I see that BBC gives great prominence to the Howard League for Penal report whingeing on about the fact that children in Jersey have allegedly “less protection” than children elsewhere in the UK because the evil Jersey government has NOT signed up to the utterly risible to the UN convention on the rights of the child. This means, for example, they lack a Children’s Commissioner.Well now, I guess the next of kin of Baby P will take solace in the fact that at least the mighty UN Convention applies in England, right? I also note the way in which Howard League spokesman compares Somalia and the USA in the interview. As ever, the BBC is supplicant to this biased left-wing pacifist bleeding-heart organisation and does not provide for an alternate view to its insinuations about Jersey. The BBC must also have been broken–hearted to discover yesterday that the alleged killing fields of Haut de la Garenne are not quite it has coat-trailed for months. Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying Jersey is perfect but I do not quite see why it invokes so much sustained ire from the BBC although I am sure you may suggest a few….
THE WAR ON JERSEY.
Bookmark the permalink.
I have to say that Jersey is probably a far nicer place to live for both adults and children than the vast majority of nations that have signed up to that UN charter.
Nicer than Somalia, I hear. But the Howard League know best.
What is the point of this UN children’s charter anyway? Obviously there are cases like Baby P, Fritzl in Austria, that child abuse scandal in Belgium a while back. But these are exceptions, not the rule. I don’t really see that the provisions of the UN charter make these exceptions any less likely. In most western countries child welfare standards are very good anyway, and in poorer nations I can’t see that a “children’s minister” is going to make much difference to grinding poverty – there just aren’t enough resources for anyone let alone children in such nations. So following the logic, the charter must have been aimed at western nations as only western nations have the resources to do anything much about it, yet these are the nations that in general don’t have a problem with the treatment of children. I heard this piece on Today this morning as well, I just couldn’t figure out what they were trying to imply. Were they implying that Jersey had large-scale child-treatment issues? And that the issues could only be solved by adhering to the UN charter? I find that difficult to square with the facts. After all you can just visit Jersey and see the children wandering around enjoying themselves or going to school etc. – and not being forced to work in a sweatshop or scrubbing the gutters of a wealthy-person’s house. It doesn’t look like a den of child-abuse.
Jersey is wealthy, relatively independent, wary of the EU and not socialist. So, of course the BBC hate it.
Grant,
Got it in one. Of course they hate Jersey.
“Jersey is wealthy, relatively independent, wary of the EU and not socialist. So, of course the BBC hate it.”
But then how do you explain Bergerac?
Sorry, I’m just pre-empting mikewhineliberal.
No, i’m with you on this. the BBC just hate Jersey, with a passion no less.
Ah, Bergerac ! Just because the beeb hate Jersey, doesn’t stop them sending film crews out there, staying in the best hotels, enjoying the wonderful cuisine and weather etc. A bit similar to their attitude towards the USA.