To all the victims of child abuse, past present and future your voice will be heard!!
I cannot begin to imagine the torture and torment you have been/are going through.
As this might be my last Blog I couldn't think of a better one to end on. I would like to thank ozzyuk1961 for uploading the video to youtube from where I got it.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
To all the victims of child abuse, past present and future your voice will be heard!!
Friday, 12 December 2008
I never think for a minute that one of our elected "representatives" will actually stop and talk to me especially on camera. So I have to think on my feet when they do! As I have always maintained I am not a journalist, I am a father who is worried for his children's safety at the hands of this government and am only having a go at journalism because I have become so disselusioned with what passes as "journalism" over here.
By contrast Mr.Reed was "interviewed" by our local BBC not seconds before he spoke with me on camera. It will be interesting to compare my "interview" with their's and see who asked Mr.Reed the questions the public might want asked. After all isn't that a "journalists" job?
I know I was going to have Senator Terry (GST28) LeMain as my next Blog subject but the film I have of him will take some editing which is a little beyond my capability at the minute but do hope to have a finished item by the middle of next week.
Once again I would like to thank Mr.Reed for giving me his time, as did Mr.Le Sueur who will both be going in my "hall of fame" I will also have a "hall of shame" which will consist of prominant figures who not only refuse to give me an interview but in some cases "leg it" more about that in a later post.
In order to gauge if I am starting to get things right in a "journalistic" sense please vote on my poll, if you prefer my interview with Mr.Reed or if you prefer the BBC'S.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Yesterday we saw an election for a new chief minister. It was a very predicatble outcome and possibly for most, including myself, not a very welcome one! However one must give credit where credit is due.
Chief Minister Terry (GST28) Le Sueur has been on a bit of a platform of engaging with the public, listening to the public etc. And if I am to be honest I did not believe one word of it. As my regular reader(s) will be aware I have tried to engage with a number of our politicians on camera, none of which have been very accommodating. Indeed I tried to engage with Senator Terry (GST28) Le Main on camera yesterday and I will be posting that encounter as my next Blog.
As you will see, although my journalistic skills still may leave something to be desired, Chief Minister Terry (GST28) Le sueur engaged with me, entertained me, or humoured me. He didn't run away from me and answered my questions.
So like I have said "credit where credit is due" Let's hope other establishment figures will take a leaf out of his book and start to recognise citizen's media is here, it is growing, and is influential.
Respect to you Cheif Minister It's a good start.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
According to Senator Syvret he has written proof the editor of local BBC agreed to have him on as a guest and then went on to renege on the deal. I believe it was in order to give the elections some coverage. So how did they cover the elections (on talkback) in a fair and balanced way?
The week before last they had the two candidates from St John as guests, last week they had the three candidates from St Brelade No 1. So out of, I think it was, 63 candidates they allowed 5 of them two hours FREE airtime. How is that fair and balanced? what about the other 58 candidates? I'm sure they would have loved the opportunity of 2 FREE hours of advertising and electioneering for votes!!
Worse still somebody has come up with that idea and got it passed!! Here's the choice. option 1. Do we have a talkback programme on a subject that has seen a manager in child welfare and a minister for health and social services lose their jobs after blowing the whistle on what they desribed as, and the HLPR described as illegal and abusive treatment to our most vunerable..........children. Possibly one of the most important reports we have ever had published, a report that could possibly totally vindicate Senator Syvret and Simon Bellwood and affects the whole island's population. A subject that almost everybody will have an opinion on and would stimulate a lot of thought, discussion and more importantly offer some much needed ANSWERS.
Option 2. Do we have a talkback show where the guests might talk about issues that affect only those who live in their parish, mains drains, speed limits on certain roads, unruly kids in certain area's and the Battle of flowers float therefore alienating a vast majority of the listeners who don't live in that Parish, also might be seen as giving favour to some of the candidates by not including them all.
So somebody has gone with option 2 who is this person? under what basis did they come to this decision? How can it be described as fair and impartial? How can it be deemed as something that deserves to be in the public domain over such an important report?
Senator Syvret has come in for some criticism (on the talkback show) for it being "his watch" while all this alleged abuse was going on. He phoned the show up with the offer to appear as a guest and answer all his critics, so far this appears to have been ignored by the BBC or Bridget Broadcasting Corporation.
I have lost almost any respect I had for the BBC and I strongly believe our local BBC have "gone native" I have repeatedly e-mailed Matthew Price to ask why they won't hold a talkback show with Senator Syvret as a guest to discuss the HLPR's report, he hasn't reponded to the e-mails. This does nothing for the BBC's credibility and can only add fuel to the fire the local BBC have "gone native".
A cracking Talkback show would, in my opinion, be Simon Bellwood, Stuart Syvret on with any of the following, Jimmy (GST28) Perchard, Mike (GST28) Vibert, Joe Kennedy, Frank Walker, Ben Shenton to name but a few. This show could answer a lot of questions, clear up alot of confusion and possibly expose some politicians as liars, complicit in covering up the truth, seriously negecting our children, etc. etc.
Seventy four percent of you, 76 out of a hundred believe this show should happen and thank you for voting in the poll. In order to give the local BBC an idea of where their credibilty lies with the online population I am going to ask you to vote again on what you think of the BBC. please vote, the more votes there are, the more they will have to take heed!!! You can vote on more than one option as there are four.
Friday, 21 November 2008
You might remember I was told by the school an "incident" had occured that "incident" was five kids kicking my son repeatedly whilst he was on the ground. One witness, I have since found out, said one of the kids were kicking my son "like a football". Two of my son's attackers were suspended (given a couple of days off school) because others were kicking my son from behind, although they were the only people behind my son it was said my son could not see them so couldn't prove it was them kicking him so they recieved no sanction.
Please read the link above in order to get an understanding of the situation which will help to bring this entry into context.
Yesterday I recieved a call from the school telling me my son had been involved in "an incident" the "incident" was described to me as "a bit of fun" a "bit of mucking about" "A friend" of my son's had scraped him a bit with a pen so I said something along the lines of "well these things happen, thanks for letting me know"
My son returned home after the school day and showed me his neck. There was, what one might describe as, a 6 inch abrasion, slash mark, across his neck! which looked pretty red raw baring in mind this was approxiametly 4 hours after "the incident".
