I have been taken to task about the UK media's description of Senator Syvret's sacking as being "for whistlebowing" and directed to the Jersey Government's own version of events; it is also been noted that the police investigation was independent of him.
On this I would comment as follows:
a) I would not regard the States of Jersey as totally disinterested in presenting an obecjtive point of view. It is clear that underlying Senator Syvret's sacking (or vote of no confidence) lay major disagreements over various child care issues, involving Iris Le Feuvre, the Greenfields home, and also a personality conflict between someone who was undoubtably determined to be a free agent, and a States presided over someone who cleary wanted to excercise control; the blustering prevarication of Mr Walker after Newsnight shows someone else - apart from Syvret - who cannot bear to be thought of as in the wrong. It is all too easy to direct political issues away from core conflicts and force someone out on side-issues, especially regarding how they behave to their chief officers; just watch Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard! I think the UK media have seen through this to the real matters which Syvret tried to raise when voted out of office, especially as these came home to roost later.
b) The police investigation pre-dated Syvret's involvement, but not the release of the Kathy Bull Report (2001), or the matters raised over the Grand Prix regime at Greenfields, or the release of the Sharp Report, all of which demonstrate a clear determination to expose child abuse whether it occurs and not allow cover-ups. Note that the JEP did not say in its reports that the Sharp Report, according to Syvret, mentioned the involvement in initial concealment by John Le Breton and Francis Hamon, both of whom seem to have known about accusations against Jervis-Dykes long before the matter became public.
Posts
2 comments:
I do respect Syvret in some ways, but I refuse to overlook the fact that he is an abusive bully. He even said, to the press conference that he embarassingly hijacked "I was abusive".
In the same week that the press conference took place, I attended one of my employer's internal HR briefings on bullying and harassment in the workplace. Stuart Syvret's behaviour - agressive emails, contact by email only, etc, etc, is classic workplace bullying. Ask any modern HR professional. Or read his emails.
In any ordinary organisation he would have been sacked many times offer. Stuart Syvret deserved his vote of no confidence. Just asked the medical professionals that he bullied and who had to seek the protection of their union and the BMA.
Sorry for the typo, make that "sacked many times over".
Post a Comment