Girls locked in their bedroom every night.....

I agree, and I think the father is also very concerned; from reports (which apparently may or may not be believed) he has a new partner and has moved away from the area. I am surprised that his input does not carry more weight.

Great post, Nightowl. I think the professionals who have reached whatever decisions have been made here have underestimated the strength of feeling being expressed by the grandmother, who hasn't been party to decision-making and been left to draw her own conclusions. Hopefully, someone will be listening to her and reviewing the situation or be able to reassure her that she has received some misinformation. Whatever, as it stands there are clear safeguarding concerns and it should not be left as it is.

Mishap I don't think the rules have changed. LA's do comment on cases all the time, they have lawyers and media spokespersons to deal with just this kind of matter.

I don't think anyone on here has been 'getting on high horses and saying everything is wrong' * elena*. People have been discussing the reports, just as we do with many things. You seem to be saying that unless we know the facts of everything we shouldn't be discussing them, which seems to suggest we shouldn't be discussing anything much at all.

With regard to 'why aren't they fostered and why can't the grandmother take them' I don't think anyone has said that either. People have suggested that fostering could be an alternative to the awful situation described (if it is accurate) and I have pointed out that family care could be an alternative to fostering, and could be enforced by the courts.

I am not generally very positive about the media and its reporting of social work cases. I am all too aware that they often get facts wrong and sometimes deliberately misrepresent them. Even worse they target individual social workers and make their lives hell. However, I have to say that the media has a valuable role to play in bringing cases like this one to the public's attention and can lead to useful consideration of how sex offenders can be managed safely around children. So if these reports lead to more discussion around these issues and perhaps lead to more enlightened practice then I don't think it's a bad thing. Safeguarding is everyone's business.

I'm not so sure about that elena, unless the rules have changed since I was in SW. Anonymity and confidentiality were (and still are) paramount of course.

There are many safeguarding issues reported in the press which are simply not true
How do you know this?
Are you a lawyer working for local authority councils?
We are all someone.

Mishap, councils do deny media rumours. But not, you will find, in safeguarding issues.

I am no one! I have no connection with this case or anything to do with safeguarding children at all. I do know how the press works and what local authorities can and can't comment on. I can assure you they will not sue for libel if the reported situation is not true. It is naive to assume that because they have not sued it is not true.

There are many safeguarding issues reported in the press which are simply not true, or are only one side of the story, or which are a distortion. Institutions do not sue.

If these little girls are living in a house with a known sex offender, then that is absolutely awful. The mother cannot have her children's welfare as her priority. But it is not automatically illegal to be a terrible mother! It is not automatically illegal for a sex offender to partner up with a mother. Rightly, the authorities in this case are watching the situation and by their own admissions, they have set certain conditions in place which allow social workers, police and other agencies to monitor the situation. We have no idea if this includes locking the girls in their room. The court will have decided how the monitoring can take place legally. It would be mad if a sex offender could challenge conditions because they had not been put in place without due process.

Of course courts may make wrong decisions. But we just don't know and cannot know the facts in this case. Getting on high horses and saying everything is wrong and why aren't they fostered and why can't the grandmother take them etc etc is to pretend knowledge you cannot have.

elena - why not? Councils make these sort of statements all the time, denying some media-lead rumour. They need breach no confidence. Just a general statement that this is untrue.

An article can have a mixture of all sorts.

There's true and there's untrue. Would you prefer to apportion percentages soontobe? I fail to understand your comment.

elena. If not 100% true, I think it is a bit unrealistic to think it is anywhere near 0%.

Yes, I see phoenix, that makes sense.

I do wonder who elena is.

I think that if someone has presented a "reasonable" case for the defence in court, and has used (and I really do mean "used" or perhaps "abused") testimonials from a recognised agency, then then neither LA's or SW's can do much to override the courts decision.

So any old red-top could print a load of lies about what a LA has or has not done, and they could not comment? Even if it was libellous?

That doesn't sound very likely. So the fact that they haven't commented in this case implies that nothing libellous has been printed, and the basic facts are true.

Mishap, they cannot comment.

elena - do you not think that the LA could simply say that there have been reports in the media of a ruling regarding children being locked in their bedroom and we can categorically state that no such ruling for any child has taken place?

They are not breaching any confidences and there is nothing to stop them making such a statement. They have not done so.

It's also ridiculous to expect that no one will comment on or speculate about the alleged situation just because the reports have not been proved to be correct.

The courts and children's services and the social workers and others working for them cannot comment about measures taken or interventions made. It is simply not possible to confirm or deny the locked bedroom scenario, even to silence media reports. It is ridiculous to assume that without a denial, the reports must be true.

The Health and Safety Executive in Devon is very assiduous in following up cases and hounding small businesses - I am surprised they have not intervened in this case on the grounds of safety in case there was a fire.

(This post will probably get deleted too - but I stand by the word 'hounding - synonym: pursue relentlessly.')

That is very true phoenix

People often think of paedophiles as the 'sinister bogey man' lurking around outside a school or playground, but quite often it is the jolly family friend, 'uncle' or relative who is great fun and 'great with the kids'.

Some people are very good at manipulating others and estranging them from their friends and even family. Some people don't even realise it is happening until it's too late.

When this happens it can often mean that the person being manipulated find themselves cut off from others, and can come to rely totally on the person doing the manipulating.

The mother's very naïve if she thinks it's only her daughters who are at risk.
I just can't fathom out how her brain works

Sure does, Stansgran !

I can understand that if it were feared the children were going to be raped during the night by this man then I can understand locking them infor protection but baffled as to how a woman would have that man in the house. If anyone has taken anything from reading about the Rotherham cases it is that grooming happens by offering gifts and providing treats. That happens in the daytime doesn't it?

Some people are very canny and know how to "work the system", including the legal system.