SYP Investigating themselves?

This piece was left as a comment, it’s contents are too important to miss!

“Sorry Anonymous, but in the real world Caven simply isn’t that important.

Think about Keith Vaz & the Home Affairs Select Committee who seriously criticised SYP & the Council , yet despite being much more important than Caven they barely caused a ripple.

No, this is more sinister, and I will recount some facts:

1. The SYP attempted to stop the Times article being published on the grounds that it would jeopardise an ongoing investigation that included the Jessica case & doing precisely what they criticised Andrew Norfolk for.

2. They have now concluded that the allegations in the Times are unfounded I.e. Jessica’s evidence is unfounded. Thereby discrediting Jessica.

Now think about any future prosecution of the abuser Ash. What is his Solicitor going to say about her evidence? I’ll spell it out; the Police have already decided upon the value of her testimony by stating that she has made unproven allegations.

The other point to remember is that when investigating Akhtar on this matter they were de-facto investigating themselves. After all they were in the end responsible for the trade off and the decision not to prosecute.

The scary bits include:

1. SYP management surely can’t be unaware that they should not be deemed competent to investigate a case where they themselves are implicated in allowing a perpetrator to go free?

2. Despite this they went ahead & publicised a conclusion that jeopardised an ongoing inquiry and potentially undermined a future trial.

I believe this was all mapped out in advance as a method to get them all off the hook.”

Wil Ewart

Extracted from: Rotherham, a scary place where the Police can no longer be trusted

8 thoughts on “SYP Investigating themselves?

  1. I am wondering if Rothpole get a few names together and report this so called investigation to the police complaints commission and request that they investigate it What’s your thoughts.


  2. I’m not sure where you are coming from here Wil. All I said was that when Cllr Vines reported this matter to Ch. Supt Harwin, he could not just ignore it. Whether it was investigated properly is another matter and that is why I said the whole complaint should be referred to the IPCC for them to investigate it independently. There is a nasty smell somewhere, a very nasty one, but the suggestion here that SYP are investigating themselves is not quite true! There is no doubt in my mind that the IPCC will have to be involved sooner or later.


    • Think about the results of this investigation….

      It exonerates Akhtar and by default SYP themselves. It condemns Jessica’s evidence and thereby potentially nullifies it in any ongoing or future Police investigation that might embarass them by finding that they failed children.

      It condemns their bete noir, Andrew Norfolk.

      It may fool some people who do not realise that they were investigating themselves & provides a smokescreen for….

      The real investigation should be into identifying who made the decision to let Ash go, why and whether or not this was in keeping with Police policy at that time? Was that decision outwith the Law?

      All these win-wins for SYP with no risk, as there never was a claim from The Times that Akhtars actions were illegal….so if Caven hadn’t made the allegations they would probably have found someone else to do so……that is the point


  3. It’s time this investigation was taken out of the hands of anyone with Rotherham connections whether it be RMBC elected / unelected officials, South Yorkshire Police, The Social Services, Young People’s Services or Barnardos. With so much to hide and social care contracts for provision under tender (with RMBC deciding in many cases who gets them ) too many vested interests are avoiding the real issues and it will never be resolved until an independent third party (without Mr Kimber’s pick and choosing of evidence) looks at who was responsible, what really went on and who ordered what at the top.

    I have read the Barnardos report several times and like all I can see it has deliberate gaps and areas of ‘memory loss’. In general it is little more than a tick box exercise designed to give a rosey press release style overview of the alleged current state of play and seems to ignore the central theme of what went on, who was responsible and what should be done to bring them to book. Personally I could have written it in a day and it’s nothing more than standard information anyone who has worked in the social care field since 1994 should know and be doing already. (The recommendations have been practice since the onset of the Connexions Service in the 1994 which was re jigged in 2001)

    If you doubt that the Barnardos report is simply regurgitating old guidelines and swapping new lamps for old please see the policies on Every Child Matters (maybe not in Rotherham). These guidelines were in place in Rotherham for years and should have been standard practice. Indeed they were on the front line until senior managers and officials came to see them as nothing more than nice mailshots and began to have the tendency to interfere in practice because they became more concerned with targets and stats and personal inter – departmental / agency politics and power games..

    Link to Every Child Matters:

    Click to access ECM-Summary.pdf

    As you can see the Barnardos report does little other than to restate practice that was in place / should have been in place for years and everyone who works in the social care and community sectors should know and be doing already. .I see nothing new – it’s not ground breaking – indeed it’s the type of standard practice that is taught to all social workers when they are studying for their qualifications.

    In short I’ve seen this Barnardos ‘simple mail shot’ (it’s not a report) so any times I just think not again. Surely they should have used the type of information contained in it as a starting point for discussion, not the be and end all of recommendations. It is already statutory that the so called recommendations they make should be in place – that should not be in question. What they should have been doing is explaining why the already existing statutory practice was not being undertaken and who at the top is responsible for the fact it isn’t. Then we can sack them all. One suggestion lets start with Joyce Thacker and her senior team.

    New report? As if. Barnardos must do better.



    I am awaiting communication this week (the did promise) from my legal adviser re how young people at risk were deliberately incorrectly registered or deregistered and dealt with / not dealt with by RMBC and contracting agencies. Somehow no one will look at that seriously at RMBC (and it is serious and central to the issue – and is I have been told still going on). So far my complaint as taken nearly 3 years. I will keep you informed when i know more.


  4. Ok people let’s put our money where our mouths are lots of back room barristers telling us what we should do but nothing will happen unless we all put up and put it to the test get a number of us to put our names it the ring above the parapet and demand a external investigation by the PCC
    Into the Andrew norfolks allegations printed it the press if there is no truth in this surely they would be in court-by now
    Put my name at the top of the list Cllr Caven Vines Rick knows how to contact me
    So let’s see who is serious about sorting this issue or who is all hot air


    • Caven perhaps a little premature? I am sure that a wider and deeper appreciation will be required first.
      Our local politicians are about as slippery as eels so it is best to construct an eel trap, from which they cannot escape, first!
      Remember Ahmed and MacShane! There are lessons to be learned?


  5. Well said SKT. I have been saying for ages now that nothing less than a full Judicial Enquiry will do in this case. Those persons investigating must have no connections to Rotherham whatsoever!


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.