Monthly Archives: October 2008

THE HOWARD LEAGUE

AND JERSEY OLIGARCHY SPIN:

A few, Brief Comments.

Before I get into the substance of this post readers may like to note that I will be doing a post everyday now in my coverage of the Jersey elections.

I may even get another post done this evening, other demands permitting.

So watch this space.

Below this post I reproduce a couple of very brief articles from the web-site of Community Care Magazine. They’ve clearly had sight of the Howard League report, and full articles appear in the paper edition of the magazine.

The report itself should be out this weekend – but in the mean time we can get a flavour of what’s in it from the Com-Care pieces.

As several of my perspicacious readers have pointed out – the oligarchy spin-campaign against the Howard League began at the start of this week – and the report isn’t even published yet.

I guess it’s a bit of that old rugby adage – about “getting your retaliation in first”.

We’ve heard the sounds of Jimmy Perchard squealing on BBC Jersey radio – and feeding another load of garbage to the listening public who he’s supposed to be representing.

I always knew Jimmy wasn’t the sharpest tool in the box – but I’ve actually been quite startled at just how stupid he really is.

Consider his attempts to spin against the Howard League report.

He holds up the Williamson report as though it were the last word on caring for children in custody.

In the same breath, tries to rubbish the report of the Howard League – because it correctly says that what I and Simon Bellwood were objecting to was, in fact, unlawful.

But it obviously hasn’t dawned on Jimmy (someone will have to break the news to him gently) that on this key point – the simple illegality of the punitive and coercive regimes of solitary confinement – the Howard League and Williamson reports do not contradict each-other.

Although weak, feeble and inadequate in oh so many ways – even the Williamson report couldn’t avoid saying this:

“However, to use single separation/isolation, the process whereby children are forcibly removed from association with others and confined to a room on their own as a punishment for misbehaviour, is clearly inappropriate and should never be sanctioned by any care regime.”

The Howard League come to exactly the same conclusion so far as this observation is concerned – except that they state the facts plainly and without the weasel-words of Williamson.

Actually – I’m beginning to wonder if Jimmy can actually read. Perhaps he just can’t comprehend any written English unless it’s in the form of a letter explaining the latest farming subsidies?

For example – on Tuesday I e-mailed him in these terms:

“Senator Perchard

Having just returned to Jersey from London – where I have been fighting for the rights of vulnerable children in Jersey in the teeth of opposition from people like you – I have listened to the interview you gave on BBC radio Jersey this morning.

I’d be grateful if I could have answers to a few questions.

Why do you continue to tell lies about me? For example, trotting-out the falsehood that my motivation is “making political capital” out of the situation?

Why are you and your Minister entirely happy to keep in employment a variety of senior – highly expensive – civil servants – who have – on an evidenced basis – lied and engaged in a variety of malfeasances?

How is it imagined that the claims of you and your Minister to have the welfare of children as your highest concern can be taken seriously, when you allow Joe Kennedy to return to work?

Likewise – how are you to be taken seriously when you will not so much as even suspend one, senior civil servant – even though Frank’s poodle – Williamson – said that the solitary confinement regimes which your officers enacted and covered-up were “never acceptable”?

Could you show me where you have registered an interest – in that you engaged in a very lucrative property transaction with one Joylyon Baker – the brother of Piers Baker – the man who had to resign in disgrace from Victoria College – and who described video footage of acts of child abuse as “teachers’ perks”?”

But – I just can’t get even the faintest response from him. Maybe I should telephone him and read him the e-mail over the phone?

You know, I’m sufficiently motivated to have a good, long chat with Jimmy about these issues that – get this – I’m even going to e-mail BBC Jersey and offer to do the Sunday phone-in with him.

And if he’s too cowardly – I’m happy to appear with Frank “you’re just trying to shaft Jersey internationally” Walker.

Perhaps Sunday the 26th October would be good? We’ll have had time to read and digest the Howard League report then

Of course – the exercise is futile – as last time I made such an offer to BBC Jersey to have a live debate program with Big Frank, they responded by saying “The BBC does not host political debates because it might influence decision-makers.”

Somehow, Denzil Dudley’s approach to programming has been missed by the BBC top-brass – who carry on broadcasting programs such as Question Time and Any Questions.

But – I guess one has to go through the motions of making the offer anyway. If nothing else I’ll get a good blog-post out of their absurd reply.

Anyway – have a read of the two, brief pieces from the Com-Care web site below whilst we await the publication of the Howard League report.

And as I said earlier, I’m going to do a post each day up to the elections – so carry-on checking the site – you might miss some of the excitement otherwise.

Stuart.

EXTRACTS FROM COMMUNITY CARE MAGAZINE

Report backs up complaints of sacked Jersey professional

Posted: 09 October 2008 | Subscribe Online

writes Maria Ahmed

It is more than a year since Community Care broke the story of how UK social worker Simon Bellwood was sacked from his job at a secure unit on Jersey after he criticised a policy of locking up children in solitary confinement.

