The victims are now just pawns
IT all started with compassion but Senator Stuart Syvret’s Haut de la Garenne fire is now out of control, being fanned by political troublemakers, outside publicity seekers and lawyers and QCs with big pockets.
The so-called victims will receive very little out of it. They are just pawns now. We have seen it all before with compensation schemes in Germany, Switzerland, Iraq and USA. Only the outside bigwigs benefit.
Here we are fretting over the 3% GST on food. The poor Jersey taxpayer has seen nothing yet when it comes to paying for Stuart’s fire. Even Jersey itself may be destroyed in the process. What a mess!
Villa Martinique, Chemin du Moulin, St Ouen.
Why do we have to give our money? From Astrid Kisch
"I AM puzzled. The alleged perpetrators of the care home discipline of those days have been convicted, so the revenge part has been dealt with and the wrongs righted-at great expense to the taxpayer. The care leavers have grown up and made their lives a long time ago. Now, I understand, they are asking for 'compensation' by which I assume they mean money.
Question: Why do other people i.e.the taxpayers,have to give them money and for what purpose?"
Villa Martinique, Chemin du Moulin, St. Ouen.
Ill-informed views on care leavers
September 2, 2011 – 3:00 pm
THE letter (JEP, Tuesday 30 August) from Astrid Kisch cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
Overall, this lady appears to have a very ill-informed and blinkered knowledge of the child abuse issues and the ensuing matters, and if we may be permitted we would like to put the record and facts straight.
Firstly she mentions the ‘alleged’ perpetrators. Does she mean by this that innocent people have been brought to justice for their deeds? They are not alleged, because they have been found guilty in a court of law.
Furthermore not all perpetrators have been brought to justice. Revenge does not enter into the equation – doing the right and lawful thing does. Crimes were committed and those guilty had to be accountable. It really is that simple.
Now we are puzzled. Mrs Kisch talks about the ‘care home discipline of those days’.
Is she saying that severe sexual, physical and mental abuse was in the past acceptable discipline? We are not talking about a slapped wrist or a smacked bottom, but far, far worse than that. I do not think she will find many people in agreement with what was acceptable or not however long ago she may be talking about.
Indeed, the care leavers have grown up, but not necessarily ‘made their lives’. Many have been left very damaged by what they experienced and will have to live with the legacy of that for the rest of their lives. Some are unable to work and others have many various issues because of the scars that have been left both mentally and physically. Has Mrs Kisch ever spoken to or made any attempt to understand what some survivors suffered and indeed still do.
However, all these most important facts seem to be overlooked by what seems to be the main bugbear and that is compensation, which seems to be a very dirty word in Mrs Kisch’s book. Yes – compensation. Is that really too much to ask for lives damaged, childhoods (as she may have known it) lost and something abuse victims can never get back. Furthermore, it appears that with the attitude displayed in her letter Mrs Kisch is causing the victims to be victims yet again.
There has never been any question that compensation would not, or should not be claimed. Children, who for various reasons (and not because they were difficult), were placed either in care homes or residential homes under the supervision of people paid by the States of Jersey to give them the love, affection and nurturing that would have been afforded them in a normal home environment.
The fact that in many instances this did not happen, in fact quite the opposite, leaves the blame fairly and squarely at the door of the States of Jersey for failing these children. Indeed in Ireland most of the Catholic orders and institutions where abuse took place contributed sums of money to the redress scheme for survivors there. Here in Jersey, it is only the government who are accountable.
At present we are unsure whether the States have an indemnity insurance that will cover this, or how the compensation will be paid, but I am sure there are not many people who would begrudge this in any way, shape or form.
Finally, Mrs Kisch would be most welcome to visit our offices should she so wish to learn more about why we are here and the issues we deal with. Better an informed public than an uninformed letter.
The Jack-Boot Strikes
From Robert Kisch - JEP 12th September 2011
Carrie Modal’s stinging rebuke (JEP 30 August) to my wife Astrid’s letter (JEP 2.9.2011) appears to have been written by one of the civil rights specialist lawyers brought in to handle the compensation project (JEP 26 August).
This revolves around the importance of justice. There are always two sides to a case. What was then considered normal ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ to instill discipline, is today a criminal offence. The results are highlighted by media reports of anti-social behaviour associated with an unbridled generation more familiar with electronic devices than schooling. It is this useful energy which needs to be guided from early years. How else do you train a puppy?
Claiming financial compensation for long past events still requires irrefutable proof in the interests of justice. When evidence is merely memory scars, this can be presented by specialist lawyers as necessary proof. But then, what about my wife, whose mental scars include that of a refugee from Russian torture, rape and execution as well as starvation and bombing by the Royal Air Force and American Air Forces. Does she, with thousands of others, have a claim? At that time is was normal to get on with surviving and working to make a new life. Claiming on a benefit system didn’t come into it. So why should she, and I for that matter, pay cash for something we had nothing to do with.
Of course, we now live with a benefit culture paid for by all, whether this is right or wrong. The letter by Simon Wells (JEP 2 September) makes this point.
Villa Martinique, Chemin du Moulin, St Ouen.