Go Healey Go!

It’s crystal clear if the Labour Party are to regain a grain of the support they have enjoyed in Rotherham over the last 40 years then they must clear the stables, starting with John Healey.

He has many questions to answer over the child grooming cover ups-

1- Were the child grooming issue discussed at his weekly meetings with his chum and confidant Roger Stone ?

2- How much did Shaun Wright tell him ? It is common knowledge that Healey not only a political ally of the Wrights but also became a close family friend.

3- the probability of Susan Ellis must have discussed the rapes with him at their regular meetings and at the monthly social dinner parties he used to host for the likes of Ellis, Atkin and Thirlwall has to be of great measurement.

4- Healey seems to be the common thread running throughout the period covered by the Jay report. He undoubtedly had intimate knowledge of what was going on in the upper echelons of the Council Leadership with his relationships with Stone, Wright, Ellis, Atkin and Lakin.

Healey seems to think that by sacrificing a number of Councillors he is going to get away Scott free but one thinks the genie is out of the bottle and even his chums at the NEC will not be able to save him from the chop. He should do the honourable thing by stepping aside while a full investigation is undertaken by the Labour Party. If he doesn’t then the people of Wentworth and Dearne constituency will judge him and kick him out of office next May. I know who I’ll be voting!

Wath Resident.

60 thoughts on “Go Healey Go!

  1. And it seems likely Healey will have been well in with the Police Authority – via Alan Hartley, whose wife has worked in Healey’s Wath office for many years.. and thereby, with the Chief Constables, Mike Hedges, Meredydd Hughes and (acting) Bob Dyson. Tentacles of the Rotherham sexual exploitation sweep round and round the area.. touching far too many people.

    But who will police this? There certainly seems to have been little policing when two ex-Chief Constables have ended up – one in child safeguarding in Barnsley, and the other on the Board of the Children’s Hospital in Sheffield.

    Are they both still in post? Has anyone checked?

    Like

  2. Healey should do the honourable thing and leave but what equally troubled me is Healey’s undemocratic meddling in the investigations. Trying to pass the blame on to his non friend councillorsin which he wants them to be the fall guy. Whilst at the same time pulling strings to get his chums Ellis, Atkin and Co of the hook. This is just the same old carry on. Nothing has changes.

    Like

  3. If this year local election result was translated into next years general election result then we’d see the right honourable Collins, Vines and Cowles. Rotherham may be just on the verge of something historic!

    Like

  4. How can the labour party’s investigations and resulting action new free and proper if Healey is manipulating the situation to his advantage?

    Like

  5. It’s interesting what official accountability states, that Alan Hartley’s wife worked in his office for many years. Just like the set up Ms Champion has with the advertiser’s editor wife. Cronyism at it’s best or worst.

    Like

  6. It is thought that Healey and Barron will protect their own councillors because they are their yes men/women. Discouraging any critical thinkers away. If the Labour party is reading this, don’t let Healey dictate what’s what. He has his own agenda.

    Like

  7. What’s with Healey throwing dinner parties for his chums? What a crowd. No wonder Thirlwall is so far up Sue Would’ve backside. They are truly in it together!

    Like

  8. crony, you must be a very lonely person because you obviously don’t understand what friends are for. I bet you was a little weasel at school with candles running down your nose who nobody would play with. You also probably wanted to be in a gang with the big boys so you could beat anyone up you was jealous of. Night night Billy no mates, sweet dreams.
    By the way blog in your own name you coward

    Like

  9. Rothpol, if you think I am going to sit here and let little s**ts like that make those sort of comments about me and my friends without responding you are very much mistaken

    Like

    • Politicians lives are open to scrutiny. Like it not they become persons of interest especially when they are paid by the tax payer. Without trying to justify peoples slander regarding the nature of our relationship with friends they are entitled to scrutinize the character of the people they vote for. Sometimes they get it wrong and sometimes right. The salary of politicians is adequate compensation for the flack they sometimes receive.

