Rewriting History, From the book of Revelations 1997-2013 and the Testament of the book of RMBC governance

My infatuation with the media reporting of CSE Rotherham, and this appetite for non stop nonsense media circus that ensued with the Jay and Casey reports.

Jay on the whole was asked to do so by our council and my belief was she placed so many more questions rather than answers.

The report is long and tediously exhausting to comprehend, the redacted stories with gruesome details, the torment of families being broken apart and the constant reminder of 1400 children failed by the system. The very system that was there to protect them, where did it go so wrong.

The Casey report reflected more of the same and started touching on a few truths that spanned the gap between reality and reason.

The real truth is in between all of the statements correlated individually from the enquiries and a sense of understanding becomes clearer.

Testament to the courage of victims, will be written in the book of Justice.

“This Independent Inquiry was  commissioned by Rotherham  Metropolitan Borough Council  in October 2013.
Its remit, covering the periods of
1997- 2009
and
2009 – 2013, is appended”;
Preface Jay report.

Why in the name of God would a report start with two dates, and for that matter no break between such. Unless it would be making a comparison, or the author went out for a cup of tea.
Simply, Risky Business start/end and post Risky Business period. Coincidence!

I just want the truth.

Let’s see how much of the following is true.

●Casey report : p137; Staff who blow  the whistle :
“Inspectors recognise that sometimes  whistle-blowers may have other agendas and those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases  there was sufficient truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern”. (Concern for being out of a job, RB funding cut)

●Jay report : p3;
○1.4 Until  2004,  responsibility  for  overseeing  and  coordinating  a  multi-agency  response  to child  sexual  abuse  and  exploitation  lay  with  the  Area  Child  Protection Committee.
In early  2005,  this  responsibility  passed  to  the  Local  Safeguarding  Children  Board  (the Safeguarding  Board),  which  was  established  by  the  Children  Act  2004.   Its  task  is  to co-ordinate  the  actions  of  agencies  represented  on  the  Board  and  to  ensure  their effectiveness  in  safeguarding  and  promoting  the  welfare  of  children  in  its  area.

●Jay report.
•Preface:
○This  Independent  Inquiry  was  commissioned  by  Rotherham  Metropolitan  Borough  Council  in October 2013. Its remit, covering the periods of 1997- 2009 and 2009 – 2013, is appended

●Jay report : p3;
○ 1.5  In  Rotherham,  the  first  Council  service  to  develop  a  special  concern  for  child  sexual exploitation  (CSE)  was  the  Risky  Business  youth  project.   Founded  in  1997,  it  worked with  young  people  between  11  and  25  years,  providing  sexual  health  advice,  and help  in  relation  to  alcohol  and  drugs,  self-harm,  eating  disorders,  parenting  and budgeting.   By  the  late  ‘90s,  it  was  beginning  to  identify  vulnerable  girls  on  the  streets of  the  town.   Its  relationship  with  any  young  person  was  voluntary  on  both  sides.   It was  part  of  the  Council’s  Youth  Services,  though  it  derived  its  funding  from  various sources  in  its  early  years.  One  of  its  main  functions  was  the  provision  of  training  to voluntary  and  statutory  agencies  working  in  the  field,  to  magistrates,  the  Police, schools  and  foster  carers. (failed in this provision)

●Jay report: 9. The Risky Business Project.
•9.7 The  Council  also  placed  high  value  on  the  training  programmes  which  Risky Business  provided  to  schools,  seeking  to  raise  young  people’s  awareness  of  sexual exploitation  and  its  dangers;  and  it  encouraged  the  extension  of  these  programmes to  a  wide  range  of  groups,  formal  and  informal,  within  the  community.   The presentations  on  sexual  exploitation  that  were  given  to  councillors  and  senior  officials in  2004-5  derived  mainly  from  the  work  of  Risky  Business.

Presentations were given, in return we brought you glad tidings of hundreds of persecutions of young children. And we have condemned the bad people to hell.

By law we move from RACPC to RLSCB, what the hell was this seminar about, a new framework or Risky Business presentation for funding, out with the old gaurd in with the new.

Where am I going with this?

As some of the failures are not wholly included in the Jay/Casey report, there were the good results too.

