Senator apologises after devastating Varley Report on Jersey Care Service failings

Devastating report criticises Jersey care services

Health Minister apologises

Story ignored by island's other online media

The BBC reported on 17th June 2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-36532561) that children were left in harmful situations by a range of problems with Jersey care services, according to damning and disturbing reports seen by the BBC. The documents show that half of children assessed were not taken away from harmful situations in good time, Jersey's service "failed to consider" the needs of young people, and children left in the community received care below minimum standards in some cases, as recently as last year.

The 2015 report was commissioned by the then temporary head of children's services Jo Olsson and produced by former Ofsted inspector Mary Varley. Details only came out during the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry in April 2016, and were only released to the BBC some 4 months after a Freedom of Information request.

Mrs Varley's findings:

•     Poor practice; "basic building blocks" of management oversight were not in place
•     Failures to respond appropriately to allegations of physical and emotional abuse by three children
•     Half of the children sampled who were taken into care had experienced "significant" delays in being removed from situations where they were being harmed
•     A large proportion of children being harmed in the community - perhaps by their own family members - were still being let down as recently as 2015

The Jersey Care Leavers Association said the reports highlighted lessons that should have been learnt a long time ago.

Jersey's minister for health and social services, Senator Andrew Green, was interviewed live on BBC Radio at 7:11-7:19am on the 17th June, admitted the report was devastating and apologised - "We did, as a society, let the young people down".

"I have to apologise again to those from the past, I can't undo it, I'm really sorry."

This blogger wonders why a reputable report finds such failings, the current Health Minister apologises, but the rest of the media turns a blind eye and no-one seems to be talking about it... and yet if you turn the clock back to 2007 you may recall the Health Minister of the time, poll-topping Senator Stuart Syvret, was hounded out of office for exposing exactly the same kind of findings concerning the failings of Jersey's care services! When will the island ever wake up and admit that Senator Syvret was correct? A highly intelligent, articulate and capable man, genuinely caring and not out to feather his own nest, in a position of power with an ear to the ground hearing exactly what was going on, and STILL the establishment and local trolls seek to discredit him for trying to bring serious problems to the fore and address them? Difficult not to despair, sometimes :(




In the other media, there is still nothing online from the JEP, so that, as usual, we're keeping this to ourselves and not washing our dirty linen in public (i.e. covering it up).
ITV Channel Islands mentioned the initial story the week earlier http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-06-07/childrens-services-do-not-fully-understand-needs-of-vulnerable-jersey-youngsters/
and Channel 103 too http://www.channel103.com/care-issues-for-vulnerable-children/

The JEP did cover the story in print, after the BBC's initial story the week before the minister's apology  :

.. but nothing online, and will there be any mention of the apology?

Department of Expensive Cock-Ups

How often does a States department have to change its name?

States Main Roads Department
Department of Public Buildings and Works
Public Works (Dept)
Public Services
Transport and Technical Services
Department for Infrastructure

I feel I really don't have to say any more!

Maison de Ville in the sloppy news

More sloppy reporting again - the Maison de Ville care home is to close  - but where is it? Would it kill them to actually say, for those of us who may be hazy on such things?

Does the basic journalism of "Who, what, why, when, where?" no longer apply to our local media?

It's here on Google Maps (Streetview), up La Pouquelaye.

(btw, look at the website for the home at www.sthelier.je and compare the photo they've used with the view Streetview - looks familiar?! Can we wonder "copyright theft"?)

Oh, and as for the "nearby" St.Ewold's (maybe on the map, but it's still a long-ish indirect walk for even the fittest youngsters) that involves taking a right from Trinity Hill here (Streetview) and it looks like this (Streetview).

Landslide 74% victory for Vote D

So, very nearly 3/4 of the voters supported the Option D that I promoted in my last post here - don't vote - showing their disdain for the flawed and risable electoral commission.