      Like

  10. Peter, stop throwing your bottle out of the pram. Thank god Rothpol has as always remained focus on the bigger picture which is holding those who are guilty whether wilfully or negligently to account. Where as you Peter, you’re no council watching crusader. You were Labour and are still firmly in the nest with those who have failed. You are a mere portion of what you use to be, and I don’t say that in a negative manner, I genuinely hope you could follow in rothpols footsteps but first of all you need to get out of bed with Ellis, Atkin, Healey and co. Oh and peter. The talk in Catcliffe is that you are standing for UKIP. I’m sure you’ll clear that up for us won’t you?

    Like

  11. GOSH I knew Thirlwall were close but by heck didn’t think they were this close. There could be more to this friendship than meets the eye. Maybe romance. Seriously though Peter you need to take a chill pill. you don’t want to go and upset your blood pressure at your age.

    Like

  12. I’ve just come in from the pub where I have met my mates, as I have done every Thursday night for the past 46 years. I don’t suppose crony and anon would know what it’s like to have good friends like that even though most of them are Tories. Anyone like you who lets politics come between friends must be really sad. Oh and by the way, I would rather be a piano player in a brothel than stand for UKIP you moron.

    Like

  13. Ah well Peter. That’s the thing you see, I do have friends believe it or not. And to an extent you’re right in the sense that politics shouldn’t come between friends but that only can ever be achieved in part. The difference here my so called ‘independent’ friend is hypocrisy. You see my closest friends work for BAE systems. So therefore I have not turned my self into some anti BAE systems critic. It would be hypocritical of me to do so taking into account the company I keep. And this is your flaw, since your expulsion from the labour party you have turned yourself into a labour council critic but whilst at the same time a wining and dining them. If they we’re your family then that could be forgiven as we don’t get to chose on that but we can choose the company we keep.

    Like

  14. Oh and don’t be so harsh on the UKIP ticket. Someone like you and their dwindling success cannot be picky. At least if you join UKIP you can {like cllrs Vines and Turner) pretend you are slightly less accountable for your cse seminar attendance in 2005.

    Like

  15. Can we bring this back to the subject in hand. Obviously Healey has set his dog of war on anyone who dares to hold him to account. It’s very telling that Healey is desperately trying to distance himself from Stone and Wright whole still protecting Ellis and Atkin. Although they should be aware that as soon as the noose is put around their necks, they won’t see Healey for the dust. People will recall he was fully behind Wright right up to the time when he did finally resign.

    Before I become the target for Thurlwell’s vicious attacks I would say that he always has an opinion on a variety of subjects yet chooses to stay quite about his involvement in the child rape cover up. So come on Peter tell us why you Ellis and the rest of your chums who attended the seminar didn’t do a thing to protect our children.

    Like

  16. Wath Resident, I don’t know how many times I have to say this but for your benefit I’ll say it one more time: I will produce my account of what I was told at the 2005 seminar in the near future but at a time of my choosing. Since I am the only person who attended the seminar that has promised to account for myself, why is it that you think I should be the target of your venom? I have been asked on this blog to produce evidence to support my account which is taking some time to get hold of. I trust when I do produce my account that you will be satisfied that those at the seminar knew very little of what was going on but you will just have to wait and see. Is that clear enough? Oh and by the way, I have never been to a diner party with Alan Atkin but don’t let the truth spoil a good story will you. And crony, what you don’t seem to understand is that I still have socialist leaning but my criticism has not so much been about Labour but about the Labour leadership in Rotherham Council and what makes you thing I want to stand for election for any party or even as an independent or is this just another one of your fantasies ?

    Like

    • Pete, If your friends of 46 years are reading this blog sight ; at least if they are your true friends, they should be honest with you about your responses to your critics on this blog. If they are encouraging you with your recent comments then I would say that they are making an ass out of you.They should speak kindly to you and try to prevent you from making an further ass of yourself.
      If indeed the council knew very little ,as you say, then Ms Jay and the witnesses are lying. You can’t blame people for being perplexed by that….You are the only person to give account of yourself on this sight, but ask yourself , why are the others not doing so. Redeem yourself and tell what you know. Keep people updated when you receive further info that you need. The people who paid you to represent them over the years deserve that… don’t they.

      Like

      • Linda, it s possible, if Peter is right, that Ms Jay made an error, not told a lie about the 2005 seminar. What is curious is, if Peter is right and the 2005 seminar did not give participants such a lurid picture of the abuse as is generally believed then why are people not coming out and saying so in droves?

