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.
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.
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.
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)
“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%.
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.