esteemed side kick!
It has been a week since I last posted a blog. I am sorry for the delay in posting but I was tired, although I have been very busy I now feel somewhat refreshed and have a renewed energy to uncover the truth about the children's service and the States of Jersey's senior civil servants.
Those that have looked at the comments from my last blog post will realise that three members of staff have decided that they wish to speak out and help to expose the truth.
I would like to thank these staff and all of the others who have posted comments and voted in the poll - it provides a source of encouragement for me to know that I am not alone in this war on children's rights.
For thise post, I want to focus on this one comment before I return to my commentary on Phil Dennett's report.
I have provided a copy of the comment below for you to view;
"We are a group of 3 staff, we have discussed your blog on many occasions.
Most staff are viewing your blog. We think you want us to explain the grand prix admission.
For years all young people spent 24 hours in a bedroom, prior to Jo Keneddy arriving they would spend 24 hours in a secure cell.
He changed that at least so they could go to a proper bedroom!
If a young person showed bad behaviour or got 3 strikes they would go to the pits for 3 days, living in the secure cell.
They were isolated from the others.
The matteress would often be taken out.
It was dark nd cold.
Toilet behind low level wall in seperate room.
ISOLATION DID happen, you are NOT lieing.
The manager must of convinced his executives that it did not happen and they were foolish to believe them.
Jo Keneddy will blame the staff and say he did not no how long young people were in a cell. the staff who were employed at the time will get the blame.
Read the records.
We understand that the system you fought for and lost your job for is now the system which is being used.
the 24 hours has stopped and so has the 3 days in pits.
Many young people spent weeks in the secure cell.
The managers you talked about never visited the young people.
Tuesday, 27 May, 2008"
The three people who wrote this are very brave and clearly have high morals and integrity - Or, maybe, Bill Ogley will say that they too are lying, and everyone will live happily ever after.
Lets see if the States respond to the comments officially or not - I suspect not, they will figure that the 1400 hits my blog has received in the past 18 days are insignificant and need not worry about the fall out from it.
That said, it appears from the comment posted that the following can be considered as true;
1. Young people were kept in solitary confinement for the first 24 hours upon arrival at Greenfields.
2. Young people would spend 3 days, sometimes more, in the Pits for bad behaviour.
Let is assume that what is being said here is true and that people would be prepared to give evidence to that affect.
Let us also assume that Andrew Williamson and the Howard League for Penal Reform agree that such use of solitary confinement would at best be poor practice and at worst would be illegal.
If this is the case then where does this leave those senior civil servants who have chosen to ignore the issues and instead chose to either minimise or deny the existence of such practices.
For example, I know that Joe Kennedy, on camera for the BBC, stated that in reality, the actual practice of the Grandprix system was not how the policy reads, and that it has been 'read in its darkest light'.
I also know that Phil Dennett has stated that there were 'no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated in either the former or present Greenfields'.
So, what next -
Lets assume that most of you who are reading this blog believe that what I am saying, and what the three staff are saying, is true and that I/we haven't just decided to make this all up and lead you all astray.
Lets also assume that the majority of us want the wrong doing by the States of Jersey to be exposed, prevent it from occurring again and those who are responsible for such wrong doing to be held to account.
If this is true, then let us fight this together - I want you all to find as much factual information, which can be evidenced, and post it on this blog so that we can expose the truth.
Expose the truth and finally seek justice for the children who were held in solitary confinement
Help push for positive change in tomorrow's service for those children who may need it when they are at their most vulnerable.
I want you all to search in the archives, google, write to the BBC, speak to colleagues and lets put all the evidence of poor practice which was produced in response to allegations about the grandprix system into the public domain.
For example, look in JEP archives, Community Care website, national newspaper articles, States website etc etc.
Find the words that people like Bill Ogley, Mike Pollard, Joe Kennedy, Phil Dennett etc have used to protect themselves and lets prove that they have been lying to the media, to the people of Jersey and to the children.
Also, if the staff who left this message can explain to us all in more detail what happened with the Grandprix system when young people were in the Pits, how much of the time was in solitary confinement, how much was with staff, being education, eating etc?
Also, can you explain how much time out of the first 24 hours was this with staff and how much was in solitary confinement?
