Rewriting history! The lies! From the beginning! How thick is Jay! Checkmate!

The Media should be ashamed of themselves, who else is going to hold to account the misery perpetuated by people who have wisdom.

Independent Inquiry, let it do the talking and lets see how much mileage we get out of it.

●Jay report:
○10; Three Early Reports

A chapter of a draft report on research into CSE in  Rotherham, often referred to as ‘The  Home Office  Report’, was written by a researcher in 2002. It contained severe criticisms of the agencies in Rotherham  involved with CSE…….Had this report been treated with the  seriousness it merited at the time by both the Police and the Council, the children involved then and later would have been better protected and abusers brought to justice. These events have led to suspicions of collusion and cover up.

Just breaking it down into 4 easy points, starting with the draft report.

“A chapter of a draft report on research into CSE in Rotherham, often referred to as, The Home Office Report ” Oh really

“It contained severe criticisms of the agencies in Rotherham involved with CSE” Oh really, provided by Risky Business

“Had this report been treated with the  seriousness it merited at the time by both the Police and the Council” Oh really

“These events have led to suspicions of collusion and cover up” Oh really

Jay report :
○10.2  The Home Office Crime  Reduction Programme (CRP) initiated  a number of research projects  throughout England in 2001,  aimed at  providing an evidence base on tackling street prostitution….

“providing an evidence base on tackling street prostitution” Oh really let’s hear that one again “providing an evidence base on tackling street prostitution” and the funding called CRP

●Jay report:
○10.3  The Bristol and Sheffield  projects  were funded from January 2001 until  March 2003, and the Rotherham project  from January 2001 until July 2002. The  final report on the research from the  Home Office included a footnote, stating  that Rotherham was not funded for the  second year due to ‘implementation  problems’. The University of Luton’s  final evaluation report did not include the Rotherham project.

“Rotherham was not funded for the second year” why

“University of Luton” Oh really

●Jay report:
○10.5  The report was not dated but we  understand that it was written in 2002.
(the draft report apparently)

So let’s see what the truth is!

And why don’t we see for ourselves shall we!

●Home Office Research Study 279 Tackling Street Prostitution: Towards an holistic approach

○Acknowledgments:
“Margaret Melrose from the University of  Luton”

○Background and methodology In December 2000 the Home Office awarded £850,000 as part of the £250 million Crime Reduction Programme  (CRP)  to  fund  11  multi-agency  pilot  projects  (‘CRP  projects’)  which aimed to reduce the number of young people and women involved in prostitution, reduce crime and disorder associated with street-based prostitution and find out which interventions helped women  to exit prostitution. These eleven  projects were split into three packages according to their main intervention (protecting young people; policing and enforcement; and support and exiting) and evaluated by evaluation teams based at the Universities of Luton, London South Bank and Sunderland. In this overview we draw on material from all three evaluations to present the key findings from the 11 CRP projects, and present lessons on how to tackle street based prostitution.

Oh Really
“evaluated by evaluation teams based at the Universities of Luton”

○Protecting young people Three projects made up the young people and prostitution package that aimed to protect young people at risk or actively involved in prostitution: Bristol, Sheffield and Rotherham. Margaret Melrose at the University of Luton led this evaluation, carried out between April 2001 and July 2003. The Bristol and Sheffield projects were funded from January 2001 until  March 2003 and the Rotherham project from January 2001 until July 2002/3.  The University of Luton’s final evaluation report did not include the Rotherham project and it has therefore not been possible to include analysis of the Rotherham interventions here. Bristol and Sheffield both have distinct  ‘red  light’ areas in their city centres where  adult women and young people are involved in prostitution, and young people from Rotherham are known to travel to the Sheffield ‘red light’ area.

○Rotherham was not CRP funded for the second year due to implementation problems. The project was attempting a new approach and took a long time to fully establish

●Table 1.1 Protecting young people-University of Luton evaluation

(Look under) Rotherham Risky Business

○Project aims (to do the following)

Oh Really
○Collection of information and evidence about men allegedly involved in coercing young women into prostitution with which it might be possible for the police to pursue investigations and/or prosecutions.

Oh Really
○Provide safe placements for young women considered to be at risk or involved in commercial sexual exploitation.

Oh Really
○Raise awareness amongst practitioners.

This the reason why the Rotherham CRP funding was cut, ROTHERHAM DID NOT HAVE A STREET PROSTITUTION SCENE   ! ( I thought Jay looked at the Heal report)

○Sheffield – early intervention:
In Sheffield the main red light area is in the centre of the city in a non-residential area. Young people tend to come from surrounding towns, in particular a number of girls/young women are thought to travel from nearby Rotherham (interview with Sheffield police, 2001).

○The CRP projects – preventative approaches with young people

As  indicated  above,  the  CRP  projects  in  Sheffield  and  Nottingham  had  prevention  as  a main aim and interventions to identify early risk. In addition, Kirklees adopted a diversion and prevention strategy in the second year of the evaluation. As indicated earlier, support will be discussed more fully in Chapters 4 and 5. It is important to stress here, however, that all the projects implementing work with young people emphasised the need for multi-agency working, including shared protocols regarding information sharing and the implementation of multi-agency plans and strategies – often involving an imaginative range of agencies as well as parents.

●chapter 4, but instead I found this:
P: 119
The  young  people’s  comments  above  about  the  specialist  project  workers  are in stark contrast to the same three young persons’ experiences of generic social services workers, highlighting the need for more resources as well as training for those working with young people involved in or at risk of becoming involved in prostitution, and for Social Services staff in particular:

Social Services are a load of shit. They only give you support if you’re in crisis.  You don’t get no regular support from them. They’re useless.’ (Interview with ‘Caroline’)

I can’t stand my social worker. I hate her. She’s just ruined my life. (Interview with ‘Ella’) I had social workers as well as housing but I hate them, really, really hate them.

They think they know everything and they don’t listen at all. I’ve met loads of them  [social workers] and they’re all the same. (Interview with ‘Phillip’)

The comments of young people indicated that the projects had had a positive effect, and that their behaviour had changed as a result of engagement with the projects. The young people  had  taken  the  opportunity  to  assess  their  situations  and  make  improvements  that would  provide  beneficial  outcomes  in  the  long  term.  At  the  same  time  the  young  people highlighted the need for individually tailored one-to-one support and training for workers in dealing with young people who may have drug addiction problems. Workers need to be able to encourage and to enable young people to make and agree their own solutions.

WHERE CAN YOU FIND IT: (n trust me I’m not shouting)

●Home Office Research Study 279 Tackling Street Prostitution: Towards an holistic approach

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/2557/1/2557.pdf

●Jay report: p64:
7.40  There is little doubt that the  Risky Business project and the Home  Office research project that was  underway in 2001/02 had a central  focus on the safeguarding of children  who were victims or at risk of sexual  exploitation. The Risky Business project was ahead of its time. Some people we spoke to would argue  that such a service could only be fully  effective if it was located in the  voluntary rather than the local authority  sector. (I wonder who would suggest that (probably a service provider), especially when the local authority (Children Act 1989) is a statuary provider (RLSCB) in law to provide children’s services)

Hotspot