Thursday, 24 July 2008

Monster or creater?

Whilst having numorous discussions, sometimes very heated, with people of the older generation, certain issues come to light and many questions.

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

SENATOR MIKE (GST 28) VIBERT. A Minister for children?

The e-mails below are pretty self explanatory really. What I read from them is Senator Mike (GST 28) Vibert has complete and utter disregard for our children.

This is a prime example as to how, not only civil servants and ministers can do what they please to our children without having to answer for it, but now it appears bouncers and cafe owners can do what they like to them knowing good old Mike (gst 28) Vibert will cover their backs.

We are now living in an age were class A drugs are readily, easily and cheaply accessable by young teenagers, along with alcohol and "recreational" drugs. We have teenagers causing trouble in town and around housing estates. Some high on drugs, some drunk on alcohol and some just plane board.

Here (below) we have some extremely well behaved teenagers who choose to spend their recreational time swimming in what they believe to be a public owned area, these particular children are also members of Karate schools, Island Rugby teams, Island atheletics and are a real credit to their parents.

They are absolutely horrified by the way they have been treated by a couple of bouncers and a cafe "owner" I've not yet had the heart to inform them of Senator Mike (GST 28) Viberts total refusal to deal with them with any kind of respect and seemingly offers anybody to treat our kids any way they see fit.

Is there any wonder some of our children go off the rails? Is there any wonder the Williamson report reccommended a minister for children? Senator Mike (GST 28) Vibert appears to treat our children with utter contempt. Unfortunately he is our minister for Education Sport and Culture. Judging by the e-mails below he would be better suited as minister for Corporate business functions.

If the children can't get any answers from him, where can they get them? This man has charge of all your children, he is up for election later on this year. If he gets voted back in he'll still have charge over our children. You owe it to yourselves and the children to make sure that doesn't happen.

Do you know the ironic thing about this? one of the guests at this private function told me it was a Jersey Telecom party, a publicly owned company so not only did the kids have the right to be at the pool they probably had a right to be at the bloody party!!!


Dear Mr.Vibert.

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?


Dear voiceforchildren.

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.

Yours sincerely

Senator M.E. Vibert

Dear Mr.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?

Regards. voiceforchildren.

Dear voiceforchildren,

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.

Yours sincerely

Dear Mr.Vibert.

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.

Regards. voiceforchildren.

Dear voiceforchildren

You have had my reply. I deeply regret if the children were upset.Yours sincerelySenator M.E.Vibert Senator M.E.Vibert Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

Wednesday, 9 July 2008


Just a swift blog.
I have posted recently this blog is not much of a "voice for children" and this is for reasons I can not go into.
However that statement is somewhat incorrect. The very purpose of this blogsite is for my children and everybody elses children who are going to have to grow up under the same dictatorship as us unless I and others do something now to pave the way to a "Democratic" society for them to live in.
I have posted elsewhere before, one of my fears is when my children get older and ask me howcome the people who run the island were allowed to destroy it and it's beauty? why don't we have any rights? howcome civil servants can do as they please to us and never have to answer for it? howcome Ministers can do what they want to us and never have to answer for it? is that what it was like in your day? and then the dreaded one WHAT DID YOU DO ABOUT IT?
Now I can either sit back and say "well nothing really it's just the way things were, (or are) we just get shat all over and accept it". Or I could say "I tried the best I could to make sure you don't have to live under the constant threat and fear of speaking out like I did" "At great risk to myself I spoke out against our dictatorship, I tried to make them accountable by exposing them to the world over the internet" Most impotantly I VOTED I tried to make a difference.
In twenty or thirty years time, all the horrendous stuff that might be happening to our children and being covered up will come to light and you know what the party line will be? "well this is all historic and it wasn't on my watch" and so it goes on history repeating itself.
Well guess what Frank? The day I became a father I was given a lifelong obligation to protect my children. To put their needs before my own, to make sure they have a good future and to keep them out of harms way. You and your council of ministers, I consider to be "harms way"
Am I willing to stand by and allow all this to happen without doing my upmost to prevent it? not on my watch Frank, not on my watch!!

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 did bump into Deputy Baudains and Connetable Gray Monday night, the night before the debate was due to start on this HISTORIC vote of no confidence in our council of ministers.

I asked them how they intended to vote. True to form Connetable Gray said he didn't know and will make his mind up on the day.................yes that old chestnut!!

Deputy Baudains told me straight on how he intended to vote, that was he intended to vote "POUR" on the vote of no confidence against the council of ministers and probably "CONTRE" to the vote of censure on Big Frank. I must give Deputy Baudains credit where it is due, he is a straight talking man and doesn't appear to be scared of standing up to be counted and possibly more often than not votes in line with the electorate.

Deputy Ian (GST 28) Gorst on the other hand appeared to do everything he could to avoid me on this monday night and indeed made a good job of it. All concerned were at a hustings for the procurer de bien public. Ian (GST 28 ) Gorst arrived late and left early so there was no chance of me engaging with him. So had no idea as to which way he was going to vote.....yeah right!!

Those of you who have read my last entry, under the heading "Democracy" will know I have asked Deputy Ian (GST 28) Gorst to come on here and engage with the electorate and possibly educate us. Thus far he has ignored my invitation. Indeed he has completely ignored (as he so often does) the e-mail below. He didn't even send me one back saying "private and confidental for addressee only"

In the e-mail below I have made a couple of predictions, these predictions and the e-mail were sent before I bumped into my said representatives that evening.

I know I predicted correctly on the no confidence vote, but haven't seen the vote of censure results yet, but I don't think I'm in for any suprises!

Like I said at the beggining of this post, it is a very sad day in Jerseys political history. We now know without a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of people we voted to represent us, do nothing of the sort and are not afraid of the consequences at the ballot box.

We do have 8 courages men and women who are not afraid to do what they were put there to do represent the people who put them there!!! they are.

Senator Stuart Syvret

Deputy Alan Breckon

Deputy Frederick John Hill B.E.M.

Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains

Deputy Roy George Le Herissier

Deputy Judith Ann Martin

Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

Deputy Shona Pitman

e-mail to my "representatives"

Dear sirs.

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.