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!

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.

Referen-dumb

On the 24th April we are invited to get tricked into -

• losing the 8 remaining Senators from the States
• seeing an overall drop in numbers from 49 down to 42 (with a drop in the backbenchers' power to outvote the ministerial bloc)
• losing the parish system and get six new meaningless 'super' districts instead (still unequal).

All of this is rolled up into both of the main choices A and B, dressed up as an apparent say in whether we lose les Connetables too, or keep them in.

I make that 4 different issues, but with 3 in common between just 2 so-called 'choices' A and B.

Or we have choice C : keep things the same as they are now.
Or D : Don't turn up.
Or E : Express Protest - actively go and spoil the paper.

As I don't want any of the 3 changes they're trying to sneak in, and don't really care about the constables either way,  that leaves me with a problem. Do I turn up and vote C, or spoil the paper, or stay well away from the whole hijacked waste of time?

Tough choice. Your opinions are welcomed ... what I should do, given my resistance to A and B (which won't be changing, so don't try to persuade me on that)?

Voting C 

This can be interpreted as "I'm happy with things as they are" - and I'm not. In addition to the proposed changes that I disagree with, I'm also just as concerned about -

• the unelected Bailiff's conflicted role.
• the quality of the idiots that get in, regardless of who votes for them (not much we can do, there).
• the Dean sitting in there, unelected. 

But none of that is addressed by this referendum.
As far as the issues in question -

• Island-wide mandate, Senators - I want them to remain. It's all I feel that I can actually have an effective say in.
• Numbers - the more the merrier - and I was mildly angry about the drop from 53. If we sort out the pay issue it doesn't matter how many there are. (I'd say don't pay them, most of them don't need it, let Income Support top up their income like the rest of us)
• Districts - I'd rather keep the parish voting districts as they are - and the small St.Mary 'problem' could be sorted out by having more Deputies everywhere else, especially if the Constables go...
• Constables - they can stand as Deputies if they want, what's the problem? The automatic seat doesn't feel right. What the point of a referendum on this? They can just go! It's not worth bothering the public asking us.

Voting D

Don't go - is tempting, but gets counted as Apathy. That still gives them a message, but seems like a waste somehow.

Voting E

Express Protest - can mean many things, so you have to hope they understand if you mean "You've wasted everyone's time, and I've made the effort to come here to say Go away and do it properly next time!".

Voting F

A variation on voting E, but a bit more forceful, would involve an expletive written on the paper, or perhaps a pictogram of an inflated phallus. But that's not advisable considering that the papers are numbered and can be cross referenced to your electoral roll number :)

Tough Choice

So C,D and E all give mixed messages, are all open to misinterpretation. It's a little difficult to choose!

I suspect that the turn out will be very low. So I'm not concerned about any of A,B or C winning out of less than half of the electorate. The slimeball politicos will use whatever result they get as a justification to get what they wanted, regardless.

 

The misguided A campaign

The 'A team' seem to have bees in their bonnets about equal numbers of votes, and getting rid of the constables. In their eagerness to grasp what they mistakenly think will make a difference (it won't!) they will be hoodwinked into achieving the classic "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

As I've said, the constables don't really bother me enough to be an issue here. Ideally they should go, but not at the expense of the more vital things that we'd lose if we vote A. And yes, I've seen them vote "en bloc" and not "en bloc". It's not surprising that 12 people of the same personality type, with the same parish role, should agree fairly often. With their ear to the ground, connections and experiences, they are often more down to Earth and in touch with reality than the more "Despicable Right" of the super priviledged.

The A Team can't be argued with about the Troy Rule, the smaller number of 42 members meaning that the ministerial bloc (all the Big Cheeses and their lackeys) will outnumber the backbenchers, making opposition impossible. They naively think that will all work out fine in the end - despite depending upon the very outnumbering that will have happened in the meantime! So let's not dwell on that.

As for the representation, again I think that the A Team are making mountains out of molehills. So what if a St.Mary deputy has fewer votes behind them than a St.Clement one? It's just an opinion poll, with a smaller sample size. The greatest proportion has their way, regardless of numbers. The A Team might need to read up on statistics and poll sampling.

But the worst thing is, with Vote A we actually get less representation! I used to be able to vote for 14 (12 Senators, 1 Constable, 1 Deputy) out of 53 members - 24.6% of The House. This has dropped with the loss of 4 Senators to 10 of 49, which is now just 20.4%. With this 6 districts plan, I would get just 7 votes of the 42 - an all time low of 16.7% ... why should I even bother to turn up to the polling station for that? I would have to really believe in my 'opinion poll sample size' reasoning and trust my fellow islanders to do the right thing in the other 5 districts. Whatever happens, the same old opinionated bores will get in, with all their massive arrogance, blinkered against reality. Votes A or B won't change that in the slightest!

