Talk:Haut de la Garenne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jersey Evening Post - Reliable Source ?

In light of the allegations made of failing to report, and the feebleness of their justification (they could, in fact, have reported without revealing the victims), which ISTR was the same as the governments, as detailed in The Independent here, I would suggest that it would be better to use other sources since they may well fail to meet WP:Reliable source standards on this issue. Since there are plenty of other sources this is easy enough. What do you think ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Jersey Evening Post is at least as reliable as any other on-the-spot media. The Independent is not that reliable anyway - in that linked Indy report they mis-spell Paisnel and don't make it as clear as they might that the 2000 report on the Victoria College case had nothing to do with Haut de la Garenne. Tonight's JEP has 7 full pages of news, interviews and analysis - plus the newspaper can draw on an unrivalled archive of reports covering the period from the 1960s. I'm not a stranger to the media in Jersey and certainly don't even believe everything that's reported about me ;-) but I wouldn't say that the JEP is noticeably less reliable when it comes to fact than foreign press. When it comes to their political judgement, that's another matter, and they may be considered partisan in the Walker-Syvret tussles - but as a newspaper they're entitled to opinion and comment. Man vyi (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict between sources

I've reverted the government interpretation of the YHA decision with the YHA's press release. Both dated the same day. Where there's a conflict such as this, it doesn't make sense to replace primary sources with secondary sources. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The press release on behalf of the trustees is a primary source with an exact date. Man vyi (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation Claims

There is a claim underway for compensation for the victims, see http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article942427.ece and http://www.dyerburdett.com/blog/haut-de-la-garenne-press-conference-2/ and http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1310072,00.html?f=rss

But I don't know if it is relevant ot this page or not? Kert01 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that it was encyclopaedic as things stand. The claims are speculative anyway, being time-barred (unless there's a legislative change). Man vyi (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If a lawyers are seeing alleged victims regarding abuse and possible claims, then I would thought this is history (albeit recent) and should be part of any article, once there are verifiable facts, either in the JEP or elsewhere.

I notice the Mail which reported on the pseudo-skull fragment also reported that "Firms of lawyers are planning to claim damages for 27 former residents". The only trouble is that at the moment it does not give details of which lawyers. However, the link given above is undoubtably accurate:

http://www.dyerburdett.com/blog/haut-de-la-garenne-press-conference-2/

This is the press statement given by Dyer Burdett & Co and Ozannes on 14th March 2008: Jersey Advocates Ozannes have joined forces with English Solicitors Dyer Burdett & Co to advise and assist persons who suffered abuse at the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in relation to civil claims for the abuse that they suffered.

I've verifyed this with the Ozannes site:

http://www.ozannes.com/ozannes_news.asp?newsID=132

14.04.08 Ozannes acts in Haut de la Garenne civil claims Ozannes has been instructed to act in relation to the Haut de la Garenne civil claims. For more information please visit www.jerseyabuseclaims.co.uk

I would say therefore that it is (a) relevant (b) soundly sourced factual, and should form part of the article. --TonyinJersey (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)