Another leak? This isn't a department, it's a colander

Another leak? This isn't a department, it's a colander. - Yes Minister, The Compassionate Society
The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top - Yes, Minister, The Bed of Nails

In "Yes Minister", Bernard is worried about leak inquiries. To reassure him, Sir Humphrey Appleby asks Jim Hacker, the Minister, how many leak enquiry reports, in round figures, he had ever seen. The answer, of course, was none - leak enquiries are for setting up - not for reporting.

Listening to Senator Shenton on the leaked emails that had been sent to his Council of Minister colleagues, I was reminded of this, mainly because when pressed by the reporter as to whether there would be an inquiry about the leaked email, he suggested it would be unhelpful at the moment, but might be taken up later. He really seemed to think - as did the reporter - that it might be possible to do something about it.

I really think that watching "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" should be compulsory for all States Members, as - also with the Frank Walker and microphone debacle - it would educate them into at least the rudiments of political life, and how to deal with the press, the public, and internal matters, like leaks of emails from colleagues or officials, so that they would be more cautious before sounding off, and the way in which they do so.

Now, of course, the States Members can also make fools of themselves within the States Assembly; take for example, this piece of logic by Senator Ozouf on a 4 year term for Constables:

A 4-year term will not work with a 3-year political cycle. It simply will not work. In 2008 we will have an election for Senators, Constables and Deputies. In 2011, it will be Senators and Deputies. Constables waiting until 2012. 2014 we will have Senators and Deputies, 2016 Constables. How is that going to work with the appointment of Ministers and Scrutineers? How is that going to work with Constables taking a full part in a 3-year cycle? It is just simply nonsense.

Remembering that prior to recent debates, there was no cycle of Constables elections which were in any way "in sync" with any other elections whatsoever, and that Senator Ozouf was quite happy to let that go as the status quo - it was the Constables themselves who sought a single day, and it is clear that this kind of comment is nonsense. If Constables could be elected completely out of synchronisation for decades with the rest of States Members, why can't that continue but with a unitary election day for Constables?

Is it any wonder that John Le Fondre, in the same assembly, said "I will say I am probably slowly losing the will to live"?

Healing Wounded History

Reported in the Guardian: at a press conference yesterday Senator Walker rejected the suggestion that the States of Jersey owed an apology to the victims of child abuse on the island.

Compare that with some quotes below. If Jersey is to achieve closure, it must begin with an apology to the victims for the appalling negligence on the part of the Jersey goverment in the past for the fact that these homes could be set up and operated in such a way, without safeguards. How many years will the victims of abuse have to wait before such old wounds are addressed? Part of the process of healing wounded history is for representatives in the present to take responsibility for the past, and that is the step that still needs to be taken towards reconciling peoples and healing places.

"We have waited nine hundred years for this, ten more minutes won't make much difference." These were the words of a rabbi from a synagogue in Bosnia Herzegovina. My friend John Presdee and his wife Yvonne, having been gripped by the power of apology, were leading a walk of reconciliation down the Crusader route on its 900 anniversary. They had been called by the Lord to visit mosques, synagogues and orthodox churches to confess and apologise for the murder and destruction they had received by Western Christians during those times of appalling suffering. Of course they were not apologizing for Jesus, only for what Christians had done in his name. However, when they met the rabbi, John had forgotten to bring his written apology and so he asked the rabbi to excuse him while he went and fetched it from his hotel room. That was when the rabbi reminded John that his community had been waiting for so long for this to happen.

The Australian government has made a formal apology for the past wrongs caused by successive governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised in parliament to all Aborigines for laws and policies that "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss".

On 9 December 1999 Liverpool City Council passed a formal motion apologising for the City's part in the slave trade. It was unanimously agreed that Liverpool acknowledges its responsibility for its involvement in three centuries of the slave trade. The City Council has made an unreserved apology for Liverpool's involvement and the continual effect of slavery on Liverpool's black communities.

TONY BLAIR has moved to heal one of the greatest wounds in Anglo-Irish history by criticising Britain for allowing a million people to die in the Great Famine. In the strongest statement by any Prime Minister on the disaster, Mr Blair said that the Government of the time "failed their people" while the famine ravaged Ireland between 1845 and 1850. His statement, read out to a weekend concert in Co Cork marking the 150th anniversary of the tragedy, was hailed last night by John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister.Mr Bruton said: "While the statement confronts the past honestly, it does so in a way that heals for the future. The Prime Minister is to be complimented for the thought and care shown in this statement."

George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a service in Limerick Cathedral, apologized for 800 years of English domination in Ireland. His words were received with applause because his congregation recognized that an old wound was being addressed.

Book of the Blog:

Russ Parker - Healing Wounded History

Rallies and Press Statements

I must say that the "exceedingly low turn out" is a remarkable piece of spin. Channel TV had this as well, saying that "only" about 240 people turned up. I'd be interested in knowing how many people would turn out for a "support Frank Walker" rally.

Turn out for events is always difficult. People have other commitments. Which is why petitions always garner more support.

Elections are, however, a good measure of support for the political system, although a low turn out usually is indicative of a population resigned to lack of change. The way in which Deputies can be elected to the States when they have failed on their policy platforms as Senators, and then continue with that policy platform is most notable. This stretches back at least as far as Clarrie Dupre, voted down as Senator for Tourism policies, re-elected as Deputy, and soon comfortably back in position as President of Tourism Committee. One of the latest to benefit from this strategy was Guy De Faye, voted down from becoming Senator because of his transport policies, and now back in as Deputy, and in charge of Transport.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Senator Walker tries to stand again, especially given (a) his statement at the last elections that this would be his last term of office (b) his statement in this press release that "as Chief Minister, I will do everything within my power to ensure that in the years to come our children are the best protected in Great Britain". How can he do this if he is leaving office later this year? Another example, I fear, of political rhetoric overcoming the ability to engage the brain first.

---

Chief Minister's media response to today's rally

Whilst it is good for those deeply effected by recent events to have an opportunity to express their emotions, it is clear by the exceedingly low turn out in the Royal Square today, that the Jersey public recognised that organisers were attempting to use this tragedy to their own political advantage.

My hope is that the people of Jersey will now come together to fully support the police investigation and the victims. We need to bring the guilty to justice and to care for all those whose lives have been damaged by their treatment in the past. As Chief Minister, I will do everything within my power to ensure that in the years to come our children are the best protected in Great Britain.

Then we can once again look to the future and restore pride to our Island because, as the Dean has said, Jersey is still a beautiful, delightful, low crime, high achieving place. Despite the horrors that we have had to confront over the last two weeks, that has not changed. That is the real Jersey.

Frank Walker

Mathematical Blunders

Some interesting calculations from the headlines of Saturday's Jersey Evening Post. The year is 2008. Take away 38, which gives 1970. For age 6, this gives 1976. This is not, by most stretches of imagination, except perhaps journalistic imagination, the 1960s.

 

I am sure the tragic story is true; it is just a shame that the Jersey Evening Post can't get the date right. Later in the same report, the preliminary report by Alan Williamson says "Jersey's current child protection provision would score a 2 on a scale of 1 to 4", and then later in the report Mr Williamson is quoted as saying the scale is 0 to 4, which would place 2 bang in the middle. Quite a difference.

