Rotherham is the ‘rotten borough’

At Rotherham Politics, we would have no disagreement with either another excellent comment piece and two letters from last Friday’s Advertiser. Other viewpoints welcome:



7 thoughts on “Rotherham is the ‘rotten borough’

  1. I am at odds with the presentation of a Council that fails because it is too Politically Corect(PC).

    There may be some socal workers who are liberal and anti racist to a fault,

    However I have found almost no Policeman with this affliction and non among the Labour leadersip of Rotherham. Please believe me, they aren’t brown rice and sandals types. Nor are they the liberal sophisticates of Labour’s Islington Branch.

    At the heart of this scandal and cover up lies incompetence, self interest. and mususe of power.

    The suggestion that it is a failing because the Council is too PC is a ruse that UKIP fell for with glee. It allows the Council to say that even if inept they are at at least caring.

    It allows Akhtar to say everyone who wants action is racist, hence they have to protect us from ourselves.

    It is a smokescreen….


  2. I agree with most of what William says, especially the fact that Rotherham Labour Group are not too PC. I do however disagree with his statement that they are not racist. Of course not all of them are racist, but having been closely associated with the Labour Party, Labour Group and Council Officers for the past 35 years I can assure William that some, if not many, are racist. In fact one of the past Mayors used to call Asians, Pakies and I have heard him refer to a black woman in a meeting as ‘your lot’. But before anyone asks why I didn’t do anything about it I have to tell you that the member referred too was also the Chief Whip of Labour Group. How ironic is that?


    • Peter, I never said that there aren’t racists within the Labour Group,there are. Just as there are misogynists and people who use prostitutes etc etc.

      My point is the opposite, that the reasons for protecting Child Abusers was personal gain.

      That the PC arguement started as a criticism from the UKIP/BNP types, and the Labour Group were happy with that acusation as it allowed them to spread rumours about racists being behind the criticisms. They don’t care what UKIP think, what worries is them is the truth, Specifically that abusers were protected for reasons of personal gain.

      Remember, in their world being PC is not a sin.For them accepting a criticism of being PC is a kind of plea bargain. Better than getting the full sentence.


  3. Rotherham borough needs dividing back up to the area’s that existed before 1975, which are now far more populated. Anston has no affinity with Rotherham, we are subsiding many area’s of Rotherham, whereas the services we have here are poor and non exxistant. Kiveton rural district was a much nicer area to live and the borough has brought the inner city culture from Rotherham out to Anston.


  4. Can I just say I see the debate about PC amongst front line Social Workers as being a distraction; as well as one that will only play in to the hands of the guilty at RMBC.

    Unlike the ‘guilty’ senior elected and un – elected official at RMBC the vast majority of Social Workers in the land are dedicated and work hard (countless hours unpaid) against the odds. But believe me when case loads rise to unacceptable levels (as they have way beyond any previous levels) no amount of hard work or dedication will address the problems the individuals and families they support face. No one can be in a thousand places at one time. And as we all know the issue of CSE and child abuse is so deep rooted in all communities in the borough, that even before the Child Grooming Scandal hit the headlines, Rotherham, and indeed Yorkshire as a county, to their shame was known as a hotspot.

    As you all may know I disagree strongly and am disgusted with Mr Stone and his inept inner crew’s claim that the Child Grooming Scandal was an operational and systematic failure – it wasn’t – it was a political failure that went right to the top – and for that senior’ elected and non elected officials at RMBC should pay with their jobs. However, having spent 32 years in front line child protection, in many towns and cities, can I point out the obvious that to have an effective Social Services you have to have enough staff and the right support in place. It’s going to take more than words – it needs money and a full overall of provision.

    When dealing with a case of child sexual exploitation, neglect or physical assault I have never encountered a front line Social Worker from Epsom to Darlington who see PC as an issue regarding any aspect of’ intervention – senior executives and – councillors yes – but not on the front line. If they did – with the horrors they encounter (and still do in Rotherham and elsewhere) they wouldn’t last a day in the job.

    On the front line PC isn’t an issues; it never has been. What is the issue is effective intervention – child protection – and when you have a personal case load of well over a hundred crisis cases per Social Worker (over twenty is considered far too many) no amount of dedication and commitment can help even the best Social Worker cope.

    As for the senior elected and non elected officials that covered up – and are still covering up this scandal – they had no regard for PC – they resorted to secrecy – and what I would claim to be corruption – in the interest of self alone. They protected themselves, friends and associates for one reason only; to hide the fact that they were willing to stand back and watch while a service decayed and entered melt down. It was they who looked to cutting the front line staff of the young people’s services year after year as a first option. And it was they who protected their friends’ not the children. PC wasn’t a consideration. If it was we’d still have an effective service.

    Personally all I am concerned with on this issue is getting to the root of the problem. Forget PC its RMBC who are to blame. I want to ensure Stone, Thacker, Akthar, Wright, Lakin, Kimber, the senior police and the rest are dragged before an independent inquiry and forced to pay for their sins; and after that hopefully kicking and screaming before the courts. I want to ensure the lessons are learned and once these inept and corrupt officials are dealt with by the courts we put a truly effective service in place. I want justice for the victims – nothing more -noting less.

    I’m sorry – but if certain political parties and others seem to think the problem in the Socials Services in Rotherham and throughout the land is one of PC they are misguided at best. At worst they are trying to make political capital out of human misery. I hope the latter isn’t correct; if it is shame on you.

    Like I have said before – I worked in this sector for most of my adult life – and as many know I lost my career for speaking out about what really goes on and will appear before any inquiry and judge to ensure the truth is out. But argue about PC – no – I won’t allow the issue to be blurred in such a way.
    Child abuse is not a PC issue – child abuse happens in every community each and every minute of the day. It is perhaps the most non PC of crimes because the perpetrators have no respect for anyone at all.

    Finally I will end with a positive note; keep up the good work Rothpol and contributors; the truth will be known; were getting there.



    • SKT, I agree with you.

      What we need is more of those Social Workers telling us what really happened, and who was restricting their ability to do their jobs.

      Think, why did the Foster Parent allow Ash access to Jessica, surely a career ending decision in most minds. Why did a Social Worker tell her it was OK?. Which managers told the SW that he/she could do that?

      There is a chain of command here. Why is the foster parent still in post? Because if sacked they will name the Social Worker, and then the Social Worker will name their manager and so on and so on up the chain of command until it lands on a Director and/or Councillors doorstep

      It is why the Council do not want an inqury that names names, why they’d rather admit to being too PC and it being a systemic failure; a smokescreen to distract from those who set the policies and agreed to the covers ups.



  5. On a lighter note (but still with doubting intent re Martin Kimber’s ability to ensure any inquiry is thorough) I think I will just pass on something my friend from Wigan sent me. (I took her name of because she still works for the council). To be honest I didn’t know this is what he did before being the CEO at RMBC. And to be honest I wish I hadn’t been informed – I’ve got even less confidence in him than I did before (And that was none).

    Hi Sally,

    Exclusive evidence that Martin Kimber does have the expert knowledge and professional capabilities concerning Child Protection to ensure any inquiry will help you, the families and children of Rotherham sleep safely. Well maybe not.

    I remember you said he gets between £160,000 – 180,000 as CEO at Rotherham. Bless – he’s come a long way since he was the ‘I’ll do it sir’ Director of Environmental Services here. I mean any man that can have such a central role in one of England’s biggest scandals (The Great Ruddy Duck Outrage) certainly knows how to quell a storm.

    Seriously though – good luck with your campaign – if he still avoids the issues there like he did here – you have my sympathy. The man’s robotic and sadly out of his league. Come on what’s he know about Child Protection? Obviously diddly squat from what we read and hear in the media. How come he’s still in his job? How come any of them are? As scandals go this is the most odious. The Council should be ashamed.

    Our thoughts are with the families and children of Rotherham. Justice for all. Keep the faith lass – you’ll get there. Keep me informed.

    Excerpt from council minutes:

    The Great Ruddy Duck Scandal

    Martin Kimber, director of environmental services, told the cabinet he had only heard “contradictory views” from anti-cull organisations as opposed to hard scientific evidence.

    He said: “Defra still believed their position to be correct after considering up to date scientific information.

    “There are a number of groups who oppose the control of the ruddy duck but no strong scientific evidence has been presented by any group to contradict that of Defra.

    “Having contacted those organisations and individuals referred to in the resolution passed by council, no contradictory scientific evidence has been provided, only contradictory views.”

    But opponents, including Animal Aid and the Leigh Ornithological Society say they will not let the matter rest.

    Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said: “It is a sick, irrational decision which has disregarded scientific information and common sense.

    “The fact is that due to much warmer weather, the number of ruddy ducks going over to Spain in the winter has decreased to as little as seven or eight and is decreasing all the time.

    SKT xxxxxxxx

    PS: thinking on – how come Wigan MBC have minutes and our lot can never find them?


Leave a Reply to Sally Kate Taylor Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.