Dodson’s downfall – An Arrest

The Barry Dodson’s story has moved on with reports of his arrest last Friday!

His alleged crimes? Sexual abuse of a minor!

More soonest

dodson BBC

Previously on Rotherham Politics: Ex-Mayor Barry Dodson

Rothpols thanks to commenters, there are an increasing number that make specific allegations about one name, not Dodson. Please understand that without evidence, publication would be unwise. Should you wish to communicate with us please email Rothpol.

Elsewhere:

The Star: Ex Rotherham mayor accused of sex attack

The Advertiser: Ex-mayor Barry Dodson faces child sex abuse charge

48 thoughts on “Dodson’s downfall – An Arrest

  1. And yet again Rotherham hits the headlines with the actions of its politicians/criminals.

    Heads high everyone!!

    Oh, no, sorry, what I meant to say was – heads in the sandbucket everyone, just like the Rotherham Labour Party and their lacky slaves, er, oh, sorry again, the senior management of RMBC.

    Like

  2. A very sad day indeed for everyone and that includes Barry. I hope this can be sorted quickly and fairy so a bye election can take place so we can have another UKIP councillor.

    Like

  3. The police will investigate. CPS decide. Then maybe the court. If guilty he should be jailed. If not guilty go free. There’s a lot to come out one way or another. I will wait and see what happens.

    .

    Like

    • Dodson’s ‘departure’ from t’Labour Partee needs explanation too – surely the bruvers and sistas wouldn’t call judgement upon their esteemed colleague and mayor, oops, sorry, former mayor, until the process of law has been seen to be upheld??

      Was he shoved or did he leap?

      As for it being a sad day – can I just remind people; it’s the victims of the criminals and the feckless failure officials, that endure the sad days.

      Like

  4. Surely Labour will not want to go for more damaged goods by selecting Asbo Akhtar? If Labour relied more on Madame Guillotine these wastrels would not be able to return. Asbo must not return and learn, instead, to handle rejection.

    Like

  5. Accusations of racism, child abuse, general illegal acts (karate club) and resignation (removal )from Lord Mayor after 22 days he does need to wait for court decision to vacate his council seat

    Like

    • When Jahngir was a deputy he openly used to say its not good to have 2 asian councillors in one ward.
      Wot goes around comes around.
      We dont want another thug to replace the thug whos just gone shame on you Barry Dodson and Jahnghir Akhtar.
      G i agree Abdul Razak would be an ideal candidate for the Labour party.

      Like

  6. asbo needs to focus on taxi car driving , asbo is not wanted in eastwood. as for dodson ,do the right thing and stand down as a councillor .

    Like

  7. What about councillors who accessed pornographic sites on the council website and had to repay money back to RMBC. What will happen to them they are just as guilty

    Like

  8. Leaving the alleged offences by Dodson aside; Is there not a compelling case for councillors and other elected officials in Rotherham (and elsewhere) to be vetted before they are selected for whatever office is on offer? I’m tired of Mayor’s and Deputy officials being chosen because it’s Buggins turn and Leader’s selected just because of previous experience with another authority without thorough vetting.
    If Cyril Smith had been vetted and the results more widely known he would not have been able to hide his crimes against children. It is my honest and personal belief all local authority officials and councillors should be vetted before being offered any posts that are paid for from the public purse.
    I can find no record or evidence of enhanced vetting for RMBC officers. (Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places?)

    Like

    • Unknown GROW UP?
      If he was not guilty why did he resign as a Mayor? Why are police always outside his house in Eastwood? Do all the perpetrators get this protection.
      No one thinks about the poor victim?
      If this happened to someone close to your family how would you feel.
      There are 2 types of people one who admit there crime and lets the law of the land deal with them the other like Jangir Akhtar who carry on commiting crime, beat innocent people up, sells cigerates to underage girls etc and gets away with it.
      They should lock Barry Dodson and throw away the key?
      This is not a joke please bare one thing in mind everyone has a mother, sister, daughter and wife imagine if some one did this to them.
      These are serious alligations.
      Wake up and look around you.
      If it was not Bloggs like Rothpol these people would have got away with it.
      Sorry if i have said which might offend people but please please becareful when you defend these kinds of people.
      Its a shame apart from Rothpol no one speak the truth.
      Like SAJID BOSTAN said they have fixed the council, the police, BBC radio Sheffield and the Advertiser.
      Well one day the criminal gets caught out. One thing you cant control is Rothpol.
      Well done to the victim who came forward. Who knows there will be more victims. This is just the tip of ice burg.

      Like

      • If it was any other partyies candidate this would have been national news and Labour would have had a field of day.
        Because its Labour party they get away with it AGAIN.
        Sajid Bostan is this what you were refering to when you made the comments above.
        We know that you have criminal record and you have spent time in jail and still driving around in taxis. Who helped you get your licence Jahngir Akhtar and Barry Dodson i bet.

        Like

    • What exactly would be your argument Robin, that we shouldn’t crb check people who have access to children as they probably haven’t got a criminal record.

