Julian Bray is delighted to have his biographical entry included in the latest annual edition of Debretts People of Today .... ... PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE Holding officialdom to account. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Over 3/4 of a million page hits, and 3,400 blogposts. We have over 1,680 supporters in the Stanground, Park Farm, Fletton, Cardea (South Stanground) area alone. Our reach covers the whole of the former Unitary Authority. Our resourceful supporters send through reports and pictures, over 50 minimotos / motorcycles have been taken off footpaths and the Green Wheel thanks to their unstinting efforts. We aim to expose or detect crime; expose significantly anti-social behaviour; expose fraud, corruption or injustice; disclosing significant incompetence or negligence; protect people's health and safety; prevent people from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation, and disclosing information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance. In short, these elements (and other factors) help to make up what is known as the public interest Join our conversation Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch is independent and not connected with the Cambridgeshire Neighbourhood Watch which at January 2018 can only show since Feb 2011 45,000 hits! whereas our hit rate (or pageview counter ) records a current (Jan 2018) total of 750,329. YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: PASS IT ON!

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

370 women and Young Girls systematically groomed for sex over 16 years - Oxfordshire Safeguarding Childrens Board

 All the background documents to the shocking sexual grooming of some 370 women and girls over the last 16 years. 

 Oxfordshire Safeguarding Childrens Board Report released earlier today.  Lessons for Peterborough are here.

AB Reported 2007

Key Facts

AB was an eighteen month old boy who died accidentally in July 2006 after falling into his grandparents’ garden pond. The family had been known to Oxfordshire Children’s Services for several years; AB and his sister were on Oxfordshire’s Child Protection Register from September 2004 to September 2005 under the category of neglect. The case was characterised by domestic violence; poor safety in the home, including poor supervision; mother’s depression; and hostility towards professional intervention. From February to July 2006 the two children and their mother lived in refuge accommodation in Hampshire, Portsmouth and East Sussex, returning to Oxfordshire three days before AB died. The mother had been known to Social Workers prior to August 2004. She had four previous children, one living with her father (i.e. Maternal Grandfather), one placed for adoption and two living with their father.


There was no evidence to suggest that different decisions and actions by individual professionals at any one time would have resulted in a different outcome. At no time could any one person have been expected to predict that AB would drown. However, what emerges from the analysis is the challenge of working with complex family situations where risks may be fluctuating on an almost daily basis. Also that as the family moved around, professionals failed to effectively link – an example of the ‘start again syndrome’ highlighted in the findings from SCRs nationally.

Key Learning and Action

 The case would have benefitted from a sharper, more outcome focused plan and work was undertaken with Conference chairs to achieve a better outcomes focus in child protection planning. Liaison between agencies across LA and Health boundaries and acceptance of one another’s assessments was addressed by changes to procedures. The role of Women’s Refuge staff in child protection was addressed through changes to the service level agreement. The danger posed by garden ponds to young children needed a higher profile and a publicity campaign was undertaken to address this.

CD Reported 2007

Key Facts

In December 2006 CD fell to her death fell from the balcony of her tower block home (later recorded by the coroner with an open verdict) following an evening of drinking and emotional confrontation with her father. In her 16 years, she had multiple changes of school and address and was part of a large chaotic family. She was the subject of child protection procedures on five separate occasions, four times because of concerns about sexual abuse, and the fifth because of concerns about the risk of physical abuse and neglect connected with domestic violence. Care proceedings resulted in supervision orders, not care orders due to parenting improvements. At fourteen years old CD started self-harming and her school attendance became a cause for concern. At several points she was offered counselling and following the pattern set within her family CD rarely attended more than an initial session. At 15 CD ‘voted with her feet’ and went to live with her father, against professionals and her mother’s wishes.


This was a complex, complicated and chaotic family who did not engage with professionals, seeking help only under the duress and pressure of crisis and then withdrawing from any ongoing involvement. There did not appear to be any single action, by any agency, that would definitely have resulted in a different outcome. Significantly all agencies worked hard with this family and there was evidence of good inter-agency communication and adherence to agreed protocols and procedures. However there was little evidence over the years of real, outcome focused joined up work or planning, and a lack of multi-agency meetings.

