Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

If you read my last blog on Sandwell’s child abuse figures, you’ll remember the key issue: data continuity.

We had police-recorded child-abuse-related crime figures for Sandwell (2021–2024) — and a big gap for 2012–2020, which matters because that’s the era linked to the widely reported “6,226 allegations” figure (2012–2016).

At the time, West Midlands Police told us older data wasn’t available due to “system changes/issues”.

Since then, there’s been an update — and it changes the story significantly.

This update is about what has now been admitted, what is still being withheld in practice, and why selective political language at Sandwell Council doesn’t cut it.

1) What’s new: the data isn’t “not available” — it’s held, archived, and accessible in principle

West Midlands Police have now stated (in response to our follow-up FOI) that:

• “Crimes” is a legacy system
• Historical data is archived in a central database
• They store and have access to individual data lines
• They are developing applications to access it

So, let’s be plain:

The pre-2021 data is not “gone”.
It is held.

But…

2) The new barrier: “We could, but it would take more than 18 hours”

West Midlands Police say it is possible to build a search to retrieve what we asked for — but it would exceed 18 hours and therefore they are relying on FOIA section 12 (cost limit) to refuse.

They also say they can’t provide even aggregate totals until their application is “tested”.

So the position has shifted from:

“Not available”

to

“Held, but not retrievable within FOI time limits (right now)”

That matters, because it turns this from a “technical loss” story into a governance and transparency story.

If you can access the data lines, you can’t credibly pretend the years don’t exist — you can only argue about cost and effort.

And FOI law doesn’t allow public bodies to just shrug and walk away at that point.

3) The problem WMP now have: duty to help you narrow the request

When a public body relies on section 12, it also has a duty to advise and assist under FOI (section 16).

That means they should be offering practical options, such as:

• “We can do 2012–2016 only”
• “We can do one offence category only”
• “We can provide force-wide totals, if LPA breakdown is hard”
• “We can do two years at a time”

Instead, the response amounts to:
“Come back later, once our application is developed.”

That’s not transparency. That’s a holding pattern.

So the next step is already underway: internal review, and narrowed FOIs designed to test what is genuinely retrievable within the cost limit.

4) Why this matters in Sandwell specifically

Because Sandwell has a historic figure hanging over it — the widely reported 6,226 allegations (2012–2016).

If we can’t access consistent historic police data to compare with recent years, the public cannot:

• understand long-term trends
• assess whether safeguarding demand has changed
• test whether political “commitments” match reality
• track whether lessons were learned or quietly dropped

Data gaps aren’t just technical issues.
They become accountability gaps.

5) Meanwhile at Sandwell Council: big words, selective naming

Now for the part that should make anyone with a straight face slightly uncomfortable.

Police disclosures for 2021–2024 show hundreds of sexual offences against children each year in Sandwell.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting, Labour’s safeguarding language has been carefully general.

Child abuse is mentioned in broad terms.
But Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is not explicitly named.

That matters because:

• CSE is not “optional” safeguarding
• it’s not a footnote
• and historically, failure to name it clearly is how institutions end up “managing reputations” rather than managing risk

If your politics can’t name the risk plainly, it’s not safeguarding leadership — it’s comms management.

That’s not a legal allegation of motive.
It’s a political judgement based on what is — and isn’t — being said on the record.

6) What happens next

Here is what we are doing now:

1. Internal review of the latest WMP response, asking:

   • why older data was first described as “not available” when it is held
   • what narrowed request would be answerable within the cost limit
   • whether any existing aggregate reports / returns exist

2. New narrowed FOIs aimed at:

   • 2012–2016 only
   • or one offence group only
   • or a two-year slice (to test feasibility)

3. Continuing FOIs to Sandwell bodies to pin down:

   • what the 6,226 figure actually counted
   • what definitions were used
   • and what the updated series looks like, year by year

7) The simplest point of all

If you can say:

• “We hold it”
• “It’s archived”
• “We can access the data lines”

then the public is entitled to ask:

Why can’t you provide even basic historic totals — and what exactly needs to happen before you can?