At the time, Bellwood’s employers denied the claims, but an employment tribunal and an inquiry into his sacking earlier this year helped to vindicate him.

The strongest vindication yet will come in the findings of the Howard League for Penal Reform. The Jersey establishment can no longer deny abuses in their children’s system and must act on the evidence before them.

The full article is published in the 9 October edition of Community Care under the headline “Bellwood vindicated”

New Jersey revelations alleging abuse in Howard League report

Howard League calls for reform of Jersey’s secure practices

Posted: 07 October 2008 | Subscribe Online

writes Maria Ahmed

The Howard League for Penal Reform is expected to make fresh allegations about past abuse of children held in custody in Jersey, including being held in solitary confinement in cold rooms with concrete beds.

The “highly credible” evidence is expected in a report out soon from the League, which visited the island to investigate concerns first raised by UK social worker Simon Bellwood.

Abusive practices alleged

The charity’s report is likely to say that staff and young people alleged the existence of “abusive” practices going back many years. These include being held in isolation with little human contact for long periods.

It is also expected to criticise Jersey’s juvenile custody rate, which is higher than that in England and Wales and other European countries, despite the island’s small population and lack of comparable inner city problems.

Cases cited by the Howard League are understood to include children sent to custody for being found drunk, urinating in a public place and causing “malicious damage”.

Old boys network in Jersey

The report is likely to criticise “old boys’ networks” in the Jersey establishment, claiming this deters people from making complaints. It is expected to recommend a more effective whistleblowing policy, inspection of secure services by an external body such as Ofsted and the establishment of an independent prosecution service.
The findings follow a turbulent year for Jersey where a police investigation into historic child abuse at several institutions – unrelated to Simon Bellwood’s case – is continuing.

Simon Bellwood

Bellwood, who has settled his claim for unfair dismissal, said he hoped the Howard League report would “serve the interests of children rather than the political elite of Jersey”.

Bellwood was sacked from his post as manager at the Greenfields secure unit in Jersey last year after criticising the practice of placing children in solitary confinement. His case, first reported in Community Care, sparked several inquiries including the Howard League investigation this year.

• More on Jersey at: www.communitycare.co.uk/jersey1

JERSEY ELECTION SPECIAL, #1

A Brief Introduction.

Many people have asked me to post on the subject of Jersey’s general election, the first phase of which takes place later this month.

I’m more than happy to oblige.

In the coming days, we’ll be taking a look at most of the candidates – to a greater of lesser extent – and exploring the real political issues.

We’ll also be taking a look at – where relevant – the personal performance of the individual candidates. To those not familiar with the Jersey political environment, one of the key things to understand is that traditionally, the island does not engage in party-politics. Instead the – albeit heavily propagandised and brainwashed – customary view is that a system of “independent” candidates is preferable.

Of course – and quite obviously – in reality this translates into what is, effectively, a single party state.

The covert, de facto ruling political party is the Jersey Establishment Party. Its Peter Mandelson – its “dark prince” – its spin-master – its power-behind-the-throne -being Philip Ozouf.

And Alan MacLean – multi-millionaire estate-agent, property speculator – and happy owner of a “country estate” in England – is his Tony Blair.

So that’s the first, really fundamental thing to note about elections in Jersey. All of the establishment candidates are pretending to be “independents”.

A few, brief, words of advice to voters – do not be persuaded by glossy, high-profile – giant-postered – mega-bannered – election campaigns.

For such campaigns are organised and run by immensely expensive professional spin-doctors. And, let’s face it – a slick campaign can, indeed, look quite impressive – compared to someone who can only afford a few photo-copied posters and an A5 leaflet.

But – with sufficient money and establishment support behind them – even a complete cretin or a total crook can be made to appear as an “impressive” candidate.

You might look at their campaign and think “Well – they are certainly very efficient and organised; they obviously know what they’re doing.”

Whereas – in truth – they’ll be sat on their butt back at the country estate – a glass of port in one hand – thinking of what they can do next to screw more money out of tenants and poor labour – whilst a crew of lavishly paid spin-doctors will be running their campaign.

Now – some serious advice to all non-establishment candidates. And it is serous.

When the ballots are being counted – each candidate has a legal right to have observers at the count.

Make absolutely certain you take up this right.

Moreover – instruct your observers to keep an eagle-eye on all counting procedures.

It has been suggested to me in several elections that votes were not being counted honestly or accurately.

These concerns have been expressed to me by several different counters over the years. Usually parish staff – who have been deeply concerned at what they’ve seen – but this being Jersey – too terrified to speak out about it.

I repeat – to all non-establishment candidates – make absolutely certain you have your independent observers at every single count.

To those who imagine such things to be too Mugabesque to contemplate in Jersey – remember – the “worlds greatest democracy” – the USA – is manifestly incapable of running free and fair elections.

And if you don’t believe me – just go to BBC iPlayer – and check-out last night’s Newsnight report by Greg Palast.

With those few initial pointers out of the way, I’ll deal with the issues and the candidates during the coming days.

And remember – “people get the government they deserve”.