Naturally (as any parent would be) I was somewhat alarmed and proceeded to ask my son what had happened? He told me he was chatting with his cousin in the playground and this kid, came out of nowhere, from behind and slashed me across the neck with his pen. I said "What...... as a bit of fun"? he said "well it was fun for him but not for me" I said was it "a friend" of yours? he said "well not a friend but he doesn't bully me as much as the others do" I said "the teacher told me he was a friend of yours" my son said "well i've not get many friends and he doesn't bully me as much as some others so didn't want to lose the chance of making a friend and if I told the teacher he wasn't my friend that might have got him in trouble and there would be no chance of him becoming my friend and I didn't want to get him into trouble"
I phoned the teacher this morning and, to cut a long story short, got the same old "party line" "We take these "incidents" seriously". We have explained to the child he COULD be up for a charge of serious assault. He COULD be reported to the police, He COULD have to go to a parish hall enquiry, he COULD go to court. So with all that COULD be done, I asked "what have you done"? to which he replied "suspended him" (gave him an afternoon off school).. Yes an afternoon off school, you really couldn't make this lot up!
I asked what kind of a pen was it because to inflict that kind of injury it must have taken a fair bit of force? He said "I agree but it was the top part of the pen and it was a little bit rough around the edge"
During the phonecall I said "since all this COULD happen, and you take these incidents seriously, naturally you took photo's of my son's injury"? Suprise, suprise nobody had!
Another alaming factor in all of this, it appears the child only recieved threats of what COULD happen to him, not what effect his actions could have on his victim. It doesn't appear the time has been taken out to explain to this child the detremental effects, the emotional damge and harm it might cause. In order to give the child some kind of understanding as to why this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. He's just been told he COULD get into trouble and was given the afternoon off.
Then we must look at the school's statistics. This "incident" was sold to me as "a bit of mucking around" "a bit of fun" Where in my opinion it is bullying, or a serious assault. How will it be logged? under what heading? Statistically speaking it would be more beneficial to call it "a bit of fun" and keep it out of the bullying statistics.
What also confused me somewhat is the "policy" I was told about the last time my son was involved in an "incident". I asked for the names of my son's attackers and I was told it was not "policy" to give other pupils names to parents. When I asked who's "policy" is this? Is it the school's policy or the education departments? to which they couldn't (or wouldn't) give me an answer. After a couple of days of me persuing this answer, it came about, it was "data protection". Then why with this most recent "incident" did the teacher voluntarily give me the name of my son's attacker, surely that puts him in breach of the data protection doesn't it?
Bullying, in my opinion, is rife in our school's. Our children (Bully's and victims) are being failed by hopelessly inadequate, non existent poilcies and self regulated statistics, a non independent complaints proceedure and civil servants and ministers not held to account.
My son feels because somebody doesn't bully him as much as the others that this person could be a friend and feels the need to protect the child. He believes if he tells the truth it will only make matters worse for himself.
I as a parent feel I am sending my son into harms way every day he goes to school, but if I take him out of school for his own safety I'll be prosecuted!! When I try contacting Mario Lundy he doesn't reply to my e-mails or return any of my phone-calls. All the while I am dreading my phone ringing to be told my son has been involved in "an incident" only one day it is going to be from the hospital. Maybe it might be from the police to say my son is being held on an attempted murder charge after finally reached breaking point, after all there is only so much a child can take and I am not only amazed but very proud my son has been able to endure so much violence against him without resorting to violence himself but like I said we all have a breaking point, and the other breaking point doesn't bare thinking about!
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Monday, 3 November 2008
I have copied and pasted this statement from Senator Syvret's Blogsite. ("Senator Terry – Tel Boy – Le Main – used car salesman extraordinaire – has been secretly organising a claque of oligarchy Senators who wish to take it upon themselves to prevent me, as Father of the House, from delivering the Christmas speech").
Could you please let me know if there is any truth in this?
Thank you... I have not been secretly organising a claque of obligarchy Senators because in that case why was Senator Syvret as one of the 12 Senators or Senators elect copied in to all the emails in which the 12 Senators ( including Senator Syvret ) are invited to attend a meeting to discuss the matter of who delivers the speech on behalf of the Senators...this is democracy in which just like the Connetables did some years ago the Senators will decide or otherwise who delivers the Christmas speech on their behalf... is this secrecy as claimed by Senator Syvret... I think not...
As you have threatened to sue me if I publish any lies or defame you in any way on my Blog and also told me "if I care about my wife and children I should watch where I poke my nose", which I also take as a direct threat. I would like once more to offer you the opportunity to give me an interview on camera not only to explain these statements to your electorate and myself but also to answer a few more questions.
I believe in a democratic society our elected representatives ought to be answerable to their electorate. Unfortunately it appears our local media have come up a bit short when it comes to any real indepth "journalism"
As I am sure you are aware you have come in for a great deal of criticism not only for "shouting down" Senator Syvret's attempt to aknowledge alleged child abuse victims and catastrophic failings by the States of Jersey in protecting them, but now you wish to prevent him from giving his "Father of the house" Christmas speech all together!
You have been quoted as saying you and a few others are "in fear of what he might say" but have not elaborated in any way what you and others are "in fear of".
In order to produce a fair and balanced Blog on you, I would ask you would reconsider your threats and agree to an interview on camera. I have absolutely no wish to lie about, or defame, you in any way. I would just like to give you the opportunity to answer the questions that are being asked of you by your electorate and maybe explain, what appears to be, your very un democratic behaviour.
