Unregulated shisha bars
GIRLS as young as 13 who were known to be sexually exploited visited private shisha bars in Oldham for nearly three years, the review found.
It has been revealed that although the council and police later sought to disrupt the activities of behindclosed-doors shisha bars, there were weaknesses in the approach to safeguard at-risk children. The local authority and GMP were aware of the threats posed by shisha bars and cafes in relation to grooming and potential exploitation by the end of 2010.
Senior police officers stated at the time that derelict pubs in Oldham town centre were being bought and sublet to ‘Asian young men’ who ran them as private shisha venues. “It was this pseudo business front but operating outside any sort of licensing structure and targeting and trying to entice young people to the premises, which I was concerned about and targeted,” one chief inspector wrote.
Patrols and intelligence reports had linked the operation of these establishments with vulnerable young people – specifically young women who were known to be at risk
of sexual exploitation.
The review established that there were 18 children who were thought to be visiting these shisha bars who were at risk of being groomed and sexually exploited. “There was mounting evidence throughout 2012 that shisha bars continued to present an opportunity for sexual exploitation,” the report states.
“Clearly shisha bars were a magnet for young people vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and it is also clear that children were being exploited on the premises.
“One child was seen having sex at a well-known shisha bar and also disclosed that she went to another shisha bar to ‘sleep with lads.’”
However the report is clear that there had been a ‘weakness’ in the approach to safeguarding children visiting shisha bars, and intelligence was not always channelled to the right officers who had been charged with detecting and preventing child sexual exploitation.
The specialist Messenger team, which was set up to tackle grooming, largely did not participate in the disruption activities, and was not ‘sufficiently resourced’ during this time to undertake proactive investigations.