Home Affairs Committee – Sixth Report Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up

Download/read a copy of the report as a .pdf,click here.

Don’t miss this important Evidence from the report

Readers attention is drawn to this important evidence you may have missed?

Paul Lakin’s response:

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/282/statement_from_cllr_paul_lakin_leader_of_the_council

Press Comment

Rotherham abuse scandal: MPs want missing files answers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29660345

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/mps-investigation-missing-child-sex-abuse-files-rotherham

Actual Report :

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/203/20302.htm

23 thoughts on “Home Affairs Committee – Sixth Report Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up

  1. So pleased to see 2014 is the year in which this is finally being taken seriously thanks to excellent work of investigative journalist Andrew Norfolk and the unrelenting Rotherham Politics … I still remember being shouted down as racist by some Labour councillors (why’ve they not resigned in shame) when I tried to make this scandal the main plank of my campaign in Rotherham.
    Were those councillors in denial or complicit in the cover up?
    Hold them to account in May elections.

    Like

    • I agre wiv sista Yvonne. U wer da one who brght this up in 2012.
      See statment from Alxs jay.
      Professor Jay told MPs that councillors of Pakistani origin bore some responsibility for the council’s failure to tackle the crime pattern.

      “It seemed to me that, at a point when they could have facilitated engagement in a very direct way. . . they failed to do so and acted more as a barrier to communication.” It was possible that such councillors “saw themselves as a gateway to the [Pakistani] community and felt they needed to protect its reputation”.
      Its pakistani cllrs lik asbo Jangir, moofy duck n dive, shoky.

      Like

  2. But the crux of the matter is also many non elected senior officials denied information and were less than open – and I would argue colluded – something many political opportunist seem to conveniently disgracefully ignore for whatever reason.

    By all means go after the elected officials that were part of the scandal – but if that is your sole purpose I’m afraid you let the victims down by ignoring the real central figures.

    The non elected officials – also see link re ‘The Liverpool Letter’ are a power to themselves; totally unaccountable to voters, and as I have found to elected members too. What’s the use in getting a few political scalps (as some seem t think is the only aim) when you leave unaccountable and powerful people untouched? Yes many elected individuals need to answer questions – but there are many many more who need to who have never sought elected office.

    Finally, Ms Ridley, I agree partly with what you say but it sadly sounds more like a party soundbite; and as all on here who know my views I don’t take much notice of them. Still, I thank you for your contribution. However, I would suggest that you approach Ms Casey with your evidence of bullying – as I have done: it may help ‘out’ those you say bullied you.

    SKT xxxx

    Like

  3. As it says in the item header:
    Don’t miss this important Evidence from the report
    Readers’ attention is drawn to this important evidence you may have missed?
    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/child-sexual-exploitation-and-the-response-to-localised-grooming-followup/written/12361.pdf
    Painful to read, but totally damning of the culture that let it all happen !

    Like

    • Very painful Reg, and you can’t blame her for wanting to remain anonymous for the time being: Ignored by the Home Office, bullied at work, intimidated by the Police, and all for just doing her job right while all around her people failed to do theirs. And then there’s the so called “break in” where all that went missing was her work, with all the other files left untouched. It must have been soul destroying at times. Thankfully though, she kept copies of her work, clever girl, and the Police are listening to her now. So hopefully some good will come out of it.

      Whoever this lady is, she deserves our thanks and best wishes.

      Like

    • I recognise the culture of the council department that the researcher worked in during her time at RMBC and whilst not necessarily relevant to CSE, my examples highlight the culture of the council at this time.

      I worked in the same department as the researcher (although not within the part that had responsibility for young people). I think people should remember that the ‘culture that let it all happen’ was not only down to the councillors whose names are so often mentioned on this forum. Senior Managers were often responsible for misleading elected members and for not giving them all the information they needed to make decisions. I’m not excusing elected members or suggesting they have no responsibility for what happened (clearly they do), I’m just saying that managers in the council also played a huge part in this whole sorry saga.