What are you saying... " if I care about my wife and children I should watch where I poke my nose " where on earth did you get this from... certainly not from me and that is untruthful....I never ever said that and you know it... and you state that " I have been quoted that I am in fear of what he might say " ie Syvret....just to say this is again untruthful because I have never said such a thing or do I fear this awful man Syvret....it seems to many people in Jersey that Syvret with his lies and untruths and character assasinations of senior civil servants etc that he is medically unwell or otherwise .... that is the view of many people, its not mine but others...you know very well I only threatened you in regard to " defaming me on your blog with untruths or otherwise " I did advise you that in a democracy you can say what you like in regard to my public office policies, decisions and actions but any personal attack, lies or untruths will be dealt with appropriately with my Lawyer and the Court....just like it happened to a certain gentleman some years ago whom the Royal Court jailed for 48 hours...
Don't be silly VFC. I have no intention of being filmed or even meeting with you and I would be grateful if you ceased emailing me as we have nothing in common to discuss not even in the name of " Democracy "
I Maintain your words to me on the phone were "if you care about your family, you know, your wife and kids you should be carefull where you poke your nose". I think it might be safe to say one of us is a liar.
As for being quoted as saying " I have been quoted that I am in fear of what he might say " ie Syvret....just to say this is again untruthful because I have never said such a thing or do I fear this awful man Syvret. maybe this might jog your memory. "there are quite a few of us who fear that he intends to use the speech to say certain things".
That does look to me that you and others are in fear! I grant you it did come from the JEP so might not hold a lot of credibility and they may have misquoted you then perhaps that is something you need to take up with them.
I am sorry you are denying your electorate the opportunity to be given any explanation as to your, what appears to be, bizzare behaviour in the continual attempts in silencing Senator Syvret.
As for having nothing in common with eachother, I couldn't agree more! one of us is seriously misguided and completely out of touch with who needs representation in the states on top of one of us being a liar.
As you know I shall be doing a Blog on you and see it as being "Democratic". Should I unwittingly defame you or publish anything that might be deemed as untrue, rather than having to live under the fear of being dragged through the courts and threatened with being sued. Could I ask if I e-mail you the Blog as soon as it is published, you have a look at it and alert me of any defemation or untruths and I will happily remove any offending material? There really is no need to be so threatening. I have absolutely no desire to defame or lie about you and am only trying to give the electorate a clearer picture of the poeople they elected.
As for e-mailing you, I am sorry but that is my "Democratic right" and I shall continue to do so if I have any democratic questions I believe deserve an answer from my democratically elected representatives. I also believe you are bound by your ministerial code of conduct 5) where it states "Elected members should at all times treat other members of the states, officers and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process"
To the best of my knowledge I have treated you with nothing less than proffessional courtesy and would thank you to treat me likewise.
Friday, 24 October 2008
It is widely believed we have a very partisan media over here. We also have, what has been described as, "an elected dictatorship" with none of our elected "representatives" being accountable to anybody for any thing.
Senator Stuart Syvret on his Blog http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/ has been publishing items one would believe would make headline news. The internet is full of stories ranging from alleged establishment spin doctors bullying, progressive, senatorial candidates mothers at hustings, to senoir civil servants being served with a notice of disclosure and indeed has named this civil servant in the States sitting which went out live on local BBC radio.
I have been trying to find out if what Senator Syvret is claiming has any truth to it regarding the name of the civil servant allegedly being served with this notice of disclosure. I have gone through, what I believe to be the correct channels in order to do this. I have e-mailed the civil servant directly, I have phoned the civil servant, in order to meet with him/her, not been able to talk to him/her and up to now have only spoke to his/her secretary who up to now will not reply to my request for a meeting.
I have e-mailed the minister responsible for this civil servant to ask if there is any truth in Senator Syvret's allegations, have phoned the minister and have attempted to engage with this minister only to be told "we have a duty of care to our employees" and the minister has made a complaint of harrassment against me.
I have been "forced" to take my concerns to the local media, namely the local BBC. It appears they see nothing in my experiences that deserves to be in the public domain. The fact a Senator and father of the house makes these truly frightening allegations I attempt to find out, through the correct channels, if there is any truth to them and for my troubles? a charge of harrassment made against me!!
So why Blog? well what other choice is there? do I want to be Blogging? hell no! I am living in constant fear, like many others, because I have dared to speak out and share my experiences in the hope others will know they are not alone with the same or similar experiences.
I am no Journalist in fact far from it! so therefore am not familiar with libel laws and everything else that goes with publishing stories/experiences on the internet. I am a father trying to protect his children. It turns out in order to do this I have to run the gauntlet of libel, defemation and harrassment laws.
It has become increasingly apparent if you want any answers to legitimate questions that might reassure you you're children are safe under the "care" of this goverment you'd better be ready to face prosecution, with no help from certain parts of our local media. Indeed having to go to the local media in the first place shouldn't have to be an option, if we had an open and transparent government who put the "duty of care" to the people who elected them and their children before the "duty of care" to their employees there would be no need to involve any media including Blogging.
I am merely a product of my enviroment, this government has propelled me into a position I have absolutely no wish to be in. I believe by being forced to Blog my experiences I have/will become "an enemy of the State" and now an enemy of the local media. I have no wish to be an enemy of anybody least of all such powerful organisations. But it appears my choices are shut your mouth and bury your head in the sand and everything will be rosy, or stick your head above the parapitt and risk having it shot.
In order to prove I believe I have been forced to Blog my latest experiences I shall re-produce my e-mail correspondance with a prominant local BBC Journalist. I don't even know if I am allowed to publish the journalists name as his/her position is not paid for by the electorate/taxpayer. None the less I hope it will prove I have tried to bring this into the public domain without having to Blog about it.
As I explained to you I was under the belief the BBC and myself were protected by "qualified privilege" and you have now explained to me that isn't the case.
I suffer greatly with anxiety which is triggered greatly when I read and hear that a very prominent civil servant in the said department might be a suspect in an on-going child abuse investigation and nobody will either comfirm nor deny these allegations. One reason being "the States have a duty of care to their employees".
It is my story of how a very anxious parent tries to get confirmation or denial of a senior civil servant who might be a suspect in child abuse. I have asked the particular civil servants secretary if I could have a meeting with the civil servant, I have e-mailed the civil servant, I have e-mailed and phoned the minister in charge of the department all to no avail.
