Rotherham

[Nick]

Well? What the fook was going on?   Time for heads off. Bastards!!!!

[Steve]

Indeed.  And why aren't a whole bunch of officials and coppers being charged with misconduct in a public office?

Cos that's what they did.

[Nick]

1400 kids, load of Pakis and PC social workers 

[Steve]

This wasn't about PC, this was about people in senior posts thinking they might have to do more work if they took these cases seriously and talked about the racial background of the offenders.  So they let it be known that they'd 'discourage' their staff doing the right thing. 

That's illegal, it's jailable and I want to know why those senior officials aren't in clink already.  Instead with one exception they all seem to be keeping their jobs. 

[Barman]

Disgusterous.... 

[Darwins Selection]

It seems it was no big secret. How come the press didn't blow it up before now?
More PC there methinks.

[Baldy]

At the press interview the very first question the head of the department is asked:

"Why have not one of your 'team' been sacked, reprimanded or demoted due to their complete incompetence in this case?"

Him:
"We do not have sufficient evidence that one individual is responsible for what happened"

Sack the feckin lot of those useless arseholes so they do not keep getting paid for doing feck all, do not let them see out their years and get a pension they do not deserve. 1400 children would sign the petition as soon as it was put in front of them. Mr Bliar has a lot to answer for in setting up too many worthless individuals in employment who are unable to produce an effective reason for having a job apart from getting a monthly salary. 

[Barman]

At the press interview the very first question the head of the department is asked:

"Why have not one of your 'team' been sacked, reprimanded or demoted due to their complete incompetence in this case?"

Him:
"We do not have sufficient evidence that one individual is responsible for what happened"

Sack the feckin lot of those useless arseholes so they do not keep getting paid for doing feck all, do not let them see out their years and get a pension they do not deserve. 1400 children would sign the petition as soon as it was put in front of them. Mr Bliar has a lot to answer for in setting up too many worthless individuals in employment who are unable to produce an effective reason for having a job apart from getting a monthly salary. 

 

Also what Mr. Darwin Sir said.... I think the problem in this case is that people DID know but didn't want to be accused of racism by the religion of piss so let it go by...

You can bet your life if it was Asian Pakistani girls being raped by white men it would have been top billing on the news....

the Bloggers were reporting this long, long ago but nothing happened...

[Steve]

Worth reading the full report.  Well at least section 2 (Chronology) and section 11 (Issues of Ethnicity).

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Not surprising that the bloggers knew, seems nigh on everyone in Yorkshire knew but the council's reactions to reports from their own or own funded groups was often to go for more reports.  They were always able to offer statements to the effect that they were 'taking it very seriously we are investigating" but they were ever actually doing anything about it.

This paragraph from section 11 rather worries me.  No kids (white, coloured, black or whatever) should be abused

There was too much reliance by agencies on traditional community leaders such as elected members and imams as being the primary conduit of communication with the Pakistani-heritage community. The Inquiry spoke to several Pakistani-heritage women who felt disenfranchised by this and thought it was a barrier to people coming forward to talk about CSE. Others believed there was wholesale denial of the problem in the Pakistani-heritage community in the same way that other forms of abuse were ignored. Representatives of women's groups were frustrated that interpretations of the Borough's problems with CSE were often based on an assumption that similar abuse did not take place in their own community and therefore concentrated mainly on young white girls.

[Grumpmeister]

This had me spitting fire when I read it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736136/We-won-t-blame-1-400-young-girls-abused-rapists-loose-officials-charge-Rotherham-abuse-scandal-continue-pass-buck.html

Joyce Thacker, the head of childrems services is shamelessly and with total contempt and disregard to the victims trying to not only pass the buck but ninimise the seriousness of the whole affair.

'Protecting young people from harm is not the responsibility of any single agency and as a community we need to continue to work together to tackle this horrific crime.'

You are right, it isn't the responsibility of a single agency. Its the responsibility of EVERY agency and your attempt to play down the whole affair by saying it was only 2.4% of the total safeguarding work by the council will be a great comfort to the 1400 children who were repeatedy abused by these animals over the 16 years which has included your entire tenure as head of department. And in case anyone wants to make a comment about me being racist for calling them such I would use the description for ANYONE who would rape a child no matter their age colour or creed.

In your case I have to wonder, especially since you previously removed a child from foster parents simply because the voted UKIP which in your own words "did not fit in with the children's 'cultural and ethnic needs' - and that supporting Ukip was inconsistent with 'multiculturalism'", whether or not you are guilty of putting your own personal and political agenda ahead of the needs of the children you are responsible for protecting.

Even more despicable is your attempt to foist a portion of blame off to the parents of the victims, given that they wouldn't have had access to the information concerning the scale of what was happening. Yes parents have a responsibility to protect their children, that goes without saying, but they can only act on what they know and there is a more than convincing argument that you and your ilk went out of their wat to ensure that information either wouldn't become public knowlege or would be played down.

There needs to be a complete, independant and most impportantly public enquiry into how this went unchecked for 16 years with those found responsible not just sacked from their role but punished to the full extent of the law for their negligence.

[Barman]

This had me spitting fire when I read it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736136/We-won-t-blame-1-400-young-girls-abused-rapists-loose-officials-charge-Rotherham-abuse-scandal-continue-pass-buck.html

Joyce Thacker, the head of childrems services is shamelessly and with total contempt and disregard to the victims trying to not only pass the buck but ninimise the seriousness of the whole affair.

'Protecting young people from harm is not the responsibility of any single agency and as a community we need to continue to work together to tackle this horrific crime.'

You are right, it isn't the responsibility of a single agency. Its the responsibility of EVERY agency and your attempt to play down the whole affair by saying it was only 2.4% of the total safeguarding work by the council will be a great comfort to the 1400 children who were repeatedy abused by these animals over the 16 years which has included your entire tenure as head of department. And in case anyone wants to make a comment about me being racist for calling them such I would use the description for ANYONE who would rape a child no matter their age colour or creed.

In your case I have to wonder, especially since you previously removed a child from foster parents simply because the voted UKIP which in your own words "did not fit in with the children's 'cultural and ethnic needs' - and that supporting Ukip was inconsistent with 'multiculturalism'", whether or not you are guilty of putting your own personal and political agenda ahead of the needs of the children you are responsible for protecting.

Even more despicable is your attempt to foist a portion of blame off to the parents of the victims, given that they wouldn't have had access to the information concerning the scale of what was happening. Yes parents have a responsibility to protect their children, that goes without saying, but they can only act on what they know and there is a more than convincing argument that you and your ilk went out of their wat to ensure that information either wouldn't become public knowlege or would be played down.

There needs to be a complete, independant and most impportantly public enquiry into how this went unchecked for 16 years with those found responsible not just sacked from their role but punished to the full extent of the law for their negligence.

 

[Nick]

A guy I know was Director of Children's Services in a London Borough. He took early retirement one day after Ofsted turned up and found his department was badly run. He told me later that he got £250000 severance and a pension of £72000. He was 55 at the time 

[Barman]

A guy I know was Director of Children's Services in a London Borough. He took early retirement one day after Ofsted turned up and found his department was badly run. He told me later that he got £250000 severance and a pension of £72000. He was 55 at the time 

 

[Nick]

He grumbled to me that it "wasn't enough" 

[Darwins Selection]

Leeches every one  (VPers excepted)