Abusive Comments and Politeness

Vitriolic attack by Senator Syvret


Interesting article by JEP with above headline (see details below). The print version also mentioned that Stuart Syvret had pointed out that (a) the notice only mentioned not filming in the States Chamber; (b) members have in the past been allowed to film without needing to obtain permission in private rooms; (c) the notice is only displayed at one of the entrances.

No comment on whether this was true or not. I would have thought that the JEP should at least check out the veracity of his comments; it is poor journalism that does not ask questions like that. By the look of the piece, they got both his account of events and the Bailiff's reply from his blog; there does not seem to be any suggestion that they checked with the Bailiff.

What is the betting that the notice that Syvret claims was there has been replaced by more comprehensive ones on all the doors?

But the JEP is not the only one to be restrictive about the truth. I have repeatedly asked Senator Syvret about the nature of the allegedly abusive emails he is supposed to have sent to his officials, but he has steadfastly (a) refused to be specific about the matter (b) not permitted my questions to appear on his blog.

In reference to another person's comments, he does address the issue, albeit in generic terms:

The profound reluctance to engage with the truth which we see manifested in your comment is, actually, one of the principle causes of the multi-decade failure to expose and punish child abusers. You, like most States members, clearly attach far higher importance to "politeness" than you do to protecting vulnerable children. It is, essentially, the cultural cringe of Jersey politics. Never mind the abuse, battery and rape of children – just as long as we're all terribly polite about it.

I think that is a completely false dichotomy. And here is an example of why.

When Esther Rantzen engages with child-care issues, she does not need to indulge in virtiolic polemic of the kind that Senator Syvret does, and yet she gets her point across, probably better, because that kind of rhetoric always suggests some kind of point-scoring. She managed to make Senator Frank Walker squirm on Newsnight because of the callousness of his infamous "shaft Jersey internationally" phrase, and she managed to do that speaking softly, politely, but firmly, and bringing the matter back to the children who had been abused. In fact, her intervention was probably more damaging to Senator Walker than Jeremy Paxman's more bruising one.

Esther Rantzen, the founder of the children's charity ChildLine, says Jersey's isolation was a large part of the reason the scandal remained hidden for so long. "Small communities, such as islands, churches or children's homes, make it very difficult for children who are suffering abuse to safely disclose it to someone," she says. "The children tend to feel that all the adults are part of the conspiracy and therefore they dare not ask for help in case it gets back to their abuser."

The idea that politeness and a "reluctance to engage with the truth" are opposed is a false dichotomy.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/njersey429.xml&page=2

---

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/shownewsarticle.pl?ArticleID=101527

Vitriolic attack by Senator Syvret
By Ben Quérée


SENATOR Stuart Syvret has launched a vitriolic attack on the Bailiff after being asked to leave a room in the States Building where he was filming an interview without permission.


In an angry e-mail from Senator Syvret, who was sacked as Health Minister because of abusive verbal attacks on his staff and others, Sir Philip Bailhache was accused of 'deranged megalomania and arrogance' and a 'near-fascist approach'.

The e-mail followed an episode on 17 March when Senator Syvret was asked by an usher to leave the offices below the States Chamber, where he was being filmed by a French TV crew.

Senator Syvret demanded an explanation from the Bailiff for his actions in having him removed from a room that was not otherwise in use.

In a reply made public by Senator Syvret, Sir Philip said that there was a standard prohibition against filming inside the building, which is displayed inside the door of the main public entrance.

He added that Senator Syvret must have known about the rule because he had sought and gained the necessary permission for a television crew to film inside the States Chamber.