I truly hope you will consider running this story as I believe it is a travesty, that a leading politician can make these allegations, which puts the fear of god into me. Only to discover it appears I have no right to know if his allegations are correct.
As I explained on the telephone, we have been working over a prolonged period of time to substantiate the allegations made in Senator Syvret's blog. To date they remain unsubstantiated.
Jersey police served a disclosure notice about a senior civil servant to his employers, as part of their inquiry into historic abuse.
A disclosure notice warns an employer that one of their employees is being investigated for alleged crimes -but does not imply guilt.
Yesterday in the States, Deputy Roy Le Herissier asked the Chief Minister what happened after the police issued a disclosure notice against one of Jersey's top civil servants.
He suggested such an employee should be suspended as a precaution, in a neutral manner which did not imply guilt.
Senator Stuart Svryet then used parliamentary privilege to name the civil servant in question.
Senator Svryet was reprimanded by the Deputy Bailiff who said he was well aware that he should not name individuals unless it was unavoidable.
You can hear more in tomorrow's Jersey Today, at five past eight.
Perhaps I did not explain my situation thoroughly enough for you so I will try again.
Before I do that I would like to say I took your advice and listened to the today programme this morning. I am sorry to say I found it somewhat "hollow" or perhaps "shallow" and certainly nothing like "investigative". That is not a critisism it is merely constructive feedback from a listener with no journalistic qualifications.
However back to my "situation" It appears the local BBC and myself have the same problem. You have told me you have been either investigating or researching Senator Syvret's allegations concerning a very high ranking civil servant alledgedly being investigated for violent physical abuse on children.
Despite all your researching and investigating it appears you have only ever come across a brick wall and are unable to substantiate any of these claims.
Well you and I both! the severity of these allegations should not be underestimated nor "hushed up" The story I wish you to cover is exactly what you too appear to have experienced.
A democratically elected representative of the islands electorate informs his electorate that the very person trusted with the "care" of our children is (alledgedly) under investigation for serious violent abuse against children and if a parent, and now it would seem a journalist, were to ask for any kind of confirmation or denial of the allegations, ask why the said civil servant has not been named, why the civil servant has not been suspended, who decided the civil servant should not be suspended, how he/she came to the decision not to suspend the civil servant.
I am frantic with worry my children could be at huge risk if Senator Syvret's allegations have any truth to them at all. Nobody in Jersey will do anything to put my mind at ease, seemingly under the guise of "we have a duty of care to our employees". What about "the duty of care" to our children and the people of Jersey? Why does a parent not have the right to know whether their children are safe under the "care" of the States of Jersey?
As a proffessional Journalist, if you are telling me you see nothing here that deserves to be in the public domain, I can only see Blogging and citizen media, in a matter of time, becoming bigger and more popular over here and possibly becoming "mainstream".
On another note I was hoping to phone Roger Barra on the phone in today to unreservedly apologise for my comments yesterday and explain that I must have been ill informed with the "limitation of qualified privilige" and that now you have put me right. Could you tell me if I will be permitted to do this?
I trust and hope you can see a legitimate news item in my very worrying situation, which I'm sure is shared by many, many islanders especially parents.
If you are concerend about the welfare of your children, you must contact the Education Department and or Social Services.
You are always welcome to offer yourself as a contributor to the BBC Jersey phone in and/or Talkback.
You can be assured we are working constantly on this issue and are devoting our investigative resources to the matters you raise.
We work closely with the BBC's legal department and at present they advise us it is "legally unsafe" to name the person in question.
I can't but help think you might be taking the p1ss out of me. So I'll not waste too much more of both of our time and effort.
What I might suggest is you look over the e-mail correspondance between us where I have explained I have contacted the said department, the civil servant and more and have only come up against a brick wall. Which again is the story I would like the BBC to cover.
In order to prevent wasting any more of our time and effort. Could you explain to me as a proffesional independent journalist how you see nothing in our correspondance that deserves to be in the public domain?
I understand you may be busy but I am still waiting for a reply and answer to my question(s) in my last e-mail to you (above).
On top of this Senator Syvret has posted on the internet that Jersey does follow England with the law of absolute privilege, and qualified privilige and claims the media are able to report the name of the civil servant. You have told me that Jersey does not follow England with this law. Could you please clear this up for me? in order to help me understand why the media will not name this civil servant.
And naturally I would like to know how you might see nothing in our correspondance that deserves to be in the public domain.
Thank you for your email.
If you are concerend about the welfare of your children, I strongly urge you to contact the relevant authorities. The BBC in Jersey cannot help with private matters between you, your children and the authorities.
I refer you to the BBC Producer Gudielines - avaialble online and in the public library with the regard to the reporting of parliament - like The States.
As I have explained previously, our lawyers have advised us it is "legally unsafe" to name the people involved.
This correspondence is now closed.
I am absolutely distraught you see nothing with my situation that deserves to be in the public domain. The fact that you have refused to give me direct answers to direct questions is also very concerning to me.
Our correspondance regrettably only adds fuel to the fire we have a partisan media over here which alarms me even more and leaves me no other option than to Blog about my experiences.
I am sure you are confident with your decision to close our correspondance and see nothing that desrves to be in the public domain from it. However I strongly disagree with you I am a parent frantic with worry and despite all my best efforts have only come up against brick walls from the States of Jersey and now the BBC.
Blogging is the only hope I have left
Thursday, 16 October 2008
The media are going to have their view as to why and how "the establishment" got back in and the rest of us are going to have another. One reason could be that the majority of the electorate are in fact demoralised, they believe they can't make a difference. A demoralised majority (non voting) electorate suits our establishment for as long as they continue not to vote. Make no mistake our "ruling elite" and it's media know there is discontent and unrest with "the peasants" and it is only a matter of time before they rebel and by that I mean start voting.
Citizen Mike Vibert should get a mention as should Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf as they have appeared on here in the run up to the elections.
Firstly citizen Mike Vibert. I heard him on the radio today trying to put some of the blame of him losing his seat down to hecklers at hustings. What is so tragic about that statement is I truly believe he believes it, he went on to say "there will be one or two members of that crowd that will be feeling pleased with themselves today".