One final note, to the three staff, I know it is very hard for you to do but please do this for the children - no one else has the knowledge that you have to protect future children from your managers, the senior civil servants the current Health Minister and his esteemed side kick!
Monday, 19 May 2008
Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Section 4
This commentary is a continuation of yesterday's blog and will focus on Section 4 of Phil Dennett's report into my whistle blowing complaint.
The full report written by Phil Dennett is included in my previous post dated Sunday 18th May 2008.
Section 4 of the report considers what he refers to as 'information from Simon Bellwood'.
Before I go on, I want to emphasise something, there are many readers of my blog who have never worked in Greenfields or under Joe Kennedy's management, they can read this current blog for their information only - others, who have worked there read it with knowledge and views on issues raised by me and others.
However, in truth, I am writing this blog for all of you who work there now and for those who worked in the old building for Joe Kennedy and those managers before him - including me.
I want you to really listen to what I am asking of you and you can choose to ignore what I am saying or you can do what you feel is morally and ethically right.
Section 4.2 of Phil Dennett's report highlights the concerns raised by me in my Serious Concerns complaint of 2nd January 2007. It refers specifically to the new admissions procedure which was implemented whilst I was on annual leave over Christmas.
Anyone who worked at Greenfields will know what I mean. The one which was communicated to staff via the communications book. To help your memories I have written below what it said:
, “All staff - as from today room one will now be the new admission room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty fours hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour”
The person who wrote this claims that, upon reflection, they can understand how it could have been misunderstood by others. I don't want to labour this point because I do not wish to cause any unnecessary stress to that person, however, what I do want is for you all to tell me, and more importantly, the other readers what was meant and understood by that communications book entry.
I have always understood the entry to be the same as the admissions policy in the grandprix system so I have always been bewildered when anyone, like Phil Dennett, tries to argue that it was not the same.
Ooppss sorry, my mistake, Phil Dennett has never pretended it was different, he always claimed that admissions under the grandprix system, despite the wording in the document, did not involve locking children in solitary confinement, so was fine anyway.
I want to stop right there, you tell me what this all means.
You worked there.
You knew how the policy worked in reality.
You understood it.
You witnessed it.
Surely you can explain to us all in a way that is much better than Phil Dennett or I can.
Moving on to section 4.3, although this section does not use the word 'grandprix', clearly Phil Dennett is talking about that very system. He says how I felt that the system was inappropriate.
This is a slight understatement to say the least, however, despite his choice of words, let us remember that Phil Dennett's report concludes that there was nothing abusive about the grandprix system anyway.
Again, I look at you, the staff who work there, to clarify this point for me and the other readers.
You worked there.
You know how the policy worked in reality.
You understood it.
You witnessed it.
Explain to us all - the truth.
Oh and by the way, Chris Knights, the young lad who bravely went on camera about his experiences at Greenfields, his claim that he was subjected to a period of solitary confinement for nearly two months; Pbil Dennett told the Howard League for Penal Reform that Chris Knights was lying.
Some of you were there.
Speak out.
Tell the truth.
Tell us what actually happened.
Is Chris Knights lying, or is Phil Dennett lying?
I am not going to look at any other sections of Phil Dennett's reports until we have clarified the points that he has made in Section 4.
I feel that unless we can contextualise what we are talking about here, ie, what was the actual practice of the grandprix system and the new admissions procedure, then what is the point of debating the rest of the report.
Once you have helped to clarify the situation we can move on to the next issue; Joe Kennedy and I sit on different sides of the fence when it comes to our philosophy in what constitutes good child care within secure and residential settings.
The thing is only one of us can be right.
Phil Dennett, Madeleine Davies, Linda Dodds, Mario Lundy, Marnie Baudains, Mike Pollard, Bill Ogley, Mick Pinel, Micheala Clifford, and even Frank Wa*ker think I am wrong, so, they must think that Joe Kennedy is right - yes?
Oh, I nearly forgot Tony Le Sewer (damn, could never get his name right), head of the Children's Service.
Well, lets imagine that the the fence which divides Joe Kennedy and myself is broken and no-one can sit on it anymore, let us hear which side of the fence you are going to go - you can either agree with me and sit on my side or agree with Joe Kennedy and the others and go with them.
Tonight I am ready to give up, the fact that the States of Jersey have clearly decided that Joe Kennedy was right all along simply re-affirms that I am either going mad or they are too powerful for me to beat.