●ROTHERHAM LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD Annual Report 2005/2006

Appendix 2, 2005/6 Safeguarding performance.

○2.     Section 47 enquiries
481 children were the subject of  S47 enquiries by Social Care during this year;
• This represents 24 less and continues    the declining trend over the previous 3 years.

•Waveney House Child Abuse and Investigation Unit recorded 398 referrals during the year (an increase of 40 on the previous year):-
49 were in respect of physical abuse
150 in respect of sexual abuse
199 in respect of neglect

  •164 video interviews (an increase of 88 on last year) were undertaken in respect of child protection allegations and investigations led to 57 alleged perpetrators being charged or cautioned.

(To see a clearer picture the 57 charged or cautioned, how many would be attributed to RB)

○6:      147 children were placed on the child protection register this year (9 less than last year); 84 were registered under the category of neglect, 22 under physical abuse, 9 under sexual abuse and 32 under emotional abuse.

○10:     Percentage  of children on the Child  Protection Register  who were reviewed within timescales during the year Rotherham’s 2005-06 outturn = 100% The proportion of child protection reviews which should have been reviewed that were reviewed is  indicator C20 in the Performance Assessment Framework. Performance has continued its improving trend  (2003-04 – 53%, 2004-05 = 95%) and has been judged nationally as very good.   Rotherham’s performance exceeds IPF and England (99%).

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiK6ZbbwpLOAhWSOsAKHSYmDmkQFggtMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoderngov.rotherham.gov.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fs15526%2FFirstAppendixtoAgendaItem4.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF6M-GA-kBeXzUdXb8jSCjRFy6zZQ

We move on
●Jay report : p7; 2 chronology of key events.
June 2005 The  Forum  was  dealing  with  over  90  CSE  cases  and  the  decision  was  taken  to reduce  the  number  of  cases being  discussed.

●Jay report : p7; 2 chronology of key events.
The  Council  funded  Risky  Business.    Funding  was  maintained  and  then  increased  in 2006

MBE & OBE.
http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/familylearningnetwork/assets/documents/Attachments/Pages/Spring%202007%20News%20yorks.doc

let’s look elsewhere:

●Appendix 2     Sub-Committee Membership,

5. Sexual Exploitation Forum, surprise you know who pops up again.

A stark contrast to apparently the reported 2005 seminar. (no whistle blowing yet)

•Appendix 1: Rotherham’s sexual exploitation action plan, list of usual suspects.

•Appendix 2: Rotherham young peoples services.

You will have to read it to believe it, and the questions raised.

(Any ideas anyone, they didn’t have a clue, just questions! A year on from the creation of RLSCB. Not clear enough for you yet, no suggestions on who and wholesale)

http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/documents/s26627/Annual%20Report%20on%20Protection%20of%20Young%20People%20in%20Rotherham%20from%20Sexual%20Exploitation.pdf

Is this the moment of clarity.

●Jay report: 9. The Risky Business Project.
•9.12  Several  people  interviewed  were  of  the  view  that  the  project’s  success,  particularly  in Operation  Central,  was  one  of  the  causes  of  professional  jealousy,  which  led  to  them being  assigned  a  lesser  role  in  Operation  Czar  and  for  children’s  social  care  staff  to take  the  lead  with  the  individual  girls  involved.  This  proved  to  be  a  serious misjudgement,  as  is  referred  to  in  Chapter  13.

Can anyone one see who was failed by whom!

And lo and behold, Risky Business is closed in 2009. (What did Ofsted do in 2009, not found in public record but RB was useless. Does it confirm the two periods of time in the preface of the report)

●RB may have worked on girls in Operation Central, to suggest it was down to RB.

●The victims say, prosecution was down to the police case. Although there were many issues in the logistics of the case, one thing for sure they saw it for what it was.

●RB may have worked on the girls historically who eventually were victims in Operation Czar, to suggest it failed because RB wasn’t there.

How do you work on a case if you no longer exist!

●Jay report : p11; 2 chronology of key events.
January 2010 Operation Czar began  –  a joint Police and Children and Young  People’s Services investigation  involving multiple perpetrators  and  victims. Abduction notices were made,  taxi licences were revoked, but no  convictions followed.

