|
Child sexual exploitation by organised networks Investigation Report The Independent Inquiry Child Sexual Abuse commissioned a national report into child sexual exploitation, it picked six local authorities to investigate in order to help develop national recommendations and then looked at the detail of what had happened to some children in recent years. So while not aimed directly at Tower Hamlets it provides important information about the safety of our children in recent years, it has lessons for the Met Police and Tower Hamlets Council, both of whom are responsible (with the NHS) for child safety. It does talk about improvements and there have been big changes in leadership in the last year or two. BUT as is common when I read reports like this I realise that the problems were even greater than I thought they were and the hill to climb to better protect children is steeper than I thought. And as a Councillor, I am too dependent on external reports like this to understand what is happening inside the Council when my job is to scrutinise what is happening inside. The newspapers have strong quotes from those involved in the report, see 2nd picture https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rochdale-tower-hamlets-bristol-durham-parliament-b979968.html The original report is here https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/cs-organised-networks I have attempted to summarise some of the issues on Twitter here and as pics below https://twitter.com/Andrewwood17/status/1488812750629449728?s=20&t=UGodpsUO7T8u8tdx0asZyg But at the heart of this report are the stories of four local children, whom we know as CS-A22, CSA77, CS-A81, and CS-A90 These are their stories, it helps explain how difficult these cases are but why it is so important to get them right Child CS-A22 female CS-A22 was reported to have a difficult background, with a history of violence in the family. She had multiple episodes of going missing and was taken into care in 2017 at the age of 13. The evidence demonstrates that she was the victim of sexual assaults from 2018 to 2019. Among the case study children, CS-A22 was found in 2017 with injuries suggestive of serious sexual assault after a two-day episode of going missing. The local authority raised concerns with the police that she had been raped. CS-A22 was placed out of the Tower Hamlets area for a year and was then brought back to the borough. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets accepted that not enough was done to prepare CS-A22 or her parent for her return and that the school which she was due to attend was not made aware of her vulnerability. It was reported that CS-A22 was sexually exploited upon her return home and she subsequently disclosed further sexual assaults. She was later placed out of area in another specialist placement. In Tower Hamlets, CS-A22 had been assessed as at high risk of child sexual exploitation at the age of 13. There were concerns that she had been sexually abused and raped and she was taken into police protection. However, she was described as “a frequent missing person [who] appears to willingly expose herself to danger” and “placing herself at risk”. Similar language was also evidenced in documents relating to CS‑A77, who was described as showing “risk-taking behaviour”. There was an example of an inappropriate use of the word ‘boyfriend’ with reference to adult perpetrators.The Children’s Society reported that, through their Return Home Interview Service monitoring reports in 2017, there were examples of victim-blaming language by both social workers and police officers. One example seriously undermined the severity of sexual abuse the child had experienced. There were several examples of children being sexually abused and traumatised while living in residential homes before eventually being moved to specialist residential services which had an understanding of trauma and were able to provide therapeutic support. These include CS‑A22 in Tower Hamlets In Tower Hamlets, in the case of CS‑A22, the child made disclosures of assault and rape but these allegations did not lead to prosecution. Although a number of named potential perpetrators were added to a crime report and suspects database, the report was closed. Some information was passed to the local force but there is no evidence of any arrests. There was some evidence of victim-blaming in relation to CS-A22 and CS-A77. Child CS-A77 Female Some were taken into care for reasons unconnected with child sexual exploitation and then became victims of sexual exploitation. CS-A77 was taken into care in 2015, when aged 14 or 15. When she was 17, covert policing tactics were used to identify people who were suspected to be exploiting her, as a result of which multiple people were arrested and issued with Child Abduction Warning Notices (CAWNs). In late 2018, an assessment considered CS-A77’s life was potentially at risk due to a range of factors, including sexual exploitation, unmanaged mental health problems and a risk of sexually transmitted disease. There were concerns that CS-A77 had been coerced into carrying large amounts of drugs inside her body. Similar language was also evidenced in documents relating to CS‑A77, who was described as showing “risk-taking behaviour”. There was an example of an inappropriate use of the word ‘boyfriend’ with reference to adult perpetrators. The Children’s