I am bored of writing these blogs to a seemingly invisible audience.
I am demotivated, stressed, tired, and have little fight left in me.
I need some help, I need to know your views.
Now is the time to speak up, speak up for what you believe in.
Don't feel that you should have an allegiance to me or to Joe Kennedy, do what feels right, the only thing I ask you not to do - is to do nothing as this helps nobody but yourself.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem - do you want to be part of the problem?
If anyone wishes to comment on the above I will post it. As for me I am tired, I need a break, they have beaten me - so for now, farewell.
Simon
The full report written by Phil Dennett is included in my previous post dated Sunday 18th May 2008.
Section 4 of the report considers what he refers to as 'information from Simon Bellwood'.
Before I go on, I want to emphasise something, there are many readers of my blog who have never worked in Greenfields or under Joe Kennedy's management, they can read this current blog for their information only - others, who have worked there read it with knowledge and views on issues raised by me and others.
However, in truth, I am writing this blog for all of you who work there now and for those who worked in the old building for Joe Kennedy and those managers before him - including me.
I want you to really listen to what I am asking of you and you can choose to ignore what I am saying or you can do what you feel is morally and ethically right.
Section 4.2 of Phil Dennett's report highlights the concerns raised by me in my Serious Concerns complaint of 2nd January 2007. It refers specifically to the new admissions procedure which was implemented whilst I was on annual leave over Christmas.
Anyone who worked at Greenfields will know what I mean. The one which was communicated to staff via the communications book. To help your memories I have written below what it said:
, “All staff - as from today room one will now be the new admission room, where new admissions will be placed after full admission. They will remain in room one for twenty four hours with good behaviour. Should any unwanted behaviour be shown then the twenty fours hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour”
The person who wrote this claims that, upon reflection, they can understand how it could have been misunderstood by others. I don't want to labour this point because I do not wish to cause any unnecessary stress to that person, however, what I do want is for you all to tell me, and more importantly, the other readers what was meant and understood by that communications book entry.
I have always understood the entry to be the same as the admissions policy in the grandprix system so I have always been bewildered when anyone, like Phil Dennett, tries to argue that it was not the same.
Ooppss sorry, my mistake, Phil Dennett has never pretended it was different, he always claimed that admissions under the grandprix system, despite the wording in the document, did not involve locking children in solitary confinement, so was fine anyway.
I want to stop right there, you tell me what this all means.
You worked there.
You knew how the policy worked in reality.
You understood it.
You witnessed it.
Surely you can explain to us all in a way that is much better than Phil Dennett or I can.
Moving on to section 4.3, although this section does not use the word 'grandprix', clearly Phil Dennett is talking about that very system. He says how I felt that the system was inappropriate.
This is a slight understatement to say the least, however, despite his choice of words, let us remember that Phil Dennett's report concludes that there was nothing abusive about the grandprix system anyway.
Again, I look at you, the staff who work there, to clarify this point for me and the other readers.
You worked there.
You know how the policy worked in reality.
You understood it.
You witnessed it.
Explain to us all - the truth.
Oh and by the way, Chris Knights, the young lad who bravely went on camera about his experiences at Greenfields, his claim that he was subjected to a period of solitary confinement for nearly two months; Pbil Dennett told the Howard League for Penal Reform that Chris Knights was lying.
Some of you were there.
Speak out.
Tell the truth.
Tell us what actually happened.
Is Chris Knights lying, or is Phil Dennett lying?
I am not going to look at any other sections of Phil Dennett's reports until we have clarified the points that he has made in Section 4.
I feel that unless we can contextualise what we are talking about here, ie, what was the actual practice of the grandprix system and the new admissions procedure, then what is the point of debating the rest of the report.
Once you have helped to clarify the situation we can move on to the next issue; Joe Kennedy and I sit on different sides of the fence when it comes to our philosophy in what constitutes good child care within secure and residential settings.
The thing is only one of us can be right.
Phil Dennett, Madeleine Davies, Linda Dodds, Mario Lundy, Marnie Baudains, Mike Pollard, Bill Ogley, Mick Pinel, Micheala Clifford, and even Frank Wa*ker think I am wrong, so, they must think that Joe Kennedy is right - yes?