It doesn’t look like a complete failure:
Abduction notices.
Revoked Taxi licences.
The perpetrators stopped.
Shame is no solace for victims as no prosecutions.

It appears that results were better post RB. People actually got locked up, so why was the preparation for Operation Central so floppy. A fish out of water maybe.

If RB had any credible prosecutions from the start, wouldn’t you agree it would have been “check mate” every time at court.

 Lessons I have learnt:

1: Stop wasting my tax money on incompetent fools.

2: That all public bodies even those who protect children in there private none redacted meetings are, black box sound and vision recorded.

3: Any place would be better than where we have been.
Child Sexual Exploitation – Project Survive – Rotherham Rise
http://www.rotherhamrise.org.uk/our-services/child-sexual-exploitation/

Post CSE Survivors- Rotherham Area
Age 12-18 – Young People affected by CSE
Adults affected by CSE
Families – Family members whose lives have been impacted by CSE
Counselling – Women, children and men who have been affected by CSE

For anyone lost! Directions to Rotherham Area Child Protection Committee (RACPC) I’m giving you an example:  http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/Data/The%20Former%20Cabinet%20Member%20for%20Social%20Services%20-%20Oct%202000%20to%20May%202005/20011221/Agenda/$ACPCDecember2001.doc.pdf )

Hotspot

Previously in this series:

  1. Rewriting history no, just making it clearer.
  2. Rewriting history! RMBC literally tried to…bury a body under the carpet
Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Abuse of power, Child Protection, Child Sexual Abuse, Labour Chicanery, Labour Hypocrites, Labour Party and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Rewriting History, From the book of Revelations 1997-2013 and the Testament of the book of RMBC governance

  1. Rotherham Survivor says:

    I would like to whistleblow on the whistleblower.

    Having attended RB as a CSE victim I can say nothing was done for me, no attempt to stop CSE. Sorry, I was given 10hrs of counselling of which there is no record of.

    Years later I then volunteered, pre & post RB sitting within social care. Management was much better post RB. Before there was no supervision & people seemed to do what they wanted, this usually wasn’t much. When social care took over it didn’t go down well, sticking to rules & regulations annoyed some people.

    RB didn’t finish till 2011 & I think being demoted back to a support worker (youth worker) & not manager really rubbed someone up the wrong way.

    I then met Andrew Norfolk in 2011 at a conference and agreed to speak to him about CSE. To be honest I practically begged him to look at Rotherham & it’s CSE issues. He then started publishing stories about Rotherham in 2012. The whistleblower met AN a few months later with me. I then went to the select committee in Jan 13, as a witness. The council attended, Joyce Thacker, Martin Kimber and few others. Martin Kimber announced, to the select committee, that he would have a review/report done into Rotherhams handling of CSE.

    Andrew Norfolk continued to print victim stories until the Jay report was released and after.

    For some people, getting the truth out about Rotherham has been about victims/survivors getting justice, for others it was about payback, a vendetta.

    • The truth says:

      Well said the whistle blower has done all this for money and personal issues against RMBC and syp I have been supported by her for 2 years the only time she reported any of my concerns in was when it was against them and them looking bad I told her numerous times I needed support for me and my family and never got nothing she did get 20k from the sky news interview and Sarah champion is aware of all the concerns around Jayne seniors as Iv got the minuets from the meeting she attended with 10 survivors which Sarah has chosen to ignore and carry on working along side her this will all come out matter of weeks / months I’d say they are taking credit for all the hard work surviviors are doing enough is enough we have been through enough without people cashing in on us anymore YES I have the proof of all this and will not be silenced anymore

  2. Gobby says:

    Why don’t people ask victims and famliys from operation central seen has they was blackmailed into not speaking out their stories have never been heard rb worked with the girls when it was too late the first report about girls involved in central was March 08 rb didn’t work with one girl till sept 08 n rb reported to social care in October 08 operation central wasn’t has successful has people make out and Jayne senior put a press band on operation central I’ve read it in files and have prove of everything

  3. Pingback: Rewriting history, the final frontier; The Wrath of Local Government Committee: I can’t believe it! | Rotherham Politics

  4. Pingback: Last Weeks Top Ten 6th August | Rotherham Politics

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s