 

Does anyone review these articles before they are published? Or is the editing done by Microsoft Word alone?

 

 

---

 

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/showarchive.pl?ArticleID=101318

"THE foster daughter of the man who ran Haut de la Garenne in the 1960s claims that he raped her when was ten.
Tina Blee, who was in Jersey yesterday, hopes that her visit will give other victims the strength to break decades of silence and speak out. Now aged 38, she was just six when Colin Tillbrook, the former superintendent at Haut de la Garenne, and his wife gave her a home."

Corrupt cops in Jersey

A few quotes from the Times, below, click on link for full article. Try as I might, I can't remember seeing a JEP article about the earlier investigation on police corruption mentioned below. Is this my errant memory?

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3511934.ece

 

Before announcing progress in the inquiry yesterday, Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper said he had been facing sustained obstruction from retired officers trying to cover up their own failure to investigate complaints of abuse at Haut de la Garenne, the former children's home.

 

Asked whether there had been pressure to limit the scope of his investigation, Harper, who is from Northern Ireland and has served in Jersey for almost six years, said: "There has been stacks of it. Mainly from ex-cops, corrupt cops who have got friends in among senior politicians on the island. I would not insult the island by saying there is a culture of corruption; there is a cache of corrupt ex-coppers.

 

Harper said the campaign against him had intensified since the discovery of part of a child's skull at Haut de la Garenne brought the inquiry to widespread attention last month.

"There were calls made and anonymous e-mails sent to national newspapers in the past week warning them not to trust the chief officer and myself, and that definitely came from the sister of one of the corrupt cops."

He added: "There is no doubt allegations were made by children in the past and they were simply not dealt with the way they should have been – that includes the police, the social services and everyone else. British police have been invited to Jersey to support this work."

Harper, 56, said the attempts to block his investigation arose from an earlier attack he had mounted on police corruption. He was responsible for sacking a "hard core" of officers who had allegedly demanded sexual favours from members of the public and taken holidays paid for by Jersey businessmen.

He said the former officers – including one high-ranking policeman – threatened him when it became clear his child abuse inquiry would expose their failure to investigate. "I received about 140 abusive letters with threats to burn my house and my car," said Harper. "This happened about a year ago."

 

Jersey and the Culture of Closeness

I've been reviewing various comments made by Frank Walker and Stuart Syvret about Syvret's being voted out of office.

One thing that is clear is that Syvret is right in one point. The Sharp Report makes it plain that collusion in a policy of concealment, for the sake of appearances, took place at Victoria College by all the officials - school and governors - involved (""The handling of the complaint was "more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college's reputation in the short-term than safeguarding the best interests of the pupil."). To be too close to people, to socialise with them, and then to take on  criticisms of them is extremely difficult for anyone to do. Too much "glad-handing" is a bad thing. That is a clear and valid criticism.

 

On the other hand, being so aloof that you never even visit staff is also problematic. It certainly seems to give the message that you don't care, and I think that in trying to avoid what he had seen so often, Syvret may have fallen into the equal and opposite error of not communicating enough with his team.

 

How does this impasse get resolved? How does one safeguard against too cosy a relationship with high officials, and yet work well with them? I think one of the basic tenets of counselling is certainly a good one: you should not counsel people whom you know personally. That is because it is all too easy to have a conflict of interests, between friendships and the professional relationship, and that will damage both. The "no socialising" rule would also be a good one to adopt between politicians and their chief officers, because it would ensure that the relationship was strictly professional. The problem is really with politicians, who often want to be liked by their officials (much as they also want to be liked by the general public), and want to short-circuit the more difficult task of working with people and knowing them through the workplace by socialising with them instead.

 

The other thing I think Syvret should have done, which would probably not have endeared him to his officials, would have been to have made spot checks to the various children's homes etc, unannounced, preferably with people trained to spot anything untoward. It is all to easy for people to prepare for a check, and present the best possible side of things for an inspection. A random check makes this more difficult, and really, if they are doing a good job, after making allowances for the fact that everyone at any workplace has bad days, there can really be no problems with this practice. After a while, people will become used to it, and it will not be such a shock.

 

Regarding the allegedly bullying content of his emails to his officials, I would offer few excuses except to say that it would be interesting to see if his officials were being deliberately obstructive, to the point that he lost his temper, as he claims; what were their relies? Or what prompted his outburse? Unfortunately, emails are often sent with extremely little thought ( the appalling "lenny henry" one springs to mind), are easily - and selectively - leaked by mischevious people for their own political ends, and the culture in which the quick email is dashed off is antithetical to closely reasoned argument.

 

 

 

 

Senator Syvret's Sacking

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.

 

 

 

 

Excellent Police Strategy at Haut de La Garenne

I see that an internal (and rather informal and jokey) email sent only to the council of ministers by Ben Shenton has been leaked to the press. At least he had the grace to apologise publically - unlike a certain Chief Minister, whose continual refusal to apologise continues to damage Jersey's reputation, and (for those of us of an older generation) is inconcevable. The sooner he goes, the sooner Jersey has a chance to redeem its reputation, but - as readers of C.P. Snow's "The Affair" would note - some people are so thick-skinned and determined to keep the reigns of power that they never do the honourable thing. But enough of that.

It looks as if Shenton's disapproval of the way the Council of Ministers press conference was "unanimous" without telling him has been damaging, and the knives are out. Hence the leaked email.

The problem is that some serious concerns he raised will now be ignored in preference to the more Sun-Readership issues.

Let's look at one of these.

One question was about the initial press reporting was handled. "Remains of a child" was very ambiguous, and for most of us who heard that police report, it suggested far more that "fragment of a child's skull"; the issue over whether than pre-dates the inquiry was also not made clear at the time.

I imagine that the reason for this was twofold:

a) The police don't want, if they can help it, to release all the information at one time. That way, if a suspect does emerge from the woodwork, they know something that only that suspect also knows, and if they can get him or her to admit that, they are well on the way to building a very credible case. That is true of police work in practice, not just for this inquiry. Admission of "hidden details" is a fundamental strategy; the more that is in the public domain, the more it can be excused by a potential suspect.

b) Lenny Harper undoubtably also wanted to grab a lot of media attention in order to get as large a field of publicity as possible, and spread the net widely. This was so that former residents or staff of Haut De La Garenne, who had left Jersey, and might have pertinent information, would be more likely to come forward. Indeed, some people have come forward from as far as Australia. Also by publicising the numbers of people who had come forward, he hoped to have an escalating effect; as more people came forward, those who had been indimidated by the usual silencing blackmail and threats of the abusers would feel safer speaking out as part of a crowd, and this would snowball. I would say that strategy has been a great success.

I would think that the police strategy has been an extemely good one, and gaining reports from victims before opening the cellar has also led to corroborative evidence coming to light, which again supports the picture what took place there. Once the information about the cellar was public, there is always the danger that a clever lawyer could argue that victims modified stories to take account of that; by taking interviews first, Lenny Harper has avoided that possibility, and can produce a very strong case.

So while Shenton was right to raise these concerns, I think that he should have thought a bit more about why the police adopted the strategy that they did, and even to talk to Lenny Harper directly.