Stuart.

Late night London, #2

Some personal thoughts on a useful day in London.

A few brief reflections.

When I was last in London – to campaign on behalf of survivors of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, regular readers will recollect that I did a brief post from my PDA then.

And here I am again – same cause – same battle.

I’m staying as a guest of a formidable childrens’ rights campaigner, and have had the privillage of speaking to several other ‘heavey-wieghts’ in the field.

It’s so sad – in so many ways that I can come to London for the occasional day – and get more support, empathy and understanding towards our cause than we’d get in 12 months from anyone in authority in Jersey.

I’m very worried about some of the survivors – who have found this whole battle just too demanding; especialy so – given the utter and implacable obstructions of the Jersey oligharcy.

But we have allys – strong allys; we must all be strong.

Sooner or later – the Jersey oligarchy will have to recognise that – this time – they are not just going to be able to stay in thier bunker – until the storm has past.

This time – justice is coming.

And if the average member of the Jersey oligarchy were not so enfeebled with defference and fear – they’d be telling the the Bailhache Brothers – and the rest of the clowns who got them into this mess – “it’s time to go”.

In the mean time – the battle goes on.

Be strong.

Stuart.

.

BELLWOOD & SYVRET:

VINDICATED!

PUNITIVE & COERCIVE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

OF CHILDREN:

UNLAWFUL.

So-Called “Grand Prix” system deemed

Illegal and Abusive by Howard League.

Why you should never vote for Mike Vibert

Nor any other Minister.

Just a very brief post, as I’m trying to get a load of tasks completed before flying out to London tomorrow morning.

I’ll be staying as a guest of a very important ally in the child protection battle – as will one or two other notable campaigners.

But I thought I should alert readers to the imminent publication of a report by the highly respected, independent organisation, the Howard League for Penal Reform.

In the teeth of Jersey oligarchy opposition, I – when I was still Minister for Health & Social Services – invited the Howard League to come to Jersey to enquire into the island’s child custody arrangements.

I’m given to understand that their work is complete – and will be published imminently.

I’m also given to understand – that unlike the Jersey authorities – and unlike their poodle Andrew Williamson – they come to the entirely reasonable and plain and obvious conclusion that locking children up in solitary confinement for weeks and months at a stretch – as under the Grand Prix system and its even worse forebears – was abusive – and therefore illegal.

I’ll try and do a substantive post on the subject by Tuesday evening, but until then, look out for any national media coverage – and in particular the web site of Community Care Magazine.

I used to do an occasional column called “Anatomy of a Spin”, in which I dissected opinion-management at work.

I’m going to revive that concept – later in the week – as the Jersey oligarchy spin on this is, indeed, going to be a thing to behold.

How do you spin the fact that you were 100% wrong – dangerously and appalling so?

I’m sure we’ll see a few fascinating attempts in the coming days.

But there just isn’t going to be any escaping the fact – Vibert, Ozouf, Walker, Ogley, Baudians, Pollard, Lundy – the entire wretched shower – were wrong.

Watch this space.

Stuart.

TOM MCKEON AND MARIO LUNDY:

THE PINBALL WIZARD – AND HIS ACCOMPLICE:

[First posted on 2nd October 2008 – four years ‘PS’ (Pre-Savile) – From the archive on the Jersey child-abuse atrocities.]

AND WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER VOTE FOR MIKE VIBERT:

A WINTER’S TALE.

A Cautionary storey.

And a Deeply Troubling Question.

Before I get into this post, I have to say I am addressing issues that some readers will find personally upsetting.

It is a long post – but, I feel, its length is merited given the importance of the subject.

I have written at such length, partly in the hope that many of those victims and witnesses who are out there – but who have so far chosen not to contact the police – will reconsider. Others have taken their courage in their hands – but they need the support of those who shared or witnessed their experiences.

These are the contact details:

States of Jersey Police: Historical Child Abuse Investigation.

Tel: 0800 735 7777.

NSPCC – UK-based dedicated helpline:

From within UK: 0800 169 1173.

From outside UK: +44 (0) 2078 257 489.

Should you wish to contact me, these are the details:

E-mail: st.syvret@gmail.com

In a recent post I ran a Readers’ Quiz in which the question was ‘guess the identity of “The Pinball Wizard”?’

Sure enough – readers rapidly came up with the goods and correctly identified “The Pinball Wizard” as being recently retired Chief Executive officer of Jersey’s Education department – Tom McKeon.

So why did McKeon earn this nickname amongst a very substantial cohort of people who were in child custody during the 1980’s?

Well – in the early 1980’s McKeon was the Head of the then child secure unit, known as Les Chenes; this place having gradually taken over child imprisonment responsibilities from the infamous Haute de la Garenne, which closed in 1986.

While McKeon was the Head of the “school” – as it was euphemistically known – his Deputy Head was Mario Lundy.

McKeon, miraculously, worked his way up the Education hierarchy to become its Chief Officer – a position from which he retired only last Christmas. And – wouldn’t you know it – his side-kick, Lundy, followed the same career arc – and replaced McKeon as the Chief Officer of Education at the beginning of this year.