Because safeguarding isn’t a PR campaign.
And child abuse figures aren’t something you “pause” until the software catches up.

#Sandwell #Safeguarding #ChildProtection #CSE #ChildSexualExploitation #FOI #Transparency #Accountability #WestMidlandsPolice #DataGovernance

Child abuse figures, missing years – and Labour’s selective concern

Recent Freedom of Information responses raise an uncomfortable question about how child abuse data in Sandwell is recorded, retained, and reported.

They also raise a second question — why Labour politicians are willing to talk about “child abuse” in general terms, but avoid naming Child Sexual Exploitation when the evidence demands it.

This is not about sensationalism.
It is about numbers, definitions, omissions, and political choices.

What the police have confirmed

Following an FOI request to West Midlands Police, the force has disclosed police-recorded child-abuse-related crime data for Sandwell covering 2021–2024.

The data includes:

• Thousands of recorded offences relating to cruelty and neglect of children
• Hundreds of sexual offences each year where the victim was aged under 16
• Large numbers of violent offences flagged with a child-abuse marker
• Thousands of identified victims under the age of 18

These figures are not interpretation.
They are police data, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The missing years Labour would rather not talk about

The same FOI response states that no equivalent police data is available prior to 2021, due to “system changes/issues”.

That means the years 2012–2020 — including the period in which 6,226 child abuse allegations were publicly reported — are now outside the scope of police disclosure.

No refusal notice.
No legal exemption.
Just a data gap.

That gap matters, because Labour politicians have repeatedly referenced safeguarding in Sandwell while avoiding serious scrutiny of the historical record.

The 6,226 figure – loudly cited, quietly unexamined

In 2017, official information was used to state that 6,226 child abuse allegations were referred in Sandwell between 2012 and 2016.

That figure did not come from campaigners.
It did not come from social media.
It came from official sources.

Yet today:

• There is no publicly accessible methodology
• No police data continuity for that period
• No clear explanation of how that figure aligns with current disclosures

Labour is happy to invoke safeguarding language — but not to interrogate safeguarding evidence.

Where Child Sexual Exploitation disappears from Labour’s narrative

This matters most when it comes to Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).

Police data for 2021–2024 shows hundreds of sexual offences against children every single year in Sandwell. These are not abstract harms. They are not historic footnotes. They are live safeguarding risks.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, a Labour-led motion on child safeguarding did not explicitly mention CSE at all.

That omission is not accidental language drift.
It is a political choice.

Labour councillors chose:

• to speak in broad, comfortable terms about “child abuse”, while
• avoiding the specific form of abuse that has historically exposed institutional failure across the country.

This is where the hypocrisy lies.

Why this is political hypocrisy, not semantics

Labour nationally is quick to reference historic CSE scandals — usually when they involve someone else, somewhere else, at another time.

But locally, when presented with:

• police-recorded evidence of ongoing sexual abuse of children, and
• a clear opportunity to name CSE explicitly in a safeguarding motion,

Labour chose silence.

No explicit commitment.
No explicit scrutiny.
No explicit acknowledgement.

That is not leadership.
It is risk management.

General words do not protect children

CSE is not a footnote to safeguarding. It is one of its most dangerous and complex failures.

When councils refuse to name it explicitly, they:

• dilute accountability
• weaken scrutiny
• and signal political discomfort rather than safeguarding resolve

You cannot claim to take child abuse seriously while avoiding the form of abuse that most demands political courage.

The questions Labour must now answer

No allegations are being made here.
But Labour cannot avoid these questions:

• Why was CSE excluded from the safeguarding motion?
• How does Labour reconcile that omission with police data showing ongoing sexual abuse of children?
• How can the public trust safeguarding oversight when historic data is missing and present-day risks are selectively framed?

Final word

This is not about attacking frontline workers.
It is not about undermining safeguarding professionals.

It is about political honesty.

When Labour talks about safeguarding, it wants the credit — but not the discomfort.
When the data becomes awkward, the language becomes vague.
When CSE demands to be named, it is quietly left out.

Children deserve better than!