Key Learning and Action

The inter agency work with CD and her family could have been better planned and focussed; improvements which followed included multiagency early intervention work. One major contributing factor seemed to be the family’s reluctance to engage with professionals, which it was thought might have benefitted from family based decision making rather than the conventional approach which failed here; as a consequence investment in the Family Group Conference Service increased ten-fold. Issues highlighted around engaging reluctant families resulted in changes to CAMHS procedure and practice.

EF Reported 2009

 Key Facts

EF was a 15 year-old girl looked after by Oxfordshire County Council. She was living in a small, independent children’s home when, on 17 November 2008, she was found dead in her bedroom, An inquest recorded an open verdict, but it is believed that she killed herself. EF had been in the care of Oxfordshire County Council, on a full-time basis, since early 2007. Support for the family had been provided over many years, and EF’s first experience of the care system was in 2005. Her placement history included spells in in-county residential care and in secure care. Her last move to an independent children’s home in Hampshire was triggered by the closure of the independent home in which she had been living. EF had four sisters: two now adult, living independently; one older living with her father (having spent considerable time in care herself) and a younger sister living with her mother.


EF was very difficult to help and at the same time her behaviour put her at very significant risk of serious harm. Agencies worked hard to support her and her family, and shared information well but their efforts were not well enough jointly planned or coordinated. EF’s self harming behaviours were not holistically assessed nor effectively addressed by all agencies. It is not possible to say that the eventual tragic outcome could have been avoided but improved assessment, information sharing, care planning and decision making could have served to reduce the likelihood of that outcome occurring.

Key Learning and Action

The need for a more strategic, integrated multi agency approach for such complex cases was highlighted – including self-harming behaviour - which resulted in the development of a new multi-agency complex case planning process. A clear understanding of thresholds for taking court action has been addressed by the provision of additional training and guidance. Understanding by partner agencies of shared obligations towards Looked After Children has been improved through a community health review, the virtual school and improved scrutiny and monitoring through the Trust and LSCB quality assurance groups.

G-H Children x 4 Reported 09

Key Facts

The mother of these children (born in ’91, ’93, ’96 and ’02) was abused as a child herself; had been in care as a young girl; married young and had a child but subsequently divorced and had 3 further children from other partners. She began to take illegal drugs, then developed an alcohol problem. She moved frequently. She suffered violence from each of her partners to varying degrees. Social Workers and Health Visitors made enormous efforts to encourage the mother to seek help and assistance for her drug and alcohol problems, but many appointments were not kept and often excuses made as to why she could not or would not take drug urine tests. Often the children would attend school hungry, filthy and wearing dirty clothes. Home visits found the house in a totally unacceptable state for children. The children’s situation was further aggravated by a totally chance meeting with a known sex offender IJ - see below - as they moved into one of their houses that adjoined his garden. He soon ingratiated himself with the family, paying for holidays, gifts and hotel accommodation. The offender was subsequently arrested and convicted for Child Abuse and is now serving life imprisonment.


Numerous agencies were involved with the family over the years. Child Protection Review Conferences were held but often the focus was about how to reduce, monitor and treat the mother’s drug and alcohol problems. This was a very difficult case, aggravated by the unwillingness of the mother to heed advice and protect her children, her unwillingness to seek help with drug and alcohol problems and her often aggressive responses to professionals. The needs of the children seemed to diminish into the background. Agencies appeared to act individually rather than working together. There was an absence of Core Group working, to ‘pull things together’ and develop a more strategic view of the whole of the professional contact with, and input into, this family, and of the impact of that involvement. There were numerous missed opportunities for the children to have been removed and placed in care. Instead they suffered further, preventable neglect and abuse.

Key Learning

The highlighted need to adopt a coherent approach to working with neglect has resulted in the development of a multi-agency neglect strategy which is being implemented. Core Group working was a weakness in this case and monitoring training and guidance have addressed this. Steps have been taken to improve attendance at and participation in child protection conferences. The problems in working with difficult and deceptive people was a feature and this has been addressed though training.

