That this decision by Rotherham Council is unbelievable!

[mothertruck3r]

Well, not really unbelievable in this era of craziness but make me furious. It seems like the girls who were victims of these gangs still don't have any value (judging by the subsequent treatment by the Council) and their emotional and physical wellbeing is completely dismissed so that a rapist can see his child. What were Rotherham Council thinking!!??

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

Threadastaire I've no doubt you were trying to be sarcastic, but no - I'm not volunteering for this particular issue because it doesn't fall within my particular skill set. The difference is that I'm prepared to say so, unlike those who take vast salaries for really very little

I have, however, spent a lifetime both working and volunteering with other initiatives, too many of which have meant involvement with the various levels of incompetence within LAs. Obviously I don't pretend to speak for everyone but can only relate my own very extensive experience

I'm sorry, however, that it doesn't suit

I just think it's very easy to be a critic, and label people personally incompetent when they haven't worked in the area they are criticising.
I could be labelled incompetent for all sorts of things in my job, because I have a workload three times more what could be realistically done by anybody. My managers are the same. If the senior job was manageable don't you think more people would be willing to apply?

Only just found this thread so marking place to read and digest.

Bit shocked to be found over in Feminist Chat that my pointing out what the actual law is and that Andrew Norfolk is a journalist with form for lying (see Muslim Foster carer case and subsequent fall out) makes me a 'an apologist for grooming'. !!

But nice to see that responsible and reasonable debate still has the floor and that nothing much has changed since I was last posting regularly in 2015!

About to read through properly, so apologies if anyone has already dealt with this but this is a useful explainer around the law about informing fathers about court proceedings involving their children

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/when-should-i-apply-for-permission-not-to-notify-a-father-about-a-court-case-concerning-his-child/

good to see you again Collaborate.
It was a relief to read your post of Wed 28-Nov-18 12:53:33 after the familiar and depressing litany of 'heads must roll' etc.

Just read. It remains depressing how many people speculate about things they don't know about.

But I agree its absolutely shocking that she found out in court, if that is what happened. She should have had someone to understand that the LA would have to inform the father of care proceedings but that there was a way of objecting to this if she wanted. I agree with those who say that no LA would automatically make a High Court application unless they absolutely have to - it would be a wicked waste of public money.

I also think the massive problem here is that it isn't just as simple as saying rapists should never know their children, end of. Sorry if i have got this wrong but I thought I read somewhere Sammy saying her son (who is now 15?) expressed an interest in seeing his father.

Children born of rape carry the genetic material of the rapist. That is a hard enough burden, I imagine, without making the rapist an unparalleled monster or not allowing the child to have any curiosity or knowledge about the man who created him

Is that your blog you linked to Spero?

I agree with those who say that no LA would automatically make a High Court application unless they absolutely have to - it would be a wicked waste of public money.

The cheapest way to deal with grooming is to ignore it. Think of the money Rotherham saved by that policy.

I'm sorry, but the bona fides of the social services and legal staff of Rotherham council are not a given: they failed, completely, for decades, to protect children. So their decisions cannot be assumed to be the product of careful reasoning.

Your beloved Transparency Project (it's a blog, like any other blog, not the holy offices) wrote an article engaging in rape apologism:

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

For example, In the course of the article, the man is referred to variously as a ‘jailed rapist’, ‘jailed sex offender’, ‘rapist’, ’multiple rapist’, ‘perpetrator’, ‘serial rapist’, ‘former abuser’, and ‘man’, in preference to direct acknowledgment of him as the father of the child. Which of those descriptions is inaccurate? The Transparency Project is keen to defend the rights of the rapist to the point of thinking it's wrong to call convicted rapists convicted rapists. So that makes clear where their priorities lie.

Then, having shown their support for rapists, they give the survivors a kicking too.

As we were finalising this blog post, we noted the mother of the child has today published a video in which she tells us that she and MP Louise Hay are calling on government to amend the Children Act so that rapists can’t see their children conceived through rape. It seems odd that this public campaign is apparently being launched on a day when The Times publishes its anonymised leading article

Yeah, the rape victim is a tool of Murdoch, or something. What a bitch, eh?

Someone on the Transparency Project hasn't jumped to the defence of rapists and sneered at rape survivors, and appears to have slightly more empathy. This is worth reading:

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/id-have-written-that-article-too/

I am not comfortable with the many assumptions and judgments being made about the Times’ or Andrew Norfolk’s intentions regarding how the piece was angled and how the council’s actions were described.