      I have witnessed senior managers cajole, bully and threaten staff as well as abuse the compromise/gagging agreement procedure to keep staff from speaking out and to have their employment with the council terminated without any redress or right to appeal. The sad thing is, these people have been forced to sign away their legal right to speak out and so we may never find out what they know.

      As an example, I was the victim of a crime whilst at work and I received no support whatsoever from managers above me (the perpetrator was well known to senior managers for years for being a nuisance such as being caught taking photographs through the window of a public toilet at a council facility). Their lack of action in dealing with this person over the years was frustrating and when I said I would be reporting the incident to the Police, I was informed that if I did, I would face disciplinary action.

      I also recognise the type of meeting that the researcher had with the Director of Education’s assistant and having had him undermine me on several occasions in meetings, I appreciate where she is coming from. I recall being present when he tried to force a colleague to alter technical information to suggest that a leisure centre was unsafe and would have to close permanently when in actual fact it was quite safe. He was most unhappy when the colleague refused to alter his report and refused to let him be involved in similar reports in future.

      Eventually having seen the way this senior manager manipulated information (to members, staff and the media), I had felt I had no option but take out a formal grievance. This grievance hearing was chaired by an elected member with the senior manager having a senior officer from the legal department as his advisor. Bizarrely I was not allowed to call any witnesses or submit written evidence from any witnesses. More than half of my complaints were dismissed without being heard (for reasons I am still not clear about). The grievance was unsurprisingly dismissed by the chairman and I was told I had no right of appeal.

      The name of the elected member who was the chair of the hearing? Would it surprise anyone that it was a certain councillor who only lasted 3 weeks as Mayor?

      A culture of bullying, intimidation, undermining staff and threats by senior officers of RMBC existed at that time and that is a fact. What’s more, it was covered up by elected members.

      Well done to this lady for speaking out.

      Like

  4. There are comments on this blog that none of the issues raised by the researcher occurred and that Risky Business were less than professional.

    All part of the ongoing cover up perhaps?

    Like

  5. Take a look at the post Risky Business called it right, that was too inconvenient for some, posted October 5th 2014.

    Then read the comments from an individual with the name Not Perfect.

    Looks as the author of the post on October 5th did know what he/she was saying.

    What was Not perfect trying to do, protect the perpetrators?

    Like

      • Me neither, he was just questioning the accuracy of the original post. He was right, in that the budget for Risky Business was increased over several years (the O.P. said it was reduced). But he was wrong about the missing files, believing it was, as he put it, an urban myth. As we now all know, it isn’t. Nobody is right 100% of the time. I don’t see how it can be taken to mean he’s defending the perpetrators. If anything he’s defending the council.

        As for the assertion that Risky Business were less than professional, it was Sally Kate Taylor who said:

        ” One little thing omitted for the original post is that as fine an organisation as Risky Business (and Safe At Last) can / could be, is that they did NOT share the level of generic information described or needed with all professionally qualified front line staff of other agencies throughout. (And I am not talking about confidential case matter – I mean generically) Though much later their information sessions, especially the ones where victims spoke, were excellent and more open”

        All that’s saying is that they didn’t always get it right in the beginning, but got better over time. I don’t think anyone can accuse Sally of defending the perpetrators OR the council. She just says it as she sees it.

        Like

  6. Just read the submission from the researcher in 2000 , detailing how she tried in vain to get something done about this problem. Disgraceful how they treated her. They all knew and did nothing.

    Like

  7. Anyone reading the pdf discussed above, should also check out the annexes to that document, and in particular this one:
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/Chapter%20Four%20of%20final%20report%20Key%20Achievements%20of%20the%20Home%20Office%20Pilot%20(4).pdf
    and in particular it’s Section 4.2
    ____
    And this is how Andrew Norfolk told the story::
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4192303.ece

    Like

  8. Must agree with SKT re Yvonne statement being more a political shot across the bow-as a possible re-entry into politcs of Rotherham next May?

    Please can all the politicos stop trying to gain appraisal of your stance compared to others-as it really does look like opportunism and really does not show deeper concerns about the victims. Why didn’t Yvonne take it further post the bye -election. We haven’t heard from and if it was of such concern -you would not just leave it until now -so close to another election.

    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.