Adult IJ and his involvement with 9 children

Reported 09

Key Facts

This case has a convicted sex offender at its centre, his 2 disabled daughters for whom he had sole care, together with 7 other young males, all of whom he groomed and/or sexually abused. IJ was subject to Probation and MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) supervision during the period when he abused the boys and there was significant, ongoing health and children’s social care involvement relating to the care of his daughters. The trigger for the abuse being uncovered was a paedophile investigation in the USA, which alerted Thames Valley Police. IJ is now serving a life sentence for sexual offences against these boys.


Concerns about the risk posed by IJ in caring for his daughters were sometimes overshadowed by the overwhelming physical needs of the children. In addition IJ’s predatory abuse of boys outside the family went unhindered by lack of information sharing between certain agencies; inconsistent attendance at child protection conferences; over dependence on expert opinions; inadequate recourse to robust consequences when breaches of agreements occurred; and reliance on fixed assessments even in the light of changing circumstances. However, IJ was/is a very intelligent, deceptive, charismatic individual who was able to manipulate a variety of practitioners, parents, and agencies, at times despite evidence to the contrary.

Key Learning

For some whose primary clients are adults, the boundaries between interagency information sharing to safeguard children and confidentiality became blurred – new guidance has been issued. There was a lack of assertive action by MAPPA and poor collaboration between it and the LSCB; information sharing and collaboration issues have now been addressed. Written agreements were used inappropriately in the case which prompted a review and new guidance is being issued.

Oxfordshire Case Reviews

The OSCB has produced a summary document for older Serious Case Reviews (pdf format, 3.82 MB). The summaries include the key facts of the case, a brief analysis of what agencies did and the main learning points for professionals.

Serious Case Review Reports

Children A-F – Overview Report – March 2015
Children A-F – Overview Report Accessible Summary – March 2015
Children A-F – Case Review Summary for Children & Young People – March 2015
Children A-F – OSCB Recommendations – March 2015
Children A-F – OSCB Media Statement – March 2015
Children A-F – Agency Responses since 2011
Children A-F – Opening Statement from Press Conference – March 2015

Child H – Overview Report – 15092014
Child H – Media Statement – 15092014
Child H – OSCB Recommendations – 15092014 

Child N – SCR Overview Report – 07082014
Child N – Statement – 07082014 
Child N – OSCB Recommendations – 07082014 

Child Y – Executive Summary – 07082014 
Child Y – Statement – 07082014 
Child Y – Action Plan

E&OE All Enquiries 01733 345581 BROADCAST ISDN DIRECT COOBE LINK: 01733 345020 [G722 Codec] .

Post a Comment




The Peterborough Tribune supports:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) an international non-profit organisation working to defend the freedom to be informed and to inform others throughout the world.

Today, 30 years since its creation, RSF has enough experience and on-the-ground support to defend press freedom on a global scale. RSF accomplishes its work through its wide network of correspondents established in 130 countries, its 12 offices (Vienna, Brussels, Rio de Janeiro, Helsinki, Berlin, Madrid, Stockholm, Geneva, Tunis, Washington DC, London, and Paris) and its consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe.

As a leading defender of press freedom and freedom of information, RSF alternates public interventions and effective behind-the-scenes actions.

THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).

UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.

Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens.

We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independently resourced Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. A scheme operated following written guidelines to us directly from the Home Office.

We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.


NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.

Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)


Rights Holder Charter
Version: January 2009 v.3
This Rights Holder Charter (“Charter”) sets out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between Julian Bray, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch blog entitled Peterborough Tribune (PBROTRIB) on the Blogger and other platforms, and an individual or company making a Contribution to PBROTRIB (“Rights Holder”). The purpose of this document is to ensure that the Charter terms are
incorporated into to all Contracts with each Rights Holder, so both parties areclear as to how PBROTRIB may use content. This Charter does not apply to content submitted:
· using a feature or interactive service that allows
the individual to upload to and display content on any of PBROTRIB websites
(including social sites), apps, WAP sites or any web address owned or operated
by PBROTRIB as may link to the terms accessible at
(User-Generated Content (“UGC”)); or
This Charter applies to all Rights Holder Contributions, except where the Rights Holder is already subject to a separate
written agreement with PBROTRIB in relation to Contributions, or where PBROTRIB
has agreed in writing to vary or amend the Charter due to exceptional circumstances. Formation of the Contract