Oh, I nearly forgot Tony Le Sewer (damn, could never get his name right), head of the Children's Service.
Well, lets imagine that the the fence which divides Joe Kennedy and myself is broken and no-one can sit on it anymore, let us hear which side of the fence you are going to go - you can either agree with me and sit on my side or agree with Joe Kennedy and the others and go with them.
Tonight I am ready to give up, the fact that the States of Jersey have clearly decided that Joe Kennedy was right all along simply re-affirms that I am either going mad or they are too powerful for me to beat.
I am bored of writing these blogs to a seemingly invisible audience.
I am demotivated, stressed, tired, and have little fight left in me.
I need some help, I need to know your views.
Now is the time to speak up, speak up for what you believe in.
Don't feel that you should have an allegiance to me or to Joe Kennedy, do what feels right, the only thing I ask you not to do - is to do nothing as this helps nobody but yourself.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem - do you want to be part of the problem?
If anyone wishes to comment on the above I will post it. As for me I am tired, I need a break, they have beaten me - so for now, farewell.
Simon
Sunday, 18 May 2008
An email from a Greenfields member of staff to me at thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com
I have received a number of emails from staff within the Greenfields and other homes as well as social wervices staff and parents alike, however, this one particularly gives a real indication of the culture which I have been referring.
I can assure you I have not changed the wording, I have asked the member of staff's permission to post this email on my blog - I of course have anonymised it, you will understand why this is necessary after you read it.
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:23:14 +0000
From: XXX
Subject: Greenfields staff
To: thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com
Hi Simon,
XXXX XXXX from Greenfields here, i and a few others at Greenfields have always supported you when you were fired from your job but we were made to feel as if we were somehow mad when we said we had no problems with how you worked.
After you left some of us wanted to leave also because we found it so difficult to work with people who enjoyed controlling and intimidating the kids in the unit(these people are at all levels within the unit).
The reason we stayed was because we realised that if we left then the children would have nobody to protect them. There was even one kid...[section taken out to protect identities].
...[section taken out to protect identities] about staff boasting about how they sorted out a child who threatened their family by asking another staff member to leave the room so that they can have a few minutes with him,
He then threatened the kid.
I wish you well and i will contact you again soon.
XXXX
I can assure you I have not changed the wording, I have asked the member of staff's permission to post this email on my blog - I of course have anonymised it, you will understand why this is necessary after you read it.
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:23:14 +0000
From: XXX
Subject: Greenfields staff
To: thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com
Hi Simon,
XXXX XXXX from Greenfields here, i and a few others at Greenfields have always supported you when you were fired from your job but we were made to feel as if we were somehow mad when we said we had no problems with how you worked.
After you left some of us wanted to leave also because we found it so difficult to work with people who enjoyed controlling and intimidating the kids in the unit(these people are at all levels within the unit).
The reason we stayed was because we realised that if we left then the children would have nobody to protect them. There was even one kid...[section taken out to protect identities].
...[section taken out to protect identities] about staff boasting about how they sorted out a child who threatened their family by asking another staff member to leave the room so that they can have a few minutes with him,
He then threatened the kid.
I wish you well and i will contact you again soon.
XXXX
Commentary on Phil Dennett's report - Sections 1 to 3
I would like to offer the following commentary on Phil Dennett's report.
Firstly, you may wonder why he did not interview me. He did try bless him, he telephoned me me to come in for an interview , a week after I had left Greenfields in an emotional state - the state I found myself in after many weeks of enduring bullying and harassment from Joe Kennedy which was compounded by and endorsed by Phil Dennett. During the call he asked me to come to his office for an interview, the very office which is above Joe Kennedy's, no letter, no offer for me to bring representation, no guidance on the content of the meeting - nothing.
After this call from Phil Dennett I wrote to him, I have copied this letter below.
16 January 2007
Mr P Dennett
Greenfields Centre
La Grande Route de St Martin
St Saviour
Dear Phil
I write in response to your telephone call this afternoon requesting my attendance at a meeting with you on Thursday 18 January at 9.30am. I would like to highlight the level of anxiety that this situation is causing me. I thank you for understanding my concerns that the meeting was to be conducted in your office, given that it is practically adjacent to Joe Kennedy’s office as I am sure you appreciate how stressful it would be for me to discuss important issues in this location. I am relieved therefore that the meeting is now to be held at The Bridge.