      Like

      • I have no argument. I was merely expressing my opinion regarding the instant case concerning Dodson. I have no problem at all with people who have access to children or vulnerable adults being subject to DBS checks.

        Like

  9. What vetting was used for Akhtar, he had a serious criminal record and was still given the nod. In the full knowledge that Akhtar had convictions for thuggery and selling cigarettes to children he was selected to be a Labour candidate and to compound the contempt for the electorate this disgraced person was considered suitable to be the vice-chairmen of the SY Police and Crime Panel!

    Like

    • @anonymous.
      What you posted is true however the fact he was allowed to carry on is not the failings of the vetting procedures but the fault of those who chose to ignore his criminality.
      Monitoring Officer? What Monitoring Officer?

      Like

      • Sajid Bostan was right they have got control over Sheffield Star nothing been mentioned about the fact that Barry Dodson was a Labour Councillor until July 2014.
        If this was a UKIP councillor they would have had time of their life.
        Jahnghir on his facebook and twitter account his questioning UKIP councillors declaration of interests.
        Not forgetting his own over 30+ properties not declared and the money laundering, unity centre, funds equipment missing, running family buissness, selling taxi plates i could go on forever.

        Like

  10. I am reminded of the karate kids speech when accepting the job of lord mayor, he said how he was going to help all the children of Rotherham who are hungry and have no love. He went on to say he was going to provide that love, I thought at the time it was a strange speech, seems I wasn’t far wrong.
    Dave Smith

    Like

    • Barry has no experience in community work what so ever. He has ensured that east ward is more deprived day by day no wonder other investigations are being covered up racism towards an asian lad from eastdene.

      Like

  11. I’m afraid I will have to come to the defense of ‘The Star’ , ‘Advertiser’ and press here. They are in a difficult position. It is not of their making and is governed by statutory legislation and press guidelines.

    The reason why the press can not report in the angry manner some have suggested, or give an opinion, is because the investigation is on going. (Active) To report anything other than known facts from the onset of arrest could compromise any investigation.In short encourage a presumption of guilt or innocence. The media are not dealing with a case of investigative journalism here – they are dealing with a ‘live’ legal process. Hence their differing and necessary approach.

    The press can state a person has been arrested, they can state the circumstances,they can state formal details regarding the background of the arrest, they can state basic details regarding the identity and non case related background of the person arrested (although that was questioned by Leveson and still is being questioned)- but that’s about it. If further official details do come apparent regarding the case they then can report them so long as they are factual. If they find further evidence of any form they can inform the authorities as you or I can. However, regarding any aspect of reporting on ‘ACTIVE proceedings’ the media must tread carefully. The following may explain it better than I can.

    ‘”Active proceedings’ – Once proceedings are ‘active’, anything which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in these proceedings will be seriously prejudiced or impeded will be a contempt of court.”

    “In most criminal cases, proceedings become ‘active:
    On the arrest of a suspect;
    When an arrest warrant is issued;
    On the issue of a summons (in Scotland a complaint) or indictment.
    This may be well before a person in charged or when a person in charged..
    Presumptions (in the media) of guilt, lack of guilt or opinions that could compromise any investigation are not permitted and could be seen as a serious contempt of court.”

    Whether you agree with that or not ‘The Star’,Advertiser or any media outlet has to comply..

    Where the press (or individual) have ‘overstepped’ these guidelines in the past some cases have been found to be in contempt – or in other instances the case has been thrown out completely. This happened in a major case I was asked to provide professional evidence for six years ago elsewhere in the UK. In that case the local press overstepped the mark by a long way before the trial – as a result the proceedings were stopped on the first day; the ‘accused was not tried again.

    Now this may not be perfect for all – but that’s why the press tread carefully. They, like all, including Child Protection Case Professionals (I was one) can not presume the guilt or innocence of any one arrested or charged if that is the case. That is for the legal process to decide.

    Personally, I have seen many cases in court over the years. But even though I may have found the guidelines detailed difficult at times (I had to follow them as well) I actually agree with them,. Natural justice is for the courts to decide. They decide guilt or innocence not the public or public or personal opinion.

    Now today the ‘Advertiser’ asked for clarity regarding why the people of Rotherham were not given more details about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the mayor – they asked for more openness from all councilors in the future regarding such and other issues. They are entitled to put that opinion forward and it is one with which I agree. However, regarding an ‘Active Proceeding’ they still have to be careful how they report the arrest as so not to be be seen to compromise justice. They will be aware of this whether .it comes to court or not.

    So whatever your opinion regarding how things are reported in this instance you can’t blame the press – or the legal system for that matter. A person is presumed not guilty unless convicted and the press have to follow that principle. It’s one of the foundations of British justice. And one I am proud we have it in place.

    I hope that explains it all.

    SKT xxxx

    Like

      • Still doesn’t answer the first questions has to why he resigned as mayor. If he or someone of the Labour party knew about the forthcoming allegations why was he made first Citizen in the first place. (Maybe they needed an excuse to have a knees up)
        The allegations came weeks after he resigned. He still attended his council planning meeting the week he resigned then after was missing in action. He was actually seen in Skegness looking his normal self then when he arrived home (whether because the police where looking for him) he then left the labour party and became an independent cllr. The Rotherham east residents didn’t vote for an independent Cllr so should really step down altogether. The Rotherham Labour party know more than there letting on cause the allegations came weeks after, and using the ‘can’t comment on a police matter’ is utter nonsense. He was made to resign as mayor and this would have come from the top for if he was found to have committed any crime while still mayor this would be more offensive to Rotherham council and the sovereignty.
        With this and the court case related to his karate club incident. Dobson’s time is up he’s had a good long run at being a Cllr receiving his allowances maybe back to taxi driving , but if found the allegations are true then he won’t even be able to do that. Rotherham still deserves to know the reasons why he resigned and was it voluntary or was he pushed…

        Like

    • A very good analysis SKT. You explained certain things I was not aware of especially the DBS.
      As far as I am aware most child molesters use a computer to watch/groom/contact young children for the purposes of sexual satisfaction therefore records of any visits to inappropriate sites and/or social media will remain on the computer. Once someone is suspected of inappropriate behaviour it is not difficult for a forensic IT tech person to recover the information. I take your point about investigators being judgemental but as the CPS prosecutes when alleged crimes against children are ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
      http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/prosecuting_child_abuse_wda70195.html
      It should not be difficult to show whether or not a person is guilty of inappropriate behaviour.
      I appreciate it is not as simple as pointing the finger and undertaking an investigation but to paraphrase: We have the technology.

      Like

  12. Re: THE CRB. (Sorry for the legally bits again)

    The CRB checks were majorly flawed. Many thousands of people had ‘misinformation’ communicated about them to employers. (Including shockingly opinion not fact) In other cases mature adults were ‘mistargeted’ (CRB’s term not mine – in fact all terms with ‘ ‘ in this thread were CRB terminologies) ) for minor non applicable conviction when young. (The building trade was notorious for this)

    In other cases employers were asking for CRB’s in jobs that were not covered. In other cases thousands were denied employment because of ‘clerical errors’, ‘irrelevant information’, (personal opinion) ‘non applicable convictions’ and in some case ‘fabrication’. As a result the costs In administration and remuneration (though that was difficult) was too costly. In the end (I would have said at the beginning) it had to change or go..

    When mistakes occurred (and it was hundreds of thousands per year) putting things right was costly and time consuming and unless you knew how too do it almost impossible. (Even then it could take several months – a couple of years) People without convictions lost jobs. People with applicable convictions went undetected and basically the right hand of the CRB didn’t know how to communicate with the left hand.
    The system was a shambles – it had to be redesigned – or go.. .

    The new Disclosure Barring Service (DBS – see link below) is more efficient. Not perfect – but more efficient. . Yes, the Government have omitted several volunteer post to be deemed not necessary under the process which I think should be included – but it is a step forward.

    Maybe all councillors should have to go through DBS? Maybe they do already? I don’t know. However, it would only highlight ‘current and applicable convictions’. It can do nothing more or nothing less.

    As for checks including home computers, activity on social networks and acquaintances. (God help me I come on Roth Pol and there’s some reeeet acquaintances on here – and my Mom says some of my friends are quite rude at times lol) ) The problem about this is ‘what is deemed a risk’? Also how does ‘individual perception affect judgment’ regarding ‘perceived risk’? It’s murky water in which to paddle. And needs a bigger brain than mine to sort out.

    This proposal (checks including home computers, activity on social networks and acquaintances) has been discussed at high levels throughout the ‘free world’ (I never totally understand that term – again it’s open to interpretation) and it was found almost impossible to define what is ‘acceptable intrusion’. Mainly because it can be interpolated for personal reasons and in so many ways. (Lawyers clasp their hands in glee)

    What one sees as an in ‘appropriate opinion’ or social life – or comment on social media for example – others will not. It could also in essence be misused for personal / political reasons / ‘unethical gain’ and and many more personal reasons in practice. For instance does rumour or opinion have a basis in fact or is it simply rumour and opinion? What is fact? How do personal morals affect such a judgment? What are personal morals? Should they have a place in jugdements?

    In addition was was considered that it would open the floodgates for ‘uncorroborated blacklist’ and individuals and and so called agencies (such as the Economic League) to ply their evil trade freely and without redress. (A practice even some in this Government are against).Like I said it’s murky water. An like I said ‘it would make the lawyers gleeful)

    All in all checks including home computers, activity on social networks and acquaintances can seem a simple solution but in reality is more complex and is open to .abuse. And until they find a system that can guarantee individuals or agencies can not abuse it I’m out on this one.

    Still if anyone can come up with a foolproof system (I admit I am that fool) I am open to persuasion. But then you would also have to convince the legal eagles. Confusing isn’t it?

    https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview

    SKT xxxx

    PS: it’s amazing the phrases you remember when you work in such a field. I must get a life.

    PPS: on a lighter note I like the song on the other thread.

    Like

  13. Dear sbweb1975,

    I understand you concern. But neither can I.I think that’s what ‘The Tizer was trying to get at.

    SKT xxxx

    Like

Leave your comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.