Rotherham Politics very own Cheeky Monkey thought readers might appreciate this piece of satire:
….this was earmarked as the new RMBC safeguarding poster. Just stopped at the last minute after it was decided by committee that it might be a bit obvious. Leaked by a town hall insider to a cheeky monkey!
Rotherham Politics 
Clearly, Wright, Lakin and Thacker!
And in the background we have our good friend Community Cohesion.
LikeLike
I wondered which one was Jo Burton, the Vice Chair of the committee in place to safeguard vulnerable children. After all she did say at Anston Parish Council that she knew nothing at all about it. Maybe she is all three!
LikeLike
Not in the best of taste is it. Some subjects just aren’t funny and the victims are unlikely to find this piece of “satire” amusing.
LikeLike
Not what I expect to find on this blog. Really bad taste Rothpol.
LikeLike
No it’s not a funny subject Robin, but nor is it funny that the people who knew what was happening are still there today trying to cover up the fact that they were the SEE ALL,HEAR ALL and SAY NOTHING LOT,who did nothing to proctect those young girls.There is more truth in that one image than what has come out of that town hall in the last decade. Satire should offend when the truth is an uncomfortable one, As for the victims I am sure they are still more upset with the council employee’s who allowed them to be repeatedly abused in the first place. More power to you cheeky monkey, pity more people are not calling them out for the enablers that they are.
LikeLike
References to known celebrity pedophiles as an attempt at humour is in my opinion offensive. I may of course be wrong and you may be right. If you think it’s ok to make jokes about child abuse that happened in our town then that’s up to you. Personally I find it offensive and I can only imagine how the victims might feel but carry on if you think it’s ok..
LikeLike
Having read the scanned Times articles I can see the message in the three monkey post.
While vulnerable children were being abused in Rotherham the authorities who, one should have prevented the abuse, two protected the children and three targeted the abusers putting them ALL away for a very long time, they did absolutely nothing to safeguard these children.
If I recall political correctness crept into the discussions on how to deal with the abusers, not unlike the PC comments regarding the three monkey post.
The key RMBC players from what I can see are still in post with no sign of anyone being taken to task.
I have searched the Rothpol blog and I am unable to find any post from the individuals complaining about the three monkey post on the failings of RMBC to protect the abused children, I am also unable to find any comments from Symonds et al following the Times articles, however just as soon as RMBC is put under the spot light by a very uncomfortable post, out they come!
You have to wonder just whose side these individuals are on, the abused children of Rotherham or the incompetent RMBC officers and members.
For the record, the post is not offensive, it uses subtle satire to hit home a point that the authorities failed to protect vulnerable children, keeping the spotlight on the same incompetent officers and members responsible for the scale of the Rotherham abuse just may prevent other children from being targeted and abused
Then again this is Rotherham and no doubt the PC thought police will stifle any attempt for open debate on the subject.
LikeLike
From many of your previous posts Robin, I think you must find almost everything offensive. Anyone speaking the truth about immigration is a racist, anything which has an impact on the abusers/ and those who cover it up, you find offensive. I think you should start to live in the real world and open your blinkered eyes.
LikeLike
Once again, as I seem to be doing more and more on here, can I ask everyone to take a breath. Whilst I hope we can all agree that the image is immature, and I would describe it as an attack piece rather than satire, I can find nothing to disagree with contained within.
Paedophiles protected – yes.
Paedophiles’ identities hushed up – yes.
Child delivery service – well, we’d have to ask a certain illustrious former cllr and SYP about that. I seem to recall a victim being ‘delivered’ from an abuser to the police. I have no inside knowledge of that, so I’m sure we’d all appreciate a clear and unequivocal denial from RMBC, SYP or the individual involved that it ever happened.
I am more concerned that once again, the victims are being used as a smokescreen for council apologists to avoid the real issues. Unlike some I cannot, nor would I, seek to speak for the victims or their families, but I am a parent and if, God forbid, this ever happened to me or mine, I would welcome any attack on those responsible in RMBC because clearly nothing appears to be changing from within. Instead we see the usual suspects defending those responsible citing ‘bad taste.’
If those calling this image ‘bad taste’ would indulge me, I would strongly recommend they revisit the thread entitled ‘Abdul Razaq’ – A Response’ on this blog. For me, bad taste is allowing the father of two child rapists to continually upset the mother of one of the victims right here for the world to see. The silence on that thread was deafening from those who seek to claim the moral high ground and serves only to undermine the position they are taking.
Images like this will surely stop, but only when justice has been seen to be done to EVERYONE involved in Rotherham’s darkest hour. I’m afraid to say, that would include a large number of employees of RMBC, whatever those connected to the council might wish for. Until that day comes, I’d welcome any post that shines a light on the despicable actions (and inactions) of those employed by RMBC that allowed countless, vulnerable young girls to be abused over a period of YEARS.
LikeLike
The only thing I’d take issue with in your post is calling a former Councillor illustrious -infamous would be a better description!
LikeLike
Not offensive for the simple reason that it targets those who failed to protect vulnerable young girls not the victims themselves, although the suggestion that they somehow actively made those girls available to paedophiles is dubious and unproven. Now if it made fun of the victims if would be offensive
LikeLike
Each to their own I suppose. I personally think it is bad taste to use such an issue for political points scoring. It’s not acceptable to say the satire is aimed at those who failed to protect the victims. IMO it’s not right to try to make humour out of such an issue and the reference to Gary Glitter is insensitive to say the least. If we were talking about a child murder would it be ok to refer to Ian Brady or Ian Huntley and expect the victim’s family to be ok with it because it’s an attack on the authorities? If it’s just me that’s easily offended then so be it.
LikeLike