        Like

    • Hi, Peter, I know patience is a virtue but I believe you would have kicked down doors to get the info you need to clear yourself of any knowledge of the CSE . I certainly would…Can’t help wondering if the Ms Thacker quote that CSE ” is the result of their lifestyle choice ” has gone some way dampen down the seriousness of what has taken place in Rotherham, along with the PC notion and threat of racism in tackling criminal behavior of some ethnic citizens.

      Like

  17. Hi revsimcop. Fair comment, Not sure though of your reasons for challenging me on this one. !However I am honestly glad someone is giving Peter the benefit of the doubt. He’s taken a fair thrashing over this on behalf of a morally defective council….

    Like

    • It’s me again Revsimcop, Not sure if I understood your response to my earlier comment properly. Still not sure after reading through a few times. I still think he’s taken a lot of flack for a morally bankrupt council and I have fired a few rounds myself trying to get him to be more forthcoming. He’s as stubborn as a mule eh.

      Like

      • Hi Linda Peter seems to hint above that the 2005 seminar wasnt as dynamite as Jay suggests and will produce evidence to back that view up. If Peter says so I see no reason to doubt him although I will withold judgement til I see his evidence. But what puzzles me is if Peter can get this evidence, why has noone else at the seminar brought it forward too to clear themselves and prove that they were really in the dark about the scale of the problem? If Jay is correct in her conclusion that key movers and shakers at RMBC must have known about the extent of Cse etc (but has exaggerated the role of the 2005 seminar in being the source of that knowledge) then we must conclude that the knowledge came from other meetings, minutes, seminars etc. But we dont know what, when, who with regard to these. My paranoid conspiracy theory mind is telling me that many Labour councillors were in the know, perhaps long before, and the circumstances of how they came to know and whether there was an even more concerted cover up for dubious reasons (rather than simply being warned not to rock the boat because it might jeapordisepolice investigations) might be even more damaging. If so, it suits them to keep a low profile, make non commital statements about their involvement in the 2005 seminar and take milder criticism for that rather than more vociferous criticism for anything else that we dont yet know about. The wall of silence and defensiveness in refusing to come clean about that seminar from Labour (Eg Havenhand, Burton, St John) is deafening. The alternative explanation for this silence is that the seminar was as pivotal as Jay surmises and Peter has something revealing to say but Peter has hinted the opposite.

        Like

    • Hi Linda
      My thinking? Firstly, I think it is too black and white to say someone is a liar because they simply got their facts wrong or have possibly not been told the whole picture. Secondly, I am sure lots of people knew more than they are letting on hence the wall of silence surrounding this particular seminar. Perhaps it is only the tip of an iceberg of other meetings, seminars, communications etc and folk are happy for it to be a smokescreen. Dont draw too much atention to it in case people see it as that. The question then is, where was all this knowledge and how and when was it filtered out and to whom? With both those thoughts in mind , until we get a proper public enquiry we will generate more heat than light and be unable to apportion censure where it should rightly be placed. I, personally, cant wait for Peter’s revelations about that seminar so that we have a bit more clarity and can move on to ask the next lot of questions that need asking. I know Peter a bit although not as a friend and I think he is one of the few people of integrity who has been involved with Rotherham Labour in recent years (and, by association, I surmise that some of his other collegues may have been on the side of the angels too). Why else would he have been booted out of their group? I believe Labour are becoming dangerously dysfunctional. They tried to make Sean Wright and Roger Stone the sole scapegoats to begin with eg and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is spectacular falling out to come because scapegoating doesnt work when more than the scapegoats should carry the blame. Hence I mistrust anything Rotherham Labour do or say at present…when people are guilty en masse the result is usually bitter recrimination and the inability to deal with fall out dispassionately and certainly powerlessnes to tackle the original problems. Hence Rotherham needs a complete re election of the council immediately.

      Like

      • Hi Rev… I was not in any way inferring that Ms Jay was in fact not telling the truth. Quite the opposite. It would however have been more accurate for me to say that if indeed the 2005 meeting with council was not clear on the CSE issue there has been an error on somebodies part. However normal common sense tells me that something on this scale of depravity affecting the towns children, information would be coming in from various sources and this seems to be the case .

