Andrew Norfolk on PM


You have six days to listen to an excellent interview with Andrew Norfolk about how the system fails children who have been sexually abused. On BBC I-player it is in the PM programme, so you have to be patient for … Continue reading

Rotherham’s Disgrace – the deafening silence continues

Dear Rotherham Politics Readers,

While the deafening silence continues from Da Leedah and Town Clerk on the continuing problem of child sexual exploitation in our Borough, along comes Ann Coffey MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults, who has authored a wide-ranging and damning report which highlights the present dangers so well –…pdf

Family Law Week have produced a worrying, but informative article which explains the background to the report and its recommendations –

And so back to Rovrum and what do we as parents, voters, citizens and taxpayers, get from our well-paid junketing political and civic leedahz, Da Dodger and Rimtan Rembik the Town Clerk?

Zilch, nichts, nien, nyet, non, nahin – nothing at all but – CONTINUED SILENCE.

Wake up, wake up, wake up, you lazy corpulent idling good-for-nothing apologies of highly-paid Elected Members and Officers at Town Hall Towers, the agony of our town’s children continues while you draw your toxic salaries and say and do nothing.

Yours Sincerely,


Rotherham’s Disgrace – Free Advice For The Leader Roger Stone

While contemplating the continuing deafening wall of silence coming from Town Hall Towers on the appalling sexual exploitation and grooming of young women and children which is still manifest among our midst, and the huge vacuum caused by an absent, literally and metaphorically, Leedah, I came across this most relevant and apt piece of advice from the world-renowned business guru, the great Tom Peters.

When I watched it I could not help but reflect on the difference of approaches which Tom advises people to follow when dealing with a problem, which is at total variance to Da Dodger’s “tell em nowt rayt, dunt say owt reight, unless it’s abart Dolly Twin Peaks, right”.

Anyway let Rotherham Politics readers work out for themselves whether Tom’s wise words would prove helpful for the secretive, junketing, highly-paid and ineffective Corn Fed Grunters, Muppets and Clowns at Town Hall Towers.

I offer this link as an active and empowered citizen at no cost to the civic purse and as part of my civic duty as a “highly critical friend” of RMBC Elected Members and Officers.

Yours Sincerely,


Rotherham’s Disgrace – Fresh woe in tomorrows Times

For readers that can get behind the paywall, the rest of us will have to buy the print edition in the morning.

Inquiry launched into sexual abuse of children

Andrew Norfolk and Ruth Maclean

Published 1 minute ago

A parliamentary inquiry into the sexual exploitation of children was announced yesterday after MPs were told that thousands of victims have been identified across the country. The scale of the abuse was revealed as a Commons committee listened to evidence of failings by the police, prosecutors and care professionals that allowed a grooming ring to sexually abuse dozens of girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. Nine men, eight of Pakistani heritage and an illegal asylum seeker from Afghanistan, were jailed last month for numerous child-sex offences in the town and surrounding areas. Their trial came after an investigation by The Times into a hidden pattern of group offending against vulnerable girls, usually white and aged from 12 to 16, across northern England and the Midlands. Most of the…

Well spotted by a contributor, Thanks.

Rotherham’s Disgrace – Problem does exist – Official!

Here’s a brave WOMAN who’s prepared to stand-up and make the country and MPs publicly aware that young women are indeed being systematically sexually abused, and by whom.

Note how she clearly refers to the perpetrators, she doesn’t shy away “in the interests of community cohesion”, unlike Rotherham’s “Nelson’s Eye” Elected Members and Officers.

And what do we have here in Rotherham? Deafening silence from the civic political leadership and civic professionals paid toxic salaries to ensure the welfare of the town’s women and children – with the exception of Cllr Jahangir Akhtar, who’s been left to stand in the mire while his Corpulent Clown of a Leedah jollies off out of town – AGAIN!!

And still deafening silence from the town’s female Labour Councillors who haven’t yet issued a statement or a promise to take a stand and protect their sisters in the town.

Spotted and brought to you thanks to Grald-Hunter

Rotherham’s Disgrace – RMBC Website concealing more than revealing – Questions asked



As an active and empowered citizen ratepayer and unpaid community volunteer with an interest in scrutinising and challenging the costs and activities of those who seek public office in the well-rewarded capacity of RMBC Elected Members and Officers, I am seeking reassurance that RMBC discharges its legal duties of care in relation to the town’s women and children, particularly in the light of the damning Serious Case Review which RMBC has recently unsuccessfully sought to suppress via a High Court Injunction.

In that regard I have accessed the RMBC website – – to peruse the policies, statements, consultations and protocols that exist in relation to safeguarding Rotherham’s women and children.

I am appalled to discover that when accessing the above website, and reading the following: “The Safer Rotherham Partnership (SRP) is pleased to release, for consultation, its Strategy to Eliminate Violence against Women and Girls and welcomes all comments or observations you have before 10th December, 2010” that the “Strategy” link produces the following result:

Sorry, the website cannot be found

I require you to:

1. provide me an explanation for the failure of RMBC’s corporate website to provide the statutory information alluded to, and

2. an explanation of what steps you intend to take to ensure that the statutory information is easily accessible via electronic means.

