Author Topic: Child abuse in the Channel Islands  (Read 208352 times)

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Child abuse in the Channel Islands
« Reply #1755 on: July 11, 2017, 09:21:21 AM »
Re that preliminary report dated September 2013 (the last link) - I can't help noticing that this was produced just weeks before they introduced the Breach 3 sanction, which stops all components of income support, including the child component. I look on page 29 where there is a paragraph devoted to income support and - surprise, surprise - no mention at all of sanctions.

It is now recognised that the Breach 3 policy was being unlawfully enforced on income support households until 30th June 2015 because Social Security were preventing many of those sanctioned households from making fresh benefit claims after the 6-week limit of the Breach 3 had been reached. The households were wrongly informed in the Breach 3 notice that the sanctioned jobseeker had to continue satisfying jobseeking requirements throughout the 6-week period despite the whole household having no eligibility for income support (nor for special payments) for those 6 weeks. Therefore if the jobseeker was deemed not to have satisfied jobseeking activities for any part of the 42 day period by the time the 42 day period had expired, the Department would continue to refuse to allow the household to make a fresh claim for benefit indefinitely and with no statutory right of appeal against the continuation of the ban on making a fresh claim.

Just months after I first exposed what was going on by comments on this website, the States quietly amended the law to make the Department's (previously unlawful) actions lawful with effect from the date of the amendment. They also introduced a statutory right of appeal (albeit just a sham because of the length of time the appeal would take to reach the Tribunal - at least 6 months) and they limited the maximum period that a household could be prevented from making a fresh claim to one year (previously unstated and therefore indefinite). Some weeks before the law was changed, 2 St Helier Deputies who had originally opposed the Breach 3 - one of them vociferously complaining in 2013 about its detrimental effect on the children in these households - were informed by e-mail that Social Security had been unlawfully enforcing the same condition that it was now proposing to introduce into the Regulations. Neither of those Deputies did anything at all. They asked no questions in the Assembly and both took the day off when the amendment was adopted on 23rd June 2015.

As for Reform Jersey, Deputy Tadier also slipped out of the Chamber as the amendment was being debated and did not cast a vote. Deputy Mezec cast a vote but very uncharacteristically kept completely silent. Deputy Southern, who could not possibly have failed to understand the significance of the proposition, made only brief and general comments about his supposed opposition to sanctions, without making any reference to the unlawful actions of the Department. As a member of the Scrutiny Panel which had responsibility for asking the Minister about the reasons for the law amendment at its quarterly meeting in May 2015, he was careful to make himself absent from the island on the day when Pinel was questioned in public about the proposition. It is very unusual for Southern to miss Panel meetings. Very strange.

To this day the States Assembly has managed to keep this scandal completely out of the public domain for the best part of 4 years and no damages have been paid to any of those claimants who were unlawfully prevented from applying for benefit. In fact, they don't even know that they were treated unlawfully unless they happen to read this...
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 06:12:42 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Child abuse in the Channel Islands
« Reply #1756 on: July 12, 2017, 06:11:20 PM »
It's funny how everyone suddenly becomes mute when confronted by realities about politicians and their island that they just refuse to believe.

It's called The Jersey Way - anyone heard of it?  ::)

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3442
Re: Child abuse in the Channel Islands
« Reply #1757 on: July 12, 2017, 07:51:19 PM »
On that note Jerry,  had a chat with a few of the old boys. The ones that said Syvret was " off his trolly " and basically a  " pain in the arse " On the subject of child abuse the general consensus in the group was although not right - it was a long time ago eh !

Wrong on both counts, but I did not need to say anything, they new.

bb

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Child abuse in the Channel Islands
« Reply #1758 on: Today at 08:55:58 AM »
Bailhache has slapped 'protected status' on his tweets so that only approved followers can read them (and reply to them!):

https://mobile.twitter.com/JerseyDiplo

If one Minister can do it then others could easily do it too. He wants the benefits of broadcasting his spin on Twitter but not the downside, i.e. receiving tweets from voters who don't agree with him. Come next Spring he'll pretend to be tolerant for a fortnight and sit in various parish halls as the voters have their say, but on Twitter it's a different story.

I know of another govt. member who is apparently blocking the Twitter accounts of those he doesn't agree with - and I'm not talking about offensive messages or threats of violence. This could be the tip of the iceberg. It is hard to estimate how many other States Members might be blocking or muting Twitter accounts in order to keep negative comments off their timelines. It would be interesting to speculate whether the Twitter accounts of States Members might fall under a FOI request, but I rather doubt they would.

If anybody has been blocked themselves by a States Member, feel free to share...