I win! :)

Except that I don't really win. The Establishment's hijacked commision (what happened to "independent"?!) will convince themselves that people who turned up to vote have more sway than those who made the decision not to legitimise the whole farce by making an appearance at the polling stations, so the results (that they rigged in their favour with the way the options and voting system were arranged) will be taken as a ringing endorsement of change. They will get their way, there will be less opposition to their domination of the States with the drop to 42 members, the popular and widely supported Senators will go (don't tell me support for Senators has just vanished into thin air since the last opinion poll showed a strong desire to keep them).....  their me-me-me right-wing "strong governement" will carry on downtreading the less fortunate while the gap between rich and poor widens even further.

WTF does "strong government" even mean, Mr Shenton? The most powerful group gets to bully the oppostion and get their own way no matter what? Is that really the best that democracy has to offer?

Jersey will remain apathetic to what the States manages to achieve. When all is said and done, politicians are still mainly loathsome creatures supported by the fools who vote for them. The correct way to handle politics is to stand well back and observe from a distance, then join specific campaigns for issues you really care about.

Politics in general is a seething mass of irrelevance that we just don't feel empowered to influence except for very specific areas of life where we have a chance of supporting a movement calling for some direction we want. That's the best we can hope for. We are resigned to letting them do what they do, and hoping that they don't mess things up so much that we have to demonstrate in the Square (not that even that helps much, either).

For me, the most amusing part of this charade was the proof that Ian Le M supporting something (Option C) was only enough to convince 19% of the electorate to visit the booths. He didn't do much to atttract voters to his point of view, did he? And, as Senator, his career in the States seems a little doomed.

Oh well. Life goes on. At least we still get to moan about it, whether people think we have a right to, or not.

Rag gleefully peddles coconut myth again

On the 28th February 2013, the JEP published a Ramsay Cudlipp article about cartoonists Ben Robertson and Oli Nightingale.

Included in the center-page spread was a humorous map of Jersey - A Beginners Guide.

Yes, there are some amusing parts. "Local spotted, 1987" is good. And "Syvret's hideout" is neither offensive or inoffensive. I imagine Stuart and his most ardent supporters would take that in good humour. Strange though, how of all the things you could take the mickey out of, that Stuart should be targetted.

But what are we to make of the people emerging from tunnels from Poland and Madeira? A hint of racism, perhaps?

But this really made me wince. At the location of the former children's home HDLG investigated for 'Historic Child Abuse' - "Ancient Coconut Shell Burial Ground". Isn't that in rather poor taste?

How many more times must this myth be wheeled out before it can be finally laid to rest?

These are the cartoonists, should you ever meet them and you wish to have words with them.

The truth?
If anyone really wants to know, it's all out there on other blogs.
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/09/lenny-harpers-guest-posting.html  is as good a place as any to get a good idea. From the horse's mouth, as it were - Lenny Harper the CIO.

23 February 2008 - fragment JAR/6 found, recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating.”

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.

We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.

At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”

In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.

I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?

I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.

The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.

The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.

....

Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment. However, they then change their mind again and say the fragment is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February?

On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

Now, how Wiltshire, in the light of Brock’s final comment, can say that anyone knew what JAR/6 was can only be answered by Wiltshire themselves. As they have ignored these e mails perhaps that gives a clue. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out, that the letter which this lab e mailed me three weeks after they allegedly sent it, was no more conclusive and ended up by advising me that if I wanted to know what JAR/6 was, I should have it re-examined by an Anthropologist in a Laboratory.

By then of course, we knew it was irrelevant and would be a waste of money to do so. Why then, did Gradwell et al send something labelled as JAR/6 off to Kew Gardens when they not only knew it to be irrelevant, but would also have known that the careless way they and the Oxford Lab had handled the item, meant that no court in the land would have accepted that it was beyond doubt the same item that we had originally labelled JAR/6? Seems a waste of money, but as Gradwell refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel about financial matters we may never know!!! Lenny Harper

.....