Harold Shipman's Motivation - Trauma or Narcissism?

I was interesting in checking up on Shipman's motivation, after the suggestion at a talk I attended on Tuesday that it may have been simply down to "distress recordings" of his mother's death. One of the facts that I was not aware of was that - unlike other people that have been traumatised by their mother's death in early childhood, this was not in fact the case. His mother, Vera, died in 1963 from lung cancer when he was 17.

But despite the late age at which this took place, Mavis Klein, writing as a psychotherapist in the Independent at the time of Shipman's death commented that: "Largely unconsciously and informed by a complex mixture of innate temperament and circumstantial early experiences, all human beings are motivated by a personal agenda that aims to give their lives overall meaning and significance. Particularly traumatic experiences in childhood are often the key to accessing an individual's central lifelong heroic quest. "

She goes on to add that:  "In the case of Harold Shipman, his witnessing, at the age of 17, his mother's agonising death from cancer almost certainly explains his multiple murders. I suggest that his lifelong motivation was to free himself of the trauma of his mother's death by rewriting his personal history. His gentle, painless killing of his usually elderly female patients were all bids to make his mother die painlessly. This was mad, not bad. (I believe the relatively few male patients he murdered were stand-ins for himself in a subsidiary bid to end his own suffering.) His undisputed kindness and gentleness as a GP were the sane and laudable way in which he sought to cancel his mother's agony."

But why Shipman, and not countless others who have seen their mother die from cancer? Shipman was not unique. And why late in his career, rather than at an early period? I have to say that I find this kind of unitary explanation unsatisfactory, it is rather like tying down motivations to "selfish genes".

 

The philosopher Paul Browsley commented on the weakness of the Klein position, that it produces one motivation, but ignores all the other possible motivations (see below).  The Independent also looked at the wide range of views about his motivation, and concluded that: "Psychiatrists have expressed many opinions about the mental state of Britain's worst serial killer, but on one thing they are agreed: Shipman was a narcissistic control freak who enjoyed the power his profession gave him over life and death. His arrogance was ultimately his downfall when police used a psychological ploy to break his iron-like conceit during one of the taped interviews conducted after his arrest."

 

It is easy to provide motivations after the event by the bucketful; it is much harder to explain why one single motivator should be the cause. But the fact that he was a  "narcissistic control freak" should surely come into some part of the explanation, especially as it is about the only fact for which we have clear evidence from his behaviour.

 

 

 

---

 

Letter: Forget psychotherapy, Harold Shipman is simply evil

Paul Brownsey

Sir: With what frightening confidence psychotherapist Mavis Klein informs us of Harold Shipman's motivation: he was trying to free himself of the trauma of his mother's painful illness and death by engaging in gentle painless killing of elderly female patients, the murders being "bids to make his mother die painlessly".

The trouble is that it takes very little thought to come up with a host of other stories purporting to explain his murders. Here are some.

He was consumed with rage against the universe for his mother's death and, because he never had an elderly mother to cherish, sought to deny the same to other people.

Humankind's fundamental fear is that of death, and by killing others Shipman was unconsciously trying to keep death occupied and keep it from his own door.

He was abused as a child, though he has repressed the memory, and by killing people older than himself is getting back at the older generation who failed to protect him.

Everyone is basically murderous and he simply had opportunities to give vent to this urge which most of us don't have.

He suffered from lack of self-esteem, which is known to be the cause of all bad behaviour, and sought to boost his self-esteem by arrogating to himself God's prerogative of deciding when a life shall end.

And so on. How could one ever tell whether Mavis Klein's account, rather than one of these many others, is the truth?

PAUL BROWNSEY

Department of Philosophy

Glasgow University

 

---

Psychological profile of a narcissistic control freak turned serial killer

Shipman: The Murderer

By Steve Connor
Saturday, 6 January 2001

Was he mad or just plain evil? What was going through the mind of Harold Shipman when he so ruthlessly played God with his patients?

Was he mad or just plain evil? What was going through the mind of Harold Shipman when he so ruthlessly played God with his patients?

Psychiatrists have expressed many opinions about the mental state of Britain's worst serial killer, but on one thing they are agreed: Shipman was a narcissistic control freak who enjoyed the power his profession gave him over life and death. His arrogance was ultimately his downfall when police used a psychological ploy to break his iron-like conceit during one of the taped interviews conducted after his arrest.

The senior policeman in charge of the case deliberately handed over the interview to two less experienced officers, one of whom was a young policewoman Shipman evidently held in contempt.

The tactic was meant to puncture his feeling of selfimportance, which he used to defend himself by answering questions in a pedantic manner to control the course of the interrogation. Throughout the interview, Shipman continued to stare at Marie Snitynksi with a condescending countenance. He thought he had an unassailable intellectual superiority over his interrogators until he was suddenly confronted with unequivocal evidence showing that he had forged computer records.

The interview ended abruptly with Shipman's solicitor asking for a private consultation. After the interviewers had left, Shipman broke down, falling to his knees, sobbing. This, though, was not the remorse of a guilty man but the bitter feelings of frustration from a supremely arrogant person who had been accustomed to being treated with unquestioning authority and respect by his patients.

Richard Badcock, the forensic psychiatrist who saw Shipman on behalf of the police, said that being a control freak in itself cannot be the explanation for his murderous nature.

"There are lots of control freaks out there and they don't all go around killing people. But you have to understand what's important to him, in essence, which is not just self-control but his perception of that control," Dr Badcock said.

"He is very controlling when you're in his presence, rather arrogant. There is a sense that he is very driven about this, not casual. He is behaving like this because it's absolutely important to him to do so," he said.

At 17, Shipman witnessed the slow death of his mother from lung cancer, an experience that is thought to have left a lasting impression. On the day she died, he went for a long run, an unusual act of bereavement.

Some psychologists speculated that his mother's death could have been the source of his morbid fascination in older women. Shipman is thought to be a necrophiliac - not necessarily a sexual interest in the dead, but just in death itself.

But Shipman's main motivation seems to have been his unquestioning belief in his own self-esteem. His narcissism eventually led to his downfall - the forged will he wrote said that the dead woman wanted to reward her doctor for doing so much for the local community.

Gerard Bailes, a consultant psychologist at East Anglia Regional Forensic Science Services, said: "Narcissism would probably be an important factor in his motivation. He considers himself important but everyone else is not. They can't see they have done anything wrong and the more you confront them with what they did, the more they blame you."

Shipman has refused to confess to his crimes and is unlikely now to do so. This is not because he is in self-denial but because he may not see any advantage to it, Mr Bailes said.

 

The Secret People

There is a rally planned in the Royal Square, which seems to be part a remembrance and acknowledgement of the victims of child abuse at Haut de La Garenne, and partly a rallying cry against the perceived failings of the establishment. It reminded me of Chesterton, and slightly adapted, here is the first verse of his own rallying cry for the ordinary people, which he wrote as "the secret people"

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,

For we are the people of Jersey, that never has spoken yet.

There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,

There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.

There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.

There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;

You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:

Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

Another of the verses also I think sums up the general feeling of unhappiness with the approach (in the media) by the government of Jersey, and in particular, the Chief Minister and his entourage of press officers and civil servants.

They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.