She's a lone voice. The Transparency Project's agenda is to not call rapists rapists, and to accuse rape survivors of shadowy motives in daring to not go along with this. The lone voice from it seems decent. The rest appear to be too busy being woke to actually care much else.

Interesting that Sammy Woodhouse makes exactly that point about the rapist being 'part of' her child
www.thesun.co.uk/news/6061497/rotherham-sexual-abuse-victim-sammy-woodhouse-grooming-arshid-hussain-son/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

No Queef its not 'my blog' - but I am a founder and current member of the Transparency Project. I think its a really important endeavour and it was my posting on mumsnet from 2011 to 2014 in the Great Hemming War that has radicalised me as a campaigner today.

"The Transparency Project's agenda is to not call rapists rapists, and to accuse rape survivors of shadowy motives in daring to not go along with this. The lone voice from it seems decent. The rest appear to be too busy being woke to actually care much else."

this is absolute bollocks. I assume you haven't bothered to read anything much that the TP write? I am not going to try and defend my record here about what I do or don't do. I certainly don't give a damn about being thought 'woke'.

Andrew Norfolk is a disagrace to journalism. this is not merely the view of me but of all the journalists who voted his Muslim foster Carer story the worst headline of the year at the Byeline festival this summer.

There is clearly a necessary debate that needs to be had. But it isn't about whether or not the LA followed the law. They did follow it.

O and btw I hope it doesn't need saying but I write here as a person NOT as a representative of the TP although I happen to be a member. They are collectively a lot more measured and polite when I tend to be when confronted with mendacious bollocks.

I assume you haven't bothered to read anything much that the TP write?

I'm taking the articles as I find them, thank you. "As we were finalising this blog post, we noted the mother of the child has today published a video in which she tells us that she and MP Louise Hay are calling on government to amend the Children Act so that rapists can’t see their children conceived through rape. It seems odd that this public campaign is apparently being launched on a day when The Times publishes its anonymised leading article" is smearing a rape survivor as some sort of collaborator with people you think are "a disgrace to journalism".

Could you tell me what the other interpretation is?

Sammy Woodhouse can be a brave and resilient woman who was failed by authorities AND at the same time be used for a journalists own ends to gather clickbait for a non story - or much less of a story than he would like to sensationalise. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you think Norfolk has any credibility then I advise you Google the Muslim Foster Carer story and tell me what you think of such mendacious race baiting.

I'm sorry, but the bona fides of the social services and legal staff of Rotherham council are not a given: they failed, completely, for decades, to protect children. So their decisions cannot be assumed to be the product of careful reasoning

Exactly. It might even be expected that, having failed so miserably before, they'd now be especially careful to leave no avenue unexplored. But it appears they may not have done, and I'd suggest this could be for the same age old reason .. they know perfectly well that they'll never be held to account individually

Threadastaire again, I can only share direct experience of the two local LAs I've had dealings with, and believe me there's absolute no lack of applicants for very senior positions in those. It's just a shame that, even with the very generous packages offered, they seem unable to recruit anyone with any real ability or even common sense

As ReflectentMonatomism put it so cogently, maybe those with these qualities prefer to work in fields less dogged by mulish incompetence?

I am going to cut and paste a comment I made on another thread as I think its on point here too. There is going to be further discussion about this issue on a variety of TV shows on Monday apparently. I do think it is a discussion that needs to happen but I am concerned about the way the debate is being made.

This has been an interesting experience for me about language and how we express ourselves. I can see that the anger of the lawyers about the misrepresentation of the legal position is just not understood or shared by those who feel understandable rage and misery about how a woman like Sammy could be put in this position. I have to concede this seems harsh and those who bang on about the law risk being seen as unsypathetic.

BUT. But. this doesn't mean that asking for accuracy about what the law actually is is wrong. Far from it. Dismissing the actual rules of court practice as the writings of a 'niche blog' [The Transparency Project] is - in my view at least - dangerous. And that criticism I am afraid I have to conclude is dishonest, as you have been sent the link to the actual Family Procedure Rules 2010 on several occasions. These are drafted by a Rules Committee and must be obeyed by all those who make applications to the family courts. They are certainly NOT the invention of a 'niche blog'.

