The Oxfordshire grooming case has shocked the nation. The revelations about the abuse of young girls by a gang of men has been covered extensively by the media. Various agencies including the police and social services have been put under scrutiny. However, much of the coverage has focussed on Joanna Simons, the chief executive of Oxfordshire County Council and Sara Thornton, chief constable of Thames Valley. In particular, they have been asked whether they would resign.
Last night Simons appeared on the Newsnight programme to be grilled by Emily Maitlis. This is surely one of the most difficult interviews that the leader of any organisation could do. Emotions are running high, the subject matter is deeply distressing and there are a number of other very sensitive issues connected with the story. One wrong word or phrase could have made the situation even worse – and ended Ms Simons’ career.
Were Joanna Simons and her advisers right to accept Newsnight’s bid for an interview? Despite the risks, they probably were. The alternative would have been for the programme to “empty chair” the Council and use other commentators, many of whom would have been critical. Worse still, the Council would have looked as if it were running scared, that it was guilty of the accusations against it and perhaps even that it didn’t care enough to make the effort to appear.
Simons was right to say right at the start of the interview that “we are incredibly sorry that we weren’t able to stop this abuse any sooner.” A complete and unreserved apology is required. Any defence of the situation or a qualified apology would infuriate the audience and would give the interviewer plenty to play with. The language in this apology is simple and natural – no corporate euphemisms or local government jargon.
“We’ve learnt a tremendous amount in recent years and we’ve been taking a huge amount of action since this operation started,” she adds. References to learning lessons and taking action in response to a crisis is good. Perhaps, though, she could have given us some practical examples of this action? What specifically has the Council done since this case came to light?
Emily Maitliss quotes the mother who claims to have approached every possible social service and “doors were slammed in her face.” The words and experience of a mother involved in a situation like this are incredibly moving and powerful. They also carry a lot more credibility with the audience than anything an official can say. Simons apologises again and repeats her message about learning. She goes on to cite more action in the form of raising awareness.
Later she’s asked about her responsibility and she says: “This is the worst thing I’ve seen in 30 years in local government.” Again acknowledging the severity of the situation and not seeking to diminish or downplay it is very import. A mention of her own experience is also useful because it adds a personal, human dimension.
“You were at the heart of those social services. Should you resign?” It’s a classic question and one that everyone facing an interview in a crisis situation should be prepared for. But that doesn’t make it any easier to respond to. “I have asked myself some very hard questions,” says Simons. She goes on to talk about the independent inquiry into all the relevant agencies. This is a good answer since it incorporates the term independent and it also broadens out the issue to cover all the agencies involved. However, she could have responded to the human, emotional aspect of the question a bit more comprehensively before going on to make this point.
Inevitably Maitlis plays the emotional card again by talking about “your gut instinct” and asking what Simons would say to the families. Simons talks about her determination to do what she can to prevent this happening in the future. It’s probably the best answer she can give and it makes for a strong finish to the interview.
Two other small points about this performance. First, the interview is a relatively short at three minutes, given the seriousness of the issue. Long interviews involve greater risk as they can allow the interviewer to gnaw away at a particular point or encourage speculation and conjecture. Negotiating a shorter period of time is safer. Second, Joanna Simons is wearing a simple jacket, skirt and blouse with no jewellery. Perhaps her jacket could have been slightly lighter as black can be draining but opting to wear something understated and dignified is essential given what a powerful impact appearance has during a TV interview.
The next morning in the Radio 5 Live breakfast show another player in the story the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Sara Thornton, was challenged over whether she will keep her position.
Here too, Thornton starts by offering an unreserved apology and also by praising the courage of the girls who gave evidence during the trial. She’s absolutely right to do so, especially as she sounds natural and spontaneous. She maintains the same tone, avoiding any jargon or euphemistic language, as she explains the situation and gives some context. She manages to avoid defending herself and the force, which is very important.
Again in this interview the mother’s comment about doors being slammed in her face is put to Sara Thornton, as is the resignation question. She is strong and confident in her response but ignores both questions. She would do better to address them before going onto make her other points. Pointing out that “We’ve put more resources into this issues and raised awareness,” is fine but answering the human issue first would be better.
Thornton’s comment about identifying patterns of behaviour is repeated. Repeating a key message is a good way of ensuring that the audience takes it on board. Nicky Campbell puts it to her that one girl was threatened with arrest if she persisted making allegations. Thornton tries to ignore this but Campbell comes back at her and she gives the only answer she can: “If that was the case then I’m sorry. All those sort of issues are being currently looked at as part of an independent serious case review. But if that was the case then I’m sorry and it should not have happened.” It’s a good answer but it would have been better if Campbell had not had to drag it of her.
Finally Campbell asks: “Has race got anything to with this?” It’s a difficult question but one that Thornton was no doubt ready for – or at least she should have been. “In our experience it’s across many communities,” she concludes.
In both interviews, Symons and Thornton acquit themselves under very difficult circumstances. They both offer immediate and unreserved apologies and go on to talk about action being taken and to put the situation into context. Both avoid care and policing jargon which is also good. Both refer back to the independent enquiry, which is taking place. This gets them out of answering a number of difficult questions.
Could they have done more? Well, both could afford to sound a little bit more human and a little bit more shocked by what have been revealed. They could both have been more ready to handle the resignation question as well. However, at least they came out and faced the media, which, in a crisis situation, is essential.