There should be no problem whatsoever with accounting for the movements and whereabouts of this fragment, JAR/6, at any time. Each time it moves from or to the police store it should be carefully logged. We found the item on 23rd February. It remained with us, until from memory, the 6th March when it was taken to the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford. We logged it out. We logged it back in again on 8th April when our Anthropologist again examined it and noticed that its appearance had changed considerably, and she was now not so sure of her verdict, although she could not reach a definite conclusion.

The item should have been in the presence of the Oxford lab throughout the time it was there but it seems, that in breach of the rules of evidence they 'passed it around.' They seem to have got themselves into a real tangle, first of all stating it was too old for finding collagen, then finding it, then saying it was too degraded to date.

Somewhere in all of this, a lab technician made the throwaway comment that it looked like a piece of coconut. (Funny how it was an unqualified technician and none of the experts who had examined it closely) This is the origin of the "ILM coconut" theory and of course encouraged by Warcup and Gradwell, along with their other public declarations such as the cellars not being cellars but only three feet voids. The item JAR/6 came back to us without a log of its movements from Oxford. As soon as it returned then we commenced again logging its movements and it should be no problem whatsoever to account for it from there on. Lenny Harper
......

If you read the full list of what was recovered from HDLG, and all the allegations from the victims, it's astonishing that attempts were made to discredit the investigation and focus on 'the coconut'. But this is Jersey......

Restore our heritage or widen the road

The CoOp did have a reasonable plan to do up this row of heritage buildings, but the scheme was too overbearing in height and Planning wouldn't pass it. So now they want to demolish the lot, and they say they have no other choice.

I say : refuse to accept this! It makes me ashamed to be a shareholder, if this is what they want to do to our townscape.

The answer is simple. If we have to lose the buildings, then there's no good reason to keep this road so narrow. It's a danger to pedestrians. I have found, in several instances, people trying to cross the road from the narrow lane and having difficulty with limited visibility of oncoming traffic. A shop on the other side of the lane has suffered damage from lorry collisions a few times too.

So, sorry CoOp - but you can't have it both ways. If you insist upon taking these buildings away from us, then we should insist upon having a wider and safer road. I wonder if that would make any difference to their plans?

Meddling with "the machinery of government"

You can tune up the car, but still, no-one's going to want to drive the rusty old Skoda.

The proposed changes are a waste of time. You can fiddle all you want but it will change little, apart from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not bothered by the Constables being in there automatically. I can see arguments for and against, and would probably - if I really had to - say that they were elected to run their parishes (a busy job that few sensible people would want to take on) and if they want to be in the States too then they should stand for election for that purpose in addition. But really, for all the difference it makes, it's hardly worth worrying about.

Having 6 'super constituencies' electing 7 Deputies, for a total of 42 members? Utterly pointless.

Many people will be horrified at the end of the direct link to individual parishes. Me, I just think this place is small enough (drive anywhere in less than half an hour - if there isn't some impaired driver slowing you down to a crawl) and with only circa 100,000 people involved - every issue affects us all. Artificial boundaries are ridiculous when you can easily live in one parish, spend most of your waking+working hours in another, pass through others regularly and spend what leisure time you're blessed with all over the island. Why do we need politicians to be tied to a few thousand people in a couple of square miles - as if they're rooted to the spot and never see the rest of Jersey?

I can't see any good coming from this. The lowering of numbers is worrying, because by the time the brown-nosing toadies find themselves taken into little groups aligned with the ministers (especially attractive to those seeking more pay, if such a thing comes about too), automatically following the 'party' line - it leaves far fewer spare members for scrutiny and 'opposition'. The 'establishment' will be able to get their own way whenever they want, without any effective way to prevent it. That's probably what they're after in proposing these changes, and what we should guard against sleepwalking into.

