He was asked on the locals news if he thought he should take responsibility

for what went on, by resigning his current position.

He explained that "when you're in a council group of 60+ individuals" what you do is you take what he called "collective responsibility".

Quite how that differs materially from taking no responsibility at all I'm not sure. But I'm sure there's a big difference, it just looks exactly the same to an external observer.

He seemed quite annoyed by the suggestion that the Head of Childrens Services at a local authority should take responsibility for the department ignoring the unchecked sexual abuse of thousands of children for over a decade. There must be a nuance I'm not getting.

Posted By: Arizona Bay, Aug 28, 16:28:43