It is not that these people don't care, because they may well care very much. It is rather that they seem unable to show their emotions, they come out with stock phrases, in a bland, and unemotional manner, rather like a 1950s newsreader dispassionately reading the news. One gets the feeling of 9 to 5 politicians, who switch off at the end of the day - "their doors are shut in the evenings" - and are not to be disturbed..

It is also not helped by the fact that the one instance of emotion shown by Senator Walker was one of anger at Stuart Syvret in which he lashed out in anger, patently unaware of the comments being recorded. But it goes deeper than that. When I hear the phrases "there will be no cover-up, no stone unturned" trotted out time and again - while reports remain out of the public domain - Sharp Report, Bull Report etc, - and there is still no Freedom of Information Law - I am reminded of another time, another speaker:

"I condemn any attempts to cover up in this case, no matter who is involved."

Of course, the same speaker said:

There can be no whitewash at the White House

Via Media on Jersey

There is an interesting and "middle way" comment on Jersey in the Independent. It is I think a fair and balanced comment, although I notice that Frank Walker comes in for criticism yet again for "a number of rather insensitive comments", the journalist none the less noted that " islanders were unfailingly courteous, helpful and in general as keen to see justice done as anyone else."

 

He is also quite astute in noting the disparity between rich and poor with regard to the housing market, although I'm not sure that what he says is fair to all States Housing. Some of it - especially outside of St Helier - is very clean and pleasant.  Having delivered leaflets to around 4 housing estates in St Helier for the last election, I would say that most of the St Helier ones certainly could do with paint, and some definitely have urine smells in the public access spaces, and broken windows on the odd floor. A few were pretty pleasant. Going around, door to door, at election time is definitely one way to see the poorer sides of St Helier, and one wishes a few more politicians did their own leg-work rather than relying on supporters to do it for them.

 

 

 

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/03/jersey---as-cul.html

 

Minority Report: Jersey - as culturally, ethnically and financially varied as anywhere else
 By Jerome Taylor

 

Last week I was in Jersey covering the rather grim child abuse story at the Haut de la Garenne former children's home. The only other time I'd been to Jersey was as a tourist in my teens and like most people I left with images of a well-healed idyll filled with playboy millionaires, Jersey cows and picture-postcard rural scenes.

 

That's very much the image that the island's government would like us to see, not an island steeped in secrecy where decades of horrendous child abuse was allowed to go on uninvestigated and unpunished. I imagine, as always, the reality lies somewhere in the middle (although a number of rather insensitive comments from the island's Chief Minister Frank Walker haven't exactly helped the island's desperate bid to restore its rather tainted image).

 

But my week on the island also allowed me to do some digging on the people of Jersey and to discover a people just as culturally, racially and financially mixed as anywhere else on the mainland.

 

Using a UK mainland mobile phone on Jersey is pretty costly. The main networks are Jersey Telecom and Cable and Wireless which means you get charged roaming fees like on the continent. So deciding to buy a local sim card I ended up chancing upon a member of the island's tiny Muslim community.

 

"Aki" worked in a mobile phone store in Jersey's capital St Helier and told me that about 40 Muslims lived on the island and worshipped in a small mosque not far from the city centre. He said most of them were mainlanders with Bangladeshi heritage who came to the island and set up curry restaurants (the two "Indian restaurants" I ate in that week offered distinctly Bengali cuisine).

 

I shouldn't really have been surprised that Jersey has a small Muslim community. After all, why should this small island in the Channel be any different from the mainland? In fact, since World War 2 Jersey has assimilated all sorts of different communities.

 

Take five taxi rides on the island and there's a fair chance that at least three of the drivers will be either Irish or Scottish, one will be from London and the other will be an islander. Over the past 50 years Scots, Irish and Londoners have come in their thousands and the island's population has grown from around 65,000 in the 1960s to at least 91,000. "Old Jersey" families are probably outnumbered by newcomers nowadays and the indigenous "Jersey patois" language has all but died out.

 

There is also a sizeable Portuguese community which came over in the 60s and 70s to work as farm hands in the island's crucial potato farming industry. It's not uncommon to hear Portuguese spoken and many of these families' children are bilingual.

 

The enormous expansion of the tax haven's financial industry (the world's super rich have an estimated  £247bn hidden away in Jersey) has also led to another type of immigrant - the blackberry wielding mainland bankers who fill the planes flying daily between the island and London City Airport.

 

These people have bought up vast swathes of the island and property now easily commands London prices. A small two-bedroom flat in St Helier will set you back at least £450,000 judging by some of the estate agents windows I looked in.

 

But the super rich have effectively priced the indigenous population out of the housing market, particularly those living on low incomes. Jersey might have the third highest per capita income in the world (after Bermuda and Luxembourg) but 70 per cent of the island lives on less than £34,000 a year.

 

I went down to some of the council estates (known as "States Housing") and found grim tower blocks just as rife with drugs as anywhere on the mainland. Residents complained that the cost of living has shot up over the past ten years whilst owning a house is now all but impossible.

 

But despite the horror of what has unfolded at Haut de la Garenne and the understandable question marks over why no-one spoke out sooner, the one thing that will stay with me is just how friendly the island is to outsiders. Considering the world's media descended en masse last week and began uncovering an extremely unpleasant chapter in Jersey's recent history, islanders were unfailingly courteous, helpful and in general as keen to see justice done as anyone else.

 

There's a real feeling that the abusers will now be locked up and equally importantly that those who may have conspired to ignore or cover up what happened at Haut de la Garenne will finally be forced to answer why they kept quiet.

 

 

Jersey Tourism

JERSEY TOURISM SUSPEND ADS - Channel 103 News
(see story below)

Might it be that the Jersey ads never had much of an impact on tourism anyway? I remember Eric Young of Time Jewellers, in King Street, had a nil budget for advertising, because he just didn't think it would work. He had become, of course, a millionaire from his Jewellery business! Sometimes, it seems, it does not pay to advertise.

Anyway, it seems that the major way people explore tourism destinations in the first place is through the internet, rather than newspapers, unless they are looking at specific package tours. As most of the visitors to Jersey are not on package holidays, I would question if there was likely to be any major impact on tourism. Having a properly performing web-site - and the Jersey one was disgracefully out of action in the Christmas and post-Christmas bookings season - is much more effective. People like to go online, and if they want brochures, email or click a form for them.

Quite what impact the abuse inquiry will have on Jersey tourism, it is too early to say. On repeat bookings, I would say none at all. The important thing which tourists will note, if they think about it, is that the abuse was institutional, within a "care" system, and not the same kind as when Edward Paisnel ("the beast of Jersey") was on the loose - 1960-1971.

If that was the case today, I think people would have thought twice about coming to Jersey, in the same way as they may have avoided Yorkshire when the so-called Yorkshire Ripper was on the loose. But it is clearly not the case, and even if standards in current care homes still need improving, most tourists can see that that cannot impact on the safety of the Island as far as the "family holiday" is concerned, any more than standards in care homes or homes for the elderly impact on them in the UK (and it should be noted that the UK homes for the elderly are often being reported as abusive to residents).

Of far more import to tourists would be crime statistics for violence in St Helier and elsewhere if those were high, and they are much lower than UK cities.