But, all that aside, if the changes go ahead... ask yourself this : will it increase electoral turnout? Will any of this pointless and expensive messing about actually change the opinions of those who don't vote already? How about surveying the punters, asking why they don't vote - and see if the changes will have any effect at all? Frankly, it will even make me throw in the towel. We'll be going from 10-13 votes per elector (8 Senators, 1 Constable (possibly uncontested), 1-3 Deputies depending upon parish. Or is it 4?) to only 7. What can I realistically hope to influence by turning up at the polling booth?

I know loads of people who don't vote. They say policitians are ********s, ruin everything, only care about themselves and their peer group. Nothing short of mass homelessness and starvation would shake these people into rising up and making themselves heard. And the changes will make ZERO difference. Nada. Nil. Zip.

Stop wasting time!

It's good, it's bad, it's good, it's bad

This is getting ridiculous. I've lost count now, how many times the 'mainstream' media have happily parroted what they've been given from the States as 'news'.
It seems that every couple of weeks there's a story about how the numbers of jobless have fallen, and then a few days later the opposite comes along with job losses, gloom and doom.

For instance, just 9 days ago on 26th Sept, the JEP headline was "Drop in number of jobless".
http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/09/26/drop-in-number-of-jobless/
"UNEMPLOYMENT fell last month with 70 fewer people out of work than in July - one of the biggest drops in the last two years."
Good.

Then along came The Bad last night, with Condor Logistics closing, and
"THE number of job vacancies in the private sector hit a 13-year low in June, according to figures released today."
http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/10/03/labour-figs/

MAKE YOUR FREAKING MINDS UP! It's been flip-flop for the last couple of years. First it's hopeful, then it's not. Can you stick to the truth for once?!

Look, we all know it's bad. The media told us a recession was coming, so we all tightened our belts and stopped spending, firms laid people off or stopped hiring in preparation, and voila - a self-fulfilling prophesy came to pass.

There are a couple of thousand people looking for work, wondering how they will manage, many with no experience of life without a job before, hoping against hope that they can still provide for their loved ones while fearing losing everything that they have worked for all their lives. Homes at risk. Relationships under massive stress. Income Support not forthcoming until you've lost it all and you're on your knees. Social Security contributions grudgingly covered but with the threat that your entitlements may be hit in years to come.

Jobseekers are told off weekly by smug Social Security staff (from the comfort of their safe desks) for not trying hard enough despite competing against 2000+ other hopefuls for every job available. Ignorant idiots (with a nice comfy lifestyle so **** the rest of us!) post comments online about 'benefits culture' as if it makes any difference whatsoever until we every have full employment. Until there's a job for everyone, all it means when one person finally gets a job is that someone else has to go without!

Employers increasingly insist upon a degree for jobs where aptitude and experience would be far more likely an indicator of value, leaving those without further education on the scrap heap. And if you're past a Certain Age, forget it. You'll be in a menial job (unless you know the Right People of course and your face fits) on terrible pay for the rest of your life. Probably Part-Time, or even a Zero-Hours Contract so there's no obligation to give you work on a dependable basis.

Some jobs are advertised when the post is already filled, and they're only going through the motions of making it look like it's fair, when in fact they already knew all along that their old friend has the job in the bag.

People are scared. No wonder the spending is going down, making things worse of course, a self-perpetuating cycle of slippery slope - something like that - so typical of bad government. Even people with relatively safe jobs are cutting back, just in case, and prices are rising, taxes biting hard, is there any way out?

And all the time the idiots in charge of this mess believe that pouring petrol on the fire is the best way forward! Poor economy? Bring more people in! Come on in, Europeans, Jersey's lovely! Jobs galore, the locals don't mind!

So that's even more outsiders placing even more demands upon the infrastructure, more traffic, more use of publicly provided services, making things more expensive and crowded for everyone and taking away jobs that the locals could do!

When will we learn that Jersey is FULL, (stupidly congested now) and we should sort out life for our own people before letting in even more to make things worse? How hard can it be to licence each job and insist upon x years of residence before anyone can apply? Immigration is killing Jersey, because it's leading to mass unemployment, the FEAR of unemployment, lack of spending is taking fuel from the fire of the economy, and the whole thing is slowly imploding!