Firstly I did, and many others, heckle citizen Vibert at the hustings, I also heckled Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf, Sarah (GST28) Ferguson, Alan (GST28) Maclean and they all kept their seats. I believe the statement "there will be one or two members of that crowd that will be feeling pleased with themselves today" could have been aimed at me.
To that I would say there's a good chance everybody in that crowd will be feeling a bit pleased with themselves today but not for the reasons citizen Mike Vibert might believe. Speaking purely for myself I believe he has failed our children and failed them miserably. He ran his department with only his and his civil servants interests at heart, regardless of any impact on the children or their families.
I have only asked citizen Vibert questions that any concerned parent should deserve an answer to in order to be assured he is, sorry was, providing their children with a safe place of learning. I was only ever fobbed off and met by a wall of secrecy. I was foced to phone him, and he would hang up the phone on me, I would e-mail him and he would not reply, I'd try and engage with him at hustings and he would tell me he has made a complaint of harrassment against me to the police.
Like I said earlier, the tragic thing is Citizen Vibert is apparently oblivious as to what impact his actions have on others and still seeks to blame others for his downfall. I am not "pleased with myself" in a way that I get satisfaction out of another man's downfall. I am just pleased my children are no loger under his "care" and I can't say I am pleased they are under the "care" of Mario Lundy either but more of that at a later Blog.
Now for Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf. He, like citizen Vibert and others, was heckled at hustings, and has been the subject of a couple of my Blogs. The difference between the Senator and ex Senator (on a personal note) is Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf sought to engage with me!
He chose to do that after a hustings one night when I was sat at a table in the local bar. I was sat with a group of "anti establishment" people. Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf came through from the other bar for whatever reason and spotted us. He had no hesitation in coming over to "the lions den" and said something on the lines of "I see I made it on to your Blog" (my last post). He opened up a dialogue with me and was ready to discuss ANY issue with me, didn't ignore me or threaten me with an harrassment charge.
I found, and have since found, him to be very aproachable and, on a strictly personal level, easy to get along with. On a proffessional level I totally disagree with his policies, his voting, his unsustainable population and economic growth policies and his taxing of the poor and needy in order to fatten up the already fat cats.
One must give credit where it is due, as a politician he is good, let's face it he kept his bl00dy seat!! I believe he is a good enough poltician to realize these elections were a warning shot across his bow, topping the poll in his last election and coming in fifth at this one, he has had to pull out all the stops to get re-elected and has had to work like probably never before to keep his job in the states.
He has told me he will give me an interview on camera (mind you that was before the election results) so I shall seek to hold him to that. But that will be after I have attempted to get an interview with one Terence (GST28) Le Main.
On that note, thanks to the people who have e-mailed me questions you want putting to him and if anybody has any more questions please e-mail them firstname.lastname@example.org
I won't analyse any more of the election results as the bottom line is, "the establishment" have won this battle, but the war has a long way to go!
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
This latest bit of video is of myself trying to get one of our very "accessable" democratically elected "represenatives" to answer one pretty straight forward question. This particular clip was shot at the St Martin hustings where I believe the "establishment candidates" took a "severe beating".
Senator Phillip (GST28) who usually appears to be quite happy on camera for CTV and "local" BBC seems somewhat camera shy when it's anybody else behind the camera.
I can't prove we have a "partisan media" but it does add a little fuel to the fire when politicians, who are rarely off our telivision screens, refuse to answer a question from one of the people he is supposed to represent but appears quite happy to answer any questions from his, sorry our local media
Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf is telling, anybody that will listen, at the hustings that we need capable and experienced politicians to steer us through the tough economical times ahead. What he neglects to mention is Mike Higgins drafted legislation for bank depositers protection back in 2003. Our current crop of "capable and experienced" politicians have completeley ignored it for FIVE YEARS!!
I believe our current "ruling elite" are steering a ship fully loaded with greed, self preservation, taxes and policies to keep the rich rich and the poor poor and Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf is firmly at the helm and if he gets re-elected, when that ship hits the rocks, he and his fellow GST28 ship mates will all be in the liferafts, The rest of us? we'll all be floating around in the wreckage trying to salvage what pittens there might be left for us!
Anyhow enjoy the video and if anybody has a candidate they would like me to engage with on camera, let me know and I will see what I can do.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
Senator Mike (GST28)Vibert is our minister for Education Sport and Culture. He is also a minister who voted For the regressive GST, he voted AGAINST exemptions on school books and school clothing. He also voted AGAINST free milk for our school children.
You might note by the e-mails below he is not in the business of putting a parents mind at ease and refuses to answer some very valid and frightening questions. The answers of which seriously do need addressing.
It is said here in Jersey we have "a very partisan media". It is believed our entire local media are extremely bias in favour of our "elected dictatorship" to the point our only local "news"paper is suspected of writing spoof letters in it's "letters to the editor" page to support our "ruling elite"
Our elected "representatives" claim they either are, or support, openness and transparency in our "elected dictatorship". So in order to give them this "openness and transparency" and to offer their electorate an "alternative media" I have taken my video camera to the hustings that are now taking place in the hope of getting an interview with sitting states members up for re-election.
I readily admit my technique of trying to obtain an interview might not be quite what it could. Hopefully I will be able to improve on that. By the same token I believe if our local media were doing a good job, people like myself wouldn't have to try and do it for them!
So below is my e-mail correspondance with Senator Mike (GST28) Vibert and my attempts to be given an interview. A couple of things need to be taken into account here. Nobody has , either the power or the willing, (to the best of my knowledge) to get any of my questions answered by him.
This man could get elected for another 6 YEAR term! One of his election slogans is "a safe pair of hands" well I'll let you, the reader(s) decide if that's an apt slogan. I prefer the slogan "a quick pair of feet"
I would also like to add I live in constant fear of the reprisals I might suffer for exposing our "ruling elite" I have edited the e-mails below, only taking out the names of the civil servants, although they have been published elswhere I am told I can be prosecuted for libel if I were to publish them. I don't want to break any laws I just want to expose the truth and bring a little accountability to those who have none.