---

JERSEY TOURISM SUSPEND ADS - Channel 103 News

Jersey Tourism says it's suspended all its television and newspaper advertisements.

It doesn't think it's appropriate to run ads whilst the investigation at Haut de le Garenne remains in the headlines.

The decision will be reviewed week by week.

So far the case doesn't seem to have had an impact on tourism.

Unreliable Witnesses: Then and Now

In "Ashes to Ashes" (BBC1), the following dialogue occurs when a prostitute is claiming she was raped:

 

Alex: When they say it's difficult for rape victims to be believed, I wonder why?
Gene: She gets paid for having sex.
Alex: It's not about sex, is it? It's about control, and power, and revenge.
Gene: Maybe tell me about it some other time, like when I'm in a coma, or when I'm dead.
Alex: To the interview room? Where's the rape suite?
Gene: Rape suite? Is that with or without a minibar?

 

That is contrasting the culture of 1981 with 2008.

 

It is an interesting contrast, and shows how attitudes have changed. The rape victim in 1981 would be interviewed in a normal police interview room, and have to stand up in court and face all the intimidation of those surroundings. It is perhaps no wonder that cases such as at Blanche Pierre care home were dropped because of a feeling that the case would not succeed, that the witnesses would not be credible enough, despite the later damming report of 1991 that the carers there committed "gross acts of physical and psychological abuse". The culture of 1991, like that of 1981, regarded evidence of victims as being  "unreliable", and therefore unable to stand up in court. How far Jersey was adrift from prevailing practice in the UK, how far stuck in the 1981 time warp, has yet to be judged, but it should be noted that discounting of evidence was not unique to Jersey.

 

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, when the abuse at Haut de la Garenne was at its height, a culture in which victims' evidence was discounted was also widespread.

 

The Bull report of 2001 (still not available to the general public, but released to news media) condemned policies, staff and facilities at Les Chenes, the island's secure children's home and school, and singled out the "Grand Prix"  practice of locking all children in the secure unit in isolation for 24 hours as a routine part of the admission process as "most unacceptable". Yet it seems likely this remained in place until 2006.

 

What is clear is that such practices are no longer acceptable, and the culture in which victims claims were swept under the carpet, or were deemed to be sufficiently unreliable to stand up in court has gone. 

 

One strong method of discrimination by historians is multiple attestation by independent witnesses. When it is not just one individual, but more than one, independently verifying the procedures of abuse, whether at Haut de La Garenne, at Blanche Pierre, or at Greenfields, then it is clear that there is reliable evidence.

 

"Ashes to Ashes" shows us both the past, and how the present is better than before. Jersey now - only recently - has the facility for victims of abuse and rape to give evidence in court by a video link. Things are moving in the right direction. But more can be done - as Esther Rantzen pointed out - we still do not have a sex offenders register. And official reports must be made available to the general public. Lessons need to be learnt, and humility is always needed to learn difficult lessons.

 

 

 

Greenfields in the Spotlight

Some of the later problems, not at Haut De La Garrenne but at Greenfields raise disturbing questions about supervision and procedure in recent years. I saw Mr Kennedy on TV saying that the Grand Prix system was never actually implemented (even though one victim of it said she had been through it). But if it was never implemented, why on earth was it thought up in the first place? The very fact of its existence as an ideal suggestion for practice raises serious questions about the thinking of staff in the first place for devising it, even on paper.

 

---

The Telegraph noted that:

Haut de la Garenne was closed in 1986, and it may indeed be unlikely that a system of such widespread and profound torment could operate unchecked for so long today. Yet contemplate this: there is a separate, ongoing investigation into another Jersey children's home now known as Greenfields, for at-risk and vulnerable children aged 11 and above.
Greenfields has been run since 2003 by Joe Kennedy, a man with a background in the prison service and no social work qualification. He instituted a regime called "Grand Prix" in which bad behaviour could incur a minimum spell of 24 hours in "the pits", or the isolation cell. Just to get them used to the pits, the official policy until 2006 was that each child would routinely begin his or her stay at Greenfields with a 24-hour isolation period. What a welcome for a frightened 12-year-old, eh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/02/do0213.xml

On the Times, there is also a report:

The practice of locking children away in solitary did not end with the closure of Haut de la Garenne. As recently as December 2006, a secure room nicknamed "the pits" at an institution named Greenfields is alleged to havebeen used as an isolation cell for new arrivals.

Staff were instructed to keep children in there for 24 hours, but this could be extended: "Should any unwanted behaviour be shown, the 24 hours may be started from the start of compliant behaviour."
Last year,a solicitor at the Howard League for Penal Reform, based in London, drew up a legal opinion that found the Greenfields regime "appears predicated on a complex system of using isolation and deprivation as a means of control" and suggested it could breach international human rights law.

The Jersey government, which said it was not in a position to comment on the specifics of the Greenfields allegations, hasinvited the league's inspectors to visit at the end of this month.

http://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/Welshpool-man-blew-whistle-on.3830183.jp

A Welsh Newspaper has this report:

 

Former Welshpool High School pupil Simon Bellwood blew the whistle on "abusive" child care practice on the island in January 2007 and 13 months later the grim remains of a child's body were discovered under a thick concrete floor inside the Victorian mansion – leading to the bricked-up cellar of the Haut de la Garenne children's home being excavated amid fears of a communal burial.

Mr Bellwood, 33, grew up in Maesmawr, near Guilsfield, and as a child attended Leighton Primary School before going on to Welshpool High School.

After leaving secondary school in the early 1990s Mr Bellwood went on to work as a social worker for Powys Youth Service and The Orchard School, near Buttington.

Mr Bellwood eventually left the area in his late teens but regularly returns to visit his mother, Rachael Compton, and step-father, Chris Compton, who still live in Welshpool. His step-father, Chris, runs a business in Castle Caereinion that specialises in rebuilding pre-war Alvis sports/competition cars.

Mr Bellwood, who claims he was sacked after making a complaint about a "Dickensian" system in a secure unit where children as young as 11 years old were routinely locked up for 24 hours or more in solitary confinement, says he has lifted the lid on 50 years of child abuse.

He suggested that children in Jersey were being put at risk in child care services because of deficient practice, poor staff training, lack of external scrutiny of services and a "culture of fear" preventing staff from speaking out.

After taking the job of centre manager at the Greenfield secure unit in Jersey in August 2006, Mr Bellwood quickly found himself "criticised for having a problem with punishment" when he raised concerns about holding children in solitary confinement in a policy then in place known as Grand Prix (French for Great Prize).

Bellwood described how children were put on four levels according their behaviour – qualifier, grid, track and pits – those unlucky enough to be considered for the 'pits' category would spend 24 hours in solitary confinement for repeated bad
behaviour.

Mr Bellwood withdrew the policy within a couple of months of arriving in Jersey, but when elements of it were revived while he was away from the unit in January 2007 he submitted a formal complaint against the practice.

However, Mr Bellwood's complaint was not upheld and as a result he claims he was put on gardening leave and then dismissed in May 2007 on the grounds of incapability – a charge he strongly disputes.

"I was trying to offer the therapeutic environment I had been told they wanted, but the harsh truth was that punishment and fear had worked so well in the past that the senior managers saw no reason to change anything," he said.

