Senator Sam Mezec
Following the fall-out of the latest DAMMING REPORT into Jersey's children's Services, the 8 commitment pledge to children (below) and the subsequent PRESS CONFERENCES.VFC was granted an interview with Jersey's first appointed Childrens' Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, where we published part 1 of the interview HERE.
Below is part two (a direct continuation of part 1) of this exclusive and in-depth interview where we discuss, among much more, "The Jersey Way" and how is it possible that six Health and Social Services employees were apparently suspended from duty as a result of evidence given to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. They were allegedly investigated and subsequently all six found to have no case to answer and returned to work? All six completely innocent and returned to work? Is this "The Jersey Way" in action?
We also discuss the word "historic" when used in the context of Child Abuse. Regular readers might recall back in January 2012 we published a Guest Posting from Survivor/Abusee TOM PERRY. Tom explained to us why the term "historic" is only ever used (predominantly by MSM) in the context of Child Abuse.
To quote Tom (from the Guest Posting above):
"Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the ‘historic’ word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not? Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm, drug smuggling, or assault, and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse?
For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime they wish would vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.
Its child abuse."
The MSM in Jersey still continue to use this offensive (to Survivors) word "historic" as do many others who want to minimise the offence and those who don't understand how harmful it can be to Survivors. We are (very) pleased to announce that the Childrens' Minister has agreed to consign that word to "history" and when referring to Child Abuse in the past context he has agreed to use the term "non recent" and will be instructing his staff to do likewise.
The term "non recent" is suggested by The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) as part of its MEDIA GUIDELINES.
We hope that if the Minister, and the so-called, "Child Care experts" on the island use the term "non recent" it could be more difficult for the MSM to continue its offending. This would be a huge step forward and we thank the Minister for his commitment on this.
Also discussed is the pledge to children:
- We will listen directly to children and young people and involve them in how we design, deliver and review our services
- We will provide integrated support for families that need extra help caring for their children
- We will provide all children in our care with access to a safe, loving, secure home environment
- We will expand, join up and target our early help offer to ensure that children and young people get the support they need when they need it, to prevent risk and issues from escalating
- We will recruit and retain a child-centred, stable, highly professional workforce
- We will make it easier for data and insight across organisations to be shared so that, when assessing how best to meet their needs, we look at children’s and young people’s lives as a whole
- We will ensure that sufficient funding is available to be effective and that any regulatory and legislative changes needed will be progressed swiftly
- We will set and publish clear standards and we will be held publicly to account for achieving them.
Is it worth the paper it is written on or is it a determined commitment by the Minister to bring people onboard and show the children of today that they do have worth?
All StatesMembers and key workers are being asked to sign this pledge and we are told we will be kept updated online (Twitter and States website) as to who has or hasn't signed it.
Part 1 of our interview can be viewed HERE.
Oh come on Sam, pledge this, pledge that, just get on with the frigging job and stop pussy footing around.
ReplyDeleteAction, no more words, and what about the Backbench statement today about the written pledges being forced upon them when they have no control over Minister actions, they have a point haven't they?
same old bullshit! pledge this pledge that blah blah do you really think signing up to whatever crap you come up with will stop it happening? Council of Munsters with Eddie as mouthpiece, pledge, discussions,signed up,principles, high level aspiration, wriggle room, child focused,cultural, healthy,these and other soundbites are available every time one of these wallies opens its mouth!
ReplyDeletethis is a journey ? what the hell was this tripe about! why do we give these numpties the time of day
for goodness sake there are enough communities on this Island to put up candidates against them we just need people to get of their butts and get the parasites out!
What's the Children's Minister going to do about the surge in sexual predators caught trying to groom kids online. What about the FOI request that showed over 70 perverts have been caught with indecent images in the past decade with one old pedo reported in the Bailwick Express yesterday for having over 8,000 images of boys? No mention of anything in real time, its all pledge pledge pledge. The pedo's must be laughing.