You spoke to me at the St. Clement hustings yesterday evening about an e-mail you had sent to me. Unfortunately I have not received any such e-mail. I believe it may be being blocked by the States e-mail filtering system.
You intimated the e-mail concerned unacceptable behaviour by a former States employee. If you have any evidence of such then I suggest you contact the States of Jersey Police, as they are the correct authority to investigate any alleged unlawful conduct.
I have copied and pasted the e-mail for you below. I would very much appreciate if you could put my mind at least at a little bit of ease.
Personally I have no proof of any of the allegations. But the fact remains, either Senator Syvret, like yourself is a democratically elected senator and representative of the electorate, is a liar or fantasist, or his allegations do hold some merit. If it is the latter I have every reason to be concerned.
Here is the e-mail please don't "skate over" any of my truly frightening concerns.
The original e-mail.
After reading an article on Senator Syvrets Blogsite I have become even more horrified (if that's possible) as to the goings on in your department.
Senator Syvret claims the notorious "Pinball wizard" is none other than (an ex senior civil servant), who was employed during "your watch". If what has been published is correct this would indicate the said ex senior servant has participated in what would (or should) amount to physical, and possible, emotional abuse on minors and extra marital affairs.
Could I ask what you, or your department, are doing to look into these very serious and alarming allegations?
I have also read on various news articles on the web a current civil servant employed by E.S.C. not only worked at Haute De La Garrenne but has been interviewed by the police investigating alleged child abuse at the home.
Could you let me know if this civil servant was interviewed as a witness or a suspect? and is he/she indeed under any kind of investigation or suspicion by either yourself or the police?
As I have 2 children under the "care" of your department I hope you can appreciate my concerns.
I repeat, all allegations and any evidence to support them should be reported to the States of Jersey Police who are the only body authorised to deal with them and answer any of your queries.
I can not understand why the Minster for Education Sport and Culture can not (or will not) put a parent's mind at rest by either confirming or denying these frightening allegations?
Surely you would (or should) be in the ideal position to do this, as you are responsible for your department and it's employees. Further more I would have thought you would be very eager to put a parents mind at ease.
Also how do you deem it is my responsibility to inform the police of these allegations, surely if it's anybody's responsibility, it's your isn't it?
I do not know anything about these allegations. It is the responsibility and duty of anyone who believes they know anything that could be construed as unlawful to inform the Police of their concerns.
Although I asked you not to "skate over" any of my concerns perhaps I should have also asked you not to "completely ignore" my concerns as well.
The concerns you some how managed to "completely ignore" were the very valid and worrying ones of the current civil servant being (or not) interviewed by the police investigating the "alleged" child abuse at HDLG and other institutions within the states of Jersey "care" system.
For the avoidance of any doubt my questions are.
1) Was the current civil servant employed at HDLG?
2) If so, for what time period? and what was his/her job title?
3) Has the current civil servant been interviewed by the "historic" child abuse investigation team?
4) If so, was he/she interviewed as a witness or a suspect?
5) Are either yourself, the current civil servant, or anybody employed by E.S.C under any kind of suspicion (by the "historic" child abuse investigation team) for either participating in child abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional) or covering up for anybody who might have participated in any such heinous acts?
The current civil servant is also copied into this e-mail so I hope between the two of you, you will be able to put my mind at ease.
I have given you my reply previously. I consider this correspondence closed and will not be replying to any more e-mails on the subject
Thursday, 25 September 2008
This piece was filmed at the town hall after the nominations when the candidates were invited into a room to discuss the hustings. It appears it was meant to be a "secret meeting", surely not! that isn't the Jersey way is it?
I will shortly be e-mailing all the candidates to offer them a chance to have some free publicity and agree to an interview. One would like to think they would jump at the chance...We shall wait and see! In the meantime please enjoy this latest offering.
Thursday, 18 September 2008
My son has now decided he wants to blog his story. I would like to make it perfectly clear (for reasons I am unable to go in to) that I will, in no way, be assisting him with the telling of his story.
As he has only just turned 15 and is not really up to speed with blogging my wife will be assisting him in every way she can.
As for the latest atrocity, MARIO LUNDY and Senator Mike (GST28) Vibert will not give me any answers to to my questions and the headmaster is now trying to tell me the "policy" that states I do not have the right to know the identity of my sons attackers, is actually a "data protection" law. More of that story when I have time to collate all the e-mail correspondance and put them together to be able to tell the story simply.
As my regular reader(s) will be aware I am embarking on a "news Blog". I have, not only the camera, the microphone, a cameraman, an assortment of consultants come researches, but the assurance from certain politicians they will give me an interview!!
Unfortunately Senator Mike (GST28) Vibert is not one of those politicians. I tried extremely hard to get an interview from him at the Senatorial nomination meeting the other night, but as you will see (soon I hope) he was very reluctant to agree to an interview. Indeed I believe he has inherited a bit of a tagline as "a safe pair of hands" although I believe "a quick pair of feet" would be more apt.
I have been playing around with some of the footage I shot the other night. I have a very short peice to offer on here as a bit of a trial run. As my cameraman/editor is somewhat busy at the moment I have edited and shot this myself and simply can't wait to publish it.
Indeed I never realised I had such a "pricless" shot until I looked at the footage today.
Do you think he was pleased to see me? (17 seconds in)
Monday, 8 September 2008
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Twenty eight of our democratically elected, so called, "representitives" defied 19-20,000 signatory's the second biggest petition ever handed to the States of Jersey. Three of these democratically elected representitives are up for election in a couple of months time. They are Senator Mike (GST28) Vibert, Senator Paul (GST28) Routier and Senator Phillip (GST28) Ozouf.
I have on many of occasion been at pains to declare I know very little about "Journalism" so rather than attempt to say, I know what I'm talking about and our "Journalists" don't, I would like to share with you my confusion and questions.
Somebody at BBC Radio Jersey came up with the idea of holding a Talkback show on the subject of GST, whos idea was it? So now we know what the show is going to be about, who's job is it to invite the guests, or panel? and how on earth did they arrive at the decision to invite David Warr and Senator Len Norman? two people of the same view regarding GST, that's hardly going to be "informative" in a "fair and balanced" way.
