Glennis Grace shocks the well-known lawyer Sébas Diekstra with the place where she will do her community service. “I am extra sensitive when it comes to the safety of vulnerable elderly people.”
Sébas Diekstra, the lawyer who represents victims of The Voice of Holland, thinks it is a travesty that Glennis Grace is allowed to perform her community service in a nursing home. He points out that the singer has been convicted of a violent crime and that she is now placed among the vulnerable elderly for two hundred hours.
‘This is special’
It goes way too far, says Sébas in a twitter message. “It is special that as a society we have someone who has been convicted of a violent crime perform the (imposed and almost maximum) community service in a nursing home. A place where there are many vulnerable people.”
He continues: “After such a conviction, the chance of obtaining a Declaration on Behavior (VOG) to be able to work in a care home is generally very low. But performing a long community service in the same environment is apparently not a problem. And yes, I am extra sensitive when it comes to the safety of vulnerable elderly people.”
Critical Bart
Bart Ettekoven, expert in Shownieuws, also criticized the location of Glennis’ community service on Thursday evening. “I think it’s a good thing that we send all of these types to the old days.”
Bart’s criticism was a heavy reprimand from the other people at the Shownieuws table. The conversation in the studio that evening was led by Glennis’ good friend Dyantha Brooks.
‘Stop it!’
Patty Brard immediately corrected Bart. “Oh, stop it!”
Natacha Harlequin thinks it’s great that Glennis is going to work in the nursing home where her father has also been. “I am completely emotional in that video and then you come again.”
Patty: “Yes, then you come again.”
Bart: “Yes, but I mean. Okay, well, never mind.”
slime
Unbelievable, Sebas finds this. “The surprise of Bart Ettekoven the day before yesterday in Shownieuws about the fact that we let violent offenders carry out their sentences between vulnerable elderly people was nothing short of justified.”
He concludes: “Because of the mucus towards the convict, others at the table seemed unable or unwilling to be critical.”
