Didnt happen on my watch!

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/73785/council-boss-called-before-parliamentary-committee

Should have thought the incumbent at the time should be called to answer at least as well, if not instead.

I agree. Maybe that's one of the reasons he took early retirement. Not sure how Jim Taylor can be blamed for things that occurred before he became Chief Exec, unless he fails to implement changes that are needed.

The former chief executive, Roger Ellis, was believed to habitually delegate ' The Watch ' to the Executive Director Andy Zuntz, yet another who left RMBC this year on a council-approved, voluntary early-retirement pyramid. After they abolished his former title of Assistant Chief Execurive, he was empowered as an Executive Director from 2003 - 2012.

I believe Andy Zuntz should be called to give answers, as the most familiar and involved council Exec.

He also did an Acting Chief Executive stint before Jim Taylor started in post in June.

Jim Taylor can surely only respond from what information he is being given by Senior Managers or Directors and even from a councillor. Having read the entire transcript of the last parliamentary committee session held in June, I was amazed to read the large number of responses (and his interpretations ! ) of events given at it by Councillor Colin Lambert, in his capacity as RMB Council Leader.

First and foremost, council speak appears heavily badged with " Community Cohesion " initiatives and advertised status. Jim Taylor isn't psychic, as far as I know, and the principle of Senior accountability for explanations lies with former 'public sector' incumbents .

I agree with all of the above posters.

Makes no sense whatsoever to call someone who is unable to give account of events from first hand experience. Jim Taylor can only relate what he has been led to believe happened or what he believes has happened from the sources available to him at this time.

It would only make sense to call Jim Taylor if your intention is to NOT get to the bottom of this and merely want to look to be doing something.

Or am I mistaken?

It's a formality to call the present leader of RMBC, also a good illustration of why delaying tactics are so useful in law and politics. Delay and divert, and by the time anyone is called to account, facts and papers have been lost, the memories of many witnesses have faded, and those 'responsible' are in retirement.

Spartacus wrote:I agree with all of the above posters.

Makes no sense whatsoever to call someone who is unable to give account of events from first hand experience. Jim Taylor can only relate what he has been led to believe happened or what he believes has happened from the sources available to him at this time.

It would only make sense to call Jim Taylor if your intention is to NOT get to the bottom of this and merely want to look to be doing something.

Or am I mistaken?

It is actually very sad who cared ,who listened,
As someone who worked on the Children's ward for 32 years I came across many of these young girls in care maybe there is another fault in the system to what happened to these young people many years ago ?

It was previously announced that the council would be able to go back 10 years in it's own investigation.

Initially, after this year's trial of Rochdale men, the council, to their shame, speedily blamed care homes ... a thundering big Red Herring.

There has been no previous Home Affairs Select Committee review of child sexual exploitation, so I fail to see why it should be a formality to call Jim Taylor. We don't need a Sacrificial Lamb or sycophantic feedback to Keith Vaz, the Committee Chair. I think many of the children affected by abuse were also the victims of some so-called professionals' own prejudices.

The attitudes, and failures that led to, contributed to and caused the circumstances and situation now partially revealed, the vulnerability and extreme systematic abuse of, and damage to, so many children, are embedded into our society.

The attitudes and understandings of both those in authority, now charged with investigating, and of the general public, have not changed overnight. Can both the authorities and the public who have allowed this situation to arise and to develop understand what is wrong with themselves?

Predictably, attempts will be made to shift blame, present red herrings and to scapegoat. We, the general public need to face the fact that something is very rotten in the society we live in.

Children should not be facing such a dangerous society to grow up in. An investigation into what has gone on so far needs to be much stronger and wide ranging than the usual 'serious case review' and knee jerk reactions if we want to properly understand what has gone wrong and to make the changes made that simply have to be made.

I will not list here the stresses that our society is under, but I do suggest that we think about them and what can be done to mitigate them.

Despite the 'economic emergency' the UK has the resources to do this sort of investigation, and to make changes, the question is, which is more urgent, tackling the abuse of the elderly, or the abuse of children, maybe we should do both.

Assuming Jim Taylor is a decent, responsible and competent chap, as I do, on his orders, some of the office workers at R.M.B.C. will have a lot of work to do in going back through the records, investigating and piecing the facts and story together.

We all know councils are under massive financial strain at the moment and the forseeable. Will there be funding from somewhere to cover the costs of the internal inquiry, or will the council tax payers of Rochdale have to both pay that bill and accept less staff available to do other essential things?

Good point. There should be government help for the Borough because it will cost money, but I doubt there will be . I would answer why I believe that, but some would accuse me of being political.

Because they might be able to prevent such disaster from happening again, and also there is nothing to suggest the present regime is to blame for the problem, but has to put right previous mistakes.

As the councils' internal review will form an essential part of an independent 'Serious Case Review', which itself should be part of a more wide ranging National review and investigation, shouldn't the whole investigation be funded from central government via one route or another?

Otherwise, there will need to be an additional G.I.P. ('grooming investigation precept') on the local council tax, to collect the extra revenue that will be needed. Certainly funds will have to come from somewhere if a proper job is to be done without too much loss of other essential services.

I know what happened on my watch.