Now before going on – if you’re a Jersey tax-payer – bear in mind the following facts:

Both of these characters will have been – and still is in Lundy’s case – on a salary of circa £150,000 per annum – plus vast, two-thirds, final salary pension.

Just absorb the thought of those astronomical funds coming out of your pockets in tax – whilst you read the rest of this post.

Tom McKeon and Mario Lundy were both in the habit of routinely committing savage, violent assaults on the male children in their care.

And so ‘normalised’ were both men to this criminal conduct they thought nothing of blithely carrying out such assaults on an open basis – in front of other witnesses – children and adults.

And we are not talking about the occasional slap on the wrist or tweaked ear.

McKeon was known as “The Pinball Wizard” because such was his calculated propensity for violent child abuse – he even had the furniture in his office at Les Chenes arranged in such a way as to afford a nice, clear run-up to the walls of the room.

He was then able to grab children by the arm, take a run-up – and swing them –wrestling-fashion – so that the child would smash savagely against the walls.

Bouncing children off the walls and furniture in this way gave rise to the nick-name “The Pinball Wizard”.

So bad were some of these assaults, the sounds of the impacts and the screams of the children would be heard in other parts of the building.

But the assaults on children were not confined only to the office. Punching, pushing and slapping children was regarded as perfectly normal, acceptable conduct.

For example – on one occasion a female member of staff, wrongly, as it transpired, thought that a £5 note had been taken from her handbag. She went to McKeon and complained.

This is what happened.

McKeon stormed into the classroom where a number of children were having a lesson. These children were sat on high stools – of the kind you might find in a school science lab.

Amongst these children there happened to be a particular, troubled child – who was articulate and argumentative – and therefore particularly hated by McKeon & Lundy.

McKeon stormed up to this child – and punched him full in the face with a haymaker of a right-hook. The child in question was knocked flying backwards by the force of the punch, off the stool where he had been sitting.

As he lay, dazed, on the ground, McKeon then – to use the words of the victim himself – “he put a foot on my chest and kind of stood on me to keep me on the floor – and he was, like, screaming – I mean really screaming, you could see the purple veins bulging in his neck – “this is what we do to scum like you!””

This kind of behaviour from McKeon – recently retired Chief Officer of Education – was routine.

Just as it was for Mario Lundy – the present Chief Officer of Education.

Lundy committed violent assaults of a similar nature to those described above. He would be in the habit of punching children, slamming them against walls and doors, slapping them, grabbing them by the hair and generally treating them in an abusive manner.

For example, when Lundy was accompanying some children to the old swimming pool at Fort Regent, a child misbehaved – and was violently slapped around the head and then thrown to the floor by Lundy – with sufficient violence to break the child’s arm.

The child was taken to Accident and Emergency – where staff were told the injury “had been caused by an accident during sports at school.”

As a further illustration of just how ‘normalised’ violence against children was to Lundy, consider this.

A grown man – who is a survivor of Haute de la Garenne – explained this incident to me. This man’s son was a pupil at Granville School – by which time Lundy had become the Head Master of that institution. The man’s son had misbehaved in some way, so the man and his son had to go and see Lundy in his office to speak about the son’s behaviour.

Lundy – in the open presence of this child’s father – threatened to punch the child in the face. He made this threat of direct violence against this child in front of his father.

In addition to the routine, violent conduct of McKeon and Lundy themselves – both men tolerated – indeed, actively supported – similar conduct on the part of other members of staff.

For example, one Derek Carter, who worked at Les Chenes, was in the habit of using a tray to beat children over the head with. The same man was known to be commonly drunk during daytime working hours – yet McKeon & Lundy permitted him to drive the minibus in this state – it, apparently, being of no concern to them that this criminal conduct could lead to a crash in which many children might be killed and injured.

Tom McKeon and Mario Lundy are – for the type of violence described above – both suspects within the core-group of abusers being investigated by the States of Jersey Police.

And there are further examples of reprehensible behaviour on the part of McKeon – which I will return to later.

Much of the information described above, which has been made known to the Police, was uncovered by me during 2007 – in which period McKeon was still the Chief Officer of Education, and Lundy his deputy.

Let us now turn our consideration upon the conduct of present Education Minister – Senator Mike Vibert.

So, events are, by this stage in the latter half of 2007, in the political sphere. During September of that year, I was dismissed as Health & Social Services Minister on the supposed grounds that by “publicly criticising Jersey’s child “protection” apparatus, I was “undermining staff morale””.

I had made the first ever public utterance to the effect that things had gone very badly wrong in Jersey’s child “protection” system when I gave an honest answer to a question I was asked in the island’s parliament in July. I concluded my answer by saying words to the effect, “if I’m being asked do I have any confidence in Jersey’s child protection systems, honestly, I have to say no; and I’m going to commission an independent enquiry.”

I had spent much of the first half of 2007 conducting my own enquiries as Minister, so by the time that question was asked of me – I had accumulated through my own efforts, knowledge of some serious issues.

