Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Silent Peaceful March.

Silent Peaceful March

On April the 25th 2009 at 12 noon there is to be a silent and peaceful march from Peoples Park to the Royal Square. The march will be in support and acknowledgement of victims of child abuse past and present across the world.

On October the 21st 1996 up to 300,000 Belgian citizens took to the streets wearing white ribbons and arm bands as a symbol of hope which became known as “The White March”. It was not only a march for hope but also a silent peaceful protest against their governments handling of the of the Marc Dutroux case which bears many similarity’s, not only to the way our government has handled the child abuse scandal that has hit Jersey, but the way child abuse is handled by some governments across the world.

We would like the Jersey White March to be non political or critical of our government or police investigation. We believe it will be an opportunity to show abuse survivors and the rest of the world that the good people of Jersey do not condone abuse of any human being - child or otherwise. Abuse survivors, across the globe, have had theirs and their family’s lives torn apart, wrecked, and destroyed, not only by the heinous abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abusers but the wall of silence that inevitably surrounds the taboo subject of paedophilia and child abuse.

This March has the support of the Care Leavers Association (CLA) and the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) Please give this march and all abuse survivors your support and show the world the good people of Jersey DO care. We would ask if you are able to attend the march that you wear something white, a symbol of “hope”If you are a Blogger and support abuse victims around the world, please copy and paste this onto your Blog until the day of the march, SATURDAY 25th OF APRIL 2009 12.p.m.

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

My log 14th April - 16th April 2008

Monday 14th April

Was told when I see **** it would have to be supervised. Not allowed to see him on my own.
16.30 **** attended my home, gave me the ‘initial assessment reports’ on (3 of my children – not the other 2).

Upon reading these reports a number of mistakes have been noticed.

Initial assessment totally irrelevant as it does not address the issue and appears to be centered around myself.
Wrong children’s name, ages etc.

Tuesday 15th April

No contact from Social Services.
Allowed two hours unsupervised contact with my husband and (4 children) and myself. Had permission from social worker to go out to dinner altogether.

Saw my kidnapped son round the back of home from the kitchen window at about 18.15 then he came round to the front door. He wanted to be able to come in but I had to tell him that I could not speak to him and that he could not come in as I had been told that I could not see him unsupervised. He left the house visibly upset as was the whole family.

Returning from ‘dinner’ all the children were inconsolable from having to leave their dad who could not come home with them due to his bail conditions. This is happening on a daily basis and is having an extremely detrimental effect on the whole family unit. I hope the Social Services can justify their draconian actions which will in my opinion have far reaching consequences into the future.

Complaint to manager **** at social services from my mother about the treatment of myself by the social services in my advanced state of pregnancy. My mother was left with the impression that they could not care less.

Wednesday 16th April

10.00 Doctor’s appointment. To check on my health and the health of my unborn child as a result of the extreme stress that I have been put under by the social services.

Dr **** phoned me back to explain his conversation that had taken place with (come in No 1, you’re sacked). I took notes from the phone call:-

My doctor’s first words to me were ‘I see what you are up against’. That he felt no empathy from her, she is on a mission and had nothing positive to say about my husband and I. He tried to tell her that he believed that the children were at no risk from us however she told him that she felt that there was a very important issue to investigate. He tried to discuss the situation with her but he did not get anywhere. He said I needed to have my husband home as in my advanced state of pregnancy I needed support. He was told ‘her daughter can help her‘, to which Doctor **** replied ‘a 15 year old is hardly any help and why should she take on the role of a parent’.

‘Come in No 1, you’re sacked’ totally dismissed the offer of a social and medical report on our family by Dr ****.

This whole experience leaves you feeling like you could actually get a response from a brick wall, in fact a conversation, and also complete the task of getting blood out of a stone in comparison to getting an ounce of common sense out of a social worker, perhaps they should also get a diploma in listening skills, it should be part of their job, unfortunately it isn't.

Well over a year on and nothing has improved in that department, just have their bizarre behaviour escalating. They have this excellent technique they currently use - they send you letters saying you are not co-operating with them, you reply asking questions, they totally ignore your correspondance, write you another letter saying exactly the same as the other, and so it carries on...... I can only assume they only pop their letters in the file to look good and lose mine, so I' ve even started emailing as well, still the same.

A few posts ago I mentioned the costs so far - a little update on that one - a couple of days after the post, we had a letter from one incompetent law firm, stating that even though they did not agree with us they were dropping around £750.00 off the bill. So I'll raise a toast for incompetence - the fantastic legal aid system!

Monday, 6 April 2009

Emails to and from James Reed

As you will see from the email exchange below, James Reed has no wish to reassure parents that their children are in safe hands. Also note that he is unable to answer the last question which was - how come the national press can answer questions that he can't, or won't?

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 15 March 2009 00:59
To: James Reed
Subject: Question

Dear James Reed,

Please could you read the following two extracts and explain to me why you have been unable to answer a fellow States Member truthfully?

Quote from Voice for Children blog - 14th March 2009:

Deputy M. Tadier of St Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture-

“Can the Minister inform the Assembly whether any senior officers in the Education, Sport and Culture Department are subject to Police investigations pertaining to child abuse and, if so, whether such investigations have been terminated?”

