The case for the denialists, I presume?

Casey inspection, weird isn’t it, they could have done 3 more reports based on the following:

“I would challenge lots of the Jay report, we feel bruised by it. Where is our right of reply? Who is fighting our corner People are rolling over and just accepting the report.” An officer

“…the Social Care team didn’t recognise the 1400 number…The number of people
who were victims or at real risk of CSE was much lower than was being portrayed.” An officer

“Only in 2011 did I become aware of CSE as an activity, not even as an issue… the
scale has come as a big surprise to me. The figures seem disproportionate with any other town that is actively looking for CSE.” A former senior officer

Hotspot

7 thoughts on “The case for the denialists, I presume?

  1. “The figures seem disproportionate with any other town that is actively looking for CSE.”

    And which towns would these be? No other town has been subjected to such thorough enquiries

    Andrew Norfolk made the point that Rotherham Council were unfortunate because it was their leaked files that arrived on his desk. He said that he thought there was nothing exceptional about Rotherham and he suspected that the same pattern of gang CSE was to be found across the North and the Midlands

    Like

  2. You presume correctly Rik, if RMBC were to have whitewashed itself with the last 6 reports.

    They might as well have had 3 more reports just based on these 3 quotations (there’s actually loads of them) they might as well come out smelling of roses too.

    Like

    • You base your arguments on mere anecdote, not properly evidenced inquiries, such as Jay and Casey.
      It might be worth pointing out, even the last six reports all agreed with Jay and Casey in the particulars that matter.
      No one has ever claimed that Rotherham and South Yorkshire were in any way special or unique with regards to child sexual exploitation. It has emerged, to be ubiquitous, where the conditions exist, I am sure I don’t need to repeat them here.
      I believe the only feature where Rotherham may make a claim of uniqueness, is the level of documentation and the way it is being held up as an example of this phenomenon to others by professionals in the field.
      A final point, Alan Cowles question at the last Council meeting of the 13th September revealed, quoting the latest statistics available, the current rate of new clients indicate that nothing has improved at all, if anything the current rate is higher! How say you on that question?

      Like

      • The case for the denialists, I presume?
        I was thinking of people at RMBC, the majority of which are still there.

        ‘the last six reports all agreed with Jay and Casey’

        Anecdote you say (unreliable/hearsay?), SC said, ‘missed opportunity’.

        Survivors groups called the latest 6 reports, ‘a whitewash’.

        So let’s see what Jay/Casey reported, using their reports as a means of measurement, and not to forget that ‘majority’, and officers still in whitewash central.

        Smell of roses.

        Casey fact or opinion, based upon the anecdotes:

        °When asked, 70% of the current Rotherham Councillors we spoke to (including those in the Cabinet) disputed Professor Jay’s findings.

        °Denial of the ‘scale and scope of the issue’

        °PERSON AFTER PERSON said that they knew about CSE but not the ‘SCALE and THE SCOPE’, and questioned the numbers of victims in Professor Jay’s report

        °Although Professor Jay did not
        derive her estimate from Council records as she found them too unreliable (as did
        we)

        Jay fact or opinion based on anecdotes regarding the opinionated whistleblowing:

        °December 2009 Rotherham Children’s Safeguarding Services placed into Government intervention.

        °January 2011 Rotherham Children’s safeguarding Services were removed from Government intervention.

        °No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation.

        To honestly say that the reports do not speak in one language to all people, acknowledging the substance depending upon the individuals motivation.

        Finally:

        Rothpol

        ‘Alan Cowles question at the last Council meeting of the 13th September revealed, quoting the latest statistics available, the current rate of new clients indicate that nothing has improved at all, if anything the current rate is higher! How say you on that question?

        Children’s care homes were closed to reduce the number of vulnerable children available to CSE gangs, as Jay will testify around 50% came from care.
        The only thing that is visibly correct would be, a confidence to report abuse, knowing nationally that a high proportion of sexually exploited children, are exploited by peers, I’m hoping that extra awareness at schools be the answer to the statistical department.
        Or someone maybe suggesting that the proverbials are working over time on their industrial work, and going door to door now.

        Like

  3. Quite simply, all existing RMBC employees need to be polygraph tested and asked very clearly “do you believe the organisation you work for covered up the abuse of 1,400 children?” and “Do you fully believe the Jay and Casey reports?”. They should also asked if they would be willing to donate 15% of their wages to survivor groups.

    Any that are caught lying, straight out the door. Any that refuse to pay recompense obviously don’t care about the lives they have helped to destroy. Simply.

    I estimate 80% of staff would be gone within the week and that is a very good thing. Let’s start cleaning Riverside up!

    Like

  4. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 7th October 2017 | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.