FEBRUARY 2016: MP John Healey in the Advertiser
“There can be no hiding place for those who’ve committed these evil crimes – no matter how long ago.”
“These convictions are a significant step forward in reassuring victims and in rebuilding public confidence that abusers will be brought to justice.”
“I want to see more brought before the courts as quickly as possible.”
SEPTEMBER 2012: MP John Healey Email Correspondence with a constituent
A constituent emailed Healey saying that many people were “deeply disturbed by what . . . is happening in Rotherham” as reported by Andrew Norfolk in The Times. The constituent asked if the MP intended to “call for an investigation of all parties at fault”.
Healey’s email reply? While abhorring CSE and identifying the failings of the Police he said “I am not sure an inquiry would help the girls and their families, especially if it focuses solely on Rotherham and on Asian men grooming white girls.”
In 2014 when the Times revealed this email exchange Healey said that time he was “simply not aware of the scale and seriousness of the problems.”
Mr Healey missed the point, that an inquiry was needed precisely to find that scale, expose the seriousness and identify those wrong doers, who in 2016 he says should have no hiding place. Also to identify failings by public bodies and thereby help stop the ongoing sexual exploitation of children.
Mr Healey is keen to deny knowledge of the extent of CSE in Rotherham, prior to the Jay report..fair enough and there is no evidence otherwise. However it does not cover the issue of what should he have known, and what should he have done to find out more?
For example…on readng The Times article in September 2012, the one that so upset his constituent, what briefings and reassurances did he seek from his political brothers and sisters in the Rotherham Labour Group? Were his inquiries rutheless enough (surely in light of the Times articles and looming Home Affairs Select Committee investigation he must have inqured) to reveal the existence of the Risky Business Report and those of Dr Angie Heal for South Yorkshire Police. Reports that exposed the extent of CSE back at the begginng of the century?
Healey’s rejecting the need for an inquiry back in 2012 also exposes the last shreds of credibility of the local Labour Party leadership, who pathetically seek to take credit for inviting Jay in to undertake her inquiry…their argument being that ”at least we sought the truth.” Rubbish, the reality is that the local Labour Party were dragged kicking and screaming into appointing Jay….The Times, the Council’s Chief Executive and the likelihood of an inquiry being imposed upon them by central government forced their hands.
Wittingly or unwittingly, John Healey’s email reflects the Labour party’s attitudeat that time: “say nowt, do nowt and the Times will go away”, and that other famous Labour Party slogan “They’ve just got it in for Rotherham.”
Gaa Gaa Lady
Rotherham Politics 
I got the same warm words from the MP too despite pressing him. Not impressed.
LikeLike
“Verdicts are not a cause for authorities to celebrate” so says RMBC Leader Cllr Chris Read in the Advertiser. He isn’t wrong, it’s not. Because this case has, in a court of law, exposed the authorities gross negligence over many many years. Hopefully those Councillors and council officials who failed to act will be exposed further in the coming weeks and months.
Cllr Read then goes on to say: “We knew when the Jay Report was published there were really serious failings over a long period of time”.
But that isn’t really true, it it? The council was in denial right up to Louise Casey ublishing her damning report on RMBC. Simply put, the council were in denial, even after Jay.
Councillors – with the deepest respect, please stop lying to us.
LikeLike
@R Wilde
Top post and I echo your last sentence.
LikeLike
A few lie , the majority are simply in denial.
LikeLike
You would be jumping up and down at such an unjustified opinion were it to have been made by someone else.
Lets have reasons apart from pure bigotry that is.
As for your previous comment have some patience, please!
LikeLike
What’s the difference….?
LikeLike
Oh dear –
and yes it is my opinion. Am I a bigot ???
To answer Linda,
Someone in denial didn’t realise they were doing something wrong,
whilst a liar did know that they were doing something wrong and had a reason for doing so. .
LikeLike
@RR, to quote Prof Jay “After that (2005 seminar) no one could say they didn’t know anything”.
The majority were indeed in denial, some still appear to be. But it was more than just a few that attended that seminar.
LikeLike
Dear R R, is English your first language? I ask, because your definition of ‘denial’ is more than slightly off target.
To be in denial, is to deny facts, perhaps for reasons of career, family, party etc, no matter what the evidence.
LikeLike
When what became the Jay report was commissioned, it was expected by all, to deliver a report that could be safely buried, along with it’s predecessors.
That strategy went wrong, when no one in England would touch this particular poisoned chalice.
Eventually Professor Alexis Jay, from Scotland, agreed to this and the result is history.
No one comes out of this saga of depravity, with any credit left and certainly none of the MPs, the Rotherham Labour Group, the inept (or worse) Officers and those Police Officers who failed us.
Those to blame for this, should be exposed and dealt with by all means appropriate, including legal sanction, and if the evidence permits, criminal charges.
The demands for justice require nothing less.
That list should be quite a long one?
LikeLike
Champion and Baron on Newsnight last night were still deep in denial and were given an easy ride by the BBC, quelle surprise. A repugnant and unedifying spectacle.
Viz used to produce a strip called ‘Liberal Parents’ in which overindulged children wreaked havoc in their own environs and those of all they encountered. The parents were blind to all their faults, but had plenty of admonishments for those who failed to understand their parenting style and the uninhibited ‘self expression’ of their un-reprimanded brats. It is with these sensibilities the bien pensant in the media and the established parties treat minorities failings and the views of those who disagree with aspects of their behaviour. It has not and will not change. Baron looked distinctly uneasy though.
it is said that the best pillow is a clean conscience I suspect Baron et al do not sleep that well in the wee hours of the night.
LikeLike
BBC Look North comments on Saville and Hall:
“The BBC repeatedly failed to stop abuse by Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall because of a “culture of fear” .
Do these words sound familiar? They do in Rotherham.
LikeLike
Strange it came out and effectively smoke screened the Verdicts in South Yorkshire.
Must be a coincidence!
Deary me, I forgot, I don’t believe in coincidences!
LikeLike
Have I been censored here Rik?
LikeLike
There is nothing I have not posted, Rik.
LikeLike
Hmm…. Another one of my senior moments… I think I forgot to press post !
LikeLike