I have been advised by the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) that your role in the investigation and the purpose of the meeting should be clarified by you in writing, with appropriate notice, in advance of the meeting. I also believe that, in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy, I am entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by a work colleague or a professional representative.
I have expressed concern about your objectivity in this investigation to Marnie Baudains and, in my recent interview, to Madeleine Davies. I believe that an exposure of malpractice by Joe Kennedy would implicate you, as his line manager. It could therefore be argued that you have a conflict of interests in this matter because it might be detrimental to you if issues of malpractice or abuse are found within current or previous practice at the Greenfields Centre, as you are ultimately responsible for this service provision under the Children’s Executive. I have previously mentioned that your failure to respond sympathetically to my concerns in the recent past have enabled the situation at Greenfields to escalate to the unfortunate position in which we now find ourselves.
I would like to know if Linda Dodds, as your co-investigating officer, will be present and conducting the meeting with you. Please can you also advise who will be taking notes, and whether this will be in shorthand or by note-taking?
I hope you can understand my concerns in this matter. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that this investigation is carried out in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy. Moreover, should this investigation not achieve a satisfactory conclusion and require further enquiry, it will be vital that all procedures have been strictly adhered to. With this is mind, I feel that it is not appropriate for Thursday’s meeting to take place. I would like to receive written correspondence from you which clarifies the above points, together with a suggested time and date for a rescheduled meeting.
Yours sincerely
cc Marnie Baudains
Simon Bellwood Mike Pollard
I also wrote to Marnie Baudains and explained that it was simply unacceptable for the very man who endorsed all of the issues I had raised, including the grandprix system, to interview me as part of an investigation into the service for which he was responsible for. Great start to what was to be a very thorough and credible investigation by the States of Jersey - well done.
At least, following receipt of my letter they recognised that there was actually a good point to what I was saying.
So, in response, they decided that it would be better for Phil Dennett to not interview me.
Instead it was agreed that he should continue his investigation - yes the very investigation which was commissioned because I had complained about his service. So in a nutshell he would continue without the input from the person who blew the whistle on it - very clever!
Let us now look at the content of his report.
Section 1. looks at the terms of reference for the investigation. What Phil Dennett fails to point out here is that Marnie Baudains had informed him that his report should also explicitly look at the grandprix system. I am aware of this because, in response to a letter I had written, Marnie Baudains wrote to me on 23rd January 2007 stating that,
"I confirm that the terms of reference for the investigation have been broadened to include previous practice, in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system".
The interesting thing about this is that Phil Dennett's report fails to mention the word 'grandprix' - that's right, not once. So how does the report of an investigation that has terms of reference which, according to Marnie Baudains' letter, required it to look into, "in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system" manage to do so without writing the word once?
In fact the report also only refers to matters which predate the opening of the new Greenfields building once (which was 8th October 2006, the same day that I abolished the grandprix system).
The reference in section 12.7 states,
"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the former or present Greenfields".
I will comment more on this point at a later stage.
Section 3 of Phil Dennetts report refers to the methodology used. This is perhaps one of the most important sections of the report as it provides evidence of the culture of the self serving abuse of power used by Phil Dennett to his advantage and my detriment - the very same approach adopted by other senior civil servants who have condoned his report and endorsed its findings.
Incidentally, the findings of this report were fundamental in supporting the decision to dismiss me from my post some months later on 23rd May 2007. Who was it that dismissed me? Guess, yes thats right, Phil Dennett.
back to his report. In section 3 Phil Dennett reports that he interviewed seven staff, interviewed one resident, looked at internal records, files and policies, and made some direct observations.
He also made reference to section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
To explain this further, section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 200 refers to the National Minimum Standards for Children's Home. If anyone knows these Standards then they will know that this is an absolute blatant lie by Phil Dennett.
To be honest there is more chance of Frank Walker giving Stuart Syvret his job back than the conclusion of Phil Dennett's investigation ever being considered as having made reference to these Standards - seriously, this is such a laughable statement to have made but does raise the levels of culpability on Phil Dennett's part.
He wouldn't know what these Standards represented if they tapped him on the shoulder and said 'Boo'.
Perhaps he used a little bit of 'Jersification' as he applied and considered them, a little bit of the 'Jersey Way' to help make them fit his own self serving views, opinions and cover-ups?