Though I didn’t know it at the time – my answer had caused wide-spread panic and fear amongst the ranks of Jersey’s senior civil service. People like Lundy & McKeon – and the Directorate Manager of Social Services, Marnie Baudains – will have known perfectly well the kind of issues I was uncovering – so immediately set about engineering my dismissal in a terrified effort to maintain the culture of concealment.

They thought – “get rid of Syvret – there will be a bit of a political fuss, but that won’t be our problem – and once he is out of the way, and the dust has settled, everything can go back to business as usual.”

A key fact which must be born in mind is that, at this stage – none of us – not me, not the civil servants, not the other Ministers – were aware of the covert Police investigation. Back in the summer of 2007, it still appeared to the civil servants that if they could remove me from Office – the cover-ups could continue.

To this end they lobbied senior civil service colleagues – not least the States Chief Executive, Bill Ogley – to make it plain to the other Ministers that I was “upsetting staff”. In addition to this, Baudians also wrote a three-page letter – and got the then Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee [the child-abuse concealing Iris Le Feuvre] to sign it – which demanded my sacking because I was – supposedly – “undermining staff morale” – and “placing children at greater risk by publicly criticising the service.”

It should be noted that every single respectable child protection agency the length of the nation, rightly, takes the opposite view – which is that it’s always preferable that anyone aware of breakdowns in child protection systems should speak out.

“Secrets” are the friends of abusers – openness and transparency are the friends of vulnerable children.

That the Directorate Manager of Social Services – THE civil servant with key responsibility for child protection – could so brazenly write such lies speaks volumes about just how the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster was able to occur – and was able to be covered-up for all those decades.

Amongst the issues I was exposing – thanks to the brave efforts of Simon Bellwood – was the institutional abuse of children at Greenfields, by which children would be subjected to weeks and months of punitive and coercive solitary confinement. This conduct against children is – unambiguously – criminal.

A clear breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Thus the efforts of people like Baudians and others to conceal the truth of this illegal practice was a straightforward attempted perversion of the course of justice.

She is amongst those I have given formal statements against – to the States of Jersey Police Force.

Incidentally – she too is costing Jersey taxpayers a substantial sum in salary – around £120,000 per annum – plus pension.

Now we come to Mike Vibert – and why no decent person should ever vote for him again.

As Health & Social Services Minister, I was one third of the “Corporate Parent” – the States entity which has responsibility for all matters concerning children. The Other two thirds were the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard – and the Education Minister, Mike Vibert.

One might imagine that any politician with some kind of responsibility for child protection – as Senators Kinnard and Vibert had – would be implacable in their determination to investigate and expose any system-failures in child protection?

That if a colleague raised serious concerns – they’d support that colleague in getting to the truth?

But – this is Jersey. Whilst all of the Council of Ministers needed no second invitation to do me down politically – two Ministers in particular were rabid and vociferous in their demands that I should be sacked. Kinnard quickly realised the error of her ways and found excuses to be “conflicted”. So who were the two Ministers who were desperate that the civil service should win their battle to eliminate a democratically elected Minister who was exposing their malfeasances?

Mike Vibert and Philip Ozouf.

Ozouf’s reasons were purely Political. As a rabid, devil-take-the-hindmost Thatcherite, hard Right-winger – he applied no greater consideration to the subject than as a means of eliminating me. He certainly deserves to not be re-elected for putting partisan Political opportunism over and above something so fundamental as child protection.

Looking back over events, you may well ask, ‘Philip Ozouf? I didn’t think he had played any prominent role in events.’ And you could be forgiven for having that perception.

For Philip is the arch-manipulator; the person who likes to be “the power behind the throne” – a Machiavellian schemer who strives to be meticulously careful in keeping his own head below the parapet – whilst driving forward and manipulating others to do his dirty work. So he made sure his name was not publicly associated with the controversy – just as he did in an earlier episode, when he manipulated others into a state of near-crises – because I had written a satirical open-letter.

It is, perhaps, also worth noting that Philip Ozouf is the campaign organiser for the [covert]Jersey Establishment Party. He is to the Jersey establishment what Peter Mandelson was to New Labour back in 1997. He spins, and co-ordinates which Establishment candidates will be standing in which district. For example, Alan MacLean was one of his great successes three years ago. You have to hand it to him – it must take some doing to get a predominantly poor, working-class district to elect a multi-millionaire property speculator like MacLean.

But as I said – Ozouf’s role in this matter was purely “Political”; it was simple opportunism on his part.

But what of Mike Vibert – the Senator presently seeking re-election – and current Education Minister? The man with all that responsibility for the island’s children?

Vibert is, essentially, thick. It’s not for nothing that he is known as Mike – ‘12 careers and all of them failures’ – Vibert. Admittedly, there is some poetic licence in the figure 12 – but the essential point remains.

But in this matter, his intrinsic stupidity was also heavily coloured by the fact that he is a former teacher himself – so would instinctively be on the side of the staff – as opposed to being on the side of the children.

