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!
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
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...
Phil Dennett's Report into my whistleblowing complaint
I have removed a section of this report as it contains interview notes with staff members, whilst this information is valid, I do not wish to publish their personal views and information as they were interviewed in confidence. Other information such as the content of this report is in the interests of the public.
Please leave some comments and I will add a further post this evening to answer them all. I will also make some points about this report. I particularly like the point 8.4 which suggests that none of the people interviewed considered either regime abusive. Oh, also, Phil Dennett did not speak to anyone who has ever worked, or inspected, a secure children's home since the UK adopted current practice and policies - despite me giving him the contact telephone number for the UK's leading inspector at Ofsted! I wonder why he would choose not to speak with a genuine inspector who knows what they are talking about?
I am aware that some staff from Greenfields are reading this blog and I, as well as other readers, would be grateful for your own comments - anonymously of course.
Please don't sit on the fence any longer, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem and these issues will continue until you stand up for the children's rights and your own rights. Yes Will, that includes you too, you can't just go to work and keep your head down anymore.
I think this is the time for people to speak out. One young person has and was interviewed on the Politics Show - the States of Jersey's response to this young man saying he was held in solitary confinement for long periods, they said he is lying!
I look forward to your comments on this report - Madeleine Davies' and Linda Dodds' are still to follow.
=
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Is Joe Kennedy going back to Greenfields? - Bill Ogley says he is???
I thought you may all like to know that I had dinner with Senator Syvret the other night and one of his moles from Health and Social Services has told him of a meeting chaired by Bill Ogley last Tuesday.
Stuart was informed that around 35 people were called to this meeting and they were told a number of things, he spoke about Stuart's blog, and my blog, Joe Kennedy and Andrew Williamson and Howard League.
Some of the points he made were:
1. There will be no more investigations for a long time (I find it interesting that the top Chief Executive of the civil service can be so sure that no forthcoming events will require investigations - this kind of statement does fill me with confidence about States of Jersey!!!).
2. We have lessons to learn (but Will they learn them - I doubt it very much? Why would they start learning lessons now?).
3. After being asked why they don't sue Stuart Syvret and myself he responded by saying we don't have much money and they don't want to make us bankrupt (or perhaps he meant to say that if they did sue the Court hearing would make public all that we have to say, and that wouldn't be good news!).
4. He was asked how they are going to deal with the likely problems of recruiting more social workers from the UK. He stated that they want to get on side with Community Care but unfortunately they seem to be believing Simon Bellwood's story (Erm.., I think he meant to say that unfortunately the Community Care team cannot be bought off or manipulated and that they prefer to believe the truth than the cock and bull stories that the States of Jersey tell them!).
5. He was asked why Andrew Williams did not interview all staff from social services. He responded by saying that 'maybe he was happy with what other people had already told him'.
6. He praised the police on their great job in relation to Haute de La Garenne (Here here, I agree they have done a great job. Look out when they start coming for the people in top civil servants jobs - Bill Ogley may not be so full of praise then when his mates start feeling a hand on their collars).
7. Finally, he said that Joe Kennedy, who has been suspended, will be back at Greenfields in a few days.
The other stuff was not so important than what I have written above.
So, questions, is Joe Kennedy going back or not? I saw Joe Kennedy being driven to Greenfields on Wednesday afternoon - would be great to know whats going on.
If anyone has any information which I can publish here, I would be very happy to share it with the readers.
Please leave some comments. I will be publishing the reports written by Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeliene Davies in the next day or so.
Stuart was informed that around 35 people were called to this meeting and they were told a number of things, he spoke about Stuart's blog, and my blog, Joe Kennedy and Andrew Williamson and Howard League.
Some of the points he made were:
1. There will be no more investigations for a long time (I find it interesting that the top Chief Executive of the civil service can be so sure that no forthcoming events will require investigations - this kind of statement does fill me with confidence about States of Jersey!!!).
2. We have lessons to learn (but Will they learn them - I doubt it very much? Why would they start learning lessons now?).
3. After being asked why they don't sue Stuart Syvret and myself he responded by saying we don't have much money and they don't want to make us bankrupt (or perhaps he meant to say that if they did sue the Court hearing would make public all that we have to say, and that wouldn't be good news!).
4. He was asked how they are going to deal with the likely problems of recruiting more social workers from the UK. He stated that they want to get on side with Community Care but unfortunately they seem to be believing Simon Bellwood's story (Erm.., I think he meant to say that unfortunately the Community Care team cannot be bought off or manipulated and that they prefer to believe the truth than the cock and bull stories that the States of Jersey tell them!).
5. He was asked why Andrew Williams did not interview all staff from social services. He responded by saying that 'maybe he was happy with what other people had already told him'.
6. He praised the police on their great job in relation to Haute de La Garenne (Here here, I agree they have done a great job. Look out when they start coming for the people in top civil servants jobs - Bill Ogley may not be so full of praise then when his mates start feeling a hand on their collars).
7. Finally, he said that Joe Kennedy, who has been suspended, will be back at Greenfields in a few days.
The other stuff was not so important than what I have written above.
So, questions, is Joe Kennedy going back or not? I saw Joe Kennedy being driven to Greenfields on Wednesday afternoon - would be great to know whats going on.
If anyone has any information which I can publish here, I would be very happy to share it with the readers.
Please leave some comments. I will be publishing the reports written by Linda Dodds, Phil Dennett and Madeliene Davies in the next day or so.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Response to comments
Thank you for the comments.
Yes the Howard League and Community Care are aware of these issues and are following my blog.
I am in communication with both organisations and I have every faith in their abilities to remain independent and not swayed by the self protecting, self serving civil servants that have more to lose than most of us.
I would again encourage anyone reading this to tell their story, good or bad.
You can contact me in confidence on www.thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com or contact the Howard League in relation custodial and youth justice matters. You can contact them through www.howardleague.org.
Community Care would also be happy to speak with people. Maria Ahmed has been following the Jersey story since August last year and has done a fantastic job with regular updates in the magazine and online at www.communitycare.co.uk
Yes the Howard League and Community Care are aware of these issues and are following my blog.
I am in communication with both organisations and I have every faith in their abilities to remain independent and not swayed by the self protecting, self serving civil servants that have more to lose than most of us.
I would again encourage anyone reading this to tell their story, good or bad.
You can contact me in confidence on www.thejerseywhistleblower@hotmail.com or contact the Howard League in relation custodial and youth justice matters. You can contact them through www.howardleague.org.
Community Care would also be happy to speak with people. Maria Ahmed has been following the Jersey story since August last year and has done a fantastic job with regular updates in the magazine and online at www.communitycare.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)