ReplyDeleteAs a good few people know pledges like these, but often far stronger, were in place years ago. The thing is that unless we tackle the problems at the very top, starting with the Crown Officers they remain just words and good intentions.
ReplyDeleteThis a great blog but beginning to feel like far too much Mezec coverage for how little he has yet achieved. What about an interview with Le Fondre the alleged Chief Minister? Will he talk to anyone outside the fake news MSM?
ReplyDeleteThe Sam coverage has gone too far because at the moment its all vague commitments, and where are the Reform Jersey propositions from their Manifesto back in May?
DeleteThought there would be several logged by now.
Instead Sam's 'pledged' to do things, which means jack, and is this on top of telling everybody their lives would be better under the Reform Jersey Party during the elections?
You reap what you sow as they say.
Have interviewed Chief Minister Le Fondre today and hope to publish tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteLook forward to that. Hopefully he will tackle the Dual role and electoral monitoring issues Sam Mezec ducks responsibility for.
DeleteAnd I’ll be live on BBC Radio Jersey at 12:30pm today, where I’ll be ducking my responsibility on the issue of the dual role, by calling for the dual role to be ended upon the resignation of William Bailhache.
Delete....upon the resignation of William Bailhache this afternoon and his prosecution next week?
DeleteSenator Kristina Moore has already beaten you to it.
DeleteSaid the role should be abolished on BBC Radio Jersey this morning.
@Sam ".....by calling for the dual role to be ended upon the resignation of William Bailhache." Why wait till then. We should be doing it right now. Calling for it in a Radio interview is one thing, lodging a proposition is another.
DeleteSam I have the utmost respect for you and most of what you do, but make use of the party around you and get someone to lodge a proposition sooner if you don't have the time yourself. Lets get this ball rolling.
JRCbean
The practical work to end the dual role of the Baillif cannot be done over night. It requires primary legislation to be changed, which will take up law drafting time, will need two debates on the floor of the Assembly (one in principle debate and one of the substantive legislation) and will then need to be signed off by the Privy Council. Even if it was made a top priority, it would still take months.
DeleteWhen I say "upon the resignation of Bailhache" I mean we should start the process now so that all of that ground work for the transition is ready come October next year.
I had a very (and I mean very) brief chat with the chairman of PPC yesterday just after the news came out, where I suggested to him that PPC bring the proposition. I have just submitted a question to ask him at the next States sitting to get him to publicly commit to that action. If the answer is anything less than a clear commitment, I will recommend that the party does it instead.
Thank you Sam for your detailed response. I realize of course that it takes time to effect such changes. The important thing is that now I can see a clear plan of action so thank you for that, and for the commitment to push this issue.
DeleteJRCbean
As WB retiring next year the "right" moment for change?
ReplyDeleteWill someone demand to know why he made up, fabricated 'good reports' that did not exist about Mr K before he goes, Knighthood intact? No.
DeleteThe case in POINT.
DeleteSo why are all the Establishment big wigs bowing out now? Me thinks it is the looming Brexit iceberg when HMS Jersey Tax Haven is going to be sunk.
ReplyDeleteSo its down to Roy Le Herissier today on BBC radio Jersey to remind us that the Care Inquiry wanted the Bailiff removed from the States but the Children's Minister Sam Mezec did not even mention it and he does not do so in his interview here either. And his boss CM Le Fondre was also on the same radio prog defending the status quo too and he was predictably supported by Senator Ferguson.
ReplyDeleteOf course Sam Mezec called for separation of the Bailiff from his Speaker role as did Senator K Moore - but NOT in the name of protecting children so it is obvious that the care of children is slipping down the priority pole very rapidly.
Of course the rot that is the "Jersey Way" is structured around the office of Bailiff and the other non-elected Crown Officers and the failures in government and administration run throughout the system which Charlie Parker has hopefully been recruited to deal with. The problem is not just about the well-being of children but that is an area that has been fully flagged-up and investigated and is already costing £millions in compensation to those most neglected.
