It seems that if there are no cellars or shackles in the story the press does now want to know.I also asked, back in March 2008, why so many children had been in care there.
So respect to Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy for returning to the subject in a Guardian article last Saturday:
That is an extraordinary figure which, on its own, suggests there is something very wrong with the childcare system on the island.
The alarm had been raised in 1979, following the death of a two-year-old at the hands of a foster parent. Two years later, visiting social workers David Lambert and Elizabeth Wilkinson, concerned that none of the proposed improvements had been put in place, launched a full-blown inspection.
Their confidential report, taking a broader look at Jersey society, concluded that while the island was reinventing itself as a haunt for jetsetters, there was a neglected group afflicted by a "high incidence of marital breakdown, heavy drinking, alcoholism and psychiatric illness". These problems were exacerbated by a small island mentality that demanded everyone "conform to acceptable public standards".
Children rebelled in small ways: dropping litter, swearing, facing down the police, having parties on the beach. On Jersey, all of these "offences" were, according to Lambert and Wilkinson, often sufficient to get a child into serious trouble. And once children had come to the attention of the police, it was almost inevitable that they would enter Jersey's care home system.
Without any provision for children to be bailed, most were incarcerated on remand, placed alongside children taken from their families, often for such reasons as "giving the mother a break".
In this rural backwater, one in 10 children had been in care, a ratio far higher than on the mainland