 

So... what?

What do I do? Turn up, don't turn up, write something sarcastic on the paper, or Vote C?

I want my action to be counted amongst the most likely actions of other people who feel like I do. I suspect most of them will vote C or stay away, and a spoilt paper will be a minority action that will get overlooked and ignored.

I think that staying well away from the whole charade will have the greatest impact. That way the entire referendum means less, because it's less representative. Let's face it, the whole thing is weighted against common sense, it is a pointless waste of space, so let's treat it that way.

It was bad enough that the 'independent' electoral commission was taken over by the Establishment (and with He Who Would Be King at the helm too!), but the 'choice' they have presented to us is anything but.

For my vote to count for something, it seems I'll have to treat this farce with the contempt it deserves. Which is a lot.

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.

Businessmen not fit to govern

I'm both amused and bored by hearing opinions that we need more businessmen in government - as if their talent for organising one thing translates into organising something entirely different!

I'm sure there will be some of you who disagree, impressed by a flashy businessman's apparent success - in the single endeavour of acquiring wealth. But let's look at some inarguable definitions of business and government -

Purpose of Business
Make money from providing goods or services, squeezing every last possible profit from resources such as assets, staff and customers, employing any means fair or foul (that they can get away with) to beat competition.


Purpose of Government
* Provide regulatory framework for a fair and functional society, making sure laws are suitable and fit for purpose.
* Set tax policy, deciding who to tax, how much, and for what - and how to spend it.
* Provide Public Services to Best Practice standards, balancing the quality of service and needs of the staff against the requirement for best value for money to the taxpayer.
* Regulate and resolve conflicts of interest, such as the wishes of property developers versus the public good.

* Lawmaking is difficult to get wrong to any huge degree - just extend UK legislation to this island and copy anything else sensible. Not many complaints are heard on that one.
* Taxation seems to suit enough people most of the time that it isn't enough of an issue to cause riots or revolutions. People may realise that Zero-Ten and GST are a pain but we know it's complex and if it seems to work for most people, the politicians will get away with it.
* Wastes of public money are what get most of us fired up, unbelievable decisions of Planning, and other conflicts resolved in the favour of friends and accomplices.

Businessmen don't do anything like most of that government work (if any of it!) in their line of profiteering.

Government is entirely a balancing act, always needing to consider multiple conflicting requirements.
Businessmen are only focused upon one side of an equation - making profits for themselves with disregard for any consequences.

It therefore follows that successful businessmen are wholly unsuitable for government! We need fair and wise people who understand that quality of life is more important than pursuit of gross wealth at the expense of others. Our politicians should only have a vested interest in benefiting (along with everyone else) from a happy and healthy society, ensuring that the young are educated enough to perpetuate a sustainable system in an unpolluted environment.

By 'businessmen' (with 'men' in the broad sense ignoring gender) I don't mean small business owners. I have respect for someone who is confident and assertive enough to set up their own business doing what they love, expanding when they can to take on staff who they know well and look after. Those who know that they have a small place in their market and compete fairly to provide a fair product/service and make an honest living from it. I was lucky to be employed by one of these angels myself for many years and appreciated it. Even if they eventually have their heads turned by the temptations of extravagant houses and shiny expensive status symbol motors, on the whole I say fair play to them if they earned it in the long run without trampling upon others to get there.

No, my wrath and disgust is aimed at the Scum In Suits who stab their peers in the back to claw their slimy way up the filthy ladder of boardroom excess. Intelligence misdirected, talents squandered, these wretched creatures are smart enough to appear respectable and articulate, appealing to an easily led electorate conditioned to look up to these 'alpha males' who profit from the misery of others. Their confidence trick is to walk the walk and talk the talk enough to impress the gullible, but their apparent qualities of extreme capability are just a smokescreen for self-serving greed.

Even the Farce blog pointed out : "Unfortunately, business people often struggle in politics simply because they are used to getting things done by issuing instructions to employees, rather than by establishing a consensus of understanding with fellow elected representatives. They also have further cultural problems between business ethics and profit motive and the broad principles of public service."

When you vote, consider the candidates' motivations. Why are they putting themselves forward for the job? Are they driven by a wish to right the wrongs of centuries of mismanagement, exploitation and oppression, outraged by unfairness, keen to steer the island to a better future for all? Or are they just thinly disguised weasels hell-bent on keeping the working class exploited for their elite extravagances?

Remember : "No vote - no moan!"