I hope your interview with CM Le Fondre addresses this issue because his lack of interest in reform as expressed on the radio today is nothing short of tearing up the Care Inquiry report.
To be fair Sam could only answer the questions that were put to him on the radio in the very short time he was allowed. I know he did want to discuss recommendation 7 of the Care Inquiry (The Jersey Way/Bailiff) but wasn't given the opportunity.
DeleteMeant to say that although I interviewed the Chief Minister yesterday lunchtime (before it was announced that WB was retiring) I did quiz him on the role of the Bailiff in the context of the Care Inquiry's recommendation(s).
DeleteMike, when you say things like "so it is obvious that the care of children is slipping down the priority pole very rapidly" in a week where I've talked about almost nothing else, it really is difficult to take you seriously.
DeleteVFC may I raise a few issues with Senator Mezec through your invaluable independent media?
DeleteSenator Mezec, I in common with many other Jersey child abuse survivors was persuaded to settle for a public inquiry instead of our attackers and the criminals who covered up for them facing justice.
The inquiry ended up costing tax payers about £25 million.
But where is the product of that money? The facts, evidence and archive of experiences and testimony which was published? It was taken down, 'de-published' as some have said, during the middle of the summer break so most will not have been aware of the secrecy being applied to what was supposed to be 'the answer' to the Jersey child abuse nightmare.
The excuses by the establishment for this unprecedented act were clearly lies. Don't try lying to child abuse survivors. We see everything now. It is claimed that there were some 'data protection issues', and that the archive of the public inquiry needed 'cataloguing'. Even if those excuses were true (which they're not) correcting a few data protection issues, and cataloguing would take a few weeks. But the establishment has said they won't make the archive of the public inquiry public again for 1 and a half years.
Come on? This is a disgrace. We're not fools. We see why this has been done. Because it makes it easier for the lawyers on both sides to stitch up the survivors now they've seen how we were betrayed by the States compensation scheme, we were given peanuts compared to the 2 victims seeking £190 million. We too had our lives destroyed. We too need lifelong support, therapy and care (those of us still alive).
What about Les Chenes victims? Now it's 10 years overdue that lawyer has suddenly decided to get tough on our behalf. But how can we be clear about what the evidence shows, and understand things, see how much our experiences were shared by others, see how much of a deliberate cover up it all was, and instruct our lawyers accordingly, if the evidence archive of the COI is now taken down? How can any of us writing our books be expected to do that properly when the evidence has been made secret by the States?
The secrecy is just outrageous. I know from speaking with other survivors that unless the evidence is put back, we will be denouncing the public inquiry process. Like many have said here, it will be a fake.
Senator Mezec, there is no credible reason for making secret the archive of the public inquiry a year after it was completed. We won't be treated like fools anymore. We know the reason the public inquiry archive has been taken down is to disadvantage and handicap us in our continuing battle for justice. Applying secrecy to the material of the public inquiry is a direct attack on Jersey abuse victims, and a dangerous and threatening step against vulnerable children today. All of that evidence needs to remain public to deter child abusers and deter those who cover up for child abusers.
Senator Mezec will you demand the immediate restoration of the public inquiry archive?
Thank you.
Very important question there. VFC will you ensure Sam Mezec is made aware of that question and give an answer?
DeleteIndeed they are very important questions and I am sure Sam is aware of them.
DeleteI’m just heading out of the Island for a couple of days, but will give a proper answer on Sunday when I’m back.
DeleteThe reasons given for the removal of information from the IJCI website are accurate. Whilst archiving all of the documents, they discovered that there was inconsistent redacting methods used, which meant that it could be possible to compare two versions of the same document submitted and cross reference it to another source to discover what was redacted. This meant there was a chance that identities could be revealed which ought to stay confidential (including of victims and survivors). There is no evidence that anyone had taken advantage of this flaw though.