And the happily-wealthy just shrug - they are OK - and they simply assume it will get better.

I despair.

Coastal crash - more sloppy reporting

The story from Channel 103 radio -

"Three teenagers are being treated in hospital after the car they were in plunged over a cliff in St Martin.

It went over the side of the road between Anne Port and Archirondel just before midnight.

It came to rest upside down against a tree - which stopped it rolling over the sea wall onto the rocks below.

Paramedics and firefighters attended, and two boys aged 19 and 17, and a 15 year old girl were taken to A&E.

The driver suffered a suspected broken wrist but the two passengers are believed to have suffered more serious injuries, although Police have told us they're not critical.

Watch Commander Chris Love said. "These 3 youths have been involved in a very serious incident. However, it would have been a lot worse had their vehicle rolled from its final resting place onto the rocks below."

"Had that been the case specialised rescue equipment and extra resources would have been called for. Emergency crews would have been faced with a more difficult and prolonged extrication, increasing the risk of injuries already sustained"

BBC Jersey also says "between Archirondel and Anne Port".

Only Channel TV correctly reported "near Archirondel".

If you're a radio listener you'd think it had happened near the BBQ area on the headland near La Crete quarry. The only recent damage to the roadside banks that I can see is actually well before that area.

It looks like, heading from St.Catherine's towards Gorey, the driver took this bend (by the old Les Arches) too fast, over-corrected, and failed to straighten up quickly enough to stay on the road.



It's actually on a straight, just after the left-hander, and not where previous accidents have happened at the headland farther on, or just past Jeffrey's Leap on the other side of Anne Port!

On some news website comments pages people are criticising the lack of barriers here, and it does appear to be in the same place (from the same direction) as another from 2010 (BBC).

All in all I'm left with the sour taste of sloppy journalism again - there was no mention of the direction in which they were travelling, or the precise location. And it's sensationalism again too, accidents happen all over the island, but just because it's on a coastal road and NEARLY ended up in greater fall onto rocks, this somehow seems more spectacular and may be more likely to lead to knee-jerk over-reaction.

The fact that several accidents in this region in recent years have all been survived without death shows how much safer it is to crash here compared to hitting walls and large trees at the roadside elsewhere!

The Ann Court question

Some 'white skies' pics from a dull day...

Along Providence Street to Belmont Road...






Looking left, halfway along... down Minden Place, with newly extended al fresco area on the right at the Arts Ctr.








.. and to the right, looking into the boarded up Ann Court.






Around into Ann Place, and the ironically named "No to the car park!" campaigner Ms. Storey lives on the left here... far be it for me to think... NIMBY! (NOT IN MY BACK YARD!)






Opposite Mary Ann Mews...








.. looking back right...








.. and forwards to the right again...







At the junction with Ann Street.. (I quite like the wide-angle leaning buildings effect actually)






.. looking back down Ann Place - note that the mews residents are OK for parking with their secure gated area!




My opinion is undoubtably worthless, but, correct me if I'm dense but surely towns developed for trade purposes, with people choosing to live there for convenience? Trade depends upon access, and, currently that access depends upon parking because we don't live in some communist hell hole and funnily enough we in the western world are generally free to provide our own personal transport if we can afford it. So we drive cars. A town that needs consumer 'footfall' therefore needs parking. Parking has to go somewhere. And I don't believe that people have an automatic God given right to live close by to ammenities - otherwise sheltered housing in the middle of nowhere would be banned in all the other parishes... and that's clearly not the case.

Bearing all that waffle in mind, I would say... I think this is the ideal location for a town park, if this part of town really needs one. Keep/rebuild Minden Place as nobody really benefits from a new open area there, develop parking in Gas Place where the residents are fewer and far between and already used to it, and Snow Hill would be a great place for a new multi with the added side effect of solving the access problem to Fort Regent.

But what do I know? :)