I digress, back to the important stuff.
Another thing you will notice about his methodology, is that he has not spoken to, referred to, commented etc etc, on anything outside of Jersey.
He has not used or considered any best practice, any evidence based research, or statistics from other countries at all let alone the UK which is expressly referred to in both mine and Joe Kennedy's job descriptions.
I know I have posted my complaints letter on this blog before, but I would like you to again read what I wrote in section 1 of that complaint as surely this should have guided the methodology used by Phil Dennett?:
"I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”
The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”
The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes. His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.
The reason I wanted people to re-read this section is that I need to emphasise that the sentiment and basis of 'my' complaint was bench marked against all of the guidance, legislation and policy available in the UK and which provides comprehensive guidance on practice and policies that can be applied within Secure Children's Homes.
Phil Dennett's report however, does not benchmark against anything other than his own perspective. He does not mention any external practices and polices, research, evidence based practice, he does not even consider the recommendations made by Lord or the practice guidance developed by the Secure Accommodation Network (which is made up of all of the Secure Children's Home in the UK). I had provided the States of Jersey with all of this information.
To be continued...
Firstly, you may wonder why he did not interview me. He did try bless him, he telephoned me me to come in for an interview , a week after I had left Greenfields in an emotional state - the state I found myself in after many weeks of enduring bullying and harassment from Joe Kennedy which was compounded by and endorsed by Phil Dennett. During the call he asked me to come to his office for an interview, the very office which is above Joe Kennedy's, no letter, no offer for me to bring representation, no guidance on the content of the meeting - nothing.
After this call from Phil Dennett I wrote to him, I have copied this letter below.
16 January 2007
Mr P Dennett
Greenfields Centre
La Grande Route de St Martin
St Saviour
Dear Phil
I write in response to your telephone call this afternoon requesting my attendance at a meeting with you on Thursday 18 January at 9.30am. I would like to highlight the level of anxiety that this situation is causing me. I thank you for understanding my concerns that the meeting was to be conducted in your office, given that it is practically adjacent to Joe Kennedy’s office as I am sure you appreciate how stressful it would be for me to discuss important issues in this location. I am relieved therefore that the meeting is now to be held at The Bridge.
I have been advised by the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) that your role in the investigation and the purpose of the meeting should be clarified by you in writing, with appropriate notice, in advance of the meeting. I also believe that, in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy, I am entitled to be accompanied to the meeting by a work colleague or a professional representative.
I have expressed concern about your objectivity in this investigation to Marnie Baudains and, in my recent interview, to Madeleine Davies. I believe that an exposure of malpractice by Joe Kennedy would implicate you, as his line manager. It could therefore be argued that you have a conflict of interests in this matter because it might be detrimental to you if issues of malpractice or abuse are found within current or previous practice at the Greenfields Centre, as you are ultimately responsible for this service provision under the Children’s Executive. I have previously mentioned that your failure to respond sympathetically to my concerns in the recent past have enabled the situation at Greenfields to escalate to the unfortunate position in which we now find ourselves.
I would like to know if Linda Dodds, as your co-investigating officer, will be present and conducting the meeting with you. Please can you also advise who will be taking notes, and whether this will be in shorthand or by note-taking?
I hope you can understand my concerns in this matter. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that this investigation is carried out in accordance with the Serious Concerns Policy. Moreover, should this investigation not achieve a satisfactory conclusion and require further enquiry, it will be vital that all procedures have been strictly adhered to. With this is mind, I feel that it is not appropriate for Thursday’s meeting to take place. I would like to receive written correspondence from you which clarifies the above points, together with a suggested time and date for a rescheduled meeting.
Yours sincerely
cc Marnie Baudains
Simon Bellwood Mike Pollard
I also wrote to Marnie Baudains and explained that it was simply unacceptable for the very man who endorsed all of the issues I had raised, including the grandprix system, to interview me as part of an investigation into the service for which he was responsible for. Great start to what was to be a very thorough and credible investigation by the States of Jersey - well done.
At least, following receipt of my letter they recognised that there was actually a good point to what I was saying.
So, in response, they decided that it would be better for Phil Dennett to not interview me.
Instead it was agreed that he should continue his investigation - yes the very investigation which was commissioned because I had complained about his service. So in a nutshell he would continue without the input from the person who blew the whistle on it - very clever!