He was desperate to keep a lid on things; to avoid any controversy – and, like most other politicians, not make an enemy of the senior civil service. The smooth and untroubled career of Mike Vibert was his overriding consideration.

But as the Minster for Education, no less – and as one third of the “Corporate Parent” – his instinctive desire to place his own and his civil servants’ interests over and above those of vulnerable children is simply beyond forgivable.

Who could forget his high-profile spin and, frankly, lies – in attempting to pretend there was nothing wrong with the so-called “Grand Prix” system of coercive and punitive long-term solitary confinement as used against already vulnerable children?

Throughout this episode Vibert has exhibited a rabid determination to carry on conning the public into thinking that nothing has gone wrong. Be it the solitary confinement of children, senior civil servants allowing staff to “resign” when they should have been sacked and prosecuted for child protection offences, the transportation of children in the same prison van as adult prisoners – or the investigation of the criminal conduct of his senior civil servants – at every stage he has sought to cover-up the truth.

Frankly, I find it difficult to comprehend such behaviour from any politician with any kind of concern for children. As one third of the Corporate Parent – and as the Minster with responsibility for Social Services – it would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to have ignored the problems, disregarded the whistle-blowers and survivors, maintain the culture of concealment – and to have given a dishonest answer to that fateful question I was asked in the States – back in July 2007.

But I didn’t. Instead I did what I believed to be right and honest and in the best interests of children. I told the truth, and in so doing I became the first States member ever to identify the disastrous, decades-long failure of the island’s child protection apparatus.

But rather than join with me and support me, people like Vibert preferred to be on the side of the cover-up merchants; those immensely expensive senior civil servants that your hard-earned money goes to.

Until this episode began, I’d had no particularly major rows with Vibert and I had no dramatic difference with him over political policy. So what I say is not based upon a history of animosity – it is simply my honest opinion.

Mike Vibert has – sadly – shown himself to be utterly unfit and unreliable to hold any public Office.

Should he still be a States member at the conclusion of these elections – it will serve as proof of that wise old saying, ‘people get the government they deserve’.

And it is not as though the revelations of the Police investigation – and all that has passed since 2007 – has caused the slightest modification of his behaviour.

On the contrary – as I will explain.

I stated earlier that McKeon and Lundy are both key suspects in the historic child abuse investigation – this for the appalling violence they inflicted on children.

The Police regard the allegations as well-evidenced and credible – and to that end, recently issued a Disclosure Notice to Lundy’s employers – the States – that he is under serious investigation for violent child abuse.

On the 22nd September, I drew this fact to the attention of Bill Ogley – the ultimate head of the civil service – and to Senator Mike Vibert – the Minister for Education.

Not only have both men refused to acknowledge the facts – both have refused to even suspend Lundy from his post, pending the outcome of the investigations.

Ask yourself this question:

What kind of Education Minister keeps in post – will not even suspend – a Chief Officer of the Education department – who is under investigation for child abuse?

I trust islanders will know the answer to that question – and come to their own judgments.

Setting aside the child abuse controversy – there are, as I said earlier, further examples of unethical behaviour on the part of the recently retired Chief Officer of Education, Tom McKeon.

I would not normally refer to such a subject; my views are essentially liberal, and I consider that which takes place in people’s private lives to be a matter for them. It is for this reason that I do not publish on this site the various ‘personal’ issues of other public figures which are made known to me.

However, as what I’m about to explain involves the senior civil service in various ways, it is a matter of inescapable public importance. As well as being a further illustration of “The Jersey Way” at work.

Those who have followed this saga closely will be familiar with the case of Simon Bellwood, the courageous whistle-blower. Around late 2006, early 2007 – he was oppressed by “the system”, and was unjustly driven out of his job by the established senior civil service.

A key figure in this episode was one Madeline Davies – a senior HR civil servant in the Education department.

Whilst – by some margin – the role she played in oppressing Simon Bellwood was the worst, there are many examples of her utter ineptitude and incompetence in the job for which Jersey tax-payers employ her.

So how did she secure this post – when – as is widely known amongst the decent middle ranks of the civil service – there were far superior candidates available?

It was a mystifying appointment – given that she was manifestly unqualified for the job – and even had no prior experience in HR.

Even more fascinatingly – in direct contravention of States policies – the post was not advertised throughout the civil service – and even more extraordinarily – no interviews were held.

So why did McKeon go to such extraordinary and highly irregular lengths to secure this post for Ms. Davies, a decision which mystified other staff?

[I have edited this post at this point following a request which I consider to be legitimate. However, the key point concerning the ethical bankruptcy of McKeon remains unchanged.]

McKeon was having a long-standing affair with an assistant director, Elizabeth Middleton.

And McKeon was using tax-payer provided resources to enable him and Middleton to engauge in what were ficticious “work” activities – which were merely a smoke-screen for McKeon’s and Middleton’s clandestine affair.

It is one thing for relationships to break-down and people find other partners – but quite another matter when one engauges in such utterly reprehensible behaviour as using work-time – and public money – to enable the deception. [End of edit.]

