They Were Children. They Died. Sefton Must Answer.

Elsie Stancombe (7)
Bebe King (6)
Alice Da Silva Aguiar (9)

They were not statistics.

They were little girls — full of life, joy and innocence — who never came home.

What happened to them was not just a tragedy. It was a moment that should have demanded total transparency, accountability and honesty from every authority responsible for protecting children.

Instead, serious questions remain.

The crimes committed by Axel Rudakubana shocked the nation. The brutality is undeniable. But beyond the individual responsible, the public has been left asking:

Were there missed warning signs?
Were safeguarding procedures followed correctly?
Were opportunities missed?
Did any part of the system fail?
If failures occurred, who is accountable?
Because when children die, “we followed procedure” cannot be the end of the conversation.

 

Failures Must Never Be Hidden

The memory of Elsie, Bebe and Alice should stand for one thing:

A system that leaves no stone unturned in the search for truth.

Residents are not asking for speculation.

They are asking for facts:

What was known before this happened?
What actions were taken?
What lessons have been learned?
What has changed?
Who is responsible for ensuring mistakes are not repeated?
Without answers, public trust does not simply weaken — it collapses.

 

This Is About Trust in Every Part of the System

Residents need confidence that:

Safeguarding systems work every time.
Leadership accepts accountability.
Public money is protected.
Decisions affecting communities are made transparently.
And while residents continue to demand answers about safeguarding, Sefton Council is also facing growing public concern regarding its financial decisions, governance and management of public assets.

 

Public Money, Public Trust, Public Accountability

Residents have concerns regarding:

Major Financial Decisions

Including:

The Strand investment and questions raised publicly regarding value, due diligence and decision-making.
The Floral Hall project and questions regarding expenditure, outcomes and transparency.
The Council’s borrowing, budget pressures and long-term financial commitments.
The financial pressures within children’s services and how these are being managed.
The question residents are asking is simple:

If transparency is not clear when it comes to public money, how can the public have confidence in transparency when it comes to safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people?

 

Public Assets Belong to the Public

Sefton Council has sought approval to raise approximately £12 million through asset disposals as part of its financial plans.

Residents are concerned about the proposed sale of historic assets including:

Botanic Gardens Lodge
Victoria Park Lodge
Duke Street Cemetery Lodges
Liverpool Road Cemetery Lodge
Southport Crematorium Lodge
These buildings represent part of the borough’s history. They were built, maintained and paid for by generations of residents.

Residents are asking:

Why were these assets allowed to remain vacant and deteriorate before disposal was considered?
What alternatives were explored before selling them?
Were community uses considered?
What independent valuations have been carried out?
How many more public assets are planned for disposal?
How will residents be protected from losing irreplaceable assets because of short-term financial pressures?
Selling assets is a permanent decision.

Once they are gone, they cannot be replaced.

 

Council-Owned Companies and Governance

Residents also want transparency regarding council-owned companies, including:

Financial performance.
Public money invested.
Loans or financial support provided.
Governance arrangements.
Scrutiny and accountability.
When residents are asked to accept difficult decisions, service pressures and increased costs, they have the right to expect the highest standards of financial responsibility.

 

External Audit and Public Accountability

External auditors have a vital role in protecting the public purse by providing independent scrutiny and assurance.

Residents have questions regarding the role of Sefton Council’s external auditor, including Grant Thornton.

Residents are asking:

Has Grant Thornton fully examined the Council’s financial decisions, borrowing, asset disposals, major investments and governance arrangements?
Were concerns raised by residents, councillors or whistleblowers properly considered?
What action was taken when concerns were brought forward?
Has sufficient challenge and oversight been provided?
Given the level of public concern, should there be an independent review of the effectiveness of audit arrangements?
The public purse belongs to residents.

Those responsible for oversight must be held to the highest standards of independence, transparency and accountability.

If failures occurred over a prolonged period:

Who was responsible for identifying them, and were the existing governance and audit systems strong enough?

 

We Are Demanding Answers — Not Silence

1. A Full Public Town Hall Meeting

Where Sefton Council leadership must answer openly and directly to residents on:

Safeguarding accountability and lessons learned.
Children’s services oversight.
Major financial decisions.
Borrowing and financial risks.
Asset disposal plans.
The sale of historic public buildings.
Council-owned companies and public money invested.
The use of private meetings and why important decisions were not discussed openly earlier.
Concerns raised by families and residents regarding vulnerable people.

 

2. A Full Independent Review

Covering:

Children’s services decision-making and oversight.
Safeguarding governance.
Leadership accountability.
Major financial transactions.
Asset acquisitions and disposals.
Borrowing strategy.
Council-owned companies.
Risk management.
The role of senior officers, including the Section 151 Officer.

 

3. Independent Review of Governance and Audit Oversight

Covering:

The effectiveness of external audit arrangements.
Whether concerns raised by residents were properly investigated.
The strength of financial controls.
Risk management procedures.
Oversight of major spending decisions and asset disposals.

 

Because This Is What It Comes Down To

Three little girls lost their lives.

Elsie.
Bebe.
Alice.

Their memory should force truth into the open.

Not silence.

Not carefully prepared statements.

Not closed-door assurances.

Not bureaucracy without accountability.

If those lives meant anything, then accountability is not optional.

Sefton cannot rebuild public trust without answers.

The public will not accept:

Deflection.
Delays.
Lack of transparency.
Decisions made without proper scrutiny.

Please Sign this petition. Demand transparency. Demand accountability. Demand the truth.