When Christy Tucker (I think that's her name) Was asked why Vibert, Routier or Ozouf weren't on the panel, she said it was because she hadn't phoned any of them, The subject of the show was only agreed Friday which is her day off and she deserves a lie-in once a week. Surely she, or the BBC have an obligation to ensure informed and balanced information being broadcast before "a lie-in"
If she didn't have the time to invite any of the GST28 how come she found the time to invite Senator Norman and David Warr?, that is of course if it was her decision who to invite and why invite two people with the same view?
Vibert, Ozouf and Routier (in my opinion) should have been the first ports of call, they all voted for GST, so are "pro GST" they are all up for election so I'm sure be chomping at the bit to get some free publicicty, and I'm as equally sure would like to explain to the people who did vote for them why they voted the way they did. The second port of call would have been the likes of the JDA,Time4change, or any of the elected representives who voted against GST including Senator Norman That would have given the listeners a "balanced" panel.
So as cynical as it might sound, I believe there are two scenario's, no, make that three!
1) Eiether the BBC or Christy Tucker are completeley incompedent, have no idea how to get a fair and balanced topical debate together, surely they're not naive enough to believe the callers were going to "balance" the argument out against a panel who are anti GST?
2) The BBC or Christy Tucker are protecting the GST28 and the establishment, did ask some of the GST28 to be part of the panel, who didn't have the balls to attempt to defend the indefensible, so Christy came up with the idea of saying she didn't have time, or didn't think to phone any of them.
3) I have the wrong idea of "journalism" and our local media are doing a good job, it's just different to national and international journalism.
Sunday, 10 August 2008
I am in the process of creating an alternative media outlet via video which will (hopefully) be published on Youtube. I am currently learning where and how to download and save videos.
I intend on interviewing some of our most prominant figures, mostly politicians, but hopefully some of our most prominant "Journalists" also. I came across the video below and decided to use it as a trial run for my project.
Frank Harrison (GST 28) Walker will be remembered for many things on "his watch" and the interview below is one of them. Although the "press conference" that Senator Syvret "gate crashed" is another. I will try and find a copy of that and publish it also. In the meantime please enjoy this one, as cringe worthy and hide behind the couch worthy as it is.
I know it is an old one and everybody would have watched it already but it really does deserve to stay fresh in peoples minds and is a stark reminder of the Frank Walker prioryty's!
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Almost all of the "older generation" (and some younger) I have talked with, concerning child abuse, appear to have the same answer. That is all child abusers should be "castrated", put on the electric chair or hung. It is a very narrow minded point of view but typical of the generation who were bought up where children were to be seen and not heard and women were barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink.
The world, thankfully, has moved on from those days..................... or has it? Jersey is in the world spotlight at the moment for horrific, brutal and barbaric treatment of it's children. Children who are alledging they have been raped, tortured, and beaten by their "carers" in the States of Jersey. Some one hundred alleged victims have come forward, reliving their nightmares and tormented years in the slight glimmer of hope they just might get some justice, expose their abusers so they can't do any more harm to any other children.
So here we are in the 21st century Jersey, so far all these poor victims have had is the "Williamson report" (enough said) Frank Walker saying "not on my watch" the Baliff saying "the real criminals are outside journalists" and suspects, who the lead investigator believes has ample evidence to charge being released without charge by our "powers that be". Our health minister sacked for being their voice along with Simon Bellwood trying to be their voice and losing his job.
One of the most recent arrests involving HDLG was of a fairly young man who, if he is guilty, would have been abusing these children whilst he almost still was one himself. I believe this man spent most of his life in the Jersey "care" system. There is a good chance he has been brought up being raped, tortured and beaten by the very people who are supposed to "care" for him, mould his future and put him on the path of being a responsible, "educated" and succesfull contributer and member of society.
Now I am in no way condoning what he might have done to any child, but serious questions are raised, should he be castrated, hung, or electicuted............. should he be punished at all?
This could be a child who has grown up in a world that most of us couldn't even imagine exists. Subjected to such atrocity's one only ever reads about in books or watches in horror films on T.V. Has been battling inner demons his whole life, hates himself, has no self esteem and possibly believes the world he has been brought up in, is indeed, the real world.
To people fortunate enough to have grown up in a loving and caring family this might be incomprehendable.
Society demands comeuppence and punishment, perhaps more so the older generation. But what is more important? Having a society or goverment that is open, transparent where regulations are put in place and outside scrutiny is welcomed. Checks and balances are in place to ensure what has been allowed to happen can never happen again. Should it be the abuser that is put on trial or should it be the "care" system?
So far those who have been charged are what some might call "small fry" or "scapegoats", some of whom are indeed "victims of the system" they were unfortunate enough to grow up in. Nobody from "the establishment" Civil servants or ministers have been held to account for anything, to the best of my knowledge.
So rather than castrate, hang or electrocute some of these people maybe we could look at, what, (who) made them into these monsters, how was it allowed to go on undetected for so long, who covered it up? Are they to blame or is it the system? Do they deserve punishment or compassion?
It is my view the Jersey Goverment created these monsters, and possibly still are creating them. Is it the monster that should be slayed or is it the creator?
I would like to add, when using the word "monster" it is not meant literally or defamatory.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
I am writing to you as a very concerned parent.
This evening I was contacted by my son, my nephew, my neice and one of their friends.
They had gone for a swim at Havre Des Pas bathing pool. I instructed them to telephone me when the tide reached the pool so I could go and keep an eye on them due to the water being a bit choppy, a SSW force 4
They telephoned me as promised but to inform me, also, they had been told they were not allowed to remain there because there was a private party being held.
I subsequently went down there where I was confronted by 2 bouncers who informed me I was not allowed to go to the pool area due to a private party being held and where the children were situated, waiting for me to arrive and too scared to go back in the water, in case they got into troulbe, so were freezing cold
Now I could be very much mistaken but I believed Havre Des Pas bathing area was publicly owned. I was then confronted by the manager who told me the area is leased to him by Education Sport and Culture, so therefore he owns it. Again I could be mistaken but I don't believe that makes him the owner, but thought it wise not to get into an argument with him and his 2 bouncers who were somewhat intimidating.