Society reported that, through their Return Home Interview Service monitoring reports in 2017, there were examples of victim-blaming language by both social workers and police officers. One example seriously undermined the severity of sexual abuse the child had experienced CS-A77 was in care in Tower Hamlets from 2015. In 2017/18 and 2018/19 she went missing 40 and 47 times respectively from an unregulated placement. There was some evidence of victim-blaming in relation to CS-A22 and CS-A77. Child CS-A81 female The evidence relating to the Tower Hamlets case study children showed its previous risk assessment documents being ineffective in assessing risk. Three assessments of 13-year-old CS‑A81 were completed in 2018. One in July 2018 considered her to be at medium risk. In September 2018, she was assessed as being at high risk after frequent episodes of going missing and being seen on Snapchat (a social media platform) and by other young people at house parties. In the same month, the Police Sexual Exploitation Team closed her case (against the advice of children’s social care).434 The risk assessments did not record the age or date of birth of CS‑A81. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets accepted that she should have been graded high risk and that the assessments were generally “on the back foot” and “reactionary”. Overall, it recognised that CS‑A81’s case was “of the utmost concern”. CS‑A81 was a Tower Hamlets child. Two males were arrested and issued with CAWNs. The Metropolitan Police Service was planning the use of CAWNs against the child when she was 13 years old, with threats of arrest to stop her from associating with her peer group.645 This was challenged by children’s social care, which was concerned that a CAWN would criminalise CS‑A81. There were failings by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the assessment of the risk of child sexual exploitation prior to 2019, such as in its assessment of the risk of CS‑A81.950 More recently it has developed a rounded assessment form that moved away from a tick box approach. However, concerns remain as to how long risk assessments take to be completed and reviewed. Child CS-A90 Male CS-A90 moved to Tower Hamlets in 2018, when he was 13 years old. He went missing from home a number of times. There were also concerns about his sexual activity, county lines, gangs, and possible emotional and psychological harm. In early 2019, it was reported that CS-A90 intended to hold his birthday party in a hotel with people older than him. A child sexual exploitation assessment was completed and a strategy meeting held. The Metropolitan Police Service accepted that the focus had been criminal exploitation and drugs rather than child sexual exploitation, although CS-A90 had been put on a child protection plan. An internal police audit found that CS-A90, who was deemed to be a victim of modern slavery following a National Referral Mechanism assessment, had been missing on numerous occasions but the Metropolitan Police Service had not developed a trigger plan for future incidents. CS‑A90 was a frequent missing child in Tower Hamlets and was attending parties in hotels when he was only 13 years old. At the age of 14 there were concerns about exploitation but Metropolitan Police Service officers decided that this was not a child sexual exploitation case, based solely on a telephone call with children’s social care. The police did not speak to the child or any of his family about the concerns; no trigger plan for the episodes of the child going missing was developed; a mapping exercise of the child’s friendship group was agreed but did not take place; and there was no direct disruption of the hotel. A case audit later found that the Metropolitan Police Service should have fully considered the potential for child sexual exploitation. In 2016, external inspection found that the Metropolitan Police Service response to children who go missing was poor. By 2018, there were some signs of improvement. Among the case study children, CS-A77 and CS-A90 frequently went missing from home or care without any effective responses
0 Comments
Last night I read this 313 page report into the condition of St Georges leisure centre, most of the report actually dates from October 2019 but the examination of the structure started in April 2017. Parts of the report were then updated in summer 2021. I saw it for the first time last night. Here is the link to it: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Consultation/St-Georges-Pool-Follow-Up-Survey.pdf I also added comments to this PDF copy which you may find quicker to read as my comments highlight key points, click here but you need to open comments to see them. In summary: It was a deeply shocking report, showing a catalogue of failures over many years and many administrations back to at least 2003. First the pool should have been closed temporarily in November 2019 as soon as they got this report, it clearly identifies health hazards to users and staff that needed to be rectified immediately, that does not appear to have happened although some work was done to keep the pool going over the winter. Parts of the building were clearly known not to be safe in October 2019 so why was it kept open for months? We were lucky that COVID closed it when it did BUT the situation then got much worse, as the pool was effectively abandoned, the water