Devil is in the detail, early years example! The later years!

We’ll go on a journey to the year 2000, and see what was being complained about in the communities.

Was this CSE, grooming, peer on peer or anti social behaviour?

6: NUISANCE CAUSED BY YOUNG PEOPLE CONGREGATING IN GROUPS

Several local residents expressed  their concerns about the nuisance caused by  young people,  predominantly teenagers,  who congregated in groups and caused problems to local  residents. One area in which this problem appeared to be at its worst was near to the supermarket premises at the junction of  Upper Wortley Road and Grange View Road, Kimberworth. Residents living at Great Park Road and Old Wortley Road were particularly affected by this nuisance. The residents presented a petition, containing 133 signatures, asking the Borough Council to take immediate action to solve the nuisance caused by these groups of teenagers. The residents also presented a video film which they had taken of incidents of antisocial behaviour by young people.

The Area Assembly acknowledged that  there were issues of public order which would have to be reported to the Police. There was also, however, assistance available from outreach youth workers who would be able to contact these young people and help to prevent future disturbance.

“outreach youth workers” certainly did a fantastic job, it appears they were moved on to a more suitable location, if these residents knew what happened as a result of their petition.

http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/Data/North%20Rotherham%20Town%20Area%20Assembly/20001121/Minutes/$Minutes.doc.pdf

I think one example is quite enough out of the missing understandings by Jay, but for you Rik I continue,  it moves down stream to Ferham, Kimberworth, Masborough and the same at the opposite side of town too.

And straight to post Jay era:

You would believe that they might be better now, think again.

Needs  Analysis  Report following the   Sexual  Exploitation  of Children  in  Rotherham, Salford University.

As  part  of  their  outreach  work  Swinton Lock Activity  Centre (SLA)  undertook  art  work sessions  with children and adults  who had been affected  by  CSE.  In  addition to  a community  open  day,  they  also  designed their  own survey  to  seek  the views  of  adults and  children  who  frequent  their  service.   They  surveyed  47  young  people,  first  asking if  they  feel  listened  to.  Figure 1 suggests  that 38 do not.

Figure 1. Do you feel listened to?

In relation to  the  signs  of  child sexual exploitation listed in the  ‘Standing  Together’ initiative,  the sense of  not  being  ‘listened to’ could  be  considered  as  an  additional  concern that  could impact  on  and individual’s susceptibility  to  risk.  Closely  associated  with positive  emotional  wellbeing,  the  need  to  feel ‘listened to’  is  arguably  related  to  a  sense  of social  exclusion and the way  in  which a young  person  might  think,  feel  and  behave.

By  engaging young people in  the  outreach project,  SLA  were able  to  identify  that  45%  of the young people who engaged in  the  survey were  actively  taking  part  in  criminal  activities or  abusing substances.  According  to  the known revisable signs  of  child sexual exploitation,  this  finding  is  one of  the  signs  of a child at  potential  risk  of  CSE.  70%  of  young people responding  to SLA  survey  did not know  what  the  term  ‘grooming’  meant. However,  we recognise that  the word ‘grooming’  is  open  to  variability  in interpretation and have seen this  in the examples  of  outreach  described  as  part  of the  wider  study.  More  than  a  third  of  the young  people reportedly  did not  know  the age of  consent,  suggesting  the need  to support an educational programme. The  parents  working  with  SLA  report  that support  should  come  from  an  organisation independent  from  the  council  and police.  All agreed  that  they  and  their  child  would  have benefited  from  increased knowledge and awareness  of  CSE.  As  the  behaviour  of young  people changed,  parents  felt  that  they were not  effectively  supported  to  manage  or understand  this  change.  Instead,  as  the young  person  was  seen  as  being  a  ‘trouble maker’,  the  risk  of  CSE  was  overlooked. Being blamed  for  behaviour  made  parents feel  guilty,  thus  causing  them  to  overlook  or seek  to  make sense  of  the potential antecedent  of  and new  or  unwanted behaviour.  The  inability  to  ‘move  on’  was  also reflected in  the suggestion that  people had  to live among  the perpetrators  of  CSE.   For  some,  the  experience of  seeing the perpetrators  of  their  abuse,  in  the street  or local  community,  was  a particularly  traumatic event.  For  some,  a  sense of  justice had not been  served,  as  abusers  were  moving  freely around the local  area.  For  others,  the association between CSE  and  area  within which they  lived  was  also a strong and disconcerting factor.