By sending PBROTRIB a Contribution you are making
an offer to PBROTRIB to use the Contribution.’ PBROTRIB’s use of the
Contribution is acceptance of your offer and creates a Contract on the terms of this Charter. Submission of a Contribution by you is an acknowledgement that
you agree to the terms of this Charter. If you do not agree to the Charter you must email us as soon as possible to raise your objection and withdraw your
submitted Contribution, otherwise you will be deemed to have accepted the Charter terms.
Contract: the agreement between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution incorporating this Charter and the Special Terms (where applicable);
Contribution: material (written, audio, visual, video or audiovisual) created by the Rights Holder and will be
classified as either Material You Send Us or Material We Request From You;
Credit: for Material You Send Us “© [insert name of Rights Holder and Year]”;
Publication: means one or more publications owned or operated by PBROTRIB. Licence: the licence granted by the Rights Holder to PBROTRIB
as set out in the Licence sections of this Charter;
Personal Data: has the same meaning as provided in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Material You Send Us: a Contribution as set out under the Material You Send Us paragraph;
Material We Request From You: A Contribution as set out under the Material We Request From You paragraph; Rights Holder: name of the of the individual or company which has created the relevant Contribution; Special Terms: written terms between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution that are not set out in this Charter and/or vary this Charter; and User-Generated Content: content submitted by an individual through a feature that allows the individual to upload material to any of PBROTRIB websites or social sites.
Conflict with other Agreements: If there is any inconsistency between any of the provisions of this Charter and the Special Terms, the Special Terms shall prevail. To be clear, where no Special Terms are agreed in writing, the Charter will apply without variation. Sending us a Contribution –
The information Rights Holders please provide To PBROTRIB When sending us a Contribution, please provide the following information:
Your Full Name;
Your Full Address; and Your Contact Telephone Number and Email Address.

We will not be able to provide Credits where a
Rights Holder has not provided the relevant information.

Material You Send Us

Material You Send Us is a Contribution that is
received by PBROTRIB from a Rights Holder. The Contribution may be solicited or unsolicited. The following are examples of Material You Send Us:
PBROTRIB has seen the Rights Holders’ photograph on a third party website. PBROTRIB contacts the
Rights Holder and asks to use the photograph. (Solicited). A Rights Holder speculatively submits a range of photographs to and for PBROTRIB’s use. The Editor may or may not decide to use one or more of the photographs. (Unsolicited) Material You Send Us does not include UGC, Material We Request You To Send Us or material that is governed under any
other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to accept any Material You Send Us for review and if accepted for review is under no obligation to offer a Contract. Should PBROTRIB decide that it wishes to use the Contribution, it will be governed by the terms of this Charter. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. If you wish to submit a speculative Contribution to us, please
contact the appropriate PBROTRIB title. Please note that PBROTRIB will not be able to acknowledge receipt of your Contribution and any submission is at the Rights Holder’s own risk.
Material You Send Us – Licence Terms
PBROTRIB believes that Material You Send Us is the
Rights Holder’s property and that the Rights Holder should not need to give up all its rights for the Contribution to be used by PBROTRIB. Therefore, by
sending us a Contribution, the Rights Holder grants the following irrevocable licence in perpetuity to PBROTRIB: The right to publish, reproduce, licence and sell the Contribution as part of the Publication throughout the world in the following formats:
-- the physical printed Publication;
-- in a replica layout in any electronic format of
the Publication;
-- on the website version of the Publication;
-- in any PBROTRIB apps delivering the Publication
to a reader; and
-- on any PBROTRIB social media pages.
-- The right to publish extracts or the whole of
the Publication (which may or may not include the Contribution) when promoting PBROTRIB’s business or subscriptions in media advertisement, show cards and other promotional aids. The Right to authorise The Newspaper Licensing Agency and similar reprographic rights organisations in other jurisdictions (“RROs”) to distribute or license the distribution of your Contribution throughout the world in any language(s) for RROs’ licensed acts and purposes as amended from time to time, and to keep available your Contribution through such RROs. The unlimited right to amend, edit, select, crop, retouch, add to or delete any part of the Contribution, in any format, whether electronic or otherwise, including the right to remove or amend any meta data associated with the Contribution.