In order to ensure civic efficiency and preserve the public purse from any unnecessary cost I wish you to deal with this issue as a Concern/Complaint, and NOT as a Freedom of Information Request with your customary spurious notional cost attachments.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H Buxton

An acknowledgement duly arrives:

— On Tue, 12/6/12, ChiefExecutive <> wrote:

From: ChiefExecutive <>
Date: Tuesday, 12 June, 2012, 8:16

Dear Mr Buxton

Thank you for your email.

We will look into the issues you have raised and respond accordingly.

Kind regards
Lesley Hatton
Personal Assistant
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Rotherham’s Disgrace – The Times Report – Litany of Failure!

From The Times Website of 7th June 2012:

“An official report into the way care agencies dealt with a murdered girl concealed key information about adults suspected of grooming and using her for sex from the age of 11, The Times can reveal today.

Laura Wilson, 17, was repeatedly stabbed then thrown into a South Yorkshire canal in 2010, six years after concerns were raised that she was at risk of being sexually exploited by men.

Details kept secret when a serious case review was published last week can be reported today after a safeguarding board abandoned legal action against The Times. The board had redacted — blocked out with thick black lines — information identifying Laura as one of several girls in Rotherham who were suspected of falling victim to sexual abuse by “Asian men”.

Also kept hidden were details of care professionals’ involvement with Laura from the age of 11 to 15, including meetings that discussed concerns about child sexual exploitation. The board’s application for a High Court injunction to gag The Times was dropped after Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, accused the board of withholding “relevant and important material”.

The redactions, coupled with Rotherham’s attempt to suppress the report in the courts, will lend support to the impression that child sex exploitation is not being confronted robustly by care professionals and local government.

Laura, identified in the report as “Child S”, was murdered in Rotherham by Ashtiaq Asghar, 17. Ishaq Hussain, 21, a married man who made her pregnant a month after her 16th birthday, was found not guilty of murder.

The report, published by Rotherham’s safeguarding children board, found that 15 agencies had had dealings with Laura. It identified “numerous missed opportunities” to protect a vulnerable child who became “almost invisible” to some care professionals.

Redactions were made to 61 of the report’s 144 pages, ostensibly to protect “the privacy and welfare” of the dead girl’s baby. Hidden from view was the fact that Laura “was mentioned” during a 2009 police inquiry that led to the conviction of five British Pakistanis, aged from 20 to 30, for sex offences against three girls aged 13 to 16.

Though the published report said that when Laura was 10, a young girl with whom she was very closely associated “is thought to have become involved in sexual exploitation”, it concealed that this was “with particular reference to Asian men being involved”.

Other redacted details include:
· “At the centre of the Child S case is the issue of Child S’s potential involvement in sexual exploitation.”
· Many of the indicators that a child is being groomed for sexual exploitation “were apparent in the case of Child S”.
· Laura was referred to a specialist child sexual exploitation project three months after her 11th birthday.
· Laura was “taken into a car with men who encouraged her to drink alcohol”.
· When she was 13, “Child S and her friend were given alcohol by men at a local takeaway and were asked what they were going to give them in return”. Her mother said that “she had immediately notified the police”.
· Her mother “was shocked when it looked as though Child S was involved with older men” and said that “she had tried to get the police and social care to do something about it”.
· Her mother said that “Child S had always said that what [another girl] was doing was wrong and that she would never mess around with Asian men”.

The board’s claim that redactions were made to protect Laura’s relatives is weakened by the personal information about her family that it made public. Its published report disclosed that “from the age of two she experienced the emotional and physical stress of abuse within the family”. The board also chose to reveal that Laura shaved her baby’s head in keeping with Muslim tradition “and talked about bringing her up as a Muslim”.

In 2010 the Government ordered the publication of all serious case reviews. The Times has learnt that the Rotherham board tried to withhold the entire Laura Wilson report, a request rejected by the Department for Education. Mr Gove was told of differences between the review’s published and unredacted versions. He saw both last week and “made plain” to Alan Hazell, the board chairman, his desire for the report to be published “as fully as possible”.

A government spokesman said: “This girl was clearly let down at all stages of her short life. We need greater transparency if we are to give the public greater confidence in the child protection system. Those objectives are undermined if published reports are inappropriately edited.”

Mr Hazell said last week that “at no stage did we have any evidence that Laura was involved in child sexual exploitation”. He suggested that her death was the story of “a boyfriend from a relationship who callously murdered his girlfriend”. Yet the review’s executive summary said: “There is evidence from [Laura’s] behaviour that she did get involved in sexual exploitation.”

The report’s independent author, Pat Cantrill, suggested the absence of more definitive proof that Laura was being used for sex by adults may have been due to failings by care agencies: “Laura obviously had friendships with girls . . . involved in sexual exploitation. The fact that she was vulnerable and was involved in that world should have been enough for people to do more preventative work with her. That didn’t happen.”

In her report, Professor Cantrill said that care professionals in Rotherham needed “improved knowledge of sexual exploitation and grooming, including a better understanding of perpetrators”.

Mr Hazell said he rejected “in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that information was redacted from the published report for any reason other than to protect the interests of Laura’s daughter, immediate family and other third parties”.”

A powerful article indeed!