"If I had known that I would be powerless to change their punitive practices and that I would be expected to put these vulnerable young people into single separation for hours or days at a time, I would never have taken the job."

 

---

 

This is London has:

 

Social worker Simon Bellwood, 33, who claims he was sacked as a care home manager after voicing concerns about the home, said the lid was about to be lifted on "50 years of child abuse" in Jersey.

He said child services on the island had been plagued by a "Dickensian" system of abuse unchecked because Jersey is not governed by British law or European Union legislation.

Jersey is a crown dependency, not part of the UK but owing allegiance to the British crown. It is largely self-governing and has its own legislative assembly, legal system, courts and police service.

The UK government has historically assumed responsibility for its defence and international relations and only has power to intervene in domestic affairs if there is a "grave breakdown or failure in the administration of justice or civil order."

 

 

 

An Honest Man: The Reverend Lawrence Turner

Some notes from the press reports. I have great admiration for Lawrence Turner, the only person in a position of authority so far to mention hearsay about Haut de La Garrene, and to admit that perhaps he should have done something more.

---

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/03/crime.uk/print

 

The Rev Lawrence Turner, the Anglican vicar of St Martin's, the parish within which the home lies, says he first heard whispers about physical abuse shortly after arriving in the area in the mid-60s. He was told of a number of specific incidents by a senior figure within his parish and advised the man to contact the authorities. "Either he didn't tell them, or he was ignored. That is the bad part; that is the thing we all have to live with."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3466755.ece

One senior community figure was prepared to admit to disturbing memories from more than 20 years ago.

Lawrence Turner, the 64-year-old Anglican vicar of St Martin Le Vieux, near the home, said after the child's remains were found last weekend: "I sat for a long time trying to think if I should or could have done something." He recalled being told of "untoward" goings-on at the home just after he arrived in the parish in the mid1980s.

The priest described the whispers as "little rumours from one or two people expressing distress". But one of the abuse stories, although vague, was worse than the other. Turner pondered whether he should tell the police himself but decided against. "I only heard it secondhand and I thought the person would go to authority," he said.

Today Turner will conduct a special mother's day church service. He now hopes that an exorcism – of human souls as much as a building – can begin to bring the memories out into the open.

He said: "We could get victims there, people who suffered indirectly, and do an elaborate ritual which, whether you believe it or not, looks effective. Bell, book and candle, the lot, could settlea lot of minds. This little lot is so soiled it's got to be washed in public for everybody's sake, people not involved, like myself, who just feel guilty about it."

 

Chief Minister's press conference

Some facts about the story below (details below).

 

a) Stuart Syvret did not "invite himself", or in the phrase of Frank Walker at the conference ("muscle in")

 

b) As he revealed, he was invited by the press, who knew about the press conference, and thought he should be present, especially if allegations were being made about him.

 

It is amazing how misinformation can get out, especially in local news reports. The recent Economist noted various problems with media bias in Jersey.

 

This was very much a case of I will speak, and you can listen. Then you can ask me questions, but not as a response to Stuart Syvret's comments on my allegation. An example of "control issues" also demonstrated by the fact that he did not want Syvret to be present ("he muscled in"), his minder tried to remove Syvret's chair, and he would not budge on allowing Syvret to speak in response to his allocations - I am in control here, not the press! Terry Le Sueur, beside him, like an silent elderly owl, did not help matters with his complete silence. Terry is not the most photogenic of politicians, and the camera lingering on his silent, unexpressive face  did not exactly help.

 

If Tony Blair can take responsibility - and apologise -  for past crimes committed by the English government against the Irish - which certainly helped lower defensive barriers, can't Mr Walker do the same with respect of past negligence in proper oversight of child care by the Jersey government?

 

This is the one and only statement on the political wrangle that the Council of Ministers will make, according to Frank Walker. A rash promise, methinks.

 

Chief Minister's press conference

The Council of Minsters say they wil do everything necessary to support the police in their investigation. But the Chief Minister says one matter needs to be set straight. Senator Frank Walker called a press conference yesterday. He told journalists that there was a misunderstanding about why Senator Syvret was sacked as Health minster last year. He said it wasn't for whistleblowing.
But Senator Syvret - who had invited himself along- said the Chief Minister was making matters worse by calling the press conference.

 

 

Not So Sharp

Interesting facts coming out of the Sharp report; note the "spin" in the comment that the "head teacher and deputy had been punished by dismissal". Or, as the story also says "The pair subsequently resigned." There is considerable difference between being allowed to resign and being punished by dismissal. Either one or the other is true.

 

---

 

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/02/27/107397/jersey-child-abuse-allegations-multiply.html

 

Further child abuse allegations are emerging from Jersey following the discovery of a child's remains in a former children's home on the island.

Former health and social services minister Stuart Syvret has made public a confidential report detailing abuse allegations at a college in 1992.

The report written in 1999 by Stephen Sharp, the former chief education officer for Buckinghamshire, showed the college failed to act effectively to stop the abuse of pupils by a teacher. 

It said: "The most serious mistake made by the college was the handling of the 1992 disclosure by a pupil of abuse [by the teacher]. The principal responsibility for this lies with the headmaster, but he was not the only member of staff involved."

The handling of the complaint was "more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college's reputation in the short-term than safeguarding the best interests of the pupil."

Syvret's disclosure came as a number of former children's home residents from the island spoke to the media claiming they were raped, drugged and flogged.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/gruesome-finds-at-islands-abuse-home-1300405.html

Maths teacher Andrew Jervis-Dykes was jailed in April 1999 for indecently assaulting six pupils at Victoria College where he plied them with alcohol then abused them in their beds during Naval Combined Cadet Force yachting trips between 1984 and 1993.

According to an independent report into the case, allegations about Jervis-Dykes surfaced in 1992 and 1994.

Both times, the school's headmaster Jack Hydes failed to notify the police or investigate further, the report said.

Former chief education officer of Buckinghamshire, Stephen Sharp, who conducted the inquiry, said Mr Hydes instructed his staff not to discuss the allegations.

He accused Mr Hydes and his deputy Piers Bakers -- who was in charge of pupils alongside Jervis-Dykes on one yachting trip -- of putting the interests of the college and supporting a colleague above protecting its pupils. The pair subsequently resigned.

Procedure

"If the correct procedure had been followed, it is most likely that Jervis-Dykes would have been suspended and perhaps arrested in 1992,'' Mr Sharp said.

The Education Minister, Senator Mike Verbert, said the head teacher and deputy had been punished by dismissal.

---

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/shownewsarticle.pl?ArticleID=101189

EDUCATION Minister Mike Vibert has refuted accusations that the department was involved in covering up child abuse.

Speaking to the media on the steps of the States Chamber yesterday, Senator Mike Vibert said that his department protects children at the highest level.

'I regret that there was a historic case of child abuse at one of the Island's schools 'Victoria College', which was uncovered in the early 1990s before I was elected as a States member.

'Once reported to the Education Department of the day this incidence of abuse was taken seriously. The man responsible was successfully prosecuted and subsequently imprisoned.'