was not emptied allowing algae to grow. None of the faults identified in 2017 and 2019 were fixed by summer of 2021. It is arguable whether the existing pool could have had a major extension of life in 2017 but the damage caused by its abandonment in 2020 means that is even less likely. I personally think the amount of work now required means a further closure period (this work should have already started) in order to replace all of the mechanical and electrical systems but I still worry about the largely unseen damage to the metal bars in the concrete and worry about the roof collapsing. So the building would have to be gutted and the roof replaced. You might as well build something new as would be cheaper and quicker but should be designed to be maintainable. The building was completed in 1965 built to a finite life, it was not designed to last forever, it had major work done around 1983 and 2008. But some works recommended in 2003 had still not been done by 2021 And there were repeated references to works having been done cheaply and not lasting. With the exception of the boilers and some filters there was no evidence of a preventative maintenance programme in place. Some parts of the system had never been cleaned. There was no documentation or manuals available explaining how the building was built or how it should be maintained, clearly all of the original 1965, 1983 and even the 2008 work manuals appears to have been lost. All of the automatic systems had failed so it required manual intervention to run the pool which is not efficient The staff at the centre were not at fault, they did a good job to keep the building going and were put in danger as a result (& had their heating removed in 2008) The cost of running the pool especially in winter when so much heat was allowed to escape must have been excessive and required more gas to be burnt in the year that the Council declared a climate emergency Fire safety was an issue with the control panel showing a fire safety fault. In 2011 the Council only committed to a minimum of an additional 5 years of life for the building. But very little work was undertaken afterwards to identify a long term solution until the 2017 structural surveys. The documents talk about some work happening in 2012, 2014 and 2015 but little after that except for some new filters and pump work. I got a copy because last Friday Cllr Peter Golds and I had a meeting with Will Tuckley, CEO and I asked for a copy of the engineering reports that justified closing the pool. He thought they were online already but I could not find them. So on Wednesday we were sent the link above: There are actually 5 reports: Mechanical and Electrical from page 1 to 212 Electrical from page 215 to 228 Swimming Pool Engineers from page 228 to 250 Building control systems from page 252 to 259 Structural from page 260 to end Below is a summary from the 2021 update into the mechanical and electrical systems  Below is a selection of screenshots - there were so many I need to think of a better way of presenting them INNOVATION IN LOCAL DEMOCRACY A proposal for a new political manifesto written by and with the community Got any ideas, policies, questions, suggestions email: [email protected] or contact me Andrew Wood See some suggested topics in the attached PDF here or below If I have missed any let me know The Facebook group set up to discuss this is here www.facebook.com/groups/1942479649251549 I wrote an Alternative Report to the Overview and Scrutiny Challenge Session on parking and submitted it to Councillors on the Committee and Council officers. I had emailed a long list of issues and concerns in advance. I believe that Tower Hamlets treats its disabled residents who need access to a car badly. My suggested alternative report was ignored and I was told off for submitting it. But as I spent a long time writing it I thought I should publish it. It is here: scrutiny_challenge_session_alternative_report_on_parking_cllr_wood.pdf This weekend Labour Party members are picking Councillor candidates for next Mays local elections for the island wards. So this post is really aimed at them and Liberal Democrats who I think are also in the middle of selections. Last weekend the Labour Party selections took place for Limehouse ward and as a result Cllr James King was not selected and Mile End Cllr Asma Islam was also not selected (David Edgar & Puru Miah had already decided to stand down) The removal of James and Asma as candidates was a surprise. The Conservatives and Aspire parties have already picked most of their candidates Fergus Collie is also looking for running mates I believe :) In Tower Hamlets where the Labour Party is the biggest party and therefore thanks to First Past the Post most likely to win the most Councillor positions (42 out of 45 in May 2018 with less than 50% of the vote!) internal selections are often the most important elections. Why do we have Councillors at all? In May the majority of voters chose to keep the Executive Mayor system where all of the power and responsibility lies with one person, currently Mayor John Biggs. So if the Mayor has all of the power, why do you need 45 Councillors? You may be told you need to elect Labour Councillors to have a Labour Mayor, that would be a lie, two different jobs with two different election processes. The main role for all Councillors is:
Too many Councillors cannot / won’t do all three aspects of this job, some do none. Some are lazy and some are worth every penny. But you elected them, so you as residents have to take responsibility for this as well. Around ten Councillors get co-opted by the Mayor as Deputy Mayors and Cabinet Members, and get paid extra as a result earning between £43,763 a year for a Deputy Mayor and £33,085 a year as a full Cabinet member. The Mayor can give them some of his power if he chooses to. Most work hard but there is nothing in the public domain that details the amount of work they do. But for the rest their main role should be to scrutinise the Mayor. A few Labour Councillors do this extremely well, most don’t. Most seem to think that to criticise the Council is to criticise the Labour Party. I believe Boris Johnson has made a number of errors, one reason why he has done so is a lack of effective opposition, although I think Keir Starmer is turning that that around. But in a democracy a weak opposition is not good. Given that there were only 3 opposition Councillors after May 2018, now 5 thanks to two by-elections, Labour Councillors need to do more of this job. Will the people you select be able and willing to do this scrutiny role? What do we Councillors do? With the exception of a few Councillors, I do not know what most of them do (because they are so invisible not because I do not think they do the work). But as an example in the last 48 hours I have:
You need to elect / select people who can do this range of activities and more. If you don’t that puts more pressure on the Councillors who are able to do all of the above, the larger the number of effective Councillors the better off you will be. In a democracy fundamentally the quality of government ultimately rests with the people  Residents meeting to discuss issues at Salvor Tower, Thole Court, Coxswain Court, Maine Tower, Ostro, Able Quay etc 7pm Tuesday 7th December 2021 on Zoom, link below Attached as pictures and as a PDF, click on this link here is a reply from NHG about some of the issues raised. Topic: Residents meeting Harbour Central Time: Dec 7, 2021 07:00 PM London Join Zoom Meeting, click on this link Tuesday after 7pm https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83598268379?pwd=VjNWS1dJWEpvWDFrYXB5VWRVNWNoQT09 If you get asked the Passcode is: 950138 Meeting ID: 835 9826 8379 One tap mobile +442080806591,,83598268379#,,,,*950138# United Kingdom +442080806592,,83598268379#,,,,*950138# United Kingdom Dial by your location +44 208 080 6591 United Kingdom +44 208 080 6592 United Kingdom +44 330 088 5830 United Kingdom +44 131 460 1196 United Kingdom +44 203 481 5237 United Kingdom +44 203 481 5240 United Kingdom +44 203 901 7895 United Kingdom Meeting ID: 835 9826 8379 Passcode: 950138 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcDb6xTHyU Westferry Printworks some thoughts & detail on what it means as regards the Manhattanisation of E1419/11/2021 The main consequences of the governments decision to refuse the Westferry Printworks 2018 planning application for 1,524 homes are: 1. The secondary school which was granted planning permission in 2016, which the Department of Education has said it will build for Canary Wharf College secondary school has been held up because Richard Desmond (the owner) won't sign the lease for the land as he was meant to do in 2016 - this decision means that Desmond is less likely to sign that lease - I will ask the Council/DoE to compulsory purchase the site to force a decision on Desmond - Cllr Peter Golds & I raised this issue with the government a few months ago 2. Richard Desmond can appeal the Ministers decision to the Courts but only on narrow legal grounds - that his decision was taken on incorrect information 3. We do not know what Desmond will do know with his smaller 2016 planning permission for 722 homes and a secondary school - he can build it now or he can sell the site or he can sit on it as work has started to see what happens in the market (see the JP Morgan site as an example) or maybe submit a different planning application (which is what I suggested)? 4. We lose the £43 million of CIL that was in the 2018 permission as the 2016 permission was zero CIL rated due to the costs of cleaning the ground - but as the Council were unlikely to spend the money to our benefit I am not sure we will miss it locally - this area has generated hundreds of millions in £ for the Council in the last 20 years - have you seen many benefits from this £? 5.. The impact on future similar tall planning applications as the government has clearly objected to developments that negatively impact sailing in the docks, and that affect the views from the Old Royal Naval College, Tower Bridge, and Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. This may help reduce the size of developments on the island especially to the south of Marsh Wall. The fundamental problem remains The Isle of Dogs / E14 area is heading towards a future that I call Manhattanisation - that it becomes the densest and tallest place in western Europe not just in London - we already have the 5 tallest residential buildings in the UK. Development has slowed but is continuing, see picture I have zero confidence that the Council & the GLA will prepare properly for that future, at least Manhattan had more time to prepare, on Wednesday I asked the Cabinet member responsible, what happened to the Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) for the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar (she did not even know what I was talking about) https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/isle-of-dogs-and-south-poplar-opportunity-area-planning-framework This is the document that says £503.7 million needs to be spent between April 2017 and March 2022 on new infrastructure & transport to support future development in the area. The document is 4 years old now. BUT very little of what was detailed in that and in the Mayor of London's 2019 Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar area has happened. For example, we know that there are problems with electricity supply to Marsh Wall - something foreseen more then 4 years ago and nothing was done to fix the problem in advance. This is because Tower Hamlets Council is just very poor at delivery (& is mainly focussed on building itself a new Town Hall in Whitechapel for around £130 million) The positives I do regret the loss of additional housing on the site, we do need more homes in London but 722 homes versus 1,524 is more sustainable given the lack of infrastructure locally. I did suggest to the developer that a different scheme might have got support, I liked the 2016 application except for the wind flow issues that could have been partially designed out. Other parts of Tower Hamlets with better transport connections than this site need to deliver more homes. something the Council is not keen to do But the decision by the Inspector and Minister have some important positives as regards future developments Especially because of the impact on the Old Royal Naval College, Tower Bridge and Maritime Greenwich WHS. *31. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR.A.420-435 and IR.B.235-240 and IR.B.302 in relation to the effect of the scale, height and massing of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For the reasons given at IR.B.235-236 and IR.B.302 the Secretary of State agrees that the appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area (IR.B.302).* and sailing *44. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis of effects on sailing conditions in the Millwall Outer Dock at IR.B.246-253, 294 and 303, including that there would be a significant adverse effect on sailing conditions in the Millwall Outer Dock for novice and inexperienced sailors, which would represent a significant disadvantage of the proposals (IR.B.246).* Who to thank for this decision The newspapers - The Times and Daily Mail who did so much reporting on this case especially about the relationship between Desmond and Jenrick and the controversial Conservative Party dinner where Jenrick met Desmond A Council lawyer called Rachel McKoy who has sadly left TH Council who identified the key ground for the legal challenge that made Jenrick admit his decision was unlawful Council planning officers created this mess in the 1st place by not making a decision within the statutory time limit of 4 months. They delayed making any decision allowing / forcing Desmond to go to the government more than 8 months after he submitted his application but subsequently did a lot of work on the two appeals (the government will now pay their costs) Mariya Talib and the residents who supported her judicial review because it kept the pressure on the Council to respond John Biggs etc now claim credit but we have a lot of developments locally where no decision has been made long after the 4 months have elapsed and the person who set up the ASDA funfair involving one or members of the Strategic Development Committee is still very active as if nothing happened. File is here click on link 21-11-18_dl_ir_land_at_former_westferry_printworks_site_235_westferry_road_london_e14_3qs.pdf A quick update on some recent development news - during COVID lockdown none of us were entirely clear what would happen next but things are starting to become clearer - residential development will continue on the Isle of Dogs including new large towers but maybe at a lower pace? We are still heading for a Manhattan + level of development New news Harbour Exchange/Marsh Wall - consultation to start soon for a 53 storey 469 home residential tower on the north west corner of the office site closest to South Quay Plaza DLR station opposite Pan Peninsula on the other side of the docks "planning to hold a digital consultation for two weeks from Monday 15 November with an interactive consultation website, where people can learn about the scheme and the public benefits. As part of the consultation, we will also hold a public webinar for members of the public and local stakeholders to see the project team run through the scheme, ask questions and give feedback. The webinar will take place on Zoom at 6pm on Wednesday 24 November – registration email is [email protected] OHG Bellamy Close/Byng Street - OHG have partnered with Mount Anvil to develop this - it already has planning permission for a 25 storey resi tower and replacement houses and residents are moving out to allow demolition but Mount Anvil want to make some changes for example by adding 6 storeys. See pics below & website. In-person public exhibition on Thursday 18th November (4pm-8pm), Phoenix Heights Community Centre, 140 Byng Street, E14 9AR Meet the team webinar at Monday 22nd November, 6pm This event will take place via Zoom and will include a presentation on the design proposals followed by a Q&A session. You can register for this event by visiting the website. www.Bellamy-byng.consultationonline.co.uk OHG Kingsbridge Estate - OHG in the 4th phase of public consulation with residents - options range from complete demolition and rebuild to maintenance only - will eventually result in a ballot of residents and maybe a planning application Other news included for completeness South Quay Plaza Berkeley Homes - 5 extra storeys to be added to the yet as unbuilt 3rd tower - from 35 to 41 storeys - see here for more detail - planning application soon https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/3141841582622585/ OHG Tiller Road (Winch, Starboard, Kedge) - waiting for a planning application following successful ballot earlier this year maybe including Tiller road leisure centre https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/3032808500192561/ Park Place Canary Wharf Group New resi development on the estate waiting for a planning application https://group.canarywharf.com/portfolio-and-places/future-projects/park-place/ Still waiting for a decision Westferry Printworks - still waiting for the government to decide on larger 2018 planning, the decision will probably be made by Michael Gove as Minister - expected soon 30 Marsh Wall - waiting for planning decision on a new student housing scheme Ballymore Cuba/ Manilla - waiting for planning a decision on 2 resi towers 225 Marsh Wall - has planning permission for a smaller tower but new developers want a taller tower to match the Madison Orchard Wharf - by the river next to Good Luck Hope - resi scheme above a new working wharf https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/2430570230416394/ Other development news North Quay - has planning permission https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/3120377241435686/ Reuters car park Blackwall Way - has planning permission https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/3078115955661815/ ASDA - has planning permission for a bigger scheme - the allegations about the behaviour of some Councillors has not been investigated Skylines - has planning permission but I have doubts it will be built McDonalds by Prestons roundabout - site being cleared atfter planning permission granted for 3 towers for student housing https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/3097728277033916/ The Spire Greenland West India Quay - stuck after demolition https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458438024296291/permalink/1798477836958973/ Blackwall DLR aparthotel to be residential only I am sure I have missed a lot and may amend as I remember more The results of the two Liveable Street surveys are below including the 1st draft For the 2nd main survey, the results are from the 1st week – Saturday 18th to Friday night 8pm when I announced on the radio show I do with Cllr Puru Miah that I was able to segment the results, see point 2 below – will update next week after more results are received - but these maybe impacted by the results of the 1st week I conducted the surveys for three reasons:
Also interesting was that 35 residents have sent in pro-Liveable Streets emails to Councillors since the Mayor announced a pause. Each email shows the name of the person. Those emails showed a clear trend as to their names i.e. Andrew Wood is an Anglo-Saxon name. Puru Miah is not. The 6 collectors on SurveyMonkey were: Facebook IoD & E14 – the Canary Wharf & Isle of Dogs Residents group that I run – mainly E14 but was shared elsewhere on Facebook – 26,765 total members but 20,082 active members in last 28 days Facebook TH Opp LS – the Tower Hamlets residents against the Liveable Streets Proposals with 2,312 members – but the survey suggests not all members of this group are against Liveable Streets :) Facebook TH wide – posted in some Tower Hamlets group like Tower Hamlets Community 5,024 members, Tower Hamlets Residents 1,473 members Twitter – my Twitter @andrewwood17 but shared on Twitter by others Nextdoor – only in the E14 area WhatsApp – in 3 WhatsApp groups: LB Forum, MyTowerHamlets, Our Tower Hamlets Of note is that E14 based areas have been barely affected by Liveable Streets so far as even the Barkantine work (no road closures) is very different to what has happened in the Weavers ward area (lots of road closures) for example I will do more analysis next week on point 3 – the response rates Click on each link for the survey results in PDF Tower Hamlets total results 2nd survey data_all_210924-total.pdf Twitter results data_all_210924-twitter.pdf WhatsApp data_all_210924-whatsapp.pdf Nextdoor data_all_210924-nextdoor.pdf Facebook Isle of Dogs & E14 data_all_210924-facebook_iod.pdf Facebook Opposed to Liveable Streets data_all_210924-facebookoppols.pdf Facebook Tower Hamlets wide data_all_210924-facebook_th.pdf Draft survey data_all_210925-draft.pdf   Q2 illustrates some very different responses by social media tool - in terms of results but also the number of submissions - here are the questions in order as to what the Mayor should do next: Green - He should extend & strengthen the programme Dark Blue - He should stick to the existing proposals Yellow - He should pause to reconsult residents Light blue - He should scrap the whole thing Orange - Not sure |
Archives
March 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed