Fox put in charge of the hen coop?

This series of exchanges would lead one to suppose, that Martin Kimber’s actions and inactions, are not part of the so called ‘Independent Investigation’? Or, have I got this wrong?

Cutts to Kimber 10 Oct 2013Kimber to Cutts 14 Oct 2013Kimber to Cutts 16 Oct 2013Cutts to Kimber 21 Oct 2013Cutts to Kimber 23 Oct 2013Kimber to Cutts 24 Oct 2013 page 1Kimber to Cutts 24 Oct 2013 page 2


7 thoughts on “Fox put in charge of the hen coop?

  1. .
    I doubt very much that Mr Cutts has any information that would be of value to the inquiry; it is however not for me or Mr Kimber to decide. I would have thought, that if the inquiry is to be truely independent, the decision on what to consider and who to interview should be made by the Chief Investigator, Alexis Jay. Clearly, if Mr Kimber and/or Mr Stone could possibly be culpable in this matter it would be highly improper for them to get involved at this stage. Why therefore doesn’t Kimber simply give Cutts the contact details of Alexis Jay and leave it up to her to decide?


  2. What the Hell happened here ???. This was to be an Independent Enquiry, it seems to me that anything to do with this issue, now has to go through the Chief Exc. This is the very same person that was called to give evidence on this issue. The Chief Exc has to declare the correct Interest, as he should do under the Employees Code of Conduct, and step away to avoid any conflict of Interest.
    asking to see the evidence before any witness speak is highly suspect.
    Mr Cutts should go direct to the Investigator if he has any concerns.


  3. The tome and content of the letters from Mr Kimber do not surprise me. Dealing with this man is like trying to nail down melting jelly. If Mr Kimber is the one to decide what Ms Jay sees then the cover up will continue. After all when it comes to protecting his paymasters and paycheck he is the master of see nowt, hear nowt, say nowt it will all go away.

    I can state now (past experience has taught me) Martin Kimber will deny any access by any critical witnesses to an inquiry using the semantics and avoidance used in his correspondence. It is his style and modus operendi. The evidence will be filtered and if critical put aside. If it does not suit his ‘viewed outcome’ it will be ignored or dismissed. And most importantly the RMBC Code of Practice will be ignored when time or RMBC’s need suits. (Mr Kimber reads and interrupts things the way HE WANTS to read and interrupt them then goes in to defensive mode)

    Personally I have no confidence in Mr Kimber, who by previous evidence has shown himself to be incapable and unwilling to ensure fairness is maintained. We (the people of Rotherham – of all communities, religious/ non religious and political / non political hues and views) want the whole truth and nothing but the truth to be told – not another cover up. Can we get that from Mr Kimber – no! We want justice for the victims.Can we get that from Mr Kimber – no! We want the guilty at the top to be held accountable and punished. Can we get that from Mr Kimber – no! We want an impartial inquiry not another PR exercise. Can we get that from Mr Kimber – no! What we don’t want Mr Kimber to play any part in the inquiry save but being investigated himself.

    Regarding the way Mr Kimber and his team (And the Young People’s Services) handle serious complaints – I’ve been through this process. I have experienced the the way the complaints process is closed down by his colleagues when its suits them; how they seem willing to look at issues until they realise the evidence is damning. How the ignore the code of practice when they want to. I have seen how the chain command closes ranks and bullies those that speak out in an attempt to ensure any real investigation is denied. I have seen the way the ignore evidence or shift blame to innocent ‘absent friends’. I have seen the RMBC senior management’s shady practice first hand and how their first instinct is to deny and their final instinct is to deny again then disparage. I have seen it all – and it wouldn’t look out of place in the comedy ‘The Thick of It.’ (Although the difference is the Thick of it is funny)

    Personally I have no faith Mr Kimber will be able or willing to impartially establish what are ‘important facts’ or not. I also have no faith in his ability to put his current ‘interests’ aside and present to Ms Jay ‘evidence of ‘real interest’ that are damming. (Why should this be down to him to decide – he was part of the scandal). I do have faith in one thing however – that any damning evidence will be consigned to the files by Mr Kimber or ignored. It is his and the senior RMBC ‘management’s way.

    But back to the correspondence detailed earlier. By denying Ms Jay access to witnesses (as Mr Kimber seems to be doing) that have not held senior political office Mr Kimber is closing down the breadth of the inquiry to only those with things to hide.. By denying Ms Jay access to witnesses that have not previously complained about issues of CSE he is stopping witnesses that wish to speak out now from doing so. By denying Ms Jay access to witnesses that were not directly responsible for the care of young people, but have evidence regarding what went on, he is denying others the chance, that do have valuable information, to come forward. By denying Ms Jay access to witnesses of other organisations and partners he is keeping the process in house so that only chosen witnesses can speak. And by denying Ms Jay access to witnesses that have other relevant information that is central to the whole picture being viewed he is keeping valuable evidence away form the prying eyes of the inquiry.In short Mr Kimber is closing down the inquiry so that only the ‘trusted’ at RMBC will be able to offer evidence. No change there then.

    I have a message for Mr Kimber – step down now – you have neither the impartiality (See Parliamentary Report) or past record of fairness to be able to be involved in the inquiry at any level. Indeed your role in the CSE scandal should be under investigation too. Look at the RMBC code of practice. Declare your conflict of interest to Ms Jay now and offer yourself open for investigation. This issue isn’t going to go away via another RMBC PR (sorry HR) exercise until it is sorted with clarity, transparency and honesty. It will haunt Rotherham and bring shame on the town every time the name of Rotherham is mentioned. Personally I am tired of hearing the reply ‘Oh that’s the town were they let children be abused,” every time I tell someone I live in Rotherham. Mr Kimber you should be tired of that too – do the decent thing and let someone less connected with the Grooming Scandal and more open to investigating issues complaints fairly take over your role.

    Perhaps one way for the inquiry to be open and fair is for Ms Jay to appeal directly via the media for anyone with information to contact her – not Mr Kimber – maybe she could appoint an aide to assist her? Surely with the issues being a serious breach of child protection of national importance we can afford that? In addition employees / ex employees / those with evidence of any nature should be able to offer evidence via an impartial third party (not RMBC) so giving them the confidence to do so. Just ideas – but i feel essential ones if the inquiry is to be fully impartial and accepted as so by the citizens of Rotherham.

    Personally I would like the contact of Alexis Jay so I can present my evidence personally regarding how RMBC covered up the management malpractice and shortfalls in child protection and bullied witnesses so I can get the chance to out the corrupt non elected charlatans at RMBC; show how they ducked and dived (even after complaints) to protect the guilty. I Would like to show my evidence to Ms Jay (silly managers do send some silly emails at times) and explain the links and malpractice present within those documents. (Once you know the jargon they are damning) I would like the chance to expose once and for all the tick box ethos of senior managers that meant that the grooming scandal (and more) was inevitable not an accident. And I would like to explain the chain of command that bore responsibility for all this to happen. If anyone has the contact of Ms Jay please post on here.



    One other footnote – how come if you complain to Mr Kimber or HR they always reply late saying they have been out of town for weeks / months or on holiday? Is this true or is it just a delaying tactic? And if they have been out of town or on such regular ‘trips’ or holidays for so long at such an important times – why do we pay them?


Leave your comment

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.