If you want to change the law you must first be clear what the law actually is. I will make no apology for pointing that out as sadly it seems I have to almost every day of the week.

Yes, facts will always matter and be important including being accurate about what the law says.

This is really shit.

I had to go to court 19 times over 2.5 years over a very complex case regarding access to my youngest dd. My ex had abused me in very extreme ways over a long period of time. I moved around during that time and one barrister said to me “he WILL get access - even fathers who have murderered the mother of their children get access”. Which is more than a bit fucked.

(He didn’t get access btw, there was a zero contact order, but my wonderful CAFCASS worker said that she could count on one hand in 14 years of doing her job that she’d seen them given out. I was VERY lucky that I had an amazing legal team, and the education and time to be able to fight my corner).

Many women say exactly that to me. I was at a conference last weekend where an academic claimed that research among lawyers and parents showed that the family court system was set up as a tool of oppression of women and refused to recognise coercive control etc.

All around me women were nodding and murmuring agreement.

Which is why its so odd and unsettling for me. I have been a lawyer for over 20 years. I represent mothers and fathers probably equally. I have been involved in many, many cases where fathers left court with no more than indirect contact twice a year. for some that was exactly the right outcome - for others? I am not so sure. But the court found that the psychological impact on the woman of direct contact was too serious to allow it.

So I do not recognise the court system as described by many. But something is clearly going very wrong when both women AND men are convinced the system is set up against them. Its either an issue of people in pain and fear being unable to understand fully what is going on, or lawyers are rubbish at explaining properly. I suspect its both.

That is why we need more publicity about the facts and what actually happens. I see the other way round too - countless men who think women never pay out to men in divorce and I feel like a lone wolf as a woman who paid out to a man on divorce; when in fact the law is gender neutral and a good few women do make pay outs to men but there is little publicity about it and instead most people assume it doesn't happen. It also suits the agenda of some people to misrepresent facts too whic is one of the biggest issues of our age - the wonderful open internet that allows people to say what they like (which I fully support as the pros well exceed the cons) whch also allows people to present lies as truth.

This is exactly what the Transparency Project has been trying to do; raise awareness of the actual facts about cases in the family justice system. And yet some people seem very quick to say that it is an 'apology' for rapists!

My mind is boggling. I simply do not see how people can reach that conclusion. This is the problem about pain and rage. It may well be justified but if it isn't based on proper understanding about what is happening then it simply becomes a destructive force that will probably ensure that the outcome you want is pushed even further away from you.

Spero, come on! You and your 'TP' project which as thankfully a pp has posted is actually just a blog absolutely cannot say our are unbiased- you hold Sammy in such blatant disregard its absolutely shocking that she found out in court, if that is what happened and the little digs such as this are ridiculous.

Why on earth it is ridiculous to say that?
Why should I simply assume the truth of what anyone says without checking?
I can question the veracity of information without that being taken as an attack on the very soul of another human being.
I would be genuinely shocked and surprised if she found out at court. She must have had a lawyer - these were care proceedings and she would have had non means or non merits tested legal aid.

That lawyer should have explained. Maybe she dispensed with her lawyer and no one told her. Maybe her lawyer did tell her but she didn't understand or didn't listen.

i don't know. But you need to come down from your high horse and stop seeing legitimate discussion as some quite of horrendous attack on a rape victim. you have been very rude and aggressive and I don't know what purpose you think that serves other than to highlight your shock and upset about the situation.

Which is perfectly legitimate shock and upset. But don't worry, I get it. You have made your point. If you continue to address me in this quite contemptuous language then I will have to assume that what you really want is to have some kind of internet fight.

And five years ago I would have happily indulged you. But I grew up.

NothingOnTellyAgain
I think this is the case you were referring to. Its a good job the mother had £50K to throw at the legal system, isn't it.

''The case went to the courts and Anne said she had "sort of naively assumed nobody would have access to children, certainly once they'd got a conviction for child abuse".''
www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-46387043

Spero is the 'high horse' comment directed towards me? For one comment?!

I thought it was more than one comment? On this and another thread? Or have I got you mixed up with another poster. Apologies if so. I do try when I am being rude to direct my rudeness in the right direction, but being a fallible human I sometimes fail.

For those who think I am unfairly biased against Andrew Norfolk, have a read about what Brian Cathcart thinks about him.

www.byline.com/column/68/article/2358