Transcript

In Part 1 we showed her Julie Powell, hired A convicted drug smuggler and promoted her around schools and community centres, despite the risks. Part 2 turns to what happened next. The exploitation of a child, my daughter and her. Those in charge neglected their duty to protect and allowed the risk to continue. Let's talk about the truth of what really goes on in Barnet and let's start with the child delegation and where it went from there. Records show that she told the social worker that breeder took her out and did bad stuff. She said stealing. She said Breeda was shoplifting. A clear allegation made by the child Victim 2 social worker. The social workers name is Esther Donka. So before we break down allegation too, we would like to give you some of the history prior to the exploitation of the child. The family had only moved to Dollis Valley due to suffer in previous harassment in a previous property. All documented. With Barnet Council as anti social behaviour officers, Cement from Montgomery attended mediation. Also note that Barnet Homes provide the building to Barnett Community projects and continue to fund them despite the National Lottery removing funding early. Prior to the incident, the parent volunteered in a local Community Center for a short period of time. In the time the mother spent as a volunteer in the Community Center, she was struck by the manager who was visibly drunk while staff from Art Against Knives. In the centre manager Steve Neal were present. Nobody approached her mother to make a complaint and was expected to work with the manager the next day but refused and asked to make a complaint. It was only after this to manager was fired from her position. Following her departure, Steve Neal offered the mother a paid position. On the first day of that paid job he brought in a man from the estate who was friends with the manager. That struck the mother using another chef paperwork giving him full access to the building soon after staff pressure. And bullying forced a mother at the centre continued to host outside projects. One of those was Art Against Knives, ran on site by Katie Door and her work and life partner Ricardo Stewart, who reassured the parent they were independent of Barnet community projects and only rented the space. Because of this reassurance, she allowed her daughter to attend those sessions. It was during this period after the mother's departure that the incident involving McGuire and her child took place. Timeline late December 2000 and. 15 early January 2016, the child disclosed to her mother that she had been criminally exploited by McGuire, who had manipulated the parent into allowing her child to go out with McGuire in her professional capacity. As a treat for the child for receiving a Jack Petchey Award for partaking in a dart class ran by McGuire and promoted to the mother by Katie Door of Art Against Knives. The mother immediately contacted the Metropolitan Police who advised that the incident fell under Hertfordshire Police due to the location of the shoplifting. She then called Hertfordshire Police and visited local shops and requested preservation of CCTV footage. Initial reporting The mother reported the incident to Katie Doyle the same time as reporting to the police as it was Katie that allocated McGuire to the family. The mother also reported the incident to Community Barnett Jugie Power on the 14th of January. The mother was asked to attend the Rainbow Centre almost 2 weeks later by Katie door where she had McGuire in the office waiting to confront the mother, Katie's partner Ricardo Stewart. Was also present who got Youth Leader of the Year from London Youth. Soon after this incident two of the children entered the building but were retrieved after the mother refused to meet McGuire without police or safeguarding staff. Another call to the Met Police resulted in a crime number which was given to Julie Powell, Richard Cornelius, Allison Cornelius and Steve Neal of Barnet Community Projects on the 14th of January 2016 following safeguarding policies and procedures. Here it's step by step. What should have happened under UK law and guidance? 1 Immediate safeguarding response following working together to safeguard children. 2023 Children's Act 1989 and 2004 duties Make an urgent referral to the local Authority designated officer LADO within 24 hours, not weeks. Ensure that individual is removed from any contact with children pending an investigation. We do not have them waiting at premises for the victims. 2 Notify statutory agencies Police Section 11 Children's Act 2004 places a duty to share information where child may be at risk of significant harm. We do not try and cover up the Process Disclosure and Barring Service DBS legal duty under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to make a referral. Is someone working with children poses a risk? Serious Incident Reporting Framework requires trustees to report incidents of abuse or exploitation. 3 Suspend and investigate internally. We do not leave them in position and promote them round local schools through school circulars. You must apply safer recruitment policy, Keeping children safe in education, Charity Commission guidance CC-3 and carry out a documented risk assessment and disciplinary process. We shown that a convicted drug trafficker was hired into a child facing role and that when the exploitation disclosure surfaced Katie doorway in two weeks to act. Instead of safeguarding, she arranged a meeting with a trafficker prison innocent of full of children. That left me no choice but to file a report with the Met. This is the point where the formal investigation should have begun. The next section looks at what happened once that report was made, who picked it up and what steps they took and where the protests. Began to unravel.