        My questions to Peter Thirlwall are more about how he responds to people with legitimate questions. Something very undignified for an intelligent person of integrity.

        If indeed Pete’s revelation clears himself and other councilors I will most certainly apologise to him publically.

        Lastly Rev, I think I misread your comment to me and misunderstood it and over reacted to it. Made a dick of myself as they say in NZ. I realized that after I had already sent it.

        Like

      • Hi Rev, You may remember that in one of Peter’s earlier posts, he said he received advice to keep “his head down” He rightly chose to engage in this blog without being able to offer much in the way of explanation yet. Why would anyone tell him to keep his head down and say ‘nowt’ ? I find that needs some explanation. Perhaps those who told him to do so may want to explain why and like Peter use their own name.

        Like

        • I can put my hand up to being one of those urging caution on Peter. I did so for two reasons, firstly I felt, and still do, that there were others still on the council with far more to reproach themselves for, than Peter. Secondly I feared the intemperate outburst that came, which would damage both his own reputation and the political future of one he seems determined to protect!
          Rik

          Like

  18. Of all the peopled who need to be held to account Peter Thirlwell is not one of them. This issue is taking on the charecteristics of a witch hunt. No one seems to be asking why no ploice officer has been hald to account for this. I suoppose there is no political advantage to be made from doing so.

    Like

  19. If you attended a briefing by staff from Risky Business you would have been left in no doubt what so ever on the scale of the abuse or the origins of the perpetrators.

    Risky Business had been working with the abused children and their families, they had built up a detailed picture of who was carrying out the abuse, the locations of where the abuse took place, the names of the taxi companies and the modus operandi used by the perpetrators to identify and snare their victims.

    The office of Risky Business was broken into; the intelligence files disappeared, by total coincidence RMBC computers went missing.

    The funding for Risky Business was pulled, the staff were made redundant, the service was withdrawn and the abuse was covered up.

    Alex Jay did not make an error, if she is guilty of anything is that she only scratched the surface when it came to the way Risky Business was closed down.

    The dominating culture within the council at the time was of overt bullying, male dominated and politically correct dominated decision making, Risky Business had used the Pakistani word and for a small number of highly influential Labour politicians this was not acceptable.

    The race card was used, sadly the bulk of Labour politicians were and still are from a very low educational base and could not see beyond the race card to challenge the highly influential Cllr`s.

    The abused continued.

    Risky Business had also built up a picture how the local police and social services had responded to the crimes, this was not a view that any of those in charge would want to get into the public domain, readers may recall the response from the head of communications for the local Labour party following the initial Andrew Norfolk articles, it was to gag anyone speaking out, maybe that individual should be investigated by the Labour party.

    Let us be clear, a Risky Business briefing would not have pulled any punches, so for anyone to even remotely suggest that they failed to provide them with the details of the abuse by gangs of men of Pakistani origins supports the continued cover up of the abuse.

    The council did know, it knew in detail what was going on, each and every Cllr who attended that briefing knew and they did nothing, absolutely nothing.

    I remember a recent posting by Mr,Smith a local political activist who detailed what a Risky Business briefing contained maybe Rothpol could direct readers to that post.

    On a final point, those in the know in 2005 are still in power and directing how the town responds to the crimes, and for the record, no arrests and no charges of anyone in Rotherham following the publication of the Jay report.

    I wonder why?

    Like

    • Anonymous, Best and most helpful comment yet, in my view. A judicial court case on the whole issue is what is needed I believe to be able to come to a knowledge of the whole truth and those accountable identified and justice done for the children and their families concerned and the people of Rotherham.

      Like

  20. Linda, far from “anonymous” comments being the “best and most helpful”, they are not backed up by any facts or evidence. We seem to be taking the Jay report as fact on so many things so let’s assume it is on Risky Business. What did she say:

    p79 “The Council is to be commended for its financial commitment to the project and its work for most of its existence”

    9.3 For some years after its foundation, the funding of RB was uncertain [NB not the same as reduced], though eventually the Council acknowledged its important work and increased its core budget

    9.1 Was established in 1997

    9.5 says that in 2008 Risky Business continued to be the main service available to young people [ie had NOT been shut down]

    9.6 implies still there in 2010

    9.14 Now incorporated with the joint CSE team [ie service still not shut down but changed its givernance]

    and on timeline page 7 under “2001” Council funded Risky business, funding was maintained and then increased in 2006.

    So the report does NOT say RB was shut down
    the report paints a picture of the council continuing to fund and actually INCREASE funding to RB
    Alexis Jay commends the council for setting up RB
    NOTHING in the report says files went missing
    Her report does not talk about redundancies at RB

    I can only assume anonymous’s were intended to mislead or start off another urban myth. Of course if she/he has EVIDENCE then I hope they share. I don’t count unsubstantiated or untriangulated allegations as evidence.

    Like

    • Hi Not Perfect… I understand your reasoning re Anonymous comments not being backed up by facts or evidence. Can I say that working at ground level with people in trouble ie, drugs, alcohol and sexual abuse gambling addition etc, workers have to be very careful about releasing evidence and facts to other people. Workers in this category are dealing with real people and details and facts are protected by the privacy act to protect the people who have given personal details to individuals and agencies. Divulging details at a public meeting can in fact put victims at risk.

      Some people can in fact only speak from personal experience in dealing with difficult issues. I can see in the case of Rotherham that people were dismissed on account of not being able to give facts and evidence in the way that most agencies insist on. However the scale of the abuse and the number of families seeking help should be enough evidence to convince that there is a huge problem in Rotherham.

      20 years ago in New Zealand it was near impossible for families of vulnerable children to get the help they needed for their relatives whether it be mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse with any agency set up to deal with these issues in the community.
      Families caring for relatives were denied any access to helpful information or mutual co-operation with the agencies concerned. Families were even treated as though they were part of the problem.

      We have all heard the story before that I want to share…Some years ago the son of a policeman was sectioned under the mental health act. The ‘professionals’ concerned released him ( against his fathers advice) saying they didn’t consider him a threat to society . He returned home and murdered his mother. The policeman father of the young man wouldn’t let the matter drop without changes being made in the ‘Privacy Act’ which excluded all people involved with the individuals care…. I am sure that the fact that the mans father was a professional made his case more compelling to those in power who can change the rules.
      Today in this country agencies and families work together for their vulnerable children to great effect.

      Not perfect…. I do not have ‘facts or evidence’ to prove my own experience with some difficult issues related to people with drug and alcohol abuse….I am not a professional in the sense of institutional training. All I have is experience in the school of life… take or leave it.

      Like

      • Hi Linda. I have a lot of respect for your views and experience and my previous post was not a criticism of you. It was about “anonymous” making things up without any evidence where Alexis Jay had been quite clear. I suspect he/she is just trying to stir stuff for their own ends

        Like

  21. Not Perfect, you are a breath of fresh air. I believe that Prof Jay has done a great job of exposing the CSE situation in Rotherham and for that I thank her. However it would be foolish for anyone to assume that every finite detail of her report is 100% factually correct. For instance I have checked with one of the interviewees listed in Appendix 3 page 127 of the report and Prof Jay has never spoken to him. Also a significant thing occurred in 2004 which Professor Jay appears to have neglected to mention in her inquiry, namely that the Children’s Act 2004 was introduced. The consequences of this Act were that the Council needed to restructure the way its children’s services were delivered. I understand that many of the meetings that were held between the end of 2004 to the end of 2005, attended by senior councillors, were of a strategic nature and culminated in the establishment of the ‘Children and Young Peoples Department with Shaun Wright and Sonia Sharpe at the helm and that, in my opinion, is when the work being done to improve the situation of CSE seemed to spiral out of control. If I have missed mention of this in the report I am sure someone will let me know.
    Perhaps a little more ‘Due Diligence’ would not have gone amiss.
    Just for clarity,this post is not intended to criticize Prof Jay

    Like

  22. A number of inconvenient truths
    Funding for Risky Business was reduced
    Risky Business staff were made redundant
    Risky Business was closed down
    Files containing intelligence from Risky Business did go missing
    RMBC from the top down was awash with information on what was going on

    Not the kind of information that should be in the public domain.

    Like

    • So, as I suspected, you have no evidence, but you just assume that if you carry on repeating the same line someone may believe your mistruths. I saw fairies at the bottom of my garden last night. If I say that every day will you believe me?