Hotspot analysis:

1, of the 47 interviewed ~80% believe that they aren’t being listen to, ultimately the voice being used SLA appears to be short in coming.

2, SLA  were able  to  identify  that  45%  of the young people who engaged in  the  survey were  actively  taking  part  in  criminal  activities or  abusing substances. Nothing better than to blame victims.

3, links back to 2, According  to  the known revisable signs  of  child sexual exploitation,  this  finding  is  one of  the  signs  of a child at  potential  risk  of  CSE.

4, 70%  of  young people responding  to SLA  survey  did not know  what  the  term  ‘grooming’  meant. This is how much ground work this institution can do, they can’t even explain this much, and of what point is that Law degree.

5, The  parents  working  with  SLA  report  that support  should  come  from  an  organisation independent  from  the  council  and police.
Even the parents being exploited to further the goals of SLA.

http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/documents/s103693/APPROVED%20FINAL%20RMBC%20CSE%20Needs%20Analysis%20report%20-%20Salford.pdf

In the above approved final under the header:

Exploring Race in CSE;

However,  recent  media reports  about Operation Stovewood,  suggest  a  high proportion  of  perpetrators  of  CSE  in Rotherham  are  adult  men  with  an  Asian Pakistani  heritage.    As  always,  we have to remain vigilant  about  the context  in which statistics  are understood.

“Stovewood” historical CSE?

“the context  in which statistics  are understood” as I have submitted to you on a number of occasions.

I know where you were coming from Rik, and the link you provided looks on the whole as a backward step (not by yourself) by RMBC.

But the council has now revealed the information should not have been included in the report, as the needs analysis has not been finalised.

Stephen Ashley, the independent chair of the board since August 2013, left the post in September (2015)

Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/misleading-claim-on-most-rotherham-cse-abusers-being-white-wrongly-included-in-report-1-7587779

“As  always,  we have to remain vigilant  about  the context  in which statistics  are understood”. Just to keep UKIP happy, the report was changed to mean exactly the same and was (“needs analysis”) finalised.

The profile showed the most common model of CSE in Rotherham is ‘Single Adult’ at 42%, with ‘Peer on Peer’ next at 23% and ‘Group/Gang’ at 20%.

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/info/25/staying_safe/25/child_sexual_exploitation

So why was “single adult” and “peer on peer” only ever envisaged for the first time and in contradiction to the Jay Report.

Stephen Ashley left as independent chair of RLSCB in September 2015, Final  report: October  2015 coincidence that he may have been have had a gander at, the pre final “needs analysis” or his hand was forced as an independent chair.

A little bit more nearer the truth.

SLA, I don’t know if their funding has been renewed this year, apart from the news article provided by yourself on Rothpol that it hadn’t by RMBC.

Hotspot

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Child Protection, Child Sexual Abuse, Information and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Devil is in the detail, early years example! The later years!

  1. 1st Time User says:

    Hotspot has lost the plot ……What the f%$k are you going on about with your copy and pasted ramblings ? it appears to me you are always trying to pull down Prof Jays report and stick up for the Pakistani paedophile gangs … your long winded post is just a mumble jumble of other peoples paragraphs and sentences in no order whatsoever …it is very hard reading indeed .. or is it just me ?.

    • Hotspot says:

      On the whole, I think that you will find around 90% of the Jay Report is copy and paste.

      “I had thought we were looking at 200 to 300 girls over that period. To read it was 1,400 was quite staggering” Andrew Norfolk

      Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/rotherham-abuse-scandal-how-one-woman-s-story-sparked-the-jay-report-and-brought-down-evil-grooming-gang-1-7749944

      The truth is the truth first time user, hadn’t he seen at first hand, evidence provided.

      And for the record first time user, I have never doubted the testimonies of victims or survivors.

      Or maybe Jay was from Scotland assuming the definition used there, god forbid was any different.

      Oh it is!

      Definitions

      1.8 In Scotland the current definition of child sexual exploitation is as follows: “Any involvement of a child or young person below 18 in sexual activity for which remuneration of cash or in kind is given to the young person or a third person or persons. The perpetrator will have power over the child by virtue of one or more of the following – age, emotional maturity, gender, physical strength, intellect and economic and other resources e.g. access to drugs.” (Scottish Executive, 2003)

      http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0040/00404853.pdf

      Maybe she was a bit too independent for Rotherham.

      So why is RMBC in denial, even the commissioners didn’t mention much about it at the select committee meetings.

  2. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 10th September | 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