Let us now look at the content of his report.
Section 1. looks at the terms of reference for the investigation. What Phil Dennett fails to point out here is that Marnie Baudains had informed him that his report should also explicitly look at the grandprix system. I am aware of this because, in response to a letter I had written, Marnie Baudains wrote to me on 23rd January 2007 stating that,
"I confirm that the terms of reference for the investigation have been broadened to include previous practice, in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system".
The interesting thing about this is that Phil Dennett's report fails to mention the word 'grandprix' - that's right, not once. So how does the report of an investigation that has terms of reference which, according to Marnie Baudains' letter, required it to look into, "in particular the Grand Prix behaviour management system" manage to do so without writing the word once?
In fact the report also only refers to matters which predate the opening of the new Greenfields building once (which was 8th October 2006, the same day that I abolished the grandprix system).
The reference in section 12.7 states,
"12.7 There are no signs or reports of an abusive regime being operated at either the former or present Greenfields".
I will comment more on this point at a later stage.
Section 3 of Phil Dennetts report refers to the methodology used. This is perhaps one of the most important sections of the report as it provides evidence of the culture of the self serving abuse of power used by Phil Dennett to his advantage and my detriment - the very same approach adopted by other senior civil servants who have condoned his report and endorsed its findings.
Incidentally, the findings of this report were fundamental in supporting the decision to dismiss me from my post some months later on 23rd May 2007. Who was it that dismissed me? Guess, yes thats right, Phil Dennett.
back to his report. In section 3 Phil Dennett reports that he interviewed seven staff, interviewed one resident, looked at internal records, files and policies, and made some direct observations.
He also made reference to section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
To explain this further, section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 200 refers to the National Minimum Standards for Children's Home. If anyone knows these Standards then they will know that this is an absolute blatant lie by Phil Dennett.
To be honest there is more chance of Frank Walker giving Stuart Syvret his job back than the conclusion of Phil Dennett's investigation ever being considered as having made reference to these Standards - seriously, this is such a laughable statement to have made but does raise the levels of culpability on Phil Dennett's part.
He wouldn't know what these Standards represented if they tapped him on the shoulder and said 'Boo'.
Perhaps he used a little bit of 'Jersification' as he applied and considered them, a little bit of the 'Jersey Way' to help make them fit his own self serving views, opinions and cover-ups?
I digress, back to the important stuff.
Another thing you will notice about his methodology, is that he has not spoken to, referred to, commented etc etc, on anything outside of Jersey.
He has not used or considered any best practice, any evidence based research, or statistics from other countries at all let alone the UK which is expressly referred to in both mine and Joe Kennedy's job descriptions.
I know I have posted my complaints letter on this blog before, but I would like you to again read what I wrote in section 1 of that complaint as surely this should have guided the methodology used by Phil Dennett?:
"I believe that this contravenes all legislation, regulations and guidance concerning looked after children in secure accommodation, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, Every Child Matters (2003), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), the Care Standards Act 2000 (National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes), and The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 1987 stated that “solitary confinement can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible.”
The Secure Accommodation Network (SAN) has produced documentation with the purpose of ensuring that staff working in secure children’s homes are clear about when and when to not use single separation. These clearly stipulate that “Single separation is considered as a last resort and all other efforts should be made to prevent this extreme action.”
The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC conducted an independent inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform (published January 2006) into, amongst other things, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure children’s homes. His recommendations were that solitary confinement should never be used as a punishment, the child should have access to an advocate, a child’s belongings should only ever be removed from their room if they pose a demonstrable risk to the child or others, and that ‘time out’ could be a useful technique for easing tension but should never be for more than a few minutes.
The reason I wanted people to re-read this section is that I need to emphasise that the sentiment and basis of 'my' complaint was bench marked against all of the guidance, legislation and policy available in the UK and which provides comprehensive guidance on practice and policies that can be applied within Secure Children's Homes.
Phil Dennett's report however, does not benchmark against anything other than his own perspective. He does not mention any external practices and polices, research, evidence based practice, he does not even consider the recommendations made by Lord or the practice guidance developed by the Secure Accommodation Network (which is made up of all of the Secure Children's Home in the UK). I had provided the States of Jersey with all of this information.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)