      If you’re saying Alexis Jay got all her conclusions views wrong on Risky Business -even though she was very clear and makes several references to it (i.e. it NOT being shut down, funding being INCREASED etc) then are you also rubbishing the rest of her conclusions too?

      Like

  23. Under questioning by UKIP at the cabinet presentation of the Jay report and this was on the webcast both Cllr Sue Ellis and Cllr Ken Wyatt admitted from the seminar they knew what was going on but was told to keep quiet
    Who told them to keep quiet the Chair Roger Stone
    If they didn’t know as some are saying then why say they did
    Out of the 31 there was only Ellis and Wyatt listening ??

    Like

    • Roger Stone was not the “Chair”. The Mayor is the chairperson of the Council. Roger Stone was the Leader. John Turner was obviously listening too as you have previously stated that he approached Roger Stone and was told to keep quiet too. I’ve asked you before but I don’t think you answered, what was the difference between Ellis and Wyatt being told to keep quiet and John Turner being told to keep quiet? It seems they all did keep quiet yet you praise Turner and criticise Ellis and Wyatt. I don’t understand that.

      Like

  24. What is becoming clear is that according to SKT there were professional barriers within RMBC and a lack of communication between those supposedly dealing with the abuse.

    We now have creeping out from the woodwork individuals cherry picking the Jay report to defend RMBC.

    Current and former Cllr`s are in full damage limitation mode trying to protect their reputations and all the while the perpetrators in their pimped up cars cruise round Rotherham without fear of being arrested.

    Like

  25. It seams to me Robin you don’t understand a lot
    Firstly Stone was the Chair of the 2005 Seminar referred to in the Jay report not the Mayor
    The Mayor chair’s the full council meetings.
    Secondly Ellis and Wyatt did keep quiet all the way through to 2014
    They only admitted they knew after the Jay report and when Questioned by UKIP Councillors.
    John Turner did not keep quiet he and Cllr M Clark had a meeting with Stone, Sharp, and the chief Exec Mike Cuff to raise their concerns they was spun a tale all was being sorted and if they exposed it it would damage a ongoing investigation.
    They went to the top people at the time The Leader of the Council, the Director of Children’s Services, and the Chief Executive of the Council. And the head of legal services Mumford.
    So Robin what’s so difficult to understand
    Who would you have gone to in the Council with this information who you would have thought were people of integrity and trustworthy.
    Obviously the Jay report proves that’s was not so

    Like

    • Although UKIP cllrs were allowed to ask questions towards the end of the cabinet meeting I recall it being in response to a question from a member of the public that Ken Wyatt gave his explanation as to what he knew and what he did. The explanation he gave was remarkably similar to what you describe as John Turner’s actions and the response he received i.e. that the matters were confidential and could jeopardise police investigations. He said that he was assured on several occasions that investigations were ongoing. He accepted that. He may have been wrong to accept it but it seems John Turner accepted it too. I don’t know enough detail (nor do you) to condemn any of the 3 councillors referred to (Ellis, Turner and Wyatt) but I can see no difference in how any of them pursued the issues, or not as the case may be. I don’t think it’s helpful to make distinctions according to political affiliation but that seems to be the UKIP way. Treating the issue of CSE as a political football is extremely disappointing.

      Like

  26. So Not Perfect Risky Business is still active then?

    Are you saying that no staff from Risky Business were made redundant.

    What next, the abuse did not take place.

    Like

  27. Robin
    Labour Cllrs kept quiet some still are keeping stum to date
    John Turner did not he spoke out that’s the difference
    What is it you can’t grasp in that as the meerkat say’s “Simples”
    I am so glad I started to negotiate for myself back in the 70’s I cringe to think ware I would be if I had relied on some one like you who has difficulty in not knowing the difference of speaking out and keeping quiet
    Now who is out of his depth

    Like

    • You still haven’t answered the question. We have ascertained that hey all went to Roger Stone and they were all told to keep quiet. They all did as they were told! I will try to keep this simple for you; what did John Turner do after he was told to keep quiet? Don’t just repeat “John Turner spoke out”. Please explain when and where he spoke out after he was told to keep quiet.

      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.