The Education Minister made the statement after Senator Stuart Syvret gave copies of a leaked report into the Jervis Dykes child abuse scandal to the media yesterday.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/27/njersey127.xml

Why documents in Jersey remain secret

By Gordon Rayner

Last Updated: 2:39am GMT 27/02/2008

 

The Freedom of Information Act gives journalists and members of the public the right to demand access to public documents in mainland Britain. Jersey, however, has its own independent legal system, with no such freedom of information laws. It means the island's government, the States of Jersey, is under no legal obligation to release details relating to the child abuse scandal or any other matter of public concern. In 2000 the States adopted a voluntary Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information, which states that the public should be given access, "wherever reasonably possible", to information held by the States.

However, there is no provision under the Code for people to apply for information held by the police, hospitals, or other public bodies (in the UK all publicly-funded bodies, from the BBC to local councils, are bound by the Freedom of Information Act).

The type of information which islanders in Jersey can access is also limited; government committee agendas and minutes should be disclosed, for example, but documents supporting an agenda item do not have to be given out.

And the Code states that whilst information should be given out, "files or documents" are not expected to be made public.

When the Code was revised in 2004, the senator who argued most strongly for its scope to be widened was Stuart Syvret, the man who later lost his job as health minister when he blew the whistle on the island's child abuse scandal.

Jersey has now drafted its own Freedom of Information Act, similar to the UK law, which is due to be debated later this year before it can become law.

As a crown dependency, all of Jersey's laws must be given royal assent by the Queen, though in practice they are ratified by the Privy Council, under the guidance of Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary. The Privy Council is also Jersey's highest court of appeal.

The Channel Islands have never been part of the UK and have no representation in Parliament.

Their connection to Britain dates back to 1066, when the Duke of Normandy (which included the islands) became William I of England. King John lost Normandy in 1204, but the islands decided to remain loyal to him because he agreed to allow them their independence, which they have kept ever since.

The Bailiwick of Guernsey, which comprises the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Herm and several smaller islands, has no freedom of information provision either. Last year Stuart Falla, the Deputy Chief Minister, said there was "not enough of a problem" to warrant a freedom of information act.

 

 

How Outsiders See Us

In "Yes Prime Minister", Humprey had a radio interview with Ludovic Kennedy. When the interview was over, Sir Humphrey started a callous and supremely indiscrete comment onto government policy on welfare receipients and the like – all totally insensitive, including the phrase "parasites".

 

His mistake – thinking the radio mike was off when it was in fact left on.

 

"Always treat every microphone as a live microphone" warned Jim Hacker later on!

 

It is clear that Frank Walker has yet to learn that lesson. His off the cuff remark, seen by millions, along with his blustering attempt to cover it up, and his later comment that the interview was totally unprofessional, illustrate how it is easy to dig a big whole without trying, and his remarks were probably the most damaging made to Jersey's international reputation made during this time. For a start, he shouldn't have made it, on or off camera, and when he had made it, he should have apologised unreservedly, and said that the stress of the moment, he had come out with a foolish remark - that would have led to far more public sympathy than the bluster and prevarication that occured.

 

How outsiders see us? The extracts below, show just how badly Mr Walker has damaged Jersey's reputation in the general publics eye. It is still not too late for him to apologise, but in my experience, apart from the late John Rothwell (over the potatoe dumping), politicians rarely admit they are human like the rest of us, and make mistakes.

 

---

http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225142702AAPWATD

This story is utterly shocking - and from the news reports what makes it even more outrageous is the fact that the Jersey health minister who tried to bring these kinds of things to light was sacked! I watched newsnight last night on BBC2 and I couldn't believe what was being said - the Jersey Parliament official was more concerned with promoting Jersey as a tourist destination than addressing the issues that this was swept under the carpet - amazing!! it even showed a clip of the former health minister and the Jersey Parliament member on a radio interview, when the radio interview finished the two continued to bicker and the ex-health guy said "we are talking about dead children here" and the Parliament guy responded by saying "your trying to shaft Jersey internationally" when Jeremy Paxman asked him about these comments he denyed making them even though they were there on tape as plain as day!!!

I dont want to trivialise the horror of this story but seeing that man last night it reminded me of the film Jaw's where the mayor was more concerned with the effect a shark attack would have on tourism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brickedup-cellar-may-yield-truth-of-child-abuse-scandal-787265.html

Comments picked up after a radio interview between the island's chief minister, Frank Walker, and Mr Syvret highlighted the growing tension on the island. After the end of the interview in their Jersey studios Mr Syvret turned on his former political colleague and exclaimed: "We're talking about children here." Mr Walker responded: "You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally

http://www.mediafriendly.org/resources/news.php

Off the cuff, Off the record - don't do it!

There's no such thing as an "off the record" comment as Jersey's First Minister Frank Walker found out to his cost last night on
"Newsnight".

"You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally"

Not only is there no such thing as "off the record" this comment can also be misquoted by Jeremy Paxman several times before being corrected.

Childline's President, Ester Rantzen, as one would expect, is far too  experienced a broadcaster to follow Jeremy's leading question " you heard that didn't you?' but rather bridges neatly with her "what concerns me most" before going straight in with her key bullet points.

When an issue as serious as the Jersey inquiry into child abuse in the former Children's Home is being aired is not the time to try to "promote your reputation internationally". It's time to hold your hands up, recognise that things have gone badly wrong and need to be resolved. Going into denial or dodging the issue is not the response of a caring, responsible organisation, it will only bring further mistrust and a host of hostile questions.

BBC "Newsnight" is a great place to find examples of how to handle or how NOT to handle media interviews.

 

A problem with punishment

The Guardian interestingly notes a culture of concern, by also bringing up the subject of the Bull report and Greenfields. If my memory serves me correct it was Stuart Syvret who released the entire Bull report to the media, which is something the education committee under Senator Walker appeared reluctant to do - until perhaps a "press release" could have sanitised the details.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/25/childprotection.ukcrime1

The grim discovery of a child's remains at a former Jersey care home – and the search for further bodies – follows concerns about the level of protection afforded to children on the island that date back years.

Police are investigating allegations of sexual and physical abuse at Jersey institutions since the 1960s.

The discovery of the remains came after two – albeit unrelated - inquiries into children's services last year and a police investigation.

In 2002, an Ofsted report, penned by Kathie Bull, highlighted concerns about children's services and called for the closure of some of the island's childcare homes.

In August last year, Jersey's council of ministers announced an inquiry to be led by another expert, Andrew Williamson, after allegations that the Bull report had failed to bring about change.

One of those pointing the finger was Steve Bellwood, who went public with claims of "abusive practice" at the Greenfields youth detention centre where he had taken over as manager in August 2006.

He told Community Care magazine that he was "criticised for having a problem with punishment" when, in January 2007, he raised concerns about holding children in solitary confinement in a policy then in place known as Grand Prix.

A document laying out the policy was seen by Community Care. According to the magazine it stated that "children were placed in their rooms for 24 hours on arriving at the centre. They were also placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours for repeated bad behaviour".

After being put on gardening leave and then sacked in May last year, Bellwood decided to contest his dismissal at a tribunal. He also took up his case with Stuart Syvret, the island's minister for health and social services.

Syvret supported Bellwood and raised other concerns about child protection, describing the "routine and coercive" solitary confinement of 11 to 16 year-olds as "torture".