Utterly unforgivable.

Madeline Davies – being a close friend of Ms. Middleton – knew everything about the secret affair – hence her securing the lucrative – tax-payer funded job – for which she is manifestly unqualified, and in which she is plainly incompetent.

Wheels within wheels. “The Jersey Way”.

It is this kind of ethically bankrupt chicanery – senior civil servants working the system to their own ends, rather than honestly serving the public – which underpins the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – and a significant number of other failings of public administration in this island.

An incompetent HR manger – only in post because her close friend is having an affair with the Chief Officer – a man with a history of violent child abuse; an HR manager who then goes on to participate in the unlawful dismissal and oppression of Simon Bellwood – who was simply trying to do the right thing for vulnerable kids.

Is it any wonder we in Jersey have this disaster on our hands?

But – as I said at the head of this post, there is a deeply – deeply – troubling question, which all decent people must reflect upon.

I have described how vulnerable children in care – frequently already the victims of inadequate homes, drunken parents, domestic neglect or abuse – would be further violently abused and treated like filth by people like McKeon and Lundy.

When you take children from already troubled circumstances – and then subject them to yet more – and frequently worse – abuse, the result is most unlikely to be positive.

On the contrary – most of the children who suffer such experiences will become even more damaged and dysfunctional.

Many of the children who had the great misfortune to fall into Jersey’s soi disant child “protection” system are not here to tell their stories – because they are dead.

Usually through suicide – but also drug overdoses and alcoholism.

So many children – in the “care” of the States – who needed protection and nurturing – yet who were betrayed and further harmed by Jersey’s very expensive and self-serving civil service.

Of those who survive, some – despite the States of Jersey – have managed to make some kind of life for themselves – but, alas, many others are the wreckage of society. In many cases languishing in prison.

I am aware of two men – now in jail – with, undeniably, a lot of very ‘bad-form’ behind them – theft, drugs, serious violence – and in one case, a killing.

This is the profoundly troubling question I referred to.

One of these two men was the child punched in the head by Tom McKeon and knocked to the floor.

The other – who is serving life for murder – was subjected to the same kind of treatment.

Whilst many will view these two men as simply ‘villains’ – who deserve the condemnation of society – let us remember – these two troubled, violent men were children once.

Children; 13 year-olds – from already troubled backgrounds – who needed love and support – not savage assaults at the hands of civil servants.

Of course – we cannot say for sure – but these two men – and many others like them – might have descended into a life of crime – quite regardless of how they were treated as children.

But by the same token – had they received some care and nurturing – they might not now be largely permanent inmates of the custodial system – and might not have left such a trail of victims and harm behind them.

In fact, I would hope no decent person could reasonably expect children to be treated in such ways – and to emerge from the experience as well-adjusted human beings.

POST-SCRIPT: after I first published this posting, a family member of one of the two child victims of violence I refer to here, left the following comment:

“My brother, who was adopted in circumstances beyond my mother’s control, turned up at our home when i was about 11, around 1982, with a few friends from Les Chenes telling us of the violence they were suffering at the hands of Lundy, McKeon and Carter. I will always remember mum saying ‘tell someone about it’ and my brother saying ‘who’s going to believe us’. My brother is the ‘killer’ as mentioned on the post and a quote from a letter of his is ‘in a way, I have to thank people like Mario Lundy for teaching me discipline and refining my later life talents’”

In this post I have explained in detail just how poisonous, corrupt and toxic public administration is in Jersey.

So I repeat the request I made at the beginning of this post – if you are a survivor, a victim – or a witness – to any of these atrocities against children – please contact the Police, the NSPCC – or even me, in strict confidence if you wish.

I know – for a fact – there are people out there who will recognise absolutely what I have described in this post – but who now have settled lives, very successful lives in some cases – and just don’t want to revisit the issues and get involved.

I appeal to you – please – speak to the Police. Now is the time for everyone to take a stand – and contribute to the rooting-out of such barbarism.

And to those of you who have no direct personal experiences of such things – remember – you’re still involved. It is your taxes which are flooding into the bank-accounts of people like McKeon, Lundy and Marnie Baudians.

Now is the time – finally – to repair public administration in Jersey.

Please – speak out.

Stuart.

LAUGHING BOY IN THE THIRD – 50-1 – OR YOUR MONEY BACK!

REVISITED.

A QUICK, LAZY, BUT TOPICAL POST.

SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIVE LATER TODAY.

When I began writing this blog way back in January, I never intended it to be so focused on the Jersey Child Protection Disaster – but that’s just the way things have had to go.

It was my original intention to write about – well, pretty much anything, actually. And my first posts dealt with the subject of economics and the looming recession caused by America’s sub-prime collapse.

Back then US Federal Reserve boss, Ben Bernanke was desperately trying to stave-off reality with interest-rate cuts.

On the 23rd January, I wrote a blog-post titled, ‘Laughing Boy in the Third – 50-1 – or Your Money Back!’ It’s in the archive if you want to read it all.