Could you please explain to me, so as I can explain to the children, if the information given to them and me was correct?
The information given to me was the manager is the owner, if there is a private party being held children are not allowed to be in the pool or the steps adjoining the pool.
I should like to add the children were very upset and still truly believe (as I do) they have every right to be in the pool and would be very upset to discover they are wrong.
Or is it the case that SPORT and CULTURE is only permitted when there is not a Jersey telecom corporate function taking place?
I think it is very important to set the record straight as to what the childrens rights are. Do they have the right to enjoy this publicly owned property, paid for by tax payers (I believe) or do they have no right to be there when a corporate function is being held?
If it is the latter which would mean SPORT and CULTURE is only accessible as long as it doesn't interfere with corporate functions, could you please let me know the best way to explain this to the children?
Thank you for raising this issue with me.
I have received reports from my officers and also from the person who has the Licence agreement to rent the catering facility at Havre des Pas pool.
You are correct in suggesting that Havre des Pas Pool is a public facility. During the months from end of May until end of September the Education Sport and Culture department provides Life Guard cover between 9am and 6pm each day. During this time the facilities are open to the public. The cafe is operated by Empire Catering . After 6 pm Empire Catering are able to use the Cafe and toilets for Private functions. This is done by agreement with Officers from ESC who are aware of the times that this will happen.
At all times members of the public are able to access the pool in order to swim but the toilets and changing facilities will not be open for public use after 6 pm when the life guards finish. On occasions when the facility is busy the Life Guard cover is extended beyond 6pm.
I can confirm that members of the public are able to access the swimming pool at all times. The Manager is not the owner of the pool but he does have the concession to the cafe and use of the toilets when a private function is being held. These functions are by agreement when the after the pool has closed at 6pm.
Senator M.E. Vibert
I am very saddened to see you appear to have completely ignored the the core substance of my e-mail.
That is the children were "very upset" being told by "bouncers" they are not allowed in the POOL. They were never told they weren't allowed in the changing rooms or the toilets, they were told to get out of the POOL.
Subsequently I was told I was not allowed to go on any of the premises because there was a private function being held, by a man claiming to be the owner and two bouncers.
"The core substance" that appears to have completely escaped you is "the children were upset", not by being told they are not allowed in the toilets or changing room after 6.p.m. but by being ejected from the pool by 2 bouncers and the "owner".
So if you are saying the "owner" and the two bouncers were wrong for ejecting them and they ARE allowed to use this public facility and the "owner" isn't the "owner. Might I suggest a written apology from either yourself, the "owner" and the two bouncers to the children? as it might go some way in restoring some faith in the children regarding the way our island is being run. Further more It will give the children a degree of satisfaction to know they were right to believe the pool belongs to the public and they have every right to be there.
It sounds like the bouncers and the "owner" have faced no discaplinary action from you or your department and you and your department don't appear too bothered by the affect this would have had on the young children "very upset".
Some kind of apology or recognition shouldn't be too much to ask, and hopefully some kind of assurance this sort of behaviour will not happen again?
The version of the events reported by the concession holder differed materially from your version.
In my previous e-mail I made clear the situation relating to use of the pool and will expect the concession holder to adhere to this agreement and, if, any breaches of this agreement are complained of, and accepted or proved, they will be dealt with by my department.
I always regret if any young children are upset and I sincerely hope the behaviour of everyone concerned had the children's best interests as their foremost consideration.
So am I to tell the children they are being called liars along with myself (1)?
Could you please explain to me and the children, as you don't see my original e-mail as any sort of complaint, just exactly what you do see it as? (2)
Could you explain to the children how the "owner's" and bouncers version of events differ from theirs? (3)
These children were treated apallingly and wrongly and they seek no more than an apology(4) If you would like I will get them to document the events for you (as I have) as it appears either the children are lying or the "owner" and bouncers are (5)
I am at a loss as to what to tell them, do I say Senator Vibert doesn't believe them (6)? do I say Senator Vibert is not interested in finding out the truth (7)? These people can eject you from the pool wrongly and not have to answer for it (8)?
You see I have to try and make some sense of this to 13 and 14 year old children who demand answers, could you please give them some (9)?
You will notice numbers one to nine, these are either questions or concerns myself and the children would like you to address individually. I (we) hope you will give them that respect.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
It has been a very sad day in our political history. I will re produce below an e-mail I sent to my 3 "representatives where I asked them how many Parishoners they had been in touch with before making this HISTORIC vote for them and how I would like them to vote.
I know this is probably a little late to be asking but I have been very busy with other matters.
I'm not sure how many parishoners you have sought to get their feelings on tomorrow's, possible "historic" vote of no confidence in our council of ministers and the not so historic vote of censure on cheif minister Frank Walker?
I am taking the advice from a few politicians who are encouraging the electorate to engage with their Parish deputy's and Connetables.
I would like to let you know how I would like you all to vote, and how I would be voting myself if it wasn't left to my elected "representatives" Which incidentally is the same way everybody I have spoken to (which is possibly in the hundreds) would vote.
I would like you (as my representatives) to vote "pour" on both propositions. For the avoidance of doubt I would like you to support both propositions.
I would like to make a prediction, my prediction is Deputy Gorst will vote "CONTRE" Connetable Gray will vote "CONTRE" and Deputy Baudains will vote "POUR".
I have taken a little time to study your voting records and as it stands Deputy Baudains appears to be in touch with the electorate, and has represented me and the majority with his votes, so credit where it is due and please don't prove me wrong tomorrow.
Connetable Gray has a bit of a mixed record but does seem to be fearful of sticking his neck out.
Deputy Gorst appears to establishment through, and through, and his votes in no way reflect the vast majority of the people he is supposed to be representing.
I hope you feel inspired a parishoner is showing an interest in our "Democratic" proccess and carry the will of your electorate when voting tomorrow.