"Bare cell with concrete table, concrete bed and a lavatory – that was it," said Syvret. "The children confined to these cells were not permitted to have any pencils or writing material and even their bedding and mattress would be taken out of the cell in daylight hours.

"Twenty-four hours was the minimum punishment, but sometimes it could go on for days. It looked like institutionalised child abuse."

The Howard League for Penal Reform said the system would be "unlikely to be lawful" in England and Wales and contravened the European convention on human rights.

Jersey's chief minister, Frank Walker, said there was "no evidence" to support Syvret's allegations but nevertheless an inquiry was set up, to be run by Williamson, a social work consultant.

Syvret also invited the Howard league to Jersey to examine "the whole sphere" of child and youth custody.

In the meantime Syvret found himself in the middle of a political row as he described the response to his allegations as a "whitewash".

He was dismissed from his post in September over criticism of his conduct towards social services staff, ministers and civil servants but he claimed he had been "sacked for whistleblowing".

"Simon [Bellwood] and I sacrificed our jobs but it was worthwhile because now hopefully the system will get fixed," Syvret told Community Care.

Two months later, in November, Jersey police said they were investigating "a number of allegations of historical sexual and physical abuse of children".

They revealed that the main focus was on the Haute de la Garenne care home – where the child's remains were discovered – and the Jersey Sea Cadets.

Police said the investigation was looking at allegations going back to the 1960s but mainly relating to the 1970s and 1980s, predating the concerns raised by Bellwood and Syvret by some years.

Nevertheless, the police investigation and the discovery of the remains will undoubtedly raise new questions about the treatment of the pair.

Jersey's government is aware it urgently needs to address not only possible past problems but concerns that widespread abuse in care homes on the picturesque island is a modern day problem.

 

Child's body found at care home

BBC reports on police finding a body hidden at children's home in Jersey, possibly dating back to the 1980s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7260625.stm

This recent news highlights the following questions:

• Who was in charge of the home at the time?
• How did this happen?
• What happened to records? Can we tell if anyone went missing?
• What politicians were supposed to be overseeing this, and what civil servants?
• To what degree were they negligent by today's standards?
• Could it happen today? If not, why did it happen then, and what has been rectified today?
• Are there weaknesses like this in today's system?

"There's no suggestion that this is a current problem whatsoever, and I do believe that children today in Jersey are safe from this type of abuse." said the Chief Minister.

His words would carry more weight if we knew the answers to those questions. Until then, it is just reassuring PR.

Deluded Dawkins - Survival Machines

We are survival machines , robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others.

What I have always found astonishing about this paragraph is the way in which it brings in metaphors - most notably the idea of the machine - and treats it as an exact simplification of the complexity of living creatures. The use of "selfish" at this stage - before he has even explained what he means (or thinks he means) is also a very poor metaphor, especially as later on in the book, he sloppily uses it in various senses, mixing them all up. Just look at this sentence!

I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.

Later, when taken to pieces by Mary Midgeley for such a sloppy piece of writing, he would say that he was using "selfish" in a purely technical sense; Dawkins, in his response to her review, claimed that she "no good point to make" and argued that the details of her criticisms were incorrect because they were based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of a technical language! That has to be a most pathetic piece of avoidance strategy when a thinker is caught out using sloppy language. What is purely technical about the phrase "ruthless selfishness"?

Deluded Dawkins - The Case of the Suicide Bombers

In "The God Delusion", Dawkins asks:

 

Why did these cricket-loving young men do it? Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, or their kamikaze counterparts in Japan, or their Tamil Tiger counterparts in Sri Lanka, these human bombs had no expectation that their bereaved families would be lionized, looked after or supported on martyrs' pensions. On the contrary, their relatives in some cases had to go into hiding. One of the men wantonly widowed his pregnant wife and orphaned his toddler. The action of these four young men has been nothing short of a disaster not just for themselves and their victims, but for their families and for the whole Muslim community in Britain, which now faces a backlash. Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people.

 

Note the rhetorical trick of the last sentence, which tries to argue that if we have excluded every other option, only religion could produce such an effect. Actually, I'm not really sure that the Palestinian bombers, or the Basque seperatists, or the Japanese pilots on suicide missions (for the honour of their country) had at the front of their minds that their families would be looked after or lionised; that may have been known to be the case, but surely was of marginal import - a comfort, but not a necessary one. Or does Dawkins seriously think that if that was not the case, they would have said "no!"?

 

February 12, 1894. Emile Henry set a bomb in Café Terminus, killing one and injuring twenty. During his trial, he declares: "There is no innocent bourgeois".

 

September 16, 1920. The Wall Street bombing kills 38 and wounds 400 in Manhattan's Financial District. Anarchists associated with Luigi Galleani are widely believed responsible although the crime remains officially unsolved.

 

What have these in common with Georges Sorel's "Reflections on Violence" (1908), which remains a controversial text to this day. It unashamedly advocates the use of violence as a means of putting an end to the corrupt politics of bourgeois democracy and of bringing down capitalism.

 

They have to do with the "deed of propoganda" advocated by some branches of the anarchist movement. They are not religious motivations, but ideological ones. Contrary to Dawkins, history shows that ideology is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people.

 

 

Gospel of Thomas

Managed to finally finish Nicholas Perrin's "Thomas: The Other Gospel". Against Elaine Pagels, April DeConick and others, Perrin presents a some interesting arguments for locating the Gospel in the Syriac Church, shortly after Tatian's  Diatessaron, and locating it around Edessa. He also notes the influence of the ascendant Hermetic tradition in that time and place, which has been also noted by DeConick in Thomas.

He also suggests it draws upon the Diatessaron, noting the order of certain segments follows that rather than the gospel sources, for example:

Thomas 44 // Matt. 12.32 // Luke 12.10
Thomas 45.1 // Matt. 7.16 // Luke 6.44
Thomas 45.2-4 // Matt. 12.35, 34b // Luke 6.45

There are problems with the linguistics of Perrin's thesis which have been cited by others. I have not enough knowledge of the linguistics of Syriac, Greek, and the "catchword" arguments that he presents. But what I find stronger is his presentation of the problem of Thomas in clear- well-defined terms, when he looks at the following questions: (1) what accounts for the strange sequence of sayings in Thomas? (2) How might we explain the ascetical elements in Thomas? (3) Why is Thomas so interested in creation themes? (4) Why is Thomas "according to Thomas"? (5) What accounts for the disparate substance of the sayings? (6) Why are all these sayings connected with Jesus, when most of them cannot be attributed to the historical Jesus? (7) Is there a single hypothesis that accounts for the above questions in a single stroke?

 

His arguments, in a nutshell, are that:

 

• The Coptic Thomas displays evidence of the misunderstanding of words from a Syriac original in the translation
• Many Thomasine sayings follow the order in the Diatessaron
• Thomas reflects Syrian asceticism associated with Tatian
• Thomas draws on Tatian's logos theology
• The salvation theme of  Thomas reflects Tatian's view of salvation as something essentially internal.
• There is no evidence that Tatian was influenced by Thomas, and the divergence in Tatian theology from other churches only begins after the death of his mentor Justin Martyr
• Edessa at the time of Tatian had a rich Hermetic tradition, reflected in Thomas, but not in existence at an early dating

A fascinating book.