So I thought that post merited revisiting – given the present circumstances.

And today’s post is even quicker and lazier because I’ve reproduced in its entirety, the column by Mark Steel from today’s Independent newspaper. Mark’s writings are always insightful – and extremely funny. Today he writes, “Quick! These Bankers Need Rescuing!”

Looking back at my older posts, I’m also reminded that I used to always do a ‘book of the post’ recommendation, and a ‘joke of the post’. I stopped doing this when the child protection battle became altogether more serious.

But, perhaps in these grim times we need to share knowledge and a little humour – so maybe I’ll resume those features when I next do a substantive post.

In the mean-time, here is the conclusion of what I wrote back then in January – and below this is Mark Steel’s column.

Look out for another post later today – in which I’ll be talking about “The Pinball Wizard” – and related matters.

Stuart.

A quote from my blog of the 23rd January.

“Others have described Friday’s cash bale-out as “Social Security for the rich” – a very apt description.

It’s another illustration of just how far removed from reality the so-called “Iron Law of the Market” is. These people gambled – they took the “risks” that supposedly justify their $100 million bonuses – they brought their allegedly great skills to the table – and they blew it. They lost. And they lost not through some cruel trick of fate – but because they were gripped by a kind of collective stupidity; a misguided belief in some kind of miraculous bootstrapping pyramid scheme which could just go on and on.

Now ask yourself – if you or I cocked-up this badly in our jobs, what would happen?

Look at it another way. If you or I went down to the bookies and put our salary on Laughing Boy at 50-1 in the 3.10 at Kemptown – and it fell over – the full, inescapable “market” consequences of our actions would fall upon us.

Now imagine our hedge fund manager, banker or stockbroker who did the same. In the strange, parallel universe occupied by these people, they would just go down to the bookies and ask for their stake back.

And the bookies would hand it back to them – and for good measure, recover their losses off of taxpayers.

Neat, no?

I’ve never gambled before, but hell, if this is how it works, next time I’m passing a betting shop, I’ll nip in and offer them this kind of arrangement.

Stuart Syvret.

Book of the Post:

The Party’s Over, by Richard Heinberg.

Joke of the Post:

Two economists find themselves locked in a dark dungeon. The hours pass, yet no guard comes with food. One says to the other, ‘don’t worry – when we get hungry enough our demand will generate the product.’”

TODAY’S COLUMN BY MARK STEEL.

Mark Steel: Quick! These Bankers Need Rescuing.

The Indipendent, 1st October 2008.

“The next move, presumably, will be to nationalise the country’s gambling debts. To revive confidence amongst blokes in betting offices, the Government will hand over £300bn to cover the money they’ve lost. Then a leading gambler will be quoted as saying: “This package goes some way towards restoring calm. The last week has been horrendous. One of my friends lost a ton on an 8-1 shot he’d been assured was a banker by a minicab driver.”

Another method might be to let the world’s share-dealers go bankrupt, and see if we manage to carry on without them. One advantage of this strategy would be the entertainment of seeing them fight the job losses. City traders would carry placards saying, “Stop the axe on Goldman Sachs!” Support groups would be set up that could hold collections in which people would be asked to donate riverside apartments to a fighting fund, as some of the bankers were undergoing such hardship they hadn’t bought one for over three months. But organisers of the fighting fund would have to be careful to keep some donations back until handed out as the Christmas bonus.

They’d certainly deserve our backing, as you get an idea of the nature of share traders from yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, which told us that after the rejection of the US recovery plan “there was disbelief among US traders who accused politicians of putting their own interests ahead of the American people”.

You see – even in this crisis, all they’re thinking about is the American people. They’ve never wanted the burden of accepting unimaginable salaries for buying and selling the same stuff, but they’ve soldiered on out of love for the American people. Well it’s time they understood there’s such a thing as being TOO selfless, and took a moment to consider themselves for once.

Their complaint was the failure to approve a $700bn bailout of failing finances, but it’s even worse than they fear. Because according to one commentator, one reason why politicians rejected the deal was that “they were receiving letters from the public running at 40 to one disapproving it”.

So it’s not just politicians, but the American people who are against the American people. Some of them, for example, might consider that $130bn to provide a National Health plan for all Americans for two years would be a better use of funds. Those poor traders must hold their heads in their hands and sigh: “It’s just ‘me me me’ with some people, isn’t it?”

So maybe there’s another solution. It seems that world governments will do anything at all, no matter how desperate, to revive “confidence” in the markets, as these markets, which are run by the dealers, control the economy. This means the dealers are far more powerful than governments. In which case, in the interests of democracy, instead of wasting time electing governments why don’t we elect the dealers? They could make speeches such as: “Let me assure the British people that, if elected, less of the wealth created by hard-working families will be taken by the state, and far more will stay where it belongs, with me.” And: “I apologise to my constituents for the embarrassing revelation that I’ve not been seen in an exclusive lap-dancing club for over a week.”

And one day we’ll all look back and wonder why we’d never thought of it before.

Mark Steel.