The question never got asked in the States due to question time running over. However Deputy James Reed submitted a written "answer" and here it is!

SirAt present I am unable to either confirm or deny whether I have received or am aware of any disclosures pertaining to any police investigations in relation to any employees at Education Sport and Culture.Police investigations are confidential until such time as a decision is made whether or not to charge an individual. In certain circumstances the Police may decide it is appropriate to make a disclosure to an employer about an investigation however such a disclosure is classed as confidential and the employer would not be able to disclose this information to another party.As a result of the above, I am unable to comment further on this matter.

Quote from article in the Guardian newspaper 14th March 2009:

Like Krichefski, Tilbrook was dead, as were others accused, including Jim Thomson, the superintendent of Haut de la Garenne in 1979, who was repeatedly accused of abuse. It was the living that presented Harper's team with the knottiest problems. The list of those who had worked at the homes included the serving education director, Tom McKeon, and his deputy, Mario Lundy. Both were interviewed by police earlier this year; both vigorously deny any wrongdoing.

I look forward to your prompt reply.
Yours Faithfully,

Subject: RE: Question
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:45:33 +0000

Dear I refute any such suggestion that I didn't answer the question truthfully and would like to know how you have come to conclude otherwise. My answer was as clear and unabiguous as possible and I stand by every word. yours James.

James Reed Deputy of St. Ouen Minister of Education, Sport & Culture direct dial: +44 (0)1534 449437 email: j.reed@gov.je www.gov.je

To: j.reed@gov.je
Subject: RE: Question
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:14:47 +0000

Dear James Reed,

Thank you for your prompt reply. Could you please then explain why, if this information is confidential, the Guardian (readership 1.2 million) named the education director? Surely the Newspaper's lawyers would have checked the legalities? I have four children in the education system and i am becoming increasingly concerned with this lack of transparency. Myself and the many thousands of ordinary Jersey residents deserve better than this, as do our children. In light of the information now being in the public domain, i ask you, are any senior officers in the education, sport, and culture department subject to police investigations pertaining to child abuse?

Yours Faithfully,

To: j.reed@gov.je
Subject: FW: Question
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:41:31 +0000

Dear James Reed, It is now a week since I emailed you last, unfortunately it appears you may have accidentally lost it, so I have forwarded it to you below. It is a simple answer that is required. Thank you.

Yours Faithfully,

Sent: 01 April 2009 23:53
To: James Reed
Subject: FW: Question

Dear Deputy James Reed,
I would like to draw your attention to the following extract from the States of Jersey code of conduct guidelines, and once again ask you for an answer to my question.

Yours Faithfully

5 Maintaining the integrity of the States

Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute.

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.

Subject: RE: Question
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:43:17 +0100

I have nothing further to add to my original response which I have copied below. yours James Reed.

SirAt present I am unable to either confirm or deny whether I have received or am aware of any disclosures pertaining to any police investigations in relation to any employees at Education Sport and Culture.Police investigations are confidential until such time as a decision is made whether or not to charge an individual. In certain circumstances the Police may decide it is appropriate to make a disclosure to an employer about an investigation however such a disclosure is classed as confidential and the employer would not be able to disclose this information to another party.As a result of the above, I am unable to comment further on this matter.

Now is it me or do we as citizens of Jersey have to turn to English newspaper for answers? I could give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he has not got any idea of what is going on, but then he is the Minister of Education and should know who is working for him that may pose a real danger to our children.

Friday, 3 April 2009

Happy Anniversary

It is without celebration that this day passes. A year ago tonight was when Social Services invaded our lives, not to help but to destroy a family. A year ago tonight somebody somewhere decided that I was not allowed to look after two of my sons, without even the courtesy of a visit to my home. No-one has admitted who made this decision, does anyone care? One week it took to be allowed to have one son back home, my other son has been earmarked for a full care order. We have always wanted him home, it was not my choice for him to be taken away in the first place - I have begged and pleaded for him to be returned home from day one.

A year on and all they have done is fractured the family to a point that it is accepted that he will never be 'our' son again, get his school stuff together, get up in the morning, take him to cubs, youth club, swimming, kissing him goodnight, you know the normal day to day things. There was a point last year when I was sorting through some of his books, when I just sat there looking at them, thinking he's gone. It was a point I imagine similar to grieving after a bereavement, a realisation that he is gone and whatever happens now the child we knew has become older, and less compliant as a result of being allowed to grow up too fast by the lack of care he is now being given. We will never have that time back and I look forward to the day that they will have to justify to my son why they destroyed a 'mother-son' relationship, and would not let him return home to a family that wants him.

Perhaps they are now going to use the same phrase as with Karen Huchet, 'an irretrievable breakdown in relationships' as the excuse for their quest of power over my son. As I have said previously, they do have targets to reach to make sure that their jobs are safe for life, forget the children.

Incidently which in fact makes all the more bizarre the advocate has actually stood up in Court and has said to the judge that it is correct I have done nothing wrong. So therefore it must be official that Social Services can in fact take your children unlawfully, keep them away from you, refuse to let you see them (unless it's under their terms, which again I've tried, but each time the arrangement has been stopped by social services - phonecalls etc) and eventually never plan to return them home. I have in writing that they do not plan to return him home........ ever.