DeleteAll of the information will be put back in the public domain once it is fixed and this is due to start happening soon. If it was simple enough to have taken a few weeks, then it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
As for the victims from Les Chenes, the government has had to take legal advice to establish what the best way of ensuring they are supported is, and these proposals will come to the Council of Ministers soon, to hopefully be implemented before the end of the year. It is sad and disappointing that it has taken so long, and they do not deserve to have waited for so long, but unfortunately it wasn't quite as simple as just re-opening the previous compensation scheme.
I believe you are sincere Senator Mezec, and have reported honestly what you have been told. However, what you have been told are lies. In spite of everything there are still some brave whistleblowers who know of events re Jersey and I know the truth from reliable sources. And if I may respectfully say so, you exhibit some significant naivety in swallowing what you have been fed. For example, simply reflect on the fact this action of the Jersey authorities is without public administration precedent in modern British history. The removal from publication of the archive of a public inquiry. This has never been done before. In the case of any British public inquiry. So let us deal with what is known from appropriate sources. The Jersey establishment has at known motivations (in addition to unknown motivations) in depublishing the public inquiry. 1stly, advice and opinion has circulated in expert circles in London for many months that the Jersey public inquiry had no credibility, for multiple grounds, and could not be successfully defended should it and the material generated, or any UK citing thereof, come under the scrutiny of any legitimate judicial tribunal. (This is recognised to cause huge long term problems for the credibility/viability of IICSA and to place a huge hostage to fortune over the statement to the Commons made by then Home Secretary Theresa May when she excluded events involving Jersey from IICSA and justified that bizarre exclusion by naming 'the Oldham Review' and claiming its work would be sufficient to inform the IICSA process. It isn't.) 2ndly, the case of the 'Family x' 2 victims and the sums rightly being claimed for them have thrown the existing Jersey 'redress scheme' and the paltry sums issued under it into a harsh spotlight. Survivors who were previously conned into settling for, for example £11,000, are asking very serious questions and were examining the evidence archive closely. 3rdly, the very obvious question is now being asked by many observers given all that is known, 'why were there no prosecutions for all of the abuse, and for the criminal conduct engaged in in the cover ups in respect of the Les Chenes / Greenfields child abuse, and likewise, the dramatically evidenced Blanch Pierre child abuse? 4thly, given the clear catastrophic failure of Jersey's prosecution system, why did 'the Oldham Review', to use the term given to it by the now Prime Minister when Home Secretary, fail to carry out its legislative instruction to publicly inquire into the Jersey prosecution decisions, and instead pay a private businessman for an unscrutinised and unexamined 'opinion' that everything in the garden was rosy? (This is recognised as one of the most serious and indefensible flaws of the Jersey inquiry.) 6thly Why has it taken 12 years before either the Jersey authorities, or the survivors own lawyers, to start recognising the fact that the Les Chenes victims and others had an open and shut case against the Jersey authorities, and should be compensated and supported and helped? Do not underestimate the seriousness of this point. There are people who have needlessly suffered for a further decade, and a number of people who are now dead because of the harm and damage they suffered, who almost certainly would still be alive today if they had been rescued from their suffering promptly instead of some grudging recognition 12 years after the States of Jersey was stripped of any excuse for ignorance and of failure to act. 7thly all of the above equals 'panic' (scarcely disguised panic from what my sources say) and a desperate need for 'breathing space', for the Jersey & London authorities to give them time to try and think of a strategy to dig out of the hopeless mess they've put themselves in.
DeleteApologies for the delay in publishing our interview with the Chief Minister. Will be published tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteDid you ask him about the Electoral Monitoring body from the CPA and it's damning report?
DeleteUnfortunately not and am kicking myself as it was on my list. Part 1 of the interview can be viewed HERE.
DeleteSam, attacking Mike Dun you really are hard to take seriously. You sound like Baby Bailhache. What do they say? Yesterday's revolutionary quickly becomes today's Conservative with a big comfy office and a smidgen of power.
ReplyDelete