The right to store the Contribution electronically.
In return for the licence granted in relation to the Material You Send Us, PBROTRIB will endeavour to provide the Credit with the Contribution. The licence granted to PBROTRIB shall survive any termination of the agreement between PBROTRIB and the
Rights Holder. Material We Request From You
Material We Request From You is a Contribution that
has specifically commissioned by PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB will contact a Rights Holder and
commission them to provide a Contribution in relation to a brief. An example of Material We Request From You is: PBROTRIB needs a photograph of a country building. PBROTRIB instructs the Rights Holder to attend the venue and take picture of the building. Material We Request From You does not include UGC, Material You Send Us or material that is governed under any other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB . The Rights Holder will provide its own equipment and materials to fulfil its obligation for Material We Request From You. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. Material We Request From You –
Assignment and Licence
PBROTRIB believes that Material We Request From You should be PBROTRIB ’s property as PBROTRIB has requested the Rights Holder’s services and instructed them to create the Contribution on its behalf. However, PBROTRIB acknowledges that the Right Holder may need a licence from PBROTRIB to
use the Contribution for limited purposes. Therefore, in submitting Material We Request From You to PBROTRIB , the Rights Holder assigns to PBROTRIB with full title, right and interest all existing and future intellectual property rights in the Contribution. In return, PBROTRIB will endeavour to give a Credit to the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB grants the Rights Holder a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the Contribution in its own online and offline portfolio, provided that the following copyright notice is applied to the Contribution “©Peterborough
Tribune, used under limited licence”.
General notes about Rights: Any rights granted to PBROTRIB or the Rights Holder under this Charter shall survive termination of the Contract for any reason. Rights Holder Promises The Rights Holder promises: that it owns the Contribution and / or is (and will continue to be) authorised to grant the rights to PBROTRIB; nothing in the Contribution is blasphemous, discriminatory, defamatory, untrue, misleading or unlawful; that the Contribution complies with the NUJ Code of Professional Conduct and the Independent
Press Standards Organisations Editors’ regulations and Code of Practice; the Contribution does not contain any virus, Trojan horse, hidden computer software or similar; the Contribution does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party; where the Contribution contains Personal Data, all
the necessary consents in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 have been obtained; where the Contribution contains images of children under the age of 16, written parental consent has been obtained and can be provided on request; and maintain and comply with, at all times, the highest ethical standards in the preparation, creation and delivery of the Contribution.
Complaints In the event that a complaint is raised in relation to a Contribution, the Rights Holder agrees to co-operate fully with any internal or external investigation or process. Status. The Rights Holder is an independent contractor and nothing in the Charter shall render the Rights Holder an employee, worker,
agent or partner of PBROTRIB. The Rights Holder is responsible for any taxes/national insurance payable in relation to any services provided under the Charter.
Indemnity The Rights Holder shall keep PBROTRIB indemnified in full against all loss incurred or paid by PBROTRIB as a result of or in connection with any claim made against PBROTRIB by a third party:
arising out of, or in connection with the Contribution, to the extent that such claim arises out of the breach of this or any terms of this Charter (including any Special Terms); and for actual or alleged infringement of a third party's intellectual property rights arising out of, or in connection with the use of the Contribution except in so far as the claim arises as a result of changes made by PBROTRIB or a breach of the Licence by PBROTRIB.
Variation of the Charter No variation of any term of this Charter will be effective, unless it is set out in writing (letter, fax or email) and signed by
a relevant authorised representative of PBROTRIB. If you wish to submit a Contribution and are unable to agree with the terms of this Charter or if you
have any questions regarding this Charter, please contact a relevant authorised representative of the PBROTRIB publication.
Problems & Disputes In the event of a problem or dispute in relation to a Licence and/or in connection with this Charter, in the first instance the Rights Holder and the Editor will look to resolve the dispute amicably. Application of the Charter Unless otherwise agreed, this Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction